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

originally posted by: JinMI
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.

The law doesn’t say that a person has to contribute money to the campaign. But any money flowing from anyone including candidates to others to not affect the outcome. So in this instance trump paying off people to shut up to not affect the outcome of the election.

So if this is actually proven it is an impeachable.

a reply to: Allaroundyou

The Republican Majority (54-47) Senate won't bite. Trump is safe.

But lookout Hillary! Paying for a fake dossier to affect the election is a big no-no.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: chr0naut

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

The interesting thing is, unless I’m missing it, none of the Special Counsels charges have ever been litigated in court. All parties have plead guilty instead of going to trial. Without exploring the possibilities as to their reason to plead guilty, simply the fact that without a trial and the discovery and defense counsel that it brings I don’t understand how any thinking person can believe that the guilty plea means anything more than the defendant had reasons to plead guilty.

Am I wrong?

originally posted by: Allaroundyou

originally posted by: JinMI
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.

The law doesn’t say that a person has to contribute money to the campaign. But any money flowing from anyone including candidates to others to not affect the outcome. So in this instance trump paying off people to shut up to not affect the outcome of the election.

So if this is actually proven it is an impeachable.

How could anyone possibly prove that Trump did it to not affect the election rather than to keep from affecting his marriage?

originally posted by: whywhynot

originally posted by: Allaroundyou

originally posted by: JinMI
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.

The law doesn’t say that a person has to contribute money to the campaign. But any money flowing from anyone including candidates to others to not affect the outcome. So in this instance trump paying off people to shut up to not affect the outcome of the election.

So if this is actually proven it is an impeachable.

How could anyone possibly prove that Trump did it to not affect the election rather than to keep from affecting his marriage?

Hey man I have no idea. I was explaining the law. I really don’t care if Trump gets impeached or not.

Once again NY showing its pro hillary bias.

a reply to: Allaroundyou

The law doesn’t say that a person has to contribute money to the campaign. But any money flowing from anyone including candidates to others to not affect the outcome.

From the statute:

(8)
(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; or
(ii) the payment by any person of compensation for the personal services of another person which are rendered to a political committee without charge for any purpose.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Allaroundyou

The Republican Majority (54-47) Senate won't bite. Trump is safe.

But lookout Hillary! Paying for a fake dossier to affect the election is a big no-no.

Ok buddy.....I mean Hillary should already be in jail but since she isn’t I doubt she ever will be.
Stop chasing pipe dreams. Heck your call for killing journalists is more realistic lol

a reply to: whywhynot

I think Stone and Corsei are pleading innocent and will have their days in court.

The others have agreed to plea guilty in exchange for lessened sentences/charges. I'm sure there will be NDAA everywhere.

a reply to: JinMI

Proving that any of that happened is a far stretch. Not impossible but unlikely.
I personally think this is the strongest argument to come against Trump yet but still nothing shall come of it.
Interesting though.

a reply to: Allaroundyou

I'll agree it is interesting. I am very interested in seeing how they can build an argument around it.

a reply to: JinMI

I put my manhood aside for a sec and flipped over to MSNBS to see what Lawrence was saying. And omg he was essentially yelling say he must be impeached and his crap tards panel was “acting” like this charge was proved.

Then I noticed Men In Black 2 was on
Much more believable IMO.

a reply to: Allaroundyou

Not surprised.

It's amazing how many folks will yell and scream about laws being broken but few source a statute.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: chr0naut

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

Back in April 9, Cohen's offices were raided and evidence was gathered.

On April 17, Cohen tries to block the courts from using the documents they have recovered.

Then in August 21, Cohen pleads guilty to five counts of tax evasion, one count of making a false statement to a bank, and two counts of campaign-finance violations. He implicates Trump in pleading guilty to the latter two charges, saying he was "directed" by Trump to arrange the hush-money payments to benefit his candidacy.

November 29, Cohen pleads guilty to lying to congressional investigators.

At this stage, there have been several court cases where Cohen has plead guilty to several charges. In the interim, he has also been speaking to Mueller and cooperating with other prosecutors to reduce his sentence/s.

At this stage, the offenses are established, evidenced and he has plead guilty to them in several court cases. The conviction phase is over and all that remains is the sentencing.

So far, there have been two sentencing memos produced.

a reply to: chr0naut

I understand that. I also understand how much Cohen stands to gain by making the implication (fact or not).

Should any case be pursued against Trump, the testimony of Cohen would be the best evidence they have. That's not much considering.

“This Office understands that the information provided by Cohen to [Mueller’s office] was ultimately credible and useful to its ongoing investigation,” prosecutors wrote, but said they would not give him a legal letter detailing his cooperation because “Cohen repeatedly declined to provide full information about the scope of any additional criminal conduct in which he may have engaged or had knowledge.”

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.

Trump said that. Cohen said that the money didn't come from Trump. I suppose that the campaign accounts would have been presented in court as evidence, which is why Cohen confessed to that.

Page 21 paragraph 2, of the sentencing memo mentioned in the OP, makes reference to the use of campaign funds for hush money. The essence of what is said is that the payment itself was not the crime being prosecuted, but that Cohen was in the practice of abusing lawyer-client privilege to cover up financial impropriety.

originally posted by: Agit8dChop
So let me get this straight...

Cohen paid 2 girls who 'apparently' had a sexual romp with Trump long before his candicacy..

And this is now "election interference" ?

Did I get that right?

Are you speaking to the OP or to the court filing? I'm not really sure.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: chr0naut

I understand that. I also understand how much Cohen stands to gain by making the implication (fact or not).

Should any case be pursued against Trump, the testimony of Cohen would be the best evidence they have. That's not much considering.

“This Office understands that the information provided by Cohen to [Mueller’s office] was ultimately credible and useful to its ongoing investigation,” prosecutors wrote, but said they would not give him a legal letter detailing his cooperation because “Cohen repeatedly declined to provide full information about the scope of any additional criminal conduct in which he may have engaged or had knowledge.”

They would not 'go for Trump' without more than circumstantial evidence.

a reply to: BlackJackal

Quite the stretch... but carry on...

I like uniparty fiction...


dime novel like....

a reply to: chr0naut

That "crime" is imaginary. Cohen's actual crime was lying to investigators. Multiple counts of it prior to him turning into a willing Mueller desired narrative puppet.