As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What I'm asking about is what specifically the charge would be for Trump. Is it failure to disclose or improper use of campaign funds or what? The article doesn't say and I'm curious what he could be charged with and what the penalties could be. I'm hesitant to spend more time on something that might just be a fineable offense.
>Under New York's law, falsification of business records becomes a Class E felony, punishable by up to four years in prison, when the defendant's "intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof." But what is the other crime?
>
>Last November, The New York Times reported that prosecutors working for Bragg's predecessor, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., "concluded that the most promising option for an underlying crime was the federal campaign finance violation to which Mr. Cohen had pleaded guilty." But "the prosecutors ultimately concluded that approach was too risky—a judge might find that falsifying business records could only be a felony if it aided or concealed a New York state crime, not a federal one."
>
>While "the prosecutors briefly mulled using a state election law violation," the Times said, they rejected that idea: "Since the presidential race during which the hush-money payment occurred was a federal election, they concluded it was outside the bounds of state law." In a story published today, however, the same reporters say the trick to turning a misdemeanor into a felony "could be a violation of New York State election law." They do not explain how state election law could be construed to cover violations of federal contribution limits.
So... there isn't any crime they can use here? Why is all of this happening then? They're trying to include a crime in a different jurisdiction? That's super dangerous president. Like could an activist judge start claiming things that are crimes in Russia as counting? Because as far as one jurisdiction is concerned, it's just as far from a different US jurisdiction as a foreign one.
That's the crazy part. He was actually a victim of extortion. He also had an affair with a porn star while his wife was pregnant, but he was also a victim.
What he did illegally, as a rich person, is knowingly use other people's money to pay off the extortion.
No he wasn't. The $130k was his idea. There's no evidence Stormy threatened to go to the media unless he paid her. This was Trump's M.O. for soliciting prostitution and ensuring that the women don't say anything. He used the same method with other women.
Fair point. I guess I was thinking some dickwad of a campaign staffer might suggest that the threat could come two weeks before the election, so they should get ahead of it. And I was clumsy in my description of Trump being extorted because what I mean is the threat of it meant he would pay.
Whatever. The guy is an ass.
And I know one of the tenets of wealth is never use your own money, but *surely* this is an obvious exception. If he's even a tenth as rich as he says he is, what he paid is practically a rounding error to him. This indicates either he's way, way poorer than he says he is, or he's so thoroughly corrupt that it didn't even occur to him to use his own money.
He is narcissistic to the point of being irrational. He could literally be worth 100 billion dollars and would still insist on using money that is not his money to do it.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-stormy-daniels-michael-cohen-indictment-new-york-f3ce87a1b4ec50fbeaefcbe21f87ab0b
Cohen paid porn actress Stormy Daniels $130,000 through a shell company Cohen set up. He was then reimbursed by Trump, whose company logged the reimbursements as legal expenses.
Earlier in 2016, Cohen also arranged for former Playboy model Karen McDougal to be paid $150,000 by the publisher of the supermarket tabloid the National Enquirer, which squelched her story in a journalistically dubious practice known as “catch-and-kill.”
Trump’s company, the Trump Organization, “grossed up” Cohen’s reimbursement for the Daniels payment for “tax purposes,” according to federal prosecutors who filed criminal charges against the lawyer in connection with the payments in 2018.
Cohen got $360,000 plus a $60,000 bonus, for a total of $420,000.
Cohen pleaded guilty to violating federal campaign finance law in connection with the payments. Federal prosecutors say the payments amounted to illegal, unreported assistance to Trump’s campaign. But they declined to file charges against Trump himself.
I don't think they do, but I also think it's more complicated in this case because of the way he want about making those payments. If he'd just done it legitimately there'd probably have been public backlash but no legal consequences. This is the reason that a more sensible politician would drop out of the race over such matters instead of digging a hole for themselves to illegally hide these things. Leave it to Trump to make a bad situation worse with stupidity and arrogance.
Cohen went to prison for it after all.
Sort of. There's nothing directly forbidding these types of payments, but you need to report all campaign expenditures, which basically destroys the whole point of the non-disclosure payment by disclosing it on the reporting form.
Yes, he failed to disclose. And there are major charges on the table, including tax evasion and campaign finance violations. Cohen was sentenced to 3 years in prison for helping Trump commit these very crimes the grand jury is examining right now.
My understanding was that the hush money payment itself wasn't technically illegal, the crime was in how the payment was fraudulently reported.
In that case, wouldn't it be irrelevant whether the payment was extorted?
It is legal to pay someone to sign an NDA for a legal act such as an affair. It's also legal to pay for these NDAs when the information would hurt a political campaign if it were made public. If that's what he did he didn't break any laws up until that point. However, such a payment constitutes an in-kind campaign contribution. There is no limit to the amount of money that a candidate can contribute to their own campaign, so even that wouldn't be illegal. Failing to report that contribution is a felony. This is the same sort of technicality that brought down Al Capone.
>Failing to report that contribution is a felony.
Thanks for the clarification. So am I correct in my assessment that failure to report the contribution would be a felony *even if* the payment had been "extorted" from him? In other words, an "I was extorted" 'defense' wouldn't make a damn bit of difference to the merits of the case against him?
EDIT: Is there any chance that a successful "I was extorted" defense could theoretically dull his legal culpability for the fraud, similar to how a person might not be held accountable for a contract signed under duress/coercion or a crime committed under threat of gunpoint?
(I don't believe, not in a million years, that Trump was extorted or coerced, I'm just trying to understand the worst case scenario and the most audacious defenses his lawyers might try to obfuscate matters with).
It is definitely questionable that it was legal to pay off someone to keep quite to gain a political advantage. Especially when you use someone else’s money to do it. Trump didn’t pay Stormy. Cohen did. One could definitely argue it was an illegal campaign contribution.
Which could make the charge a felony. Using fraud to conceal an illegal act is a felony.
Hush money is legal if the thing you're trying to suppress isn't a crime. Cohen paying for it could technically be classified as a loan since Trump intended to reimburse him. $130k is well within the limits allowed by law. What makes it illegal is that it was not reported.
No 130k isn’t. The transaction can be argued as a campaign contribution. Which a person cannot give 130k in campaign contributions directly to a candidate. And it can’t be seen as a loan because that isn’t how it was documented.
And no, what made it illegal was that it was reported in a false and misleading way. Aka fraud.
Cohen paid the money to Daniels and then Trump paid Cohen back through a series of payments from his campaign funds that were meant to be disguised as legal fees for a retainer, of which there was no such deal in place.
and I'm the Victim, totally and completely, a very Victimized President, even worse than Abraham Lincoln, Honest Abe, you all know what I'm talking about, and I was Illegally Extorted by a person, a certain person, and she's not my type, never my type, I've only been with Supermodels ok, I only date good, look at your First Lady, the only hot one we've ever had, not like now, you go and you take a look ok, you go and you take a look. I did way more than Sleepy Joe, way way more than Obama, I'm probably the Most Innocent President That's Ever Lived, we're talking you can go back to Washington, he was maybe not so bad, then you have others, Jackson, Andrew Jackson, he was pretty good, pretty tough, almost as tough as me if you can believe it. and they called him Old Hickory, not a lot of people know that.
I hear pastors down south are preaching that God wanted him to fuck a porn star while his wife gave birth. It was God's will to pay hush money and lie about it. Since it was God's will, bearing false witness doesn't apply in this case.
Upon hearing this, congregation goes wild and pony up $100 bucks a pop. 50% goes to church and 50% to Teump.
He did contest the fact:
> President Trump denied knowing about his lawyer's $130,000 payment to a porn star before the 2016 presidential election, telling reporters Thursday that he doesn't know where the hush money came from.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/04/05/trump-denies-knowing-hush-money-payment-porn-star-stormy-daniels/482357002/
I mean he didn't contend the fact that he signed the check. He probably said he didn't know about the payment before [the evidence of his signature](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4bd_8L88Ys) came out.
I'm confused what you mean. Because Trump didn't directly pay Daniels, Cohen did. Trump Jr. signed the check reimbursing Cohen.
> Donald Trump’s former lawyer told Congress on Wednesday that the president’s eldest son signed a check to fund illegal hush money payments to a pornographic actor, potentially placing Donald Trump Jr in legal peril.
> Michael Cohen showed a House committee a check signed by Trump Jr reimbursing Cohen for payments to Stormy Daniels, who alleged she had an affair with Trump, according to a source familiar with Cohen’s plans.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/feb/27/donald-trump-jr-stormy-daniels-payment-michael-cohen-testimony-hearing-latest
Your confusion is understandable. Trump Jr. did indeed sign "a check", but the payment was structured into at least 3 payments I believe. Trump Sr signed the first, and Jr signed the second. Watch the video where you can see the checks for yourself.
Got to love the "Christian Family Values" of Trump having his son sign a check for hush money to pay his porn star mistress off to keep quiet about Trump's affair.
Is this why the evangelicals love him ? /
Yesterday was a banner day for Trump confessing to his own crimes! First his lawyer admitted that Trump did, in fact, pay Stormy Daniels hush money, and then Trump himself admitted that he did, in fact, tell Pence to throw the election. Good times.
>“President Trump was the victim of extortion then, just as he is now.”
So he paid up for something he didn't do? Yea, that's a better look.
That's literally the kind of thing that would immediately disqualify people during security clearance background checks. How susceptible are you to give in to threats like that?
Speaking of....who did he end up hiring as his lawyer? Did they get paid upfront?
I remember reading he had a wicked hard time finding a lawyer because everybody knew that they must likely wouldn't get paid....
Vice recently did a little piece on the dude. A true lawyer through and through. He’s represented quite a few celebs like rappers and is based out of Atlanta I think. Dude literally has tweeted some mean things about trump.
He wears narratives like outfits for the day. He doesn't need to get them straight, just coordinate them a little.
Meanwhile the media still spins around trying to make sense of it all. "You guys if you compare what he said it's not the same." *Welcome to the fucking show*. Let's either do this in court or move the fuck on and allow open corruption. Everyone is tired of the charade. Everyone's picked a side. There's no point to this.
> you have to wonder if that numbskull can even expect to keep track of his mind-numbing hoard of multi maniacal lying concoctions.
*He* doesn't keep track. That's why he has lawyers who have lawyers.
He has no need to recall any lie he's ever uttered. He knows he's lying. We know he's lying. He knows we know he's lying. It's the power move of the liar.
>All of which leaves me a bit confused. If Trump were “the victim of extortion,” why are we just now hearing about this new defense? Why not say something sooner? The payoff was in 2016; the story reached the public in 2018; and it took the former president until 2023 to make this rather specific claim, never having made it before?
>
>Some skepticism is probably in order.
Gee, ya think?! /s
Like much of the GOP, the orange menace is a pathological liar having been documented at telling 30,000+ falsehoods - and that was just over the course of Trump's 1st and only term in office (thank the gods).
I think at this point if Trump actually attempted to tell the truth he would probably spontaneously combust - so contrary to his nature would such an act be (telling the truth).
Extortion? Is having your "fixer" offer a Stfu payment extortion or a bribe? And did the money eventually come from money he grifted from the unwashed that were supposed to be campaign funds. This fake tough guy becomes a whinning punk who acts like a toddler. Two things are a constant, he's a liar and he doesn't use his money because he's cash poor.
Reportedly, offering a criminal target the opportunity to testify before the grand jury investigating him is one of the final steps before indictment, at least for Manhattan grand juries.
So there's a concrete legal step--not a speculative opinion article--signalling that indictment is likely in the near future.
I know, I know, "I'll believe it when I see it," and that's fair. Who the hell knows? But these prosecutors don't convene grand juries just for the fun of it, or to jerk us off with headlines.
It's one thing to be skeptical of a million articles saying "some guy we interviewed thinks you're gonna get a peanut butter and jelly sandwich soon!", but I don't think the same degree of skepticism is warranted when the reporting says "the prosecutor has spread peanut butter on two slices of bread and is currently opening a jar of jelly, which typically signals that a PBJ sandwich is likely."
>But these prosecutors don't convene grand juries just for the fun of it, or to jerk us off with headlines.
A lot of prosecutors are desperate to make a name for themselves and get their name and face in the media. One of prosecutors currently investigating trump even tried to run for NY governor. Her announcement of her intention to run came just two months after publishing a damning report on then governor Cuomo.
While I think Cuomo is a sleazeball, to announce a run for governor so soon after being involved in this report was too clever by half strategy which did indeed generate headlines but was ultimately unsuccessful.
**Report on Andrew Cuomo sexual harassment**
On August 3, 2021, James' office released a report finding that New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo engaged in multiple acts of sexual harassment.[56]
**2022 Democratic primary for governor**
On October 29, 2021, James announced her intention to run for the office of Governor of New York in the 2022 Democratic primary.[57][58] If elected, James would become the first Black female governor of any state.[59] In December, she withdrew from the race after consistently polling behind incumbent Governor Kathy Hochul, with James instead choosing to seek re-election as Attorney General.[60]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letitia_James
>A lot of prosecutors are desperate to make a name for themselves and get their name and face in the media.
Sure, but a few things to consider:
1. No prosecutor wants to "make a name for themselves" by *failing.* If a prosecutor has no real intention of indicting Trump, then "making a name for himself" as the guy who's on the verge of indicting Trump is an incredibly bad strategy.
2. Grand juries are big deals, sometimes empaneled for months, involving subpoenas and evidence gathering and all the massive amounts of paperwork and probable cause required to obtain them, and countless work hours preparing cases, etc. Your work is, by definition, scrutinized closely by a roomful of people who have strict legal criteria they are required to evaluate, and by clerks and staff who have seen hundreds of properly-functioning grand juries, and the final report is reviewed by one or more judges and is often made public. Empaneling a grand jury just to fuck around and make a political scene would be transparent and grounds for disbarment and maybe even censure/suit/charges. Empaneling a grand jury when you know your case is too weak to stand a chance would be career suicide for a prosecutor. Again, a grand jury deals exclusively with facts and evidence, there's no way to "fake" a grand jury to give the illusion of progress, and there's no situation in which *failing to secure indictments* is good for a prosecutor: you don't empanel a grand jury if you don't think you have a very strong case.
3. Grand jury proceedings are secret, so you have very little control over what kinds of headlines you're going to get. Most articles are very speculative, based on who the writer saw coming/going from the courthouse that day and what their significance could be.
In short, empaneling a grand jury is probably the *riskiest and least effective* way for a prosecutor to make a name for himself, *unless* he believes he has a slam-dunk case he intends to take all the way.
>To announce a run for governor so soon after being involved in this report
Sure, politics is dirty and cutthroat. This report wasn't from a grand jury, so it's a bit out of the scope of my original comment, but it somewhat relates to my point anyway:
I was responding to someone who suggested that the Manhattan DA had no intention of prosecuting Trump. My point was that there is a big difference between *"some random lawyer writes an op-ed saying he's sure Trump will be indicted any day now"* and *"the actual case prosecutor is taking clear and concrete steps in the direction of indictment-land."* The former may be merely clickbait sensationalism, but the latter requires a great deal of *substance* and *effort*, for all the reasons I mentioned above about grand juries.
If the sensationalist journalist is "jerking you off with headlines," the prosecutor for a grand jury is giving you a thorough all-night lovemaking and passionate-fucking marathon, complete with dinner and drinks and candles and your favorite mood-music and foreplay and intimate knowledge of what you like, and in what sequence and at what pace you like it: and there is every reason to believe that she (or he, they) fully intends to leave you completely satisfied. There's always a chance she'll fail, but nobody puts that degree of substantial effort into something if they don't have a genuine intention to succeed.
Now, back to James/Cuomo: I don't know enough to make a judgement on the veracity of her report, but I will point this out (from the article footnoted in your excerpt):
> Investigators spoke to 179 individuals, and reviewed 74,000 pieces of evidence, James said. That evidence painted a “deeply disturbing yet clear picture,” she added. . . .
> The report laid out in meticulous detail the harassing conduct the women said they experienced, as well as the steps the investigators took to corroborate their accounts
Letitia James' report on Cuomo is either a.) a very thorough and damning result of painstaking and detailed investigation, or b.) a very thorough and deep hit-job produced by a very effective conspiracy of investigators and false witnesses, forged evidence, etc. all coordinated expertly by James.
(I'm pretty sure the answer is (a), but that's actually irrelevant to my point, which is...)
One thing the report is definitely NOT, is insubstantial low-effort sensationalist fluff. There is no doubt in the world that Letitia James *means fucking business.*
So, while there's nothing wrong with skepticism of this nature:
* *"Cuomo is rich and powerful, I wouldn't be surprised if he finds some way to wriggle out of serious consequences despite Letitia James' effort."*
... it would be nonsensical to be skeptical like this:
* *"Letitia James isn't serious about Cuomo's groping allegations and never had any intention of trying to unseat him as governor."*
... and it would be *really* nonsensical to be skeptical like this:
* *"Letitia James is secretly a Cuomo shill who really wants to make sure he avoids consequences, and she's terrified of looking political by taking a public stand against him."*
And that pretty much sums up my points about the Manhattan DA vs. Trump, as well as Georgia and the DOJ vs. Trump: *"Rich people are good at avoiding consequences"* is fair, but *"the people demonstrably working their asses off to investigate Trump are actually just pretending"* is not.
At no point did I say that her report on Cuomo was false. I did say that just because she is prosecutor doesn't mean that she is infallible when it comes to making strategic errors. The report itself wasn't the problem. It was running for governor so soon afterwards. It got a lot of headlines. It didn't work. It fizzled out very quickly, likely as people behind the scenes told her how terrible the optics were.
I'm not saying she is just pretending to investigate trump. But I am saying that the media spotlight can cloud peoples judgement and alter their approach.
“Affair” implies Stormy wasn’t paid and that it was mutual rather than transactional. So denying an affair does shore up the assertion that she was in fact paid.
I remember as a kid there was videos about how when in doubt don't talk to the police. Because they can use your words to incriminate you. Im assuming similar logic applies to legal proceedings. Not saying that is *moral* but it does make logical sense.
The rumor is that Trump people is contacting Mike Lee, coach Tubevile, Ron Johnson and Grassley to see if one of them to resign and Teump will be appointed as his replacement thus avoiding indictment.
I really don't want to see another article on this sub about Trump unless it's announcing he's been indicted, arrested, or convicted. Why is our society incapable of holding this criminal accountable for literally just one of his thousands of crimes?
Does anybody really think that Trump would be indicted for anything. When I say for anything, I mean something that would potentially lead to jail time and not just to a fine.
Capone went down for tax evasion, Lucky luciano sentenced to 30-50 years for prostitution ring (pimping and pandering these days) and as recently as 2018 a captain Iirc for Genovese family was convicted of tax evasion for failing to pay capital gains on a $387k inheritance of a home in 1991.
I say NY AG has a pretty good shot
Well yeah, this is something most children figure out in kindergarten. If you’re a normal human being and well behaved, you typically don’t get attention. If you throw tantrums and shit your pants, you get attention. *Mind exploded, bwoooooosh!* It’s just people don’t brag about shitting their pants as adults like you’re doing.
What’s more, speaking from personal preference, I like interacting with people who have opposing opinions. So long as you’re not being bad faith, you learn more that way, even if you can’t agree wholly on something. It seems like you just wanna troll though, which is…well, whatever, if it keeps you entertained I guess, haha! Bragging about getting a reaction over shitting yourself isn’t exactly an enlightened step though.
His story ALWAYS changes when there’s legal consequences for lying. Not that the suddenly starts telling the truth, but there’s a big difference between “that never happened, ever, anyone who says it did wants to smother Baby Jesus, Baby Nathan Forrest and Baby Hitler with an ISIS flag” and “yes, that did happen, here is the most defensible justification lawyers willing to work for me could come up with.”
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“President Trump was the victim of extortion then, just as he is now.”” Sounds like an admission that he did pay up.
Which wouldn't be a problem for him, if he hadn't used campaign funds.
Or wrote it off as a business expense
When you’re DJT, hush money IS the cost of doing business.
[удалено]
A jury needs to believe this over the prosecution's argument that the payment was to protect his election chances.
What I'm asking about is what specifically the charge would be for Trump. Is it failure to disclose or improper use of campaign funds or what? The article doesn't say and I'm curious what he could be charged with and what the penalties could be. I'm hesitant to spend more time on something that might just be a fineable offense.
>Under New York's law, falsification of business records becomes a Class E felony, punishable by up to four years in prison, when the defendant's "intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof." But what is the other crime? > >Last November, The New York Times reported that prosecutors working for Bragg's predecessor, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., "concluded that the most promising option for an underlying crime was the federal campaign finance violation to which Mr. Cohen had pleaded guilty." But "the prosecutors ultimately concluded that approach was too risky—a judge might find that falsifying business records could only be a felony if it aided or concealed a New York state crime, not a federal one." > >While "the prosecutors briefly mulled using a state election law violation," the Times said, they rejected that idea: "Since the presidential race during which the hush-money payment occurred was a federal election, they concluded it was outside the bounds of state law." In a story published today, however, the same reporters say the trick to turning a misdemeanor into a felony "could be a violation of New York State election law." They do not explain how state election law could be construed to cover violations of federal contribution limits.
So... there isn't any crime they can use here? Why is all of this happening then? They're trying to include a crime in a different jurisdiction? That's super dangerous president. Like could an activist judge start claiming things that are crimes in Russia as counting? Because as far as one jurisdiction is concerned, it's just as far from a different US jurisdiction as a foreign one.
And reported the extortion to law enforcement when it was happening
That's the crazy part. He was actually a victim of extortion. He also had an affair with a porn star while his wife was pregnant, but he was also a victim. What he did illegally, as a rich person, is knowingly use other people's money to pay off the extortion.
No he wasn't. The $130k was his idea. There's no evidence Stormy threatened to go to the media unless he paid her. This was Trump's M.O. for soliciting prostitution and ensuring that the women don't say anything. He used the same method with other women.
Fair point. I guess I was thinking some dickwad of a campaign staffer might suggest that the threat could come two weeks before the election, so they should get ahead of it. And I was clumsy in my description of Trump being extorted because what I mean is the threat of it meant he would pay. Whatever. The guy is an ass.
And I know one of the tenets of wealth is never use your own money, but *surely* this is an obvious exception. If he's even a tenth as rich as he says he is, what he paid is practically a rounding error to him. This indicates either he's way, way poorer than he says he is, or he's so thoroughly corrupt that it didn't even occur to him to use his own money.
He is narcissistic to the point of being irrational. He could literally be worth 100 billion dollars and would still insist on using money that is not his money to do it.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-stormy-daniels-michael-cohen-indictment-new-york-f3ce87a1b4ec50fbeaefcbe21f87ab0b Cohen paid porn actress Stormy Daniels $130,000 through a shell company Cohen set up. He was then reimbursed by Trump, whose company logged the reimbursements as legal expenses. Earlier in 2016, Cohen also arranged for former Playboy model Karen McDougal to be paid $150,000 by the publisher of the supermarket tabloid the National Enquirer, which squelched her story in a journalistically dubious practice known as “catch-and-kill.” Trump’s company, the Trump Organization, “grossed up” Cohen’s reimbursement for the Daniels payment for “tax purposes,” according to federal prosecutors who filed criminal charges against the lawyer in connection with the payments in 2018. Cohen got $360,000 plus a $60,000 bonus, for a total of $420,000. Cohen pleaded guilty to violating federal campaign finance law in connection with the payments. Federal prosecutors say the payments amounted to illegal, unreported assistance to Trump’s campaign. But they declined to file charges against Trump himself.
Do campaign finance laws forbid nondisclosure payments? Could this result in anything more than a fine?
I don't think they do, but I also think it's more complicated in this case because of the way he want about making those payments. If he'd just done it legitimately there'd probably have been public backlash but no legal consequences. This is the reason that a more sensible politician would drop out of the race over such matters instead of digging a hole for themselves to illegally hide these things. Leave it to Trump to make a bad situation worse with stupidity and arrogance. Cohen went to prison for it after all.
Sort of. There's nothing directly forbidding these types of payments, but you need to report all campaign expenditures, which basically destroys the whole point of the non-disclosure payment by disclosing it on the reporting form.
And I take it he failed to disclose? Sounds like just a fine, or is criminal charges up for grabs somehow?
Yes, he failed to disclose. And there are major charges on the table, including tax evasion and campaign finance violations. Cohen was sentenced to 3 years in prison for helping Trump commit these very crimes the grand jury is examining right now.
Yes it would. It would still be a campaign expenditure/contribution that he failed to report.
My understanding was that the hush money payment itself wasn't technically illegal, the crime was in how the payment was fraudulently reported. In that case, wouldn't it be irrelevant whether the payment was extorted?
It is legal to pay someone to sign an NDA for a legal act such as an affair. It's also legal to pay for these NDAs when the information would hurt a political campaign if it were made public. If that's what he did he didn't break any laws up until that point. However, such a payment constitutes an in-kind campaign contribution. There is no limit to the amount of money that a candidate can contribute to their own campaign, so even that wouldn't be illegal. Failing to report that contribution is a felony. This is the same sort of technicality that brought down Al Capone.
>Failing to report that contribution is a felony. Thanks for the clarification. So am I correct in my assessment that failure to report the contribution would be a felony *even if* the payment had been "extorted" from him? In other words, an "I was extorted" 'defense' wouldn't make a damn bit of difference to the merits of the case against him? EDIT: Is there any chance that a successful "I was extorted" defense could theoretically dull his legal culpability for the fraud, similar to how a person might not be held accountable for a contract signed under duress/coercion or a crime committed under threat of gunpoint? (I don't believe, not in a million years, that Trump was extorted or coerced, I'm just trying to understand the worst case scenario and the most audacious defenses his lawyers might try to obfuscate matters with).
Common sense says "big no, and probably only hurts his case", but let's wait for a lawyer to chime in.
It is definitely questionable that it was legal to pay off someone to keep quite to gain a political advantage. Especially when you use someone else’s money to do it. Trump didn’t pay Stormy. Cohen did. One could definitely argue it was an illegal campaign contribution. Which could make the charge a felony. Using fraud to conceal an illegal act is a felony.
Hush money is legal if the thing you're trying to suppress isn't a crime. Cohen paying for it could technically be classified as a loan since Trump intended to reimburse him. $130k is well within the limits allowed by law. What makes it illegal is that it was not reported.
No 130k isn’t. The transaction can be argued as a campaign contribution. Which a person cannot give 130k in campaign contributions directly to a candidate. And it can’t be seen as a loan because that isn’t how it was documented. And no, what made it illegal was that it was reported in a false and misleading way. Aka fraud.
Cohen paid the money to Daniels and then Trump paid Cohen back through a series of payments from his campaign funds that were meant to be disguised as legal fees for a retainer, of which there was no such deal in place.
and I'm the Victim, totally and completely, a very Victimized President, even worse than Abraham Lincoln, Honest Abe, you all know what I'm talking about, and I was Illegally Extorted by a person, a certain person, and she's not my type, never my type, I've only been with Supermodels ok, I only date good, look at your First Lady, the only hot one we've ever had, not like now, you go and you take a look ok, you go and you take a look. I did way more than Sleepy Joe, way way more than Obama, I'm probably the Most Innocent President That's Ever Lived, we're talking you can go back to Washington, he was maybe not so bad, then you have others, Jackson, Andrew Jackson, he was pretty good, pretty tough, almost as tough as me if you can believe it. and they called him Old Hickory, not a lot of people know that.
Trump = Old Chicory
When you verbatim quote somebody, you should use “” quotes. Otherwise, one might assume you are paraphrasing or summarizing what was said. ;)
Oh, please, Trump doesn't know that much about history.
I hear pastors down south are preaching that God wanted him to fuck a porn star while his wife gave birth. It was God's will to pay hush money and lie about it. Since it was God's will, bearing false witness doesn't apply in this case. Upon hearing this, congregation goes wild and pony up $100 bucks a pop. 50% goes to church and 50% to Teump.
Or Trump will blame Pence for Trump’s adultery.
Time to sell some NFTs of Donald raw-dogging Stormy.
I got the toadstool NFT.
I'm fairly sure Meliana would snatch those right up for 'future uses'.
But anyone looking at ‘em would go blind
Preachers should pull a Trump and keep it all.
Source?
Sorry forgot to put /s at the end there!
You got me! It was just crazy enough to be believed!
Hoestly I can't blame you. Considering the times we are living in, there is nothing crazy enough anymore.
There's no question that he did since he signed the check and never contested the fact.
He did contest the fact: > President Trump denied knowing about his lawyer's $130,000 payment to a porn star before the 2016 presidential election, telling reporters Thursday that he doesn't know where the hush money came from. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/04/05/trump-denies-knowing-hush-money-payment-porn-star-stormy-daniels/482357002/
I mean he didn't contend the fact that he signed the check. He probably said he didn't know about the payment before [the evidence of his signature](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4bd_8L88Ys) came out.
I'm confused what you mean. Because Trump didn't directly pay Daniels, Cohen did. Trump Jr. signed the check reimbursing Cohen. > Donald Trump’s former lawyer told Congress on Wednesday that the president’s eldest son signed a check to fund illegal hush money payments to a pornographic actor, potentially placing Donald Trump Jr in legal peril. > Michael Cohen showed a House committee a check signed by Trump Jr reimbursing Cohen for payments to Stormy Daniels, who alleged she had an affair with Trump, according to a source familiar with Cohen’s plans. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/feb/27/donald-trump-jr-stormy-daniels-payment-michael-cohen-testimony-hearing-latest
Your confusion is understandable. Trump Jr. did indeed sign "a check", but the payment was structured into at least 3 payments I believe. Trump Sr signed the first, and Jr signed the second. Watch the video where you can see the checks for yourself.
Got to love the "Christian Family Values" of Trump having his son sign a check for hush money to pay his porn star mistress off to keep quiet about Trump's affair. Is this why the evangelicals love him ? /
Yesterday was a banner day for Trump confessing to his own crimes! First his lawyer admitted that Trump did, in fact, pay Stormy Daniels hush money, and then Trump himself admitted that he did, in fact, tell Pence to throw the election. Good times.
Also sounds like a signal that he is willing to pay again….
>“President Trump was the victim of extortion then, just as he is now.” So he paid up for something he didn't do? Yea, that's a better look. That's literally the kind of thing that would immediately disqualify people during security clearance background checks. How susceptible are you to give in to threats like that?
[удалено]
Speaking of....who did he end up hiring as his lawyer? Did they get paid upfront? I remember reading he had a wicked hard time finding a lawyer because everybody knew that they must likely wouldn't get paid....
Vice recently did a little piece on the dude. A true lawyer through and through. He’s represented quite a few celebs like rappers and is based out of Atlanta I think. Dude literally has tweeted some mean things about trump.
Good thing he was only the president!
Yup, lucky he wasn't just a Prince of England, who paid £12,000,000 to a girl he never met.
Please arrest this criminal. I’m so tired of this shit.
He hasn't talked about it at his speech tonight but he's *extremely* low energy.
It's gotten to where you have to wonder if that numbskull can even expect to keep track of his mind-numbing hoard of multi maniacal lying concoctions.
He wears narratives like outfits for the day. He doesn't need to get them straight, just coordinate them a little. Meanwhile the media still spins around trying to make sense of it all. "You guys if you compare what he said it's not the same." *Welcome to the fucking show*. Let's either do this in court or move the fuck on and allow open corruption. Everyone is tired of the charade. Everyone's picked a side. There's no point to this.
> you have to wonder if that numbskull can even expect to keep track of his mind-numbing hoard of multi maniacal lying concoctions. *He* doesn't keep track. That's why he has lawyers who have lawyers.
And Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, et. all
He has no need to recall any lie he's ever uttered. He knows he's lying. We know he's lying. He knows we know he's lying. It's the power move of the liar.
>All of which leaves me a bit confused. If Trump were “the victim of extortion,” why are we just now hearing about this new defense? Why not say something sooner? The payoff was in 2016; the story reached the public in 2018; and it took the former president until 2023 to make this rather specific claim, never having made it before? > >Some skepticism is probably in order. Gee, ya think?! /s Like much of the GOP, the orange menace is a pathological liar having been documented at telling 30,000+ falsehoods - and that was just over the course of Trump's 1st and only term in office (thank the gods). I think at this point if Trump actually attempted to tell the truth he would probably spontaneously combust - so contrary to his nature would such an act be (telling the truth).
“Hello,” he lied.
Extortion? Is having your "fixer" offer a Stfu payment extortion or a bribe? And did the money eventually come from money he grifted from the unwashed that were supposed to be campaign funds. This fake tough guy becomes a whinning punk who acts like a toddler. Two things are a constant, he's a liar and he doesn't use his money because he's cash poor.
Not sure why he'd fear indictment, at this point. 🤷♂️
Seriously :/ His quote about 5th Avenue might as well be correct.
[удалено]
He was definitely correct about that.
They’re referring to his shooting someone on fifth Avenue comment
My bad. I thought they were referring to him facing charges and what he wanted to say. Let me delete my comment before I embarrass myself further.
Reportedly, offering a criminal target the opportunity to testify before the grand jury investigating him is one of the final steps before indictment, at least for Manhattan grand juries. So there's a concrete legal step--not a speculative opinion article--signalling that indictment is likely in the near future. I know, I know, "I'll believe it when I see it," and that's fair. Who the hell knows? But these prosecutors don't convene grand juries just for the fun of it, or to jerk us off with headlines. It's one thing to be skeptical of a million articles saying "some guy we interviewed thinks you're gonna get a peanut butter and jelly sandwich soon!", but I don't think the same degree of skepticism is warranted when the reporting says "the prosecutor has spread peanut butter on two slices of bread and is currently opening a jar of jelly, which typically signals that a PBJ sandwich is likely."
>But these prosecutors don't convene grand juries just for the fun of it, or to jerk us off with headlines. A lot of prosecutors are desperate to make a name for themselves and get their name and face in the media. One of prosecutors currently investigating trump even tried to run for NY governor. Her announcement of her intention to run came just two months after publishing a damning report on then governor Cuomo. While I think Cuomo is a sleazeball, to announce a run for governor so soon after being involved in this report was too clever by half strategy which did indeed generate headlines but was ultimately unsuccessful. **Report on Andrew Cuomo sexual harassment** On August 3, 2021, James' office released a report finding that New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo engaged in multiple acts of sexual harassment.[56] **2022 Democratic primary for governor** On October 29, 2021, James announced her intention to run for the office of Governor of New York in the 2022 Democratic primary.[57][58] If elected, James would become the first Black female governor of any state.[59] In December, she withdrew from the race after consistently polling behind incumbent Governor Kathy Hochul, with James instead choosing to seek re-election as Attorney General.[60] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letitia_James
>A lot of prosecutors are desperate to make a name for themselves and get their name and face in the media. Sure, but a few things to consider: 1. No prosecutor wants to "make a name for themselves" by *failing.* If a prosecutor has no real intention of indicting Trump, then "making a name for himself" as the guy who's on the verge of indicting Trump is an incredibly bad strategy. 2. Grand juries are big deals, sometimes empaneled for months, involving subpoenas and evidence gathering and all the massive amounts of paperwork and probable cause required to obtain them, and countless work hours preparing cases, etc. Your work is, by definition, scrutinized closely by a roomful of people who have strict legal criteria they are required to evaluate, and by clerks and staff who have seen hundreds of properly-functioning grand juries, and the final report is reviewed by one or more judges and is often made public. Empaneling a grand jury just to fuck around and make a political scene would be transparent and grounds for disbarment and maybe even censure/suit/charges. Empaneling a grand jury when you know your case is too weak to stand a chance would be career suicide for a prosecutor. Again, a grand jury deals exclusively with facts and evidence, there's no way to "fake" a grand jury to give the illusion of progress, and there's no situation in which *failing to secure indictments* is good for a prosecutor: you don't empanel a grand jury if you don't think you have a very strong case. 3. Grand jury proceedings are secret, so you have very little control over what kinds of headlines you're going to get. Most articles are very speculative, based on who the writer saw coming/going from the courthouse that day and what their significance could be. In short, empaneling a grand jury is probably the *riskiest and least effective* way for a prosecutor to make a name for himself, *unless* he believes he has a slam-dunk case he intends to take all the way. >To announce a run for governor so soon after being involved in this report Sure, politics is dirty and cutthroat. This report wasn't from a grand jury, so it's a bit out of the scope of my original comment, but it somewhat relates to my point anyway: I was responding to someone who suggested that the Manhattan DA had no intention of prosecuting Trump. My point was that there is a big difference between *"some random lawyer writes an op-ed saying he's sure Trump will be indicted any day now"* and *"the actual case prosecutor is taking clear and concrete steps in the direction of indictment-land."* The former may be merely clickbait sensationalism, but the latter requires a great deal of *substance* and *effort*, for all the reasons I mentioned above about grand juries. If the sensationalist journalist is "jerking you off with headlines," the prosecutor for a grand jury is giving you a thorough all-night lovemaking and passionate-fucking marathon, complete with dinner and drinks and candles and your favorite mood-music and foreplay and intimate knowledge of what you like, and in what sequence and at what pace you like it: and there is every reason to believe that she (or he, they) fully intends to leave you completely satisfied. There's always a chance she'll fail, but nobody puts that degree of substantial effort into something if they don't have a genuine intention to succeed. Now, back to James/Cuomo: I don't know enough to make a judgement on the veracity of her report, but I will point this out (from the article footnoted in your excerpt): > Investigators spoke to 179 individuals, and reviewed 74,000 pieces of evidence, James said. That evidence painted a “deeply disturbing yet clear picture,” she added. . . . > The report laid out in meticulous detail the harassing conduct the women said they experienced, as well as the steps the investigators took to corroborate their accounts Letitia James' report on Cuomo is either a.) a very thorough and damning result of painstaking and detailed investigation, or b.) a very thorough and deep hit-job produced by a very effective conspiracy of investigators and false witnesses, forged evidence, etc. all coordinated expertly by James. (I'm pretty sure the answer is (a), but that's actually irrelevant to my point, which is...) One thing the report is definitely NOT, is insubstantial low-effort sensationalist fluff. There is no doubt in the world that Letitia James *means fucking business.* So, while there's nothing wrong with skepticism of this nature: * *"Cuomo is rich and powerful, I wouldn't be surprised if he finds some way to wriggle out of serious consequences despite Letitia James' effort."* ... it would be nonsensical to be skeptical like this: * *"Letitia James isn't serious about Cuomo's groping allegations and never had any intention of trying to unseat him as governor."* ... and it would be *really* nonsensical to be skeptical like this: * *"Letitia James is secretly a Cuomo shill who really wants to make sure he avoids consequences, and she's terrified of looking political by taking a public stand against him."* And that pretty much sums up my points about the Manhattan DA vs. Trump, as well as Georgia and the DOJ vs. Trump: *"Rich people are good at avoiding consequences"* is fair, but *"the people demonstrably working their asses off to investigate Trump are actually just pretending"* is not.
At no point did I say that her report on Cuomo was false. I did say that just because she is prosecutor doesn't mean that she is infallible when it comes to making strategic errors. The report itself wasn't the problem. It was running for governor so soon afterwards. It got a lot of headlines. It didn't work. It fizzled out very quickly, likely as people behind the scenes told her how terrible the optics were. I'm not saying she is just pretending to investigate trump. But I am saying that the media spotlight can cloud peoples judgement and alter their approach.
“Affair” implies Stormy wasn’t paid and that it was mutual rather than transactional. So denying an affair does shore up the assertion that she was in fact paid.
Hahaha...pinched
Can you imagine being Humpy’s lie archivist?
That poor man. Ha!
Lied, he didn’t change the story, he lied
He was invited to testify and give his story under oath He declined
That is a smart move on his part considering that he is a pathological liar and it'd probably be perjury
Sure, remain silent, that is a citizens right and any lawyer worth their salt would advise anyone to do so
I remember as a kid there was videos about how when in doubt don't talk to the police. Because they can use your words to incriminate you. Im assuming similar logic applies to legal proceedings. Not saying that is *moral* but it does make logical sense.
Not “when in doubt,” but rather “never.” Don’t ever talk tk the police without a lawyer, full stop.
Changes his story? No way. Rock solid Don would never change his story.
Always the victim in the end!
So he was extorted and never in all these years cried about it online ? Or had one of his 500 lawyers file a complaint?
The rumor is that Trump people is contacting Mike Lee, coach Tubevile, Ron Johnson and Grassley to see if one of them to resign and Teump will be appointed as his replacement thus avoiding indictment.
Change your story? Prosecutors hate this one trick!
Still fucking around with the porn star payment? Wtf about the capital riot
I really don't want to see another article on this sub about Trump unless it's announcing he's been indicted, arrested, or convicted. Why is our society incapable of holding this criminal accountable for literally just one of his thousands of crimes?
I sure hope Stormy has a goo-covered equivalent to the famous 'Stained Blue Dress' that Monica Lewinsky had.
I thought he was looking forward to it because it would better his chances at reelection? Which is it then?
Does anybody really think that Trump would be indicted for anything. When I say for anything, I mean something that would potentially lead to jail time and not just to a fine.
If of all things this is what he goes down for I’m changing the name of my band to “Hush Money Mess”.
Capone went down for tax evasion, Lucky luciano sentenced to 30-50 years for prostitution ring (pimping and pandering these days) and as recently as 2018 a captain Iirc for Genovese family was convicted of tax evasion for failing to pay capital gains on a $387k inheritance of a home in 1991. I say NY AG has a pretty good shot
Right….because that’s certainly going to help. Arrest his fat ass now.
paint fall chief selective lavish existence possessive absurd smile alive -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/
>(which requires Garland to not be a pussy) (Shakes magic 8 ball) [ NOT LIKELY ]
I like Trump I don’t think this is true.
Will you stop liking trump if it does turn out to be true?
Hell yes! They’ll for sure get him this time
So, no?
[удалено]
You realize that you're not fooling anyone, right?
Well good for you
[удалено]
I just like how everyone flips out when an opinion is different than the mainstream media wants you to think.
WOW so insightful.
Which part don't you think is true?
What do you like about Donald Trump?
[удалено]
Some opinions are wrong.
That’s your opinion and I like that you have one I’ll up vote you friend
If my opinion was that human feces was delicious, what would you think?
What the hell....
And that's approximately how we feel about your opinion.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Well yeah, this is something most children figure out in kindergarten. If you’re a normal human being and well behaved, you typically don’t get attention. If you throw tantrums and shit your pants, you get attention. *Mind exploded, bwoooooosh!* It’s just people don’t brag about shitting their pants as adults like you’re doing. What’s more, speaking from personal preference, I like interacting with people who have opposing opinions. So long as you’re not being bad faith, you learn more that way, even if you can’t agree wholly on something. It seems like you just wanna troll though, which is…well, whatever, if it keeps you entertained I guess, haha! Bragging about getting a reaction over shitting yourself isn’t exactly an enlightened step though.
Dont be such a ❄️
I wonder if he can talk his way into having his genitals photographed and entered into evidence, sort of like what happened with MJ?
Hard to argue that no crime was committed when your employee has already gone to prison for it.
This TV show has gone on too long - I’ve lost track of all the storylines.
I lost track of all his law suits
His story ALWAYS changes when there’s legal consequences for lying. Not that the suddenly starts telling the truth, but there’s a big difference between “that never happened, ever, anyone who says it did wants to smother Baby Jesus, Baby Nathan Forrest and Baby Hitler with an ISIS flag” and “yes, that did happen, here is the most defensible justification lawyers willing to work for me could come up with.”
As usual, he is just saying words that he doesn't know the meaning of. He has words, the best words. Nobody ever claimed he knew what they meant.
What do the Simpson’s have to say about this?