Posted on 12/08/2018 10:25:47 PM PST by Para-Ord.45
The major takeaway from the 40-page sentencing memorandum filed by federal prosecutors Friday for Michael Cohen, President Trump’s former personal attorney, is this: The president is very likely to be indicted on a charge of violating federal campaign finance laws.
It has been obvious for some time that President Trump is the principal subject of the investigation still being conducted by the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York.
..But when Cohen pleaded guilty in August, prosecutors induced him to make an extraordinary statement in open court: the payments to the women were made “in coordination with and at the direction of” the candidate for federal office – Donald Trump.
...Moreover, campaign finance infractions are often settled by payment of an administrative fine, not turned into felony prosecutions. To be sure, federal prosecutors in New York City have charged them as felonies before – most notably in 2014 against Dinesh D’Souza, whom Trump later pardoned.
In marked contrast, though, when it was discovered that Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign was guilty of violations involving nearly $2 million – an amount that dwarfs the $280,000 in Cohen’s case – the Obama Justice Department decided not to prosecute. Instead, the matter was quietly disposed of by a $375,000 fine by the Federal Election Commission.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I swear, Andy can write 9 great columns and the 10th column is invariably utter nonsense, like this one.
The National Review must tell him he needs to fall in line with the never-Trump hyenas from time to time to keep getting his paycheck.
What does Stormy Daniels have to do with russians?
The other trick they are trying hard to pull is to get Mueller fired by Trump. This guy goes after his lawyer, his family, his friends all in the attempt to get him so mad at this blatant injustice he gets fired. He's ignored the bait for 2 years now and running. I suspect the real retaliation occurs after he is reelected and can't run again anyways.
As I understand it if he was acting consistent with his practice before the campaign (which I’d guess he was), then that is a defense against the idea that he had her paid because of the campaign, which would make it a legal payment.
At most, Stormy may only have become a threat to come forward because of the campaign, but if his regular practice was to pay off such women when they came forward it wouldn’t be considered a campaign payment at all anyway.
I’ll go more sinister. Having just watched videos of Italy First rallies, having read among the yellow vest demands “France First”, and watched an Irish townhall where the citizens objected to immigrants and being called racist...I think global overloads are bigger than I had realized. Trump is a speed bump of huge proportions in their path.
Since when is it a crime to pay off extortionists?
.........
"It should have been done sooner."
------------
Yes, it should have happened, but we can not change the past. Work on the here and now. Grand jury is the way to go with these criminals.
Since even a ham sandwich is able to be indicted, he’s probably right. Then once the Democratic Congress is ready, they WILL vote to impeached him, though the Republican controlled Senate will likely never allow it to pass the senate, unless something major changes.
At the bottom of much of this evil is Islam. People infected with this mind virus are like dogs with rabies, they can't help wanting to bite you .
Every once in awhile in the history of that awful religion it gets a wise leader who ignores its insane commands and contains it temporarily. Now that Turkey has returned back to Islam it's attacking the Saudi Prince who is the latest modifying influence. The Prince will lose in the end because Islam is a nasty thing that cannot be polished into something good
DC grand juriea: the Dems’ ultimate weapon.
..they financed her chest...
If Trump had actually paid with his own money, he’d be in the clear. But that is not what happened. Michael Cohen, who was working for the campaign, paid off one of the accusers with his own money (via a fraudulently acquired home equity loan), then he got money from AMI, the publisher of the National Enquirer to pay the other accuser. So these are pretty clearly illegal campaign donations (based on the amount of money), which is why Cohen is going to jail. We know Trump knew about this happening because Cohen is a rat and recorded private conversations about it. Ultimately, is this an impeach worthy offense? No. Does it have anything to do with collusion? No. Will Democrats try to impeach over this? They could, but if they are smart they’ll avoid the backlash and just use it a political issue in 2020.
Doesn’t this show how corrupt the special prosecutor is?
Pure crapola. A sitting president can’t be indicted. As every first year law student learns.
When the ballot box fails...
Re: “If we had an attorney general with testicles, this would be over.”
Trump has already surrendered on that issue by nominating William Barr.
In 1991, all eight Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to confirm William Barr as Attorney General.
Those were essentially the same Democrats who destroyed Robert Bork in 1987, and who tried to destroy Clarence Thomas in late 1991.
And they voted 8-0 for William Barr!
In the case of John Edwards, the donors who provided his mistress with a house, a BMW and credit cards, plus flew her around on a private jet to keep her mouth shut, were friends of Edwards. A Federal Jury found him not guilty of campaign finance violations. It remains to be seen if Trump is on tape asking Cohen to take out a fraudulent home equity loan to pay Daniels, or that he ordered Cohen to cut a deal with AMI to pay off the other bimbo.
I agree with you. If the Dems push for impeachment, they will reap what they sow in 2020. All 435 voting seats in the United States House of Representatives will be up for election. There are 672 days before the November 3, 2020 election. Do the Dems want to spend that time on Impeachment Hearings, or on campaigning?
"There is, furthermore, a significant legal question about whether the hush-money payments here qualify as “in-kind” campaign contributions.
There is nothing illegal per se in making a non-disclosure agreement; they are quite common. The criminal law comes into play only if the non-disclosure payment is deemed a donation for purposes of influencing a political campaign."
Considering how common these agreements are, considering how often Mr. Pecker and the National Inquirer has engaged in these acts, the easy legal argument is these NDA's were accomplished in the course of "normal" business. Mr. Pecker did not necessarily act out "only" because of a campaign, rather, in the course of normal business for whatever tradeoff there will be, the NDA's were accomplished.
As others say . . . none of this has to do with the law, legal or not. Its ONLY about scoring political points and damaging the other side. In that measure, Mueller and Special Council has been wildly successful.
Andy, he sniffs out news that hurts the President. Who are his sources? Could they be the usual leakers on Mueller’s team? What is the purpose of this story coming from Andy now?
POTUS at first said he didn’t know about the payments, didn’t he? Then supposedly it was a re-filling a retainer?
But when he said that he wasn’t under oath.
I heard someone on the radio say that he violated the campaign finance laws because he violated the intent for transparency - trying to hide his affairs from the voters so we couldn’t make a good decision.
I think it’s baloney - especially in comparison with the other stuff that the rats have done that really matters but this may be what the left is going to use since they couldn’t find collusion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.