• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Michael Cohen sentencing: Trump's former lawyer jailed for three years over Stormy Daniels hush mone

jonny5 said:
He wasnt jailed over hush money. He was jailed for tax evasion, lying to congress, and unlawful and excessive campaign contributions. "hush money" isnt illegal and the tax evasion was unrelated. The tax evasion he should certainly be jailed for. The rest are just made up govt speech crimes.
Click to expand...

Got a link for that last sentence?
 
Athanasius68 said:
Trump is saying he never ordered Cohen to break the law. Trumps not the lawyer in the equation.
Click to expand...

Yes. You are choosing to believe trump by himself. And then there's cohen and Pecker corroborating their testimony which opposes what trump is saying.
 
jonny5 said:
Govt just made laws making certain speech criminal, then locks people up for it..
Click to expand...
Certain speech? We're talking about material lies to our legal system, which is necessary to investigate and bring justice to criminals.

Admit it, you want a third-world legal system so criminals like Trump can do whatever they want.
 
Mach said:
Certain speech? We're talking about material lies to our legal system, which is necessary to investigate and bring justice to criminals.

Admit it, you want a third-world legal system so criminals like Trump can do whatever they want.
Click to expand...

No, I want freedom, but yeah, certain speech. Like you can donate X to a campaign, but not X + 1$. All the while, every other politician is doing the exact same thing Cohen did, they just do it better so they dont get caught.
 
jonny5 said:
No, I want freedom, but yeah, certain speech. Like you can donate X to a campaign, but not X + 1$. All the while, every other politician is doing the exact same thing Cohen did, they just do it better so they dont get caught.
Click to expand...

Not true...

https://www.quora.com/Why-would-it-...ipated-in-paying-Stormy-Daniels-to-keep-quiet

According to the Conciliation Agreement between the campaign and the FEC (available here: Document: Obama 2008 campaign fine conciliation agreement) there was never even an allegation that this was done willfully, nor that Obama himself was aware of it. These remedies were sought under 52 USC 30109’s civil provisions.

McCain and others were also fined. "Willfully" and "Awareness" are the key words.
 
Robert Khuzami, the acting U.S. attorney in this case says in the government’s sentencing memorandum that Cohen committed a campaign finance violation arranging payments from corporations to Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels who claimed they had affairs with Trump —in order to buy their silence. Cohen subsequently invoiced the Trump Organization for the Daniels payment. Khuzami asserts these were illegal corporate contributions to the Trump campaign because they were made with “the intent to influence the 2016 presidential election.” Thus, the rules governing federal campaigns apply to the payments. This theory that anything intended to “influence” an election is a campaign-related expense ignores FECA 52 U.S.C. 30114 (b)(2) which specifically states that campaign-related expenses do not include any expenditures “used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.”

These payments were the kind of nuisance settlement that celebrities often make to protect their reputations, especially when faced with claims that will cost far more to defend than making a quick payoff without all of the bad publicity that usually accompanies such cases. Given Trump’s celebrity status, the potential liability to these women existed regardless of his election campaign. Giuliani said the payment to Daniels was made “to resolve a personal and false allegation in order to protect the president’s family” and “it would have been done in any event, whether he was a candidate or not.”

Only once has the Justice Department tried to argue that hush money payments to a mistress were a “campaign-related” expense, and the jury didn't buy it. In the unsuccessful prosecution of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, campaign donors made payments to Edwards’ mistress who was paid $1 million while directly working for Edwards in the campaign and Edwards. Her payments did not go through the Edwards campaign’s account, but the government tried to claim they were campaign expenditures because they were intended to protect Edwards’ reputation during his presidential run and thus “influence” the election.

The jury acquitted Edwards on the charge of accepting an illegal campaign donation and failed to reach a verdict (resulting in a mistrial) on the other charges, which included filing false reports with the Federal Election Commission for not listing the payments to his mistress. Edwards had two former chairmen of the FEC on retainer (Scott Thomas and Robert Lenhard) who were prepared to testify that payments to a mistress are not campaign-related expenses. Brad Smith, another former chairman of the commission, has similarly said that the hush money paid by Cohen is not a campaign-related expense. As the CFO for the Edwards campaign testified, when the FEC audited the campaign, it determined that these payments were not campaign-related expenses that needed to be reported or run through the campaign. Thus, the commission said the federal rules governing campaign contributions and expenditures did not apply.

According to the Justice Department handbook on election crimes, “Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses,” the prosecution of all campaign finance crimes must be coordinated with the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division in Washington, D.C. No investigation or indictment can occur without a U.S. attorney first consulting with the Public Integrity Section, according to the handbook. In fact, this rule is set forth in the U.S. Attorneys’ Manual of DOJ (Sec. 9.85.210). There is no record of any contacts between Mueller's office and the FEC.

The role of the Justice Department in prosecuting cases under the FECA is “confined to prosecuting violations of the act’s provisions that are committed ‘knowingly and willfully.’” For a criminal violation to occur, “the application of the law to the facts of a matter must at the very least be clear, and there must be no doubt that the FEC considers that the underlying conduct presents a FECA offense. As the Edwards case shows, the Federal Election Commission does not consider payments made to a mistress to be expenditures covered by the federal campaign law, and there is nothing in the public record to suggest that the commission has changed its mind since then. It is therefore unlikely that the prosecutors in this case followed the Justice Department’s own policy with respect to charging decisions in this area. How can Cohen or anyone else involved in these payments be charged with a “knowing and willful” violation of the law by facilitating these payments when numerous campaign finance lawyers, federal election commissioners, and the Federal Election Commission itself have all publicly opined that such payments do not violate the law in the first place? https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/12...-campaign-finance-laws-and-neither-did-trump/
 
Plus Ultra said:
These payments were the kind of nuisance settlement that celebrities often make to protect their reputations, especially when faced with claims that will cost far more to defend than making a quick payoff without all of the bad publicity that usually accompanies such cases. Given Trump’s celebrity status, the potential liability to these women existed regardless of his election campaign. Giuliani said the payment to Daniels was made “to resolve a personal and false allegation in order to protect the president’s family” and “it would have been done in any event, whether he was a candidate or not.”
Click to expand...
I would expect nothing less of Giulani. Does anybody in their right mind believe this... “to resolve a personal and false allegtion in order to protect the president’s family”

And guess what - he was a candidate... “it would have been done in any event, whether he was a candidate or not.”
 
He was a candidate and he would have paid the hush money whether he was a candidate or not, but it is claimed he made this payment because he was a candidate, attorneys in litigation call that a question of fact, a jury would need to determine if Trump arranged the payment ought of concern over the effect of the porn star's disclosure on his family or on his campaign. We'd need to see evidence he never made such payments before he started campaigning or that he allowed such disclosures to harm his family before.
 
Plus Ultra said:
He was a candidate and he would have paid the hush money whether he was a candidate or not, but it is claimed he made this payment because he was a candidate, attorneys in litigation call that a question of fact, a jury would need to determine if Trump arranged the payment ought of concern over the effect of the porn star's disclosure on his family or on his campaign. We'd need to see evidence he never made such payments before he started campaigning or that he allowed such disclosures to harm his family before.
Click to expand...

According to the guilty pleas by both Cohen and Pecker, Trump himself was involved in both transactions. Pecker bought and buried a story, and Cohen paid slush money to a porn star, and Trump was involved in both, and directed the actions. These are probably backed up by both recordings and emails, which is why Cohen and Pecker both flipped so quickly.
 
Plus Ultra said:
Robert Khuzami, the acting U.S. attorney in this case says in the government’s sentencing memorandum that Cohen committed a campaign finance violation arranging payments from corporations to Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels who claimed they had affairs with Trump —in order to buy their silence. Cohen subsequently invoiced the Trump Organization for the Daniels payment. Khuzami asserts these were illegal corporate contributions to the Trump campaign because they were made with “the intent to influence the 2016 presidential election.” Thus, the rules governing federal campaigns apply to the payments. This theory that anything intended to “influence” an election is a campaign-related expense ignores FECA 52 U.S.C. 30114 (b)(2) which specifically states that campaign-related expenses do not include any expenditures “used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.”

These payments were the kind of nuisance settlement that celebrities often make to protect their reputations, especially when faced with claims that will cost far more to defend than making a quick payoff without all of the bad publicity that usually accompanies such cases. Given Trump’s celebrity status, the potential liability to these women existed regardless of his election campaign. Giuliani said the payment to Daniels was made “to resolve a personal and false allegation in order to protect the president’s family” and “it would have been done in any event, whether he was a candidate or not.

According to the Justice Department handbook on election crimes, “Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses,” the prosecution of all campaign finance crimes must be coordinated with the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division in Washington, D.C. No investigation or indictment can occur without a U.S. attorney first consulting with the Public Integrity Section, according to the handbook. In fact, this rule is set forth in the U.S. Attorneys’ Manual of DOJ (Sec. 9.85.210). There is no record of any contacts between Mueller's office and the FEC.

The role of the Justice Department in prosecuting cases under the FECA is “confined to prosecuting violations of the act’s provisions that are committed ‘knowingly and willfully.’” For a criminal violation to occur, “the application of the law to the facts of a matter must at the very least be clear, and there must be no doubt that the FEC considers that the underlying conduct presents a FECA offense. As the Edwards case shows, the Federal Election Commission does not consider payments made to a mistress to be expenditures covered by the federal campaign law, and there is nothing in the public record to suggest that the commission has changed its mind since then. It is therefore unlikely that the prosecutors in this case followed the Justice Department’s own policy with respect to charging decisions in this area. How can Cohen or anyone else involved in these payments be charged with a “knowing and willful” violation of the law by facilitating these payments when numerous campaign finance lawyers, federal election commissioners, and the Federal Election Commission itself have all publicly opined that such payments do not violate the law in the first place? https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/12...-campaign-finance-laws-and-neither-did-trump/
Click to expand...

You left out that Edwards was running for nominee not President and the election was over a year away. Trump made his payments in Oct. 2016, 1 month before the election. Also Edwards did not have 2 witnesses to testify that the payment were made as part of the Trump Campaign. Oh and let's not forget the tape of Trump arranging Cohen's payment to Stormy. Edwards didn't have one of those either.

Mr. Trump directed Mr. Cohen to arrange payments for Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model, and Stormy Daniels, a pornographic film actress, to buy their silence about alleged affairs with him “with the intent to influence the 2016 presidential election,” prosecutors wrote.

The potential crimes include unlawful contributions in excess of the $2,700 individual limit — a personal loan counts as a contribution, even if it is repaid. They also include failure to report the transactions and unlawful corporate contributions; the Trump Organization eventually repaid Mr. Cohen for the payment to Ms. Daniels, and a tabloid publisher allied with Mr. Trump bought Ms. McDougal’s story and killed it after Mr. Cohen promised repayment, according to prosecutors.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/10/us/politics/trump-campaign-finance-crimes-defense.html
Click to expand...
 
iguanaman said:
You left out that Edwards was running for nominee not President and the election was over a year away. Trump made his payments in Oct. 2016, 1 month before the election.
Click to expand...
Ok, proximity to campaign is relevant, something for a jury.
Edwards did not have 2 witnesses to testify that the payment were made as part of the Trump Campaign.
Click to expand...
No, but I do have the credibility of those two witnesses and the fact the only previous unlawful mistress payment case completely failed.
Oh and let's not forget the tape of Trump arranging Cohen's payment to Stormy. Edwards didn't have one of those either.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure about this, ultimately I'm convinced there's solid precedent hush money for noisy sluts is permissible under applicable law.
 
Plus Ultra said:
Ok, proximity to campaign is relevant, something for a jury.

No, but I do have the credibility of those two witnesses and the fact the only previous unlawful mistress payment case completely failed.

I'm not sure about this, ultimately I'm convinced there's solid precedent hush money for noisy sluts is permissible under applicable law.
Click to expand...

Actually Cohen plead guilty to the same offense already while implicating Trump as the instigator. So we have one hung jury and one guilty plea as precedent. And Trump was a major candidate in a national election for President when he did it. That is a all time first and for the very purpose those laws were passed. Don't forget that. I do bet that Trump does not like those odds.
 
Plus Ultra said:
He was a candidate and he would have paid the hush money whether he was a candidate or not, but it is claimed he made this payment because he was a candidate, attorneys in litigation call that a question of fact, a jury would need to determine if Trump arranged the payment ought of concern over the effect of the porn star's disclosure on his family or on his campaign. We'd need to see evidence he never made such payments before he started campaigning or that he allowed such disclosures to harm his family before.
Click to expand...

Why does it matter either way? He has no duty to expose his entire life. If hes using his own money to pay people not to talk, that might be immoral, but it certainly shouldnt be illegal. If hes using campaign donations, thats another thing. But Cohen didnt plead guilty to campaign spending violations, but rather excess donations and willfully causing an unlawful corporate contribution. If Trump ordered these crimes, then he should be punished as the law is the law, even if its dumb.
 
jonny5 said:
Why does it matter either way? He has no duty to expose his entire life. If hes using his own money to pay people not to talk, that might be immoral, but it certainly shouldnt be illegal. If hes using campaign donations, thats another thing. But Cohen didnt plead guilty to campaign spending violations, but rather excess donations and willfully causing an unlawful corporate contribution. If Trump ordered these crimes, then he should be punished as the law is the law, even if its dumb.
Click to expand...
Pot shouldn’t be illegal either, but it is just like paying off people to be silent about embarrassing or illegal activities before an election is illegal.
 
Rising Sun said:
Pot shouldn’t be illegal either, but it is just like paying off people to be silent about embarrassing or illegal activities before an election is illegal.
Click to expand...

It isnt illegal, and thats not what Cohen was charged with.
 
jonny5 said:
It isnt illegal, and thats not what Cohen was charged with.
Click to expand...
Care to place a money bet that paying for Stormy’s and Karen’s silence during an election was legal? It appears it wasn’t, but time will tell.
 
Rising Sun said:
Care to place a money bet that paying for Stormy’s and Karen’s silence during an election was legal? It appears it wasn’t, but time will tell.
Click to expand...

I dont see how it would be illegal. There was no coercion. If the money was not from campaign funds, then its a personal matter.
 
jonny5 said:
I dont see how it would be illegal. There was no coercion. If the money was not from campaign funds, then its a personal matter.
Click to expand...
Of course you don’t see why it’s illegal. So Trump has nothing to worry about and all is right with the world. Sleep tight! :)
 
Rising Sun said:
Care to place a money bet that paying for Stormy’s and Karen’s silence during an election was legal? It appears it wasn’t, but time will tell.
Click to expand...

is it now the goal of liberals to tell people where they can spend their own personal income? You assume because you want to believe it was campaign funds used for those payments but in this country one is innocent until proven guilty. Do you want someone else to tell you how to spend your personal income? Does it matter whether or not it is during an election cycle how and where you spend your money?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom