Here is you answer Vrai ....

GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
So, why did the Prosecutor include in the guilty plea that Michael Cohen violated campaign finance laws when clearly the monies came from Donald Trump’s personal funds and, per Mr. Smith above, had no direct bearing on the campaign?

Mr. Cohen recently retained Lanny Davis, best known for being the energetic legal enforcer of Clinton, Inc. and many others in the Democratic Party over the years. He has also been very vocal and vociferous in his condemnation of Donald Trump since Hillary stunningly lost in November of 2016. In short order, Michael Cohen turned on his on former benefactor in an effort to get the best deal he could with the charges he was facing. Which could have landed him in jail for 30 years or more.


[TWITTER]https://twitter.com/LannyDavis/status/1032026098320789504[/TWITTER]

“The principal purpose of influencing an election”? How does paying someone to sign a non-disclosure agreement influence an election? Is Mr. Davis clairvoyant? Does he know for certain that the signatory to such an agreement would absolutely, without fail, tell all if there were no agreement? These agreements are entered into on a routine basis. No doubt Mr. Davis has been party to one or more. Further, would he and his fellow-travelers advocate that when Joe Kennedy paid off the innumerable paramours of John Kennedy when he ran for president that those actions unduly influenced an election?

Additionally, per the FEC, these agreements, regardless of when they are entered into, are not in violation of the law. Per Mark Levin, a renowned constitutional attorney and former Chief of Staff to an Attorney General

Let’s say a candidate says. ‘Get a nondisclosure agreement, pay the funds out of my pocket, because I don’t want this person to attack me during the campaign for something that occurred before the campaign’ That’s perfectly legal. That’s not a campaign expenditure.​


Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...cohens_guilty_plea_a_setup.html#ixzz5OuqwLYdT
 
vraiblonde

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Reportedly, Cohen turned in an expense report for the money paid to those two women. That would make it NOT a campaign contribution. If it was indeed reimbursed to him with Trump's personal money and not campaign cash, it's still NOT a campaign contribution.

I'm not getting where they say that money was a campaign contribution when he was reimbursed for it.

That's one of the things Cohen is in trouble for: He paid off at least Stormy Daniels, and then fudged an expense report to the campaign to get reimbursed for it. By all accounts, Trump said, "Yeah, can't do that," and reimbursed him out of his own pocket.

In hindsight, Trump should have blown the whistle on him and had him charged. No good deed goes unpunished, especially when dealing with ####bags.
 
T

transporter

Well-Known Member
GURPS said:
So, why did the Prosecutor include in the guilty plea that Michael Cohen violated campaign finance laws when clearly the monies came from Donald Trump’s personal funds and, per Mr. Smith above, had no direct bearing on the campaign?

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...cohens_guilty_plea_a_setup.html#ixzz5OuqwLYdT
Click to expand...

You really have to be at some supreme level of stupidity (or just a pure propagandist) to think that Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal going public with their stories in the days or weeks before the campaign would not have had an effect....given the impact the Hollywood Access tape had.

You two seem to under some impression that Cohen pleaded guilty to a crime that doesn't exist. He pleaded guilty. He pleaded guilty to a federal offense. It wasn't made up, he wasn't railroaded by the prosecutor or jury. Cohen chose to plead. No one forced him to stand before the judge yesterday.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top