- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Trump likely to be indicted by Manhattan US Attorney
Posted on 12/9/18 at 11:15 am
Posted on 12/9/18 at 11:15 am
LINK
The major takeaway from the 40-page sentencing memorandum filed by federal prosecutors Friday for Michael Cohen, President Trump’s former personal attorney, is this: The president is very likely to be indicted on a charge of violating federal campaign finance laws.
It has been obvious for some time that President Trump is the principal subject of the investigation still being conducted by the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York.
Cohen earlier pleaded guilty to multiple counts of business and tax fraud, violating campaign finance law, and making false statements to Congress regarding unsuccessful efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow.
Yes, Cohen has stated he did the hands-on work in orchestrating hush-money payments to two women who claim to have had sexual liaisons with Trump many years ago (liaisons Trump denies).
But when Cohen pleaded guilty in August, prosecutors induced him to make an extraordinary statement in open court: the payments to the women were made “in coordination with and at the direction of” the candidate for federal office – Donald Trump.
Why are they running this as some ominous outlook to his Presidency?
The major takeaway from the 40-page sentencing memorandum filed by federal prosecutors Friday for Michael Cohen, President Trump’s former personal attorney, is this: The president is very likely to be indicted on a charge of violating federal campaign finance laws.
It has been obvious for some time that President Trump is the principal subject of the investigation still being conducted by the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York.
Cohen earlier pleaded guilty to multiple counts of business and tax fraud, violating campaign finance law, and making false statements to Congress regarding unsuccessful efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow.
Yes, Cohen has stated he did the hands-on work in orchestrating hush-money payments to two women who claim to have had sexual liaisons with Trump many years ago (liaisons Trump denies).
But when Cohen pleaded guilty in August, prosecutors induced him to make an extraordinary statement in open court: the payments to the women were made “in coordination with and at the direction of” the candidate for federal office – Donald Trump.
Why are they running this as some ominous outlook to his Presidency?
Posted on 12/9/18 at 11:17 am to Oates Mustache
Any day now I guess.
Posted on 12/9/18 at 11:17 am to jamboybarry
quote:
In marked contrast, though, when it was discovered that Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign was guilty of violations involving nearly $2 million – an amount that dwarfs the $280,000 in Cohen’s case – the Obama Justice Department decided not to prosecute. Instead, the matter was quietly disposed of by a $375,000 fine by the Federal Election Commission.
Posted on 12/9/18 at 11:17 am to Oates Mustache
Desperation from the left is palatable.
Posted on 12/9/18 at 11:18 am to Oates Mustache
No they won't.
This looks like it was written by foshizzle
This looks like it was written by foshizzle
Posted on 12/9/18 at 11:18 am to Oates Mustache
quote:
The major takeaway from the 40-page sentencing memorandum filed by federal prosecutors Friday for Michael Cohen, President Trump’s former personal attorney, is this: The president is very likely to be indicted on a charge of violating federal campaign finance laws.
So still no collusion? Lol!
Posted on 12/9/18 at 11:20 am to Bass Tiger
Go for it boys is all I have to say....Let's get ready to rumble and settle this once and for all.
Posted on 12/9/18 at 11:20 am to Oates Mustache
Sitting President cannot be indicted...nice try though
Posted on 12/9/18 at 11:21 am to Oates Mustache
Yeah. Indict a sitting President. That’s a winner for sure.
Posted on 12/9/18 at 11:21 am to Bass Tiger
I would bet good money that, if Mueller wraps, they indict just to maintain a cloud over the administration.
The American left has become a frightening, power hungry monster.
The American left has become a frightening, power hungry monster.
Posted on 12/9/18 at 11:21 am to Oates Mustache
Please God I want y'all to try this, get this thing started already.
Posted on 12/9/18 at 11:25 am to Oates Mustache
Every campaign has finance violations lol
Posted on 12/9/18 at 11:28 am to Oates Mustache
quote:Bring it!
Trump likely to be indicted by Manhattan US Attorney
Posted on 12/9/18 at 11:29 am to Oates Mustache
I hope this happens.
I’m so ready for shite to hit the fan and I’m so sick of everything that’s been going on.
I’m so ready for shite to hit the fan and I’m so sick of everything that’s been going on.
Posted on 12/9/18 at 11:30 am to Oates Mustache
This country needs a purge in the worst way. There is only one way to handle a rabid dog and that’s what liberals are. Put them down.
Posted on 12/9/18 at 11:33 am to Oates Mustache
quote:
prosecutors induced him
Yes they did.
Posted on 12/9/18 at 11:41 am to Oates Mustache
Too bad he didn't violate campaign finance laws.
Hell of a thing throwing your career away...
Hell of a thing throwing your career away...
Posted on 12/9/18 at 11:43 am to Oates Mustache
If they indict Trump there will be a revolt...Dems don't want to go down that path
Posted on 12/9/18 at 11:47 am to Oates Mustache
When I first saw McCarthy's article I thought he was feeding free legal advice and opinion and it was a nothing burger.
It is something when the democrats WILL INDEED use this for impeachment. I will bold why I think McCarthy is correct that this is honest Bob gunning for Trump.
The democrats hope is....that enough republicans will scream with them.
I sadly predict they will do an impeachment hearing (even if Trump declassifies and proves they set him up) honest Bob, The MSM, democrats, GOPe, waiting to crow after appearing like doves... Will say it is a separate matter, Trump paid an affair to stfu. They are already calling it a felony in a mockingbird fashion.
I think it will go to SCOTUS, there will be a black cloud over Trump, he won't be able to do anything but be where they wanted him all along-on the defense. They will make it impossible for him to run for re election.
I hope I am wrong.
It is something when the democrats WILL INDEED use this for impeachment. I will bold why I think McCarthy is correct that this is honest Bob gunning for Trump.
quote:Bottom-line the MSM will continue to report this AS A FELONY, crime, bad orange man POS (they will move away from the word collusion and say CRIME-FELONY) over and over and the dems will grab the majority and SCREAM impeachment.
Contributors such as Cohen made were limited in 2016 to a $2,700 donation, but there is no limit on a candidate’s spending. Thus, the argument goes, even if the hush-money payments vastly exceeded Cohen’s legal ceiling, Trump himself could have made them legally.
There are flaws in this theory.
To begin with, the campaign finance laws do not just prescribe limits on spending; they mandate disclosure. This is a leitmotif of the sentencing memo: Congress demanded transparency. A candidate may spend unlimited amounts on the campaign, but the amounts spent must be reported to the Federal Election Commission.
The sentencing memo for Cohen argues that the hush money payments were not merely unreported. It states that Cohen and the Trump organization – the president’s company – went to great lengths to conceal them by fraudulent bookkeeping.
Equally significantly, Cohen was not charged with merely making illegal donations. He was charged in the first campaign finance count with causing a company to make illegal donations.
This was the offense centering on Playboy model Karen McDougal. It involves David Pecker, a longtime friend of the president and of Cohen. Pecker runs American Media, Inc., which controls the National Enquirer.
According to prosecutors, Pecker arranged with Cohen that the Enquirer would buy McDougal’s story for $150,000 and bury it. Although it was contemplated that Cohen would reimburse Pecker (and then be reimbursed by Trump), the reimbursement did not happen.
Cohen, therefore, pleaded guilty not to making his own excessive contribution but to causing a third party to make an illegal contribution.
Cohen says he was operating at Trump’s direction. Logically, then, if this is true and Cohen caused the third-party illegal contribution, so did the president.
Notably: prosecutors have given Pecker and another American Media executive, Dylan Howard, immunity from prosecution. Do you think prosecutors did that to tighten up the case against Cohen? I don’t.
As for the second campaign finance charge, that involves an illegal payment by Cohen – the $130,000 to Stephanie Clifford (who goes by the stage name “Stormy Daniels”). There are two things to bear in mind about it.
First, as we’ve just seen, it is a felony to cause another person to make an illegal contribution. Since, under the claim by prosecutors Trump was directing Cohen, Trump could be accused of having caused Cohen to make an illegal payment.
The fact that Trump could have made the payment himself without violating the law does not excuse allegedly causing Cohen to violate the law.
Trump’s point that he had no personal limit on spending is also undermined by the facts that (a) the payment was not reported, and (b) the purpose of the transaction was to distance him from the payment (which is why the non-disclosure agreement employs pseudonyms rather than referring to Trump and Clifford by name).
Second, the violation to which Cohen pleaded guilty is not merely making illegal expenditures; it also includes making such expenditures “in cooperation, consultation, or concert, with or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate.” (Section 30116(a)(7)(A) of the election laws).
Again, this is why Cohen was pushed at his guilty plea proceeding to state that he acted “in coordination with and at the direction of” Trump. It is an assertion the prosecutors emphasize in the sentencing memo. The thrust of their allegation is that Cohen and Trump are confederates in an illegal contribution that Cohen made only because Trump directed him to do so.
This is not to suggest that the president is without cards to play. Campaign finance violations have a high proof threshold for intent. President Trump could argue that because there was no spending limit on his contributions, he did not think about the campaign-finance implications, much less willfully violate them.
There is, furthermore, a significant legal question about whether the hush-money payments here qualify as “in-kind” campaign contributions. There is nothing illegal per se in making a non-disclosure agreement; they are quite common. The criminal law comes into play only if the non-disclosure payment is deemed a donation for purposes of influencing a political campaign.
Arguably, the payment is not a donation if it was made for an expense that was independent of the campaign – that is, money that would have had to be paid even if there were no campaign.
Cohen chose to plead guilty and forfeited the right to contest this point. That concession is not binding on Trump. If the president is charged, I expect he would vigorously argue that the payment was not a campaign contribution.
There are other salient issues to consider. Justice Department guidance holds that a sitting president may not be indicted. If prosecutors in the Southern District of New York believe they have a case against the president, must they hold off until after he is out of office?
If President Trump were to win re-election, he would not be out of office until 2024, when the five-year statute of limitations on a 2016 offense would have lapsed.
More importantly, do campaign finance violations qualify as “high crimes and misdemeanors,” which is the constitutional standard for impeachment? It is hard to imagine an infraction that the Justice Department often elects not to prosecute is sufficiently egregious to rise to that level, but the debate on this point between partisans would be intense.
Those are all questions for another day. The point for this day is that the Cohen case in New York City is not about Cohen. The president is in peril of being charged.
The democrats hope is....that enough republicans will scream with them.
I sadly predict they will do an impeachment hearing (even if Trump declassifies and proves they set him up) honest Bob, The MSM, democrats, GOPe, waiting to crow after appearing like doves... Will say it is a separate matter, Trump paid an affair to stfu. They are already calling it a felony in a mockingbird fashion.
I think it will go to SCOTUS, there will be a black cloud over Trump, he won't be able to do anything but be where they wanted him all along-on the defense. They will make it impossible for him to run for re election.
I hope I am wrong.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News