Prosecutors Say Trump Directed Illegal Payments During Campaign

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

"The checks don’t change the basic facts at issue in the hush money scandal. Cohen pleaded guilty last year to violating campaign finance law by paying off Daniels shortly before the election. And we’ve known for quite some time that Trump reimbursed Cohen for this afterward.

But the big unanswered question is whether prosecutors in the US Attorney’s Office of the Southern District of New York hope to pursue the hush money case further — by implicating the Trump Organization or even the president himself.

According to legal and campaign finance experts, the checks themselves don’t prove a crime. But they could be one piece of evidence in a potential case against Trump."

The question asked in the article is answered now. The NY AG is pursuing the case. But, Team Trump has taken the matter to court claiming Trump can not be investigated for any crime he may have committed. That's right, not just the claim legal authorities can't prosecute him, that he can't even be investigated.

Assuming you are even remotely correct, investigate him for what? Paying off someone to shut up is NOT illegal in any way. As you can see, the money came from HIS account, so how are campaign funds involved?

Michael Cohen paid off Trump's hookers with $280,000 of his own money. He paid them off so you dumb rubes wouldn't know about them, thereby helping Trump get elected. Therefore, they are a campaign contribution.

The amount of money he used to pay off the women exceeded the $2,700 limit on personal contributions.

All caught up now?

Paying off hos is NOT a campaign contribution.

Actually, it is. It was to help Trump get elected, therefore a campaign contribution.

Has your side ever investigated how Obama attended college as a foreign student despite being a US citizen?

Oh, wow. It figures you're a birther. That explains so much.

I totally nailed it: It's A Birther Thing

No, dumbass. That is the opposite of being a birther. He was born here but committed fraud.

 

[g5000]

TARD: What he did was not a crime!

COHEN: I am guilty of the crime.

SDNY DA: He is guilty of the crime.

TARD: Yeahbut what he did was not a crime!

 

[g5000]

"The checks don’t change the basic facts at issue in the hush money scandal. Cohen pleaded guilty last year to violating campaign finance law by paying off Daniels shortly before the election. And we’ve known for quite some time that Trump reimbursed Cohen for this afterward.

But the big unanswered question is whether prosecutors in the US Attorney’s Office of the Southern District of New York hope to pursue the hush money case further — by implicating the Trump Organization or even the president himself.

According to legal and campaign finance experts, the checks themselves don’t prove a crime. But they could be one piece of evidence in a potential case against Trump."

The question asked in the article is answered now. The NY AG is pursuing the case. But, Team Trump has taken the matter to court claiming Trump can not be investigated for any crime he may have committed. That's right, not just the claim legal authorities can't prosecute him, that he can't even be investigated.

Assuming you are even remotely correct, investigate him for what? Paying off someone to shut up is NOT illegal in any way. As you can see, the money came from HIS account, so how are campaign funds involved?

Michael Cohen paid off Trump's hookers with $280,000 of his own money. He paid them off so you dumb rubes wouldn't know about them, thereby helping Trump get elected. Therefore, they are a campaign contribution.

The amount of money he used to pay off the women exceeded the $2,700 limit on personal contributions.

All caught up now?

Paying off hos is NOT a campaign contribution.

Actually, it is. It was to help Trump get elected, therefore a campaign contribution.

Has your side ever investigated how Obama attended college as a foreign student despite being a US citizen?

Oh, wow. It figures you're a birther. That explains so much.

I totally nailed it: It's A Birther Thing

No, dumbass. That is the opposite of being a birther. He was born here but committed fraud.

The "attended college as a foreign student" is part of the birther mythology.

I totally nailed. It's a birther thing.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

"The checks don’t change the basic facts at issue in the hush money scandal. Cohen pleaded guilty last year to violating campaign finance law by paying off Daniels shortly before the election. And we’ve known for quite some time that Trump reimbursed Cohen for this afterward.

But the big unanswered question is whether prosecutors in the US Attorney’s Office of the Southern District of New York hope to pursue the hush money case further — by implicating the Trump Organization or even the president himself.

According to legal and campaign finance experts, the checks themselves don’t prove a crime. But they could be one piece of evidence in a potential case against Trump."

The question asked in the article is answered now. The NY AG is pursuing the case. But, Team Trump has taken the matter to court claiming Trump can not be investigated for any crime he may have committed. That's right, not just the claim legal authorities can't prosecute him, that he can't even be investigated.

Assuming you are even remotely correct, investigate him for what? Paying off someone to shut up is NOT illegal in any way. As you can see, the money came from HIS account, so how are campaign funds involved?

Michael Cohen paid off Trump's hookers with $280,000 his own money. He paid them off so you dumb rubes wouldn't know about them, thereby helping Trump get elected. Therefore, they are a campaign contribution.

The amount of money he used to pay off the women exceeded the $2,700 limit on personal contributions.

All caught up now?

Dershowitz said the payments were perfectly legal as long as it was Trump's money and not campaign funds:
Dershowitz: Trump 'Absolutely' Did Nothing Wrong With Payments
"...if the president gave the money out of his own pocket he can give a billion dollars," Dershowitz told Fox News' "America's Newsroom." "He could have put a billion dollars in the campaign and paying 100 million to women who accused [him] falsely...it wouldn't be a violation of any campaign law as long as [the campaign] reported it."

Campaign finance violations are generally fines paid by the campaign, see here for Obama's $375,000 fine
Obama 2008 campaign fined $375,000

I will try to use small words.

The case is not about Trump's money. The case is about Cohen's money. Cohen contributed his own personal money to pay off the women. That's an illegal campaign contribution.

When Trump wrote the check, he was admitting he knew about the illegal campaign contribution Cohen made to his campaign and was paying him back for it.

All caught up now?

When are you going to around to proving that was what the check was for?

Oh, you forgot that important little tidbit, didn't you dumbass?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Assuming you are even remotely correct, investigate him for what? Paying off someone to shut up is NOT illegal in any way. As you can see, the money came from HIS account, so how are campaign funds involved?

Michael Cohen paid off Trump's hookers with $280,000 of his own money. He paid them off so you dumb rubes wouldn't know about them, thereby helping Trump get elected. Therefore, they are a campaign contribution.

The amount of money he used to pay off the women exceeded the $2,700 limit on personal contributions.

All caught up now?

Paying off hos is NOT a campaign contribution.

Actually, it is. It was to help Trump get elected, therefore a campaign contribution.

Has your side ever investigated how Obama attended college as a foreign student despite being a US citizen?

Oh, wow. It figures you're a birther. That explains so much.

I totally nailed it: It's A Birther Thing

No, dumbass. That is the opposite of being a birther. He was born here but committed fraud.

The "attended college as a foreign student" is part of the birther mythology.

I totally nailed. It's a birther thing.

It is the exact opposite from being a birther. I said he was born here and committed fraud by being admitted to college as a foreign student. That is too confusing for you to wrap your dumb ass around!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Manhattan district attorney seeks documents related to Stormy Daniels hush money payment
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...e3b57c-b526-11e9-8f6c-7828e68cb15f_story.html

This is the investigation Trump claims he is immune from because...................he doesn't want to be investigated.

The judge said too bad.

Federal judge rules Trump must turn over his tax returns to Manhattan DA, but Trump has appealed
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...e1fda6-e8a4-11e9-85c0-85a098e47b37_story.html

That hasn't happened yet, has it? It won't because the appeals court will rule in Trump's favor.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Cohen has pled guilty. He's going to prison for it.

So it was a crime. No amount of willfully blind denial on the part of the Trumptards will ever change that fact.

All the parroting submissive cucks have is whatever bullshit is in their mouth which their masters put there.

He's not going to prison. He is IN prison you incredible dumbass! Being stupid is one thing, but not realizing you are stupid is even worse!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Michael Cohen Pleads Guilty In Manhattan Federal Court To Eight Counts, Including Criminal Tax Evasion And Campaign Finance Violations

You sad little submissive cucks can suck each others' cocks all day long, but you cannot change reality.

"B-b-b-b-b-b-but Obama's college!"

You still have nothing. Pathetic!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

"The checks don’t change the basic facts at issue in the hush money scandal. Cohen pleaded guilty last year to violating campaign finance law by paying off Daniels shortly before the election. And we’ve known for quite some time that Trump reimbursed Cohen for this afterward.

But the big unanswered question is whether prosecutors in the US Attorney’s Office of the Southern District of New York hope to pursue the hush money case further — by implicating the Trump Organization or even the president himself.

According to legal and campaign finance experts, the checks themselves don’t prove a crime. But they could be one piece of evidence in a potential case against Trump."

The question asked in the article is answered now. The NY AG is pursuing the case. But, Team Trump has taken the matter to court claiming Trump can not be investigated for any crime he may have committed. That's right, not just the claim legal authorities can't prosecute him, that he can't even be investigated.

Assuming you are even remotely correct, investigate him for what? Paying off someone to shut up is NOT illegal in any way. As you can see, the money came from HIS account, so how are campaign funds involved?

Michael Cohen paid off Trump's hookers with $280,000 of his own money. He paid them off so you dumb rubes wouldn't know about them, thereby helping Trump get elected. Therefore, they are a campaign contribution.

The amount of money he used to pay off the women exceeded the $2,700 limit on personal contributions.

All caught up now?

Paying off hos is NOT a campaign contribution. Such a transaction would be covered as attorney-client privilege even if it was!

Has your side ever investigated how Obama attended college as a foreign student despite being a US citizen?

Are you confused, lying or ignorant?

What has President Obama to do with the OP's topic? Such trolling needs to be investigated by the powers of moderation.

I am illustrating precisely how the hypocrisy runs rampant through those suffering from TDS. Don't like it? I don't give a shit, dumbass!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Campaign Finance Violations

The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, Title 52, United States Code, Section 30101, et seq., (the “Election Act”), regulates the influence of money on politics. At all relevant times, the Election Act set certain limitations and prohibitions, among them: (a) individual contributions to any presidential candidate, including expenditures coordinated with a candidate or his political committee, were limited to $2,700 per election, and presidential candidates and their committees were prohibited from accepting contributions from individuals in excess of this limit; and (b) Corporations were prohibited from making contributions directly to presidential candidates, including expenditures coordinated with candidates or their committees, and candidates were prohibited from accepting corporate contributions.

On June 16, 2015, Individual-1 began his presidential campaign. While COHEN continued to work at the Company and did not have a formal title with the campaign, he had a campaign email address and, at various times, advised the campaign, including on matters of interest to the press, and made televised and media appearances on behalf of the campaign.

In August 2015, the Chairman and Chief Executive of Corporation-1, a media company that owns, among other things, a popular tabloid magazine (“Chairman-1” and “Magazine-1,” respectively”), in coordination with COHEN and one or more members of the campaign, offered to help deal with negative stories about Individual-1’s relationships with women by, among other things, assisting the campaign in identifying such stories so they could be purchased and their publication avoided. Chairman-1 agreed to keep COHEN apprised of any such negative stories.

Consistent with the agreement described above, Corporation-1 advised COHEN of negative stories during the course of the campaign, and COHEN, with the assistance of Corporation-1, was able to arrange for the purchase of two stories so as to suppress them and prevent them from influencing the election.

First, in June 2016, a model and actress (“Woman-1”) began attempting to sell her story of her alleged extramarital affair with Individual-1 that had taken place in 2006 and 2007, knowing the story would be of considerable value because of the election. Woman-1 retained an attorney (“Attorney-1”), who in turn contacted the editor-in-chief of Magazine-1 (“Editor-1”), and offered to sell Woman-1’s story to Magazine-1. Chairman-1 and Editor-1 informed COHEN of the story. At COHEN’s urging and subject to COHEN’s promise that Corporation-1 would be reimbursed, Editor-1 ultimately began negotiating for the purchase of the story.

On August 5, 2016, Corporation-1 entered into an agreement with Woman-1 to acquire her “limited life rights” to the story of her relationship with “any then-married man,” in exchange for $150,000 and a commitment to feature her on two magazine covers and publish more than 100 magazine articles authored by her. Despite the cover and article features to the agreement, its principal purpose, as understood by those involved, including COHEN, was to suppress Woman-1’s story so as to prevent it from influencing the election.

Between late August 2016 and September 2016, COHEN agreed with Chairman-1 to assign the rights to the non-disclosure portion of Corporation-1’s agreement with Woman-1 to COHEN for $125,000. COHEN incorporated a shell entity called “Resolution Consultants LLC” for use in the transaction. Both Chairman-1 and COHEN ultimately signed the agreement, and a consultant for Corporation-1, using his own shell entity, provided COHEN with an invoice for the payment of $125,000. However, in early October 2016, after the assignment agreement was signed but before COHEN had paid the $125,000, Chairman-1 contacted COHEN and told him, in substance, that the deal was off and that COHEN should tear up the assignment agreement.

Second, on October 8, 2016, an agent for an adult film actress (“Woman-2”) informed Editor-1 that Woman-2 was willing to make public statements and confirm on the record her alleged past affair with Individual-1. Chairman-1 and Editor-1 then contacted COHEN and put him in touch with Attorney-1, who was also representing Woman-2. Over the course of the next few days, COHEN negotiated a $130,000 agreement with Attorney-1 to himself purchase Woman-2’s silence, and received a signed confidential settlement agreement and a separate side letter agreement from Attorney-1.

COHEN did not immediately execute the agreement, nor did he pay Woman-2. On the evening of October 25, 2016, with no deal with Woman-2 finalized, Attorney-1 told Editor-1 that Woman-2 was close to completing a deal with another outlet to make her story public. Editor-1, in turn, texted COHEN that “[w]e have to coordinate something on the matter [Attorney-1 is] calling you about or it could look awfully bad for everyone.” Chairman-1 and Editor-1 then called COHEN through an encrypted telephone application. COHEN agreed to make the payment, and then called Attorney-1 to finalize the deal.

The next day, on October 26, 2016, COHEN emailed an incorporating service to obtain the corporate formation documents for another shell corporation, Essential Consultants LLC, which COHEN had incorporated a few days prior. Later that afternoon, COHEN drew down $131,000 from the fraudulently obtained HELOC and requested that it be deposited into a bank account COHEN had just opened in the name of Essential Consultants. The next morning, on October 27, 2016, COHEN went to Bank-3 and wired approximately $130,000 from Essential Consultants to Attorney-1. On the bank form to complete the wire, COHEN falsely indicated that the “purpose of wire being sent” was “retainer.” On November 1, 2016, COHEN received from Attorney-1 copies of the final, signed confidential settlement agreement and side letter agreement.

COHEN caused and made the payments described herein in order to influence the 2016 presidential election. In so doing, he coordinated with one or more members of the campaign, including through meetings and phone calls, about the fact, nature, and timing of the payments. As a result of the payments solicited and made by COHEN, neither Woman-1 nor Woman-2 spoke to the press prior to the election.

In January 2017, COHEN in seeking reimbursement for election-related expenses, presented executives of the Company with a copy of a bank statement from the Essential Consultants bank account, which reflected the $130,000 payment COHEN had made to the bank account of Attorney-1 in order to keep Woman-2 silent in advance of the election, plus a $35 wire fee, adding, in handwriting, an additional “$50,000.” The $50,000 represented a claimed payment for “tech services,” which in fact related to work COHEN had solicited from a technology company during and in connection with the campaign. COHEN added these amounts to a sum of $180,035. After receiving this document, executives of the Company “grossed up” for tax purposes COHEN’s requested reimbursement of $180,000 to $360,000, and then added a bonus of $60,000 so that COHEN would be paid $420,000 in total. Executives of the Company also determined that the $420,000 would be paid to COHEN in monthly amounts of $35,000 over the course of 12 months, and that COHEN should send invoices for these payments.

On February 14, 2017, COHEN sent an executive of the Company (“Executive-1”) the first of his monthly invoices, requesting “[p]ursuant to [a] retainer agreement, . . . payment for services rendered for the months of January and February, 2017.” The invoice listed $35,000 for each of those two months. Executive-1 forwarded the invoice to another executive of the Company (“Executive-2”) the same day by email, and it was approved. Executive-1 forwarded that email to another employee at the Company, stating: “Please pay from the Trust. Post to legal expenses. Put ‘retainer for the months of January and February 2017’ in the description.”

Throughout 2017, COHEN sent to one or more representatives of the Company monthly invoices, which stated, “Pursuant to the retainer agreement, kindly remit payment for services rendered for” the relevant month in 2017, and sought $35,000 per month. The Company accounted for these payments as legal expenses. In truth and in fact, there was no such retainer agreement, and the monthly invoices COHEN submitted were not in connection with any legal services he had provided in 2017.

During 2017, pursuant to the invoices described above, COHEN received monthly $35,000 reimbursement checks, totaling $420,000.

Why does the last sentence not identify where the reimbursement came from? Did they not know or was it left off intentionally because they did not want to get caught lying?