David Pecker gets federal immunity in Michael Cohen case

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Well who knows what this guy will say.

I certianly could be bad for trump, but we will have to see.

Again, my reading of the law is that this would only be illegal if the hush money was entirely for the purpose of winning a campaign.

If trump proves that he has paid people of before he was running with hush money, to help his marriage, or to keep up his business image, I dont know that this much matters.

In addition, there also seems to be the argument that as long as trump didnt know he was violating the law, then he isnt guilty; cohen, who knew the law, would be guilty.

“The fact Cohen did something illegal doesn’t mean Trump did anything illegal,” said Jan Baran, a longtime Republican campaign finance lawyer.

...

“Under the law, it’s quite easy for two people involved in the same act to have different criminal consequences,” said Andy Grewal, a University of Iowa law professor.

That distinction is particularly critical in campaign finance cases because the law limits criminal prosecutions on those charges to instances where someone “knowingly and willfully” defied legal requirements.

In his plea Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, Cohen admitted that he was intending to benefit Trump’s presidential bid when he arranged the payment to Daniels and another payment of $150,000 to a former Playboy playmate, Karen McDougal. Daniels claimed a one-time sexual encounter with Trump, who was married at the time. McDougal said she had sex with Trump dozens of times over a 10-month period.

...

But as a lawyer, Cohen could be assumed to have some familiarity with federal election law. Prosecutors may well have proof in emails or other documents that he regularly discussed compliance with such statutes.

Proving that Trump knew at the time that the payouts were intended to influence the presidential race, and that he knew they were illegal, could be much harder. Perhaps such records exist, or maybe Cohen is prepared to say that he told Trump the way they were handling it was illegal, but the lawyer never said that in court on Tuesday.

“In order to prove criminal intent, you have to point to evidence that the actors knew or had reason to know what they were doing was illegal,” said Baran, the GOP campaign finance lawyer.

www.politico.com...

If my last name was Pecker I would probably try to stay out of the news.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
If my last name was Pecker I would probably try to stay out of the news.

I would have legally changed it.

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
If my last name was Pecker I would probably try to stay out of the news.

I would have legally changed it.

Why?
"D. Pecker flips" is an epic headline
"D. Pecker subpoenaed"
"Federal investigators offered immunity to D. Pecker."

Late night will have loads of material about this news.

I wouldn't trust that guy Pecker....word on the street is he is a real dick.


Bada bink

Bada boom.

a reply to: Annee

I think this will fall flat on it's face, when someone queries the Fed. Election Commission about whether they need to be informed if a candidate buys a really big, prescription for a bottle of Viagra, to use with his wife? There's a bunch of personal stuff the FEC simply won't want to know about. Unless your name is King Solomon, how in hades will anyone discern what is domestic, and what is done to "influence" a "political campaign"?? Yeah, getting laid at home will put a bounce in your step, too!

I listened to Fox Business News and a stupid lawyer was going on about campaigns, but she left out the descriptor, "Political". I'm guessing here, but a quarter of a million bucks, paid to two people outside of any political campaign, out of personal funds, to get a rather common place NDA, isn't going to pass muster by a Judge, unless there's some law specifically mentioning NDA's as being part and parcel of a "Political Campaign", when the contracted person is never going to be part of that "political" campaign. If these broads were being paid by the campaign, and then hushed up with NDAs, maybe it might be a different story. Trump has been paying off bimbos, for many years, as he was known for being a "playboy". So does a "playboy", paying off a Playboy Bunny, rise to influencing a "political" campaign, or is he simply keeping peace in his homelife.

Trump never purchased the rights to Stormy's story, like David Pecker did for that Playboy model's tale. And now Pecker has been granted immunity, for guess what reason? But both of these tramps stories are gaining momentum and Dollar value, by the month, as Trump's Admin. moves along. So Pecker really made a slick business decision to hold off publishing it, right off the bat. It may not be catch and kill, but rather, merely buy, and hold out, for higher ratings.

a reply to: Grambler

"
In addition, there also seems to be the argument that as long as trump didnt know he was violating the law, then he isnt guilty; cohen, who knew the law, would be guilty. "

ah yes, the ol Clinton/Comey gambit...."I didnt intend to, really!"

Wish that woulda worked for me a couple weeks ago, sigh 83 in a 70. The nice officer did reduce it to a no point 80 since I had a thin blue line hat on my dash

a reply to: Grambler

I do not know the ins and outs of laws so much because for the most part I have found that for me at least, if I have doubt about my actions legality I do not engage in it. So yes, Trump may be legally innocent and that is what it is.

Legal or not, Trumps actions are nefarious. MY take on his is that he is expert at ''skirting'' legalities and hiding behind the ''laws''. If they get for breaking the law I will be surprised. However it is his integrity that he has put forward in his calling out the ''establishement' for their lack of it. To me he is the perfect case of the pot calling the kettle.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Why?

To keep oneself from being the butt of jokes.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
www.cnbc.com...

So will this be conformation for Cohen's assessment that Cohen and Trump worked with Pecker to hush up at least one woman about her affairs with Trump ?

hehehehe. Dude... You said pecker. hehehehe

You must respect Pecker...

Not a big Pecker fan, myself.

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

Wait, what's the difference between a big Pecker fan, and a fan with a big...

Crap. Never mind...

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: Grambler

I do not know the ins and outs of laws so much because for the most part I have found that for me at least, if I have doubt about my actions legality I do not engage in it. So yes, Trump may be legally innocent and that is what it is.

Legal or not, Trumps actions are nefarious. MY take on his is that he is expert at ''skirting'' legalities and hiding behind the ''laws''.

An expert at skirting the law. That's an interesting angle, and I don't know if I'd give credit to him for that, or to his lawyers. Or has he just paid is way out of many 'legalities', as he did with his women?

Maybe his lawyers don't deserve any credit if they're as idiotic and slimy as Cohen. AND I just hate giving any sort of credit to lawyers... they're like career politicians - the scumbags outnumber the good ones!

Actually I can't wait to see if Pecker has the goods....

Just to see the headline:

Pecker goes hard on Trump

originally posted by: RickinVa
I wouldn't trust that guy Pecker....word on the street is he is a real dick.


Bada bink

Bada boom.

a reply to: RickinVa

or: Trump gets it hard from Pecker!
lotsa good material here, gotta be a way to work Di k Army in there too!

originally posted by: RickinVa
Actually I can't wait to see if Pecker has the goods....

Just to see the headline:

Pecker goes hard on Trump

winner winner!

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I dont know if nefarious is the word.

Scummy?

If he didnt committ a crime, what are we left with.

The guy paid hush money to a lady to keep her from telling he slept with her.

I guess thats bad, but honestly adultry is worse and I know he did that, so yeah he was already scummy.

Arnold was scummy for cheating on his wife; but Commando is still a bad ass movie.

I dont care that trump is basicaly a crummy person; I care that he is an outsider that is outing the deep state with his mere presence every day. And he also seems to want america to do well, and I agree with many of his policies.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: vinifalou
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I'm not saying I agree with Trump having extramarital affairs, but it seems like a good way to silence someone.

Better than the Clinton West Style.

8 posts in and already a:

"But, Clinton"

Yes. And have you notice the new trend among Trumpsters? Most of them now use the pgrase" I disagree with Trump but.. Hikllsry"..... "I didn't vote for Trump.... But Hillary"

People!

Everyone needs to calm down!

Cant you see how childish you are being?

Kids dont even make penis jokes this cheesy!

Everybody is all of the sudden a comedian cause this guys name!

Really? Its time to grow up

originally posted by: Annee


8 posts in and already a:

"But, Clinton"

You understand that people do this because there is a clear and contradictory difference in the way the left and their media react to these things. You guys dismiss it and call it "whataboutism" because you don't like dealing with your hypocrisy. I don't blame you as nobody in the media holds the left to their hypocrisy, only the right.