• 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!

Trump’s Failure To Report Stormy Daniels Payoff Referred To Prosecutors

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
52,009
Reaction score
33,943
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Trump’s Failure To Report Stormy Daniels Payoff Referred To Prosecutors


Trump and his White House staff had for months denied knowing anything about Cohen’s $130,000 payment to Daniels to buy her silence about the affair the porn star said she had with Trump a decade earlier. Trump’s newest outside lawyer Rudy Giuliani finally admitted that Trump had repaid Cohen in a Fox News interview earlier this month.


The White House did not respond to requests for comment.


The storm continues, unabated. The truth is blowing in the wind.
 
Trump’s Failure To Report Stormy Daniels Payoff Referred To Prosecutors



The storm continues, unabated. The truth is blowing in the wind.


Yeah, but Hillary. And Obama. Okay now that I saved the citizens of Trump Fan Nation some typing, I'll get to the subject.

This is bad for Trump. There is no way to perfume this pig. It's bad. Even if it isn't criminal (and I still don't know either way any more than anyone else does), this baggage will follow Trump for eternity. We already knew he was a liar before he won the election. Did we really need him to confirm it while he was squatting in the White House?
 
Notice how Avenatti did not report that he has two more women that Cohen has NDA's and payoffs with UNTIL Trump filed his financial statement for the year. Now Trump is on the hook for the contents of that financial statement which does not include money outgoing for these two additional NDA claims. Avenatti says they were both paid more than the $130k that Stormy got.

Well played Mr Avenatti. Trump probably has nightmares about this guy.

The most interesting thing about Avenatti is that he seems to understand that Donald never learns. He is always the same guy day in and day out. Avenatti depends on it and is always at least one step ahead of him for it.

Too bad Americans that thought Donald would somehow grow into the job of President didn't figure that out ahead of time.
 
Last edited:
Doubt it goes that far.
 
From the instructions for OGE form 278e:

Reporting of Liabilities instructions:
Liabilities Part 8 discloses liabilities over $10,000 that the filer, the filer's spouse or dependent child owed at any time during the reporting period. This section does not include the following types of liabilities: (1) mortgages on a personal residence, unless rented out (limitations apply for PAS filers); (2) loans secured by a personal motor vehicle, household furniture, or appliances,unless the loan exceeds the item's purchase price; and (3) revolving charge accounts, such as credit card balances, if the outstanding liability did not exceed $10,000 at the end of the reporting period. Additional exceptions apply.

Truth and completeness declaration:
Filer's Certification - I certify that the statements I have made in this report are true, complete and correct to the best of my knowledge:

Trump didn't report the $130K liability on his 2016 disclosure. But for the DoJ's policy against indicting a sitting POTUS, Trump could be criminally prosecuted for not reporting that debt. That is very likely perjurious; the man had all of 2017 to file an amended statement and he did not.

The relevant DoJ policy derives from a memorandum Randolph Moss wrote toward the end of Clinton’s second term. In short, the DoJ policy is currently binding on the DoJ and it states that "a sitting President is immune from indictment as well as from further criminal process." Indeed, that Mueller is a special counsel (regulatory designation) and not an independent counsel (statutory designation) he, like the rest of the DoJ must follow DoJ "rules and policies," The DoJ's Office of Legal Counsel's opinions while “controlling” on the Executive, are not immutable. The OLC can simply issue a new memorandum and prosecutors can indict a sitting POTUS.

All well and good, Trumpkins might think....Not so fast. Moss notes that a central distinction between the applicability of the DoJ rules is that the Independent Counsel statute gave thus appointed persons statutory protection from being removed. Accordingly, it stands to reason that were Congress to legislatively prohibit Mueller's removal, he would, in effect, become an independent counsel and be thereby no longer bound by DoJ policy.

The 25th Amendment obviates the legitimacy of the argument that criminal prosecution would so distract the president as to make him unable to ably and aptly perform his duties.


Notes:


  • No privilege of [the kind given to Congress] was intended for your Executive...[because] the Convention which formed the Constitution well knew that this was an important point, and no subject had been more abused than privilege. They therefore determined to set the example, in merely limiting privilege to what was necessary, and no more.
    -- Charles Pinckney
  • Gravel v. United States
    "Executive privilege has never been applied to shield executive officers from prosecution for crime."
 
Yeah, but Hillary. And Obama. Okay now that I saved the citizens of Trump Fan Nation some typing, I'll get to the subject.

This is bad for Trump. There is no way to perfume this pig. It's bad. Even if it isn't criminal (and I still don't know either way any more than anyone else does), this baggage will follow Trump for eternity. We already knew he was a liar before he won the election. Did we really need him to confirm it while he was squatting in the White House?

There is no question whether Trump's quiescence about the debt with regard to his 2016 disclosures is a violation. That said, the Attorney General normally has wide latitude in determining what to do in response to the omission; however, were he of a mind to criminally prosecute the infraction, he'd first have to rescind the DoJ policy/rule against indicting a sitting POTUS.
 
[QUOTE/] Too bad Americans that thought Donald would somehow grow into the job of President didn't figure that out ahead of time.[/QUOTE]

This will ultimately be the BIGGEST mistake that the Trump voters have or will ever make.
 
Trump’s Failure To Report Stormy Daniels Payoff Referred To Prosecutors

Poor Tweety. Maybe he could have a new reality TV show from prison. We'll call it Orange is the New Orange.
 
Poor Tweety. Maybe he could have a new reality TV show from prison. We'll call it Orange is the New Orange.

I would not count on that, while he may very well end up getting empeached the odds of him going to prison are slim to none. For the Good of the Nation, he would be pardoned by the next President, Repub or Dem. That said, there will be some of his minions and possibly family that will in all likelihood end up in Prison. We shall see how it plays out, and if this scenereo plays out as it looks like it might the reaction by his supporters should be interesting and probably pushed to the limits.
 
There is no question whether Trump's quiescence about the debt with regard to his 2016 disclosures is a violation. That said, the Attorney General normally has wide latitude in determining what to do in response to the omission; however, were he of a mind to criminally prosecute the infraction, he'd first have to rescind the DoJ policy/rule against indicting a sitting POTUS.

Actually he does not have to rescind the rule/policy/instruction whatever. He would just have to get buy in from his immediate authority not to follow it. Its not a law that Mueller would have to find a way to break. The rule itself talks about things like constitutional practice and meanders about on its merry way. I don't think Mueller will indict Trump as a sitting President. But if he thought he had to, the policy would not stop him. I think he will subpoena him if he feels obligated to do so.
 
I would not count on that, while he may very well end up getting empeached the odds of him going to prison are slim to none. For the Good of the Nation, he would be pardoned by the next President, Repub or Dem. That said, there will be some of his minions and possibly family that will in all likelihood end up in Prison. We shall see how it plays out, and if this scenereo plays out as it looks like it might the reaction by his supporters should be interesting and probably pushed to the limits.

I suppose that we'll see, but yeah, jail does seem unlikely, at least for Trump himself.
 
From the instructions for OGE form 278e:

Reporting of Liabilities instructions:
Liabilities Part 8 discloses liabilities over $10,000 that the filer, the filer's spouse or dependent child owed at any time during the reporting period. This section does not include the following types of liabilities: (1) mortgages on a personal residence, unless rented out (limitations apply for PAS filers); (2) loans secured by a personal motor vehicle, household furniture, or appliances,unless the loan exceeds the item's purchase price; and (3) revolving charge accounts, such as credit card balances, if the outstanding liability did not exceed $10,000 at the end of the reporting period. Additional exceptions apply.

Truth and completeness declaration:
Filer's Certification - I certify that the statements I have made in this report are true, complete and correct to the best of my knowledge:

Trump didn't report the $130K liability on his 2016 disclosure. But for the DoJ's policy against indicting a sitting POTUS, Trump could be criminally prosecuted for not reporting that debt. That is very likely perjurious; the man had all of 2017 to file an amended statement and he did not.

The relevant DoJ policy derives from a memorandum Randolph Moss wrote toward the end of Clinton’s second term. In short, the DoJ policy is currently binding on the DoJ and it states that "a sitting President is immune from indictment as well as from further criminal process." Indeed, that Mueller is a special counsel (regulatory designation) and not an independent counsel (statutory designation) he, like the rest of the DoJ must follow DoJ "rules and policies," The DoJ's Office of Legal Counsel's opinions while “controlling” on the Executive, are not immutable. The OLC can simply issue a new memorandum and prosecutors can indict a sitting POTUS.

All well and good, Trumpkins might think....Not so fast. Moss notes that a central distinction between the applicability of the DoJ rules is that the Independent Counsel statute gave thus appointed persons statutory protection from being removed. Accordingly, it stands to reason that were Congress to legislatively prohibit Mueller's removal, he would, in effect, become an independent counsel and be thereby no longer bound by DoJ policy.

The 25th Amendment obviates the legitimacy of the argument that criminal prosecution would so distract the president as to make him unable to ably and aptly perform his duties.


Notes:


  • No privilege of [the kind given to Congress] was intended for your Executive...[because] the Convention which formed the Constitution well knew that this was an important point, and no subject had been more abused than privilege. They therefore determined to set the example, in merely limiting privilege to what was necessary, and no more.
    -- Charles Pinckney
  • Gravel v. United States
    "Executive privilege has never been applied to shield executive officers from prosecution for crime."

Slight correction. he can not be indicted while he is a sitting president. It is, however, an impeachable offense.
 
Slight correction. he can not be indicted while he is a sitting president. It is, however, an impeachable offense.

???

  • Which of my statements (or the one's I referenced that aren't mine) do you think you are correcting?
  • I didn't discuss impeachment because the context of my remarks in post #6 is criminality, not politicality.
  • Yes, Trump's omission is impeachable. Frankly, anything the House determines to be impeachable is impeachable. All the House members need is the will to impeach him and the votes to see their will be done.
    • "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history; conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the other body considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office."
      -- Gerald R. Ford
    • Whether the current House has the will and requisite votes to impeach Trump for the omission on his disclosure is debatable; however, its having the authority to do is not. The House has the authority needed.


Unrelated Anecdote:

If one is going to get a speeding ticket in D.C., get it from the Capitol Police because unlike the Metropolitan Police (standard D.C. cops) one, unless things have changed since I got one from the C-Police, can take a "safe driving" class and the infraction will avoid points and the infraction appearing on one's driving records. There are, however, only a few blocks within which one can be ticketed by the Capitol Police.​
 
Trump should not be indicted per (1973/2000) rulings by the DoJ Office of Legal Counsel. Although not likely, in theory Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein could override the OLC.

A more likely scenario would have the Special Counsel (Mueller), with bona-fide evidence of Trump breaking US law(s), name Trump as an unindicted co-conspirator. Trump could then be prosecuted after he leaves office.

It is likely that any presidential successor would pardon Donald Trump.
 
Back
Top Bottom