National Enquirer publisher says they paid off Playboy model Karen McDougal in concert with Trump’s presidential campaign

[Jezcoe]

@DougBH

@Guntsu

This wont be enough for Senate Republicans to convict…it has exposed the president however and I personally feel this is just the start of the campaign finance fiasco.

But still not enough…no what’s going to push this over the edge is what’s to come…

If he is a proven or admitted tax cheat like Manafort and Cohen, that should do it.,

Well… the likelihood of that is really really high.

[Plasmaball]

It wont…zantax had it right when he said if trump is polling at 80% they wont go after him…that ceiling has to drop first

[Samm]

I think we have already had this conversation.

[Samm]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@Samm

Citing a credible source is not an appeal to authority.

—————

The sentence he received was as I stated.

—————

Yes the law does state that. It also defines personal use as I said. It does not matter whether that might be a hard sell in court or not, it is still a legitimate point of defense.

I would not consider a famous anti-campaign finance law activist and spokesperson a “credible source” for criminal charges. That’s not the FEC’s job.

The sentencing memo spends 4 or 5 pages explaining exactly how the campaign finance violations are included in the sentencing formula.

The law does not define “personal use”. Feel free to provide a statute to prove me wrong.

Sounds like grounds for appeal.

And yes, the law does define personal use exactly as I stated. It is certainly debatable on a case by case basis, but paying off people to buy their silence about an embarrassing and/or potentially litigious situation is certainly a reasonable outside of a candidate’s campaign.

[adroit]

@Samm

@TheDoctorIsIn

@Samm

Citing a credible source is not an appeal to authority.

—————

The sentence he received was as I stated.

—————

Yes the law does state that. It also defines personal use as I said. It does not matter whether that might be a hard sell in court or not, it is still a legitimate point of defense.

I would not consider a famous anti-campaign finance law activist and spokesperson a “credible source” for criminal charges. That’s not the FEC’s job.

The sentencing memo spends 4 or 5 pages explaining exactly how the campaign finance violations are included in the sentencing formula.

The law does not define “personal use”. Feel free to provide a statute to prove me wrong.

Sounds like grounds for appeal.

And yes, the law does define personal use exactly as I stated. It is certainly debatable on a case by case basis, but paying off people to buy their silence about an embarrassing and/or potentially litigious situation is certainly a reasonable outside of a candidate’s campaign.

He pled. He can’t appeal.

[NebraskaFootball]

@adroit

@Samm

@TheDoctorIsIn

@Samm

Citing a credible source is not an appeal to authority.

—————

The sentence he received was as I stated.

—————

Yes the law does state that. It also defines personal use as I said. It does not matter whether that might be a hard sell in court or not, it is still a legitimate point of defense.

I would not consider a famous anti-campaign finance law activist and spokesperson a “credible source” for criminal charges. That’s not the FEC’s job.

The sentencing memo spends 4 or 5 pages explaining exactly how the campaign finance violations are included in the sentencing formula.

The law does not define “personal use”. Feel free to provide a statute to prove me wrong.

Sounds like grounds for appeal.

And yes, the law does define personal use exactly as I stated. It is certainly debatable on a case by case basis, but paying off people to buy their silence about an embarrassing and/or potentially litigious situation is certainly a reasonable outside of a candidate’s campaign.

He pled. He can’t appeal.

It’s amazing how little some here understand or know about basic things like a plea agreement. Wow.

[ComfortablyNumb]

@Samm

@ComfortablyNumb

@Samm

@ComfortablyNumb

@Samm

He’s not going to jail for paying Stormy and the PB model to keep their mouths shut. And in fact, former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith says that such payments do NOT constitute campaign contributions, and therefore, do NOT constitute a violation of the law. That whole situation is really nothing more than a media sensation hyped all out of proportion to sell newspapers and damage Trump.

He is correct. The framing of the argument as you have done, would not equal the criminal conspiracy that places Trump at risk. But that’s the thing about false framing of arguments. Frame them in a fashion that sets up a straw-man, and it becomes easy to knock them down.

President Trump instead engaged in a criminal conspiracy, with shell companies, falsified book-keeping, and a discussed plan to withhold information from the public, so as to steal the election. No amount of false framing changes these alleged facts as offered by the Prosecutors in the southern district of New York.

The only questions that remain, are whether you believe President Trump, the man who always lies and has lied repeatedly about this issue? Or will you believe the career Prosecutors who have been appointed by President Trump, and have spent their entire adult lives upholding the rule of law.

Where do you stand, in the face of these undeniable facts?

I understand that those things have nothing to do with the OP topic.

These are the realities of these events. Ignoring them does you no favors.

I’m not ignoring them. I merely said they have nothing to do with the OP topic.

Well now that you are not ignoring them, will you weigh in on them, as they are relevant and pertinent to the discussion as started by the OP?

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@Samm

Sounds like grounds for appeal.

I know other posters have already pointed out that Cohen waived his right to appeal by pleading guilty, but I’m interested in what grounds for appeal you see.

[Samm]

If Cohen was promised a lessor sentence by the Prosecutor for pleading to a violation that does not warrant jail time (campaign violations occur commonly and the penalty is virtually always a fine) and then the Judge added to his sentence instead, he could appeal. Particularly since it was not proven that the hush money was a campaign violation. That was the charge and the Prosecutor apparently convinced Cohen to admit that it was, but that is not proof that the statute was actually violated. It can be argued that he was coerced into pleading guilty to something that may not actually be a violation in the hope of getting a lighter sentence. Coercion is always grounds for appeal.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@Samm

If Cohen was promised a lessor sentence by the Prosecutor for pleading to a violation that does not warrant jail time (campaign violations occur commonly and the penalty is virtually always a fine) and then the Judge added to his sentence instead, he could appeal. Particularly since it was not proven that the hush money was a campaign violation. That was the charge and the Prosecutor apparently convinced Cohen to admit that it was, but that is not proof that the statute was actually violated. It can be argued that he was coerced into pleading guilty to something that may not actually be a violation in the hope of getting a lighter sentence. Coercion is always grounds for appeal.

Let me try to explain this to you one more time.

Cohen pled guilty. The prosecutors dont need to “prove” that he violated campaign finance laws because he admitted to it, and voluntarily chose to plead guilty.

You are correct in saying that most campaign violations only result in a fine. That is because most campaign finance violations are unintentional and in good faith - accidentally accepting too much money from a donor, missing reporting deadlines, etc.

When there is evidence that the violations are not unintentional - that they were made with the intent to defraud the system - then they become criminal violations, rather than just civil fines.

See D’Souza and Edwards for reference.

Since I know you’re probably not even going to read my post, here’s a FOX talking head to explain it to you:

Judge Napolitano Disproves Fox & Friends' Pro-Trump Talking Points Live On Air

[ComfortablyNumb]

@Samm

If Cohen was promised a lessor sentence by the Prosecutor for pleading to a violation that does not warrant jail time (campaign violations occur commonly and the penalty is virtually always a fine) and then the Judge added to his sentence instead, he could appeal. Particularly since it was not proven that the hush money was a campaign violation. That was the charge and the Prosecutor apparently convinced Cohen to admit that it was, but that is not proof that the statute was actually violated. It can be argued that he was coerced into pleading guilty to something that may not actually be a violation in the hope of getting a lighter sentence. Coercion is always grounds for appeal.

The SDNY Prosecutors, the Judge who sentenced Mr. Cohen, and even the President Donald Trump friendly Judge Napolitano disagree with your analysis.

Fox News’ Napolitano Says Trump is an ‘Unindicted Co-Conspirator’: ‘Ample...

Professor Jonathan Turley agrees.

Turley on Cohen Plea Deal: Trump Could Be 'Unindicted Co-Conspirator' on...

As do a slew of legal analysts.

[lulubee]

@Samm

If Cohen was promised a lessor sentence by the Prosecutor for pleading to a violation that does not warrant jail time (campaign violations occur commonly and the penalty is virtually always a fine) and then the Judge added to his sentence instead, he could appeal. Particularly since it was not proven that the hush money was a campaign violation. That was the charge and the Prosecutor apparently convinced Cohen to admit that it was, but that is not proof that the statute was actually violated. It can be argued that he was coerced into pleading guilty to something that may not actually be a violation in the hope of getting a lighter sentence. Coercion is always grounds for appeal.

You should call Cohen’s attorneys ASAP and let them know this important information. You will be a hero and famous!

[Samm]

The three of you have completely missed the point. The point is, dispite Cohen’s admission that he understood the hush money was to keep the stories out of the campaign, there has been no judicial determination that it was a campaign expenditure and not a personal one. And just because some legal minds have expressed the opinion that it was a campaign contribution, does not over rule the opinions of legal minds who say it was not. The question is still open regardless of what you choose to believe.

[Plasmaball]

accept it was proven…AMI and Cohen admitted this. there was no coercion either. Cohen admitted this of his own free will and Pecker (ami ) got immunity. there is literally nothing to argue about here.

[Plasmaball]

good god those three are morons

[Plasmaball]

he got 3 years for admitting to it…Like years for ■■■■■■■ admitting what you are syaing he didnt…This is a waste of time.

[kingarthur65]

@Samm

Sounds like grounds for appeal.

And yes, the law does define personal use exactly as I stated. It is certainly debatable on a case by case basis, but paying off people to buy their silence about an embarrassing and/or potentially litigious situation is certainly a reasonable outside of a candidate’s campaign.

I don’t think he can use the personal use defense if he and Pecker conspired to find stories involving women that AMI would “catch and kill” Cohen, Pecker and Trump apparently discussed paying off women like Stormy and McDougal when the three of them had a discussion about Pecker’s role in the campaign.

[RoyalBlue]

@Samm

Sounds like grounds for appeal

Smh…An 18 year old college freshman in Criminal Justice 101 knows better than this. You obviously have no idea what you’re talking about. You cant appeal after you plea.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

Well, that’s not true. There has been a “judicial determination” on the subject.

During John Edwards’ trial, his lawyers tried to make the same argument that you’re making - to get the charges dismissed by claiming he didn’t actually break the law.

The judge disagreed. That’s why it went to trial.

That judge’s opinion is out there. It’s only persuasive precedent, so its possible (but staggeringly unlikely) it would have been overturned on appeal- had Cohen gone to trial and lost.

But he didn’t. He chose to take a plea.

[Samm]

@DougBH

They had him on tax fraud and bank fraud. If they wanted to get Trump, all they had to do was throw the finance campaign thing in there and tell Cohen to plead guilty to it if he didn’t want to do decades for his other frauds. He would have plead guilty to J walking if they had thrown that in there.

In any case, his guilty plea is not going to prove anything except in relation to himself. In crimes involving more than one party, you have all the time one party pleading guilty and another party contesting the charge in court.

The real question is if Congress decides that, even if this is illegal, it is worth a conviction and removing the President based on this FEC violation. That may wind up a political question.

It’s nice to see at least one person gets the point.