Michael Cohen never said Trump HIMSELF didn't reimburse him for the $130,000

[pnwmom]

or that Trump HIMSELF hadn't been a "party to the transaction."

Or that Trump was unaware of the payment.

He only spoke of the "campaign" and the "organization." But Trump has personal accounts outside of his businesses -- and Cohen hasn't ruled any of them out as the source of the $130K, or of its reimbursement.

So, if Trump himself was the source, why cover it up? Wouldn't it have been legal for Trump to pay her off, as long as he paid the appropriate gift tax and didn't claim it as some kind of business expense?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/13/us/politics/stormy-daniels-michael-cohen-trump.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&mtrref=undefined

“Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly,” Mr. Cohen said in a statement to The New York Times. “The payment to Ms. Clifford was lawful, and was not a campaign contribution or a campaign expenditure by anyone.”

He declined to answer several follow-up questions, including whether Mr. Trump had been aware that Mr. Cohen made the payment, why he made the payment or whether he had made similar payments to other people over the years.

[underpants]

1. Boy Cohen is a real lite brite isn't he?

Not only is the whole thing back in the news but now she's claiming that HE violated the agreement. Is this for more money? Or could she file a civil suit? We've seen what can happen in those depositions

[CincyDem]

2. Maybe, but more likely that he put in back in the news his way vs. some other story about to break.

FEC has been on his ass about this I have to think someone somewhere was going to say something soon. As painful as it must be for them, I'm sure their strategy is to get out "ahead" of the story by framing the narrative. Typical fascist move.

[Trumpocalypse]

3. Please don't play that game.

That is what right wingers do. We should have a higher standard.

[pnwmom]

4. Why shouldn't I? A lawyer tried to game us with some legalese.

There is nothing wrong with parsing it the way another lawyer would.

[Trumpocalypse]

5. It's playing a dishonest semantics game.

Again we should strive for a higher standard or we are no better than they are.

[pnwmom]

6. What is dishonest about it? The Trump ORG and the Trump CAMPAIGN

are legal entities separate from Trump himself.

Cohen left the door wide open for the possibility that Trump himself was the ultimate source of the funds. And he "declined to answer" when asked if Trump knew about the payment.

[Trumpocalypse]

9. Deal in facts, not possibilities

That is honest. Just because they play these intellectually dishonest games is not a justification for us to do it too.

[pnwmom]

11. I AM. And the FACT is that the lawyer refused to answer whether Trump was aware

of the payment.

And the FACT is the lawyer said that he wasn't reimbursed by the Trump ORGANIZATION or by the Trump CAMPAIGN. But he never said he wasn't reimbursed by a personal check from Trump himself.

Another FACT is that the lawyer said he used his funds to "facilitate" the transfer of the $130K to Stormy. NOT that he paid the whole $130K out of his own funds. Why did he choose that wording? To make people like you think he had said more than he did say. What does it mean to "facilitate" a transfer of funds? It doesn't mean to personally pay the funds out of ones own account. It means to "assist" in the transfer.

One way of facilitating or assisting in the transfer would be to do something we know for a FACT that Cohen did: setting up that brand new LLC . He spent some amount of money to set up the LLC (there are filing fees involved); and then someone -- we don't know who -- put $130,000 in it. And then Cohen transferred that money to Stormy.

[Trumpocalypse]

15. That is still playing semantics games.

Again, we should be better than that.

[pnwmom]

23. No, it is stating facts and drawing logical conclusions. We should be smart enough to do that --

not get duped by cleverly written statements, designed by a lawyer to mislead.

[Trumpocalypse]

25. It is not stating facts

when it is based on what someone didn't say. That is like saying someone is an alien from another planet because they never said that they weren't. It's dishonest.

[pnwmom]

28. No, it isn't.

It is as if someone said:

Ivanka Trump didn't pay the check. Donald Jr. didn't pay the check.
And then drew the conclusion: no Trump paid the check.

WRONG. Eric Trump could have paid the check. Or Don Sr. could have paid the check. We don't know who paid it, except that it wasn't Ivanka or Don Jr.

The person of Donald Trump is a separate entity from the campaign of Donald Trump and from the organization of Donald Trump. They are three separate things, and we should be aware of what Cohen said AND what he left out. If the statement is truthful, then neither the campaign paid it nor the Trump organization.

But the possibility remains that Trump himself paid it. And, since Michael Cohen is a trained lawyer, the likelihood is that the ambiguous choice of language was deliberate.

[Trumpocalypse]

36. You're talking possibilities, not facts.

We should rely on facts not assumptions based on what someone didn't say.

[meadowlander]

34. I would be prepared to give Mr Cohen the benefit of the doubt

if he would be prepared to answer the three simple follow-up questions posed by reporters:

"He declined to answer several follow-up questions, including whether Mr. Trump had been aware that Mr. Cohen made the payment, why he made the payment or whether he had made similar payments to other people over the years."

The fact that he refused to answer these questions when an innocent man could have easily said no with no repercussions and exonerated his boss at the same time is really the only thing you need to know.

That is not a "semantics" game. It is the application of logic to a fact set to draw a conclusion about the credibility of a statement.

He said X. He did not say Y. When asked if Y was true, he refused to answer.
If he could have said "No" without creating legal jeopardy for himself or his boss, it was entirely to his advantage to do so but he did not say no.
Therefore, the answer is probably yes.

[Trumpocalypse]

37. Asking questions is one thing

Never said anything is wrong with that. But drawing conclusions by what someone didn't say is dishonest.

[meadowlander]

39. It depends on the degree of certainty you ascribe to the conclusion.

Do I know for an absolute fact that Trump did tell Cohen to make the payment? No. But I also don't know as an absolute fact that gravity exists or that the sun will rise tomorrow.

Do I have good evidence to suggest a very strong probability that Trump did tell Cohen to make the payment? Yes. As discussed above.

There is nothing dishonest about using your brain to assess credibility either based on what someone said or what they obviously deliberately omitted to say or straight out refused to say.

[Trumpocalypse]

40. That's a dishonest argument

We do know that gravity exists and that the sun will rise tomorrow because science tells us so.

Any argument that is based on what someone didn't say is intellectually dishonest.

[meadowlander]

41. Science does not "tell us so".

Science posits a theory with strong evidence which has never been disproven and on which, therefore, we can generally rely. That's why it's called the "theory of gravity". You will never find a scientist who will tell you they know with absolute certainty anything.

You can keep thumping on about "dishonesty" but that won't make it a fact. It just demonstrates your ignorance of how the legal system works.

99% of court cases are decided on "beyond a reasonable doubt" or "on the balance of probabilities" not on absolute facts. There is nothing inadmissible in court about asking juries to draw conclusions based on someone choosing to plead the fifth.

[Trumpocalypse]

48. No Gravity is a law

known as Newton's law of universal gravitation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation). You can deny science all you like but it is still a dishonest argument.

And actually it is inadmissible for a prosecutor to ask a jury to convict someone because they invoked the fifth amendment.

[Ms. Toad]

20. Why is it a dishonest semantic game to try to decipher what someone who may have very carefully

chosen his words might be hiding?

I agree that if we were crafting a statement, and trying to hide facts by careful word choice, that it would be dishonest semantics game.

Here, the most obvious legal problem for Cohen's payment is if it was paid by the campaign or for the campaign as an in-kind contribution. Cohen using language carefully is denying this, but not expressly denying that he might have been paid by Trump, is engaging in self-protection.

I don't get why you are so insistent that putting your self in the mindset of someone crafting a likely deceptive statement, in order to figure out both what they were saying and what they might be hiding, is playing a dishonest semantics game.

[Trumpocalypse]

21. It is one thing to question what they said.

It is another thing to make assumptions by what they didn't say. That's what is dishonest about it.

[pnwmom]

24. There is nothing dishonest about pointing out the gaping holes in what he said

and where one would be led if one walked through them.

[Trumpocalypse]

26. Yes it is dishonest if you make conclusions

Pointing out holes, gaping or not, is one thing. But drawing a conclusion is not honest. This is the dishonest game the right wing plays. We should be better than that.

[pnwmom]

29. There is nothing dishonest in laying out facts and then pointing out the logical conclusions.

My reasoning was there for anyone to see.

You can't find anything wrong with my logic, so you make a false claim of dishonesty.

[Trumpocalypse]

35. Basing an argument on what someone didn't say is not logical

It is just dishonest. Again, that is what the right does. We should have a higher standard.

[pnwmom]

42. Pointing out what someone did NOT say is perfectly honest. And smart.

And I didn't BASE my argument on something he failed to say. I reached my CONCLUSION after demonstrating what he said and what he failed to say.

[Trumpocalypse]

44. Still dishonest.

You can try to rationalize all you like but conclusions can only be reached by facts.

[pnwmom]

45. And everything I said was a fact, or a conclusion based on the facts. n/t

[Trumpocalypse]

50. Not when you draw a conclusion

based on what someone didn't say. That's just intellectually dishonest.

[pnwmom]

51. You obviously never took a single logic class. You would have learned this in Logic 101. nt

[Trumpocalypse]

55. No but took many ethics classes and basing a conclusion

on what someone didn't say is dishonest.

[bluestarone]

46. fully agree with YOU on this subject!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

[Ms. Toad]

27. That's just silly.

Understanding what they say includes sorting out what they acknowledged - and the parameters of the gaping holes they left.

There is an open question about where the money came from.

The statement excluded two entities as sources: the Trump Organization and the Trump Campaign. The gaping hole includes Trump, himself. Are you seriously suggesting it is dishonest to observe that, without making the statement being, Trump could have reimbursed Cohen? That we have to limit our questioning of what they did say to, "Trump Campaign and Trump Organization didn't pay for it. Guess it will just have to remain a mystery, because it would be dishonest to point out that Trump, himself, might have footed the bill."

I wholeheartedly agree that we should not be stooping to their level. But carefully reading what they are, and are not, saying is just part of making sure we're not burying our heads in the sand.

[Lisa0825]

31. Your concern is duly noted.

And 2 posts hidden within the last 90 days. Things that make you go Hmmm.

[infullview]

32. The argument can be made that it is an in-kind donation no matter where the money came from

It's exactly the same situation that John Edwards was in, but there's no political will to investigate or prosecute. The republicrooks are going to just ignore it, just like they have for every other slimy thing tRump does.

[Trumpocalypse]

38. Depends on what you're basing the argument.

If it is based on verifiable facts, great. If it is just an assumption based on what someone didn't say, that's intellectually dishonest.

[infullview]

58. What assumption?

Stormy says she has a dress with his dna on it😂

[Trumpocalypse]

59. Good for Stormy! nt

[Ms. Toad]

64. I wasn't suggesting otherwise.

Just trying to articulate more clearly why carefully parsing whatever Republicans say has nothing to do with dishonesty.

[pwb]

12. We tried being honest and doing the right thing, and lose.

But we finally learned we are dealing with Satan himself with Putin at his side. I say fight fire with fire.

[Trumpocalypse]

16. That is just rationalization

to do the wrong thing.

[pwb]

17. Wrong thing? You want to be nice.? Y

And you promote "Union Yes" in every post? Unions fight for us and our rights.

[Trumpocalypse]

18. Yes fight for our rights

but do so in an honest way and don't play silly semantics games just to win a debating point.

[pwb]

19. like using trumps name in your profile?

[Trumpocalypse]

22. Not the same thing and you know it.

Again that is playing silly semantics games to score a debate point. Thanks for proving my point for me.

[pwb]

30. So you can be nice all you want trump ocalypse.

But others have every right to be pissed and angry. Even if you are offended by it.

[Trumpocalypse]

33. Don't put words in my mouth.

Never said that no one has the right to be pissed and angry. Just that we should be honest when criticizing the other side and not make stuff up by what they 'didn't' say.

[pnwmom]

43. No one is making stuff up about what Cohen didn't say. It is a FACT that Cohen's

statement about the Trump campaign and organization not being involved in the payment to Stormy does NOT exclude the possibility that Trump himself provided the funds, either directly or indirectly.

ALL Cohen said was that the Trump campaign and the Trump organization weren't involved. But that leaves the door wide open for Trump himself to walk through.

[Trumpocalypse]

49. It also leaves the door open for Trump

to be a space alien, because Cohen didn't say he wasn't.

[pnwmom]

52. That is irrelevant to this argument. Again, logic 101. You can probably find a class in it

at your local college. I think you would benefit.

[Trumpocalypse]

57. I recommend ethics 101. nt

[pnwmom]

60. Funny, because you clearly never took that, either. n/t

[Trumpocalypse]

62. Drawing a conclusion again

with no facts.

[pnwmom]

65. Someone who had taken an ethics class -- and remembered it -- surely would know

that my discussions of fact and conclusions were not unethical.

But in this case, I will concede I may have drawn the wrong conclusion. Perhaps you took ethics and/or logic. But if you took either subject in college (assuming you went there, which I'm guessing is likely), then you simply don't remember some key parts of the classes.

[Trumpocalypse]

67. But you're not dealing in facts.

You've speculating based in what someone didn't say.

[Trumpocalypse]

70. Still drawing a conclusion

without any facts.

[Trumpocalypse]

69. Again not logic, but ethics

And I think you know that.

[Ms. Toad]

66. That is about as intellectually dishonest a statement as I've read recently

* Cohen said, "The money didn't come from A, and it didn't come from B"

* pnwmom said, "Hmm....even though Cohen is trying to give the impression Trump wasn't involved (by excluding two Trump entities), he is not directly denying Trump involvement.

That is a very clear, logical, analysis of the words actually spoken by Cohen on a narrow issue. Cohen is clearly being very careful not to make dishonest statements - all the while giving the impression Trump is not involved

* you call her intellectually dishonest (for reasons that I still can't fathom)

Now you suggest that logically analyzing the carefully crafted statement Cohen made about the limited issue about the source of the $130,000 is the same as picking a random theme (space aliens) out of thin air and concluding that because it never crossed Cohen's mind to deny that Trump was a space alien, that Trump could fall into that random category.

[Trumpocalypse]

68. Sorry what is dishonest is drawing a conclusion

based on what someone didn't say. That is dishonest and unethical. That is the same BS the right wing pulls. We should have a higher standard.

[Ms. Toad]

71. Please point to a single conclusion in the OP

that is not literally Cohen's statement or a mandatory inference therefrom.

Subject line of the OP Michael Cohen never said Trump HIMSELF didn't reimburse him for the $130,000 or that Trump HIMSELF hadn't been a "party to the transaction."

Cohen excluded only two entities as reimbursers or parties to the transaction: The Trump Campaign and the Trump Organization.

Trump is neither the Trump Campaign nor the Trump Organization, therefore the conclusion that Cohen did not exclude Trump as having reimbursed the payment, or as having been a party to the transaction, is a mandatory inference from the statement.

First paragraph of the OP: Cohen never said Trump was unaware of the payment

When directly asked, Cohen declined to answer questions about whether Trump was made aware of the payment.

Therefore, literally, silence in response to a direct question, means Cohen never said Trump was unaware of the payment.

Second paragraph of the OP: "But Trump has personal accounts outside of his businesses -- and Cohen hasn't ruled any of them out as the source of the $130K, or of its reimbursement.

Cohen excluded only two direct or indirect sources of the payment: The Trump Campaign and the Trump Organization.

Trump is neither the Trump Campaign nor the Trump Organization, therefore the conclusion that Cohen did not exclude Trump as a a direct or indirect source of the payment is a mandatory inference from the statement.

Unless you're suggesting that Trump does not have personal accounts outside of his businesses. . . which wouldn't even pass the laugh test.

Third paragraph of the OP

Questions - questions aren't conclusions

Fourth paragraph of the OP

A link to the NYT article - links are not conclusions

5th and 6th paragraphs of the OP

Two paragraphs from the article, quoting Cohen - quotes from Cohen are not conclusions.

Part of the art of lawyering is saying things that are literally true but that paint things in the most favorable light for our clients.

It is unethical for Cohen to lie. If he does so he risks his license to practice law. To satisfy his client without getting into ethical hot water, he needs to imply Trump had nothing to do with the payment (whether or not Trump was involved) - so he names as many Trump entities as he can that he can identify without making his statement false.

Careful omissions, phrases intended to imply - but not actually state - something that is false skate close to the edge but are at least much more challenging to prosecute in front of the ethics board than outright lies.

Careful reading of such statements is not the least bit dishonest or unethical. Only a fool would take at face valuen the carefully crafted omissions in a statement paid for by, and made on behalf of, someone who is a habitual liar.

[Trumpocalypse]

72. True Trump didn't say Trump didn't personally pay

But he also didn't say that someone else, like the Koch brothers, didn't pay. He didn't say a disgruntled Bernie Sanders supporter didn't pay. He didn't say that Vladimir Putin didn't pay.

This is why it is intellectually dishonest to draw conclusions but what someone didn't say.

[Ms. Toad]

73. You have not pointed to a single conclusion that was drawn.

Yet you've been ranting for two days now about how intellectually dishonest it is to draw conclusions.

[Trumpocalypse]

74. The top post speaks for itself.

The OP even admitted to drawing a conclusion in a post further down the thread.

[Ms. Toad]

75. I walked through the OP line by line for you.

No conclusions, other than statements of fact that cannot be disputed in light o Cohen's statement.

Again, Please point out a single conclusion in the OP that you believe is intellectually dishonest.

[Trumpocalypse]

76. The OP admitting to drawing a conclusion

So why are you wasting time making a false argument.

[Ms. Toad]

77. It is not a false argument.

You are the one, in numerous response to the OP, who claimed the conclusions drawn in the OP are intellectually dishonest.

I am asking you to point top a single one. If they are blatantly offensive enough for you to rant about it for two days, you should be able to do identify one.

At this point, you are pointing to shiny objects to distract from the reality that you have repeatedly made statements that are unsupportable.

[Trumpocalypse]

78. Youre right its a moot point

Since the OP admitted to drawing a conclusion.

[Ms. Toad]

79. Pretty sorry that after two days of ranting you cannot provide a single example

of intellectual honesty in the OP.

Which, as I noted earlier, makes this line of attack one of the most intellectually dishonest I've seen in a long time.

Until you decide to provide a concrete example, enjoy your little fantasy world where white is black, and black is white.

[Trumpocalypse]

80. Im not the one ranting

Or projecting.

[NewJeffCT]

54. He is a lawyer

and his prepared statement was likely very carefully worded so he would not be charged with perjury. He was either incredibly incompetent not to include Donald Trump himself in the statement or he was left out on purpose.

[Trumpocalypse]

56. Have you ever seen Cohen on TV?

He doesn't seem very competent. But until there is a verifiable set of facts to confirm either, a conclusion can't be made.

[pnwmom]

61. He is the worst kind of lawyer: a Trump toady. But he is excellent at that job.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Cohen_(lawyer)

[Trumpocalypse]

63. Trump toady! LOL

I wonder if that is what it says on his resume

[Gothmog]

7. From Prof. Hasen

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

8. From Ari Melber

Link to tweet

[pnwmom]

47. Yeah, there were so many sloppy headlines yesterday.

That was annoying.

[oberliner]

10. Everything about this is so obvious and clear

Trump slept with this woman and arranged for her to be paid off to keep quiet about it.

Pretty simple.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. Josh Marshall on Cohen: he's a seriously rich Trump crony who wouldn't need specific paying back

What you have to understand is that Michael Cohen is not the President’s lawyer and never has been – not in any sense most people would understand the term and not in any way that is real. Michael Cohen lies through his teeth like most people breathe. So it’s entirely possible that Trump or various other entities later reimbursed Cohen. But as someone who’s done a lot of research into Cohen and his decade-plus relationship with Donald Trump, I will say again: picking up this charge himself is entirely plausible.

Going on three years ago when I first started seeing Cohen on TV defending Trump, I figured he was just Trump’s punk lawyer. Especially his TV lawyer, the guy who goes on TV to talk shit on Trump’s behalf. He’s definitely that in a sense. But that really gives an incomplete sense of who the guy is. You may be thinking: Maybe Trump can cut checks for 6-figure payoffs but not his lawyer. Not so. On his own, Cohen is a very, very wealthy man. Scale of his wealth? Just one example. Two and a half years ago he bought an apartment building on the Upper East Side for $58 million. That’s just one of his holdings. Cohen grew up on Long Island. But from his teenage years, he was immersed in New York’s Russian and Ukrainian immigrant community and had personal or family ties to people with ties to organized crime.
...
I don’t doubt that Cohen, who has a law license, made ample use lawyer-client privilege. But in the sense people think of, he was never Trump’s lawyer. Not even in the Tom Hagen sense in which he sometimes presents himself. He worked on business deals. But mostly he took care of problems for Trump and served as a conduit for money. While that was happening, Cohen continued to build his own real estate mini-empire from his perch at the Trump Organization, working with his original sources of money and pull and adding the resources of the Trump Organization to enable him to operate on a larger scale. (I go deeper into various of the wild details in this post from a year ago.)

That was the essence of the relationship. Cohen brought in money and connections. He also made big money under the Trump Organization umbrella – not only by whatever he made from Trump directly but far more from the deals he was doing on his own operating in Trump’s orbit. One key part of the arrangement though was total loyalty and maximal expressions of loyalty, making messes go away. You can see this in how Cohen talks about his relationship with Trump and the mix of aggressive bullying and lavish toadying he shows when he discusses Trump on TV.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/who-will-rid-me-of-this-meddlesome-stormy-the-michael-cohen-story

[pnwmom]

14. Doesn't matter. It doesn't change the fact that he never said Trump didn't reimburse him --

he refused to answer the question.

And he only said that the Trump CAMPAIGN and the Trump ORGANIZATION weren't involved -- not that Trump didn't write a personal check to the LLC from which her payment was made.

[Gabi Hayes]

81. As has been discussed in detail by legal experts, the key word in all this is FACILITATE,

As in he facilitated the payment from an undisclosed source

This means he could have facilitated the payment by putting a f#$@%*# STAMP on an envelope, that being the only money he spent out of his own pocket

He’s also one of the most obnoxiously obvious liars I’ve ever seen, with astoundingly shady connections

How that person here can so tendentiously (and disingenuously) defend this con man’s con man makes me wonder what its true motives might be

A giant kudos for hanging in there with it

Energy Creature come to mind?

[pnwmom]

82. Exactly right. "Facilitate" could have meant almost anything.

My guess is he paid the filing fees for the LLC he set up, but maybe he didn't even spend that much.

[Deb]

53. He is a courier for services rendered.

" Hey Mike, you know what to do. " Seems don is incapable of finishing any job himself.