Doesn’t matter if it was linked to campaign funds or private cash. If the payoffs were intended to influence the election, which Cohen said they were, and they were directed by Trump, which Cohen says they were under oath, then Trump quite likely is looking at a clearly impeachable offense.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We will see what happens with this. Clearly it has our resident #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&s in a lather. I predict more whining will ensue when it becomes another nothing 🍔.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Deflating a football is only punishable by a 50k fine.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

OHHHH BOY we got it didn't we

Financial stuff - not collusion with Russia - that is what we need. Hard proof.

No, the crime was that Trump used campaign funds to pay off the women for their silence. Hence the supposed funneling through Cohen. Funneling his own money through his own lawyer really isn't that sneaky.

Zero proof of that as of yet, other than Cohen's testimony, but now they have something to dig into.

And it's Uninformed not uniformed.....and I'm the ignorant one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes you are right, a spelling error while typing with Swype on a cellphone clearly places me a step below you on the ignorance scale, everything else aside. He's a felon and he is getting his comeuppance.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Zimmerman does not like to be portrayed as stupid even to the extent he will blame his device instead of owning said stupidity.

I love the irony of his post.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Awww, you got me. I am so stupid that I think the word uniformed means you lack information. Paul S clearly has a read on you. Are you getting frustrated Donny is going down? So frustrated that all you have left is spell checking for me. Sad...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Its funny to see we get the statement "We get the government we deserve"

then following that statement some go on to Minimize the POTUS behavior never taking ownership for who voted him or still support him religiously .. then say its the dems's fault he got elected :btu:

I just thought it was funny that you tried to knock somebody for being uninformed and you can’t even spell the word. And I enjoy pushing your buttons on occasion just for kicks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spelling and Punctuation are pretty important when you're trying to assert your intellectual Superiority

Not trying to be a wise-azz, asking a sincere question.

It's not a crime for an average Joe to write a big check to make something embarrassing go away, right? Clinton wrote a big fat check to one of his accusers.

But it might be a crime for Trump to do it, because he was campaigning? If part of his motive was making this skank keep quiet during the run-up to the election, that's the crime? But it would have been OK if he did it the day after the election?

Doesn't every commercial every candidate releases, attempt to influence the outcome of an election?

Jim, you are correct it's not a crime to write the check to the woman. The issue is that the timing was during the run up to the election. I think one month before the election. So if Trump wrote the check 3 years prior and prior to his announcing his candidacy there would not be a legal issue. I think also that part of the issue is they didn't declare it so it is a campaign finance violation. The same with the National Enquirer money. It is being viewed as a way to help the campaign but not being declared which is a campaign violation of some sort. I have no idea what would have happened if was the day after the election.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here is an explanation of what Cohen did and what he should have done, that I think is correct.
Trump is angry at Michael Cohen, of course, because Cohen just pleaded guilty to (among other things) making an illegal contribution to Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign by paying hush money to Stormy Daniels just before the election. Moreover, Cohen told the judge in the case that he did so “in coordination with and at the direction of” Trump.

Cohen’s actions were illegal because individuals may only contribute a limited amount of money or in-kind services to political campaigns. During the 2016 election, the maximum was $5,400. Cohen fraudulently obtained a home equity loan and then wired $130,000 of it to the lawyer representing Daniels on October 27, 2016.

What Trump certainly doesn’t understand, and what makes his tweet extra-wonderful, is that the problem with Cohen isn’t just that he (in Trump’s mind) betrayed Trump. It’s that Cohen is genuinely a terrible lawyer.

J.P. Morgan famously said, “I don’t know as I want a lawyer to tell me what I cannot do. I hire him to tell me how to do what I want to do.” But what Cohen managed to do was fail in both ways. He didn’t tell Trump that Trump couldn’t pay off Daniels using Cohen himself as a conduit — but he also failed to advise Trump that there was a way to do it that would have been totally legal.

Here’s how.

Donald Trump (and only Donald Trump) could legally donate an unlimited amount of money to his campaign, because he was the candidate. Therefore, he would have been in the clear if he had made an in-kind donation to his campaign by paying Daniels directly with his own money. He could also have used money raised by his campaign, including his own contributions, to pay Daniels. (Trump’s campaign took in a total of $333 million, with $66 million of that coming from Trump himself.)

In either case, Trump’s campaign would be required to disclose the expenditure. But according to the Federal Election Commission’s rules, campaign contributions and expenditures made after October 27, 2016 did not have to be disclosed until December 8. So if Trump could have put Daniels off just one more day, there would have been no public paper trail until a month after the election. And even then, the disclosed payment might not by itself expose the wrongdoing.

I guess that makes sense in the sense that he might have to declare all campaign-related expenses. But there's a good chance he would have done the same exact thing even if he wasn't running for POTUS, right? So does the criminal question come down to this...was it a campaign issue, or a personal (private issue)? How about if he pays his home electric bill with his own money. If he didn't pay it, that could become fodder for the press during the election, right? So does he have to declare the money he's using to pay his electric bill for his home, since you could argue that paying it, has an impact on the election?

I don't think it's rare for people who are (1) uber wealthy, and (2) devoid of morals, to pay hush money to people they wrong. If he used campaign money and didn't declare it, that seems pretty bad. If he used his own money to make a private issue go away, but part of his motivation was to avoid damaging his campaign...that doesn't seem like a big deal to me. At that level, at this point in history, there's almost no distinction between his personal matters and campaign matters. Especially for this guy.

So when we wasn't running why didn't he? Ding ding ding

Also look at the timing of the hush money and his grab em debacle...

So anything a candidate does to even potentially protect his image, must be declared. Again, that's almost everything.

I have no problem believing that part of the motivation for the payoff, was the election. But if he used his own money, then it looks like a nothingburger, with extra zilch on the side. If he used money to hire political consultants or to rent a campaign office, that's obvious campaign stuff.

Where's the line drawn between what's campaign-related, and what's personal business? EVERYTHING is potentially a campaign issue, especially with this guy.


This guy has done much, much worse.

Jim, to answer your question it is a campaign Finance issue. Nothing to do with the legality of paying hush money which I'm sure happens all the time to various people. Now let's not forget that what happened between President Trump and Stormy Daniels is not illegal. If he was paying her hush money related to any illegal act that would be a different issue.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is anyone saying he diverted campaign contributions to the payoff? Or is it accepted that he used his personal money?

"it is a campaign Finance issue"

Then everything a candidate does, from the moment he declares to the moment the polls close, is a campaign issue.

"If he was paying her hush money related to any illegal act that would be a different issue."

Agreed. It would also be different if he used campaign money for the payoff. Is anyone suggesting he did?

What bothers m most is that he had an affair with a disgusting skank while he was married with kids. If he paid her off with his own money, I could care less that he didn't itemize that expense on a campaign form. If that's a crime, and an impeachable offense, he'll have to answer for it, especially if the democrats take the house. But on the spectrum of possible campaign finance fraud, that's about as benign as it gets. When I think of campaign fraud, I assume it's diverting campaign funds for personal use like the GOP representative Duncan Hunter just got indicted for, he and his wife committed an actual fraud and should go to prison. If Trump used his own money but didn't disclose it because it could possibly influence the campaign, then he has to disclose everything he does. Everything. Every move he makes, is a potential weapon to use against him. You can't ask him to disclose every move he makes.

No crime was committed till they tried to hide it.
Trump could have paid her himself or used campaign funds to pay her, either would have been legal.
Cohen could not pay it, nor could some corporate entity.

Just read this elsewhere

Testifying under oath on Tuesday, Mr. Cohen said he arranged the payment “for the principal purpose of influencing the election,” and told the judge he knew at the time that he was doing so in violation of campaign finance laws.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The big open question is if the paper trail shows Trump understood it was a violation as well.

What difference does it make if he knew it or not? A violation is a violation. Ignorance isn't a defense.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this is why the Clinton's have perfected and so frequently used the phrase ....."I don't recall" :D

First, I heard it was a crime if the intent was to impact the election. Now it has to do with Cohen's role?

Trump could take campaign contributions, and use it to pay off his mistress, that's not fraud? That's a legit use of campaign contributions?

What does Cohen's role have to do, with determining whether or not it was a crime?

Not easy to follow...

Donald Trump (and only Donald Trump) could legally donate an unlimited amount of money to his campaign, because he was the candidate. Therefore, he would have been in the clear if he had made an in-kind donation to his campaign by paying Daniels directly with his own money. He could also have used money raised by his campaign, including his own contributions, to pay Daniels. (Trump’s campaign took in a total of $333 million, with $66 million of that coming from Trump himself.)

I think being a crime or not is the reason Mueller dumped this on the Southern District of NY.
He's not really interested in a "it's not the crime, it's the coverup" issue.

Pointing out where people's statements on a public forum are wrong is not trying to assert intellectual superiority. It is the point of the forum. If you guys don't like it, stop being wrong so much.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're wrong, haven't you heard, Truth isn't Truth and A Crime is not Crime.
Therefore no one can be wrong, they just have alternative facts and everyone gets a Neoliberal participation award.

Even if Trump paid out of his own pocket he would still have to disclose it.

For Trump to be looking at a criminal vs civil complaint I believe he would have had to known what he was doing was illegal. Cohen's council seems to be pretty confident he did...we'll see.

That was sarcasm, I don’t really think you are intellectually superior to me.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

but it sure does make the liberals pissy...:laugha:

I Zimmerman really still embarrassed about being Stupedd?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why does your opinion matter here?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Baby needs new shewz
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Little man, you can hide behind the computer screen in your basement an be a tough guy but I have no more time for your jackasstical behavior.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You should look at the post you made. There is nothing in it that implied that you think I am intellectually Superior. You weren't being sarcastic, you were being a sea dangle.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

All campaign funds are for the purpose of influencing an election. I don't understand what you are getting at here. If the money was not a campaign finance violation, then what violation exists?

Mark Levin, referring to the federal campaign laws, says that a campaign expenditure is solely for campaign activity. A candidate who spends his own money or even corporate money for an event that occurred not as a result of a campaign is not a campaign expenditure.

The event for which the expenditure was made in this case occurred before the campaign. The expenditure, itself, is not a violation. Neither was the "event." Now if the "event" is construed as being the suppression, the hushing, of the original event, then, regardless of what Cohen said, Trump can reasonably and legitimately say that it was to hide the affair from his wife, or family.