Ken White on Trump, Cohen, and Impeachment
Our old friend Ken White of Popehat.com has a piece in the New York Times about the Cohen/Manafort one-two punch yesterday. Like me, he sees more significance in the Cohen developments — maybe enough for an impeachments:
This preposterous age of manic news cycles — Mr. Cohen’s admission came on the same day that Paul Manafort, the president’s former campaign chairman, was convicted of eight counts of tax and bank fraud — weekly bombshells and improbable politics has left us deadened to amazing developments. So let me repeat it for emphasis and for history: The president’s personal lawyer pleaded guilty to a federal crime and testified under oath that the president told him to do it.
In the most explosive admissions, Mr. Cohen pleaded guilty to two federal campaign finance violations on behalf of — and, according to Mr. Cohen, testifying under oath, “in coordination with and at the direction of” — President Trump. The charging document describes a scheme to pay off Karen McDougal, the former Playboy model, and the adult film actress Stormy Daniels to buy their silence about their affairs with Mr. Trump. Mr. Cohen admitted to arranging for American Media, Inc. — publisher of The National Enquirer — to pay Ms. McDougal $150,000 to keep her story quiet to protect the Trump campaign, thus causing a prohibited corporate campaign contribution.
Mr. Cohen also admitted to arranging to pay Ms. Daniels $130,000 for her silence. Because the payment was intended to influence the election by protecting Mr. Trump, this constituted an illegal contribution far in excess of the personal contribution limits.
Mr. Trump’s involvement wasn’t a necessary element to Mr. Cohen’s plea, but he supplied it anyway. That implicates the president directly in what might be called “collusion”: a conspiracy to commit a series of federal crimes, albeit not, in this case anyway, with Russians.
. . . .
For now, Mr. Trump’s status as president likely immunizes him from indictment and prosecution. But he’s not immune from impeachment, nor is he immune from being implicated as an unindicted co-conspirator in a raft of other indictments.
There’s plenty of counterspin available, of course. Trump is pushing the spin that Obama’s campaign ended up being fined for campaign finance violations. The difference is that nobody ever testified under oath that Obama ordered them to make the illegal payments. A lot of people are also shrugging this off because, hey, what isn’t against federal law amirite? To me, this just illustrates another corrosive aspect of having an immoral man and possible criminal in the Oval Office; tribalism requires that people abandon respect for morality and even the law itself.
Meanwhile, the capo di tutti capi is giving praise to his loyal caporegime for not bein’ a rat:
I feel very badly for Paul Manafort and his wonderful family. “Justice” took a 12 year old tax case, among other things, applied tremendous pressure on him and, unlike Michael Cohen, he refused to “break” – make up stories in order to get a “deal.” Such respect for a brave man!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 22, 2018
And the rest of us?
Siri can cackling too much make your larynx spasm
— Individual-1Hat (@Popehat) August 22, 2018
Like Ken, I was grinning big all night last night and still am today. I like seeing bad people brought down a peg or two.
You can save your dire pronouncements about a coup or a revolution. Barring a huge public change in attitude, Trump will never be removed from office. Impeached? Yeah, that could happen. But removed? Nah.
But if he got impeached, well, it couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.
[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]
Ding.
Patterico (115b1f) — 8/22/2018 @ 12:29 pmNumber 9 Wet Dream…
Colonel Haiku (ec669d) — 8/22/2018 @ 12:34 pmMostly the same refrain
1) Has nothing to do with Trump
2) Well, it has to do with Trump, but where’s Russia
3) Whatabout (insert random non-sequitur)
4) Illegal investigation
And go…
Colonel Klink (c13fb5) — 8/22/2018 @ 12:42 pmHey this is the democrats have gotten away with virtually everything for 45 years no?
Narciso (bdb72f) — 8/22/2018 @ 12:45 pmDavid Kendall didn’t have his office ransacked (He was also counsel to the enquirer) this all happened months before the revelations only to be revealed through fin sec leak, which wrongly doxxed a few persons
Narciso (bdb72f) — 8/22/2018 @ 12:48 pmThey wouldn’t need to, just like they didn’t need to be told to go after the tea party. They just know to do So, just like Lois Lerner cut off salvi at the knees, just like the dubious indictments against McDonnell did the trick.
Narciso (bdb72f) — 8/22/2018 @ 12:52 pmChappaquiddick was *49* years ago.
Dave (445e97) — 8/22/2018 @ 12:53 pmhttps://twitter.com/hale_razor/status/1032035600008802304
Colonel Haiku (ec669d) — 8/22/2018 @ 12:53 pmYes I left involuntary manslaughter out of the picture.
Narciso (bdb72f) — 8/22/2018 @ 12:54 pmBarring a huge public change in attitude, Trump will never be removed from office. Impeached? Yeah, that could happen. But removed? Nah.
Yep.
Unless, of course, Mueller flushes out some solid waste definitively revealing Trump/Russian collusion/conspiracy. If the House flips there’s a chance he’ll get an article of impeachment or two but given the political environment it’s doubtful he’d get convicted in the Senate, particularly over campaign finance issues paying off bimbos alone. Who wants a ‘President Pence’ besides his reflection in a mirror; besides, for 2020 Dems, the best place for Trump is where he is right now: flailing in the White House, tweeting away.
Are you not entertained?!?! What. A. Show.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 8/22/2018 @ 12:54 pmThree number 3’s and some random spam, please.
Colonel Klink (0d242b) — 8/22/2018 @ 12:56 pmIf I were advising President Trump (shudder!) or, better yet, advising his allies (which I guess I am), I would tell them to ignore attacks on Obama’s fund-raising and instead compare this to Clinton’s 1996 campaign fundraising scandals. We learned that the Clinton campaign was harvesting illegal money from China, and it seems pretty clear to everyone but the most rabid Clinton sycophant that the campaign strategy was to ask no questions about where any of the money came from, but no one was able to pin this directly on the Big Sleaze himself, so the campaign just meekly paid their fine and soldiered on. Clinton was also lucky that everyone’s attention got diverted by his sexual shenanigans. They can also point to the fact that Trump having Cohen pay off Stormy Daniels isn’t much different from John Edwards having Bunny Mellon pay off Rielle Hunter with illegal funds, for which Mrs. Mellon was prosecuted but Mr. Edwards escaped scot-free.
Of course this doesn’t change the fact that Donald Trump, like his buddy Bill Clinton, has a penchant for surrounding himself with some of the sleaziest operators imaginable. It’s probably true that Official Washington is out to get him, but Trump is also reaping what he sowed through hob-nobbing with liars and losers like Cohen, Manafort, Bannon, and the rest of those execrable tools.
JVW (773988) — 8/22/2018 @ 1:32 pmWho wants a ‘President Pence’ besides his reflection in a mirror; besides, for 2020 Dems, the best place for Trump is where he is right now: flailing in the White House, tweeting away.
I still remember that everyone figured that Bill Clinton’s impeachment would cause problems for Democrats in the 1998 midterm elections, especially since a two-term President usually has the bottom fall out in his sixth-year election. But backlash against what everyone saw as GOP overreach led to a solid Democrat turnout in those midterms, and the GOP failed to gain the ground that they had expected. Granted, Trump won’t have a fawning media pushing the narrative that the prosecution has gone too far they way that Clinton had, but that might not matter as much these days as it did 20 years ago.
I’m thinking of doing a post on the interesting parallels between Clinton’s impeachment and Trump’s potential impeachment. Perhaps I’ll get to it over the weekend unless it seems that we have a thorough discussion of it before then.
JVW (773988) — 8/22/2018 @ 1:36 pmTrump voters don’t care and trying to negate election will bring down their wrath. All trump has to do is form a SA or SS of volunteer to deal with media vermin, democrats opportunists and republican establishment traitors. Appoint a attorney general who will clean house!
wendell (f65e2e) — 8/22/2018 @ 1:39 pmThe problem I’ve had with being happy to see people dropped down a peg or hoisted up their own yardarm is that inevitably some out there would get all giddy seeing me get my mine. So don’t rejoice too much; there are likely many people in your own professional past that would love to see you get a rough comeuppance. Remember the story of Job. He did nothing wrong and his life was torn apart. Or remember that God told righteous men who got passed over for the less righteous “that’s the way it goes”.
Recently I drew a comparison between Trump and Moses. Both leaders whose flaws seem disqualifying, both of whom nevertheless remain in charge
Steveg (9ca350) — 8/22/2018 @ 1:52 pmOf course he will (and already does).
Trump’s fawning media may even be bigger in terms of absolute numbers than Clinton’s, given that you still needed an FCC license or a ginormous printing press to be a part of “the media” back then (Drudge broke through the MSM wall during the scandal, but was still largely alone).
Dave (445e97) — 8/22/2018 @ 1:54 pmThey are working that down, won’t make that mistake again, blame Russians or space aliens
Narciso (bdb72f) — 8/22/2018 @ 2:02 pmWould someone explain why paying hush money out of your own pocket is a campaign violation. John Edwards did it with money from a donor but was found not guilty nonetheless.
AZ Bob (885937) — 8/22/2018 @ 2:05 pmAccording to Cohen’s statement under oath, the payments were made with the principal purpose of affecting the election. That makes them campaign contributions to Trump’s presidential campaign.
The amount paid by Cohen was far in excess of what he was legally permitted to contribute. The fact that it may have been a loan is immaterial – the unpaid part of any loan is considered a contribution by the lendor (different rules apply to loans made by banks in the normal course of business). A loan in excess of the personal contribution limit (as this loan was) is never lawful, even if subsequently repaid.
Loans must also be reported as donations when made, and continuously reported until fully repaid. Needless to say, that was not done.
Dave (445e97) — 8/22/2018 @ 2:16 pmAZ Bob,
It is quite possible to commit a crime between Point A (where you satisfy the elements of the crime) and Point B (where you decide to try to rectify your prior action).
If you steal something, but later decide to put it back, you have not saved yourself from prosecution.
Leviticus (efada1) — 8/22/2018 @ 2:17 pm@13. Agree. Was mulling over the similarities as well. Although the ‘character’ of the electorate today is decidedly different from 20-plus years ago as are the demographics. What should be a signal of sorts is how much quicker these days ‘the powers that be’ appear to reach for ‘impeachment’ from the tool box for a fix. A Mexican speedwrench can’t repair everything.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 8/22/2018 @ 2:17 pmKen White is a pretty smart dude.
Paul Montagu (9dcfd2) — 8/22/2018 @ 2:18 pmAgreed, I like the cut of his gib.
He helped out Patterico during the fight against convicted bomber and perjurer Brett Kimberlin too, so his heart is definitely in the right place!
Dave (445e97) — 8/22/2018 @ 2:27 pmIf I am not mistaken, the reason that John Edwards was not implicated in paying his mistress hush money is because he claimed he knew nothing about it and he had some dunderheaded aide (the one who, if I am not mistaken, originally claimed paternity for the child of Edwards’ mistress) who was willing to fall on his sword and take ownership for orchestrating the whole scheme. In this case it looks like Cohen is fingering Trump as having known about and approved the payoff to ol’ Stormy. Whether Cohen is judged by a jury to be a credible witness in this matter is yet to be determined.
JVW (42615e) — 8/22/2018 @ 2:29 pmWashington always wins, Joe Scar has said. And I believe him. So removal, impeachment, whatever, he will be one term or less. Depending on where you stand, that’s a good or a bad thing.
People of modest means, like me, should prepare accordingly.
Maybe we should just have Democrat presidents from now on. The hate is harder to take the older I get.
Patricia (3363ec) — 8/22/2018 @ 2:34 pmMaybe we should have more than two parties.
Leviticus (efada1) — 8/22/2018 @ 2:36 pmAnd now it looks like a Cohen pile-on.
It may be legit, but the heavily Democrat NY AG may just be trying to take political advantage.
Paul Montagu (9dcfd2) — 8/22/2018 @ 2:36 pm18… it isn’t a crime, as has been pointed out several times.
But wet dreams!
Colonel Haiku (ec669d) — 8/22/2018 @ 2:36 pmEdwards was more than implicated, he went to trial on 4 felonies, he was found not guilty on one, and hung jury on the other 3.
He didn’t end up in jail, but the Obama DOJ prosecuted him and made him pay back $2.1M in campaign funds. The campaign didn’t have it, so he had to write a check, he’s hugely rich so that wasn’t really an issue for him.
He’s a political pariah in the democratic party, went from white knight to knave as soon as cheating on his sick wife came out, and when he was bounced there wasn’t a metoo movement.
Colonel Klink (ce4759) — 8/22/2018 @ 2:38 pmThis doesn’t really seem relevant to impeachment, right? I mean, congress can impeach for whatever they want, the Senate can rule based on whatever they feel like, and the impeach/not impeach decision is 100% political.
Democrats were talking about impeachment before Trump took office. I don’t get how this changes the calculation in any way.
matt d (d4aa6f) — 8/22/2018 @ 2:53 pmSweet DreamsWet Dreams (Are Mad of This)Wet dreams are made of this
Who am I to disagree?
You travel the world
And the seven seas,
Everybody’s looking for something
Some of them want to get him
Some of them want to get used by Dems
Some of them want to lose big
Some of them want to be abused
Sweet dreams are made of this
Who am I to disagree?
You travel the world
And the seven seas
Everybody’s looking for something
Put their heads up
Put their heads up, asshats on
Put their heads up, asshats on
Keep their heads up, colons on
Hold their heads up
Keep their heads up, colons on
Hold their heads up, colons on
Keep their heads up, asshats on
Some of them want to get him
Some of them want to get used by Dems
Some of them want to lose big
Some of them want to be abused
Wet dreams are made of this
Colonel Haiku (ec669d) — 8/22/2018 @ 2:55 pmWho am I to disagree?
You travel the world
And the seven seas
Everybody’s looking for something
Colonel Klink, but in Edwards’ case he was loved by the media. Quite different from the present case.
Patricia (3363ec) — 8/22/2018 @ 2:59 pmSeriously? Not to hide it from his wife? He would not have paid it had he not been running for office?
Patricia (3363ec) — 8/22/2018 @ 3:02 pmIt rounds out the pattern of criminality, which now consists of:
1) Sexual assault
2) Sexual perversion against minors
3) Collusion with a hostile foreign government to influence the election
4) Obstruction of justice (multiple counts) to cover-up #3 as well as sundry crimes by underlings
5) Accessory after the fact to a foreign military attack on the United States
6) Jury tampering
To which we can now add:
7) Conspiracy to commit multiple felony violations of campaign finance laws
Dave (445e97) — 8/22/2018 @ 3:11 pmEdwards was more than implicated, he went to trial on 4 felonies, he was found not guilty on one, and hung jury on the other 3.
The Edwards case is intriguing in light of the allegations against Trump. By the time Edwards went to trial, his aide (I just looked the guy up and his name was Andrew Young) had turned against him and was alleging that Edwards had masterminded the whole hush money situation and orchestrated it being funneled through the campaign. Despite that, the jurors apparently didn’t find Young to be credible enough, hence the acquittal on the charge of campaign money-laundering and the hung jury on the lying and conspiracy charges. Again, any prosecution of Trump will probably depend upon how credible Cohen seems, and with Cohen’s other legal issues swirling around him it strikes me that he might come off as much less credible than Young did. On the other hand, I would assume Trump would be tried in New York just as Edwards was tried in North Carolina, and there’s no telling what sort of statement a NYC jury might want to make.
JVW (42615e) — 8/22/2018 @ 3:11 pmHide it from his wife? LOL.
He could buy a new wife for less than what he paid.
Dave (445e97) — 8/22/2018 @ 3:15 pm“A lot of people are also shrugging this off because, hey, what isn’t against federal law amirite?”
Where have you seen this said? Can’t say I have heard that argument even once. What is missing from your rant is the most common response I have seen; it’s not a crime. Dershowits just gave a compelling argument on why it’s not a crime.
Nate Ogden (223c65) — 8/22/2018 @ 3:17 pmWhat is missing from your rant is the most common response I have seen; it’s not a crime. Dershowits just gave a compelling argument on why it’s not a crime.
I really do want to blog about this. The parallels to 1998 are eerie. From “the special council overstepped his mandate” to “everyone lies about sex,” this is starting to seem more and more like the made-for-TV remake of a poorly-reviewed Hollywood original.
JVW (42615e) — 8/22/2018 @ 3:28 pmDave, there is no limit on what a candidate can give to their own campaign. If Cohen used his money with no promise of repayment then he not Trump committed a crime.
There is no way to spin this as a criminal action by Trump. Glossing over the fact paying hush money isn’t a campaign expense in the first place.
Nate Ogden (223c65) — 8/22/2018 @ 3:29 pmYes, I watched Dershowitz do that very thing.
But… Wet Dreams! Lunatic Fringe!
Colonel Haiku (ec669d) — 8/22/2018 @ 3:30 pm38 it would be nice if someone took the time to quote and post the actual arguments being made, by respected attorneys and prior FEC heads.
Nate Ogden (223c65) — 8/22/2018 @ 3:31 pmWho do we believe; Dave or former FEC Chairman….
“Former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith told radio host Mark Levin that the hush money payment President Trump instructed Michael Cohen to send to Stormy Daniels did not violate campaign finance laws.”
Nate Ogden (223c65) — 8/22/2018 @ 3:35 pmIrrelevant. Trump’s contributions are not at issue.
As I’ve explained multiple times, including a link the FEC website, repayment makes NO difference at all.
A loan in excess of the personal contribution limit is ALWAYS illegal, even if repaid in full.
Loans also have to be reported when made, and until repaid. This was obviously not done either.
Cohen used his own money, in excess of the limit. He said, under oath, that he did so in coordination with and at the direction of The-Candidate-Formerly-Known-As-Trump.
That means the two of them conspired to commit felonies and that Trump is a felon.
Dave (445e97) — 8/22/2018 @ 3:41 pmIt’s the 80s!
Lunatic Fringe
Lunatic fringe
We know you’re out there
You’re in hiding
But we hear your bleating
We can hear your shearing
We know what you’re after
No time for you this time (wise to you this time)
We won’t let you kill the program
Oh oh oh
Oh oh oh
Oh oh our
Lunatic fringe
Colonel Haiku (ec669d) — 8/22/2018 @ 3:43 pmYour Manson Lamps beaming
In your pants you’ll be creaming
But you won’t get too far
‘Cause you’ve got to blame someone
For your own confusion
Recognize your symptoms (all the symptoms)
Of your cranial impaction
Dershowitz;
Alan Dershowitz said the only campaign violation that could have happened is if former Trump attorney Michael Cohen did break a campaign finance law on his own volution and called the situation a “Catch-22″ on MSNBC this afternoon.
I have no idea whether Cohen is telling the truth or not, but the interesting thing is, if Cohen is telling the truth it’s a catch-22 for the prosecution. Let me lay this out for 60 seconds…
Here’s the issue: The president is entitled to pay hush money to anyone he wants during a campaign. There are no restrictions on what a candidate can contribute to his own campaign. So if, in fact, the president directed Cohen to do it as his lawyer and was going to compensate him for it, the president committed no crime. if Cohen did it on his own —
MSNBC HOST: That seems awfully convoluted, Alan.
DERSHOWITZ: — then Cohen commits the crime.
It’s convoluted. The law is convoluted.”
Nate Ogden (223c65) — 8/22/2018 @ 3:43 pmI have no idea how a payment for a NDA can be spun into a campaign contribution.
Dejectedhead (32d547) — 8/22/2018 @ 3:48 pmHere (in part) is what Andrea Griswold, federal prosecutor, told the judge yesterday:
In other words, there is abundant evidence and it is not exactly Michael Cohen’s word against Spanky’s…
Dave (445e97) — 8/22/2018 @ 3:52 pmI have no idea how a payment for a NDA can be spun into a campaign contribution.
Maybe there’s more to be learned at a later date, but at the moment it sounds like the entire case hinges on people believing Cohen when he says that Trump told him he was paying this hush money because he didn’t want it to affect his campaign. Seems like a pretty thin reed, but who knows, maybe we’ll hear other shoes drop later.
JVW (42615e) — 8/22/2018 @ 3:53 pm48. Even if it was intended to affect the campaign…how does that get wrapped up in campaign finance laws?
If there’s a legal dispute in the court system an the two parties settle out of court because one side is running for election and doesn’t want the story to tarnish his reputation before an election…is that running afoul of the campaign finance laws?
I mean…it’s an expense for the campaign, not a contribution.
Dejectedhead (32d547) — 8/22/2018 @ 3:56 pmRight. If you take this logic to its ultimate conclusion you can say that paying out of your own pocket for a haircut or a new suit in an effort to make you look your best for the campaign ought to be treated as a campaign donation, and you are in violation if you don’t report it on your disclosure forms. Maybe that’s why the GOP paid for Sarah Palin’s new outfits once she was selected as McCain’s VP candidate.
JVW (42615e) — 8/22/2018 @ 4:03 pmDERSHOWITZ: The president doesn’t break the law if, as a candidate, he contributes to his own campaign. So if he gave $1 million to two women as hush money, there would be in crime. If he directed his lawyer to do it, and he would compensate the lawyer, he’s committed no crime.
The only crime is if a third-party, namely, Cohen, on his own, contributed to a campaign, that would be a campaign contribution. So it is a catch-22 for the prosecution. iI they claim that the president authorized him to do it or directed him to do it, it is not a crime for anybody. If Cohen did it on his own, then it is a crime for Cohen but not the president.
Nate Ogden (223c65) — 8/22/2018 @ 4:05 pmAnother FEC commissioner ;
“But former commissioner at the Federal Election Commission, Hans von Spakovsky, said that Cohen’s decision to plead guilty does not necessarily mean Trump violated the law.
“This is not a violation because this was not a campaign-related offense,” Spakovsky told Fox News on Wednesday. “Yes, Cohen pleaded guilty to it, yeah Cohen paid it, but then Cohen was reimbursed by Trump.”
What I can’t find is a single person saying what isn’t a federal crime amright.
Nate Ogden (223c65) — 8/22/2018 @ 4:10 pmThat’s what I think jvw but im not a lawyer, just a possible juror type. When I heard about Cohens admission to that particular fact I thought who is old lanny representing anyway?
Patricia (3363ec) — 8/22/2018 @ 4:12 pmDo people not realize that conspiring to commit a crime is, in fact, a crime?
Leviticus (efada1) — 8/22/2018 @ 4:13 pmThe bolded part of the statement by Dershowitz is just plain false.
He is right that Trump could have spent his own money, at any time, to buy the silence of his prostitutes.
But that is not what took place. It is not even close to what took place.
Cohen used HIS OWN money to do something to assist the campaign for the purpose of influencing the election. That is the exact definition, under the law, of a campaign contribution.
If he told Cohen to spend his own (Cohen’s) money to influence the election, in excess of the contribution limit (and also without reporting it), he broke the law, regardless of any intent to repay.
From the FEC website:
It has also been reported that the repayment was done in a fraudulent way, billing for work that wasn’t actually done.
In short, trying to portray this a some legitimate, above-board transaction is laughable. Even the names on the agreement were fictitious!
Dave (445e97) — 8/22/2018 @ 4:15 pm“If he directed his lawyer to do it, and he would compensate the lawyer, he’s committed no crime.”
– DERSHOWITZ
The bolded part is kinda important. The timing, specifically, and whether the reimbursement was part of the original plan (or just part of some poorly planned and ill-advised damage control strategy after the crime had already been committed).
Leviticus (efada1) — 8/22/2018 @ 4:16 pmThis statement is demonstrably false. I’ve demonstrated it above.
Further, even the candidate’s own, potentially unlimited, contributions must be documented and reported, which was not done.
Dave (445e97) — 8/22/2018 @ 4:23 pmActually I don’t think it is.
There is no way Michael Cohen could legally spend $150,000 of his own money to influence the election on Trump’s behalf. No. Way.
Regardless of whether he was repaid or not repaid, or when the decision to repay him was made, outstanding loans are contributions in the amount of the unpaid balance, and contributions of $150,000 are NEVER legal.
Unreported loans can never be legal either, regardless of amount or repayment status.
Dave (445e97) — 8/22/2018 @ 4:30 pmConDave may be a pompous, self-important, wunderkind discoverer of Higgs-Boson, but he is not a lawyer.
He may have stayed at a Holiday Inn… don’t know…
Colonel Haiku (ec669d) — 8/22/2018 @ 4:35 pm57 As compelling as your appeal to authority is Dave, no you didn’t demonstrate anything. You falsely claimed some non existent crime was committed. Outside your head, the laws of Dave carry no weight.
Nate Ogden (223c65) — 8/22/2018 @ 4:37 pmWhat was the crime though? Paying hush money to win office?
Dont worry though Washington will win, not on that revelation but on everything else Cohen knows or what the DA tells him he knows.
Patricia (3363ec) — 8/22/2018 @ 4:37 pmDo people not realize that conspiring to commit a crime is, in fact, a crime?
We do, but we’re wondering if there’s really a crime here.
JVW (42615e) — 8/22/2018 @ 4:38 pmLot’s of folks on here saying, “I can’t see how paying off a pornstar is a crime” well, because you can’t imagine it, doesn’t make it legal.
David Pecker is on the hook with Cohen for McDougal’s story reimbursement, and Trump is on the hook for repayment of Cohen paying off the porn star. That is a loan, it must be reported, it is also in excess of the campaign finance limit for an individual, and combine that with the repayment coming from Trump’s businesses, which is also illegal. It wasn’t Trump personal funds, it was Trump Org funds, those are different sources.
Anything of value that is either paid for or used by a campaign is covered by FEC laws, it doesn’t have to be cash FROM the campaign, anything used by, or for the benefit of, the campaign must be accounted for. If they wanted to launder it through a SuperPAC, that was potentially possible, but like all things with the Trump Org/campaign/administration lazy and incompetence have been the standard operating procedure.
Plus there is audio of Trump and Cohen talking about it in the context of the election. I’d bet that with the 4million other documents that Cohen’s testimony is unnecessary, they have the document trail, as well as over a hundred audio tapes.
Colonel Klink (ce4759) — 8/22/2018 @ 4:39 pmFurther, even the candidate’s own, potentially unlimited, contributions must be documented and reported, which was not done.
This is a slap on the wrist and a fine, though. Every campaign season dozens of campaigns are busted for something similar, and you never see people hauled off to jail for it. Again, I refer you to John Edwards’ acquittal. And I would seriously doubt if it rises to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” especially if lying under oath in a deposition does not.
Though, again, it’s worth saying that there might be more to come from this investigation.
JVW (42615e) — 8/22/2018 @ 4:41 pmThe crimes were:
1) Having Cohen make a personal contribution to the campaign above the legal limit
2) Having a corporation make an unlawful contribution to the campaign
3) Failing to report the contributions is also illegal (even if the contributions themselves had been lawful)
In addition, conspiracy to do these things is also a crime.
Colonel Klink’s summary is spot on too.
Dave (445e97) — 8/22/2018 @ 4:45 pmSomeone has pleaded guilty to the crime, it’s a crime.
Like with Edwards, there is a difference between being enough to charge vs enough to convince a jury to convict. You can have enough evidence to charge 20 people, but only enough evidence to convict 5.
This investigation has gone on for a year, now the charges are starting to roll in, again, the president isn’t getting charged while in office, period. The solution to criminal conduct by a president is impeachment, not prosecution.
Colonel Klink (ce4759) — 8/22/2018 @ 4:46 pmWATERGATE FOCUS 15 ON ‘HUSH MONEY’
NYT Dec. 2, 1974
https://www.nytimes.com/1974/12/02/archives/watergate-focus-on-hush-money-defendants-strategy-seems-to-be-to.html
‘Mr. LaRue, according to Mr. Mitchell, asked whether he, Mr. LaRue, should make a certain payment to the lawyer for one of the Watergate burglars. “I asked Mr. LaRue what the money was for and he said ‘legal fees,’” Mr. Mitchell recounted, “and I in effect told him that if he had made such payments before that if I were him, I would go ahead and pay it.”’
That went well, eh, fellas.
History rhymes…
DCSCA (797bc0) — 8/22/2018 @ 4:47 pmIf done innocently.
Since Trump’s personal money was not used, it’s not going to come up, but my point was just that the claim “Oh, can do anything he wants with his own money” is false.
Dave (445e97) — 8/22/2018 @ 4:48 pmFor the sake of argument, even if this is true, the candidate still has to report all of his own contributions to his own campaign in a timely fashion, and there are penalties for concealing such contributions, as Trump fairly obviously did.
Paul Montagu (9dcfd2) — 8/22/2018 @ 4:49 pmDidn’t Mueller vote in favor of Hillary’s corrupt scheme to sell American uranium that ended up in Russia?
ropelight (999af7) — 8/22/2018 @ 4:50 pm64 just heard some talking head on TV recount that Bill Clinton campaign set aside $1,000,000 up front for FEC fines, Clinton wrote in the margins Ugh. According to the never trump legal Eagles thar premeditated conspiracy…. Except he’s a Democrat.
Nate Ogden (223c65) — 8/22/2018 @ 4:52 pm69 then fine him a couple thousand dollars like every time it has happened in every election prior to this.
On the scale of FEC violations, worst case scenario thus isn’t even a 5.
Nate Ogden (223c65) — 8/22/2018 @ 4:55 pmStory number 12 from the president, today.
Obviously, he needs better legal advice, because his understanding of the FEC laws is terrible, it a minimum that is admitting he knew about the FEC fraud, and it is illegal to cover up a crime after the fact. Plus, the candidate, that would be DJT, is on the hook for the reporting of the campaign.
So just based on today’s story from Trump’s mouth, he is admitting to a crime. If it’s only this, then it’s closer to a slap on the wrist, but with the ever-evolving story from Trump, at what point does the evolution actually become the same thing as the truth, because in reality world, a thing really did actually happen, and Cohen’s stories have actually changed less than Trump’s.
Colonel Klink (bfb04e) — 8/22/2018 @ 4:57 pm66 not true, many scholarly works on innocent people pleading guilty and examples of plea bargains being rejected or reversed.
Nate Ogden (223c65) — 8/22/2018 @ 4:59 pmDon’t ask Siri, ask Madame Pantsuit, the absolute champ of cackle.
And she’s still not President.
harkin (c0421f) — 8/22/2018 @ 5:01 pmThere are also, several million people a year who plead guilty because they’re guilty.
Colonel Klink (bfb04e) — 8/22/2018 @ 5:03 pm75… worthy of a chub rising alert
Colonel Haiku (ec669d) — 8/22/2018 @ 5:03 pmLOL, I quoted you the #$!%$ statute.
I guess “law is not law” will be the next Orwellian talking point for TrumpWorld.
There is also a law 52 USC 30102 (b)(3) which says:
This isn’t freshman dorm – “hey, loan me $20 until this weekend when my parents come to visit”.
It is not an option (not a *lawful* option) to say “Hey, secretly pick up this $150,000 tab for the campaign out of your own pocket, and we’ll secretly pay you back with money from somewhere else when we get around to it”.
Try this exercise: pretend it’s the Clintons instead of Trump, but everything else is exactly the same. What’s your reaction now?
Would you really be pounding your fist on the table insisting it was all absolutely, completely legal?
My take: the law was broken, period.
Dave (445e97) — 8/22/2018 @ 5:07 pmHe admitted today that he knew about the payments after the fact. Of course, there is audio of him discussing it with Cohenbefore the payment, you know, cash, vs no cash.
The things you’re are seeing is not what’s happening. Truth isn’t Truth. Sure, great.
Colonel Klink (bfb04e) — 8/22/2018 @ 5:08 pmNearly every word of your sentence is false, but the answer is no.
Dave (445e97) — 8/22/2018 @ 5:09 pmAs part of the cfius review, gates podesta Geithner and Hillary all supported the sale,
Narciso (eaa1b7) — 8/22/2018 @ 5:15 pmPodesta has been a tool of the Soviets since the 70s, Geithner merely a tool, gates well he was solid when he was Casey’s deputy.
#3 Whatabout (random other thing)
Colonel Klink (bfb04e) — 8/22/2018 @ 5:18 pmWith prominent lawyers like Dershowitz and von Spakovski saying Trump committed no violation of campaign finance laws, might not it be prudent for hysterical TDS hatemongers to consider their rabid accusations just might be without merit?
ropelight (999af7) — 8/22/2018 @ 5:20 pmThere is no evidence that Hillary supported, or was even aware of, the sale or the vote. The deputy SoS who attended CFIUS meetings (and voted) said he had no contact with her about this or any other CFIUS matter, ever.
Dave (445e97) — 8/22/2018 @ 5:25 pm54 — Leviticus, for there to be a criminal conspiracy, both parties to the agreement must agree on the crime that they are going to commit.
This is a very unusual circumstance where the conduct by one of the allege conspirators might be a crime, but that same conduct if done by the other conspirator would not be a crime.
If Trump paid the money himself, it would not have been a crime.
If Cohen paid the money himself, it would be an excess contribution and therefore a crime.
If Cohen pays on behalf of Trump, and Trump is going to reimburse him from personal funds, I think you have a very difficult “void for vaguensess” problem in trying to shoe-horn that matter into an “agreement to commit a crime.”
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 8/22/2018 @ 5:27 pmNo, the voting members on the CFIUS are the Secretaries of State, Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce, and Energy; the Attorney General; the United States Trade Representative; and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. No FBI. Link. This doesn’t mean that there wasn’t a problem with the FBI failing to send important information up the chain, from the National Security Division to the DOJ. I still haven’t heard a real answer on that.
Paul Montagu (9dcfd2) — 8/22/2018 @ 5:32 pmSo the Clinton foundation had no fewer than 1000 entities that didn’t disclose taxable information, what is the possible sentence from that.
Narciso (eaa1b7) — 8/22/2018 @ 5:33 pm@38. It’s a matter of ‘intent.’ Still this tasty morsel is merely an appetizer. Chef Mueller has the main course to serve up but cooks like Cohen, Stone, Manafort and such are still seasoning the meat of it.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 8/22/2018 @ 5:44 pm#3, Whatabout (random other thing)
Colonel Klink (bfb04e) — 8/22/2018 @ 5:45 pm55 — Dave the problem with our analysis, and I think your analysis is meaningful, is that it depends on viewing the payment, if Directed by Trump, to have been made “to the campaign.”
The stories of both women had been floating around for years. Daniels says she was approached in a Las VEgas parking lot in 2011 and told to not go public with her story.
Liabilities that existed prior to the campaign, if settled during the campaign, do not become campaign contributions as a result simply of the timing.
So, just because these matters were “settled” during the campaign does not make the settlement funds campaign contributions.
and you quote the FEC website which specifies that the loan must be a “loan to the campaign.”
A candidate for office isn’t prevented from taking out loans – nor is it the case that every loan he takes out is a “loan to the campaign” while he’s running for office.
Cohen can say it was a “loan to the campaign”, and Trump can say “it was a loan to me personally.”
How do you make that distinction in a way that avoids a “void for vagueness” problem?
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 8/22/2018 @ 5:54 pmMeanwhile, in news that really matters to most Americans:
“The Big Bang Theory,” a long-running top-rated comedy, will end its run in May 2019 – cbs.com
DCSCA (797bc0) — 8/22/2018 @ 6:03 pmOh come on.
There is nothing vague here.
Trump is allowed to donate unlimited sums to his campaign, but must report it.
Cohen is allowed to donate an amount much less than $150K, but must report it.
A loan in excess of the Cohen’s contribution limit is never lawful.
Corporate contributions are never lawful.
A loan which is not reported is never lawful.
If Trump directed or agreed that Cohen would make a contribution or loan in excess of his contribution limit and not report it, and arrange an unlawful corporate contribution and conceal it, he is guilty as he can possibly be.
Suppose a D’Sousa-like perpetrator decides to pull off a nearly identical, but subtly different crime. Namely, D’Sousa will get other people to make reimbursed shadow donations before he exhausts his own contribution limit.
D’Sousa (who has made no contributions in his own name yet) approaches Person A and asks them to donate the $5400 limit, for which he, D’Sousa, will reimburse them.
This (getting a person to donate your money in their name) is of course totally unlawful, but according to swc’s argument, since D’Sousa could hypothetically make his own contribution lawfully, it magically becomes OK for him to have another person make a real contribution unlawfully and reimburse them!
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Until D’Sousa actually makes a donation in his own name (exhausting his personal contribution limit), according to swc, he can lawfully suborn any number of other people into making shadow contributions for him!
Dave (445e97) — 8/22/2018 @ 6:16 pmWhy bother with a trial just hang him, (it’s a popular notion here)
https://mobile.twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1032405328493563904
Narciso (d2d705) — 8/22/2018 @ 6:20 pmThe point that Trump’s side is making, and which resounds with people like me who don’t much care for the man, is that the payments might well have been made by Trump outside of any campaign and the ONLY point of making them the way he did was that he was trying to hide the BLACKMAIL PAYMENT, not like Nixon who was trying to hide an actual crime.
There was no actual crime in the payment: no obstruction, no subornation, no crime would have happened had Trump just written a check. It was a payment by a friendly corporation for purposes not related to the campaign, nor were there any quid pro quos involved that would bring bribery questions.
Interpreting this as an illegal donation will put any candidate in the crosshairs of extortionists during a campaign, where they know the candidate will be especially keen to avoid scandal.
Does he pay off with personal money? That itself can be the cause for more blackmail.
Does he pay with campaign funds? No, that would be both illegal and stupid.
Does he do something underhanded like Trump did? Probably, and hope that he doesn’t fall under the same scrutiny (a whole division of lawyers turning over every rock in sight).
I know that people say that Trump is a crook and a scoundrel, but if that much federal government cannot find a ham sandwich anywhere in sight, and has to make up third-order crimes the prosecutor should retire in shame.
Kevin M (5d3e49) — 8/22/2018 @ 6:23 pmQuestion: If Trump could not pay the blackmail with legally-donated campaign funds, how can any payment made on his behalf be called an illegal campaign donation?
Pick one, and then prove to me that Trump should have known which one.
Kevin M (5d3e49) — 8/22/2018 @ 6:25 pm[Should] he pay with personal money?
Um… yes. If he had, this would be a non-issue, because scumbag Michael Cohen wouldn’t be in a position to flip on him and bury him.
Leviticus (304063) — 8/22/2018 @ 6:28 pmswc,
First, does the FEC consider a loan from a third party as Trump’s personal funds that he can donate without limit?
Second, I hope you are safe. Why are they calling this Hurricane Lane instead of Typhoon Lane?
DRJ (15874d) — 8/22/2018 @ 6:30 pm#s 80 & 86, thank you for answering my question at #70.
#86, perhaps it wasn’t Mueller’s failure to send alarming warnings up the chain to DOJ, Eric Holder was Attorney General then and may very well have suppressed information adverse to a decision to approve the sale.
Holder has been in the Clinton’s pocket since before he covered up Bill’s bribes for pardons scam. on his way out of office. And, that dirty scam was small potatoes compared to the Millions that flowed into The Clinton Foundation while the Uranium One deal was being negotiated. Initially, U-1’s chairman, Ian Telfer, “donated” one Million dollars to Bill and Hill’s Foundation.
Telfer was also a major investor in UrAsia and as negotiations progressed “donated” (along with several other major investors) an additional 8.65 Million dollars to the Clinton Foundation as the final details were being ironed out.
#84, relying on Hillary’s DOJ representative to CFIUS for forthrightness is tantamount to accepting Obama’s promise that you could keep your doctor, or that Bill didn’t have sexual relations with that woman.
ropelight (999af7) — 8/22/2018 @ 6:33 pmThe question is whether the payment was made for the primary purpose of influencing the election.
I think suggestions to the contrary (badly) fail the laugh test, but this is something we cannot prove one way or another, here on patterico.com.
However, it is easily imaginable that credible evidence does exist that can establish that one way or another.
I think it’s disingenuous to suggest that the timing of the payments is a coincidence. It’s true that real evidence is required to convict someone of a crime, but if we are honest I think we have to admit that the simplest explanation (the women’s silence was bought to increase Trump’s chances of winning the election) is by far the most plausible.
Dave (445e97) — 8/22/2018 @ 6:37 pm99 Dave are you arguing Trump never requested an NDA or paid hush money prior to 2016? How do you know this?
Nate Ogden (223c65) — 8/22/2018 @ 6:40 pmThat could be. I wrote about this before I was tribally cleansed from Redstate, and it’s pretty clear that the FBI NSD had sufficient intelligence from their informant prior to the vote to conclude Rosatom was a corrupt actor and had no business getting approval for the Uranium One deal. It could be that Holder suppressed it, or it could be that the FBI was too slow or incompetent to report it. Mueller is a lifelong Republican, working in a Democrat administration, so it’s not clear to me why he would be motivated to not tell Holder.
Paul Montagu (9dcfd2) — 8/22/2018 @ 6:42 pmWhy do you keep on babbling about an NDA, that is irrelevant, it’s the compensation stupid. Of course he wanted her to hush, that’s why they call it hush money.
Colonel Klink (713e6e) — 8/22/2018 @ 6:45 pm@98
Why is that?
Dave (445e97) — 8/22/2018 @ 6:47 pmFrom the Atlantic;
“Breaking up is hard to do. A pile of money and some crack legal help can’t heal a broken heart, but they can go a long way to guaranteeing that whatever bad feelings emerge from the relationship don’t make it to the public. At various times in the past, Donald Trump has struck deals with women in his life, or formerly in his life, exchanging money for silence.”
Just lost your case Dave.
Nate Ogden (223c65) — 8/22/2018 @ 6:48 pmSince Trump funded his campaign in-substantial-part from his own assets, it’s not a strech to imagine the hush money came from sources over which he had unencumbered authority.
ropelight (999af7) — 8/22/2018 @ 6:48 pmUm… yes. If he had, this would be a non-issue, because scumbag Michael Cohen wouldn’t be in a position to flip on him and bury him.
Could he pay with campaign funds? If not, why not?
Kevin M (5d3e49) — 8/22/2018 @ 6:49 pm102 Klink, if your going to make ignorant comments you shouldn’t call others stupid. The compensation is in exchange for the NDA, if you don’t understand that……
Nate Ogden (223c65) — 8/22/2018 @ 6:51 pmDRJ
steveg (a9dcab) — 8/22/2018 @ 6:54 pmTyphoon when it gets west of Midway…. says me the very amateur weather man
If Trump was in a campaign and used a loan from a subordinate to pay hush money to keep all the other bimbo’s quiet circumvent campaign finance laws, then sure, he was guilty then too.
Extracting a potential situation where the wrongdoing isn’t illegal under circumstances that don’t apply to this actual situation, is fine, completely beside the point, but fine.
Just don’t expect context to not actually matter. You know, like paying off Stormy the same evening that the Access Hollywood tape came out, and a week after more than 20 different women accused him of ickytouchyfeely.
Colonel Klink (a72415) — 8/22/2018 @ 6:55 pmLOL
Dave (445e97) — 8/22/2018 @ 6:57 pm91 how does big bang end? Death, divorce, everyone goes their happy way? Young Penny would go well with Young Sheldon.
Nate Ogden (223c65) — 8/22/2018 @ 6:58 pmDRJ, it’s classed as a hurricane and not a typhoon because it began off the coast of Baja and travelled west. Storms in the northern hemisphere and the eastern pacific are hurricanes, storms in the northern hemisphere and the western pacific are typhoons.
aphrael (3f0569) — 8/22/2018 @ 6:59 pmLMAO, Col @ 31 &44
mg (9e54f8) — 8/22/2018 @ 7:00 pm#103, sometimes a wink is as good as a nod – to a blind horse. And, then there’s all those 9.65 Million reasons floating around and letting their gravity be felt.
ropelight (999af7) — 8/22/2018 @ 7:01 pmIf the primary purpose of the payment was to influence the election, he could pay with campaign funds, or he could pay with his personal funds and declare the payment a contribution to his own campaign. The two options are equivalent.
Dave (445e97) — 8/22/2018 @ 7:02 pmWhen has context mattered? Your that naive? IRS targets teaparty right before reelection but wasn’t political? Tens of thousands of Hillary emails on private server but wasn’t trying to hide them? DC is a blackhole of context.
Nate Ogden (223c65) — 8/22/2018 @ 7:02 pmWell, I calls em like I sees em.
Why bring up a non-issue to distract from an issue. Eek an NDA, it has three letters and doesn’t matter
Obviously, that was rhetorical, not explanative. Kind of like, Keep It Simple Stupid, or It’s the Economy Stupid. It’s not specifically, “Nate is a dumdum”, but having to explain that to you…
Colonel Klink (a72415) — 8/22/2018 @ 7:02 pmWill the neocons back Ocasio-Cortez/Mittens in20/20?
mg (9e54f8) — 8/22/2018 @ 7:04 pmContext matters in law, just like intent, and performance of a crime. There are many predicates, and context has meaning. Jeez.
Colonel Klink (a72415) — 8/22/2018 @ 7:04 pmWhy do you keep referring to it as a loan? According to Trump’s FEC filings it’s an expense. Do you have a written loan agreement or anything showing it to be a loan?
“Instead, the payment is described as an “expense” that was incurred by Cohen and “fully reimbursed” by Trump.”
Nate Ogden (223c65) — 8/22/2018 @ 7:09 pmBecause they were part of a contract, offer acceptance, consideration, this isn’t rocket surgery.
Narciso (d2d705) — 8/22/2018 @ 7:12 pmHow is the 130k paid for an NDA not material to your argument a crime was committed. There is a written contract that outlined the payment and it’s purpose. To fit your narrative your just going to ignore it’s existence? Paying for an NDA is not a campaign expense. He has been paying for NDAs for decades. These facts undermine everything you claim is a crime.
Nate Ogden (223c65) — 8/22/2018 @ 7:13 pmNot just misleading. Not merely false. A lie. Unquestioning Trump supporters shouldn’t read it, because it may actually raise unsettling questions about his systematic lies on the subject.
Paul Montagu (9dcfd2) — 8/22/2018 @ 7:20 pmThank you, steveg and aphrael.
DRJ (15874d) — 8/22/2018 @ 7:21 pmUm, Trump, Guiliani, Cohen, all said Cohen used his equity line to pay it, and Trump reimbursed him, via Trump Org funds no less. That is a loan, even if Trump didn’t repay it, that would have been a gift, both are illegal as a loan or a gift cannot be given to a candidate to be used to provide benefit for a campaign, they break individual donation rules, reporting rules, corporate campaign finance rules, i.e. illegal, and if you conspire with the lender/gifter, then it also conspiracy.
You see, when rules exist, and definitions exist, and you do something that is A, you know its A because definitions and reality exist, and you use A to break rule B (and C, and D) then you get punished for breaking the rule(s), in this case, 2 of 8 felonies for Cohen.
Remember, Trump cannot be charged based on DOJ policy while a sitting president, so the remedy is impeachment, which there are not 67 votes in the Senate for. So for all intents and purposes, Trump could shoot a man on 5th avenue and get away with it. At least until after he’s impeached, which would be much more likely if he actually shot someone, short of that, it’s until the primary in 2020.
Colonel Klink (a72415) — 8/22/2018 @ 7:22 pmBecause it was, but whether it was a loan or not is unimportant.
It was a contribution (I quoted the statutory definition verbatim above) in excess of Cohen’s legal contribution limit. That is what makes it unlawful.
Dave (445e97) — 8/22/2018 @ 7:22 pmIf it was an expense, i.e. equivalent of hotel booking, then it would have had to have been reported on the next FEC report, to folks with a job, that means it would have to have been on an EXPENSE REPORT. The scheme was created specifically so that it would not be on any reporting.
Colonel Klink (a72415) — 8/22/2018 @ 7:27 pmBreaking- WSJ reports Pecker rats out Trump; cooperates w/prosecutors about Cohen payments and Trump’s knowledge.
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R) CA, and wife to be arraigned in San Diego court Thursday. – http://www.cbs8-com
And the hits just keep on coming…
DCSCA (797bc0) — 8/22/2018 @ 7:27 pmIt was a gift to daniels, if you cars to phrase it that way, so now we know the speciAL master was a sham. She was appointed after the plea was struck, good waste of time and money, in sure the southern district want short of either.
narciso (d1f714) — 8/22/2018 @ 7:30 pmWrong.
Paying for anything for the purpose of influencing an election is a campaign expense. I’ve quoted you the law verbatim. That’s what it says.
He’s been hiring people to work for him for decades too. By your bizzare illogic, that would mean the people he hired to work on his campaign are not campaign expenses either.
Your “facts” are untethered from reality.
A (campaign) contribution is [ 52 USC 30101 (8)(A) ]:
And a (campaign) expenditure is [ 52 USC 30101 (9)(A) ]:
Dave (445e97) — 8/22/2018 @ 7:38 pmPecker is so aptly named.
The irony is that, a while ago, the National Enquirer exposed John Edwards’ “love child” business, but this time around they colluded with Cohen and Trump to keep Trump’s bimbo eruptions under wraps.
Paul Montagu (9dcfd2) — 8/22/2018 @ 7:47 pm65.
The crimes were:
1) Having Cohen make a personal contribution to the campaign above the legal limit
2) Having a corporation make an unlawful contribution to the campaign
3) Failing to report the contributions is also illegal (even if the contributions themselves had been lawful)
The issue that I have here is that I wouldn’t call that a campaign contribution. It isn’t a campaigning act nor do I think that act would be to influence the campaign because no influencing took place. No one knew about anything because it was the personal life of Trump for acts that happened well before he was a candidate.
In fact, if campaign finance laws can be interpreted that way, then I’d say we’re in a bit of a Constitutional crisis.
Dejectedhead (dc85ba) — 8/22/2018 @ 7:51 pmIts a convoluted understanding of contribution, it was payment to a person not affiliated with the campaign in any way, except her abortive run against vitter in 2010. Yes the times got Edwards, but they printed a whole host of trash about another candidate 10 years ago.
narciso (d1f714) — 8/22/2018 @ 7:56 pmPaying to keep someone from talking and ruining a campaign, is influencing a campaign. You’re either being intentionally obtuse, or unintentionally, and I’m not sure which is sadder.
Colonel Klink (fb462b) — 8/22/2018 @ 8:03 pmPaying someone (for instance a magazine, TV or radio station) to say nice things about you or bad things about your opponent (by running one of your ads) to influence the election would be a contribution/expense.
Paying someone not to say bad things about you to influence the election is likewise a contribution/expense.
It’s pretty simple. If the purpose of the payment is to influence the outcome of the election, it’s subject to the relevant laws.
Dave (445e97) — 8/22/2018 @ 8:04 pmThats under the vekakte mccain Feingold rules, so the dems covering for Hillary in mass is a contribution in kind on the 100 million range.
Narciso (d2d705) — 8/22/2018 @ 8:06 pm@131. The irony is that, a while ago, the National Enquirer exposed John Edwards’ “love child” business, but this time around they colluded with Cohen and Trump to keep Trump’s bimbo eruptions under wraps.
Meh.
Donald Trump Wonders Out Loud: ‘Why Didn’t the National Enquirer Get the Pulitzer Prize? – 7/22/16
http://www.mediaite.com/online/donald-trump-wonders-out-loud-why-didnt-the-national-enquirer-get-the-pulitzer-prize/
“Love is lovelier the second time around…” – Frank Sinatra
DCSCA (797bc0) — 8/22/2018 @ 8:12 pm#3, Whatabout (non-sequitur)
Colonel Klink (fb462b) — 8/22/2018 @ 8:13 pmConor Friedersdorf:
Even if the hush-money payments were confirmed prior to the election, I’m not convinced that it would’ve changed the outcome, just like I’m not convinced that Comey’s letter to Congress tipped the scales. Our dysfunctional political parties nominated Giant Douchebag and Turd Sandwich, and electorate knew it. Nevertheless, Friedersdorf has a point: We should have known.
Paul Montagu (9dcfd2) — 8/22/2018 @ 8:17 pm125 126 an expense for services is not a loan and yes it matters. When my attorney or CPA bills me for work done it was not a loan, it’s an unpaid bill.
Nate Ogden (223c65) — 8/22/2018 @ 8:22 pmThank you, narciso, I didn’t know that verkakte was really a word. It sounded too close to covfefe.
Paul Montagu (9dcfd2) — 8/22/2018 @ 8:22 pm127 it was reported, not sure if it was the next one or the one after but it was reported as an expense.
Not sure when Cohen billed so can’t answer if it was reported timely. A late report is a small fine consistent with how all previous candidates where treated.
Nate Ogden (223c65) — 8/22/2018 @ 8:24 pmNo, a payment for professional services may be an expense, which would be reported as a campaign expense (it wasn’t), but an expense incurred for the benefit of influencing an election, and paid for by a third party, even if only temporarily, is fully subject to campaign finance limitations, and regulations, and would be considered campaign spending, either as a loan or gift.
No matter how much you FEELZ it, doesn’t make it so
Colonel Klink (fb462b) — 8/22/2018 @ 8:28 pmPaying for anything for the purpose of influencing an election is a campaign expense. I’ve quoted you the law verbatim. That’s what it says.
This failed logic has been discredited already. A haircut? Clothes? Food? All those make a candidate appear better to influence the election. By your literal, and flawed, reading everything a candidate does after declaring would be a campaign expense. Personal expenses, even when they benefit a campaign are not campaign expenses.
Nate Ogden (223c65) — 8/22/2018 @ 8:29 pm134 they paid for an NDA, why can’t you grasp that? Talk about obtuse.
Nate Ogden (223c65) — 8/22/2018 @ 8:31 pmIt wasn’t reported, why are you really really trying that hard to avoid knowing things? That is literally the reason why Cohen pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations.
Colonel Klink (fb462b) — 8/22/2018 @ 8:32 pmSometimes English doesn’t capture the absurdity of the matter.
Narciso (d2d705) — 8/22/2018 @ 8:32 pmThey paid for an NDA to influence an election, you know, illegal. Remember, it’s the payment, stupid, not the NDA.
Colonel Klink (fb462b) — 8/22/2018 @ 8:33 pmNo, since I’ve actually bothered to read the law, I know there are explicit exceptions for those things.
Dave (445e97) — 8/22/2018 @ 8:35 pmIf Trump didn’t run for President could he still have paid for the NDA?
Under the “irrespective test,” personal use is any use of funds in a campaign account of a candidate (or former candidate) to fulfill a commitment, obligation or expense of any person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s campaign or responsibilities as a federal officeholder.
Nate Ogden (223c65) — 8/22/2018 @ 8:38 pmPaying for anything for the purpose of influencing an election is a campaign expense
So. paying blackmail money to a wh*re is a legitimate campaign expense? Please, point to the precedents.
Kevin M (5d3e49) — 8/22/2018 @ 8:40 pmRight, because, CONTEXT AND INTENTIONS MATTER…AAHHH!!!!!
Colonel Klink (0e3d41) — 8/22/2018 @ 8:41 pmOne could bring up Cindy Hampton and her family, but she was an employer of John ensign.
Narciso (d2d705) — 8/22/2018 @ 8:44 pmSee John Edwards, or the law. “Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son.”–Dean Wormer
Colonel Klink (0e3d41) — 8/22/2018 @ 8:46 pmIf the primary purpose of the payment was to influence the election, he could pay with campaign funds, or he could pay with his personal funds and declare the payment a contribution to his own campaign. The two options are equivalent.
This is why I call the tribalists like Dave dishonest. He KNOWS that if Trump had paid with campaign funds, the first thing out of Dave’s mouth would be Guilty Guilty Guilty.
It is such a stretch to call this a campaign expenditure that using that in a defense against misuse of such funds would be laughed out of court. Maybe Duncan Hunter should try that.
Kevin M (5d3e49) — 8/22/2018 @ 8:47 pmThe gripes of wrath:
Don’t all y’all Trump haters feel a bit petty and insignificant splitting hairs trying to turn the winner of a presidential election out of office over a trivial event? It ain’t ever gonna happen.
Donald J Trump is President and Commander-in-Chief of our Constitutional Republic and he’s gonna stay right where he is.
Trump’s got another 6 years to MAGA by cutting taxes, reducing regulation, kicking criminal illegals out, prosecuting government corruption, creating private sector jobs, reducing the size and scope of the federal government, appointing judges that enforce the laws instead of legislating from the bench, forcing our trading partners into fair exchanges, protecting the Constitution and Bill of Rights, exposing media bias, etc.
ropelight (999af7) — 8/22/2018 @ 8:49 pmAfter all John Edwards USED campaign funds to hide his affair and was charged with multiple counts of misuing campaign funds. The FEC demanded the return of some matching funds, asserting that such funds were misused.
Kevin M (5d3e49) — 8/22/2018 @ 8:51 pmNot guilty of a campaign finance violation at least, it obviously would have come out that the campaign paid to cover up him paying for a porn star while his wife was pregnant. One’s a crime, one’s just more behavior by a boorish 72YO fratbro.
But between Trump looking bad, and Trump committing a crime, it’s pretty obvious which way he, and you, would go.
Colonel Klink (0e3d41) — 8/22/2018 @ 8:54 pmThe heads-I-win-tails-you-lose law.
Kevin M (5d3e49) — 8/22/2018 @ 8:56 pmAfter John Edwards was indicted, Federal Election Commission auditors determined that the hush money he received from wealthy donors to cover up a torrid affair did not need to be reported in the campaign’s financial disclosure reports, his campaign’s chief financial officer testified today.
Nate Ogden (223c65) — 8/22/2018 @ 8:56 pmFor someone to be convicted of a crime, the law has to be clear. If you hide a law under an inkblot, and later remove the inkblot and say “AHA! you’re guilty!” then anyone can be convicted of anything.
Kevin M (5d3e49) — 8/22/2018 @ 8:58 pmAfter reviewing the campaign’s financials for four years, the FEC determined last month that money Edwards’ aides collected from wealthy donors Rachel “Bunny” Mellon and Fred Baron were “not campaign contribution[s],” Lora Haggard, Edwards’ 2008 chief financial officer, said today.
Nate Ogden (223c65) — 8/22/2018 @ 8:59 pmIt doesn’t matter where the funds originate, if you’re spending money on influencing a campaign, i.e. getting something of value, it must be reported. Edwards was busted for the same thing AND more, hence 4 felonies, Trump is only liable in this case for 2, maybe 3 depending on how you count it. Could be wire fraud and money laundering, but let’s just stick to the FEC violations.
Trump is president, so the remedy is impeachment since a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime based on DOJ policy. Edwards was not president in 2011, remember, so charged with crimes.
Colonel Klink (0e3d41) — 8/22/2018 @ 8:59 pmWhile the FEC may have one idea about the legality of the contributions, the prosecution clearly has another.
“What the FEC ruled is not relevant,” said prosecutor Jeffrey Tsai. “Whatever the FEC determined is not relevant to the criminal charges.”
Colonel Klink (0e3d41) — 8/22/2018 @ 9:01 pmCONTEXT AND INTENTIONS MATTER
Colonel Klink (0e3d41) — 8/22/2018 @ 9:01 pm“Influencing a campaign” and “contributing to a campaign” seems to be getting the racism definition treatment.
It’s not donating to a campaign, it’s privilege + power.
Dejectedhead (dc85ba) — 8/22/2018 @ 9:03 pmBy that standard every event like Harry Reid being leaked the dossier by Steele, jecj the dossier itself has a dollar value, every press conference by alred Khan Michael, is an in kind contribution and press coverage is the same.
Narciso (d2d705) — 8/22/2018 @ 9:05 pm“In the aftermath of Tuesday’s news that both former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and his lawyer Michael Cohen were found on the wrong side of the law in separate court cases, the question asked most frequently by the press, Democrats and “Never Trump” Republicans is, “Where do Trump voters go now?”
The answer is the same that it has always been since they first started asking it Nov. 9, 2016: With Trump.
This new conservative populist coalition is not the fluke the political class hoped it was. Donald Trump did not cause it, he is just the result of it, so no matter what he does, it continues. It is predicated on them, not him.
The coalition is a strike at not just tone deafness in both Congress and the White House but also high levels of incompetence, negligence and shoddy performance at agencies, as well as inept social services, a bloated and incompetent bureaucracy, endless wars and multinational agreements and treaties that don’t benefit average people.
These voters knew who Trump was going in, they knew he was a thrice-married, Playmate dating, Howard Stern regular who had the morals of an alley cat. They were willing to look past all of that because of how institutions had failed their communities for three consecutive presidencies.
Right now the value of Trump to the Trump voter is he is all that stands between them and handing the keys to Washington back over to the people inside Washington. That’s it. He’s their only option. You’ve got to pick the insiders or him.
So the question becomes: Can the Democrats pick someone who is Trump? Someone who just says, “I don’t trust anybody in Washington either. They all suck. The Democrats sucks, the Republicans suck and Trump’s a crook.”
If they could pick a Trump for their side, then Trump could have a problem. But as it stands we only really only have two parties; the party of the governing elite and the party of Trump.
That is why they stick with him.”
https://nypost.com/2018/08/22/why-trumps-supporters-wont-care-about-cohen-and-manaforts-convictions/
harkin (c0421f) — 8/22/2018 @ 9:06 pmWhere do we find Jeff now:
https://www.dlapiper.com/en/us/people/t/tsai-jeffrey/
Narciso (d2d705) — 8/22/2018 @ 9:07 pmIt’s what the law says.
Campaign funds cannot be used for unlawful purposes. I don’t know if paying blackmail is unlawful, but none of the principals have suggested that blackmail was involved here.
The principle of using campaign funds to discover and publicize unflattering information about one’s opponent is well established. Trump’s campaign famously paid for several women who accused Bill Clinton of sexual misconduct or extra-marital affairs to attend one of the debates.
I don’t see why using campaign funds to suppress unflattering information about oneself (within the law) would be any different. Of course, abiding by the campaign finance transparency requirements could make this a self-defeating project for a candidate handicapped by voter expectations of basic decency.
Dave (445e97) — 8/22/2018 @ 9:07 pm“That may come down to Mr. Cohen’s word versus Mr. Trump’s.”@LannyDavis admitting to @chucktodd on @MSNBC just now that there is no additional evidence he knows about that would corroborate @MichaelCohen212‘s claim to the judge that @realDonaldTrump directed him to do anything.”
Nate Ogden (223c65) — 8/22/2018 @ 9:09 pmDave does cold fusion with his mind, an event at a debate is something entirely different, but it was as with all red who couldn’t find a single one of Weinstein spacey or layers acusers.
Narciso (d2d705) — 8/22/2018 @ 9:11 pmDo Democrats need to report all the fake news as in kind contributions? Wouldn’t that way exceed the limit?
“A CNN report in July that Michael Cohen has information that President Donald Trump was aware of the infamous Trump Tower meeting before it occurred got “mixed up” and was inaccurate, Cohen attorney Lanny Davis said Wednesday night.
“So Michael Cohen does not have information that President Trump knew about the Trump Tower meeting with the Russians beforehand or even after?” CNN’s Anderson Cooper asked Davis.
“No, he does not,” replied Davis, a longtime Clinton insider who started representing Cohen earlier this summer.”
Nate Ogden (223c65) — 8/22/2018 @ 9:15 pmCampaign funds cannot be used for unlawful purposes. I don’t know if paying blackmail is unlawful, but none of the principals have suggested that blackmail was involved here.
“If you don’t give me money, I’ll tell everyone about your affair, right in the middle of your campaign!”
But calling that blackmail? Horrors.
Kevin M (5d3e49) — 8/22/2018 @ 9:18 pm“No, he does not,” replied Davis, a longtime Clinton insider who started representing Cohen earlier this summer.”
I will look for this being played for the next 7 days on all news media.
Kevin M (5d3e49) — 8/22/2018 @ 9:22 pmExcept it was “don’t say anything about my boss and we’ll give you 130k” but the contract was legally unenforceable, so eat your cake and have it too.
Colonel Klink (6e7a1c) — 8/22/2018 @ 9:23 pmI would say that paying hush-money to shut up a whore–for the purpose of not losing an election–would be a legitimate campaign expense. Just imagine if Trump had actually reported such an expense in accordance with FEC rules.
Paul Montagu (9dcfd2) — 8/22/2018 @ 9:25 pmCampaign funds cannot be used for unlawful purposes. I don’t know if paying blackmail is unlawful
And the point slides right by, once again.
If it was illegal, and campaign funds could NOT be used, then proxy payments to accomplish the (illegal) purpose are not campaign expenditures.
If it was legal, but campaign funds could not be used for other reasons (e.g. a personal expenditure), then proxy payments to accomplish the (legal) purpose are not campaign expenditures.
In either case, if the expenditure was not a campaign expenditure, then the payments are not campaign donations.
The claim by Mueller’s puppet Cohen only works if the expenditure is legal AND not an otherwise impermissible campaign expenditure AND if this is clear from law or precedent.
And it clearly isn’t. It would be fun to hear from the FEC counsel in the Edwards matter about the clarity of the law. They’ve held every possible position over time.
Kevin M (5d3e49) — 8/22/2018 @ 9:29 pmWould it have been Trevor potter or Lois Lerner.
Narciso (d2d705) — 8/22/2018 @ 9:31 pmExcept it was “don’t say anything about my boss and we’ll give you 130k” but the contract was legally unenforceable, so eat your cake and have it too.
Because Trump always pays off anyone who might have a claim against him whenever he can. It’s his nature. He’s just a good, generous man.
/dripping sarc
Kevin M (5d3e49) — 8/22/2018 @ 9:31 pmNow, I will admit, if the sex itself was campaign-related and not personal, then the later payments would be campaign expenses. But I’m guessing not.
Kevin M (5d3e49) — 8/22/2018 @ 9:33 pmOn what basis? Show me what part of the law I’ve overlooked.
I’m not an expert on the Edwards case, but it looks to me like there were some important differences.
Conversion of campaign contributions to personal use is defined as
The support of Edward’s love-child is clearly “an expense that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign”. Likewise, as I understand it, Edwards was basically paying the living expenses of the woman on a continual basis, and that included specifically excluded items like clothing, food and rent. They had an on-going relationship, at least as to financial support – the money was intended to be used for those living expenses.
While the payments may have had the effect of sparing Edwards embarrassment and improved the chances of his campaign, that wasn’t their only purpose, and maybe not their primary one. There was also very much the purpose of paying the kid and his mother’s living expenses, which is explicitly forbidden by the law.
Trump, on the other hand, had no on-going relationship with his wh*res, and he was explicitly paying them to go away.
If Edwards had worked out a Cohen-style deal with a 1-time lump sum payment in return for specific rights and considerations, it would look more legal to me, although the inevitable on-going relationship with his child probably made it impossible to really do a “one and done” deal like that.
Dave (445e97) — 8/22/2018 @ 9:38 pmI knew it.
Just one juror away from all counts. Link. A little better jury selection and a different judge should seal the deal for Mueller in the next trial.
Paul Montagu (9dcfd2) — 8/22/2018 @ 9:42 pm“including” — which makes that list useless as defense. Shutting up bimbos is part of Trump’s personal budget. It is unrelated to (although perhaps made more costly by) any campaign.
Unless you care to prove that the revelation would have been harmful, and since neither one of us fully understands why Trump won wither the nomination or the election, that’s not bloody likely.
Kevin M (5d3e49) — 8/22/2018 @ 9:42 pmAnd, Dave, since we are having this argument, whether it was a campaign expenditure or not is pretty vague and perhaps unknowable at the time. Which makes it so that Mueller could charge him with a crime however he paid, so long as Mueller wants to charge him.
Kevin M (5d3e49) — 8/22/2018 @ 9:46 pm182 one juror was also accused and questioned by Ellis for saying defence didn’t have a case before Prosecution even rested.
Nate Ogden (223c65) — 8/22/2018 @ 9:46 pmO included that link from the transcript, but you’re right, facing William Jefferson’s former attorney will be an easier experience, of course why try someone in two different cou
Narciso (d2d705) — 8/22/2018 @ 9:49 pm179 I had a prior job where the annual bonus was handed out after signing a waiver for anything that might have taken place that year. Best to nip those things in the bud and settle cheap.
Nate Ogden (223c65) — 8/22/2018 @ 9:50 pmThe gripes of wrath:
I like that, ropelight!
Patricia (3363ec) — 8/22/2018 @ 9:51 pmWell, now that Manafort will be going to prison for the rest of his life, Mueller I’m sure will start in on all the other lobbyist sleazebags, right?
Or is Manafort the only sleazebag in DC?
Patricia (3363ec) — 8/22/2018 @ 9:53 pmAre you even capable of having a discussion in good faith?
I expressed no opinion because I don’t understand where the legal line is drawn on blackmail.
If the pitch is: “We’ve found a magazine willing to pay $X for our story, but if you’d like to make a competitive offer, we’ll consider it,” it sounds like pretty typical business.
Dave (445e97) — 8/22/2018 @ 9:53 pmI had a prior job where the annual bonus was handed out after signing a waiver for anything that might have taken place that year. Best to nip those things in the bud and settle cheap.
Seen a severance agreement lately?
Kevin M (5d3e49) — 8/22/2018 @ 9:57 pmI was sort of hoping for Trump’s immediate family, myself, starting with Manafort’s comrades in collusion (Junior and Jared).
Dave (445e97) — 8/22/2018 @ 10:01 pmThey haven’t even charged all the lobbyist downstream from manafort, and mercury partners is still in business.
Narciso (d2d705) — 8/22/2018 @ 10:02 pmIf the pitch is: “We’ve found a magazine willing to pay $X for our story, but if you’d like to make a competitive offer, we’ll consider it,” it sounds like pretty typical business.
OK, let’s say it was that. Is making the counter offer OBVIOUSLY a campaign expense? Even if is was a personal expense a year a go? The law you quoted does not pretend to present an exhaustive list. In the absence of a clear precedent a candidate is left to decide what is, or is not personal.
If it isn’t clear to the candidate I cannot see how a jury could possibly get past that “doubt” thing. In Cohen’s case there was no jury, he just agreed to the list presented rather than be tried on a list we have not seen. There’s an element of coercion there.
Kevin M (5d3e49) — 8/22/2018 @ 10:05 pm@181. That ‘conversion list’ doesn’t bode well for the future of Duncan Hunter and his spouse.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 8/22/2018 @ 10:14 pm191 no, now that I work for myself I haven’t figured out a way to create a hostile work environment where I can sue myself and come out ahead.
I do recall some pretty crazy ones tied to h1b job outsourcing. Thought those would be as low as it could get.
Nate Ogden (223c65) — 8/22/2018 @ 10:23 pmIf the affair was ten years ago, and the story is now about to appear two weeks before the election, that already seems pretty strongly suggestive doesn’t it? The proximity of the election is what makes people interested, and makes media willing to pay.
And if it’s two weeks before the election, and you don’t really care about any influence it would have, you could always say “We can’t make any offer now, but we’re willing to talk in a few weeks.”
I would say if you’re not willing to risk seeing the story appear before the election by waiting until after the election to deal with it, that probably means the influence on the election is important to you, and the payment is a campaign expenditure.
Generally, once someone is a declared candidate for a federal office, the race becomes the central focus of everything else they do.
The smart thing to do would be pre-emptively deal with these bimbo eruptions before declaring.
Dave (445e97) — 8/22/2018 @ 10:34 pmIF he had paid it out of campaign funds, you’d be arguing out of the other side of your mouth because your ONLY yardstick is “How does this hurt Trump.”
Kevin M (5d3e49) — 8/22/2018 @ 10:46 pmSo, can we all agree to the following amendment to the election laws:
“No non-disclosure, non-disparagement or similar agreement is enforceable with regard to statements concerning any candidate for federal office.”
Dave (445e97) — 8/22/2018 @ 10:47 pmMittens and his alumni at Bung em Young University make America Pathetic Again.
mg (9e54f8) — 8/22/2018 @ 10:49 pmThat ‘conversion list’ doesn’t bode well for the future of Duncan Hunter and his spouse.
He denies it and says it’s a ploy to flip an unflippable district. The DoJ is still infested with Obamanauts. I am becoming more and more convinced that the US is in the opening stages of a civil war which has every prospect of going from Cold to Hot. The Deep State is getting more and more desperate.
First there was the Tea Party, but that was put down by the Deepsters.
Then there was Trump, elected to force the changes needed. This may be put down too.
The next act may be acquiescence. Or maybe not.
Kevin M (5d3e49) — 8/22/2018 @ 10:51 pm“No non-disclosure, non-disparagement or similar agreement is enforceable with regard to statements concerning any candidate for federal office.”
Why? Because the Peeple have the right to know?
Where are Obama’s school records (covered by a confidentiality agreement) or the Khalidi tape (similar) or for that matter everything known by a Secret Service agent or State translator?
Care to qualify your position?
Kevin M (5d3e49) — 8/22/2018 @ 10:55 pmBelieve what you want to believe, then. I’ve explained my reasoning based on a detailed reading of the law.
You’ve provided no reading of the law that would support what you claim my position would be.
Every time I try to have adult discourse with you, you make me sorry I wasted my time with your petty insults.
Dave (445e97) — 8/22/2018 @ 10:55 pmWell the no trumpers will run and hide in mommies basement while real cowboys take care of business.
mg (9e54f8) — 8/22/2018 @ 10:57 pmTrumpets are the biggest bunch of pussies in America, bunch of 92Gs who act like 18Bs.
Colonel Klink (6e7a1c) — 8/22/2018 @ 11:16 pmThe booooooosh/mitten neocons have killed more great men and women than any other group of imbeciles in U.S. history. How can the booooosh cabal sleep at night knowing they never should have been in Iraq.
mg (9e54f8) — 8/22/2018 @ 11:36 pmIt’s an interesting question how much openness is appropriate.
Personally, I think candidates for president should provide application materials that meet or exceed what is required for high-profile/high-stakes jobs in the private sector and military:
1) Full educational records
2) Full tax records for last 5-10 years
3) Summary of full physical exam with standardized format
4) Summary of full mental exam with standardized format
5) Summary of security clearance application and investigation
6) Standardized reading, math and analytical reasoning exam scores
7) Full legal history, including all criminal and civil cases (other than divorce/child custody) to which the candidate was a party
This kind of forced personal disclosure would be a lot harder to realize than my little NDA-zapper though.
Dave (445e97) — 8/22/2018 @ 11:38 pmYour ignorance is appalling. The Iraq war was one of the most one-sided victories in history.
We lost more men taking a few barren islands the size of parking lots in the Pacific during WWII than we lost in the whole Iraq war.
In just an hour or so during the battle of Cold Harbor, in the Civil War, the good guys lost 13,000 men dead and wounded, and bad guys another 5,000.
Iraq was a great victory for America, and we are all safer for it.
Dave (445e97) — 8/22/2018 @ 11:59 pm207: LMAO Dave
Where in Article II is that required?
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 8/23/2018 @ 12:38 amNowhere, obviously.
Read 199 and 202 for context.
Dave (445e97) — 8/23/2018 @ 12:55 amWw2 leaders were not imbeciles like wolfowitz. The amount of blood these bArbaric boooosh pussies cost us is sickening. This war was not needed you neocon pos.
mg (eec9f2) — 8/23/2018 @ 12:56 amTake your head out of your purse, davie boi.
mg (9e54f8) — 8/23/2018 @ 12:58 amThe President’s power to pardon is limited to federal crimes and not state violations or impeachment situations. Manafort’s biggest vulnerability is being charged and convicted of those state crimes. My guess is he won’t “flip” until that happens. He sure is acting like he has nothing to fear.
And about that impeachment clause. Is this why Nixon resigned before impeachment? If he had been impeached, could Ford have pardoned him? I have never heard this discussed.
noel (96c84f) — 8/23/2018 @ 3:13 amOf course Nixon would have to have been impeached and convicted to need a pardon.
noel (96c84f) — 8/23/2018 @ 3:17 amJohn Dean was a “rat”. Manafort didn’t “break”.
Come on now. A mob boss President? He’d like to faithfully execute his enemies but not much else.
noel (96c84f) — 8/23/2018 @ 3:43 am“No non-disclosure, non-disparagement or similar agreement is enforceable with regard to statements concerning any candidate for federal office.”
Ok Dave, so you want to insure no businessman ever runs for President again, seems a little extreme. They are usually two way agreements, how does the counter party lose the benefit they compensated for just because the other party decides to run for President? Does sound like a clean easy way to get out of an NDA though, just say your running for office.
Nate Ogden (223c65) — 8/23/2018 @ 7:06 amSigh, such outrage. I will quote Hal here: Look Dave, I can see you’re really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over.
Patricia (3363ec) — 8/23/2018 @ 7:23 amDRJ
Thanks for giving you and I a chance at a bit of friendly conversation not about Trump.
steveg (a9dcab) — 8/23/2018 @ 7:50 amWe should do it more often
That article resonates with me for sure, harkin. There is nobody else; everyone else is a progressive, and they have been terrible for me(and for the country imo).
So how about Trump resigns now? Then you get Mike Pence. Within 24 hours you will see that Pence is going to put all the gays in camps, blah, blah, blah. Believe me, I heard that where I work after the election. So there is no point in a resignation or impeachment and conviction unless you want even more strife.
Patricia (3363ec) — 8/23/2018 @ 12:05 pmTo me, this just illustrates another corrosive aspect of having an immoral man and possible criminal in the Oval Office; tribalism requires that people abandon respect for morality and even the law itself.
Amen, brother, amen. I’ve said the same thing myself, worried that once the rule of law broke down you’d see a rush to back a strongman candidate because without the rule of law it’s every man for himself and devil take the hindmost so you’d better find yourself a warlord to protect you.
Of course, I said it 30 years ago when it was another immoral con artist grifter low-life in the Oval Office, one so notorious they even referred to him as “Slick Willy”. And sure enough, enough people have had their eyes opened to the fact that “the rule of law” only applies to us pissants and not to our self-proclaimed moral and intellectual superiors ordained by God to rule over us and they’ve had enough of the hypocritical posturing that the rule of law means anything at all any more. You can’t insist we have to follow the rules when the rules don’t apply to the ones who make the rules – we all follow the same rules or nobody follows the rules.
And that’s how you get both Trump and “The Resistance”. You’ve got the cause and effect exactly backward. Whinging about how Trump and his supporters are trashing the rule of law would be funny if it weren’t so sad, the rule of law’s been a corpse for 30 years. You think Antifa and their antics are showing respect for the rule of law? Not at all, it’s a naked power grab and they don’t care who knows it, it’s all out in the open now. Power belongs to whoever’s strong enough to grab it, that’s the law of the jungle and that’s where we’re at now.
Jerryskids (702a61) — 8/23/2018 @ 7:40 pm