53 minutes ago, riclag said:

It's not illegal to offer hush money

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/09/trump-involved-in-nearly-every-step-of-hush-money-payments-to-stormy-daniels-and-karen-mcdougal-wsj.html

If Donald Trump made the payments directly I would tend to agree with it.  If he arranged or was involved in a 3rd party making a payment to someone -- then it would not be clear cut.  I do think it is a stretch.  I however have not read through all the campaign finance laws myself, and they have changed since 2000.

3 hours ago, riclag said:

It's not illegal to offer hush money

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/09/trump-involved-in-nearly-every-step-of-hush-money-payments-to-stormy-daniels-and-karen-mcdougal-wsj.html

It depends on the reasons behind the payments. If it's done in order to influence the outcome of a federal election, it is a crime.

 

According to the filing by attorneys for the Southern District of New York, the payments were made with that specific intent - and Trump (Individual-1) knew that this was their nature:

 

Quote

“With respect to both payments, Cohen acted with the intent to influence the 2016 presidential election,” the filing reads. “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. 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.”

 

 

Oops.

 

If I am reading this right, Donald Trump did not pay off Daniels directly -- which could be problematic legally.  Apparently, the Trump Organization paid a bonus to Cohen for his payout to the porn star (on top of the reimbursement).  The Trump organization is not Donald Trump -- it is legally a third party.  That could make things very problematic.  There are lots of potential land mines... This could also cause problems for him with regards to IRS, tax evasion -- since if this were a payment to hide personal indiscretion only - it should not come from an organization (even 100% owned organization).  You cannot use a corporation as your personal bank account -- it is legally a completely separate entity.  You have to do it through your paycheck or dividends of some sort etc.

Edited December 8, 20187 yr by bkkcanuck8

1 minute ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

It depends on the reasons behind the payments. If it's done in order to influence the outcome of a federal election, it is a crime.

 

According to the filing by attorneys for the Southern District of New York, the payments were made with that specific intent - and Trump (Individual-1) knew that this was their nature:

 

 

 

The issue is that even if it is a crime (it is an edge case so it is not clear cut) intent cannot be derived by one person who likely could never be called as a witness in the first place since he is not fully co-operating which makes his testimony problematic. 

7 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

It depends on the reasons behind the payments. If it's done in order to influence the outcome of a federal election, it is a crime.

 

According to the filing by attorneys for the Southern District of New York, the payments were made with that specific intent - and Trump (Individual-1) knew that this was their nature:

 

 

 

What if the payments were made to avoid someone influencing a federal election, because that is the only intention that outdated greedy porn star had.

7 minutes ago, janclaes47 said:

What if the payments were made to avoid someone influencing a federal election, because that is the only intention that outdated greedy porn star had.

and her creepy lawyer, that would be

extortion

/ɪkˈstɔːʃ(ə)n,ɛkˈstɔːʃ(ə)n/

noun

the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats.

 

synonyms:demanding money with menaces, exaction, extraction, blackmail; 

shakedown

Edited December 8, 20187 yr by Srinivas

4 minutes ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

The issue is that even if it is a crime (it is an edge case so it is not clear cut) intent cannot be derived by one person who likely could never be called as a witness in the first place since he is not fully co-operating which makes his testimony problematic. 

If Mueller's end game is what it appears to be (to build a strong case against  "Individual-1,") then surely Cohen's testimony will be just be one of many pieces of evidence used to construct sufficient criminal intent by "Indivudual-1."  BTW, this individual has not been named but we all know who that is. To your point above, there are methods to similarly "piece the corporate veil," to prove the actions of the Trump organization are the actions of Trump himself which I think would be effective in such a highly personal, ego-driven organization.

3 minutes ago, janclaes47 said:

What if the payments were made to avoid someone influencing a federal election, because that is the only intention that outdated greedy porn star had.

She has every legal right to influence the election - influencing the election is not a crime unto itself - it is just free speech (unless you are advocating repealing the 1st amendment).   It only comes into play with respect to campaign finance and lots of strict regulations with respect to that.  Once you announce formally, you have to abide by those laws.  She has nothing to do with respect to campaign finance.  If a 3rd party paid her that would be different, but we have no indication of another 3rd party paying her for that purpose.

3 minutes ago, Srinivas said:

band her creepy lawyer, that would be

extortion

/ɪkˈstɔːʃ(ə)n,ɛkˈstɔːʃ(ə)n/

noun

the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats.

 

synonyms:demanding money with menaces, exaction, extraction, blackmail; 

shakedown

That is not the case in this case since if I remember right she did not make an affirmative action to extort money - the action was initiated by the people wanting to keep her quiet.

3 minutes ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

If a 3rd party paid her that would be different, but we have no indication of another 3rd party paying her for that purpose.

Wasn't it you who said just that?

 

20 minutes ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

Apparently, the Trump Organization paid a bonus to Cohen for his payout to the porn star (on top of the reimbursement).  The Trump organization is not Donald Trump -- it is legally a third party. 

 

1 minute ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

That is not the case in this case since if I remember right she did not make an affirmative action to extort money - the action was initiated by the people wanting to keep her quiet.

good point. assuming who initiated it. I can't find much on that.

Just now, janclaes47 said:

Wasn't it you who said just that?

Do you know how to read something in the context of what it is a reply to?

 

The response was referring to having a 3rd party pay her to go public. 

 

Just now, Srinivas said:

good point. assuming who initiated it. I can't find much on that.

If it was extortion -- it would be the first time an (non-disclosure agreement) NDA was signed as part of it.

1 minute ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

If it was extortion -- it would be the first time an (non-disclosure agreement) NDA was signed as part of it.

and broken

1 minute ago, Srinivas said:

and broken

that is a civil case between the parties.  Donald Trumps whole career has been riddled with unethical breaking of contracts when it suited him and he felt it was worth it. 

Edited December 8, 20187 yr by bkkcanuck8

3 minutes ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

Do you know how to read something in the context of what it is a reply to?

 

The response was referring to having a 3rd party pay her to go public. 

 

Yes I can read. Your response was to a post mentioning payments as hush money. In my book hush money has the opposite meaning of going public.

 

I stand with my comment that the payments made by a third party, which you acknowledge, were made to avoid an election being influenced.

1 minute ago, janclaes47 said:

Yes I can read. Your response was to a post mentioning payments as hush money. In my book hush money has the opposite meaning of going public.

 

I stand with my comment that the payments made by a third party, which you acknowledge, were made to avoid an election being influenced.

I don't disagree with you, but again when it comes down to it... it would be a stretch if it were from his personal pocket since there are two reasonably explanations and given that you always have to err with the lesser of the two explanations.   One person's recollection of the reason for it would be insufficient, and I doubt there are many other witnesses (not enough to make a case) that would have been a witness to the 'intent'

36 minutes ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

Oops.

 

If I am reading this right, Donald Trump did not pay off Daniels directly -- which could be problematic legally.  Apparently, the Trump Organization paid a bonus to Cohen for his payout to the porn star (on top of the reimbursement).  The Trump organization is not Donald Trump -- it is legally a third party.  That could make things very problematic.  There are lots of potential land mines... This could also cause problems for him with regards to IRS, tax evasion -- since if this were a payment to hide personal indiscretion only - it should not come from an organization (even 100% owned organization).  You cannot use a corporation as your personal bank account -- it is legally a completely separate entity.  You have to do it through your paycheck or dividends of some sort etc.

Spot on. Misuse of company's assets.

Looking at this from the perspective of a non-American, it appears to be the establishment vs Donald Trump. The rest of the world is wondering how it will all come out. Meantime, financial markets will continue in turmoil as a result of his actions.

8 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Looking at this from the perspective of a non-American, it appears to be the establishment vs Donald Trump. The rest of the world is wondering how it will all come out. Meantime, financial markets will continue in turmoil as a result of his actions.

I have to disagree with your generalizations.  If I were an American (I have lived and worked in the US but not in the last 15 years) I would be a Republican generally speaking (though I would have had to become an Independent at this point).  Reason for my issues with him are plenty.  His lack of a moral compass or ethics (lack of morals is a light way of putting it) matter greatly to me; his decision to use 'race' for political purposes (lots of examples for that); complete lack of decorum. The republican establishment has been completely cowed by him.

Edited December 8, 20187 yr by bkkcanuck8

5 hours ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

If Donald Trump made the payments directly I would tend to agree with it.  If he arranged or was involved in a 3rd party making a payment to someone -- then it would not be clear cut.  I do think it is a stretch.  I however have not read through all the campaign finance laws myself, and they have changed since 2000.

Actually, it makes it worse. It's conspiracy. Not only that. Trump disguised the hush money as payments to Cohen for services rendered. And it was entered as such in the Trump organization's account. Which in itself is illegal. 

2 hours ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

I don't disagree with you, but again when it comes down to it... it would be a stretch if it were from his personal pocket since there are two reasonably explanations and given that you always have to err with the lesser of the two explanations.   One person's recollection of the reason for it would be insufficient, and I doubt there are many other witnesses (not enough to make a case) that would have been a witness to the 'intent'

Oh Lordy - You seem to have forgotten Cohen has a long time habit of recording his phone calls.

10 hours ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

I have to disagree with your generalizations.  If I were an American (I have lived and worked in the US but not in the last 15 years) I would be a Republican generally speaking (though I would have had to become an Independent at this point).  Reason for my issues with him are plenty.  His lack of a moral compass or ethics (lack of morals is a light way of putting it) matter greatly to me; his decision to use 'race' for political purposes (lots of examples for that); complete lack of decorum. The republican establishment has been completely cowed by him.

I'm not disagreeing with what you say. Trump is a vulgarian. I'm curious though - what generalisation are you disagreeing with, and why?

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

I'm not disagreeing with what you say. Trump is a vulgarian. I'm curious though - what generalisation are you disagreeing with, and why?

Establishment vs Donald Trump

 

That is a generalization and it basically used as a way of saying that all the problems that Donald Trump has had is because he is an outsider and he was never given a chance because of this because he was an outsider.   I am not saying that there would not have been some of that, but Donald Trump from the very beginning never really allowed that to be the reason -- his actions from the very beginning drove the narrative since he never rose to the level that the office of President demands.   During the first six months I kept on telling my cousin (American side of the family) in Texas who is a Democrat -- that he should calm down and give Donald Trump a chance.   I was hoping that Donald Trump would rise to be better than he is -- and I have been sorely disappointed.

 

 

49 minutes ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

Establishment vs Donald Trump

 

That is a generalization and it basically used as a way of saying that all the problems that Donald Trump has had is because he is an outsider and he was never given a chance because of this because he was an outsider.   I am not saying that there would not have been some of that, but Donald Trump from the very beginning never really allowed that to be the reason -- his actions from the very beginning drove the narrative since he never rose to the level that the office of President demands.   During the first six months I kept on telling my cousin (American side of the family) in Texas who is a Democrat -- that he should calm down and give Donald Trump a chance.   I was hoping that Donald Trump would rise to be better than he is -- and I have been sorely disappointed.

 

 

You could interpret my post that way; however, I was not using the statement to excuse Trump's behaviour. Simply an observation he hijacked the Republican Party from outside.

10 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

You could interpret my post that way; however, I was not using the statement to excuse Trump's behaviour. Simply an observation he hijacked the Republican Party from outside.

They were ripe for hijacking and wanted to win at all costs.  Although many of them are not admitting it now I think that there are very many that wish that Trump never happened.

"For first time, prosecutors connect Trump to a federal crime"

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/prosecutors-illegal-hush-money-paid-trumps-direction-022350118--politics.html

18 hours ago, riclag said:

"Bradley Smith, a Republican former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, said in an email that the payments to Daniels could not be considered campaign payments "any more than a candidate paying for trash pick-up at his house, lest the shabby appearance of his yard lead to unflattering news stories."

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/09/trump-involved-in-nearly-every-step-of-hush-money-payments-to-stormy-daniels-and-karen-mcdougal-wsj.html

Always a good idea to believe the gerrymanderer chief...

Edited December 9, 20187 yr by mikebike

14 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Looking at this from the perspective of a non-American, it appears to be the establishment vs Donald Trump. 

No. It's more about good and decent Americans vs Trump.

2 hours ago, Berkshire said:

No. It's more about good and decent Americans vs Trump.

Your electoral colleges did not serve you very well in that case. It's difficult for me to understand that system.