- Mar 3, 2013
- 86,728
- 49,870
- 2,605
Trump has now been implicated in a federal crime
- Thread starter BWK
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #1,342
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000166-79ef-d3f0-a1f7-ffefca860002
The parties spend some time debating whether Mr. Trump acted with "actual malice" or "reckless disregard for the truth" in issuing the tweet in question. Assuming that Plaintiff is a "public figure," Plaintiff would have to show that Defendant acted with "actual malice" or "reckless disregard for the truth" to prevail on a cause of action for defamation. See Bentley, 94 S.W.3d at 580. Plaintiff's focus on the actual malice argument comes as no surprise because Plaintiff stands on thin ice in asserting that Mr. Trump's tweet is an actionable statement. Instead, Plaintiff seeks to use her defamation action to engage in a "fishing expedition" concerning the conclusory allegations in the Complaint. The Court will not permit Plaintiff to exploit the legal process in this way. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that she needs to conduct discovery to determine if Mr. Trump was involved in the 2011 threat against her or if he purposefully avoided learning about the 2011 threat. See Opposition at 11. Plaintiff believes that discovery pertaining to these issues will help her to establish that Mr. Trump acted with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth (i.e. if Ms. Clifford can provide evidence showing that Mr. Trump knew of the 2011 threat, then he tweeted a lie when he challenged Plaintiff's reporting of the 2011 threat). (See Transcript of Proceedings
at 29:23-30:4.) However, Plaintiff's reasoning is entirely circular. She assumes that Mr. Trump knew of the 2011 threat, argues in her Complaint and her briefing that Mr. Trump knew of the 2011 threat, and then asks this Court for discovery to prove that Mr. Trump knew of the 2011 threat. In doing so, Plaintiff does not allege facts establishing how Mr. Trump knew or did not know about the 2011 threat in the first place. Plaintiff must do this to sustain a cause of action for defamation.
Not the same but this is where Stormy lost the case in court already..............I find it funny that in that case the OPENLY STATED that he would NOT ALLOW A "FISHING EXPEDITION"...........too funny.
Oh by the way..........Stormy owed Trump legal fees as a result of this case.......LOL
They just read off the sentencing for Cohen for which Trump orchestrated.tps://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/watch/prosecutors-in-new-york-file-sentencing-memo-for-michael-cohen-1391880771925:abgg2q.jpg: I'm with you on that laugh.- Thread starter
- #1,343
Trump orchestrated it and has already been implicated by a felony court filing; tps://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/watch/prosecutors-in-new-york-file-sentencing-memo-for-michael-cohen-1391880771925 Try and keep it in the road boss.
- Mar 3, 2013
- 86,728
- 49,870
- 2,605
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000166-79ef-d3f0-a1f7-ffefca860002
The parties spend some time debating whether Mr. Trump acted with "actual malice" or "reckless disregard for the truth" in issuing the tweet in question. Assuming that Plaintiff is a "public figure," Plaintiff would have to show that Defendant acted with "actual malice" or "reckless disregard for the truth" to prevail on a cause of action for defamation. See Bentley, 94 S.W.3d at 580. Plaintiff's focus on the actual malice argument comes as no surprise because Plaintiff stands on thin ice in asserting that Mr. Trump's tweet is an actionable statement. Instead, Plaintiff seeks to use her defamation action to engage in a "fishing expedition" concerning the conclusory allegations in the Complaint. The Court will not permit Plaintiff to exploit the legal process in this way. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that she needs to conduct discovery to determine if Mr. Trump was involved in the 2011 threat against her or if he purposefully avoided learning about the 2011 threat. See Opposition at 11. Plaintiff believes that discovery pertaining to these issues will help her to establish that Mr. Trump acted with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth (i.e. if Ms. Clifford can provide evidence showing that Mr. Trump knew of the 2011 threat, then he tweeted a lie when he challenged Plaintiff's reporting of the 2011 threat). (See Transcript of Proceedings
at 29:23-30:4.) However, Plaintiff's reasoning is entirely circular. She assumes that Mr. Trump knew of the 2011 threat, argues in her Complaint and her briefing that Mr. Trump knew of the 2011 threat, and then asks this Court for discovery to prove that Mr. Trump knew of the 2011 threat. In doing so, Plaintiff does not allege facts establishing how Mr. Trump knew or did not know about the 2011 threat in the first place. Plaintiff must do this to sustain a cause of action for defamation.
Not the same but this is where Stormy lost the case in court already..............I find it funny that in that case the OPENLY STATED that he would NOT ALLOW A "FISHING EXPEDITION"...........too funny.
Oh by the way..........Stormy owed Trump legal fees as a result of this case.......LOL
Trump orchestrated?
Got proof?
(psst, it's not in your link)
Wry Catcher
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #1,345
Like I said...
for a year or so, they've been saying Cohen paid those women....
now, a couple of 'prosecutors', trying to strengthen their case, are claiming Trump paid them.
It's not nice to lie by omission, since the Truth is even less exculpatory:
"Federal prosecutors said on Friday that President Trump directed illegal payments to ward off a potential sex scandal that threatened his chances of winning the White House in 2016, putting the weight of the Justice Department behind accusations previously made by his former lawyer."
Prosecutors Say Trump Directed Illegal Payments During Campaign
- Thread starter
- #1,346
No counter rebuttal as usual. That's good. Got the cowardly smiley faces working again. Lol!https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000166-79ef-d3f0-a1f7-ffefca860002
The parties spend some time debating whether Mr. Trump acted with "actual malice" or "reckless disregard for the truth" in issuing the tweet in question. Assuming that Plaintiff is a "public figure," Plaintiff would have to show that Defendant acted with "actual malice" or "reckless disregard for the truth" to prevail on a cause of action for defamation. See Bentley, 94 S.W.3d at 580. Plaintiff's focus on the actual malice argument comes as no surprise because Plaintiff stands on thin ice in asserting that Mr. Trump's tweet is an actionable statement. Instead, Plaintiff seeks to use her defamation action to engage in a "fishing expedition" concerning the conclusory allegations in the Complaint. The Court will not permit Plaintiff to exploit the legal process in this way. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that she needs to conduct discovery to determine if Mr. Trump was involved in the 2011 threat against her or if he purposefully avoided learning about the 2011 threat. See Opposition at 11. Plaintiff believes that discovery pertaining to these issues will help her to establish that Mr. Trump acted with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth (i.e. if Ms. Clifford can provide evidence showing that Mr. Trump knew of the 2011 threat, then he tweeted a lie when he challenged Plaintiff's reporting of the 2011 threat). (See Transcript of Proceedings
at 29:23-30:4.) However, Plaintiff's reasoning is entirely circular. She assumes that Mr. Trump knew of the 2011 threat, argues in her Complaint and her briefing that Mr. Trump knew of the 2011 threat, and then asks this Court for discovery to prove that Mr. Trump knew of the 2011 threat. In doing so, Plaintiff does not allege facts establishing how Mr. Trump knew or did not know about the 2011 threat in the first place. Plaintiff must do this to sustain a cause of action for defamation.
Not the same but this is where Stormy lost the case in court already..............I find it funny that in that case the OPENLY STATED that he would NOT ALLOW A "FISHING EXPEDITION"...........too funny.
Oh by the way..........Stormy owed Trump legal fees as a result of this case.......LOL
- Mar 3, 2013
- 86,728
- 49,870
- 2,605
- Thread starter
- #1,348
No, the prosecutors do. Haven't you heard?https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000166-79ef-d3f0-a1f7-ffefca860002
The parties spend some time debating whether Mr. Trump acted with "actual malice" or "reckless disregard for the truth" in issuing the tweet in question. Assuming that Plaintiff is a "public figure," Plaintiff would have to show that Defendant acted with "actual malice" or "reckless disregard for the truth" to prevail on a cause of action for defamation. See Bentley, 94 S.W.3d at 580. Plaintiff's focus on the actual malice argument comes as no surprise because Plaintiff stands on thin ice in asserting that Mr. Trump's tweet is an actionable statement. Instead, Plaintiff seeks to use her defamation action to engage in a "fishing expedition" concerning the conclusory allegations in the Complaint. The Court will not permit Plaintiff to exploit the legal process in this way. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that she needs to conduct discovery to determine if Mr. Trump was involved in the 2011 threat against her or if he purposefully avoided learning about the 2011 threat. See Opposition at 11. Plaintiff believes that discovery pertaining to these issues will help her to establish that Mr. Trump acted with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth (i.e. if Ms. Clifford can provide evidence showing that Mr. Trump knew of the 2011 threat, then he tweeted a lie when he challenged Plaintiff's reporting of the 2011 threat). (See Transcript of Proceedings
at 29:23-30:4.) However, Plaintiff's reasoning is entirely circular. She assumes that Mr. Trump knew of the 2011 threat, argues in her Complaint and her briefing that Mr. Trump knew of the 2011 threat, and then asks this Court for discovery to prove that Mr. Trump knew of the 2011 threat. In doing so, Plaintiff does not allege facts establishing how Mr. Trump knew or did not know about the 2011 threat in the first place. Plaintiff must do this to sustain a cause of action for defamation.
Not the same but this is where Stormy lost the case in court already..............I find it funny that in that case the OPENLY STATED that he would NOT ALLOW A "FISHING EXPEDITION"...........too funny.
Oh by the way..........Stormy owed Trump legal fees as a result of this case.......LOL
Trump orchestrated?
Got proof?
(psst, it's not in your link)
Sunsettommy
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 15,445
- 13,043
- 2,400
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000166-79ef-d3f0-a1f7-ffefca860002
The parties spend some time debating whether Mr. Trump acted with "actual malice" or "reckless disregard for the truth" in issuing the tweet in question. Assuming that Plaintiff is a "public figure," Plaintiff would have to show that Defendant acted with "actual malice" or "reckless disregard for the truth" to prevail on a cause of action for defamation. See Bentley, 94 S.W.3d at 580. Plaintiff's focus on the actual malice argument comes as no surprise because Plaintiff stands on thin ice in asserting that Mr. Trump's tweet is an actionable statement. Instead, Plaintiff seeks to use her defamation action to engage in a "fishing expedition" concerning the conclusory allegations in the Complaint. The Court will not permit Plaintiff to exploit the legal process in this way. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that she needs to conduct discovery to determine if Mr. Trump was involved in the 2011 threat against her or if he purposefully avoided learning about the 2011 threat. See Opposition at 11. Plaintiff believes that discovery pertaining to these issues will help her to establish that Mr. Trump acted with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth (i.e. if Ms. Clifford can provide evidence showing that Mr. Trump knew of the 2011 threat, then he tweeted a lie when he challenged Plaintiff's reporting of the 2011 threat). (See Transcript of Proceedings
at 29:23-30:4.) However, Plaintiff's reasoning is entirely circular. She assumes that Mr. Trump knew of the 2011 threat, argues in her Complaint and her briefing that Mr. Trump knew of the 2011 threat, and then asks this Court for discovery to prove that Mr. Trump knew of the 2011 threat. In doing so, Plaintiff does not allege facts establishing how Mr. Trump knew or did not know about the 2011 threat in the first place. Plaintiff must do this to sustain a cause of action for defamation.
Not the same but this is where Stormy lost the case in court already..............I find it funny that in that case the OPENLY STATED that he would NOT ALLOW A "FISHING EXPEDITION"...........too funny.
Oh by the way..........Stormy owed Trump legal fees as a result of this case.......LOL
You are truly dumb as hell since the section of the MEMO you claim you have read shows this that doesn't make any sense since "hush" money are NOT Campaign money:
"During the campaign, Cohen played a central role in two similar schemes to purchase the rights to stories each from women who claimed to have had an affair with Individual-1so as to suppress the stories and thereby prevent them from influencing the election. With respect to both payments, Cohen acted with the intent to influence the 2016 presidential election. Cohen coordinated his actions with one or more members of the campaign, including through meetings and phone calls, about the fact, nature, and timing of the payments. (PSR ¶ 51). In particular, and as Cohen himself has now admitted, with respect to both payments, he acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1. (PSR ¶¶ 41, 45). As a result of Cohen’s actions, neither woman spoke to the press prior to the election. "
Paying people to not talk about having a sexual relationship is NOT illegal.
- Thread starter
- #1,350
Really? How so? With Cohen going to jail and the information that has already been provided in the court filing on Trump, what's not to back up?
eagle1462010
Diamond Member
- May 17, 2013
- 73,626
- 38,642
- 2,605
Let's take a look at Stormy's lawyer...........LOL
The one claiming he'd run for president.
Michael Avenatti’s Law Firm Hit With $10 Million Judgment
The one claiming he'd run for president.
Michael Avenatti’s Law Firm Hit With $10 Million Judgment
- Mar 3, 2013
- 86,728
- 49,870
- 2,605
Like I said...
for a year or so, they've been saying Cohen paid those women....
now, a couple of 'prosecutors', trying to strengthen their case, are claiming Trump paid them.
It's not nice to lie by omission, since the Truth is even less exculpatory:
"Federal prosecutors said on Friday that President Trump directed illegal payments to ward off a potential sex scandal that threatened his chances of winning the White House in 2016, putting the weight of the Justice Department behind accusations previously made by his former lawyer."
Prosecutors Say Trump Directed Illegal Payments During Campaign
Right...
Jumping to conclusions again.
"prosecutors in Manhattan said he “acted in coordination and at the direction of” an unnamed individual, clearly referring to Mr. Trump."
Clearly?
Not all that clear, actually
- Mar 3, 2013
- 86,728
- 49,870
- 2,605
eagle1462010
Diamond Member
- May 17, 2013
- 73,626
- 38,642
- 2,605
And being accused for harassment is such a concern for politicians that they set up a tax payer slush fund............Tax payers pay off the accused settlements..........
Been going on since 1995.........of course they use the money but don't tell that they pay off via the Tax payer.
Sexual harassment fund exposes Congress
Add to that accusations against two of Congress' most liberal members, and you have the makings of a watershed moment. Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., apologized Monday for disrespecting women. Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., stepped aside Sunday as the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee after being accused of making unwanted advances toward female staffers and firing one after she resisted. (Conyers allegedly settled that claim with $27,000 of taxpayers’ money from his office account, disguising it as “severance pay.” He acknowledged settling but denied the allegations.)
Even so, all the public knows is that since 1997, Congress has paid more than $17 million to settle scores of workplace claims from a special Treasury Department fund created by the 1995 law.
Whether the claims involved sexual harassment, or discrimination against protected groups, is unknown. So is the identity of lawmakers and aides involved in alleged misbehavior.
Did they provide that slush fund money to the FEC
Been going on since 1995.........of course they use the money but don't tell that they pay off via the Tax payer.
Sexual harassment fund exposes Congress
Add to that accusations against two of Congress' most liberal members, and you have the makings of a watershed moment. Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., apologized Monday for disrespecting women. Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., stepped aside Sunday as the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee after being accused of making unwanted advances toward female staffers and firing one after she resisted. (Conyers allegedly settled that claim with $27,000 of taxpayers’ money from his office account, disguising it as “severance pay.” He acknowledged settling but denied the allegations.)
Even so, all the public knows is that since 1997, Congress has paid more than $17 million to settle scores of workplace claims from a special Treasury Department fund created by the 1995 law.
Whether the claims involved sexual harassment, or discrimination against protected groups, is unknown. So is the identity of lawmakers and aides involved in alleged misbehavior.
Did they provide that slush fund money to the FEC
- Thread starter
- #1,355
The hush money scheme was at the direction of Trump, which is why we have felony court filings on Trump. In the mean time, Cohen is being sentenced for a crime that was at the direction of Trump.https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000166-79ef-d3f0-a1f7-ffefca860002
The parties spend some time debating whether Mr. Trump acted with "actual malice" or "reckless disregard for the truth" in issuing the tweet in question. Assuming that Plaintiff is a "public figure," Plaintiff would have to show that Defendant acted with "actual malice" or "reckless disregard for the truth" to prevail on a cause of action for defamation. See Bentley, 94 S.W.3d at 580. Plaintiff's focus on the actual malice argument comes as no surprise because Plaintiff stands on thin ice in asserting that Mr. Trump's tweet is an actionable statement. Instead, Plaintiff seeks to use her defamation action to engage in a "fishing expedition" concerning the conclusory allegations in the Complaint. The Court will not permit Plaintiff to exploit the legal process in this way. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that she needs to conduct discovery to determine if Mr. Trump was involved in the 2011 threat against her or if he purposefully avoided learning about the 2011 threat. See Opposition at 11. Plaintiff believes that discovery pertaining to these issues will help her to establish that Mr. Trump acted with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth (i.e. if Ms. Clifford can provide evidence showing that Mr. Trump knew of the 2011 threat, then he tweeted a lie when he challenged Plaintiff's reporting of the 2011 threat). (See Transcript of Proceedings
at 29:23-30:4.) However, Plaintiff's reasoning is entirely circular. She assumes that Mr. Trump knew of the 2011 threat, argues in her Complaint and her briefing that Mr. Trump knew of the 2011 threat, and then asks this Court for discovery to prove that Mr. Trump knew of the 2011 threat. In doing so, Plaintiff does not allege facts establishing how Mr. Trump knew or did not know about the 2011 threat in the first place. Plaintiff must do this to sustain a cause of action for defamation.
Not the same but this is where Stormy lost the case in court already..............I find it funny that in that case the OPENLY STATED that he would NOT ALLOW A "FISHING EXPEDITION"...........too funny.
Oh by the way..........Stormy owed Trump legal fees as a result of this case.......LOL
You are truly dumb as hell since the section of the MEMO you claim you have read shows this that doesn't make any sense since "hush" money are NOT Campaign money:
"During the campaign, Cohen played a central role in two similar schemes to purchase the rights to stories each from women who claimed to have had an affair with Individual-1so as to suppress the stories and thereby prevent them from influencing the election. With respect to both payments, Cohen acted with the intent to influence the 2016 presidential election. Cohen coordinated his actions with one or more members of the campaign, including through meetings and phone calls, about the fact, nature, and timing of the payments. (PSR ¶ 51). In particular, and as Cohen himself has now admitted, with respect to both payments, he acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1. (PSR ¶¶ 41, 45). As a result of Cohen’s actions, neither woman spoke to the press prior to the election. "
Paying people to not talk is NOT illegal.
Telling me hush money is not campaign money is totally irrelevant right now. It was stolen money from a charity that was never reported, and we the tax payer got ripped off and it was a few weeks before the election. Cohen is already going to jail for this crime, and Trump is next.
The fact that you think it wasn't campaign related is not relevant to prosecutors. They are tying it to the campaign, whether you like it or not.
- Thread starter
- #1,356
Lol! These off topic cowards are never far off.And being accused for harassment is such a concern for politicians that they set up a tax payer slush fund............Tax payers pay off the accused settlements..........
Been going on since 1995.........of course they use the money but don't tell that they pay off via the Tax payer.
Sexual harassment fund exposes Congress
Add to that accusations against two of Congress' most liberal members, and you have the makings of a watershed moment. Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., apologized Monday for disrespecting women. Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., stepped aside Sunday as the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee after being accused of making unwanted advances toward female staffers and firing one after she resisted. (Conyers allegedly settled that claim with $27,000 of taxpayers’ money from his office account, disguising it as “severance pay.” He acknowledged settling but denied the allegations.)
Even so, all the public knows is that since 1997, Congress has paid more than $17 million to settle scores of workplace claims from a special Treasury Department fund created by the 1995 law.
Whether the claims involved sexual harassment, or discrimination against protected groups, is unknown. So is the identity of lawmakers and aides involved in alleged misbehavior.
Did they provide that slush fund money to the FEC
- Thread starter
- #1,357
What hole are you living in?
eagle1462010
Diamond Member
- May 17, 2013
- 73,626
- 38,642
- 2,605
Who in Congress has been accused of sexual harassment? That's ‘strictly confidential’
The once-sleepy Office of Compliance, which handles congressional labor and employment disputes, has no power to investigate sexual harassment complaints or enforce settlements. And it operates under a cloak of confidentiality that shields both accusers and the accused alike.
“So we’re not getting anything?” Rep. Susan Brooks, R-Ind., asked at a House Administration Committee hearing on sexual harassment in Congress Thursday.
Brooks’ question came after she asked the compliance office to provide her with detailed information about sexual harassment claims made against House members or their staffs.
The compliance office provided this answer by letter on Thursday: “All counseling and mediation conducted by the Office of Compliance is ‘strictly confidential’ and all administrative proceedings and deliberations are ‘confidential’.”
Interesting...........those accused of sexual misconduct who use the slush fund are CONFIDENTIAL...........and they cannot be disclosed...........LOL Unless someone leaks it.............LOL
Shall we say Hypocrisy at 10 paces........LOL
The once-sleepy Office of Compliance, which handles congressional labor and employment disputes, has no power to investigate sexual harassment complaints or enforce settlements. And it operates under a cloak of confidentiality that shields both accusers and the accused alike.
“So we’re not getting anything?” Rep. Susan Brooks, R-Ind., asked at a House Administration Committee hearing on sexual harassment in Congress Thursday.
Brooks’ question came after she asked the compliance office to provide her with detailed information about sexual harassment claims made against House members or their staffs.
The compliance office provided this answer by letter on Thursday: “All counseling and mediation conducted by the Office of Compliance is ‘strictly confidential’ and all administrative proceedings and deliberations are ‘confidential’.”
Interesting...........those accused of sexual misconduct who use the slush fund are CONFIDENTIAL...........and they cannot be disclosed...........LOL Unless someone leaks it.............LOL
Shall we say Hypocrisy at 10 paces........LOL
- Mar 3, 2013
- 86,728
- 49,870
- 2,605
Sunsettommy
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 15,445
- 13,043
- 2,400
The hush money scheme was at the direction of Trump, which is why we have felony court filings on Trump. In the mean time, Cohen is being sentenced for a crime that was at the direction of Trump.https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000166-79ef-d3f0-a1f7-ffefca860002
The parties spend some time debating whether Mr. Trump acted with "actual malice" or "reckless disregard for the truth" in issuing the tweet in question. Assuming that Plaintiff is a "public figure," Plaintiff would have to show that Defendant acted with "actual malice" or "reckless disregard for the truth" to prevail on a cause of action for defamation. See Bentley, 94 S.W.3d at 580. Plaintiff's focus on the actual malice argument comes as no surprise because Plaintiff stands on thin ice in asserting that Mr. Trump's tweet is an actionable statement. Instead, Plaintiff seeks to use her defamation action to engage in a "fishing expedition" concerning the conclusory allegations in the Complaint. The Court will not permit Plaintiff to exploit the legal process in this way. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that she needs to conduct discovery to determine if Mr. Trump was involved in the 2011 threat against her or if he purposefully avoided learning about the 2011 threat. See Opposition at 11. Plaintiff believes that discovery pertaining to these issues will help her to establish that Mr. Trump acted with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth (i.e. if Ms. Clifford can provide evidence showing that Mr. Trump knew of the 2011 threat, then he tweeted a lie when he challenged Plaintiff's reporting of the 2011 threat). (See Transcript of Proceedings
at 29:23-30:4.) However, Plaintiff's reasoning is entirely circular. She assumes that Mr. Trump knew of the 2011 threat, argues in her Complaint and her briefing that Mr. Trump knew of the 2011 threat, and then asks this Court for discovery to prove that Mr. Trump knew of the 2011 threat. In doing so, Plaintiff does not allege facts establishing how Mr. Trump knew or did not know about the 2011 threat in the first place. Plaintiff must do this to sustain a cause of action for defamation.
Not the same but this is where Stormy lost the case in court already..............I find it funny that in that case the OPENLY STATED that he would NOT ALLOW A "FISHING EXPEDITION"...........too funny.
Oh by the way..........Stormy owed Trump legal fees as a result of this case.......LOL
You are truly dumb as hell since the section of the MEMO you claim you have read shows this that doesn't make any sense since "hush" money are NOT Campaign money:
"During the campaign, Cohen played a central role in two similar schemes to purchase the rights to stories each from women who claimed to have had an affair with Individual-1so as to suppress the stories and thereby prevent them from influencing the election. With respect to both payments, Cohen acted with the intent to influence the 2016 presidential election. Cohen coordinated his actions with one or more members of the campaign, including through meetings and phone calls, about the fact, nature, and timing of the payments. (PSR ¶ 51). In particular, and as Cohen himself has now admitted, with respect to both payments, he acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1. (PSR ¶¶ 41, 45). As a result of Cohen’s actions, neither woman spoke to the press prior to the election. "
Paying people to not talk is NOT illegal.
Telling me hush money is not campaign money is totally irrelevant right now. It was stolen money from a charity that was never reported, and we the tax payer got ripped off and it was a few weeks before the election. Cohen is already going to jail for this crime, and Trump is next.
The fact that you think it wasn't campaign related is not relevant to prosecutors. They are tying it to the campaign, whether you like it or not.
Gosh you just ignored what the Prosecutors wrote!
"During the campaign, Cohen played a central role in two similar schemes to purchase the rights to stories each from women who claimed to have had an affair with Individual-1so as to suppress the stories and thereby prevent them from influencing the election. With respect to both payments, Cohen acted with the intent to influence the 2016 presidential election. Cohen coordinated his actions with one or more members of the campaign, including through meetings and phone calls, about the fact, nature, and timing of the payments. (PSR ¶ 51). In particular, and as Cohen himself has now admitted, with respect to both payments, he acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1. (PSR ¶¶ 41, 45). As a result of Cohen’s actions, neither woman spoke to the press prior to the election."
bolding mine
It is clearly HUSHING money, NOT campaign money. It obvious they are paid to keep their mouth shut about claimed affairs.
You have yet to show that HUSHING people with money is illegal or that it violates campaign laws.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Pentagon created fake UFO evidence, promoted false alien stories- Started by Zafira Cherry
- Replies: 0
-
Karen Bass says Ice Raids “leaves no one to do childcare or gardening”- Started by ColonelAngus
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
