Today in Trump's 1st term as President

[philbo]

The "campaign finance violations" that he plead guilty to, are not crimes.

Incorrect. Cohen violated federal campaign finance laws in two different ways: (1) He violated the long-standing ban on corporate political contributions under the Tillman Act of 1907 and (2) he violated the personal contribution limits in the Federal Election Campaign Act that restrict how much money an individual can provide to a presidential candidate. He also indicated that candidate Trump was involved with these violations of law.

He cannot be charged with "campaign violations", because he was not seeking office.

This is just plain wrong. The Justice Department has noted in guidelines that campaign finance violations become crimes when they satisfy a monetary threshold and are committed with specific criminal intent — a threshold that Mr. Cohen’s violations met on both fronts. You can make a campaign violation and not be a candidate, to state otherwise is just wilful ignorance at this point.
https://www.justice.gov/criminal/file/1 ... ad#page=24

The tax evasion, etc. are, so he will face the consequences for those. Paying someone as part of a non-disclosure agreement, is also not illegal, it is done all the time, not only by politicians, but celebrities, of all types.

It's true that nondisclosure agreements in and of themselves are not illegal. But, in this case cohen has admitted that the payments connected with those agreements were campaign related, not personal expenditures. Cohen further admits that the payments were made with the coordination and at the direction of a federal candidate. Those admissions make this a matter of campaign finance fraud... felonies for both violations in this matter.

[Flightmare]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Z6gbnuAgI0

Alan Dershowitz' point of view on the Cohen situation.

[ScottDLS]

The "campaign finance violations" that he plead guilty to, are not crimes.

Incorrect. Cohen violated federal campaign finance laws in two different ways: (1) He violated the long-standing ban on corporate political contributions under the Tillman Act of 1907 and (2) he violated the personal contribution limits in the Federal Election Campaign Act that restrict how much money an individual can provide to a presidential candidate. He also indicated that candidate Trump was involved with these violations of law.

He cannot be charged with "campaign violations", because he was not seeking office.

This is just plain wrong. The Justice Department has noted in guidelines that campaign finance violations become crimes when they satisfy a monetary threshold and are committed with specific criminal intent — a threshold that Mr. Cohen’s violations met on both fronts. You can make a campaign violation and not be a candidate, to state otherwise is just wilful ignorance at this point.
https://www.justice.gov/criminal/file/1 ... ad#page=24

The tax evasion, etc. are, so he will face the consequences for those. Paying someone as part of a non-disclosure agreement, is also not illegal, it is done all the time, not only by politicians, but celebrities, of all types.

It's true that nondisclosure agreements in and of themselves are not illegal. But, in this case cohen has admitted that the payments connected with those agreements were campaign related, not personal expenditures. Cohen further admits that the payments were made with the coordination and at the direction of a federal candidate. Those admissions make this a matter of campaign finance fraud... felonies for both violations in this matter.

Cohen pled guilty to two crimes that he did not commit and could not commit. This in itself is not uncommon as the prosecution undoubtedly had some other crimes they could have won at trial.

But here’s the problem...paying off Stormy for an NDA is not a campaign expenditure. Particularly because her claims of an affair with Trump predated the campaign and even if they didn’t, did not specifically arise out of the campaign. Since it’s not a campaign expenditure, the payment of it for, on behalf of, as directed by, and/or reimbursed by Trump...is not a contribution to the campaign by Cohen or Trump. This is from an FEC chairman. If SDNY has a different legal argument, let’s hear them make it in court. But they won’t because they already got him to plead.

[philbo]

Cohen pled guilty to two crimes that he did not commit and could not commit.

Sophistry at it's finest. Your conclusory statement is wrong on it's face. Lawschool 101... you can't plead guilty to a crime you can't commit.

But here’s the problem...paying off Stormy for an NDA is not a campaign expenditure. Particularly because her claims of an affair with Trump predated the campaign and even if they didn’t, did not specifically arise out of the campaign. Since it’s not a campaign expenditure, the payment of it for, on behalf of, as directed by, and/or reimbursed by Trump...is not a contribution to the campaign by Cohen or Trump. This is from an FEC chairman. If SDNY has a different legal argument, let’s hear them make it in court. But they won’t because they already got him to plead.

The key here is whether the payments were made as a campaign expenditure, or whether the payments were made irrespective of the campaign. This would be the fact question for a jury.

Your conclusion is one possible outcome. If the payments would have been made irrespective of the campaign, cohen is not guilty. But, Cohen opted to plead guilty rather than test his defense before a jury, and given the evidence the government has in its possession (including tapes of his conversations with Trump and proof of conversations with AMI about their payments to hide the McDougal story) he had plenty of reason to choose the path did. Had it not been for the campaign, the evidence strongly suggests that neither payment would have been made, and a jury might reasonably find that the hush money paid was an expense that did not exist “irrespective of the campaign” (the relevant FEC standard), but rather only came about because of the rocky status of the Trump campaign just before the 2016 election.

Your contention that the incidents did not occur during the campaign, nor arise out of the campaign is not the relevant standard for prosecution. The question is rather why these payments occurred... and again a jury may have found sufficient evidence that the payments were made years later not to hush up the stories because of personal embarrassment, but because of the effect they may have had on the campaign itself. Trump could have paid these women at any time over the years, the fact that he directed cohen to do so when did, and then lie about it for months afterwards, could lead a reasonable person to conclude that the hush money was paid to directly benefit the campaign.

Bottom line, what former FEC chairmen or other talking heads espouse is irrelevant at this time. Cohen, his attorneys, the prosecution, and the judge agreed that cohen had met all the elements required by law when he plead guilty in court. Wishing otherwise won't change that.

[philip964]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/christine- ... 1537188729

Christine Blasey Ford comes forward to accuse Brett Kavanaugh the SCOTUS nominee of a sexual attack while he was in high school.

This may trigger his withdrawl as a nominee which would most likely push the nomination past the November election.

Brett Kavanaugh has minced no words that it did not happen. Thus, where we might forgive a mistake made in high school, not admitting to it now is different, if it ends up being true.

Fortunately for both, it was not a he said she said event. Apparently there were witnesses. So a lot will depend on what those people say.

Hopefully Trump will avoid tweeting about the whole matter and let the cards fall where they will.

[ScottDLS]

Cohen pled guilty to two crimes that he did not commit and could not commit.

Sophistry at it's finest. Your conclusory statement is wrong on it's face. Lawschool 101... you can't plead guilty to a crime you can't commit.

But here’s the problem...paying off Stormy for an NDA is not a campaign expenditure. Particularly because her claims of an affair with Trump predated the campaign and even if they didn’t, did not specifically arise out of the campaign. Since it’s not a campaign expenditure, the payment of it for, on behalf of, as directed by, and/or reimbursed by Trump...is not a contribution to the campaign by Cohen or Trump. This is from an FEC chairman. If SDNY has a different legal argument, let’s hear them make it in court. But they won’t because they already got him to plead.

The key here is whether the payments were made as a campaign expenditure, or whether the payments were made irrespective of the campaign. This would be the fact question for a jury.

Your conclusion is one possible outcome. If the payments would have been made irrespective of the campaign, cohen is not guilty. But, Cohen opted to plead guilty rather than test his defense before a jury, and given the evidence the government has in its possession (including tapes of his conversations with Trump and proof of conversations with AMI about their payments to hide the McDougal story) he had plenty of reason to choose the path did. Had it not been for the campaign, the evidence strongly suggests that neither payment would have been made, and a jury might reasonably find that the hush money paid was an expense that did not exist “irrespective of the campaign” (the relevant FEC standard), but rather only came about because of the rocky status of the Trump campaign just before the 2016 election.

Your contention that the incidents did not occur during the campaign, nor arise out of the campaign is not the relevant standard for prosecution. The question is rather why these payments occurred... and again a jury may have found sufficient evidence that the payments were made years later not to hush up the stories because of personal embarrassment, but because of the effect they may have had on the campaign itself. Trump could have paid these women at any time over the years, the fact that he directed cohen to do so when did, and then lie about it for months afterwards, could lead a reasonable person to conclude that the hush money was paid to directly benefit the campaign.

Bottom line, what former FEC chairmen or other talking heads espouse is irrelevant at this time. Cohen, his attorneys, the prosecution, and the judge agreed that cohen had met all the elements required by law when he plead guilty in court. Wishing otherwise won't change that.

Really? A plea deal involves trying of the facts? No it doesn't. Witness Flynn who pled guilty to a crime he didn't commit. And hundreds of other deals that are reached every day where a defendant pleads guilty to a pre-agreed crime in order to avoid being tried on a different one (usually more serious). There's even a particular plea for it if the defendant doesn't want the plea used at a subsequent civil trial (nolo contendere). So Cohen pled guilty to something he didn't do...quite common.

Next, the CFR is particularly clear on the application of campaign finance expenditures. They must arise specifically due to the campaign, they must be specifically directed to influence the campaign, and the primary purpose must be to affect the campaign with no personal component. Personal expenditures on someones behalf or by an individual on his own behalf are not campaign expenditures. Otherwise Trump could not buy a suit with his own money because the argument could be made that he did it to look good to influence the campaign.


The SDNY wouldn't have had a chance of co

[philip964]

"Turns out that Brett Kavanaugh’s mother was the judge in in a 1996 home-foreclosure case in which the defendants were the parents of Kavanaugh’s last-minute attempted-rape accuser Christine Blasey Ford. The house in question, pictured above, is in Potomac, one of the highest-income towns in Montgomery County, Maryland, the Washington, D.C. suburb that is one of America’s highest-income residential areas."

[Jusme]

"Turns out that Brett Kavanaugh’s mother was the judge in in a 1996 home-foreclosure case in which the defendants were the parents of Kavanaugh’s last-minute attempted-rape accuser Christine Blasey Ford. The house in question, pictured above, is in Potomac, one of the highest-income towns in Montgomery County, Maryland, the Washington, D.C. suburb that is one of America’s highest-income residential areas."

Of course that is just a coincidence right?

It seems very convenient, that this just came to light now. Not only is it a nearly 40 year old incident, but DF, sat on the info for three months, without doing anything with it. Here is Kurt Schlichter's take.

https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtsch ... r-n2519589

[philip964]

"The professor says that the assault only came to a stop when a third person, Mark Judge, intervened and jumped on top of them.

However, Judge has completely denied that the incident ever took place. Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California was also first made aware of the allegations back in July but concealed all information relating to them for weeks.

It has since emerged that Ford has a history of left-wing political activism;

– She signed a letter attacking Trump’s “zero tolerance” policy at the U.S.-Mexico border, asserting that it was “violating fundamental human rights”.

– Ford attended a women’s march event and even wore a version of the infamous “pussy hat” made to look like a brain."

[philbo]

Really? A plea deal involves trying of the facts? No it doesn't.

No, a plea deal doesn't require trying of facts, a trial does. To reach the conclusion that cohen was innocent a trial and evidence would have been required... by accepting a plea agreement cohen admitted his guilt and stated in court the actions he took that were criminal. Why he did so may be varied, but the crimes exist and he stated under oath that he violated them.

Witness Flynn who pled guilty to a crime he didn't commit. And hundreds of other deals that are reached every day where a defendant pleads guilty to a pre-agreed crime in order to avoid being tried on a different one (usually more serious). There's even a particular plea for it if the defendant doesn't want the plea used at a subsequent civil trial (nolo contendere). So Cohen pled guilty to something he didn't do...quite common.

Again, you can plead to a crime for many reasons, but when you do you are truthfully saying that you committed the crime. The law does not permit the defendant to lie about his guilt just to get a plea deal. If a defendant wants to work an agreement without admitting guilt his two options are to plead No Contest (you do not admit guilt or claim you are innocent. You simply acknowledge that the prosecution has enough evidence to prove you committed a crime and you agree not to contest the charges). The other is called an Alford Plea. When a defendant enters an Alford plea, he pleads guilty but asserts his innocence while acknowledging that the prosecution likely can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Both flynn and cohen admitted guilt, neither asserted their innocence as part of their plea agreement. Both admitted they were guilty of the crimes charged in their plea agreements.

Next, the CFR is particularly clear on the application of campaign finance expenditures. They must arise specifically due to the campaign, they must be specifically directed to influence the campaign, and the primary purpose must be to affect the campaign with no personal component. Personal expenditures on someones behalf or by an individual on his own behalf are not campaign expenditures. Otherwise Trump could not buy a suit with his own money because the argument could be made that he did it to look good to influence the campaign.

You left out one important element that brings this into the criminal sphere.... a campaign can spend whatever it wants, but it must declare those expenditures when they exceed a statutory minimum. By not declaring these expenditures, and with evidence that steps were taken to make sure the hush money didn't become public knowledge, the basis for a conspiracy to commit fraudulent campaign expenditures was laid. If it had gone to trial, a jury would have had the burden to decide if the required elements rose to the commission of a felony.... cohen saved the prosecution that effort by PLEADING GUILTY of the CHARGES ALLEGED and the specific steps he took that were a felony in this instance. It will be interesting to see what else may be forthcoming from cohen's tapes

[philip964]

https://thefederalistpapers.org/opinion ... hs-accuser

12 reasons to question the truthfulness of Kavanaugh’s accuser.

[philip964]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... chool.html

Daily Mail turning up stuff. Brett as a teenager.

[Jusme]

Trump, declassifying FISA court documents.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavl ... s-n2519884

I guess, they will finally prove, all of that Russian collusion.

[mojo84]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... chool.html

Daily Mail turning up stuff. Brett as a teenager.

A whole lot, if not most, of what iJudge wrote about the teenage parties, sex and drinking was quite common. It was widely known what went on at those parties and people were there by choice. I know many, both male and female, that have fond memories and regrets from those years and activities. Wise parents knew better than to leave their teenagers at home when they went out of town. That was a period when hard partying and wild parties were extremely common. A lot of it continues to this day.

I find this woman's accusations very suspect and unreliable.

[philip964]

Trump, declassifying FISA court documents.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavl ... s-n2519884

I guess, they will finally prove, all of that Russian collusion.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09 ... probe.html

OMG finally.

This is big.

Will Justice and the FBI comply?

Timing is perfect to take heat off Brett.

Will MSM even cover?