Trump’s Ex-Lawyer Didn’t Violate Campaign Finance Laws, and Neither Did the President

[GURPS]

Robert Khuzami, the acting U.S. attorney standing in for Geoffrey Berman, who has recused himself from the Cohen case, says in the government’s sentencing memorandum that Cohen committed a campaign finance violation by arranging payments from corporations to two women—Woman-1 and Woman-2 (Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels, respectively), who claimed they had affairs with Trump—in order to buy their silence. Cohen eventually invoiced the Trump Organization for the Daniels payment.

Khuzami asserts these were illegal corporate contributions to the Trump campaign because they were made with “the intent to influence the 2016 presidential election.” Thus, he claims, they were campaign-related expenses and all of the rules governing federal campaigns apply to the payments.

But there are numerous problems with Khuzami’s claim.

First, his theory that anything intended to “influence” an election is a campaign-related expense fails to take into account the statutory limitation on this definition. FECA (52 U.S.C. 30114 (b)(2)) specifically says that campaign-related expenses do not include any expenditures “used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.”



Trump’s Ex-Lawyer Didn’t Violate Campaign Finance Laws, and Neither Did the President


Intent and Characterization of Events ..... 2 opposing OPINIONS

 

[vraiblonde]

Cohen is a lawyer. You'd think he'd know what is and isn't against the law. I am not a lawyer, but I know that's it's an enormous overreach to say that using your own personal money for a personal reason is a campaign contribution. I think any reasonable person should be scratching their head at that.

 

[transporter]

Robert Khuzami, the acting U.S. attorney standing in for Geoffrey Berman, who has recused himself from the Cohen case, says in the government’s sentencing memorandum that Cohen committed a campaign finance violation by arranging payments from corporations to two women—Woman-1 and Woman-2 (Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels, respectively), who claimed they had affairs with Trump—in order to buy their silence. Cohen eventually invoiced the Trump Organization for the Daniels payment.

Khuzami asserts these were illegal corporate contributions to the Trump campaign because they were made with “the intent to influence the 2016 presidential election.” Thus, he claims, they were campaign-related expenses and all of the rules governing federal campaigns apply to the payments.

But there are numerous problems with Khuzami’s claim.

First, his theory that anything intended to “influence” an election is a campaign-related expense fails to take into account the statutory limitation on this definition. FECA (52 U.S.C. 30114 (b)(2)) specifically says that campaign-related expenses do not include any expenditures “used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.”



Trump’s Ex-Lawyer Didn’t Violate Campaign Finance Laws, and Neither Did the President


Intent and Characterization of Events ..... 2 opposing OPINIONS

Comrade...it is facts that matter, not the opinions from your propaganda sources.

If Cohen's actions were legal, then Cohen (AN ATTORNEY) would have fought the charges.

If Cohen's actions were legal, then Cohen's attorney's would have fought the charges.

If Cohen's actions were legal, then the judge would have dismissed the case.

Comrade you can push any bullsh!t OPINION you want..that doesn't change the facts that everyone involved in the actual matter agreed that Cohen violated the law.

 

[CPUSA]

Comrade...it is facts that matter, not the opinions from your propaganda sources.

If Cohen's actions were legal, then Cohen (AN ATTORNEY) would have fought the charges.

If Cohen's actions were legal, then Cohen's attorney's would have fought the charges.

If Cohen's actions were legal, then the judge would have dismissed the case.

Comrade you can push any bullsh!t OPINION you want..that doesn't change the facts that everyone involved in the actual matter agreed that Cohen violated the law.

Your mere existence is a violation against humanity.

 

[This_person]

Comrade...it is facts that matter, not the opinions from your propaganda sources.

If Cohen's actions were legal, then Cohen (AN ATTORNEY) would have fought the charges.

If Cohen's actions were legal, then Cohen's attorney's would have fought the charges.

If Cohen's actions were legal, then the judge would have dismissed the case.

Comrade you can push any bullsh!t OPINION you want..that doesn't change the facts that everyone involved in the actual matter agreed that Cohen violated the law.

Here's the problem with your assumptions (and they are indeed nothing more than assumptions): Cohen must believe that there was essentially no larger reason for the action than the election campaign. If Cohen believed that, then Cohen violated the law. If Trump repaid him, Trump did NOT violate the law, because using one's own money in this fashion is NOT illegal (as it is not a campaign contribution that must be reported).

Now, there could be motivations for Cohen to claim this was his intent. For example, if he were going to be charged with MUCH more, they could have said, "you're already looking at 65 years for these things, but you could be looking at much more for these other things. Tell you what, Cohen ol' buddy ol' pal, we'll recommend you only get 46 months instead of 65 years, and won't charge you with X, Y, and Z, if you just admit you were doing these payments for Trump."

Now, Cohen has a reason to "remember" that the only reason he did it was for Trump's campaign. But, if that is true, Cohen is guilty, and Trump is not because Trump used HIS money, not campaign money. Not to mention, Cohen would also most likely be guilty of perjury, but that's a whole different thing.

Now, the defense counsel, the prosecuting attorney, and the judge all have to admit that if Cohen used these payments for campaign-only expenses, Cohen is guilty (even if Trump knew). But, Trump using his own money can merely say, "I simply didn't want my wife to find out. Hey, you guys all saw how cold she was to me - the media reported endlessly on it - after this crap came out. Who wants to deal with that, y'know?" And, bam, Trump gets no fine, no jail time, no conviction for a darned thing, and Cohen gets three years in jail instead of 65.

See how when you just THINK instead of assume and react, you can understand these things?

 

[Merlin99]

Cohen is a lawyer. You'd think he'd know what is and isn't against the law. I am not a lawyer, but I know that's it's an enormous overreach to say that using your own personal money for a personal reason is a campaign contribution. I think any reasonable person should be scratching their head at that.

When you're trying to shave years off of a jail sentence, you say what they tell you to say. The prosecutor says we're recommending a 15-20 year sentence, but if you plead to these additional charges (and really sell it) we'll change that recommendation to 3 years.

 

[Merlin99]

Comrade...it is facts that matter, not the opinions from your propaganda sources.

If Cohen's actions were legal, then Cohen (AN ATTORNEY) would have fought the charges.

If Cohen's actions were legal, then Cohen's attorney's would have fought the charges.

If Cohen's actions were legal, then the judge would have dismissed the case.

Comrade you can push any bullsh!t OPINION you want..that doesn't change the facts that everyone involved in the actual matter agreed that Cohen violated the law.

Wrong on 3 out of 3 there TP.

 

[This_person]

When you're trying to shave years off of a jail sentence, you say what they tell you to say. The prosecutor says we're recommending a 15-20 year sentence, but if you plead to these additional charges (and really sell it) we'll change that recommendation to 3 years.

They recommended a minimum of 46 months, and he got 3 years. That tells me the judge understands it was pleading guilty to a non-crime.

 

[GURPS]

... but I know that's it's an enormous overreach to say that using your own personal money for a personal reason is a campaign contribution.

are you talking about Trump or Cohen ...

.... paying Stormy to keep her #### holster shut can be construed 'influencing the election' and thereby a in kind campaign donation

[if you really think the Danial's Story would really affect the election]



not that I agree, but that is the case Progressives are trying to make

 

[GURPS]

Comrade ... it is facts that matter, not the opinions

In this case, 2 Opposing View Points hold their analysis bears the FACTS and the other side is incorrect.

To Wit:

The DA of the Southern District of NY is of the OPINION his 'analysis' of what happened equals Criminal Activity
[and much Progressive Media Editorialize has supported this view / outlook / Opinion]

- Cohen paying Stormy to keep her #### holster closed, was a Campaign Donation over the legally allowed limit

Trump's Lawyer Others have offered these actions cannot be a violation of FECA (52 U.S.C. 30114 (b)(2)) because Trump can spend His OWN Money on his OWN Campaign
aka reimburse his Lawyer for a business expense

There is some debate about raison d'être for the payoff 'influencing the election'

1) Who cares if Trump banged a Porn Start 10 yrs ago
2) Who would be surprise at a thrice divorced man cheating on his wife
3) Proving Trump thought such exposure would change the election, and his intent was more than saving the family embarassment

from your propaganda sources.

Anything that does not conform to YOUR World View is Propaganda

If Cohen's actions were legal, then Cohen (AN ATTORNEY) would have fought the charges.

If Cohen's actions were legal, then Cohen's attorney's would have fought the charges.

If Cohen's actions were legal, then the judge would have dismissed the case.

Not if Muller was promising leniency on Tax Evasion and other charges in exchange for Cohen implying Trump was guilty

Comrade you can push any bullsh!t OPINION you want ..

Anything that does not conform to YOUR World View is a Bulls!it Opinion from a Russian or Someone To Ignorant see YOUR World View

that doesn't change the facts that everyone involved in the actual matter agreed that Cohen violated the law.

No that would be a bold faced Lie ...
Trump is involved and has stated Cohen plead guilty to a NON Crime as did is Lawyer [go figure]


and now suddenly the man that LIED To Congress, Lied to the FBI is now suddenly telling the truth

 

[Hijinx]

Cohen is a lawyer. You'd think he'd know what is and isn't against the law. I am not a lawyer, but I know that's it's an enormous overreach to say that using your own personal money for a personal reason is a campaign contribution. I think any reasonable person should be scratching their head at that.

Cohen is frightened the man has been coerced and is a coward.
I wouldn't believe anything he had to say.

 

[GURPS]

Comrade ... it is facts that matter, not the opinions from your propaganda sources.

If Cohen's actions were legal, then Cohen (AN ATTORNEY) would have fought the charges.

If Cohen's actions were legal, then Cohen's attorney's would have fought the charges.

If Cohen's actions were legal, then the judge would have dismissed the case.

Comrade you can push any bullsh!t OPINION you want .. that doesn't change the facts that everyone involved in the actual matter agreed that Cohen violated the law.

I don't know what ' sources ' you are getting your information from, but you may wish to reevaluate those sources ... You are WRONG Again .... [but what's new about that]



NY Prosecutor Quietly Ends Investigation into 'Hush-Money' Payments by Trump Foundation

After months of headlines promising that an investigation into "hush money" payments made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels would result in Trump's impeachment, the prosecutor for the Southern District of New York has quietly dropped the investigation.

In fact, it was so quiet that a federal judge had to force the prosecutor to release materials that were under seal that showed the investigation into the "hush money" scheme was over.

Politico:

Michael Cohen, the former personal lawyer to Trump who is serving a three-year prison term in part for breaking campaign finance law. Trump himself was implicated in Cohen’s crimes, which involved hush money payments to women that federal prosecutors have said were designed to sway the presidential election.

Cohen cooperated with federal prosecutors as part of his plea deal with the government, but their wider effort is now over, U.S. District Court Judge William Pauley wrote in a three-page order.

“The Government now represents that it has concluded the aspects of its investigation that justified the continued sealing of the portions of the Materials relating to Cohen’s campaign finance violations,” Pauley wrote.

The judge, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, made the disclosure in a ruling on a related matter dealing with the release of sealed information contained in already-public search warrants tied to the Cohen case. Pauley rejected the government’s request to keep some of the search warrant materials in the Cohen case sealed and instead ordered it publicly released by 11 a.m. Thursday.

The government's case against Trump was worse than flimsy; it was dishonest. The prosecutor was contending that the hush money payments constituted a campaign contribution because by keeping Trump's extramarital affairs quiet, it aided his campaign.

Instead, the government concluded that whatever Trump did to assist his lawyer, it was not illegal.

 

[Sapidus]

Robert Khuzami, the acting U.S. attorney standing in for Geoffrey Berman, who has recused himself from the Cohen case, says in the government’s sentencing memorandum that Cohen committed a campaign finance violation by arranging payments from corporations to two women—Woman-1 and Woman-2 (Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels, respectively), who claimed they had affairs with Trump—in order to buy their silence. Cohen eventually invoiced the Trump Organization for the Daniels payment.

Khuzami asserts these were illegal corporate contributions to the Trump campaign because they were made with “the intent to influence the 2016 presidential election.” Thus, he claims, they were campaign-related expenses and all of the rules governing federal campaigns apply to the payments.

But there are numerous problems with Khuzami’s claim.

First, his theory that anything intended to “influence” an election is a campaign-related expense fails to take into account the statutory limitation on this definition. FECA (52 U.S.C. 30114 (b)(2)) specifically says that campaign-related expenses do not include any expenditures “used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.”



Trump’s Ex-Lawyer Didn’t Violate Campaign Finance Laws, and Neither Did the President


Intent and Characterization of Events ..... 2 opposing OPINIONS

This is a flaming hot garbage take

 

[Sapidus]

Cohen is a lawyer. You'd think he'd know what is and isn't against the law. I am not a lawyer, but I know that's it's an enormous overreach to say that using your own personal money for a personal reason is a campaign contribution. I think any reasonable person should be scratching their head at that.

So by your logic no lawyer ever has committed a crime?

 

[Sapidus]

Here's the problem with your assumptions (and they are indeed nothing more than assumptions): Cohen must believe that there was essentially no larger reason for the action than the election campaign. If Cohen believed that, then Cohen violated the law. If Trump repaid him, Trump did NOT violate the law, because using one's own money in this fashion is NOT illegal (as it is not a campaign contribution that must be reported).

Now, there could be motivations for Cohen to claim this was his intent. For example, if he were going to be charged with MUCH more, they could have said, "you're already looking at 65 years for these things, but you could be looking at much more for these other things. Tell you what, Cohen ol' buddy ol' pal, we'll recommend you only get 46 months instead of 65 years, and won't charge you with X, Y, and Z, if you just admit you were doing these payments for Trump."

Now, Cohen has a reason to "remember" that the only reason he did it was for Trump's campaign. But, if that is true, Cohen is guilty, and Trump is not because Trump used HIS money, not campaign money. Not to mention, Cohen would also most likely be guilty of perjury, but that's a whole different thing.

Now, the defense counsel, the prosecuting attorney, and the judge all have to admit that if Cohen used these payments for campaign-only expenses, Cohen is guilty (even if Trump knew). But, Trump using his own money can merely say, "I simply didn't want my wife to find out. Hey, you guys all saw how cold she was to me - the media reported endlessly on it - after this crap came out. Who wants to deal with that, y'know?" And, bam, Trump gets no fine, no jail time, no conviction for a darned thing, and Cohen gets three years in jail instead of 65.

See how when you just THINK instead of assume and react, you can understand these things?

In the case the timing matters ( right before the election) sand it was clear they were scrambling.

Trump cheating on his pregnant wife was a given especially to you fool who continuously claim we knew what kind of person he was when we voted for him.

Don't you think then Melania knew what kind of man he was when she married him?

 

[GURPS]

This is a flaming hot garbage take

Yet you offer NO counter points only derision because YOU do not like the facts presented

Khuzami asserts these were illegal corporate contributions to the Trump campaign because they were made with “the intent to influence the 2016 presidential election.” Thus, he claims, they were campaign-related expenses and all of the rules governing federal campaigns apply to the payments.

But there are numerous problems with Khuzami’s claim.

First, his theory that anything intended to “influence” an election is a campaign-related expense fails to take into account the statutory limitation on this definition. FECA (52 U.S.C. 30114 (b)(2)) specifically says that campaign-related expenses do not include any expenditures “used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.”

Be Specific Explain the how Khuzami's assertions valid are based on Case Law

Explain why the District Atty of Southern New York should have continued his case against Trump

In the case the timing matters ( right before the election) sand it was clear they were scrambling.

That is YOUR Fantasy OPINION, with NO Basis in FACT

 

[This_person]

In the case the timing matters ( right before the election) sand it was clear they were scrambling.

Trump cheating on his pregnant wife was a given especially to you fool who continuously claim we knew what kind of person he was when we voted for him.

Don't you think then Melania knew what kind of man he was when she married him?

We already knew he had been unfaithful to his first wife with his second wife. He's been a playboy his whole adult life. Where's the surprise?