U.S. Politics

[vlad]

As long as he has runners paying off his Hookers so its not him directly paying the tea money.

[Udon Map]

Yes, Trump should not be worried. His work marches on for Americans and America First.

Depending on how things turn out, The President's professed lack of concern will be shown either to have been presciently confident, or ignorantly foolhardy.

[Lone Star]

There's been some more Cohen-Trump talk among the legal eagles, and many agree that Cohen pleading guilty is Cohen's guilt, not Trump's guilt. There's only a short leap to Trump being guilty of anything if there is evidence. So far, none. Just Cohen's version of events in order to get a lighter prison term.

Those who believe that anything done within the election process is an attempt to "influence" an election isn't taking the actual wording of the FECA law into consideration.

52 USC 30114 b 2 is specific in what is NOT considered to be a campaign-related expense: they do not include any expense "used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign." Pretty simple.

Celebrities and people of great wealth are often confronted with the task of making what are referred to as "nuisance payments" to people who seek to damage someone's reputation or hurt their family. It is far less expensive, in many ways, to pay them off for their silence. Trump's celebrity and status would make such payments part of the cost of his celebrity whether he was running for office or not.

Trump's lawyers have publicly stated that Trump would have made such payments to protect his business and family whether he was running for office or not.

In United States v Edwards, the defense had two FEC (Federal Election Commission) commissioners prepared to testify that campaign finance law did not preclude anyone from paying a mistress for their silence, and former FEC chairman Brad Smith has spoken specifically about the Cohen payments to women blackmailing Trump and said that the payments are not campaign related.

Additionally, the FEC had audited the Edwards campaign, was aware of the payments to the mistress, and determined that the payments did not need to be reported and were not campaign-related expenses.

It is true that the vast majority -- as in almost all campaign finance violations -- are handled in civil court and result in fines. According to the Federal Election Campaign Act, these violations do not become criminal unless committed "knowingly and willfully." In other words, intent has to be proven in order for campaign finance violations to be considered a criminal offense.

Besides the fact that so many directly connected to the FEC do not think that the Cohen payments violate the law anyway, where is the evidence that any of it was done "knowingly and willfully" to violate campaign finance law?

Many Democrats' heads are exploding and claiming that these payments made by Cohen were a violation of campaign finance law and are an impeachable offense. However, they weren't as outraged when Obama's campaign had almost $2 million in violations during his 2008 campaign and was forced to pay one of the largest civil fines ever -- $375,000. That wasn't an impeachable offense in the view of Democrats. Those offenses, as with Trump, also happened before election day and before Obama took office.

If the SDNY's (Southern District of New York) theory is correct, and they believe that Cohen and Trump both violated the law by settling nuisance claims, then the law needs to be enforced equally. In 2017, there were reports that members of Congress had secretly paid out millions of dollars to settle over 250 cases of sexual harassment and discrimination of staffers by Members. The payments had been made in secret to protect the reputations of members of Congress who have to run for re-election. Are these members using tax revenue to pay for campaign expenses? Can we expect to see SDNY investigations into all of these members of Congress? Nope.

After all, the law is the law. Equal protection. Equal enforcement. But it's not going to happen because TRUMP.

The Southern District of New York convinced Cohen's lawyers to have their client plead guilty to something that the FEC doesn't consider to be a violation or a crime. So why do it?

Simple.

Cohen pled guilty to a laundry list of real crimes, and he was facing a long time in prison. Long time. You can look up all the charges facing Cohen. By pleading guilty to a non-crime that implicates Trump, it allows the GET TRUMP narrative to continue in the court of public opinion. Cohen gets his sentence cut by helping Mueller look like he actually caught Trump doing something illegal. Perception is 90% of everything in politics. All of this hyperbole and supposition will continue into the 2020 elections, which is the goal. I fully expect Dems to impeach in the House even though they know it isn't going anywhere in the Senate. There will be no conviction.

So Cohen gets 3 years in prison (about half of what he could have gotten), and the GET TRUMP drama continues along with more investigations into people to look for crimes. Quite Stalinesque.

Not one single American -- inside or outside of the Trump campaign -- has been charged with anything related to a conspiracy with Russia to influence the election. That was the purpose of the Mueller investigation.

Three Americans were used as the starting point of the Mueller probe. Two were charged with process crimes that have nothing to to with any Russian conspiracy to influence the election. One will get no time in prison. The other got 14 days.

The American who was used as the starting point of it all -- Carter Page -- is walking around free without any legal jeopardy whatsoever. He was the guy who was under surveillance through the initial FISA warrant and thought to be a spy. He was questioned for hours by the FBI. Nothing.

There is a lot to play out, but it really doesn't matter to those playing GET TRUMP. If the courts decide that the payments are against the civil or criminal law, that would be lagniappe for Dems if that came to pass. The fact that it is something Dems can drag out for months and another two years in the court of public opinion is all that matters to them. It's about GET TRUMP.

[Udon Map]

Oh, what the heck. I'll give it a shot!

There's been some more Cohen-Trump talk among the legal eagles, and many agree that Cohen pleading guilty is Cohen's guilt, not Trump's guilt. There's only a short leap to Trump being guilty of anything if there is evidence. So far, none. Just Cohen's version of events in order to get a lighter prison term.

But of course there remains the possibility that Cohen is telling the truth.

52 USC 30114 b 2 is specific in what is NOT considered to be a campaign-related expense: they do not include any expense "used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign." Pretty simple.

Exactly. So whether or not Trump would have paid if he hadn't been running is a question of fact for a jury to determine.

Celebrities and people of great wealth are often confronted with the task of making what are referred to as "nuisance payments" to people who seek to damage someone's reputation or hurt their family. It is far less expensive, in many ways, to pay them off for their silence. Trump's celebrity and status would make such payments part of the cost of his celebrity whether he was running for office or not.

All true. However, one might also consider that if he hadn't been running, the demands for payment wouldn't have been made, and he wouldn't have had to pay anything. As you know, his own statements, recorded on tape, show a show a pretty cavalier attitude towards marital fidelity.

Trump's lawyers have publicly stated that Trump would have made such payments to protect his business and family whether he was running for office or not.

Well, of course they said that. They're his lawyers; and that's the only position they can take. Their taking that position doesn't make it true. That's for a jury to determine.

In United States v Edwards, the defense had two FEC (Federal Election Commission) commissioners prepared to testify that campaign finance law did not preclude anyone from paying a mistress for their silence, and former FEC chairman Brad Smith has spoken specifically about the Cohen payments to women blackmailing Trump and said that the payments are not campaign related.

That testimony might not have been admitted at all. At a trial, interpretation of the law is left solely to the trial judge. In any case, what didn't happen at a different trial years ago is of limited relevance to Trump, at best.

It is true that the vast majority -- as in almost all campaign finance violations -- are handled in civil court and result in fines. According to the Federal Election Campaign Act, these violations do not become criminal unless committed "knowingly and willfully." In other words, intent has to be proven in order for campaign finance violations to be considered a criminal offense.

The question is what intent. Specific intent to break the law? I would suggest that this is not what they're talking about. Intent to make the payments to keep the women quiet and, aware of the law characterizing such payments as campaign-related, intent to try to keep them from becoming public? Yes, what's what they're likely talking about, IMO.

Besides the fact that so many directly connected to the FEC do not think that the Cohen payments violate the law anyway, where is the evidence that any of it was done "knowingly and willfully" to violate campaign finance law?

IF Cohen is telling the truth, that's sufficient evidence.

Many Democrats' heads are exploding and claiming that these payments made by Cohen were a violation of campaign finance law and are an impeachable offense. However, they weren't as outraged when Obama's campaign had almost $2 million in violations during his 2008 campaign and was forced to pay one of the largest civil fines ever -- $375,000. That wasn't an impeachable offense in the view of Democrats. Those offenses, as with Trump, also happened before election day and before Obama took office.

While your information is accurate, it's generally accepted that those violations by the Obama campaign were an oversight. Trump's payments, again, if Cohen is telling the truth, were intentional and made specifically to avoid having the information from being disclosed. Big difference.

If the SDNY's (Southern District of New York) theory is correct, and they believe that Cohen and Trump both violated the law by settling nuisance claims, then the law needs to be enforced equally. In 2017, there were reports that members of Congress had secretly paid out millions of dollars to settle over 250 cases of sexual harassment and discrimination of staffers by Members. The payments had been made in secret to protect the reputations of members of Congress who have to run for re-election. Are these members using tax revenue to pay for campaign expenses? Can we expect to see SDNY investigations into all of these members of Congress? Nope.

I completely agree. The way that these cases of sexual harassment in Congress were handled is disgraceful. It should be investigated; and, if appropriate, the Congressmen should be prosecuted. Moreover, if public funds were used to make the payments, the Members of Congress should be required to repay the Treasury and should be prosecuted for misuse of public funds.

After all, the law is the law. Equal protection. Equal enforcement.

As I said above, completely agree.

The Southern District of New York convinced Cohen's lawyers to have their client plead guilty to something that the FEC doesn't consider to be a violation or a crime. So why do it?

Well, for starters, the FEC isn't the body that makes that determination.

I fully expect Dems to impeach in the House even though they know it isn't going anywhere in the Senate. There will be no conviction.

If the Dems impeach Trump without having even close to the 67 required votes for conviction in the Senate, they're just plain stupid and don't understand what strategic thinking is.

So Cohen gets 3 years in prison (about half of what he could have gotten), and the GET TRUMP drama continues along with more investigations into people to look for crimes. Quite Stalinesque.

Sure, if you start with the premise that Trump hasn't done anything wrong. Otherwise, not so much. Let's see the evidence in the context of a trial. If Trump wins, it will make him that much stronger. If he loses, the Dems will rightfully be in the position to say, "We told you so."

Not one single American -- inside or outside of the Trump campaign -- has been charged with anything related to a conspiracy with Russia to influence the election.

So far.

There is a lot to play out, but it really doesn't matter to those playing GET TRUMP. If the courts decide that the payments are against the civil or criminal law, that would be lagniappe for Dems if that came to pass. The fact that it is something Dems can drag out for months and another two years in the court of public opinion is all that matters to them. It's about GET TRUMP.

Not for me, it isn't. It's ensuring that the justice system proceeds with integrity. If there accusations, a trial is the way that we resolve them. Let's see what Mueller has to say in his final report before we even start to reach any conclusions about who did what, and whether or not it was illegal.

[Lone Star]

You're entitled to your opinions and "IFs".

But Cohen's word alone is not enough. That's almost laughable. Even the indictments described Cohen as a liar. There needs to be quite a bit more evidence than Cohen's word. So we believe Cohen if it's about Trump, but not so much about other stuff?

There's also another issue that involves the SDNY's violation of DOJ protocol in handling FEC violations.

The Justice Department has a handbook and process for dealing with election crimes. That manual requires that they be conducted with the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division in Washington, DC. Link to the manual below.

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/f ... k-0507.pdf

According to that manual, no investigation or indictment can occur without consultation with the Public Integrity Section. The rule also appears in the manual for US attorneys in Section 9.85.210. Link to section below.

https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-85000-p ... y#9-85.210

Since at least 2009, the Public Integrity Section has had the final word on all campaign finance prosecutions at the Department of Justice. According to DOJ policy, prosecuting cases under FECA is confined to violations that are committed knowingly and willfully. This section holds that for a criminal violation to occur, the application of the law to the facts of the case must be clear, and there must be no doubt that the Commission considers that the underlying conduct presents a FECA offense.

So if the FEC doesn't think it was a violation, it probably doesn't even get to the DOJ at all. For it to require a criminal prosecution, the violation has to be committed knowingly and willfully. As in the case of United States v D'Souza. The defendant, Dinesh D'Souza, admitted to knowingly violating the law.

In Cohen's case, the FEC was not consulted, and the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division of the DOJ in Washington, DC was not consulted.

In other words, there is a specific process for handling FEC violations, and it gets even more complex if criminal violations are possible. None were followed by the SDNY. Another case of because TRUMP? Probably. Just get it all out there and let the public and the media put Trump on trial.

[newtovillagelife]

Oh, what the heck. I'll give it a shot!

There's been some more Cohen-Trump talk among the legal eagles, and many agree that Cohen pleading guilty is Cohen's guilt, not Trump's guilt. There's only a short leap to Trump being guilty of anything if there is evidence. So far, none. Just Cohen's version of events in order to get a lighter prison term.

But of course there remains the possibility that Cohen is telling the truth.

52 USC 30114 b 2 is specific in what is NOT considered to be a campaign-related expense: they do not include any expense "used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign." Pretty simple.

Exactly. So whether or not Trump would have paid if he hadn't been running is a question of fact for a jury to determine.

Celebrities and people of great wealth are often confronted with the task of making what are referred to as "nuisance payments" to people who seek to damage someone's reputation or hurt their family. It is far less expensive, in many ways, to pay them off for their silence. Trump's celebrity and status would make such payments part of the cost of his celebrity whether he was running for office or not.

All true. However, one might also consider that if he hadn't been running, the demands for payment wouldn't have been made, and he wouldn't have had to pay anything. As you know, his own statements, recorded on tape, show a show a pretty cavalier attitude towards marital fidelity.

Trump's lawyers have publicly stated that Trump would have made such payments to protect his business and family whether he was running for office or not.

Well, of course they said that. They're his lawyers; and that's the only position they can take. Their taking that position doesn't make it true. That's for a jury to determine.

In United States v Edwards, the defense had two FEC (Federal Election Commission) commissioners prepared to testify that campaign finance law did not preclude anyone from paying a mistress for their silence, and former FEC chairman Brad Smith has spoken specifically about the Cohen payments to women blackmailing Trump and said that the payments are not campaign related.

That testimony might not have been admitted at all. At a trial, interpretation of the law is left solely to the trial judge. In any case, what didn't happen at a different trial years ago is of limited relevance to Trump, at best.

It is true that the vast majority -- as in almost all campaign finance violations -- are handled in civil court and result in fines. According to the Federal Election Campaign Act, these violations do not become criminal unless committed "knowingly and willfully." In other words, intent has to be proven in order for campaign finance violations to be considered a criminal offense.

The question is what intent. Specific intent to break the law? I would suggest that this is not what they're talking about. Intent to make the payments to keep the women quiet and, aware of the law characterizing such payments as campaign-related, intent to try to keep them from becoming public? Yes, what's what they're likely talking about, IMO.

Besides the fact that so many directly connected to the FEC do not think that the Cohen payments violate the law anyway, where is the evidence that any of it was done "knowingly and willfully" to violate campaign finance law?

IF Cohen is telling the truth, that's sufficient evidence.

Many Democrats' heads are exploding and claiming that these payments made by Cohen were a violation of campaign finance law and are an impeachable offense. However, they weren't as outraged when Obama's campaign had almost $2 million in violations during his 2008 campaign and was forced to pay one of the largest civil fines ever -- $375,000. That wasn't an impeachable offense in the view of Democrats. Those offenses, as with Trump, also happened before election day and before Obama took office.

While your information is accurate, it's generally accepted that those violations by the Obama campaign were an oversight. Trump's payments, again, if Cohen is telling the truth, were intentional and made specifically to avoid having the information from being disclosed. Big difference.

If the SDNY's (Southern District of New York) theory is correct, and they believe that Cohen and Trump both violated the law by settling nuisance claims, then the law needs to be enforced equally. In 2017, there were reports that members of Congress had secretly paid out millions of dollars to settle over 250 cases of sexual harassment and discrimination of staffers by Members. The payments had been made in secret to protect the reputations of members of Congress who have to run for re-election. Are these members using tax revenue to pay for campaign expenses? Can we expect to see SDNY investigations into all of these members of Congress? Nope.

I completely agree. The way that these cases of sexual harassment in Congress were handled is disgraceful. It should be investigated; and, if appropriate, the Congressmen should be prosecuted. Moreover, if public funds were used to make the payments, the Members of Congress should be required to repay the Treasury and should be prosecuted for misuse of public funds.

After all, the law is the law. Equal protection. Equal enforcement.

As I said above, completely agree.

The Southern District of New York convinced Cohen's lawyers to have their client plead guilty to something that the FEC doesn't consider to be a violation or a crime. So why do it?

Well, for starters, the FEC isn't the body that makes that determination.

I fully expect Dems to impeach in the House even though they know it isn't going anywhere in the Senate. There will be no conviction.

If the Dems impeach Trump without having even close to the 67 required votes for conviction in the Senate, they're just plain stupid and don't understand what strategic thinking is.

So Cohen gets 3 years in prison (about half of what he could have gotten), and the GET TRUMP drama continues along with more investigations into people to look for crimes. Quite Stalinesque.

Sure, if you start with the premise that Trump hasn't done anything wrong. Otherwise, not so much. Let's see the evidence in the context of a trial. If Trump wins, it will make him that much stronger. If he loses, the Dems will rightfully be in the position to say, "We told you so."

Not one single American -- inside or outside of the Trump campaign -- has been charged with anything related to a conspiracy with Russia to influence the election.

So far.

There is a lot to play out, but it really doesn't matter to those playing GET TRUMP. If the courts decide that the payments are against the civil or criminal law, that would be lagniappe for Dems if that came to pass. The fact that it is something Dems can drag out for months and another two years in the court of public opinion is all that matters to them. It's about GET TRUMP.

Not for me, it isn't. It's ensuring that the justice system proceeds with integrity. If there accusations, a trial is the way that we resolve them. Let's see what Mueller has to say in his final report before we even start to reach any conclusions about who did what, and whether or not it was illegal.

When are you guys getting married.

[newtovillagelife]

There are many cases where the client got time but the lawyer who helped him do it got no time.
There are some cases where the lawyer and the client both got time.
There are very very few cases where only the lawyer got time.
Deal time.

Time for the Art of the Plea Bargain....

Trump has just one way out to protect himself and his family: a comprehensive plea deal to federal and state charges in exchange for his resignation.

[newtovillagelife]

Trump again reiterating that Mexico is going to pay for the wall!! So why is he promising to shut down the government if he does not get taxpayer funds to build it??? What a moron!!!!!

[Udon Map]

So he's moved from "it was a personal expense to spare my family pain and unrelated to the campaign" to "OK, maybe I did it, but I was relying on the advice of my attorney, which turned out to be bad advice."

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politi ... story.html

[Lone Star]

Interesting perspective from a former US attorney. DiGenova discusses the responsibility of legal counsel (Cohen) in all of it, and it's a perspective that I didn't consider until now.

The burden of proof in any trial is on the prosecution, and it's a huge burden; but it really doesn't matter. The whole thing is meant to damage Trump politically whether it gets to court or not. This wouldn't be happening if not for GET TRUMP.

[Udon Map]

Interesting perspective from a former US attorney. DiGenova discusses the responsibility of legal counsel (Cohen) in all of it, and it's a perspective that I didn't consider until now.

Yeah, he can claim bad/incorrect advice from his attorney, Cohen; but if he does that, it operates as a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. Then all communications between Trump and Cohen lose their privileged status, not just the ones relevant to this issue. That's not a road that any client should be going down, let alone Trump in the current circumstances.

[Lone Star]

It will never make it to the courtroom.

[Lone Star]

Wait. Trump did something to help minorities and inner cities? No way.

Trump continues to do work that other presidents wouldn't do.



ALL AMERICANS WINNING.

[SJP17]

It will never make it to the courtroom.

Fair play to old Trump hes done or tried to do most of the things he promised , created a lot of jobs and boosted the economy with wages up.

I didnt think he'd see it threw but hes done good so far, still not convinced he will get the second term but if he does good luck to him and the states.

[tamada]

Interesting perspective from a former US attorney. DiGenova discusses the responsibility of legal counsel (Cohen) in all of it, and it's a perspective that I didn't consider until now.

The burden of proof in any trial is on the prosecution, and it's a huge burden; but it really doesn't matter. The whole thing is meant to damage Trump politically whether it gets to court or not. This wouldn't be happening if not for GET TRUMP.

It wouldn't be happening if the silly bugger had either kept his hand out of the cookie jar or given any thought that his already dubious past would not pass muster under the excoriating scrutiny of being in high public office.

[tamada]

It will never make it to the courtroom.

Fair play to old Trump hes done or tried to do most of the things he promised , created a lot of jobs and boosted the economy with wages up.

I didnt think he'd see it threw but hes done good so far, still not convinced he will get the second term but if he does good luck to him and the states.

tamada's list of "11 greatest one-hit wonders"

"Macarena" – Los Del Rio (1996)
"Tainted Love" – Soft Cell (1982)
"Come on Eileen" – Dexys Midnight Runners (1982)
"I'm Too Sexy" – Right Said Fred (1991)
"Mickey" – Toni Basil (1982)
"Who Let the Dogs Out?" – Baha Men (2000)
"Ice Ice Baby" – Vanilla Ice (1990)
"Eye of the Tiger” - Survivor (1982)
"Rico Suave" – Gerardo (1990)
"99 Luftballons" – Nena (1984)
"Did I Just Say That Out Loud?" – Donald J Trump (2020)

[trekkertony]

Perhaps the 2,700 people who will be offered employment with the reopening of shuttered GM plants will hope that the president is successful in being re-elected.

[Lone Star]

The US Department of the Interior announced a record-setting number of offshore leases for wind energy. Over $405 Million in winning bids were recorded.

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke's statement included:

“To anyone who doubted that our ambitious vision for energy dominance would not include renewables, today we put that rumor to rest. With bold leadership, faster, streamlined environmental reviews, and a lot of hard work with our states and fishermen, we’ve given the wind industry the confidence to think and bid big.”

Almost 400,000 acres were leased by Equinor, Mayflower Wind Energy and Vineyard Wind -- four of the eleven companies bidding. That amount of acreage will provide approximately 4.1 gigawatts of commercial wind generation. Experts say that amount of electricity will be enough for well over a million homes.

STEADY WINNING FOR ALL AMERICANS.

[papafarang]

The US Department of the Interior announced a record-setting number of offshore leases for wind energy. Over $405 Million in winning bids were recorded.

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke's statement included:

“To anyone who doubted that our ambitious vision for energy dominance would not include renewables, today we put that rumor to rest. With bold leadership, faster, streamlined environmental reviews, and a lot of hard work with our states and fishermen, we’ve given the wind industry the confidence to think and bid big.”

Almost 400,000 acres were leased by Equinor, Mayflower Wind Energy and Vineyard Wind -- four of the eleven companies bidding. That amount of acreage will provide approximately 4.1 gigawatts of commercial wind generation. Experts say that amount of electricity will be enough for well over a million homes.

STEADY WINNING FOR ALL AMERICANS.

Well that's a first, you sure their not going to subsidize it with carbon fuel taxes , and yes impressive ,an area of 25x25 miles. Well it's some effort at least
STEADY WHINGING FOR ALL AMERICANS

[dunroaming]

You could never accuse the Americans of not having wind (hot) power