Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

Question

He did it on the direction of a "federal candidate"

Aug 21, 2018 7:25PM PDT

Michael Cohen

He did it on the direction of "a federal candidate" in the election?

"a federal candidate"?

Hillary Clinton?

Post was last edited on August 21, 2018 7:58 PM PDT

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Clarification Request
Here's from Reuters this AM.
Aug 23, 2018 8:52AM PDT

"Cohen testified that 'at the direction of' the president, he arranged six-figure hush payments ahead of the 2016 presidential election to adult-film actress Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal.
Read our piece explaining the protections from criminal prosecution that are afforded a U.S. president and how impeachment could be used to remove Trump from office"

This is the piece referred to:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-cohen-factbox/factbox-could-cohens-guilty-plea-lead-to-charges-against-trump-or-impeachment-idUSKCN1L725Q

Just to add real info to your discussion. Enjoy.

- Collapse -
Enjoy this part of your link:
Aug 23, 2018 10:11AM PDT

"He said the constitution suggests that the country’s founders were concerned about potential abuses of power, which would include an effort to mislead the public in the run-up to an election. " Would that also include the LIAR's paid for dossier?

And: "Other experts have said that Trump could argue that the payments to the women were not a crime because they were made to protect Trump’s reputation, not for the purpose of influencing the election.
Even if the payments were intended to influence the election, some legal scholars have argued that campaign finance violations are typically enforced through civil penalties and do not amount to a high crime or misdemeanor. Therefore, impeachment would not be warranted. "

And: Trump has a history that the public was already aware of for years of paying off women as a civilian, which he still WAS at the time of the Stormy payment and the N.I. payment was never paid....it was only agreed to. It was HIS money spent....not like the Congressional slush funds used for the same purpose that recently came to light, and he's done nothing while IN the Oval Office unlike Bill.

Keep trying......

- Collapse -
RE:Keep trying....
Aug 23, 2018 7:44PM PDT

OK...I'll take the challenge

Trump has a history that the public was already aware of for years of paying off women as a civilian,

Affairs that the public knew about AND Donald J Trump DENIED?

"paying off" women as a civilian for their silence?

People were aware FOR YEARS that he was paying off women for their silence?

THEY didn't/couldn't talk about it, but the public was already aware of?

Well THAT was a waste of money.

Trump's story on hush money payments to silence women keeps changing

HIS words.

THESE EVENTS NEVER HAPPENED, THEY WILL BE SUED

No one has been sued so far.

NO counter punching from TheRUMP on this issue....strangely silent on THIS subject.

- Collapse -
Answer
(NT) Those park ranger candidates will stop at nothing.
Aug 21, 2018 7:52PM PDT
- Collapse -
Answer
There were many federal candidates
Aug 22, 2018 5:28AM PDT

running for office at the same time Trump was running...The only one who actually SAID it was Trump was the LIAR'S former attorney Lanny Davis. I wonder why Cohen would have picked HIM to represent him in the first place. As for those two charges, they are the most minor charges he pled to and if you look at the history of campaigns nearly ALL of them have violated the same and gotten less than $500 fines or nothing at all as 'punishment'. I suspect that the wording of his plea was in direct line with what the prosecutors wanted him to say in order for the plea to go through and knew that the media would pick up on the 'assumption' and accomplish what they ultimately wanted or they would have also insisted that Trump's name specifically be used.....

- Collapse -
RE: they would have also insisted
Aug 22, 2018 5:58AM PDT

they would have also insisted that Trump's name specifically be used.....

Insisted?...Why would they "insist"?

Follow the wire transfers....THEN a name will be named.

After the Witch/Warlock Hunt is concluded perhaps HIS name WILL be used.

RE:There were many federal candidates

Many federal candidates that did wire transfers directing to Cohen to pay women that were threatening Trump?

Were these "federal candidates" suckers?

Paying bills for a billionaire?

- Collapse -
What wire transfers?
Aug 22, 2018 9:51AM PDT

I remember the tape he released where Trump specifically said "CHECK" so there WOULD be a trail....nothing anybody has said, even in the plea, publicly announced it was a wire transfer. Do you know something we don't know? AND the money talked about in that tape actually was paid out by Trump according to records.....it was the National Inquirer that paid it to Dougal (sp) and the tape was a conversation about paying N.I. for the rights to that story. SOOOOO....he pleaded to TWO counts but only ONE involved actual cash.....and NEVER mentioned Trump's name. Do you really believe the prosecutors WOULDN'T insist Trump be DIRECTLY referred to in that plea publicly stated?

- Collapse -
RE:.nothing anybody has said, even in the plea,
Aug 22, 2018 11:11AM PDT
.nothing anybody has said, even in the plea, publicly announced it was a wire transfer. Do you know something we don't know?

nothing anybody? It appears I know something YOU didn't know, won't say

COHEN'S LAWYER SAYS THERE IS 'PROOF' PRESIDENT'S ORGANIZATION WIRED MONEY FOR 'HUSH DEALS'

Asked during an interview with CNN's Don Lemon whether Cohen's legal team had "proof" of Trump's involvement, Davis said: "Yes, the wire transfer from the Trump corporation to the account that Michael Cohen set up that then went to Stormy Daniels is recognizable and provable."

Now that he's said payments came from his "corporation" AND HE is only allowed to make donations to HIS campaign up to a certain limit.....I think the 135K plus 150K is well over the limit.

Keep talking Donnie...
- Collapse -
A couple of things....
Aug 23, 2018 4:39AM PDT
http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/campaign-contribution-limits-overview.aspx

Since NY was one of the States that allow for unlimited amounts of campaign contributions individually and Corporations already had unlimited amounts allowed to contribute to PACs, and Trump was financing his own campaign and put nearly $10M into his Super PAC, he was well within his legal right to authorize his attorney to make the deal, pay the extortion, and then pay the attorney back with 'his own money'. No law was broken. Because Trump was funding his own campaign he was legally allowed to fund any amounts he wanted to....he was never restricted to an amount any more than the LIAR was when she put $5M of her own money into HER campaign. $250K in extortion payouts was a drop in the bucket when you consider that the LIAR paid out nearly $10M for the dossier TO INFLUENCE THE OUTCOME OF THE ELECTION, and only $130K paid to Stormy was the ONLY amount ACTUALLY paid since they never cut that check to the N.I. for McDougal's payback.

According to pundits on both sides that have been interviewed, including attorneys who have dealt with campaign finance laws, the two 'charges' that Cohen pled guilty to where nothing more than something to 'sweeten' the plea deal for them by 'implicating' Trump in crimes that aren't crimes at all and that Lanny Davis literally had his client plead to 'crimes' that aren't crimes and should be sued by his own client for it. Cohen was and is going to jail for six actual crimes and two non-existent ones just so Mueller's team could have a 'win' and justify his 'investigation' because nothing else he's looked at points at the president. It was a cooked up plea deal with the LIAR's old friend and attorney and Cohen, who was under threat of having his wife also charged since she also signed the tax forms, caved to the government pressure and never saw Lanny Davis for the snake he is. But then again, Cohen also was a snake who tried to unethically cover his **** by taping his clients without their knowledge (Trump isn't the only one).
- Collapse -
Cohen also was a snake
Aug 23, 2018 8:14AM PDT

AND he's been a snake for 10 years (or longer)

AND he was in good company while dealing with Donald J Trump for 10 years.

birds of a feather?

I bet DJT is regretting the day he threw his hat into the ring.

This could be Melania's get out of jail free card.

I can't figure out how any woman can support TheRUMP given his treatment of women.

- Collapse -
Old song.
Aug 23, 2018 8:57AM PDT

Woman finds a snake half-dead in the snow, takes it in. Warms it by the fire, but as she's feeding it, it bites her.
'Why, you ingrate?
'I'm a snake. You knew that when you took me in.'

- Collapse -
I guess the same way women keep
Aug 23, 2018 10:14AM PDT

supporting Bill, including his wife, long after he actually WAS impeached and lost his law license. The LIAR had a great 'get out of jail free card' and never played it....ever wonder why? Maybe it was because he knew where all of HER bodies are buried so she had to buy off HIS silence?

- Collapse -
RE:I guess the same way women keep
Aug 23, 2018 8:50PM PDT
I guess the same way women keep supporting Bill,


Other women support Trump by voting for him. They rave about the little woman supporting 'their man", but they go out and vote for someone that does the same thing that they condemn other men for doing.

Do you think Melania has one of those "get out of jail free cards"?

She did show her "hand/cards" one day and then there was the jacket incident, and the cyberbullying speech, I don't doubt that she also didn't vote for him.
- Collapse -
RE:Because Trump was funding his own campaign he was legally
Aug 23, 2018 8:17AM PDT

Because Trump was funding his own campaign he was legally allowed to fund any amounts he wanted to.

BUT HIS 'corporation" has limits on contributions it can make

In the US, corporations are prohibited from making expenditures to influence federal elections.[6][dubious – discuss] Similar restrictions exist in many state elections and have been upheld by the US Supreme Court.[7]

Corporations may make donations to Political Action Committees (PACs); PACs generally have strict limits on their ability to advocate on behalf of specific parties or candidates, or even to coordinate their activities with political campaigns. PACs are subject to disclosure requirements at the federal and state levels. The ability of corporations to engage in such independent expenditures has been subject to intense debate after the US Supreme Court struck down, on free-speech grounds, limits in Citizens United v. FEC, a case involving the creation of a film critical of Hillary Clinton by a nonprofit corporation.

Post was last edited on August 23, 2018 8:22 AM PDT

- Collapse -
ONLY the prosecution
Aug 23, 2018 10:19AM PDT

called the payoff a 'campaign contribution' and that was so they could say it was used to influence the outcome of the election and not to save his family from embarrassment. Two different things and it's a 'he said/he said' situation from a guy who was looking to save his own **** in that courtroom, without ANY proof of the real reason even though he was taping his client's conversations and never produced ONE that offered that up. You would think a shady attorney would cover himself better than that, doncha think?

- Collapse -
RE:it's a 'he said/he said' situation
Aug 23, 2018 8:54PM PDT

One person makes the claim UNDER OATH, the other person makes the claim on TWITTER.

See the difference?

- Collapse -
RE:Trump specifically said "CHECK"
Aug 22, 2018 11:22AM PDT

ROGER that.

Am I talking about Roger OR am I agreeing with you?

"CHECK"...

: the act of testing or verifying making a check on the data; also : the sample or unit used for testing or verifying

- Collapse -
RE: I wonder why Cohen would have picked HIM
Aug 22, 2018 7:23AM PDT

RE: I wonder why Cohen would have picked HIM to represent him in the first place.


Well he wouldn't chose a lawyer that was under Trump's thumb...Would you?


Please don't say yes.

Rudy has his hands full handling Donnie.

- Collapse -
RE:Do you really believe the prosecutors WOULDN'T insist
Aug 22, 2018 8:20PM PDT
Do you really believe the prosecutors WOULDN'T insist Trump be DIRECTLY referred to in that plea publicly stated?

Directly referred to...but not named?

,The only NAME I see is MICHAEL COHEN.

I also see Woman 1, Woman 2, Chairman 1, Individual -1, and HIS campaign.


On or about June 15, 2016 Individual-1 began HIS presidential campaign....

Read Page 11.



2 presidential candidates...1 is female and the other is male.

Now WHO could THAT be?

I think they are pointing their finger at Trump.
- Collapse -
Why do you suppose
Aug 23, 2018 4:45AM PDT

they were afraid to actually NAME him if they believe, as Lanny Davis as stated (not under oath coincidentally) on tv interviews, that Trump is a co-conspirator of a 'crime'? Remember, the 'crimes' were never adjudicated in a court of law....no judge, no jury, no conviction......it was an 'allocution' ONLY....a public speech to satisfy the PROSECUTORS' deal.

- Collapse -
RE: afraid to actually NAME him
Aug 23, 2018 5:23AM PDT

"afraid"?

they didn't NAME anyone....Do you think HE is privileged? THEY treated everyone the same, THEY are "afraid" of everyone?

HE figured out exactly who they were referring to....and YOU can't? YOU will never be President?

The "hammer" they were using wasn't heavy enough?

The "hammer" used to pound the facts into someone's thick skull?

NOW TheRUMP claims he hardly knows Cohen.

I saw video of Cohen and Trump walking together, Cohen was making sure no palm leaves came close to TheRUMP's hair.

Post was last edited on August 23, 2018 5:54 AM PDT

- Collapse -
Of course, everyone knew
Aug 23, 2018 6:04AM PDT

who Cohen was talking about, but it was specifically worded to AVOID saying his name.....Why do you think it was deliberately done that way.....unless they ONLY wanted public opinion and a hyped up media to speculate everything under the sun EXCEPT the fact that the prosecutors DON'T consider Trump to actually BE a co-conspirator of any crime since there ISN'T one and can't publicly ON THE RECORD, and UNDER OATH, ACCUSE him of it. The PLEA is a court document and wasn't read in its ENTIRETY in that courtroom....ONLY the PUBLIC allocution and THAT didn't name him.

The prosecutors have NOTHING that they can charge Trump with...….this is ALL for the benefit of Mueller so he can write up his 'impeachment' report. And YOUR thick skull can't comprehend it anymore than the LIAR's supporters can't comprehend how he beat her in the first place.

- Collapse -
RE: UNDER OATH,
Aug 23, 2018 8:02AM PDT

Name a place that you will NEVER see Donald J. Trump? I think he would resign first. The term pathological comes to mind.

I'll bet Melania is enjoying all this.

RE:The prosecutors have NOTHING that they can charge Trump with

Mueller told you that?

RE:The PLEA is a court document and wasn't read in its ENTIRETY in that courtroom.

Yes, it is a court document isn't it, AND that's a problem BECAUSE?

You can read it here

YOU think Hillary Clinton is the presidential candidate(individual-1) that was referred to, SHE had a sex change?

- Collapse -
(NT) I bet she would if she thought it would get her elected.....
Aug 23, 2018 10:20AM PDT
- Collapse -
RE:thought it would get her elected
Aug 23, 2018 11:57AM PDT
- Collapse -
Answer
Just watching FOX NEWS
Aug 24, 2018 12:06PM PDT

Shep Smith said...."now we know that Trump lied"

FOX NEWS? Trashing Trump?

Where am I?

- Collapse -
Shep has always been a liberal
Aug 24, 2018 12:59PM PDT

commentator and rarely says anything good about Trump (or GWB for that matter)…..you would know that if you watched Fox more often. He is usually the one who steps in for non-stop coverage of natural disasters around the world because he has no real life per se.

- Collapse -
RE:he has no real life per se.
Aug 24, 2018 1:18PM PDT

unlike us?

- Collapse -
RE:rarely says anything good about Trump (or GWB
Aug 24, 2018 1:26PM PDT

During his tenure, he has debunked a conservative theory suggesting Hillary Clinton had benefited from a U.S. uranium deal and, more recently, told his viewers the ongoing investigation into Russian influence over the 2016 presidential election is not a Democratic hoax, despite comments by President Trump stating it was.

Shep reports NEWS AND FACTS....everything else on FOX NEWS is opinion.

While Shep is a friend with political views I do not share,” the Hannity host tweeted this afternoon, “and great at breaking news, he is clueless about what we do every day. Hannity breaks news daily-Warrant on a Trump assoc, the unmasking scandal, leaking intel, Fisa abuse, HRC lawbreaking, dossier and more REAL NEWS!”

Hannity’s deep dive into job description was prompted by comments made by Smith in a new Time magazine profile (“Shep Smith Has the Hardest Job on Fox News” by Daniel D’Addario). “I get it,” Smith says in the article, “that some of our opinion programming is there strictly to be entertaining. I get that. I don’t work there. I wouldn’t work there. I don’t want to sit around and yell at each other and talk about your philosophy and my philosophy. That sounds horrible to me.”

Post was last edited on August 24, 2018 1:37 PM PDT

- Collapse -
As has been repeatedly stated
Aug 25, 2018 6:21AM PDT

The Russian hacking/interference isn't hoax....the HOAX was saying Trump is/was involved in it. In fact, it's been proven already that the LIAR created it and PAID FOR IT with obvious help from the top of the FBI, CIA, and DOJ.