pr0ner wrote: ↑Thu May 03, 2018 10:46 am
The words you're looking for are "money laundering".
How is reimbursing your attorney for giving money to your gold digger mistresses to shut them up money laundering?
I don't know much about money laundering, but the idea that you can simply give money to a party who will then make payments on your behalf, with no reported record that the payments are being made via intermediary, has got to be rife with pitfalls. The IRS in particular wants to know where your money is going. Paying your attorney a retainer and then having all your expenses magically go away has got to set off some pretty big alarm bells.
Rip wrote: ↑Thu May 03, 2018 10:45 am
I guess I am missing something.
Cohen paid her, Trump reimbursed Cohen with his own money via a retainer without asking for details of the expense.
Sounds like just another nothingburger.
I'm sure you understand that 'nothingburger' only now lives in it's sarcastic form.
I can't help but read it that way.
HEY LOOK OVER HERE ANOTHER NOTHINGBURGER BOY DID HE FUCK UP THIS TIME IT'S GOING TO TAKE SOME SERIOUS TWISTING AND DENIAL TO KEEP SAYING HOW GREAT THE EMPEROR IS THIS TIME. ah but jeez, I get him flaunting his naked prick swinging, but do I really have to look?
GreenGoo wrote: ↑Thu May 03, 2018 11:53 am
The IRS in particular wants to know where your money is going. Paying your attorney a retainer and then having all your expenses magically go away has got to set off some pretty big alarm bells.
What say you, Zarathud?
More'n ten grand you have to declare it, don't you?
... but, meh, having the mob run the presidency?, meh, they're celebrities and important people, you wouldn't understand, you're so confused you think you can take advantage of white privilege like it's a prepaid AmEx. and besides, Hillary. Now be careful little man before real people step on you.
There is zero chance Trump gave Cohen free reign to fix his legal problems. The lies are incredible and incorrigible. Maybe there are tapes.
If it was an advance from a client funds account, it is still the CLIENT'S money. When I pay for a closing using client funds, I don't hide the tax and financial reporting. Quick way to get investigated even on a clean transaction. Which this was not.
Stupid Watergate.
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein "I don't stand by anything." - Trump “Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867 “It is the impractical things in this tumultuous hell-scape of a world that matter most. A book, a name, chicken soup. They help us remember that, even in our darkest hour, life is still to be savored.” - Poe, Altered Carbon
I'd think what they're trying to do is make clear that the money most definitely came from Trump personally and not from his campaign. They probably think they can dance around other charges but know for sure they'd get nailed for misuse of campaign funds.
So the money definitely came from the campaign because there's no way Trump would use his own money when the suckers gave it to him for free.
If Trump used the money I sent him to pay Stormy off I've got no personal problem with it. I've given more than that to strippers in the distant past too. :nudge: :nudge:
pr0ner wrote: ↑Thu May 03, 2018 10:46 am
The words you're looking for are "money laundering".
How is reimbursing your attorney for giving money to your gold digger mistresses to shut them up money laundering?
When it's done right before an election "so that people were not distracted by it", and it's not reported as a campaign contribution. Right?
He gives a lawyer a retainer to handle stuff, lawyer handled it. I see no reason he wouldn't have handled it irregardless of the election, public figures paying off accusers via lawyers without admitting any guilt/wrongdoing is kinda SOP.
Either way how would that be a campaign contribution? Trump's lawyer spending Trump's money to resolve legal headaches doesn't sound like any kind of "contribution". If anything it would be a misuse of funds had the money come from the campaign but it seems it didn't.
I'm with Rip on this one. Trump has been so above board and honest with us through out this entire thing no way he tarnishes that now to lie about where the money came from when telling the truth would only result in his being impeached (possibly though improbably) and jailed (possibly even less probable).
“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” - H.L. Mencken
So the (shortened) story so far is Cohen claimed to have paid it out of his own pocket having taken equity of his wife's trust. Trump didn't know about it at all. And the Cohens' were just fronting it until the retainer re-filled the coffers? But no one thought to bring that up until people started pointing out that it was likely money laundering or a campaign finance violation? Anyone who buys that is a complete idiot.
The lawyer for one of the women suing President Donald Trump for defamation is seeking recordings of "The Apprentice" from Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.
Former "Apprentice" contestant Summer Zervos filed a lawsuit against Trump in January 2017, in which she alleged that Trump defamed her in 2016 after she said he sexually assaulted her in 2007.
Her lawyer, Mariann Wang, is also seeking hotel records from the Beverly Hills Hotel.
"We are gathering evidence that will prove that (the) defendant lied when he falsely denigrated Ms. Zervos and denied sexually assaulting her," Wang said.
MGM owns the archives of "The Apprentice" and Wang wants the company to hand over all documents, video or audio that feature Zervos or Trump talking about Zervos and any recording in which Trump speaks of women in a sexual or inappropriate manner.
That could take a lot of time to compile, not least because it would be a completely subjective decision on whether the content qualifies.
"The world is suffering more today from the good people who want to mind other men's business than it is from the bad people who are willing to let everybody look after their own individual affairs." - Clarence Darrow
Oh I'm sure there are plenty of objective examples of him speaking of women 'sexually'.
Also easy to give anything that includes talking about her specifically.
'inappropriate manner' is the only place that becomes subjective... and I'm sure they will do fine with the lowest bar on that.
pr0ner wrote: ↑Thu May 03, 2018 10:46 am
The words you're looking for are "money laundering".
How is reimbursing your attorney for giving money to your gold digger mistresses to shut them up money laundering?
When it's done right before an election "so that people were not distracted by it", and it's not reported as a campaign contribution. Right?
He gives a lawyer a retainer to handle stuff, lawyer handled it. I see no reason he wouldn't have handled it irregardless of the election, public figures paying off accusers via lawyers without admitting any guilt/wrongdoing is kinda SOP.
Either way how would that be a campaign contribution? Trump's lawyer spending Trump's money to resolve legal headaches doesn't sound like any kind of "contribution". If anything it would be a misuse of funds had the money come from the campaign but it seems it didn't.
It’s a campaign contribution, not because its of source but because of its purpose. As Guliani admitted yesterday, “who would want news like this coming out right before an election?” Guiliani admitted on TV yesterday that the money was paid to keep this news from coming out before the election. He said a lot of stupid things yesterday, but this one topped the cake. He admitted that Cohen, at the behest of the president, made an undeclared/unreported campaign contribution, and the president attempted to cover up the repayment as a monthly retainer to his attorney. That’s campaign financing fraud.
Got that, Rip?
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
pr0ner wrote: ↑Thu May 03, 2018 10:46 am
The words you're looking for are "money laundering".
How is reimbursing your attorney for giving money to your gold digger mistresses to shut them up money laundering?
When it's done right before an election "so that people were not distracted by it", and it's not reported as a campaign contribution. Right?
He gives a lawyer a retainer to handle stuff, lawyer handled it. I see no reason he wouldn't have handled it irregardless of the election, public figures paying off accusers via lawyers without admitting any guilt/wrongdoing is kinda SOP.
Either way how would that be a campaign contribution? Trump's lawyer spending Trump's money to resolve legal headaches doesn't sound like any kind of "contribution". If anything it would be a misuse of funds had the money come from the campaign but it seems it didn't.
It’s a campaign contribution, not because its of source but because of its purpose. As Guliani admitted yesterday, “who would want news like this coming out right before an election?” Guiliani admitted on TV yesterday that the money was paid to keep this news from coming out before the election. He said a lot of stupid things yesterday, but this one topped the cake. He admitted that Cohen, at the behest of the president, made an undeclared/unreported campaign contribution, and the president attempted to cover up the repayment as a monthly retainer to his attorney. That’s campaign financing fraud.
Got that, Rip?
Where?
Here is Hannity.
GIULIANI: Isn't that closer to the mandate than Michael Cohen?
(CROSSTALK)
HANNITY: Why isn't that — where is Mueller on that, sir?
GIULIANI: Having something to do with paying some Stormy Daniels woman $130,000, I mean, which is going to turn out to be perfectly legal. That money was not campaign money. Sorry, I'm giving you a fact now that you don't know. It's not campaign money. No campaign finance violation. So —
HANNITY: They funneled it through a law firm.
GIULIANI: Funneled it through a law firm and the president repaid it.
HANNITY: Oh. I didn't know. He did?
GIULIANI: Yes.
HANNITY: There's no campaign finance law?
GIULIANI: Zero.
HANNITY: So the president —
(CROSSTALK)
GIULIANI: Just like every, Sean —
HANNITY: So this decision was made by —
GIULIANI: Sean, everybody — everybody was nervous about this from the very beginning. I wasn't. I knew how much money Donald Trump put in to that campaign. I said $130,000? He's going to do a couple of checks for $130,000.
When I heard Cohen's retainer of $35,000 when he was doing no work for the president, I said that's how he's repaying — that's how he's repaying it, with a little profit and a little margin for paying taxes for Michael.
HANNITY: But do you know the president didn't know about this? I believe that's what Michael said.
GIULIANI: He didn't know about the specifics of it as far as I know. But he did know about the general arrangement that Michael would take care of things like this. Like, I take care of things like this for my clients. I don't burden them with every single thing that comes along. These are busy people.
I see nothing about not wanting it to "come out before the election".
pr0ner wrote: ↑Thu May 03, 2018 10:46 am
The words you're looking for are "money laundering".
How is reimbursing your attorney for giving money to your gold digger mistresses to shut them up money laundering?
When it's done right before an election "so that people were not distracted by it", and it's not reported as a campaign contribution. Right?
He gives a lawyer a retainer to handle stuff, lawyer handled it. I see no reason he wouldn't have handled it irregardless of the election, public figures paying off accusers via lawyers without admitting any guilt/wrongdoing is kinda SOP.
Either way how would that be a campaign contribution? Trump's lawyer spending Trump's money to resolve legal headaches doesn't sound like any kind of "contribution". If anything it would be a misuse of funds had the money come from the campaign but it seems it didn't.
It’s a campaign contribution, not because its of source but because of its purpose. As Guliani admitted yesterday, “who would want news like this coming out right before an election?” Guiliani admitted on TV yesterday that the money was paid to keep this news from coming out before the election. He said a lot of stupid things yesterday, but this one topped the cake. He admitted that Cohen, at the behest of the president, made an undeclared/unreported campaign contribution, and the president attempted to cover up the repayment as a monthly retainer to his attorney. That’s campaign financing fraud.
Got that, Rip?
Where?
Here is Hannity.
GIULIANI: Isn't that closer to the mandate than Michael Cohen?
(CROSSTALK)
HANNITY: Why isn't that — where is Mueller on that, sir?
GIULIANI: Having something to do with paying some Stormy Daniels woman $130,000, I mean, which is going to turn out to be perfectly legal. That money was not campaign money. Sorry, I'm giving you a fact now that you don't know. It's not campaign money. No campaign finance violation. So —
HANNITY: They funneled it through a law firm.
GIULIANI: Funneled it through a law firm and the president repaid it.
HANNITY: Oh. I didn't know. He did?
GIULIANI: Yes.
HANNITY: There's no campaign finance law?
GIULIANI: Zero.
HANNITY: So the president —
(CROSSTALK)
GIULIANI: Just like every, Sean —
HANNITY: So this decision was made by —
GIULIANI: Sean, everybody — everybody was nervous about this from the very beginning. I wasn't. I knew how much money Donald Trump put in to that campaign. I said $130,000? He's going to do a couple of checks for $130,000.
When I heard Cohen's retainer of $35,000 when he was doing no work for the president, I said that's how he's repaying — that's how he's repaying it, with a little profit and a little margin for paying taxes for Michael.
HANNITY: But do you know the president didn't know about this? I believe that's what Michael said.
GIULIANI: He didn't know about the specifics of it as far as I know. But he did know about the general arrangement that Michael would take care of things like this. Like, I take care of things like this for my clients. I don't burden them with every single thing that comes along. These are busy people.
I see nothing about not wanting it to "come out before the election".
“Imagine if that came out on Oct. 15, 2016, in the middle of the, you know, last debate with Hillary Clinton,” Giuliani told Fox News’ “Fox & Friends,” of the $130,000 payment made by Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer. “Cohen didn’t even ask. Cohen made it go away. He did his job.”
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
Giuliani added that the $130,000 payment was “to save not so much their marriage, as much as their reputation.”
But then moments later, Giuliani noted the political reason for the payment. “Imagine if that came out of October 15, 2016, in the middle of the last debate with Hillary Clinton…” he said. “Cohen made it go away. He did his job.”
Say imagine that doesn't speak to any direct knowledge of the motivation for making the payment. Simply a speculative statement with no probative value.
From that same piece.
“This was for personal reasons. This was — the president had been hurt personally — not politically, personally — so much, and the first lady, by some of the false allegations, that one more false allegation, six years old, I think he was trying to help the family,” Giuliani said. “For that, the man is being treated like some kind of villain. And I think he was just being a good lawyer and a good man.”
“It wasn’t for the campaign. It was to save their — not their marriage as much as their reputation,” Giuliani said.
Rip wrote: ↑Fri May 04, 2018 2:12 pm
Say imagine that doesn't speak to any direct knowledge of the motivation for making the payment. Simply a speculative statement with no probative value.
From that same piece.
“This was for personal reasons. This was — the president had been hurt personally — not politically, personally — so much, and the first lady, by some of the false allegations, that one more false allegation, six years old, I think he was trying to help the family,” Giuliani said. “For that, the man is being treated like some kind of villain. And I think he was just being a good lawyer and a good man.”
“It wasn’t for the campaign. It was to save their — not their marriage as much as their reputation,” Giuliani said.
If Trump is so hugely concerned about the feelings of his wife and family, then maybe - just maybe - he shouldn't be fucking porn stars right after his wife gives birth.
Crazy thought, I know.
When darkness veils the world, four Warriors of Light shall come.
Rip wrote: ↑Fri May 04, 2018 2:12 pm
Say imagine that doesn't speak to any direct knowledge of the motivation for making the payment. Simply a speculative statement with no probative value.
He’s Trump’s attorney, representing the president. He doesn’t speak “speculatively”, or should have the good sense not to. “Imagine”speaks to wondering what would have happened if the news had come out, not imagining as to the motive. There’s no indication as that he's Speculating as to motive. Good try, though.
From that same piece.
“This was for personal reasons. This was — the president had been hurt personally — not politically, personally — so much, and the first lady, by some of the false allegations, that one more false allegation, six years old, I think he was trying to help the family,” Giuliani said. “For that, the man is being treated like some kind of villain. And I think he was just being a good lawyer and a good man.”
“It wasn’t for the campaign. It was to save their — not their marriage as much as their reputation,” Giuliani said.
And how do you know this wasn’t “speculative”. What principled difference do you use to decide, othe than one statement is unfavorable to Trump and another isn’t. I’ll also note that a payment doesn’t have to be made for one purpose, both purposes could be true. You can’t pick and choose the statement that is favorable to Trump while ignoring the one they isn’t. You’d also have to be pretty naive that the president made a payment for an affair that never happened in the middle of his campaign just to feel from hurting his wife’s feelings.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
Skinypupy wrote: ↑Fri May 04, 2018 2:36 pm
If Trump is so hugely concerned about the feelings of his wife and family, then maybe - just maybe - he shouldn't be fucking porn stars right after his wife gives birth.
Crazy thought, I know.
If I am reading correctly, he still denies the affair. The $130,000 NDA is just something anyone can get from him from making an accusation. His charity for prostitutes make him like Jesus. That's all part of the evangelicals trying to bring about the rapture loving Mr Koresh... Um Jones... Um Trump... TRUMP, Mr Trump.
Yeah, that's the best 'part' of his story.... I mean Trump doesn't even pay people that have fulfilled contracted work with him. To think that he would just let some porn star extract $130k from him via a fabricated affair story is absurd.
Unagi wrote: ↑Fri May 04, 2018 3:25 pm
Yeah, that's the best 'part' of his story.... I mean Trump doesn't even pay people that have fulfilled contracted work with him. To think that he would just let some porn star extract $130k from him via a fabricated affair story is absurd.
Trump had involvement in 3,500-plus lawsuits at the time of his election, an unprecedented volume for a presidential nominee.
No way.
Some elderly plaintiffs who paid $20,000-plus in tuition died waiting to receive their checks from the settlement.
Not him.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General "No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton MYT
"This is intended to clarify the views I expressed over the past few days.
These are my views:
First:
There is no campaign violation. The payment was made to resolve a personal and false allegation in order to protect the President’s family. It would have been done in any event, whether he was a candidate or not.
Second:
My references to timing were not describing my understanding of the President’s knowledge, but instead, my understanding of these matters.
Third:
It is undisputed that the President’s dismissal of former Director Comey – an inferior executive officer – was clearly within his Article II power. Recent revelations about former Director Comey further confirm the wisdom of the President’s decision, which was plainly in the best interests of our nation."
When darkness veils the world, four Warriors of Light shall come.
It is undisputed that the President’s dismissal of former Director Comey – an inferior executive officer – was clearly within his Article II power.
That is straight from the White House.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General "No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton MYT
Whether or not the payment violates the campaign finance regulations as a donation-in-kind seems to hinge on whether or not it was motivated by a desire to protect Trump's political candidacy. Normally, that would seem to be a difficult thing to prove, but it appears that Cohen was in the habit of recording his conversations and the FBI is in possession of at least some of that material, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
"What? What?What?" -- The 14th Doctor
It's not enough to be a good player... you also have to play well. -- Siegbert Tarrasch
Hey, hey guys... you know those INCREDIBLY incriminating things I've been saying to anyone who will listen the last few days? Can we just... can we just forget about that... please?