Trump Didn't Consult McGahn About Hush-Money Payments, Source Says

[DonViejo]

Source: Bloomberg News



By Shannon Pettypiece
August 22, 2018, 1:50 PM EDT Updated on August 22, 2018, 2:18 PM EDT

Failure to consult campaign finance lawyer may be key evidence

McGahn expects to be questioned by federal prosecutors

President Donald Trump didn’t consult his campaign finance lawyer Don McGahn about hush-money payments that were made days before the election and are now the center of a criminal case, a person familiar with the matter said.

The absence of McGahn, who is now White House counsel, could be a key piece of evidence in any criminal prosecution, according to the person close to McGahn. Prosecutors could argue it shows Trump knew the payments were illegal and hid them. But Trump’s lawyers could counter that it’s a sign Trump didn’t realize they were related to the campaign.

McGahn, the person said, expects to be questioned by federal prosecutors in New York about his knowledge of the payments, which were the basis for campaign finance charges against Trump’s longtime personal lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen.

Trump said in an interview with Fox News the payments were “not even a campaign violation” because “they weren’t taken out of campaign finance.” He said he only learned of the payments “later on.”

Read more: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-22/mcgahn-is-said-not-to-have-known-of-trump-s-hush-money-payments

[RockRaven]

1. *says totes-not-Don-McGahn*

Just a coincidence that this line of evidence and reasoning which makes things worse for Trump makes things better for McGahn...

Good luck with that, you corrupt asshole. You got into bed with Trump et al.; you get to pay for that now.

[MosheFeingold]

2. While creepy

Paying off a stripper to keep her mouth shut is not illegal, nor a violation of campaign finance regulations.

Sadly, this is much ado about creepiness, but will go nowhere.

[uponit7771]

5. That's FAUX New's line, why repeat that strawman here? Cohen copped to a felony not a civil fine

... for paperwork seeing they both knew they were hiding funds to get around unreported campaign contributions to benefit the campaign... at minimum.

Even Chuck Todd was able to handle this one from George Will

[MosheFeingold]

6. Don't watch Faux news, but I was a lawyer on campaigns

Mixed purpose payments (e.g., a payment to keep Melania in the dark) are totally legal, even if it helps the candidate with the election.

There is clear FEC precedent on this with scummy Republicans (and some scummy Democrats) who can't keep their pants zipped.

Heck, there was a taxpayer slush fund to make these payments for members of Congress until this last session.

Again, I am all in for screwing Trump (in a different way than Stormy did), but don't want people to waste time tilting at windmills.

[uponit7771]

7. So not reporting the campaign benefiting payment and trying to hide its source is perfectly legal?

Red Don didn't declare the funds then knew about the hiding of its source

[MosheFeingold]

20. If it had a mixed purpose, yes.

Don't shoot at me. I didn't write the law.

[uponit7771]

21. You mind citing law in that, I don't see anything related to mixed purpose

... contributions being able to be hidden from reporting and then funnel through shell companies as legal.

[MosheFeingold]

22. I will dig it up, but will give one better for now

Remember John Edwards?

His friends gave his baby-momma millions of dollars to keep her mouth shut, flew her on a private jet to escape reporters (and Mrs. Edwards), and put her up in a multi-million dollar mansion they bought.

The FEC ruled this was not an illegal campaign contribution.

The Bush DOJ tried to go after Edwards, anyway, tried him, then ultimately admitted that mixed-use contributions are not a violation. Here:

https://www.politico.com/story/2012/06/justice-dept-wont-retry-john-edwards-077398

Any easy way to think about it (from the FEC website) is a gift of shoes (or a $400 haircut, which was also relevant to Edwards). If the candidate wears those shoes around in life and also while campaigning -- is that campaign contribution? No, because it's mixed use.

Note, most of the time, the violations are the other way -- like scumbag Duncan Hunter (R) is just now being tried on -- a former candidate has a pot of money left over and starts using it as a personal piggy bank.

[uponit7771]

23. So there was no duty to report the in-kind contribution because it was mixed-use? Hell, EVERYONE ...

... could use that to funnel funds to and through themselves as long as they use some of what they have in and out of the campaign (like the shoe example).

No, this goes to "reasonable person's" belief

Prosecutors lost "reasonable person's" belief in Edwards case cause the payments were 10 months out and not within a month of the election like Red Don's.

[MosheFeingold]

24. Maybe

But criminal statutes must be read as conservatively as possible, to give all benefit to an accused.

Trump using his own money to pay off his hooker is a pretty classic mixed purpose, given the desire to avoid personal embarrassment and the wrath of Melanoma, errrr, I mean "Melania."

There are easier, much more straightforward, ways of impeaching Trump.

This is a solid example of Lucy and the football. It's being hyped to distract from stuff that matters -- or that would work.

I just don't want people to get all hyped up about something that is 95% sure to be doomed to failure.

[uponit7771]

25. At them minimum this goes to trial for the avg candidate and a reasonable juror would decided on

... whether this was mixed-use or not seeing they overtly tried to hide the payment and the source.

You're right about the Melania perspective, the second I heard that I thought it would be his get out of jail free card unless Melania says she wouldn't give a damn and Red Don knows that.

My expectations is Red Don's trickle down efforts will fail when treasury rates go up to a point they can't be ignored and people start piling into them and out of equities similar to circa late 80s early 90s.

Then dems can literally say republicans fuck up the economy too much to be trusted, cynical but I don't think they want him out of office until crap hits the fan economically or he frog nukes a ex-urban county

[uponit7771]

8. The guy on Ari's show is directly addressing this issue. Not reporting a campaign benefiting ...

... contribution then trying to hide the funds source via shell companies is a crime in and of itself

[Roy Rolling]

3. Ah . . .

The old "he's too stupid to understand" defense. I gotta admit, that can never be ruled out in his case.

[uponit7771]

4. The money was to benefit the campaign and not reported regardless of its source

[Mc Mike]

9. Is it really illegal to receive a cash and in-kind donation to the campaign and not report it?

Oh. It is.

Well, what if you didn't know getting those contributions was against the campaign finance laws? Is it illegal if you were ignorant of the laws?

Oh. It is.

Well, what if you were too stupid to know those laws were even applicable, during the campaign? Is it illegal to be too stupid to even consider the idea that the money and blackmail info might somehow fall under the jurisdiction of campaign finance laws, of which you are ignorant, anyway?

Even if you thought the applicable laws were writs of habeas and replevin, torts, and the interstate commerce clause, instead? There are a lot of different laws, and it's hard to go through life without breaking some of them, in some categories, at any given moment. Is it illegal then?

Oh.

Well, what if you were so stupid that you forgot that you were even running for election, during the audiotaped meeting about campaign matters your lawyer made, 2 weeks before election day? Is it ....

[uponit7771]

11. +1, not only that it sounds like they KNOWINGLY hid the in-kind contribution via shell companies

[Mc Mike]

12. Did some fancy footwork with the reimbursement billing, too.

But what if the candidate was so stupid and brain dead that they frequently forgot to breath, and had to be prodded by cattle prod to restart that process? Can we really call it illegal in that case, if that particular group of hypotheticals all lined up and were true at the same time ...

[uponit7771]

15. LOFL !! I'd pay to see that !!

[Mc Mike]

18. Many are saying Omarosa has videotape of such.

She's shopping it to a pay-per-view version of America's Funniest Home Videos.

Many, many are saying that.

[Mc Mike]

13. Consciousness of guilt.

[underpants]

17. +++++

[Mc Mike]

19. Ignorance of the applicability of laws of which you are ignorant. 'Unknown unknowns'. Nt

[cstanleytech]

10. They can try but seeing as Cohen is a lawyer the prosecutor should be able to destroy them if they

try to play the "I did not consult my lawyer so how was I supposed to know it would be illegal" defense.

[noneof_theabove]

14. if you sleep

with the fleas, don't complain when the dog bites you.

[AC_Mem]

16. Does anyone believe there are only 2 payoffs?

I'm betting there is MUCH more... and probably some very serious stuff.

[beachbum bob]

26. Unfortunately trumps ignorance isn't a free pass...