Now that trump has admitted he knew nothing about the Stormy pay out...

[ABikerSailor]

I think the Trump supporters are reaching at any kind of possible legal argument they can that looks like it will support their claims.

Only problem is, they don't. I think that at the minimum, Cohen is gonna get thrown under the bus. But, if that happens, he may decide to start singing like a canary.

 

[bgrouse]

Who says he didn't get his consent? Trump could have told him he's allowed to make decisions regarding "small" amounts of money, such as amounts under $200,000. Attorneys and other professionals who handle people's matters often end up with an understood amount of discretion in their clients' matters and the clients want it that way.

If the lawyer had discretion with money up to 200,000, he would have already said so and shown the document.

Once again, lawyers don't have to discuss their dealings with their clients to you. Are you stupid enough to think you can pick up the phone, call a law firm, and start getting answers on the specifics of their dealings with their clients?

The other alternative is to admit that Trump didn't know what he was doing with Ms. Daniels and the NDA, which means that he can be disbarred or convicted for illegal campaign contributions. If he had an agreement like that, I'm pretty sure he would have shown it to stay out of hot water.

LAWYERS DON'T HAVE TO DISCUSS THEIR CLIENT AFFAIRS WITH YOU, RETARD! What part of that don't you get? Have you ever, in your entire life, worked in a place private client information was kept? Even as a secretary or janitor?

Hey stupid........never said that he had to show anything. Just said that if he had an agreement like that, he would have shown people

NO, HE WOULDN'T HAVE, YOU ******* RETARDED SHUT-IN! IN A LEGAL/ACCOUNTING OCCUPATION, IF YOU START FREELY DISCUSSING YOUR CLIENT AFFAIRS WITH DUMBASSES LIKE YOU JUST BECAUSE THEY ASKED, YOU CAN GET FIRED!

 

[bgrouse]

I think the Trump supporters are reaching at any kind of possible legal argument they can that looks like it will support their claims.

Only problem is, they don't. I think that at the minimum, Cohen is gonna get thrown under the bus. But, if that happens, he may decide to start singing like a canary.

It's not just a legal argument, you damned retard! You don't disclose client affairs to the public whenever you want while working in such positions. You just don't do it anymore than you come into the courtroom naked with a Nazi flag on a large flagpole.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Her attorney will have him deposed. If the client knows nothing about a legal agreement, then there is no agreement.

Stormy's attorney will now force trump to sit down to a deposition. If he lies under oath he has perjured himself. This could take trump and even Cohen down.

Amazing! We are seeing Clinton Impeachment all over again.

So desperate... lol

 

[ABikerSailor]

I think the Trump supporters are reaching at any kind of possible legal argument they can that looks like it will support their claims.

Only problem is, they don't. I think that at the minimum, Cohen is gonna get thrown under the bus. But, if that happens, he may decide to start singing like a canary.

It's not just a legal argument, you damned retard! You don't disclose client affairs to the public whenever you want while working in such positions. You just don't do it anymore than you come into the courtroom naked with a Nazi flag on a large flagpole.

Wow...................demagogue much?

 

[bgrouse]

I think the Trump supporters are reaching at any kind of possible legal argument they can that looks like it will support their claims.

Only problem is, they don't. I think that at the minimum, Cohen is gonna get thrown under the bus. But, if that happens, he may decide to start singing like a canary.

It's not just a legal argument, you damned retard! You don't disclose client affairs to the public whenever you want while working in such positions. You just don't do it anymore than you come into the courtroom naked with a Nazi flag on a large flagpole.

Wow...................demagogue much?

You're a retard much.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

I hope that Trump gets laid by more porn stars

 

[radical right]

I think the Trump supporters are reaching at any kind of possible legal argument they can that looks like it will support their claims.

Only problem is, they don't. I think that at the minimum, Cohen is gonna get thrown under the bus. But, if that happens, he may decide to start singing like a canary.

Of Cohen continues to insist it was all him, and only him, he will be disbared from the New York Bar because it's an ethics violation not to tell your client what you're doing on his behalf. And it's an ethics violation to pay a clients legal expenses, unless they are indigent. Fronting $130,000 and not telling Trump about either the payment or the NDA, and Cohen kisses his law license goodbye. At which point it will be hard for him to continue to be Trumps personal lawyer, if he isn't a lawyer.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I hope that Trump gets laid by more porn stars

So.......................which porn stars would you like Trump to have sex with? And, would you want to see a movie of him with them?

 

[ABikerSailor]

I think the Trump supporters are reaching at any kind of possible legal argument they can that looks like it will support their claims.

Only problem is, they don't. I think that at the minimum, Cohen is gonna get thrown under the bus. But, if that happens, he may decide to start singing like a canary.

Of Cohen continues to insist it was all him, and only him, he will be disbared from the New York Bar because it's an ethics violation not to tell your client what you're doing on his behalf. And it's an ethics violation to pay a clients legal expenses, unless they are indigent. Fronting $130,000 and not telling Trump about either the payment or the NDA, and Cohen kisses his law license goodbye. At which point it will be hard for him to continue to be Trumps personal lawyer, if he isn't a lawyer.

BGrouse keeps trying to defend his lawyer, by saying that he may have had an agreement with Trump to take care of things less than 200,000, but if he did have that kind of agreement, don't you think he would make it public to keep from losing his career?

 

[radical right]

BGrouse keeps trying to defend his lawyer, by saying that he may have had an agreement with Trump to take care of things less than 200,000, but if he did have that kind of agreement, don't you think he would make it public to keep from losing his career?

You could certainly have an arrangement like that. BUT it would also involve Trumps accountant, and tax guy, who would be authorized to pay Cohens costs, and to deduct those expenses on Trumps taxes, which Trump signed.

 

[blackhawk]

So please refresh my memory. Why is this an issue? What actual laws did Trump break? He was not a sitting president when it happened, as far as I know, campaign money wasn't used for the payoff, and it was trumps attorney who made the payment without trumps knowledge.

Is there something I'm not seeing here? If there is, please enlighten me. Am I misinformed?

No you simply don't suffer from TDS if you did it would all make perfect sense to you.

 

[JimH52]

Mueller is now looking into Cohen. Since Cohen has been involved in nearly every deal trump has had in decades....that doesn't bode well for either of them.

The State of New York could disbar Cohen for initiating a contract without the client's consent....or as the Orange One claims....

 

[paperview]

So please refresh my memory. Why is this an issue? What actual laws did Trump break? He was not a sitting president when it happened, as far as I know, campaign money wasn't used for the payoff, and it was trumps attorney who made the payment without trumps knowledge.

Is there something I'm not seeing here? If there is, please enlighten me. Am I misinformed?

"...it was trumps attorney who made the payment without trumps knowledge."

Is there something I'm not seeing here? If there is, please enlighten me. Am I misinformed?"

Not only misinformed, but dumb as a box of rocks if you actually believe that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Well, if Trump didn't know about it, or sign it, there was never a deal between Ms. Daniels and Trump, so she should be free to talk about whatever.

Let me explain. Cohen has slandered Daniels on numerous occasions. Daniel's attorney will insist that both Cohen and trump sit for a deposition. trump will be asked under oath if the affair is true. If he denies it, and Daniels has proof that he lied, he has committed perjury.....just like Clinton did. Now that the client says he was not aware of the contract...there is no contract....and there is no arbitration as outlined in the contract.

That is why trump's attorneys are so desperate to keep him out of a deposition. I am sure his lawyers....the one's who he can hire....have told him not to comment on the Daniels issue. He did not listen. He is an IDIOT!

Exactly.

Trump's lawyers know he's going to lie, Trump can't help himself.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Well, if Trump didn't know about it, or sign it, there was never a deal between Ms. Daniels and Trump, so she should be free to talk about whatever.

Let me explain. Cohen has slandered Daniels on numerous occasions. Daniel's attorney will insist that both Cohen and trump sit for a deposition. trump will be asked under oath if the affair is true. If he denies it, and Daniels has proof that he lied, he has committed perjury.....just like Clinton did. Now that the client says he was not aware of the contract...there is no contract....and there is no arbitration as outlined in the contract.

That is why trump's attorneys are so desperate to keep him out of a deposition. I am sure his lawyers....the one's who he can hire....have told him not to comment on the Daniels issue. He did not listen. He is an IDIOT!

Exactly.

Trump's lawyers know he's going to lie, Trump can't help himself.

Part of it is that they think he's going to lie, but the main problem is that Trump has a really hard time not talking. And, he uses a lot of hyperbole in his speech that doesn't really work well for talking to the court. Trump has a real hard time with silent pauses in his speech, because he always has to insert extra words that aren't really needed to get his point across.

 

[ThisIsMe]

For one, he had sexual encounters in the people's house, inside the oval office.

Having sex in the Oval Office is illegal with extra penalties if you do it on the Resolute Desk?

No, but I'm sure there are ethics laws and sexual misconduct laws governing people in public office. Similar to how there are such laws governing every other citizens.

In today's world, sexual harassment is levied so easily. Even if you have consensual relations with a co worker, the company can still fire you for sexual harassment if the other party makes any kind of complaint about it. Same principle applies to a president.

Sorry - You LOSE

I lose? Without even an explanation or debate? How do you come to that conclusion?

 

[ThisIsMe]

So please refresh my memory. Why is this an issue? What actual laws did Trump break? He was not a sitting president when it happened, as far as I know, campaign money wasn't used for the payoff, and it was trumps attorney who made the payment without trumps knowledge.

Is there something I'm not seeing here? If there is, please enlighten me. Am I misinformed?

Bill Clinton didn’t break any laws with Monica L, either. It’s about lying, bribery and a possible infringement of campaign finance laws.

Right, that's what I'm getting at, what campaign finance laws? He didn't use campaign money, and as far as were aware, he, himself, never made the payment.

Sure, it looks fishy, and I'm sure we can all agree that he knew, but it's not what you know, it's what you can prove.

Also, Clinton did break laws. For one, he had sexual encounters in the people's house, inside the oval office. I'm sure there is a myriad of ethics laws he broke. Also, there are the sexual misconduct and sexual harassment laws he broke.

Yes, it does look fishy. Especially when you consider the timing and what the reason was for. The NDA was signed 2 weeks before the election, which makes it look like it was meant to keep her quiet about the affair. If it wasn't to help Trump, then why did they wait so long to do it? Trump had the affair with Daniels back in 2006, why didn't they have it made up then?

And, because it's payment to help Trump with the election, it can be considered an "in kind" donation. But, because it's for 130,000 which is much more than the allowed 2500, it looks like it was an illegal campaign contribution.

But the illegal campaign contribution doesn't really work here does it? I mean, any particular party can only contribute x amount TO a party candidate, this was a payment FROM a party candidate to a private citizen, so it can't really be deemed a "campaign contribution", can it?

Unless you are saying that the Trump campaign contributed $130,000 to itself, by using trumps personal money to pay someone to keep quiet, which in turn benefits the campaign. The problem with that is, that also is not a "contribition" either, as, I'm pretty sure the candidate is allowed to use as much of their own money in a campaign as they want, right?

In layman's terms, essentially, trump paid $130,000 for service to the campaign, which would be no different than Trump spending that money on advertising, or air time.

I'm not saying it's right, what I'm asking is, is that illegal? It's not like stormy contributed the money, she was paid for a service.

Yes, it was crappy, and it was wrong for Trump to do it, but was it illegal, was it an impeachable offense?

It can be considered an "in kind" contribution. If Trump knew nothing about the NDA, as well as hasn't paid for it (he hasn't yet according to the lawyer), it would be a contribution from a private citizen to assist Trump in winning the election, and therefore is considered a campaign contribution. And, it's several hundred thousand more than allowed.

But it wasn't a donation...she was paid

 

[bgrouse]

I think the Trump supporters are reaching at any kind of possible legal argument they can that looks like it will support their claims.

Only problem is, they don't. I think that at the minimum, Cohen is gonna get thrown under the bus. But, if that happens, he may decide to start singing like a canary.

Of Cohen continues to insist it was all him, and only him, he will be disbared from the New York Bar because it's an ethics violation not to tell your client what you're doing on his behalf. And it's an ethics violation to pay a clients legal expenses, unless they are indigent. Fronting $130,000 and not telling Trump about either the payment or the NDA, and Cohen kisses his law license goodbye. At which point it will be hard for him to continue to be Trumps personal lawyer, if he isn't a lawyer.

BGrouse keeps trying to defend his lawyer, by saying that he may have had an agreement with Trump to take care of things less than 200,000, but if he did have that kind of agreement, don't you think he would make it public to keep from losing his career?

If you weren't a brain-dead retard, you'd realize that accountants, lawyers and the like have an obligation to not talk about their clients' affairs just because some moron like you is interested.

BGrouse keeps trying to defend his lawyer, by saying that he may have had an agreement with Trump to take care of things less than 200,000, but if he did have that kind of agreement, don't you think he would make it public to keep from losing his career?

You could certainly have an arrangement like that. BUT it would also involve Trumps accountant, and tax guy, who would be authorized to pay Cohens costs, and to deduct those expenses on Trumps taxes, which Trump signed.

And many taxpayers have little knowledge of what's in their tax return anyway. That's why they have accountants for that sort of thing!

 

[ABikerSailor]

Bill Clinton didn’t break any laws with Monica L, either. It’s about lying, bribery and a possible infringement of campaign finance laws.

Right, that's what I'm getting at, what campaign finance laws? He didn't use campaign money, and as far as were aware, he, himself, never made the payment.

Sure, it looks fishy, and I'm sure we can all agree that he knew, but it's not what you know, it's what you can prove.

Also, Clinton did break laws. For one, he had sexual encounters in the people's house, inside the oval office. I'm sure there is a myriad of ethics laws he broke. Also, there are the sexual misconduct and sexual harassment laws he broke.

Yes, it does look fishy. Especially when you consider the timing and what the reason was for. The NDA was signed 2 weeks before the election, which makes it look like it was meant to keep her quiet about the affair. If it wasn't to help Trump, then why did they wait so long to do it? Trump had the affair with Daniels back in 2006, why didn't they have it made up then?

And, because it's payment to help Trump with the election, it can be considered an "in kind" donation. But, because it's for 130,000 which is much more than the allowed 2500, it looks like it was an illegal campaign contribution.

But the illegal campaign contribution doesn't really work here does it? I mean, any particular party can only contribute x amount TO a party candidate, this was a payment FROM a party candidate to a private citizen, so it can't really be deemed a "campaign contribution", can it?

Unless you are saying that the Trump campaign contributed $130,000 to itself, by using trumps personal money to pay someone to keep quiet, which in turn benefits the campaign. The problem with that is, that also is not a "contribition" either, as, I'm pretty sure the candidate is allowed to use as much of their own money in a campaign as they want, right?

In layman's terms, essentially, trump paid $130,000 for service to the campaign, which would be no different than Trump spending that money on advertising, or air time.

I'm not saying it's right, what I'm asking is, is that illegal? It's not like stormy contributed the money, she was paid for a service.

Yes, it was crappy, and it was wrong for Trump to do it, but was it illegal, was it an impeachable offense?

It can be considered an "in kind" contribution. If Trump knew nothing about the NDA, as well as hasn't paid for it (he hasn't yet according to the lawyer), it would be a contribution from a private citizen to assist Trump in winning the election, and therefore is considered a campaign contribution. And, it's several hundred thousand more than allowed.

But it wasn't a donation...she was paid

According to the way the lawyers look at the law, it's because of the circumstances that it is considered an in kind donation.

The lawyer is a Trump supporter, as well as works for Trump.

The lawyer paid Ms. Daniels to sign an NDA so she wouldn't talk about her affair with Trump.

Trump denies knowing anything about the NDA and Ms. Daniels.

The lawyer then says that Trump didn't pay him, and he did this out of the goodness of his heart because he has worked for Trump for a long time and has a friendship with him.

Because the timing of the signing of the NDA was 2 weeks prior to the election, and not right after the time the affair happened (2006), it could be interpreted that the reason for the NDA was to help Trump win the election.

Because both Trump and the lawyer have said that Trump never paid the lawyer for it, and because it was done to help Trump win the election, it is considered a campaign contribution because of the purpose of the money. It could be said that the lawyer was making an "in kind" campaign contribution.

And, because it is 130,000 instead of 2,500, it is too much money for a legal campaign contribution, which is why it is being looked at.