little by little." right on a tv interview recently? Regarding the SD pay-off? W a lawyer like that, who needs a prosecutor?

That pair is quite an asset for the prosecution!

The worst defendant is a jabberjaw defendant.

does that mean it was paid out of campaign funds?

Was the Trust for the campaign or for his business? This is so confusing.

the transfer and new label. Not sure though. "Trust" may be code for CAMPAIGN FUNDS.

doesn't seem as important as which source the funds came from. If it was business funds, that's a different matter than campaign funds.

I would think anyway.

sort of a cofefve moment, or pattern of moments? Who knows what evil lies in the minds of men?

It was a payoff for a campaign action that wasn't declared as such, and hidden via shady accounting as a legal retainer to Cohen.

Weisselberg Was the money man mentioned as Executive 1 in Cohen's case, which was how they got him to flip. They had the evidence of his crime and flipped him to get all the other dirt on Trump and family.

Rather than the purpose of the payment?

Trump could give any amount he wanted to to his campaign, but he'd have to declare it and there would be a paper trail of where the money was spent.

Instead they tried to conceal the payment as a "legal fee" when in fact he was directly paying Cohen back for paying off Stormy. They did this because they wanted to keep the payoff under the table, and paid it directly from the trust bypassing the scrutiny of campaign finance laws. Which isn't legal.

And does this hold true if he says the payment had nothing to do with the campaign, but was made to protect his marriage?

I know Cohen plead guilty, but it was never tried in a court of law. Who knows how that would have turned out if he had been?

He can make up any excuse he wants but he knowingly broke the law.

As I'm sure will Pecker's and Weisselberg's testimony's. They weren't given immunity for no reason.

It's the fact that they tried to conceal a campaign related expense by opening a shell company, borrowing money to put in in and then using that money to pay off Stormy. Then they hid the money they paid Cohen back with on the books of the Trump Trust.

Literally, it was their coverup that took them down.

Now that there is some magnificent karma!

I don't think this is as much of a smoking gun as people are making it sound like.

What I'm much more excited about on the immunity is that Mueller may have the opportunity to ask about more than just this payment. I'm convinced that the real Trump crimes are money laundering and Russia related that predate the election. I don't think it's realistic to think that these crimes are going to get Trump convicted of anything (he'll pardon himself, or his successor will in order to "help the country heal&quot , but hard proof of financial crimes relating to Russia are going to push him out of office.

That is how intent is proven. Well, that and the tapes Cohen has won't hurt any.

they would also be committing a felony!

Do you think they did?

"I'll take 'No-Shit' for $800 Alex"

Below the line so to speak then it would have been less of an issue. Instead he took it from off the top.

it is a campaign contribution. You don't get to call it something else merely to avoid having to declare it a campaign contribution.

Here, the timing of the NDA will create a strong presumption that its purpose was to benefit the campaign - so the payment for it is a campaign contribution (subject to disclosure and limits). Ultimately - if it goes to trial - the jury will need to evaluate the evidence presented to determine the purpose of the NDA.

was it really a contribution by him? There are limits on that, but Trump had no limits.

And if Cohen pled guilty to an illegal contribution, does that implicate the candidate? Has it before?

I'm sorry, not trying to be difficult, just understand. It all seems rather jumbled.

is a campaign contribution. (So if Cohen fronted the money, it was a contribution). As to Trump - even though there is no limit to a contribution by Trump, disclosure is still required.

Unless campaign funds were used, I'm not sure. Anyone is free to enter into a NDA agreement that is signed by both parties. At least I think so.

Not a traditional campaign expenditure...and therein is the nugget.

How do you prove that? Why wouldn't he just say it was about his marriage and personal reputation, not the campaign?

And given all the shit that DID come out about his behavior prior to the election, I think that would be a hard argument to make. Everyone knew his past and he was elected anyway.

But the payoff was weeks before the election. If he just wanted to protect his marriage and personal reputation he would have paid her off years before. The ONLY reason to do it in the fall of 2016 was to keep the information from the public prior to the election.

That’s why John Edwards walked. But his payoffs were long before he was running for president. Trump ignored these women until right in the midst of the Access Hollywood tape. It is hard to prove intent but we don’t know what Cohen has on tape. Could be there’s any email or tape saying “ get them paid off so they don’t come forward before the election.” Trump doesn’t hide his intentions when everyone is looking ... much less when he’s only with his cronies.

the Easter Bunny on stage at the RNC.

Her story on top of that tape would have sunk his election chances. Cohen himself said it was paid to affect the campaign.

If Cohen paid it then was reimbursed, it was an unreported loan to the campaign regardless of where the repayment came from.

If the payment had been made in 2015 instead of in the weeks before the voting, they might be able to argue that it wasn't campaign related. The way they hid it is essentially an admission of foul intent, it's not like he couldn't afford it (or maybe he couldn't).

Personally I don't think he could afford it. He's been robbing Peter to pay Paul for years, he just found a new piggy bank.

Had he actually mounted a defense, is it a given he would have been found guilty? I personally think he pled out to avoid more serious charges. Guy was a dirtbag.

Would love to hear from some actual DU lawyers on this.

That Cohen agreed to plea guilty to a fake charge, violating campaign finance laws, in exchange for leniency for actual criminal acts which didn't involve Trump and his family.

I lurk at FR often and went there to see what they are saying about the Cohen plea deal and this is a common argument. Is that where you first seen it too? At Fee Republic?

You plead guilty to lesser charges to avoid more serious ones.

I never said the charges he pled to were fake. Just that he had never been tried for them.

What part of that don't you understand exactly?

Obvious is obvious

I have questioned whether or not he would have been found guilty had he gone to trial.

There is a difference and I believe you know that.

Cohen's plea included that he acted at the direction of the candidate.

The prosecution offered the info that Cohen provided was corroborated by evidence/testimony by executive #1. They had the goods on this charge that were clear and there was little doubt that he would have been convicted.

If they had gone to trial, there would have been more serious charges brought as well that might have been less of a slam dunk, but would have likely implicated the candidate as well.

This keeps him on the hook and makes him available to testify in other trials, i.e. the NY State case against the Trump Trust and Trump Org. The CFO got his immunity because he could hook someone higher up, Cohen & Trump.

He was paying her hush money so as to not hurt his chances in the election. Which makes it a campaign expense.

Hard to prove.

I'm going to trust the investigators/law enforcement on this one. They may very well HAVE that and be able to prove it.

Remember - Law Enforcement always has a reason for what they do. Always. Cop on the beat, or Mueller - no difference. Trust them and defer to them and don't give them any problems.

Or maybe you're referring to those being investigated?

What's important is proving that Trump had knowledge of it. We have three guys now who suggest Trump was directly involved. Weisselberg made the payment, and Cohen and Pecker arranged the deal. And we have Trump talking on audio with regards to Pecker, so he had direct knowledge.

Wouldn't be hard to prove in a court room with Cohen, Pecker, and Weisselberg all on the stand.

It's not like a "coincidence" that the payment happened right before the campaign. And now that two of the guys have immunity and a third pled guilty, they can all safely say on the stand that "It was for the campaign."

Those three words "for the campaign" are enough to bring down Trump. And three guys saying that on the witness stand should be enough to get a conviction.

But he didn’t need or want to. It became a campaign expenditure because he paid her off the week before the election and for the purpose of furthering his political campaign.

If he’d paid her ten years ago? Nothing illegal about hush money. But disguising a secret payment a week before the election? Felonious.

That matters too.

If she hadn't said boo up until the election, hush money, for any purpose, wouldn't have even been a consideration prior to that.

You can always cook the books.

But it was a campaign related expense, clearly and unambiguously, they paid her off not to talk before the campaign. It was understood by Cohen and Cohen plead guilty to it being a campaign violation. Then you have Pecker, and now Weisselberg, who cooperate that it was a campaign violation (because they were witnesses against Cohen).

It doesn't matter if the money came out from under Trump's mattress and was cash.

Link to tweet