Trump accused of a Felony in today's Southern District of New York Filing

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: BlackJackal

Paying someone hush money, so long as it is not paying them to keep them quiet about a crime, is not a crime. Adultery is no longer a crime, so while I am very sure a number of people wish a crime had taken place here, none did. Covering up something prior to an election... also not a crime.

Cohen was convicted on eight charges, not just this one.

The crime was appropriating campaign funds to pay the hush money, not that it was hush money.

originally posted by: timequake
a reply to: highvein


I believe that they are trying to get Trump on campaign finance violations. They are going to say that he didn't report the "hush money" to the FEC and therefore, he violated campaign finance rules.

Which campaign finance rule? And did the money come from his campaign fund?

Yes, I have a talking Baghdad Bob.

I wonder if they'll make a talking Twitter Trump.

this is the "bombshell" the SC was to drop today? wow. what an absolute joke. this whole nonsense started to look for Russian interference into the election and if Trump was involved......how far afield we have gone should tell any thinking individual that there is nothing there.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: BlackJackal

Can you link to the actual law that was broken?

Cohen was indicted on eight charges. This is a sentencing memo - guidelines on the sentencing decision.

If you want to know the laws broken, refer to the charge sheet.

So Cohen is Trump now?

Because the OP states that Trump committed a felony.

Keep up.

The sentencing memo mentions that Trump, the employer of Cohen at the time of the felonies, identified as 'Individual 1' and who is President of the United States, was complicit with Cohen's commission of multiple felonies.

It is quite clear.

a reply to: BlackJackal

This same subject was "hot breaking news" when Cohen was indicted several months ago. Big nothing-burger. (again)

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: BlackJackal

This same subject was "hot breaking news" when Cohen was indicted several months ago. Big nothing-burger. (again)

the fact that this is all they have speaks volumes.......

originally posted by: highvein

originally posted by: timequake
a reply to: highvein


I believe that they are trying to get Trump on campaign finance violations. They are going to say that he didn't report the "hush money" to the FEC and therefore, he violated campaign finance rules.

Which campaign finance rule? And did the money come from his campaign fund?

President Obama was found guilty of campaign finance violations and had to pay a $375,000 fine.
Source: www.usnews.com...

President Trump has that much loose change in his top dresser drawer, lol.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: chr0naut

Via Cohen.

Think that witness is credible?

Well, he did confess to lying, so, there's that.

However court cases are built on more than testimony. You cannot charge someone with a crime without evidence that a crime has been committed and that they were the perp.

Taken with a now substantial body of other incriminating evidence, e-mails, legal documents, financial accounts and that from other sources, I would have to say that it is extremely likely that Cohen was telling the truth in this particular case .

First, what law are we talking about here. What action violated the statute?

What evidence is there to support it?

The court already did all that, for all upheld charges.

They cannot convict someone of a crime that does not exist and without evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

a reply to: chr0naut

The court did what? You're losing me here.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: chr0naut

Via Cohen.

Think that witness is credible?

Well, he did confess to lying, so, there's that.

However court cases are built on more than testimony. You cannot charge someone with a crime without evidence that a crime has been committed and that they were the perp.

Taken with a now substantial body of other incriminating evidence, e-mails, legal documents, financial accounts and that from other sources, I would have to say that it is extremely likely that Cohen was telling the truth in this particular case .

First, what law are we talking about here. What action violated the statute?

What evidence is there to support it?

The court already did all that, for all upheld charges.

They cannot charge someone with a crime that does not exist and without evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

you can charge someone with a crime without evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. it happens all the time and leads juries to find people innocent when the prosecution does not prove their case.

originally posted by: annoyedpharmacist

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: chr0naut

Via Cohen.

Think that witness is credible?

Well, he did confess to lying, so, there's that.

However court cases are built on more than testimony. You cannot charge someone with a crime without evidence that a crime has been committed and that they were the perp.

Taken with a now substantial body of other incriminating evidence, e-mails, legal documents, financial accounts and that from other sources, I would have to say that it is extremely likely that Cohen was telling the truth in this particular case .

First, what law are we talking about here. What action violated the statute?

What evidence is there to support it?

The court already did all that, for all upheld charges.

They cannot charge someone with a crime that does not exist and without evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

you can charge someone with a crime without evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. it happens all the time and leads juries to find people innocent when the prosecution does not prove their case.

Sorry, changed it to: "you cannot convict someone of a crime"

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: annoyedpharmacist

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: chr0naut

Via Cohen.

Think that witness is credible?

Well, he did confess to lying, so, there's that.

However court cases are built on more than testimony. You cannot charge someone with a crime without evidence that a crime has been committed and that they were the perp.

Taken with a now substantial body of other incriminating evidence, e-mails, legal documents, financial accounts and that from other sources, I would have to say that it is extremely likely that Cohen was telling the truth in this particular case .

First, what law are we talking about here. What action violated the statute?

What evidence is there to support it?

The court already did all that, for all upheld charges.

They cannot charge someone with a crime that does not exist and without evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

you can charge someone with a crime without evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. it happens all the time and leads juries to find people innocent when the prosecution does not prove their case.

Sorry, changed it to: "you cannot convict someone of a crime"

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: BlackJackal

Paying someone hush money, so long as it is not paying them to keep them quiet about a crime, is not a crime. Adultery is no longer a crime, so while I am very sure a number of people wish a crime had taken place here, none did. Covering up something prior to an election... also not a crime.

Cohen was convicted on eight charges, not just this one.

The crime was appropriating campaign funds to pay the hush money, not that it was hush money.

Trump reimbursed Cohen using his own money. No campaign finances were used.

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: BlackJackal

Paying someone hush money, so long as it is not paying them to keep them quiet about a crime, is not a crime. Adultery is no longer a crime, so while I am very sure a number of people wish a crime had taken place here, none did. Covering up something prior to an election... also not a crime.

Cohen was convicted on eight charges, not just this one.

The crime was appropriating campaign funds to pay the hush money, not that it was hush money.

Trump reimbursed Cohen using his own money. No campaign finances were used.

that is what I thought as well. they may very well try to challenge that assertion tho.......

originally posted by: highvein

originally posted by: timequake
a reply to: highvein


I believe that they are trying to get Trump on campaign finance violations. They are going to say that he didn't report the "hush money" to the FEC and therefore, he violated campaign finance rules.

Which campaign finance rule? And did the money come from his campaign fund?

Its part of the Federal Elections Act. Technically, it does not have to come from money designated from the campaign. It can include any funds that are spent solely for the purpose of promoting one's campaign. Its only a civil infraction if one fails to report such spending unintentionally. It would become a criminal infraction if is it done "willfully and knowingly". The big question in this instance is if this "hush money" was done "solely" for the intended purpose of promoting his campaign. Its a weak case, but you know that they will push it.

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: BlackJackal

Paying someone hush money, so long as it is not paying them to keep them quiet about a crime, is not a crime. Adultery is no longer a crime, so while I am very sure a number of people wish a crime had taken place here, none did. Covering up something prior to an election... also not a crime.

Cohen was convicted on eight charges, not just this one.

The crime was appropriating campaign funds to pay the hush money, not that it was hush money.

Trump reimbursed Cohen using his own money. No campaign finances were used.

The anti-Trumpers keep saying they have evidence of Trump’s guilt and that he committed a felony....or several.

Yet no one can produce a single shred... just empty words and fleeting dreams. Cohen is a dumb criminal - that’ll be the end of it.

The delusion is thick with them. Put up or shut up.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: chr0naut

Via Cohen.

Think that witness is credible?

Well, he did confess to lying, so, there's that.

However court cases are built on more than testimony. You cannot charge someone with a crime without evidence that a crime has been committed and that they were the perp.

Taken with a now substantial body of other incriminating evidence, e-mails, legal documents, financial accounts and that from other sources, I would have to say that it is extremely likely that Cohen was telling the truth in this particular case .

First, what law are we talking about here. What action violated the statute?

What evidence is there to support it?

It’s the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 52 US Code 30101.

Here’s a pointer to it:

www.law.cornell.edu...

It prohibits any single person from making a contribution to a campaign greater than $2700.

From the act, “The term “contribution” includes--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 …”

Cohen testified that the hush money he paid to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal was for the purpose of influencing the election, which was only about a month away at that time. The amounts he paid was definitely more than $2700. He testified that Trump knew that and directed Cohen to do it. That, and the fact that Trump repaid Cohen for doing this means that Trump and Cohen are co-conspiritors.

originally posted by: six67seven

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: BlackJackal

Paying someone hush money, so long as it is not paying them to keep them quiet about a crime, is not a crime. Adultery is no longer a crime, so while I am very sure a number of people wish a crime had taken place here, none did. Covering up something prior to an election... also not a crime.

Cohen was convicted on eight charges, not just this one.

The crime was appropriating campaign funds to pay the hush money, not that it was hush money.

Trump reimbursed Cohen using his own money. No campaign finances were used.

The anti-Trumpers keep saying they have evidence of Trump’s guilt and that he committed a felony....or several.

Yet no one can produce a single shred... just empty words and fleeting dreams. Cohen is a dumb criminal - that’ll be the end of it.

The delusion is thick with them. Put up or shut up.

Cohen is weak sauce...it's the Manafort testimony trump needs to worry about. This is far from over for trump.

a reply to: 1947boomer

Following that line of logic, what was contributed to the campaign?

It's obvious what this law is meant to prevent.