StmarysCity79
Well-Known Member
Micheal Cohen already went to jail for helping Trump with the crime. The proof is already apparent.
Where do you get you news and information?
How can you be so ignorant?
Explosive Fox texts reveal Depths of election lies, viewers to be "Cousin Fu***"
- Thread starter StmarysCity79
- Start date
Micheal Cohen already went to jail for helping Trump with the crime. The proof is already apparent.
Where do you get you news and information?
How can you be so ignorant?
CPUSA
Well-Known Member
With the way you keep focusing on diddling young boys...I now realize Canine molestation is just ONE of your perversions...Someone needs to report you to the authorities...yet again...Too bad more young boys don’t manage to elude you.
CPUSA
Well-Known Member
CSM has a debating club?
Kinnakeet
Well-Known Member
What crime, man are you going to be pissed when nothing happens
I do not watch CNN or the like that we leave up to people like you so you can spue your nonsense and so we can make fun of you and your kind
Liar .....
Why wasn't Trump charged then ....
COHEN, 51, of NEW YORK, NEW YORK, pleaded guilty to five counts of willful tax evasion; one count of making false statements to a bank; one count of causing an unlawful campaign contribution; and one count of making an excessive campaign contribution.
Michael Cohen Pled Guilty to Something That Is Not a Crime
The source of these violations are Mr. Cohen’s arranging — allegedly at Trump’s direction — hush-money payments to women alleging long-ago affairs with the 2016 presidential candidate.
The Federal Election Campaign Act holds that an “expenditure” is any “purchase, payment, loan, advance, deposit or gift of money, or anything of value, for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office.” According to Cohen and the U.S. Attorney, the hush-money payments were, it appears, made in the hopes of preventing information from becoming public before the election, and hence were “for the purpose of influencing” the election. This means that, at a minimum, they had to be reported to the Federal Election Commission; further, if they were authorized by Mr. Trump, they would become, in the law’s parlance, “coordinated expenditures,” subject to limits on the amounts that could be spent. Since the lawful contribution limit is much lower than the payments made, and the payments were not reported, this looks like an open and shut case, right?
Well, no. Or at least not in the way some might presume. To the contrary, the law — following our common sense — tells us that the hush-money payments outlined by the U.S. Attorney are clearly not campaign expenditures. There is no violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act.
To reach the opposite conclusion, the U.S. Attorney is placing all his chips on the language “for the purpose of influencing an election.” Intuitively, however, we all know that such language cannot be read literally — if it were, virtually every political candidate of the past 45 years has been in near-constant violation. The candidate who thinks “I need to brush my teeth, shower, and put on a nice suit today in order to campaign effectively” is surely not required to report as campaign expenditures his purchases of toothpaste, soap, and clothing. When he eats his Wheaties — breakfast of champions, and surely one cannot campaign on an empty stomach — his cereal and milk are not campaign expenses. When he drives to his office to start making phone calls to supporters, his gas is not a campaign expense.
So what does it mean to be “for the purpose of influencing an[] election”? To understand this, we read the statutory language in conjunction other parts of the statute. Here the key is the statute’s prohibition on diverting campaign funds to “personal use.” This is a crucial distinction, because one of the primary factors separating campaign funds from personal funds is that the former must be spent on the candidate’s campaign, while the latter can be used to buy expensive vacations, cars, watches, furs, and such. The law defines “personal use” as spending “used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.” So a candidate may intend for good toothpaste and soap, a quality suit, and a healthy breakfast to positively influence his election, but none of those are campaign expenditures, because all of those purchases would typically be made irrespective of running for office. And even if the candidate might not have brushed his teeth quite so often or would have bought a cheaper suit absent the campaign, these purchases still address his underlying obligations of maintaining hygiene and dressing himself.
To use a more pertinent example, imagine a wealthy entrepreneur who decides to run for office. Like many men and women with substantial business activities, at any one time there are likely several lawsuits pending against him personally, or against those various businesses. The candidate calls in his company attorney: “I want all outstanding lawsuits against our various enterprises settled.” His lawyer protests that the suits are without merit — the company should clearly win at trial, and he should protect his reputation of not settling meritless lawsuits. “I agree that these suits lack merit,” says our candidate, “but I don’t want them as a distraction during the campaign, and I don’t want to take the risk that the papers will use them to portray me as a heartless tycoon. Get them settled.”
More fromBradley A. Smith
Democrats Propose a Federal Speech Czar
The First Amendment Is Lucky to Have Mitch McConnell
Super PAC Rejections Hurt Democratic Primary
The settlements in this hypothetical are made “for the purpose of influencing the election,” yet they are not “expenditures” under the Federal Election Campaign Act. Indeed, if they were, the candidate would have to pay for them with campaign funds. Thus, an unscrupulous but popular businessman could declare his candidacy, gather contributions from the public, use those contributions to settle various preexisting lawsuits, and then withdraw from the race. A nice trick!But in fact, the contrary rule prevails, because the candidate’s obligation to resolve the business’s lawsuits exists “irrespective” of the campaign. Similarly, any payments made to women by Mr. Trump or his associates are independent of the campaign.
To this intuitively obvious fact — very few people would think paying hush money is a legitimate campaign expenditure — those eager to hang a charge on Mr. Trump typically respond that he made the payments when he did because of the looming election. That may be true, but note that the same is true of the entrepreneur, who instructs his counsel to settle the lawsuits pending against him. Further, note that in both cases, while the candidate has no legal obligation to pay at all, the events that give rise to the claim against him are unrelated to the campaign for office. Paying them may help the campaign, but the obligations exist “irrespective” of the run for office. Mr. Trump’s alleged decade-old affairs occurred long before he became a candidate for president and were not caused by his run for president.
Last edited:
Liar ....
What Crime .... Be Specific, WHAT CRIME did Trump Ask Cohen to commit ?
Why hasn't Trump been charged and convicted ?
Michael Cohen Pled Guilty to Something That Is Not a Crime
The Federal Election Campaign Act holds that an “expenditure” is any “purchase, payment, loan, advance, deposit or gift of money, or anything of value, for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office.” According to Cohen and the U.S. Attorney, the hush-money payments were, it appears, made in the hopes of preventing information from becoming public before the election, and hence were “for the purpose of influencing” the election. This means that, at a minimum, they had to be reported to the Federal Election Commission; further, if they were authorized by Mr. Trump, they would become, in the law’s parlance, “coordinated expenditures,” subject to limits on the amounts that could be spent. Since the lawful contribution limit is much lower than the payments made, and the payments were not reported, this looks like an open and shut case, right?
Well, no. Or at least not in the way some might presume. To the contrary, the law — following our common sense — tells us that the hush-money payments outlined by the U.S. Attorney are clearly not campaign expenditures. There is no violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act.
To reach the opposite conclusion, the U.S. Attorney is placing all his chips on the language “for the purpose of influencing an election.” Intuitively, however, we all know that such language cannot be read literally — if it were, virtually every political candidate of the past 45 years has been in near-constant violation. The candidate who thinks “I need to brush my teeth, shower, and put on a nice suit today in order to campaign effectively” is surely not required to report as campaign expenditures his purchases of toothpaste, soap, and clothing. When he eats his Wheaties — breakfast of champions, and surely one cannot campaign on an empty stomach — his cereal and milk are not campaign expenses. When he drives to his office to start making phone calls to supporters, his gas is not a campaign expense.
So what does it mean to be “for the purpose of influencing an[] election”? To understand this, we read the statutory language in conjunction other parts of the statute. Here the key is the statute’s prohibition on diverting campaign funds to “personal use.” This is a crucial distinction, because one of the primary factors separating campaign funds from personal funds is that the former must be spent on the candidate’s campaign, while the latter can be used to buy expensive vacations, cars, watches, furs, and such. The law defines “personal use” as spending “used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.” So a candidate may intend for good toothpaste and soap, a quality suit, and a healthy breakfast to positively influence his election, but none of those are campaign expenditures, because all of those purchases would typically be made irrespective of running for office. And even if the candidate might not have brushed his teeth quite so often or would have bought a cheaper suit absent the campaign, these purchases still address his underlying obligations of maintaining hygiene and dressing himself.
Memos from 2018-19 shake up Trump case: Cohen denied having incriminating evidence on hush money
"Cohen said he had no information against Trump," one memo summarizing attorney Robert Costello's interactions with Cohen stated. That memo, dated April 2019, recounted Costello's interview with federal prosecutors about conversations he and colleagues had with Cohen a year earlier.
Costello, a former federal prosecutor who has represented famous clients like George Steinbrenner, Leona Hemsley, Rudy Giuliani and Steve Bannon, told Just the News on Tuesday he provided Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office with more than 300 pages of emails, memos and texts chronicling his dealings with Cohen.
He said his documents showed Cohen took out a bank loan known as a HELOC — on his own — during the 2016 presidential election to pay Stormy Daniels $130,000 under a nondisclosure agreement so she would remain quiet about her alleged relationship with Trump. Cohen bragged he kept the situation quiet so that Melania Trump and Cohen's own wife wouldn't learn about it, Costello said in an interview on the John Solomon Reports podcast, recounting what he said Cohen told him back in 2018.
"He said," Costello recalled, "'I didn't believe the information, but I knew that this was a situation that would cause embarrassment. So I negotiated with this lawyer, and we worked out a an NDA ... for the payment of $130,000.'
"And I said, 'Did you get that money from Donald Trump?' 'No.' 'Did you get it from any Trump Organization?' 'No.'
"I said, 'Did you take that money out of your own savings or checking?' 'No.'
"I said, 'Well, how'd you get the money?' He said, 'I took out a HELOC loan.' 'Why would you take out a HELOC loan to cover something like this?' He said 'because I wanted to keep it secret. If I took money from my account, my wife would know about it. I didn't want my wife to know about it. I didn't want Melania Trump to know about it.' He said, 'That's why I did it that way.'"
Attorney Robert Costello Says ‘Convicted Perjurer’ Michael Cohen Has No ‘Solid Evidence’
https://img.theepochtimes.com/assets/uploads/2019/07/18/michael-cohen-1200x800.jpg“But Michael Cohen is far from solid evidence,” added Costello. “This guy, by any prosectors’ standard—and I used to be deputy chief of the criminal division in the Southern District of New York—I wouldn’t have touched a guy like Michael Cohen, especially if he’s a convicted perjurer.”
Cohen pleaded guilty in 2018 to charges of tax evasion, making false statements to a federally insured bank, and campaign finance violations in connection with an alleged $130,000 payment to a lawyer representing adult actress Stormy Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford.
Cohen claims that Trump, during his 2016 presidential campaign, directed him to arrange the payment to Daniels as “hush money” in order to buy her silence after she claimed to have had an affair with Trump. The money was allegedly paid using campaign funds, a violation of campaign finance law.
Trump denies the affair and Costello’s claims and has called the grand jury probe into him a witchhunt. The former president has accused Bragg, a Democrat who was publicly criticized for declining to charge Trump last year, of prosecutorial misconduct.
Elsewhere on Monday, Costello told reporters that he’d handed over more than 300 emails involving his discussions with Cohen to prosecutors but that they had “cherry-picked” just six emails to question him about and that their context had been taken out of context in front of the jury.
Cohen went to jail for perjury. How did Trump make him Lie?
Perhaps a more relevant question is, Why do you continue to spew fiction and believe it to be true?
Brainwashed much?
Once again long on talk short on facts, still waiting for you to quote me about Trump charges.
HuH?
But but I'm dark green, the other is lite (on brains)Phred grabbed the wrong post to reply.
All greenies look alike.
Sorry!
CPUSA
Well-Known Member
2018 letter shows Michael Cohen lying to feds about Stormy Daniels payment
The letter, obtained by The Post on Wednesday, emerged as the disbarred lawyer appeared poised to become the star witness in an unprecedented criminal case against his ex-boss, former President Donald Trump.
In it, Cohen told the Federal Election Commission that he “used his own personal funds to facilitate a payment of $130,000 to Ms. Stephanie Clifford,” aka Daniels, in 2016.
“Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed Mr. Cohen for the payment directly or indirectly,” Cohen lawyer Stephen Ryan wrote on Feb. 8, 2018.
But a little more than six months later, Cohen changed his tune and copped a plea to a laundry list of federal crimes that included making an excessive campaign contribution to Trump, now 76, by paying Daniels to keep quiet about her alleged 2006 affair with him.
EXCLUSIVE: Is this the smoking gun? Letter from Michael Cohen claiming Donald Trump did NOT reimburse him for hush money paid to Stormy Daniels appears to fly in the face of the star witness's grand jury testimony
- Bombshell document, exclusively obtained by DailyMail.com, could cripple prosecutors' pursuit of criminal charges against Trump
- Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer, is the star witness in the case over which Trump reportedly faces imminent arrest for campaign finance violations
- But in a February 2018 letter Cohen’s attorney wrote that ‘Mr. Cohen used his own personal funds’ and that ‘neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign reimbursed Mr. Cohen'
Mom and Dad told me to never pick on the mentally handicapped.
HemiHauler
Well-Known Member
Swing and a Miss ... was this supposed to be some sort of insult ...
What's next, call the guy with 5 children an Incel ? Claim I live in the basement ?