POLITICS Michael Cohen Testifies

Discussion in 'Politicants' started by Unimane, Feb 27, 2019.

  1. JayVols

    JayVols Walleye Catchin' Moderator

    You wrote it fine.

    In 1971 the current campaign finance Las was adopted. If a campaign receives anything of value, it must be reported. The hush money payments weren't. If they had reported it, no violation of the law, but the intent of the payoff would be exposed.

    Keep in mind, AMI's David Pecker was involved. He has received immunity for cooperating (that is now in jeopardy over the Bezos deal). It's not just Cohen's word. Alan Weisselberg & Pecker also handed over documents & testimony.
     
  2. zehr27

    zehr27 8th's VIP

    What type of penalty is that?
     
  3. TennTradition

    TennTradition Super Moderator

    No. Even personal funds would be illegal if he indicated he wanted her paid off because he was worried it would negatively influence the election. I’d the last part can’t be proven, then no crime most likely.
     
  4. JayVols

    JayVols Walleye Catchin' Moderator

    As it relates to paragraph 1, yes. It's not just Cohen's word. They have the testimony of Weisselberg too. They set up the repayment of the payoff via a fake "retainer" agreement. It was a way to hide the purpose of the payments.

    Also, as to the checks presented by Cohen as proof in this week's testimony are proof because the fake retainer agreement stipulated 12 checks in the amount of $35,000. There were actually 11 checks, but one check was $70,000 that covered 2 months. That check was signed by Trump, Jr & Weisselberg. It's in the SDNY Cohen documents.

    If anyone actually goes to read the document, the hush money part starts around point 30. In Cohen's allocution before the court where he pleaded guilty, he also said the payments were at the direction of Individual 1 (Trump). Allocutions are reviewed & approved by prosecutors. Same rules that govern what prosecutors can put in charging documents & plea deals also govern allocutions.
     
    Poppa T likes this.
  5. JayVols

    JayVols Walleye Catchin' Moderator

    He's not going to be prosecuted. It will be up to Congress & there's no circumstance where Trump would be convicted by the Senate.
     
  6. Ssmiff

    Ssmiff More fragile than Mr. Glass

    Seems odd to write a check for a payoff and leave a paper trail. Just an opinion. Seems like thats the last thing one would do to cover something up.
     
  7. JayVols

    JayVols Walleye Catchin' Moderator

    I really don't know.

    There are civil & criminal penalties for campaign finance violations. Civil penalties are given when there is no intent to hide the offense. The thing that would make Trump's penalties criminal is that he tried to cover it up with the fake retainer agreement.
     
  8. JayVols

    JayVols Walleye Catchin' Moderator

    Trump isn't very smart, tbh.

    I would guess they felt the true nature of the checks would be hidden by claiming they would be for the fake retainer agreement.
     
  9. Poppa T

    Poppa T Well-Known Member

    Crooks never think they are going to get caught. See Nixon tapes or Clinton lying under oath or Madoff.

    Lol. Seems I remember on the tape recording where Trump/Cohen are discussing the "payments", Trump mentions cash.

    I suspect the CFO, who has been doing shady financial shit like this all the way back to Trump's daddy, thought he could hide monthly payments for "legal services". Cohen getting caught was never considered.
     
  10. zehr27

    zehr27 8th's VIP

    I think the hard thing is going to be proving that he thought it was going to hurt his campaign. He will just say he was trying to protect his family or something like that.
     
  11. Volgrad98

    Volgrad98 Contributor

    I regards to the paper trail, I don't think Trump ever considered the possibility of Cohen flipping on him at any point or under any circumstance. I guessing Trump was thinking he had a loyal dog.
     
  12. Ssmiff

    Ssmiff More fragile than Mr. Glass

    I don't know. Cohen was loyal to Clinton first, Trumps enemy.
     
  13. JayVols

    JayVols Walleye Catchin' Moderator


    Timing is only one big hurdle to that defense.
     
  14. zehr27

    zehr27 8th's VIP

    Can you not be trying to protect your family while running for president? I think it's going to be hard to prove. Jmo
     
  15. IP

    IP Grusader Knight Errant of the 8th Order

    trump was also loyal to Clinton, first.
     
  16. JayVols

    JayVols Walleye Catchin' Moderator

    Then he's even more stupid than we thought for hiring him if that's remotely true. I've not seen nor heard anything like this. Not saying there isn't. I just haven't seen a single thing about it. One thing that tells me that maybe there's nothing to that is don't you think that fact would be tweeted multiple times per day ever since Cohen started cooperating? I mean, the truth doesn't stop him from running off at the mouth, & I've yet to see this speed from Twitter.

    Also, if that's true, there goes that "only the best people" bullshit. Along with the deal master being unable to secure a deal. On about anything. He's a bullshit artist's bullshit artist.
     
  17. JayVols

    JayVols Walleye Catchin' Moderator

    Sure. But you wouldn't be having unprotected sex all over the place, at least once with a porn star, if you gave a shit about your family in the 1st place.
     
  18. zehr27

    zehr27 8th's VIP

    Most wouldn't but Trump does. It's hard to say he doesn't give a shit about his family based on how close they all are.
     
  19. JayVols

    JayVols Walleye Catchin' Moderator

    Love ya, my man, but I'll never understand all the willingness to give the benefit of the doubt in any situation and/or the unquestioning defense of this man.

    I'll just never understand.
     
    zehr27 likes this.
  20. zehr27

    zehr27 8th's VIP

    I do it for everyone. I believe in innocent until found guilty.
     

Share This Page