But did the $130,000 really come from Trump? Is there evidence that Trump reimbursed Cohen? If the payment was just coordinated between them, then it's still illegal.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
F.B.I raids the office of Trump’s personal lawyer.
- Thread starter fantome profane
- Start date
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Apparentl the lawyers and officers of the Justice Department disagree with you. Do you know something they don't?
Thank you. I hadn't seen that. (I haven't kept up with either of these cases.) I wonder if Cohen's plan to answer no questions and seek an emergency stay in the defamation suit is all kind of sudden and because of something found in the search?
(I must say I find Mr. Avenatti distractingly hot. I'd answer his questions.)
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
That would, of course, be a tacit admission that the liason between Trump and Daniels did actually occur, though, and I don't see Trump admitting to anything that might open him up to criticism, no matter h9w blindingly obvious it is to the rest of us.
My brother, aged about 6, was once left alone at a table with a chocolate milkshake. While everyone was elsewhere, there was a loud crash and a cry, my parents, grandparents and I rushed back in to see my brother, now covered in chocolate milk and with a shattered glass and puďdle on the floor, stared at everyone with shocked, wide eyes, then after a frozen second, said "the fan blew it over", and he refused to admit any fault. It didn't matter he was covered in milk and what had happened was obvious, the important thing to him was denying fault. Trump's pretty much the same. The only difference is that as he got older, my brother had the good grace and enough personal growth to become deeply embarrassed by his actions. I imagine Trump would continue denying fault even if notarised step by step HD tapes emerged of him planning his schemes.
This reminds me of a story where one of my employees was parking her SUV but ended up plowing into a brick wall. By the time I got in, I saw a damaged brick wall and bricks strewn about. She tried to tell me that the wall "just fell" all by itself. She later came clean and admitted that she hit the wall, but I still chuckle about it.
But I guess there are times when such things do happen all by themselves, as demonstrated in this video:
Trump's excuses are not really as good as your 6-year-old brother's. Didn't Trump claim that the Access Hollywood tape of him bragging about sexually assaulting women was fake, doctored, that he didn't say that?
I predict that Melania will make out well when she divorces Trump.
We are talking about Trump. The truth is irrelevant.
I do suspect the money came from Trump, or at least there was a promise of reimbursement. No, I don’t have evidence of this, just common sense.
But it does not matter. All they have to do is say the money came from Trump and presto - a completely legal donation to his own campaign.
Riders
Well-Known Member
Sorry didnt think it would come out like that. Um Stormy Daniels rich porn star does not need his money. Sure she got expensive gifts from him for sleeping with him.But being beautiful doesn't mean she asked for money. Her asking for hush money would come off like a threat to Trump.
I agree on all fronts here. And surely Trump could show that he somehow paid Cohen at least that much--Trump seems to have kept Cohen busy all these years.
Thermos aquaticus
Well-Known Member
And just to be fair, it is very wise for an innocent person to plead the fifth in many instances. It is very unfair to assume guilt because someone uses their constitutional rights.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
"A $130,000 payment by President Donald Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen to the adult-film actress Stormy Daniels may have amounted to an illegal contribution to the Trump campaign, according to Trevor Potter, a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission.
Cohen has acknowledged using his personal money to pay Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford. She has said the payment was designed to keep her from sharing details of an affair she says she had with Trump in 2006. Cohen has said he was not reimbursed for the payment, which was made 11 days before the 2016 US presidential election. He has also denied that Trump had an affair with Daniels.
But Potter, who was appointed to the FEC by President George H.W. Bush, told Anderson Cooper in a "60 Minutes" interview that aired last month that Cohen's payment may have violated campaign-finance laws, which the special counsel Robert Mueller could use in his mounting case against the president.
"The payment of the money just creates an enormous legal mess for, I think, Trump, for Cohen, and anyone else who was involved in this in the campaign," Potter said.
Potter said what he described as Cohen's "hush money" to Daniels could be considered an "in-kind contribution by Cohen to the Trump campaign, which is about $126,500 above what he's allowed to give."
On Monday, the FBI raided Cohen's Manhattan office and seized documents connected to his payment to Clifford. The raid came after a referral from Mueller's office, according to Cohen's lawyer.
If Cohen is claiming to have made the transaction on behalf of his friend and longtime client Trump, the situation could be seen by Mueller and those investigating the Trump campaign as a "coordinated, illegal, in-kind contribution by Cohen for the purpose of influencing the election," Potter said, adding that it didn't matter whether Trump paid Cohen back at a later time.
"If he was then reimbursed by the president, that doesn't remove the fact that the initial payment violated Cohen's contribution limits," Potter said."
'60 Minutes' broke down how Mueller could use the Stormy Daniels 'hush money' payment into his investigation
I don't think that is true. But I am not a legal scholar.
If things were as simple as that, why did Trump deny it? Why did Cohen claim it?
I'm pretty sure that they all broke the law. They knew that they were breaking the law. That's why they're lying.
Maybe they are lying for some other reason. What might that be?
Tom
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Sorry, but the timing of the payment clearly makes it obvious that it was a campaign contribution. Keeping her from speaking before the election makes it one. And I love how you attack a relatively honest pron star in defense of a lying, incompetent racist.
Perhaps it's related to the pre-nup. Trump confessing to adultery might be Melania's ticket out.
Why would Melania want a ticket out of the Trump billions?
She is not going to do as well as a model as she did before Barron, and even then she was willing to marry Trump.
Ewwwwe.
Tom
I had not thought of that. It makes sense.
Prenump could sometimes spell trouble in the event they cheat the spouse makes out with half the rich persons money. Just depends.
Given Melania's body language, the way she is away from him so much (wasn't she very late moving from New York into the White House, instead staying with Barron in New York?), the public humiliation he puts her through, the horrible life the Trumps are living now (not to mention that I'm sure he rages much of the time, and is said to be spending an inordinate amount of time in bed eating and watching TV), and I presume that she finds him physically unattractive like Stormy Daniels said she did - I'm assuming that she would take the divorce if there was a golden parachute attached.
Of course, she could leave with nothing but the boy and the clothes on her back and do well with book and other media opportunities, but that's probably in the $10-25 million dollar range, and I'm sure she'd prefer hundreds of millions in a divorce settlement.
That’s not apparent at all. The reports are based on innuendo, opinions and anonymous leaks. I don’t need to know more than them, but then you don’t know more than anyone else either.
Oh, the “obvious” argument. I haven’t “attacked” a porn star. She has opened herself to scrutiny by making public accusations and statements. There is no evidence Trump is “a lying incompetent racist”. You are demonstrating an “obvious” bias against Trump.