Not that you'll believe ANY of this because you deny and discredit anything that contravenes what you already believe but here goes:
Cohen was charged with the crime- violating campaign finance laws by paying off women to be quiet during the campaign and then covering it up.
A part of the evidence against him (seized from his office by the FBI) was a recording of Cohen and Donald Trump discussing the payment before the payment was made. They discussed how these payments would be made via David Pecker and the Enquirer.
As a part of his cooperation agreement, David Pecker, the CEO of the National Enquirer confirmed that he had an agreement with Donald Trump to "capture and kill" any stories about Trump's affairs during the 2016 campaign. He confirmed that the payments to Karen McDougal were to keep her quiet during the campaign and the money came from Donald Trump.
Cohen said that he broke campaign finance laws and then lied about it at the direction of Individual One. Individual One is defined in that document as a New York Real Estate Developer who began a campaign to be elected President of the United States that was ultimately successful.
Trump, on multiple recorded occasions denied having the affair, making the payments, or having knowledge of the those payments. He lied about everything involving this case.
[deleted]
5 ups, 6y,
2 replies
What you are referring to is the non-disclosure agreement between Trump and his hoes. That's not illegal.
What was illegal was Stormy Daniels violating the non-disclosure agreement, which is why she had to pay a few hundred thousand dollars to Trump as a settlement.
Trump lied because he didn't want people to know he was banging hoes. That's not illegal. The public is not entitled to know who he has had sex with.
See? Dismiss and discredit. Paying them (disclosure agreement or not) to not speak during the election because it would impact the election is governed by Campaign Finance Law.
If they had paid within the allowed limit AND reported it, everything would have been fine.
they paid the women. They didn't report that they had paid the women. Then they lied about it.
All of that is breaking the law.
[deleted]
2 ups, 6y,
2 replies
Wrong.
Because the non-disclosure agreement also had an impact on his business career it's not In violation of that campaign law. That's straight from the former head of the Campaign Finance Committee.
Paying women for non-disclosure agreements is not illegal.
Sex is not illegal.
Who Trump has sex with is none of our business.
Courts have already ruled in Trumps favor over the non disclosure agreement.
You've been debunked. Grasp at straws all you want. Nothing will ever happen. The Dems have nothing solid on Trump.
You have AGAIN missed what happened. That they paid the women AND FAILED TO REPORT IT AND THEN COVERED IT UP.
[deleted]
2 ups, 6y,
1 reply
And you AGAIN missed the facts. HE DIDN'T HAVE TO REPORT IT BECAUSE IT WAS A PRIVATE EXPENSE SINCE THE DISCLOSURE OF THE NON DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT WOULD ALSO AFFECT HIS PERSONAL BUSINESSES.
The fact that the agreement would affect both his political reputation and his Personal Businesses reputation made it 100% legal for him to keep it quiet.
If he had been a professional politician without private businesses then it would have been a crime.
"It’s my belief as a former Federal Election Commission member that such payments were not “campaign-related” – and therefore the rules and regulations governing campaign contributions don’t apply."
"The bottom line: Cohen was “persuaded” to plead guilty to an action that was not an actual violation of the law.
Convicting Donald Trump of a criminal campaign finance violation will be extremely difficult, if not impossible. Just as Edwards was found not guilty, the same is likely to happen to President Trump if he is charged while he is president or after he leaves the White House."
You can't go before a judge to plead guilty to something that isn't actually a crime.
A prosecutor can't bring a case for something that isn't a crime.
You can't be sentenced to three years in prison for something that isn't a crime.
You can't be offered immunity from prosecution for something that isn't a crime.
Look at where you're at. You're fine with a fact that Trump had his charity pay itself for a painting of himself. An actual crime. You're fine with that because "It's only a little bit of money). You're fine with Trump having broken campaign finance laws.
You're fine with actual real corruption but you're still hate-fapping over Hillary Clinton.
Take a look at what you're supporting. Look at what you've been backed into.
[deleted]
0 ups, 6y
I have a much greater understanding of everything you've just mentioned than you do and I'm very comfortable with my position. I haven't been backed into anything. I've never had this much support for a president in my life, and probably never will again.
I too find it extremely disturbing that a person can plead guilty to something that isn't a crime and receive punishment. I wonder how that was managed...
I don't condemn Trump for the painting anymore than I'd condemn someone for speeding. He also committed that "crime" with good intentions. I'll bet the charity his foundation donated to never has a mock auction again. Apparently even kindness has it's risks.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it's likely a duck. Trump lies since taking office, 8,500. Trump changes in narrative when faced with facts uncovered by the media, likely just as high as the 8,500 lies.
