Giuliani Links Michael Cohen's Stormy Daniels Payoff to 2016 Election
Source: The Daily Beast
Rudy Giuliani on Thursday morning contradicted his own assertion that Michael Cohens payment to Stormy Daniels in October 2016 was not a campaign contribution. During an interview on Fox & Friends, Giuliani reiterated that Donald Trump reimbursed Cohen for the $130,000 paid to Daniels in exchange for her silence about an alleged affair. Then Giuliani, who joined Trumps legal team this week, said: Imagine if that came out on October 15, 2016 in the middle of the last debate with Hillary Clinton. Cohen didnt even ask. Cohen made it go away. He didnt even ask.
Link to tweet
READ IT AT THE HOUSTON CHRONICLE
###
Read more: https://www.thedailybeast.com/giuliani-links-michael-cohens-stormy-daniels-payoff-to-2016-election
ollie10
(2,091 posts)BootinUp
(47,165 posts)Options. IOW he is just trying to let the air out of the balloon a little at a time.
GusBob
(7,286 posts)Fending off the forces of evil with their powerful dick-head moves.
I bet even Melania high-fives these guys
SayItLoud
(1,702 posts)Mid terms coming, Evagels don't give a shit if he banged, silenced whatever a woman The F'n MORON is their Jesus on earth. Rudy is getting it out and over because without doubt there will be something more emerging in the next days. Only when Putin releases the proof that there are men in cement shoes at the bottom of the East River and Volga will the Rupubes .....well, forget where I was going with that because nothing will break this cult except seizure of assets and jail time. But then we must be prepared for the DICKtator wannabe to dog whistle his lemmings to rise up...and they will...and they have the guns.
safeinOhio
(32,688 posts)louis c
(8,652 posts)People like to use the Gary Hart analogy in this case.
First off, Hart was not acquitted , he was released after a hung jury resulted in a mistrial. In Hart's case, the fact that the agreement and payment were made one and a half years before the next election and that he wanted to keep the affair and child from his ailing wife, convinced half the jury.
In Trump's case, the fact that the agreement and payment to Stormy Daniels just 11 days prior to the General Election for President of the United States makes it much more plausible that it's an "in-kind" contribution. Add to that fact all these admissions from Cohen and Giuliani about the urgent nature of the NDA and the inconsistent stories from all concerned, including Trump, makes guilt seem more likely You can see that this case has already reached "probable cause" of, at least, a campaign finance violation.
Pachamama
(16,887 posts)louis c
(8,652 posts)unc70
(6,115 posts)John Edwards was found not guilty on the main charge that he solicited and used campaign contributions from Bunny Mellon to support his mistress and child. That money was actually being scammed by Edwards aide Andrew Young and was used to build Young's own home near Chapel Hill. Young was chief witness against Rdwards and made up many of the claims.
There was a hung jury on the other charges. With Young exposed as a con man and liar, the DOJ dropped the remaining charges. Young had full immunity and I believe got to keep the monies involved. The main Federal prosecutor used the case as a springboard to Congress. Most people belief Edwards was found guilty.
louis c
(8,652 posts)keithbvadu2
(36,829 posts)Is Rudy really on Donald's side?
D'ya suppose that, after their brief fling, Donald moved on and Rudy still hasn't gotten over it?
Turbineguy
(37,343 posts)if you were robbing a bank and you run out into the street with the swag and your getaway car was gone!
These people think like criminals.
bucolic_frolic
(43,182 posts)As far as Rudy's gotten in life, I wouldn't want to hire him for brain power
forgotmylogin
(7,530 posts)Yeah, wouldn't that have been some dirty pool?
Rudy Giuliani echoed Donald Trump's daughter-in-law this morning by hinting that the candidate has an 'October surprise' in the works.
'Fox & Friends' host Brian Kilmeade asked the Trump surrogate if the Republican nominee for president has 'anything except for a series of inspiring rallies' on the docket before Election Day.
'Yes,' Giuliani replied. 'What?' Fox and Friends' Ainsley Earhardt inquired.
Laughingly mischievously, Giuliani told her, 'You'll see. We've got a couple of surprises left.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3870834/We-ve-got-couple-surprises-left-Rudy-Giuliani-joins-Donald-Trump-s-daughter-law-hinting-Republican-nominee-planning-October-surprise.html#ixzz5ERyTnJGm
Nitram
(22,822 posts)Cognitive_Resonance
(1,546 posts)djg21
(1,803 posts)My understanding is that Trump himself can contribute as much of his own money as he wants to his own campaign, and there are no campaign contribution limits that are applicable. On the other hand, Cohen would have to disclose any money he paid out to third parties on behalf of the Trump Campaign and the value of any services he provided on behalf of the campaign, as in-kind contributions. The $130,000 payment to Stormy also would exceed applicable contribution limits (https://www.fec.gov/updates/contribution-limits-for-2015-2016/).
Cohen and Trump are in a hard place: either (1) Trump reimbursed Cohen, in which case there is no campaign finance law violation, but Trump confirms that he is a lying and adulterous POS who paid hush money to those he sexually exploited; (2) Trump knew of or learned of the payment after the fact, and failed to disclose it in campaign finance reports his campaign committee filed with the FEC, in which case the Trump campaign violated election laws and committed a crime, and Cohen also committed a crime by making an overlimit contribution; or (3) Trump claims he didnt know about the payment at the time and wasnt represented by Cohen in connection with his Stormy daliance, but nevertheless refunded Cohen the money he paid out, in which case, Cohen breached any number of ethical rules pertaining to attorneys, and there arguably was no attorney-client privilege.
The option that seems to subject Trump to least immediate peril seems to be number 1. We all already know that Trump is a lying and adulterous POS, and unfortunately, that alone is not a crime. Moreover, most of his base probably thinks it great that he was screwing porn stars.
This is getting good, but dont think for a minute this was a gaffe.
Exultant Democracy
(6,594 posts)They would have had to file the bribe to Stormy in their campaign disclosures even if it was Trump spending the money he isnt allowed to do it in secret just in unlimited amounts. Im also pretty sure there isnt a vehicle for having private individuals to make a personal loan on behalf of the principal, but that part can be wiggled around without too much trouble if they had the right paper work at the time which Im sure they didnt.
djg21
(1,803 posts)But it seems grey to me. At what point do legitimate personal expenses become campaign expenditures? Not that hush money is a legitimate personal expense, but I can see the argument being made that the relationship between Stormy and Trump was a personal matter unrelated to Trumps campaign. As to the loan, if it was paid back immediately so no interest would have accrued if it were legitimately a loan from a commercial lender, what then?
The reality is that the Trump team is throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks, and what will hurt Trump less. Its all nonsense.
bluescribbler
(2,117 posts)If so, he's as dumb as a stump.
DeminPennswoods
(15,286 posts)His blog post: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/an-mo-for-other-more-serious-crimes.
First, bribe money can be laundered from the client through the lawyer as fictitious legal services.
...
Second, by disguising the bribes as payments for legal fees, businesses can try to write them off as expenses (bribes are not deductible). This is tax evasion, of course, but it is common practice for the corrupt. Third, the lawyer-client relationship can be an impediment to law enforcement.
...
So now we have Giuliani confirming that this is exactly how Trump and Cohen operated. Hush money to Stormy Daniels is one thing and certainly raises potential serious campaign finance violations, but she is not a public official. What I find most significant about Rudys admission is what it says about the nature of the relationship between Trump and Cohen and how it suggests an M.O. for other more serious crimes.
wishstar
(5,270 posts)on their income taxes since Cohen was getting paid for his services and Trump probably wrote what he paid Cohen as expense against his taxes.
DeminPennswoods
(15,286 posts)of all relevent tax returns.
briv1016
(1,570 posts)Claims his lawyer was incompetent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ineffective_assistance_of_counsel