It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Justice Department guidelines prohibit indicting a sitting president, though he could be prosecuted after leaving office. No such restriction applies to New York and other state prosecutors, however, who are limited only by their willingness to act in the public interest.
originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo
Does this directly bring in Donald Trump? I doubt it.
You doubt it? When the evidence you mention has trumps voice talking about paying her off?
Well that certainly is optimistic.
kurthall said: "LMAO, No collusion?? trump tweeted (and lied) about that over and over. Now he has had 3 stories on the trump tower meeting. Was it not about Russian adoption? Nope, last week he TWEETED, it was to get DIRT ON HILLARY. trumps Camp, met with RUSSIANS to get dirt on Hillary. THAT IS COLLUSION. "
"Kurthall said: Anyway, you trump FOLLOWERS are ignorant."
originally posted by: Dragoon01
Here are a few points to consider.
Trump decides to run for president. He knows that in the past he has had sexual encounters with women who may come out of the woodwork and make up all kinds of juicy BS to try and get their 15 minutes and magazine story deals. Giving him the benefit of the doubt here regarding the relationship he has with his current wife, we have to assume that he was simply trying to avoid the media circus such stories would cause regardless of the truth of them.
So assuming the above,
There is nothing illegal about entering into agreements with these women to pay them to go away. At least on Trumps part. What these women need to understand is that if it is established that the payment was a "contribution" then it has been established that their stories constituted a threat to the campaign. Therefore their request for money, and statements that they would go to the press to reveal those stories ARE EXTORTION.
Entering into a NDA is not illegal. Breaking that NDA is not illegal either, however it does expose you to civil liability.
Regardless of the truth of the matter you agreed not to publically discuss the matter in exchange for a monetary fee. You cant hide behind a lawyer (and I am speaking to you Mrs Porn star) and act like there is something illicit going on that absolves you from the NDA.
Trump has a lawyer to deal with these kinds of personal matters. He instructs that lawyer to address the stories of these women by having them agree to an NDA and payments. THATS NOT ILLEGAL.
The lawyer pays them and Trump pays the lawyer his retainer.
Now the sequence of events is not really important nor is the timing of these events because none of that is illegal and it does not constitute a "campaign funding" violation.
People running for office have lawsuits and settlements that are taken care of all the time in the run up to an election.
Its possible that a situation might arise that could be called an illegal contribution but it would involve some other third party stepping in to cover the settlements and never getting paid back. That could be looked at as an expectation that the third party would be expecting a political action in exchange for the payments. Cohen acting as Trumps lawyer hardly fits that description.
Lying to the press is not a crime, so Trumps statements that he "didn't know about the payments before hand" is not a problem but it may in fact also be the truth. It may have been that Cohen handled the interaction with the two women and may have even paid them before he told Trump about it in the recorded call. He was taking care of it before it got out of hand and then he mentions it to Trump and acts like its something that he needs to do knowing Trump will agree with him and pay the money anyway. That's still not a crime.
The meeting at Trump tower is not a crime.
Meeting with someone from another country that may have information on your opponent is not a crime. No one involved has indicated that the meeting even resulted in any activity. Everyone agrees that the meeting very quickly turned into a meeting about adoptions.
The only "false statements" that have potentially been made have been made to the media. Which is not a crime.
Cohen may have made some false statements to congress and he will have to answer for those but he should have just indicated that he could not discuss specific items as they would violate attorney client privilege.
This continues to be a colossal waste of time and the tax payers money.
originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: rickymouse
No there wasn't a tape saying that. Trump said pay cash ... Cohen said no no no.
originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: rickymouse
It damn well shoule be illegal to pay someone to keep quiet about something. The only reason to do so would be to cover up wrong doings.
originally posted by: sdcigarpig
. The op has asked why not just destroy all requested evidence. Here is the answer that I can come with.
The question is who is willing to spend 20 years in prison, and have felony on their records for the rest of their life, losing many rights in the process?
The evidence that is there, is documented, and locked up. If any were to look at such, would have to go through the legal process, including signing for such. And then that person would have to be willing to take the full blame and spend years in prison. And that is the federal level, not to mention the state level, that this may affect as well.
So that would be the question, who is willing to risk losing their freedom and ending up losing some rights, and a good paying job to do such?