Trump Tries to Deny His Crime With Cohen, Confesses by Mistake

[fleur-de-lisa]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/08/trump-tries-to-deny-crime-with-cohen-confesses-by-mistake.html

Yesterday, President Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, confessed in open court to committing a crime at Trump’s direction. The crime is violating campaign finance law, by using Trump’s personal funds for a campaign-related expense (paying hush money to his mistresses).

Neither of these statements answers the question of Trump’s criminal liability. “He did nothing wrong” simply changes the question from breaking the law to an undefined definition of “wrong” which may not overlap with the legal one. (The administration might not consider violating campaign finance law “wrong.”) The second portion – “there are no charges against him” — merely reflects the fact that sitting presidents can’t be indicted. Trump could, as they say, shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue, and Sanders could still say he has done nothing wrong and has not been charged with a crime.

Trump’s own defense, offered on Fox & Friends, is even more confused. Trump insisted he is in the clear because the payments “weren’t taken out of campaign finance … They didn’t come out of the campaign, they came from me.”

That is not a defense. That is why it’s a crime. If the money came from the campaign, it would have been legal.

[Saboburns]

1. Stable Genius at work

Nt

[Totally Tunsie]

18. Stable Genius equates to Horse's Ass. n/t

[eleny]

2. And he called Cohen a rat. So Cohen was, according to Trump, telling the truth

[Eliot Rosewater]

27. Yep. Fortunately for rump there are a minimum of FORTY FIVE MILLION Americans

who will love him MORE the more he is exposed for being a disgusting piece of shit.

[eleny]

34. You hit that nail on the head, ER

..... .....

[Bernardo de La Paz]

3. Amateur Trump Gang thought nobody would notice. . . . nt

[Wwcd]

4. "They didn't come out of the campaign, they came from me."

Well WTF! Where's his counsel!
Ruuuudy!

dumb ass

[underpants]

5. This Vox article has the 50 second video. If it's campaign related - Either way it's illegal.

https://www.vox.com/2018/8/22/17770074/fox-and-friends-trump-cohen-campaign-finance-payment

But just like lying on the disclosure form would be illegal and refusing to do the disclosure would be illegal, paying for campaign expenses out of a non-campaign account and then declining to report that as a contribution to the campaign is also illegal.

Simply put, there is no legal way to spend money on your election campaign without disclosing that fact.

There are two ways to get out of legal hot water here.

One would be to argue that the payments were genuinely not a campaign expense. Perhaps Trump had no concern about the political impact of Daniels’s revelations but simply didn’t want his wife and kids to find out about the affair. Trump seems to have messed this up, and instead of making the correct argument, he appeared to confess to a crime.
The other would be to argue that Cohen was lying in court and Trump had no knowledge that the payments happened. In the course of the interview, Trump first denies knowing about it, then concedes he did know — but says it was only after the fact. It’s not entirely clear that this would really exonerate Trump, since even by his account it appears he was aware that Cohen committed a crime on his behalf and didn’t say or do anything about it.

[FakeNoose]

12. You make a good point about the original payment

Paying Stormy Daniels wasn't illegal, he could have used his own money and kept it private.
But he told Cohen to pay it out of his own pocket and fail to disclose it as a campaign expense.

Trump denied knowing anything about it initially. Once he did that, the ship has sailed and he can't say later that well, he really did know but it wasn't a campaign expense. Everything Trump denied and obfuscated turned out to be true. Why should he ever get the benefit of the doubt?

He had one chance to straighten it out. But instead he lied and got himself into more trouble.

[dixiegrrrrl]

15. Plus, paying bribes as a cover up DURING the campaign is illegal.

doesn't matter where he got the money in that case, altho spending Foundation on personal expenses is of course also illegal.
Making a news video about it is helpful to Mueller, of course.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

21. I thought the key to illegality was whether he did it

To not aversely affect the campaign or not.
Since he didn't report it...why can't he just go with it being personal?

[underpants]

30. From my reading/understanding- the source doesn't matter because it was campaign related

If it was from the campaign that clearly is illegal
- like Duncan Hunter paying for private school and a $600 rabbit

If it came from him or even outside the campaign it had to be reported as a contribution

Cohen and Trump discussing HOW to do it as we've heard on a tape makes it clear it was part of the campaign. It obviously was but the tape and Cohen being in charge of the RNC finances cement it.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

35. Thanks. Sorry having duh moment..what made

It all part of campaign? Was that subject (hey this is bad for our campaign) said on that tape? Otherwise thought a while back it would be difficult to prove it was done so as not to hurt his chances. Timing close to election was one angle. Michael s funds weren't campaign funds literally were they?

[FakeNoose]

58. When Cohen got reimbursed they made a fake invoice from a dummy company

Mueller figures that was how they tried to make it look like a real campaign expense.

But Underpants made the point above that none of that was necessary if Cheeto had just said, yes I authorized this and it's a private matter not related to the campaign. Instead they tried to pass it off as a campaign expense. Cheeto told Cohen to pay the $130K out of his pocket, and get reimbursed on the sly later. Cohen had to take out a 2nd mortgage to swing that cash, as I understand it.

[underpants]

63. Yes he did take out a line of credit on his house

That part got me. 11 years dealing with Mr. Bigshot (and taking a lot of verbal abuse from him) and he didn't have $130K? Okay maybe Cohen thought the loan would muddy the trail, I don't know.

[Merlot]

64. cohen not having 130K on hand was puzzling

He didn't claim $4M in income to not pay taxes, yet couldn't come up with $130K

[Laura PourMeADrink]

67. I have never seen a transcript of the tape of -45 and

Cohen, but have heard Cohen saying " no, no, no.." like you would say at dinner when someone else tried to pick up the check. It struck me like Cohen was trying to act like he would take care of it..no worries. To impress him ? Wasn't Cohen dreaming about following trump to the WH and got dropped? Maybe Cohen fell into the same trap Junior did...always trying to please a father who could never be pleased and knew how to manipulate.

[Fred Sanders]

56. If the rabbit were related to the campaign, say, a mascot, it would be legal but have to be

reported as a direct campaign expense. If the sexual favours purchased were related to the campaign, it is also legal...if it is reported.

The issue is the not reporting either as a campaign expense, in kind or direct.

Clearly Shitler did not want this stuff to spill out during his campaign...so he lied and hid it and told his lawyer to do so.

The greater issue is Shitler directing Cohen to coverup the sexual favours being purchased at all, all the while blissfully unaware the solicitor-client umbrella is not an iron dome...if you are conspiring in a crime.

[Fred Sanders]

57. Well said...Did the RNC know and approve? Also unindicted co-conspirators?

[underpants]

62. Cohen was the head/chair of the RNC finances

Okay that title might not be exactly correct but Cohen did have a high seat in the RNC.

[sarge43]

17. He just admitted to committing a crime

"....Trump, since even by his account it appears he was aware that Cohen committed a crime on his behalf and didn't say or do anything about it."

That is called being an accessory and that's a crime. It doesn't matter at what point individual became aware of the crime.

Plus, he's violated the Rule of Holes.

[underpants]

25. LOL

STOP DIGGING!

[ProfessorGAC]

36. A Line I've Used Already

Donnie, here's a bigger shovel!

[LiberalFighter]

38. Not having knowledge probably won't work if Cohen recorded it. :)

[cstanleytech]

41. I doubt a defense of "I was afraid my wife would find out" would work to well though given

both the timing of the payments in question as well as the fact his past history of cheating on his other wives was well known so I doubt she would be shocked that he would do it to her as well.
No, in the end this was about trying to kill a story that he believed could have hurt his chances to get into office so it was campaign related thus he is just as guilty as Cohen.

[Garrett78]

6. I don't accept the "fact" that a president can't be indicted.

[Thekaspervote]

9. I don't either ...as a lot of legal experts agree...but we'll see

[bettyellen]

11. Thank you- it's simply been policy based on past WH occupants. It's not law.

Right now they’re shattered all norms and defied former policies. If they can try to seat a SC judge now so close to an election, and Comey comment on candidates before and election, Mueller can issue his report whenever he wants. No more holding us to standards they would never follow. That’s a suckers game.

[SCantiGOP]

16. Other than working its way to SCOTUS

which would take years, it would have to be the Justice Dept to decide that the Prez can be indicted.
So, in reality, it is correct to say that, at this time, a sitting President can’t be indicted. And Mueller has endorsed that opinion in the past.

[bettyellen]

20. I truly think that policy depends on the crime. If he murdered someone on TV no one would argue

He shouldn’t be indicted. It’s ridiculous to argue it’s a blanket policy. It’s not in the constitution. It’s supposed to prevent his work from being disrupted- but being impeached is legal and just as disruptive. The legality of this policy is completely baseless.

[onenote]

54. Probably. But it would still take Congress impeaching him to remove him from office.

Thus, in all likelihood, the prosecution would wait for Congress to do so before trying him (and maybe even before indicting him).

[bettyellen]

59. I think congress might change their tune and be amenable to at least threatening to impeach

Depending on how the midterms go and what comes out in terms of the upcoming trials and other reporting.

I think we really can stall the Kavanaugh thing and depending on how the midterms turn out he would look neutered and weak. That’s going to hurt his own approval more than anything and if congress of fed up, he is toast.
I think it depends on the crime but yeah, an indictment could happen before the impeachment. Nothing is normal anymore.

[cstanleytech]

44. Perhaps its time to take the DOJ out from under the executive branch and create one for it?

Congress would still have some power over it as they would be the ones that set the budgets and the President could still make some appointments (though those appointments expire after his final day in office) but he cannot dismiss anyone from there job as that would be the legislative branches job.

[LiberalFighter]

39. That policy needs to be destroyed.

Allowing a criminal to remain as President would be wrong. The President needs to be held to a higher standard.

[onenote]

66. He'd still be President until he's impeached, whether or not he's indicted.

That "policy" is in the Constitution.

[Totally Tunsie]

22. If BigBoy can do it "My Way" and ignore precedent,

surely Mueller and the DOJ can do that too. Since it's not law, merely the norm, Mueller needs to "My Way" an indictment of tRump. Lock him up!

[bettyellen]

47. And they want to count this as an "election year" for Mueller but not Kavanaugh's appointment ...

They are playing fast and loose w policies and interpreting them any way they can. I don’t know why anyone would agree that before the midterm elections is no time to pursue the law. That’s just fucked up.

[underpants]

31. Interesting wrinkle, this happened BEFORE he was POTUS

Nixon's act clearly were while he was POTUS

The beginning of the Clinton investigationS were about his actions prior to POTUS but they ended up impeaching him for action while POTUS.

[LiberalFighter]

40. The similarity is that they are both campaign related.

[Mc Mike]

50. So he committed felonies and misdemeanors to get into office,

now that he's in office, he's committing felonies, high crimes, and misdemeanors to stay in office, involving covering up those election time felonies and misdemeanors. Far straighter and clearer line between his pre and post election criminal actions than starr had with whitewater and lewinsky.

[underpants]

61. Great post

That's probably what I was trying to get across.

[Mc Mike]

51. We have no King in America. All those chucklehead teabags with the

revolutionary war costumes with teabags hanging off them and the revolutionary war flags could attest to that idea, I suppose.

[lame54]

52. HUUUUGE flaw in the system...

If it's changed the repugs will use it to oust a dem pres for sneezing

[Garrett78]

53. I'm not sure it's in the system. It's my understanding there's no consensus on this issue.

[librechik]

7. perjury trap just sprung on Pinocchio's nose.

[unblock]

8. big fail presenting as fact the republican claim that sitting presidents can't be indicted.

the article literally calls it a fact.

it's not.

it hasn't happened before, donnie's defenders claim it can't happen, and at the moment it appears to be a policy of the department of justice (although that only says he wouldn't be indicted on *federal* charges).

no reason to think he can't be indicted on a state charge, and possibly even a federal charge, though either way it would surely be challenged up to the supreme court.

in any case, it's certainly not a "fact".

[RockRaven]

10. Actually, Donald, they didn't come from you, they came from Trump Org, which is a fatal mistake.

Corporations are people, my friend. And Trump Org isn't Donald Trump. Donald Trump could have donated an unlimited amount to his own campaign, and gotten a slap on the wrist for failing to properly report it. Trump Org could not make such a donation. Oh, and say hello to RICO, you are about to get intimately familiar with one another. Womp womp.

[Ilsa]

13. They came out of the trump company, too,

in excess of allowable limits.

[GeorgeGist]

14. Fake facts ...

The second portion – “there are no charges against him” — merely reflects the fact that sitting presidents can’t be indicted

.

[erlewyne]

19. Just got a chuckle on Chuck Todd

Sarah Sanders was shown saying that Trump has not been named
on any charges.

Chuck made the point that Trump is an unnamed co-conspirator.

This just struck me as funny!

EW

[LiberalFighter]

42. He should had asked if Trump is not the unnamed co-conspirator

then who is the "in coordination and at the direction of a candidate for federal office"?

[lpbk2713]

23. It's hard to keep track with so many lies in the game.

And it's downright impossible when someone is as weak minded as Trump.

[Gothmog]

24. Trump is an idiot

Trump really did confess to a crime here

[Perseus]

26. "If the money came from the campaign, it would have been legal. "

Its still a crime, its hush money...

[jberryhill]

28. "Hush money" is not a crime

If the money had come from the campaign and was reported as a campaign expenditure, then it would have been fine.

Paying people not to talk about things is not illegal.

[underpants]

33. Yep it's the reporting

I can't believe she didn't have some nondescript named LLC they could have funneled it too but then the way they do business.....

Cohen set up a corporation to make the payment if I remember correctly. Why didn't he set up one for both of these women?

[jberryhill]

46. Because he wired to Davidson, not her

[Dem_4_Life]

29. I thought for sure this was an Onion title

What an idiot

[DallasNE]

32. "They Came From Me"

That is a false statement. They came from Trump Inc. making it a business expense deduction on his tax return making it either tax fraud or a campaign finance law infraction it is lose lose for Trump

[D_Master81]

37. How long until it comes out he "misspoke "?

I meant they didn’t come from me

[Totally Tunsie]

49. "Would; Wouldn't" "Did; Didn't"

Is BigBoy eligible for "English as a Second Language" classes?

[NickPeace]

43. He Really Isn't Well, At All

I am hearing a bit more about this, and the word ”impeachment” more often as well. I like it! 😊

[Fritz Walter]

45. Or Amendment 25

Not only would it get him off center stage, but also agolf twittler could use A-25 as the grounds for acquittal - not guilty due to mental incompetence. Just summon me for that jury. Please!

[NickPeace]

68. Yes

That would work 👍

[Alea]

48. Post title tipped over my giggle box

[uponit7771]

60. +1, seems screwing up royally is a scheduled event for Red Don and his crew

[workinclasszero]

55. When can Mueller clap Shitstain45 in irons

and put his criminal ass on a witness stand?

[garybeck]

65. that not what I heard on NPR discussion today

i heard a discussion on npr today. they said basically the opposite of this article, that a person can contribute as much as they want to their own campaign.

they said if a contribution of $130K came from another person or business, that would be more than the max allowed and would be illegal.

it is possible that what is illegal about paying for it himself is that he did not report it.

however there is more going on because of the way that the money was transferred to cover up where it actually came from.

but simply contributing to his own campaign is not illegal in itself.