Deroshwitz says it isnt a crime!

[SonOfDaedalus]

I would have agreed with you a few years ago, but Trump's base encompasses almost the entire GOP at this point. It would be political suicide for a Republican Senator to vote to remove Trump.

You're right about that.

 

[OscarLevant]

I do not believe that Mueller has been at this as long as he has, to serve up a campaign finance violation. This is akin to the firing on Ft. Sumter............

It's not Mueller, it is the SDNY, right?

 

[Mycroft]

No, it's a campaign expenditure because it was intended to influence the election, i.e. prevent a woman from telling about an adulterous affair with Trump while his wife was home with a newborn that any rational person would understand might lose him some votes.

The law is at 52 USC 30101(8)(A) :



And also 9(A):



And your definition would essentially obliterate all campaign finance laws, limits, required disclosures and more. The statutory limit is $x. Fatcat donor makes the statutory limit, then out of his own pocket pays campaign staff, planes, advertisements, $10 million, whatever, but because it's not paid by the "campaign" it's not a "campaign expense." No limits, no disclosure! Surely you see that's an impossible interpretation of the law.

Perhaps you should educate Cohen's prosecutors. They were very clear. They charged Cohen will illegal campaign contributions...not campaign expenses.

Or maybe you just don't know what you are talking about.

 

[jnug]

Perhaps you should educate Cohen's prosecutors. They were very clear. They charged Cohen will illegal campaign contributions...not campaign expenses.

Or maybe you just don't know what you are talking about.

Getting bound up in language here:
A "campaign expense" is not relevant to this discussion. A campaign expense would be the cost or printer paper purchased for the campaign.

The only relevant descriptors are :
- "The Trump Campaign Fund" which was a compilation of campaign donations into a fund to support the campaign. These donations going into the Trump Campaign Fund are properly recorded and under the size limitations. They roll up into something called The Trump Campaign Fund.
- "Campaign Donations" and most specifically campaign donations that were not properly recorded and were above the size limitations for donations that were secured to support the campaign illegally and with criminal intent are what has Trump's tit in a ringer in this instance.

Trump himself stepped on his dick AGAIN today claiming on Fox News that since the funds did not come out of his "Trump Campaign Fund" its all good when in fact the exact opposite is true.

 

[Mycroft]

Getting bound up in language here:
A "campaign expense" is not relevant to this discussion. A campaign expense would be the cost or printer paper purchased for the campaign.

The only relevant descriptors are :
- "The Trump Campaign Fund" which was a compilation of campaign donations into a fund to support the campaign. These donations going into the Trump Campaign Fund are properly recorded and under the size limitations. They roll up into something called The Trump Campaign Fund.
- "Campaign Donations" and most specifically campaign donations that were not properly recorded and were above the size limitations for donations that were secured to support the campaign illegally and with criminal intent are what has Trump's tit in a ringer in this instance.

Trump himself stepped on his dick AGAIN today claiming on Fox News that since the funds did not come out of his "Trump Campaign Fund" its all good when in fact the exact opposite is true.

Actually, the payments that were made by Trump had nothing to do with the campaign. There was no reason for Trump to spend campaign money for his private transaction with Cohen. Plus, his private transaction with Cohen wasn't illegal.

In any case, perhaps you should tell JasperL about campaign expenses and such.

 

[jnug]

Actually, the payments that were made by Trump had nothing to do with the campaign. There was no reason for Trump to spend campaign money for his private transaction with Cohen. Plus, his private transaction with Cohen wasn't illegal.

In any case, perhaps you should tell JasperL about campaign expenses and such.

You are wrong. They were clearly made in support of the campaign. The actual relationships Trump and Cohen were trying to hide occurred in 2006, fully ten years ago. Yet the payments and the arrangements for them were made within months of Election Day 2016. The only relevant issue under consideration by Trump and Cohen was the 2016 election campaign. Trump and Cohen both knew they were making Hush money payments in support of Trump's Election Campaign and discussed them in that context. The transactions were illegal because they are made out of the whole cloth of Campaign Donations that were not reported and that were above the size limitations for same. In addition Cohen has already stated under oath in court that both he and Trump engaged in this criminal activity with criminal intent.

You are running around the same bush that a few of our other posters are running around but you are just really creating your own circular arguments.

 

[jnug]

Since this is a thread about The Dersh, I need to turn my attention back to him.

You need to catch Dersh at his most honest to understand now where he is coming from. The Dersh perspective which if you give him a chance he will espouse to the heavens full of rage and anger, heaving chest, red face and all is that All prosecutions are corrupt. All are ill conceived. All are improper. Believe it or not, that is his perspective. If you challenge him he will get all worked up and give you the straight dope according to Dersh. Then he will retire to an oxygen tent to recover.

So with all due respect, you have to accept his view that all of them, 100% of prosecutions are corrupt, ill conceived and improper to think his "opinions" are worth a darn.

 

[Mycroft]

You are wrong. They were clearly made in support of the campaign. The actual relationships Trump and Cohen were trying to hide occurred in 2006, fully ten years ago. Yet the payments and the arrangements for them were made within months of Election Day 2016. The only relevant issue under consideration by Trump and Cohen was the 2016 election campaign. Trump and Cohen both knew they were making Hush money payments in support of Trump's Election Campaign and discussed them in that context. The transactions were illegal because they are made out of the whole cloth of Campaign Donations that were not reported and that were above the size limitations for same. In addition Cohen has already stated under oath in court that both he and Trump engaged in this criminal activity with criminal intent.

You are running around the same bush that a few of our other posters are running around but you are just really creating your own circular arguments.

The only thing in your post that isn't spinning nonsense is the fact that Cohen said something and what he said is just plain nonsense from a man who wants to save his wife's ass as much as he can.

 

[JasperL]

Perhaps you should educate Cohen's prosecutors. They were very clear. They charged Cohen will illegal campaign contributions...not campaign expenses.

Or maybe you just don't know what you are talking about.

LOL. It's you who doesn't understand. :roll:

I used the term expenditure because you gave a definition completely contrary to the LAW.

But since you need it spelled out, I'll quote more of (8)(A) above:

(A) The term “contribution” includes—
(i) any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office;

If he made a campaign "expenditure" he at the same time made a contribution to the campaign. If this wasn't the case, then a big donor could evade "contribution" limits by, say, buying $10 million of ads for the campaign from her private funds without formally running the money through the campaign organization. Instead the law, as it must, treats campaign "expenditures" by an individual as campaign "contributions."

 

[jnug]

The only thing in your post that isn't spinning nonsense is the fact that Cohen said something and what he said is just plain nonsense from a man who wants to save his wife's ass as much as he can.

Whats your argument...you don't have one do you? You don't have one because there are none left for you but to go back around the same circle again.

 

[Mountainmanbob]

Unfortunately, his argument makes sense.

It's not unfortunate for the truth is the truth.
M-Bob

 

[JasperL]

Actually, the payments that were made by Trump had nothing to do with the campaign. There was no reason for Trump to spend campaign money for his private transaction with Cohen. Plus, his private transaction with Cohen wasn't illegal.

In any case, perhaps you should tell JasperL about campaign expenses and such.

No need, it's you who's showing their ignorance here.

 

[WCH]

campaigns can take donations for as long as they need to.
my knowledge there is not a dead end date.

even so if cohen broke campaign law that is no issue for trump.
as Alan already spelled out.

You can tell it wasn't an issue for Trump based on the lack of enthusiasm from the Left. They know this isn't a gotcha.

 

[jnug]

Whats your argument...you don't have one do you? You don't have one because there are none left for you but to go back around the same circle again.

Of course least we forget the other guy that twists and turns new versions of a story and new contradictions in his argument each day and within hours of the same day flitting from one new version of his story to the next, one new contradiction to the next is Donald himself. The only people that can't track his ever widening web of inconsistency are those that simply don't care to follow it....a clear indication of a cult following.

 

[LewisTT]

Now this could actually lead to something, maybe even the fantasy coming true

https://nypost.com/2018/08/21/cohen-willing-to-tell-mueller-about-conspiracy-to-collude-lawyer/



Or this might be another scam to hustle donations from people desperate for impeachment

https://www.mediaite.com/online/meg...or-seeking-donations-to-defend-michael-cohen/

Cohen's*sketchy lawyer walking back most of what was reported*in that first article. Starts around 12 min mark

https://youtu.be/uvZsXiQ8uko

1. Cohen*does not know that the president knew about the Trump Tower meeting in advance

2. Lawyer claims he was not saying Cohen knows about Trump knowing about hacking ahead of time. Just that Cohen might know lol

Cohen's GoFundMe is up around $120k now. I wonder how many people (suckers) donated based on these "misunderstandings".

https://ca.gofundme.com/hqjupj-michael-cohen-truth-fund

Michael*Cohen*Truth Fund" -- they need a half a million dollars to tell the truth, or something lol

 

[Amelia]

It's not unfortunate for the truth is the truth.
M-Bob

Of course, it was still a crime for Cohen to make the payment if the purpose was to influence the election.

Trump had to get put on the spot before he reimbursed Cohen.

So if Trump was conspiring with Cohen to make such a payment without it coming directly from Trump's personal funds, we are back in illegal territory for Trump.



Yes, yes, I know ... the John Edwards case may say differently. But it's not a slam dunk that Trump is in the clear of conspiracy to commit violations.

 

[MrWonka]

Unfortunately, his argument makes sense.

No, it doesn't because it ignores that the reason Trump had Cohen make the payment for him in the first place was to avoid having to file the campaign contribution with the FEC. That's what makes it a crime.

 

[Amelia]

No, it doesn't because it ignores that the reason Trump had Cohen make the payment for him in the first place was to avoid having to file the campaign contribution with the FEC. That's what makes it a crime.

Ah .

 

[MrWonka]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...y_hush_money_committed_no_election_crime.html

One of the top legal minds in the country is now a "Hack" because the anti-Trumpers do not like what he says. This article confirms that.

Actually, as I recall it was all the right-wing racists who wanted to claim he was a hack because he got O.J. off remember?

Also, he's missing the point. Trump had Cohen make the payment because if he would have made it himself he would have had to report that to the FEC. That would have made it public knowledge in which case he would have had to explain why two porn stars helped his campaign. All of a sudden it would have defeated the purpose of paying them off in the first place.

 

[Amelia]

No, it doesn't because it ignores that the reason Trump had Cohen make the payment for him in the first place was to avoid having to file the campaign contribution with the FEC. That's what makes it a crime.

There seem to be multiple angles from which what Cohen and Trump were doing is viewed as a crime. There was more than one corporate entity involved. At least Pecker's company and the shell corporation Cohen used.

Mr. Howard negotiated the purchase of rights to Ms. McDougal’s story for $150,000. Mr. Cohen subsequently sought to buy those rights from the American Media executives within months of Ms. McDougal’s agreement, finalized in early August 2016.

....

In bringing their charges against Mr. Cohen, prosecutors defined the company’s payment to Ms. McDougal as an illegal, coordinated campaign expenditure. Election law prohibits corporations from spending money to influence elections in conjunction with candidates or their representatives.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/23/us/politics/david-pecker-immunity-trump.html

 

[jc456]

Now turned into a TV slut for the past several years. His nonsense is just slightly more coherent than Rudy's. Once you have really caught one of Alan's TV rants, the great legal mind thing goes right out the window.

there you go! can't get anymore obvious then this one.