Slashdot Mirror


Encrypted Communications Apps Failed To Protect Michael Cohen (fastcompany.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: Within the detailed federal allegations against former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, who pleaded guilty earlier this week to eight charges including campaign finance violations, are multiple references to texts sent by Cohen and even a call made "through an encrypted telephone application." Cohen was apparently a fan of encrypted communications apps like WhatsApp and Signal, but those tools failed to keep his messages and calls out of sight from investigators. In June, prosecutors said in a court filing the FBI had obtained 731 pages of messages and call logs from those apps from Cohen's phones. Investigators also managed to reconstruct at least 16 pages of physically shredded documents. Those logs, judging by the charging document, appear to have helped document at least Cohen's communications with officials at the National Enquirer about allegations from porn actress Stormy Daniels -- whom Cohen allegedly paid on behalf of Trump, violating campaign finance law. It's unclear if the FBI actually broke through any layers of encryption to get the data. It's possible that Cohen, who apparently at times taped conversations, stored the conversation logs in a less-than-secure way.

475 comments

  1. Didn't Even Need The Wrench (or the Drugs) by careysub · · Score: 2, Insightful
    --
    Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    1. Re:Didn't Even Need The Wrench (or the Drugs) by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      He's got tapes and should be very afraid.

    2. Re:Didn't Even Need The Wrench (or the Drugs) by Train0987 · · Score: 0

      If anything on those tapes was damaging to Trump we'd have known about it by now. They leak everything.

    3. Re:Didn't Even Need The Wrench (or the Drugs) by gtall · · Score: 1

      I doubt that, Cohen has a really sharp lawyer. They won't be "leaking" anything except for maximum advantage.

    4. Re:Didn't Even Need The Wrench (or the Drugs) by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      A really sharp lawyer who apparently doesn't try cases... is nothing more than a spokesperson.

    5. Re: Didn't Even Need The Wrench (or the Drugs) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um ...No there are many specialist lawyers who don't "try cases"

    6. Re:Didn't Even Need The Wrench (or the Drugs) by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      Lawyers have multiple roles. I seriously doubt my immigration lawyer has tried a case.

      As far as Cohen goes. You ever watch The Godfather? Remember a scene when an man introducing himself as a lawyer has a little discussion with a movie director, trying to persuade the director to include Frank Sinat... I mean, someone who totally isn't Frank Sinatra that's a lie and anyway you can't prove that... someone in his next movie, and the director is all like "Nah, he sucks, anyway, how do you like my horse? This is my favorite, it'd kill me if anything happened to him, I mean, like the worst thing that could ever happen to me is that I'd wake up and my bed would be soaked with blood and I'd look over and see my horse's decapitated head on my bed." And the lawyer walks off, and then the next morning... well, I don't want to spoil it for anyone who hasn't seen the movie.

      Anywho, Cohen is more like that kind of lawyer. He makes deals. He makes deals to make, uh, problems go away.

      Does that make sense?

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    7. Re:Didn't Even Need The Wrench (or the Drugs) by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 1

      Even criminal defense lawyers with trial expertise work plea deals the majority of the time. 90something per cent of federal charges are settled with plea deals.

    8. Re:Didn't Even Need The Wrench (or the Drugs) by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      A good lawyer knows when your case is fucked, and still manages to get what they can for the client.

      Cohen broke the damn law, and his lawyer is working the system to try to reduce the penalty. What's his lawyer supposed to do, fight a losing battle on purpose, inevitably lose, and watch his client rot in jail for the rest of his years?

      That would be a shitty lawyer.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    9. Re:Didn't Even Need The Wrench (or the Drugs) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The vast majority of lawyers don't handle trials. No different than doctors, most are not surgeons.

    10. Re:Didn't Even Need The Wrench (or the Drugs) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love the smell of RWNJ panic, it smells like victory.

    11. Re:Didn't Even Need The Wrench (or the Drugs) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So your argument is, "Damaging evidence must not be on those tapes, because I haven't heard about it."

      Do they still teach logic lessons in school? Do you know the different types of fallacy arguments?

      Sigh. Probably never heard of a fallacy. No, it doesn't mean blowjob.

  2. In short by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    In short: we have no idea, but we can help you become hysterical and in the process bag some click bait cents.

  3. Better Call Saul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lol

    1. Re:Better Call Saul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Dude, Michael Cohen is Saul.

    2. Re:Better Call Saul by gnick · · Score: 4, Informative

      Get yourself a criminal lawyer. No, a criminal lawyer.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    3. Re: Better Call Saul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're all criminals.

  4. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "whom Cohen allegedly paid on behalf of Trump, violating campaign finance law"

    Anyone got the relevant statute on that?

    1. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      It was hush money. As proven with Hillary and the FBI, it's the seriousness of the charge, not the nature of the evidence that can take your favorability numbers. Trump knew this, so paid them off and "catch and killed" a story.

      I give it 50/50 chance he banged the druggy Stormy. But it's also unlikely Trump tapped into campaign fund. Even in the recording, Trump declined giving cash and opted for a check. Presumably as evidence of payment to them and the source account.

    2. Re:Really? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 0, Troll

      Just wait, they have to finish writing it first...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    3. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure man, it is the part where you can't buy silence.

    4. Re: Really? by Train0987 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It isn't illegal to pay someone to keep quiet. It happens every single day. Congress even has a special tax-payer fund they use to pay off people who accuse them of sexual harassment - to get the money they have to sign NDA's. When will those people be indicted for paying hush-money?

      That Trump paid off the porn star with his own money may be seedy but is easily explained by trying to protect his family and he would've done it even if he weren't running for office.

    5. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My understanding is the hush money was paid to prevent knowledge of the events from getting out and compromising the election campaign. That may be the illegal part, not necessarily the source of funds. Of course, if the source of funds was the campaign fund, that seems to probably be illegal.

    6. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. See page 1 of the first document here: https://www.lawfareblog.com/document-michael-cohen-plea-agreement

    7. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is illegal if you do it to influence a political campaign and don't use campaign money. In his plea, Cohen indicated the payments were made in order to influence the election.

    8. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Even in the recording, Trump declined giving cash and opted for a check.

      This the same Trump who claimed to have not known about this pay-off at the time that it happened? If so, I'm a little curious how he could have both not known about it, and insisted it be a check.

    9. Re:Really? by wizkid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hush Money is illegal if it comes out of campaign funds. It is not illegal if it comes out of other sources. This money did not come out of campaign funds, so Cohen is a idiot. That's easily traced.
      Lots of lawsuits are full of hush money. Cohen is either really stupid, or is trying to stick it to Trump.

      --
      I take no responsibility for what I say. Even though I'm never wrong :)
    10. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It is illegal to pay someone to keep quiet while running for office. Subtle, but important, difference.

    11. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LMGTFY: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2018/08/21/cohen-pleads-guilty-to-tax-evasion-bank-fraud--campaign-contribution-charges/#7007ed716da0

    12. Re: Really? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      But you CAN contract it. Ever heard of a non-disclosure agreement?

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    13. Re: Really? by Train0987 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      "Nearly every law expert disagrees with you."

      Bullshit. It happens EVERY DAY. Members of Congress pay hush money to former staffers EVERY DAY. Celebrities do it EVERY DAY.

      The only "law experts" who disagree are the political hacks you watch on TV.

    14. Re: Really? by wizkid · · Score: 1

      I give it 50/50 chance he banged the druggy Stormy. But it's also unlikely Trump tapped into campaign fund. Even in the recording, Trump declined giving cash and opted for a check. Presumably as evidence of payment to them and the source account.

      Only 50/50? I think your way low on that estimate....

      --
      I take no responsibility for what I say. Even though I'm never wrong :)
    15. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cohen is either really stupid, or is trying to stick it to Trump.

      Why would think he is really stupid. Given his track record, that would be a very stupid assumption.
      Regarding your second comment, again, given his track record of loyalty to Trump(until facing prison time, that is...) sticking it to Trump probably has nothing to do with it.

    16. Re:Really? by Train0987 · · Score: 1

      Tell that to John Edwards. Remember him, darling of he Democrats in the 2000's?

      "John Edwards' Hush Money Was Not Illegal, FEC Told Campaign"

      https://www.yahoo.com/gma/john...

    17. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hush Money is illegal if it comes out of campaign funds. It is not illegal if it comes out of other sources. This money did not come out of campaign funds, so Cohen is a idiot. That's easily traced.

      The argument goes that paying the hush money during the campaign was intended to further the goals of the campaign, and therefore is campaign related spending.

      You'll note that the hush money was paid during the campaign and not back in 2006 when it happened.

      So, tell us again, how does the shady lawyer for Trump paying out hush money during the campaign to keep this out of the news isn't related to the campaign? The entire purpose of the hush money was to benefit the campaign.

      It's campaign related spending, which was not declared. That's a violation of campaign financing laws, and that is what Cohen plead guilty to.

      But somehow we're supposed to believe that Trump's lawyer paid off porn star without the knowledge of Trump, purely out of the goodness of his own heart, and meant in no way to benefit the campaign?

      Now that's some grade-fucking-A bullshit right there.

      Sorry, just more of Trump's complete disregard for the law, and trying to make it sound like it was all perfectly normal.

      Not buying it.

    18. Re: Really? by slashdice · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Why isn't John Edwards in jail?

      --
      Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
    19. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There's nothing illegal about any of it.

      Speaking of narratives that have been created for you.

      Ironically the judge and the prosecution seemingly don't agree with your assessment about the legality. But what do they know.

      Cohen even confessed. If it wasn't illegal, then why did he cop a plea?

      But yeah, keep telling everyone it's a narrative.

    20. Re:Really? by Train0987 · · Score: 0

      Coihen pled to that because he was looking at 100 years for the bank fraud regarding taxi medallions. They went easy on him for dirt on Trump, the purpose of all of the show trials so far.

      This anti-Trump hysteria is going to destroy the Democratic Party. Can't happen soon enough.

    21. Re:Really? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1, Informative

      See page 1...

      On page 1 I see:
        - Tax evasion
        - Lying to investigators.
        - Making improper use of corporate money.
      The first two are only on Cohen. If The Donald thought Cohen was paying with his (Trump's) personal money the third is also only on Cohen.

      Campaign contributions are on page 2, and the argument there is that if it wasn't paid by the campaign and is something he'd have paid anyway for reasons other than his run for president, it's not a campaign activity. (Imagine if the government tried to interpret a rich candidate's charitable donations as excessive campaign spending, because they make him look good to voters. It's the same argument.)

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    22. Re:Really? by chill · · Score: 4, Informative

      If done with the purpose of influencing a federal election, it is ALL considered campaign funds. https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/types-contributions/

      Considering the two relationships were in 2006, and the payoffs were done ten years later in 2016, just before the election, Trump will have an almost impossible task arguing that these payoffs weren't related to his candidacy in a federal election.

      The determination of "campaign funds" depends on what it was spent on vs what account it came from.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    23. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it was so normal and common, why did his lawyer do something so weird and abnormal to pay her off? Cohen mortgaged his house, personally paid her off, then back-charged Trump to hide the payoff.
      IANAL, but if this was just boilerplate shit for Trump, why did his lawyer mortgage his house. Is that normal too? Do celebrity lawyers frequently take out personal loans to pay off mistress' for their clients?

    24. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But, but, but....but DEMOCRATS!!

      adorable

    25. Re: Really? by Train0987 · · Score: 0

      He copped a plea for 3-5 years on this to avoid going to trial for the millions in bank fraud they have on him cold regarding the taxi medallions. It's pretty evil overreach on the part of the Government, but somehow that's OK with you because TRUMP! Using the power of the state to damage your political opponents is just fine.

    26. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      In his plea, Cohen indicated the payments were made in order to influence the election.

      So what? He can plea to whatever he wants to plea to, doesn't mean others committed a crime.

      All candidate expenditures are to influence an election. A candidate who sells a foreign car to buy an American car is spending money to influence an election. NBC paying money for the Access Hollywood tape to air in October before the election was a blatant attempt to influence the election.

      None of them are crimes unless they used campaign funds. If Trump had Cohen funnel $12m of campaign funds to a British spy to influence the election then that would be a crime.

      The fun part of this is the double loss position the prosecutors are in. See if they accept that Trump repaid Cohen for the payments then neither one of them committed a crime. If they believe Cohen did it on his own then only Cohen committed an FEC violation by making too large a contribution for a single individual and they knowingly accepted a lie in the plea deal. Trump isn't charged with anything because there's nothing they can charge him with.

    27. Re:Really? by Train0987 · · Score: 1

      Cohen was Trump's lawyer. EVERYTHING that happened is on Cohen. Trump was acting on the advice of his lawyer no matter what.

    28. Re:Really? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Hush Money is illegal if it comes out of campaign funds. It is not illegal if it comes out of other sources. This money did not come out of campaign funds, so Cohen is a idiot. That's easily traced. Lots of lawsuits are full of hush money. Cohen is either really stupid, or is trying to stick it to Trump.

      Cohen IS stupid, but I don't think he's trying to stick it to Trump, the prosecutor is. What happened here is pretty clear, Cohen is entering into a plea deal where he agrees he's guilty of a list of crimes, in the process he's getting to avoid an expensive trial and an extended stay in jail. The campaign finance "crime" he pleaded to only would involve Cohen regardless of Trump's involvement. The only way this blows back on Trump or his campaign is if the money came from the campaign, clearly it didn't. The plea deal specifically shows that Cohen paid the money then tried to bill for it.

      So, if Trump ordered this and paid Cohen to do it either from his personal or business funds, it's legal all around. If Trump ordered Cohen to do this and didn't pay for it, it's on Cohen then too. If Trump didn't know it's the same, Cohen is the one this rests on.

      The kicker here is that the theory that paying these two women is a campaign donation, is a real stretch. The rule is that if there is ANY other possible legitimate reason for the transaction, like avoiding embarrassing his wife or damaging his business interests, then the campaign finance rules do not apply at all.

      Cohen is just trying to keep his jail time down and he agreed to a guilty plea to a crime that he may not have committed in the process. You can do that if the prosecutor insists on this to be a condition of the deal.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    29. Re: Really? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      He was found not guilty at his trial.

    30. Re: Really? by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Since when do laws matter anymore? Laws are for the little people. Trump is KING OF AMERICA and above all laws! Just you wait and see -- all the facts will come out and none of it will matter at all

    31. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Subtle, but important, difference.

      Actually no it isn't because you are completely wrong. It is only a crime (FEC violation) if campaign funds were used and there is no evidence or statements that happened. It is perfectly legal for a candidate or a candidate surrogate to buy and kill any story as long as they don't use campaign funds.

      Show me the statute!

    32. Re: Really? by jeff4747 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, it actually is.

      What's going on is the payment is considered a campaign donation, because it was made by a private person in order to further the campaign. The campaign donation was not properly declared, and exceeded the maximum allowed donation to a political campaign.

      Congresspeople using Congress's funds to pay off accusers isn't a private person spending money to further the campaign, failing to document it properly and exceeding contribution limits. It's different and it should be illegal, but it's not.

    33. Re:Really? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Hush Money is illegal if it comes out of campaign funds. It is not illegal if it comes out of other sources.

      This is wrong. The money is considered a campaign contribution.

      It wasn't properly documented as a contribution, and it exceeded the maximum allowed contribution.

    34. Re: Really? by Gilgaron · · Score: 0

      Word on the street is that the CEO of the National Inquirer just got immunity for testimony in the Cohen investigation. Even if paying hush money isn't a crime in and of itself, you can certainly do things that are crimes in the course of it, e.g. fraudulent loans and so on.

    35. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump did have knowledge of it. Trump is on tape discussing the payoff prior to it occurring.
      Other points, Cohen also plead guilty to committing bank fraud to secure a loan which was the source of the payoff funds.
      Cohen also committed further fraud by sending fake invoices to Trump's business to attempt to get repaid.
      Trump's foreknowledge makes the campaign finance crimes much worse. It means hiding the campaign contribution was deliberate, not simply a failure to report. Doing it through Cohen could potentially add conspiracy to commit a felony to that list.

    36. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll be happy if it destroys both parties.

    37. Re:Really? by chill · · Score: 1

      Good luck arguing that, considering the affairs were in 2006 and he didn't pay until ten years later (2016) -- while a candidate for federal office, and denying the allegations as part of campaigning.

      And the comparison to charitable donations is laughable. These things aren't even remotely related. Had he NOT LIED about them, and reported them on the campaign finance form, this would be a blip that would simply be a simple correction and civil fine (like happened with Obama -- a paperwork error). Instead, his mendacity turned it into a felony.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    38. Re:Really? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      Cohen was Trump's lawyer. EVERYTHING that happened is on Cohen. Trump was acting on the advice of his lawyer no matter what.

      Yep.

      But there's nothing wrong with defence in depth, pleading both:
        1) It's not a crime (no matter WHAT Cohen signed to get them to stop prosecuting him on taxes and lying to lenders.)
        2) I did it on the advice of my attorney, whom I was paying to tell me what was legal and handle these things in a legal manner. So I had no intent to break any laws and believed at the time this was all legal.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    39. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WRONG! He could have used campaign funds, he should have just declared them and he'd be legal - but he didn't, he lied instead, and now he's headed TO FEDERAL PRISON YAY! FUCK THAT TRAITOR FAGGOT DRUMPFTARD!

    40. Re: Really? by gtall · · Score: 2

      You cannot if the person in question is an employee of the Federal Government. Those NDAs Trump had his people sign, the White House counsel (who is not Trump's personal lawyer) even told the people signing them they were not enforceable.

    41. Re:Really? by careysub · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is a textbook case of the Ad Hominem Fallacy.

      Train0987 addresses none of the points raised by the AC to which he was replying, but only attacked the motivations behind Cohen's plea and the prosecutors. Earlier here he had been willing to attempt to defend Trump by raising points, which the AC refuted. Instead of defending his own argument he switched to rhetorical fallacies.

      The reader can draw his or her own conclusions about Train0987's honesty and integrity from this.

      Expect to see much, much more of these attacks as more evidence against Trump comes to light.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    42. Re: Really? by chill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nope. Those were paperwork errors that were corrected and thus the fines. Trump claimed the affairs and subsequent payments never happened. Had he owned up to them, then it would have been just like Obama and Biden -- a paperwork error to correct, and a fine. Instead, his lying about it and directing Cohen to make what constitutes an illegal payment brought felony charges.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    43. Re:Really? by gtall · · Score: 1

      Not when Trump directed Cohen to do certain things, which he apparently has, and those things are illegal, which they apparently are. The rest of the shoes haven't yet dropped. The owner of the Enquirer is also implicated and it is just as illegal for him to do what they did.

    44. Re: Really? by Train0987 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Of course. When a Democrat does it it's just a paperwork error.

      The hypocrisy on the Left is stunning but at least people are finally waking up to it.

    45. Re:Really? by gtall · · Score: 1

      Or Trump told him to pay and then used campaign money to pay off Cohen. Cohen might not have known where the money came from. Even if he did, that doesn't leave Trump off the hook.

    46. Re: Really? by Train0987 · · Score: 0, Troll

      It wasn't a campaign donation. Trump self-financed his campaign. He directed Cohen to pay with a check for crying out loud. He would've paid even if he wasn't running for office.

      Even if it had been a publicly-funded campaign, see the John Edwards precedent.

    47. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      False. See the John Edwards case. Determined not to be illegal or a campaign violation even though it was hush money.

    48. Re: Really? by Train0987 · · Score: 1

      Ask Cohen, it was his idea and he's the lawyer in this scenario.

    49. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Per Dershowitz, buying someone's silence is only an FEC violation if the sole purpose is to influence the election. Trump had, in addition to the election-related motive, justifiable personal and commercial reasons for hushing up the ladies. Regardless of how prosecutors have written Cohen's plea agreement my guess is that the FEC violation will not go anywhere except in the MSM echo chamber.

    50. Re:Really? by Train0987 · · Score: 1

      The hooker wasn't extorting him until 2016.

    51. Re:Really? by gtall · · Score: 1

      Maybe, not yet though. Mueller was not leading the investigation of Cohen, he turned that over the district office in New York. They investigated and brought the charges. Now Cohen and his lawyer are dangling Trump in front of the DA to see if that will in turn interest Mueller. If it does, then Mueller can ask the DA to ask the court to go easy on Cohen. But that hasn't happened yet, and it isn't clear Cohen has any information on the Russian influence investigation. It doesn't appear Cohen was central to Trump's campaign, he was more or less the guy called in to clean up some dooty droppings. Trump never had a high enough opinion of Cohen to bring him into his inner circle.

      Cohen might have info on other Trump dealings, but that won't interest Mueller unless it can be tied to the Russians. The DA on the other hand might be very interested. Personally, I think Trump has been crooked his entire life, but in a penny-ante grifter sort of way, sort of like the people that are attracted to him.

    52. Re: Really? by chill · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm not a Democrat or "left", sorry. The simple fact is, the Obama and Biden cases were about incomplete or incorrect paperwork that they later corrected, hence the fine. They never denied the contributions.

      Had Trump simply owned up to the payments and corrected the FEC filing, this would be a fine.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    53. Re:Really? by gtall · · Score: 1

      Just because it wasn't documented as a campaign contribution does not mean it was not a campaign contribution. It looks like it was paid to effect the campaign, that alone makes it a campaign contribution regardless of anything Trump says about it.

    54. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When a Democrat does it

      Does what, lie? Like Bill Clinton? Gonna start that impeachment hearing over these lies? No?

    55. Re:Really? by Train0987 · · Score: 1

      Trump would've paid the extortion whether he was running for office or not, so how is that a campaign finance violation?

    56. Re:Really? by Train0987 · · Score: 1

      How can it be a campaign contribution if he would've paid even if he wasn't running for anything?

    57. Re: Really? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      How's this have anything to do with Stormy's agreement?

      There ARE valid NDA's out there, there are ways to effectively "buy" silence though a contract. These methods are legal.

      They don't guarantee silence, but they can make it a violation of a contract. You can violate an NDA, but if you do, it may cost you a lot.

      For instance, I settled a lawsuit years ago, but I'm under an NDA contract regarding the terms.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    58. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems like no one remembers weinsteins lawyer...

    59. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you need to compare convictions of top officials between the last four or five Administrations before making this claim. Add to that the make up of the Congress during the last Administration and its insistence that a crime was committed. Republicans have trampled the rule of law.

    60. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe you're wrong? It doesn't matter where the money came from.

    61. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I don't like my senator and I find a woman willing to claim he raped her. I pay her $100 to not go public, he gets removed from office?

      Moron doesn't even come close to describing you. If anyone thinks Trump is getting impeached just read the post I'm responding to and my post and try and figure out how it could possibly make sense.

    62. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not true. The client is ultimately always responsible for their actions.

    63. Re: Really? by jeff4747 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Trump self-financed his campaign

      No, he didn't. Here's his campaign financing: https://www.opensecrets.org/pr...

      "Donald J Trump for President" is his campaign. Scroll down and you can see all the sources of funding, which was primarily campaign contributions.

      He directed Cohen to pay with a check for crying out loud. He would've paid even if he wasn't running for office.

      Running for office triggers a different set of rules. Don't run for office if you want to pay off your mistresses.

      Even if it had been a publicly-funded campaign, see the John Edwards precedent.

      John Edwards was put on trial for his campaign finance crimes. There was no precedent set, he was just acquitted by the jury.

    64. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He pled guilty on all the charges, not just the bank fraud.

      Evil overreach on the part of the Government? Whose government exactly? Who is the head of the Justice Department these days?

      Your Illustrious Leader even tried to claim that his and Cohen's misdeeds weren't criminal because Obama's campaign committee did it too. Obama's campaign committee acknowledge their guilt and paid a hefty fine for what they did.

      You and your lot will bend over backwards to avoid acknowledging that your Illustrious Leader is a scumbag. You all should be in a circus sideshow with talents like that. Truly amazing.

    65. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And another thing: since Trump paid Cohen, it is not a campaign donation. Legally it is considered a loan. There is no limit on what a candidate Trump) can spend of his own money so there is no violation.

      Not reporting a campaign donation is a paperwork violation and is punished by a fine, not jail time, but does not apply in this case anyway.

    66. Re: Really? by jeff4747 · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, actually the FEC ruled the opposite. But thanks for the continued lying.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Indictment and trial
      On May 24, 2011, ABC News and the New York Times reported that the U.S Department of Justice's Public Integrity Section had conducted a two-year investigation into whether Edwards had used more than $1 million in political donations to hide his affair and planned to pursue criminal charges for alleged violations of campaign finance laws.[118][119][120]

      On June 3, 2011, Edwards was indicted by a federal grand jury in North Carolina on six felony charges, including four counts of collecting illegal campaign contributions, one count of conspiracy, and one count of making false statements.[121]

      After postponing the start of the trial while Edwards was treated for a heart condition in February 2012, Judge Catherine Eagles of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina scheduled jury selection to begin on April 12, 2012.[122] Edwards's trial began on April 23, 2012, as he faced up to 30 years in prison and a $1.5 million fine.[123]

      In a related development, on March 13, 2012, the Federal Election Commission ruled that Edwards' campaign must repay $2.1 million in matching federal funds. Edwards' lawyers claimed the money was used, and that the campaign did not receive all the funds to which it was entitled, but the commission rejected the arguments.[124]

      Twelve jurors and four alternates were seated, and opening arguments began April 23, 2012.[125] Closing arguments took place May 17, and the case went to the jury the next day.[126]

      On May 31, 2012, Edwards was found not guilty on Count 3, illegal use of campaign funding (contributions from Rachel "Bunny" Mellon), while mistrials were declared on all other counts against him.[2] On June 13, 2012, the Justice Department announced that it dropped the charges and would not attempt to retry Edwards.[3]

    67. Re:Really? by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Trump is leaving Cohen holding the bag while he denies everything, and apparently Cohen isn't an omega pussy who will lay down and take being thrown under the bus like this, he's returning a lack of loyalty and gratitude with the same: he's going to reveal every dirty little thing Trump has done. People will know even better than they already do what sort of son-of-a-bitch they've elected as POTUS. Of course meanwhile Trump will claim it's all 'fake' even if he's recorded saying otherwise, and his staunch supporters will continue to put fingers in their ears going LALALALAL WE CAN'T HEAR YOU! and deny all of it. The GOP will continue to hold their nose and keep their mouths shut because they know as soon as they admit Trump is the worst they'll lose control of Congress and they'll be the minority party again. Meanwhile all ~350,000,000 of us in this country are taking it in the ass by our own government and the rest of the world, we're a laughingstock, it'll be decades before we have any credibility anymore or are taken seriously by anyone.

    68. Re: Really? by jeff4747 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Again, you are wrong. It is not illegal to pay someone to keep quiet; happens all the time.

      The fact that it happened during a campaign makes different rules come into play. The fact that you don't like these rules does not make them disappear.

      The Justice Dept. tried to convict John Edwards on the exact same charges; they lost, and here's why: when an act can serve "dual purposes", in this case, hiding embarassing information from Edward's family, in addition to hiding information that may hurt his election chances, the act cannot be considered illegal.

      You're doing an excellent job making shit up. Edwards was found not guilty at trial. That's it. Someone being found not guilty does not set a legal precedent. Otherwise murder would be legal by now.

      Alan Dershowitz, no fan of Trump

      [Citation required]

    69. Re: Really? by jeff4747 · · Score: 2

      So I don't like my senator and I find a woman willing to claim he raped her. I pay her $100 to not go public, he gets removed from office?

      You also committed an FEC violation when you hired her, and another violation when you paid for her silence.

      The difference here is Trump ordering the payment (assuming Cohen isn't lying). That makes it Trump's FEC violation too.

    70. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess Trump will have to pay some fines like Obama did for his campaign finance violation crimes.

    71. Re: Really? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Wow, are you desperately searching to justify this.

      since Trump paid Cohen, it is not a campaign donation. Legally it is considered a loan

      A "loan" intended to influence the election.

      Again, the rules change when you run for office. Don't run for office if you want to pay off your mistresses. Pay off your mistresses first, then run for office later.

      There is no limit on what a candidate Trump) can spend of his own money

      There is no limit on what a candidate can contribute to their campaign. But by having it be Cohen's money, it is not Trump's money. Even if Trump later paid Cohen back.

      Also, campaign expenses must be properly documented. So if Trump had actually spent his own money and properly documented the expense as "payment to silence mistress", there's no problem. Trump didn't do either.

    72. Re:Really? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      If you are not running for office, campaign financing rules do not apply.

      To avoid this issue, pay off your mistresses first. Then run for office later.

    73. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would he have paid it if he wasn't running for anything? Don't say 'his wife'. He already has shown he doesn't care what they think. Yes, they as in plural, 3x I believe.

    74. Re:Really? by doubledown00 · · Score: 1

      If Trump had an intention of paying it otherwise, then why didn't he do it earlier? The event happened in 2006. The money wasn't paid until 2016. It's almost as if *something* was going on that suddenly made the revelation much more damaging.........
      I mean it's either that, or you're just an obtuse shill. I'm choosing the benefit of the doubt.

    75. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hush money is perfectly legal -- even if it comes from campaign funds -- so long as it is reported properly. If they had just cut Stormy Daniels a check from the campaign bank account and labeled the transaction "Hush Money" or something like that, there would be no crime.

      But of course that would make it all public knowledge, so instead they conspired to evade reporting mechanisms with shell companies and false invoices. That's what made it illegal. The McDougal payment was illegal because it was not reimbursed by the campaign, making it a donation in excess of the maximum allowed. The Daniels payment was illegal because it was not reported.

      When Trump says that he reimbursed Cohen with his own funds rather than the campaign's in a feable attempt to convince people he's not a criminal, he's really saying that he made an illegal donation to his own campaign! In other words he is attempting to get out of one felony by admitting to another felony.

      That's the same thing John Edwards faced. When he paid hush money, the issue was simply not reporting it. Of course in his case it was a year from the election and it was questionable whether it was even related to his campaign (I don't think he was running yet). In Trump's case he was already the nominee and the election was only weeks away, clearly making his hush money payments campaign-related.

      dom

    76. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is Trump is a cheap bastard and wasn't going to pay for it. Cohen wanted to influence Trump so he found a way to pay for it by taking out a loan. Trump was fine with that arrangement until it was found out.

    77. Re:Really? by sdinfoserv · · Score: 1

      As told over and over to the point of ad nauseam - hush money isn't illegal - UNTIL it's done to influence an election... Then it's a a crime that 100 years ago would have gotten Trump hanged.
      The fact that all the Trumpkins coming to defend this human shat bag is beyond astonishing. The GOP claims to have to moral high ground and also to be defenders of the budget. It's come to the point where anything goes so long as they can place Federal Judges, the ultimate prize .
      We're seeing history being made before our eyes. You're grand kids will ask you about this some day. Will you be able to respond in a way that doesn't make them gasp? Are you with the GOP and the legion of Climate Change deniers (aka Big Oil and their minions) and corporate oligarchs?

    78. Re: Really? by jbengt · · Score: 1

      Alan Dershowitz never met a defendant he didn't defend.

    79. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do you really not understand the qualitative difference between these things? The Obama campaign finance violations were all basically just a matter of missing deadlines. More importantly there's no evidence that it was willful. Even more importantly, there's absolutely no evidence that Obama directed it, or was even aware that it happened.

      In this case, you could make an argument that they were just really, really late on reporting and refunding the illegal campaign contribution, except that, since they're still trying to hold Stormy Daniels to the agreement in court, they clearly have no intention of getting the money back and refunding it. Not to mention that Cohen and Trump have repeatedly lied in the past about it even happening, what the source of the funds were, whether Cohen was reimbursed, etc., etc. So this isn't some case of making a mistake and saying "Mea culpa" and getting a fine. So, clearly this is a willful, not accidental, violation. Beyond that Cohen is alleging that Trump knew about these violations and directed them. There's already pretty much absolute proof that he did for at least one of them on the tapes,

      So, go on, make your claims about the left being the hypocritical ones. To clarify, the Democrats and the Republicans are both pretty right wing, really, but the Republicans are clearly more right wing in most respects, although they're clearly not "conservative" anymore in a social sense at least. Overall, when it comes to hypocrisy and corruption, lies, moral cowardice, etc. there's plenty to go around for both of them, but there's definitely a lot more of that going on with the Republicans these days than with the Democrats.

    80. Re: Really? by sdinfoserv · · Score: 1, Insightful

      gawd... please coward... (ya, typical, a COWARD).... The Clintons have been investigated for decades at the expense of millions in tax dollars. The result - a DOJ report saying "ya, the email server was probably a bad idea". Not - one - single - indictment. Yet, here were are less than 2 years into the Trumpkin presidency and we're 24 indictments, 8 guilty pleas and a conviction deep.. The only defense the Reichwingers can fall on is "oh. that corrupt US Justice Department".. Same story they try and use to discredit global warming and fracking linked to earth quakes (Oh, those corrupt scientists!). Just because opinions and facts differ from yours does not constitute corruption.

    81. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can it be a campaign contribution if he would've paid even if he wasn't running for anything?

      Whether he would have paid even if he wasn't running is irrelevant. Are you trying the old Chewbacca defense by bringing up something so irrelevant?

      In case you really aren't just trying to distract, think of it this way: if you punched somebody, normally that's just assault. But if that person was a cop, you could be nailed with things like assaulting a police officer, obstructing the law, etc. That you might have punched him even if he wasn't a cop in an alternate universe is irrelevant. What matters is that in this universe, he IS a cop, so the laws about hitting cops apply.

      Likewise, the spending was done while Trump WAS running for office, so the rules of campaign contributions apply, even spending that he might have made in some alternate universe where he wasn't running.

    82. Re:Really? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      There in you are incorrect. It is a very thin thread to argue that because it affected the campaign, it's a donation. Maybe it was a campaign donation in the eyes of Cohen, maybe it was just a pay off, like many others he's likely made, on behalf of Trump. But that side of the question is about what implicates Cohen, not Trump. If Cohen want's to plea to a campaign finance violation, it doesn't follow the Campaign or Trump are implicated too.

      Assuming that Trump ordered this, making it a campaign issue to you, one must also argue that Trump didn't order this for any other reason. IF there is any other legitimately claimed reason by Trump for making these payments, neither he or Cohen committed a campaign finance violation. I suspect there are any number of reasons Trump can reasonably claim here for ordering this, including not disclosing this to his wife or business associates or to avoid personal embarrassment, which means it wasn't a campaign finance issue at all. I suspect he will claim any and all of these. So your whole basis here is on pretty thin ice.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    83. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He would indicate anything given what they have on him personally. The guy is obviously under duress, so anything he claims should be taken with a grain of salt. As I said about Bill Clinton years ago, who cares where the guy stuck it so long as it was consensual? In this case, the women tried to shake him down afterwards. Whether his lawyer paid claiming it was a HELOC or retainer fees doesnt matter, nor does the guy paying it himself. If he funneled donations outside to do it then I'd have a problem. Otherwise, a 65 year old man paying to nail a pornstar and playboy bunny is just hillarious. To be sexist, for him it actually looks good in many circles, but for them, eww.

    84. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trumps history indicates that he's usually quite happy to brag publicly about the women he's sleeping with. This is, after all, the man who used to call reporters pretending to be other people to tell them all about his sexual conquests. He's the man who famously invited his mistress on a family skiing trip with his wife and children with the apparent motivation to have a big public spectacle.
      Seriously, why would someone who has never seemed to care before about humiliating his wives or his children an just about every way suddenly think it's so important? The explanation that jumps to mind is that he's protecting his candidacy.

    85. Re:Really? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      False. John Edwards was put on trial and was acquitted by the jury. That doesn't set a legal precedent.

    86. Re: Really? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      The fact of the matter is, there is probably a recording of Trump discussing the optics for the election with regards to this payment which means it is beside the point whose money it is. They didnt give Cohen leniency for less than a solid shot at Chump.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    87. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The lawyer is under retainer. If he lied on loans to temporarily get cash to pay, then that is on him. He could have said he didnt have the cash, but chose not to. He was supposedly wealthy but burned through cash and was beyond his means. His pride got in the way of saying no, and as a result, he lied on loan forms, not his client. No one forced him to do that.

    88. Re: Really? by HoodCrowd · · Score: 1

      Absolutes in mayhem? Come now. This is slashdot.org, and logic is of the order here. I don't know much about campaign finance laws because I find them to be against freedom and liberty. That being said, are there limits to how much a candidate can contribute to his own campaign? ...because, it ain't Cohen that paid her.

    89. Re: Really? by jbengt · · Score: 1

      No, actually. It's legal to use campaign contributions to kill a story, as long as it's not part of a conspiracy in furtherance of a crime. What is claimed in this case, is the money was used for campaign purposes, but it was not declared as a campaign contribution. Furthermore, it's alleged by the women that the women's previous lawyers were in cahoots with Cohen, the tabloid, and Trump's other "friends", and therefore the non-disclosure agreement was not valid - which is completely believable, given the known facts.

    90. Re: Really? by HoodCrowd · · Score: 1

      Dershowits is a pretty big name, and he agrees.

    91. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, I agree, your post doesn't make any sense.

    92. Re: Really? by jbengt · · Score: 1

      No, he wasn't acting as a lawyer while he was doing that. That's why almost all of his documents were not protected by attorney-client privilege.

    93. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone just shit on your desk and used your calendar and blotter to spread it around.

    94. Re:Really? by jbengt · · Score: 1

      That's extremely disingenuous.
      Cohen was not acting as Trump's lawyer in the subject matters.
      Even if he were, the excuse of following your lawyer's advice might get you a more lenient sentence from a bleeding heart judge, but it won't make you not guilty.

    95. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So why didn't he do anything to hush them up in the preceding decade?

    96. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... they're getting immunity from something, yes? Laws were broken, don't even have to know which ones yet to see it...

    97. Re:Really? by jbengt · · Score: 1

      He wouldn't have paid if he weren't running.

    98. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I hire someone and ask them to commit a crime, and they commit a crime, I am culpable. That's a basic element of the law. If I ask you to 'get me a soda' and you hold up a 7-11 to do it THEN it is on you.

    99. Re: Really? by slack_justyb · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Running for office triggers a different set of rules. Don't run for office if you want to pay off your mistresses.

      I don't think this can be stated enough. When you run for political office the object is to keep things for the election fair and there's not a really good hard and fast rules about that so hence the reason it kind of goes to court if you dispute the FEC's idea of fair. Now that's not to say it's all a toss up, there are indeed straight up laws that say, "No you cannot accept money over this dollar amount from any one donor. No you cannot accept money of any amount from a foreign investor that has no vested stance in US politics (ie. foreign company that has an HQ here in the US vs does not have an HQ here in the US)" and so on. But ultimately the entire point is to keep things fair. As one would say, is the "spirit" of the law.

      So that said, paying hush money to keep a scandal from hitting the newspaper, is one of those things that: A. We don't have a hard rule that says that you cannot do that. B. Does raise the question as to how many people might not have voted for him had they found out about the affair. So that's going to be one of those things that a judge would need to rule on IF the FEC wanted to bring a case up about it. The funds might have indeed come from Trump's own pocket, but it does seem like it would beg the question of, "did that payment affect the election in some manner?" Maybe not, maybe so, but that's up for the FEC to determine if they want to ask a judge that question or not.

      However, that brings me to my point here. One, we don't know for sure if Trump paid personally for the hush money or used campaign funds, but there's clearly enough worry there that I'm sure a court would allow the subpoena of records to double check that. But that matter aside, even if it was paid for by personal funds, did the action sway voters, in essence, did it make the election unfair? And it's important that people going into the argument remember this, that paying hush money when running for office, you have to ensure that you maintain oneself in a manner to ensure that the election is conducted fairly. So the other person mentioned John Edwards and that's actually good because it brings in how difficult it is to test this "did it change the election results?" question. It ought to be a difficult question to test in court because there's so much that goes behind an election, it's incredibly difficult to point to one event and say, "yes, that one thing tipped the balance" unless, of course, it's a massive brouhaha that would have rightly changed the election results.

      So long story short, elections are supposed to be fair and there's things that aren't explicitly illegal that can make elections unfair. It's up to the FEC to take those things and bring them before a judge to weigh in on if that thing done did indeed make the election unfair. It's got a super high bar for the standard, as it should since elections are complex beast in of themselves. But the original question, "is it illegal to to pay hush money while running for office?" Doesn't have a clear answer since there isn't a law that explicitly states that, so it's a case by case kind of thing. But if you don't want to be needlessly investigated, it's best that you either don't make a payment and let the story hit or you do make a payment and then file the paperwork. Or you could go the third rail option here and just not be morally corrupt. There's not a law stating that you need to have any kind of moral compass when in office, but dang if it doesn't make a convincing case for your reelection or ousting in 2020. Just saying.

    100. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      John Edwards was put on trial for his campaign finance crimes. There was no precedent set, he was just acquitted by the jury.

      John Edwards was put on trial for alleged campaign finance crimes by paying hush money. John Edwards was acquitted, in part, because the prosecutors failed to prove that the hush money payment was motivated by the campaign. As far as the rule of law and facts are concerned, John Edwards committed no campaign finance crimes.

    101. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet he didn't for years until he ran for office, evidence to the contrary, you fucking treasonous sack of excuses and faggot shit lol. Trump is prison bound and there's nothing your punk snowflake bitch ass can do about it.

    102. Re: Really? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      NBC paying money for the Access Hollywood tape to air in October before the election was a blatant attempt to influence the election

      The level of confusion in this comment is remarkable.

      1. Access Hollywood is an NBC TV show. NBC didn't "pay money" for it. They already had it.
      2. NBC generally supported Trump even if NBC News itself was reporting mostly negative news about him (which largely reflects the type of news there was about Trump.) They even had him host Saturday Night Live.
      3. If it is a "blatant attempt to influence the election" to for a news organization to publish real, newsworthy, information about a candidate, then all news is "a blatant attempt to influence the election". If NBC News had sat on it, would you have said they were being neutral? Or would they have been attempting to influence the election by withholding important information as to Trump's character?

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    103. Re:Really? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      I'm 90% sure that US law doesn't work on the basis of "It's not illegal if you pay someone else to do it for you."

      But I admit, with the plutocratic nature of power in the US, that there's at least a silver of doubt, hence 90%.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    104. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Cohen is a shady mofo and they tagged him with this a few a few other small things for 3.5-5.25 years (most likely less with good behavior) instead of rest of your life and all your money on the off chance someone decides to let you out.

    105. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're having difficulty wiping, perhaps you should consider changing toilet roll brand?

    106. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when do laws matter anymore? Laws are for the little people. Trump is KING OF AMERICA and above all laws! Just you wait and see -- all the facts will come out and none of it will matter at all

      Yeah that's what I'm afraid of......

      as opposed to the "my pen and phone" King?

    107. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did Obama admit to them and pay a fine? Yes?

      Did trump admit to it? No he didn't, he denied it. Over and over. Now it comes out he was lying. He doesn't get to pay a fine. He gets charges instead. That's the difference. If you can't see that you are a partisan cock sucker.

      - a republican

    108. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Makes no difference where the money came from. The crime is in not reporting it.

    109. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      His checks usually bounce, and so he did not know it would be an actual pay-off.

    110. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha, yeah, it's so much better to have one single party to rule everything. Worked great for the nazis, though it is going pretty well in China. I guess that's what you want, United China of America.

    111. Re:Really? by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      It's probably somewhere in here but I'll admit I didn't actually read it.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    112. Re: Really? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Just the fact that the mortgage was misappropriated is a 30 year felony.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    113. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Additionally, Cohen had been engaged in attempts to squash the knowledge of the affair back in 2011 when he threatened suit against In Touch Weekly. This is troublesome for prosecutors because it shows evidence that the story was being hushed well before the campaign making it difficult to show that the hush money in October 2016 is a direct result of the campaign. If Cohen threatened legal action to squash the story in 2011, why would you assume that if Stormy Daniels threatened to go public with it in 2012, 2013, or 2014, the hush money wouldn't have been paid?

    114. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If done with the purpose of influencing a federal election, it is ALL considered campaign funds. https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/types-contributions/ [fec.gov]

      I don't know it seems kind of like... I guess I'm looking for reverse entrapment.. I'll have to think of a good term.

      So, from a general perspective. I would think the qualification would come to would the candidate of paid the hush money in the same way before or after the election if the allegations came forward. If the answer is yes, then the decision to pay her with non campaign funds was not a campaign decision and its inconsequential that it helped the campaign.

      Problem is you can't really make a legal test for that so its totally subjective to make the determination that the paying off of hush money was done solely to help the campaign and had the candidate not been running for office he would not have paid it to protect himself from the allegations.

      All of these guys need to go to jail, but campaign finance seems like a weak pole to stand on.

    115. Re: Really? by nasor · · Score: 1

      With John Edwards, the payment was made after he dropped out of the race - a crucial difference.

    116. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the last time Ms. Daniels tried to go public with it, in 2011, Mr. Cohen threatened to sue the magazine that had the story.

    117. Re:Really? by Huge_UID · · Score: 1
      Where is the "-1 Wrong" moderation? https://www.npr.org/2018/08/23...

      Trump was making the wrong argument. Like many of us, he seemed to misunderstand the relevant provision of campaign finance law. In fact, the president might be better off if his campaign had supplied the hush money.

    118. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it actually is.

      What's going on is the payment is considered a campaign donation, because it was made by a private person in order to further the campaign. The campaign donation was not properly declared, and exceeded the maximum allowed donation to a political campaign.

      It wasn't a donation made to the campaign. If I start buying millions of pencils and drop them off with teachers saying "this is from Trump", how is that a donation? How does it implicate Trump in wrongdoing? In this case, Trump had a long-time understanding with Cohen to pay off floozies. Cohen did this on his own and billed the candidate the standard large amount for "lawyer stuff". The candidate's accountants signed the usual large lawyer check.

    119. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The prosecutors say you are wrong.

    120. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's a personal embarrassment he wanted to get rid of, because it would interfere with his campaign, then it's a campaign donation. That's the point you guys keep missing.

    121. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL. The lies you guys try to spread.

      If it's legal why are they charging Cohen with it? Please do tell?

    122. Re:Really? by fuzznutz · · Score: 1

      As told over and over to the point of ad nauseam - hush money isn't illegal - UNTIL it's done to influence an election... Then it's a a crime that 100 years ago would have gotten Trump hanged.

      Are you seriously making the claim that campaign finance violations were a capital offense in 1916?

    123. Re: Really? by Orrin+Bloquy · · Score: 1

      Congress even has a special tax-payer fund they use to pay off people who accuse them of sexual harassment - to get the money they have to sign NDA's. Also, Pizzagate was real but the moon landing wasn't.

      If you can show even a shred of evidence for that fund I'll be mighty impressed.

      --
      "Made up/misattributed quote that makes me look smart. I am on /. and I must look smart."
    124. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only way this blows back on Trump or his campaign is if the money came from the campaign

      That's the new narrative since yesterday's Trump interview on Fox, but it fails two basic sniff tests :

      Monies paid for the purpose of influencing an election are campaign contributions, by definition

      If there was "no blowback" to be had from this, why has there been an endless shifting set of lies given to explain this?

    125. Re: Really? by butchersong · · Score: 1

      Look, it's ok to dislike Trump. It might even be the most reasonable reaction to the fellow but paying someone not to leak personal information about you cannot reasonably be called "money to influence a political campaign". This is just... ridiculous. Go after Trump on substantive things. There are real issues that need addressed and he's on the wrong side of many of them. Hit him there.

    126. Re: Really? by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      It wasn't a campaign donation

      I'm inclined to agree with you, however if statute says it shall be considered as such under the law, then it is for the purposes of this discussion. A judge agreed that it did. You cannot plea guilty to a not-crime.

      Trump self-financed his campaign.

      That isn't relevant.

      He would've paid even if he wasn't running for office.

      Also inclined to agree with you here.

      John Edwards precedent.

      John Edwards was acquitted, which means no precedent could have been set.

      You are coming across like someone truly *desperate* to gaslight the conversation as much as possible. The desperation stinks. You should go take a walk and enjoy some fresh air or something. I'm worried about your health.

    127. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Itâ(TM)s his personal life. Move On. Remember? Oh, thatâ(TM)s only for perverted Democratics.

    128. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hush Money is illegal if it comes out of campaign funds. It is not illegal if it comes out of other sources.

      This is wrong. The money is considered a campaign contribution.

      It wasn't properly documented as a contribution, and it exceeded the maximum allowed contribution.

      Any half-decent lawyer could argue: because there is no proof it's a campaign contribution and because the amount exceeded the maximum allowed contribution, clearly it was not nor intended to be a campaign contribution.

      On cross-examination of investigators they will hammer the point by asking, "Do you have any evidence this is a campaign contribution?", "Is your paycheck a campaign contribution, you have just as much evidence of that?", "If you gave your daughter money for tuition, is that enough evidence to show you exceeded the maximum allowed contribution to a political campaign?", "Do you have any problem with the current president of the United States?" (which would result in a sustained objection but the jury would still get the point)

      Court rooms are more picky about certainty, facts, and logic than most people can handle emotionally.

    129. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm following this thread and I am just curious to ask a Trump supporter: Do you care that he had affairs? Do you care that he lied about them? It doesn't really matter to me how he paid the money. I find it ironic that so many supposedly conservative people, supposedly Christian people, support this guy. Those same people attacked Bill Clinton for his infidelities. I remember having discussions with friends and family about the "character" of the president.

      (I avoid this topic IRL because it burns bridges. Maybe if I understand your viewpoint it might help me talk to people in real life. I know I posted AC but I will come back and read the reply if you make one.)

    130. Re: Really? by TJNichols · · Score: 1

      Were the payments received reported to the IRS?

    131. Re: Really? by TJNichols · · Score: 1

      It's odd, but I don't see anything here on the House Ethics page permitting personal OR campaign money being used to pay off lawyers to pay off porn stars or heiresses for their silence about incidents that might influence ethical voters to choose a better candidate. It just isn't there, for some reason. https://ethics.house.gov/campa...

    132. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump would've paid the extortion whether he was running for office or not, so how is that a campaign finance violation?

      That's not how it works. Cohen's actions benefited the campaign, and that's all that counts. Woulda and coulda are not relevant.

    133. Re: Really? by BitterOak · · Score: 1

      Nearly every law expert disagrees with you.

      Correction: That should read "Nearly every law expert featured on CNN disagrees with you."

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    134. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would it? Being a conservative doesnâ(TM)t make you religious. Some of us care about spending, taxes, less federal control and more personal liberties. You can be a conservative and still support social issues. I donâ(TM)t care who you have sex with, how you identify, if you do drugs or what you do to your body. I care about the economy, government spying, shady politicians and the price of my health care. Thatâ(TM)s why I personally could care less about trumps affair. I didnâ(TM)t vote for him because of his high morals, (grab em by the pussy?) I voted for him to lower taxes, repeal the affordable care act, to get conservative judges into the surprene court and to prevent one of the most corrupt career politicians in history from taking the office.

    135. Re:Really? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      The argument goes that paying the hush money during the campaign was intended to further the goals of the campaign, and therefore is campaign related spending.

      Thus, the laws are completely ridiculous. And it's only a matter of time before they are ruled unconstitutional because their ridiculousness violates due process and/or First Amendment rights.

      Between now and then, we should all pretend they are very serious because they help to blue team and hurt the red team, and that's what matters for the next 6 months.

    136. Re: Really? by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      It isn't illegal to pay someone to keep quiet. It happens every single day.

      Right, but that's not what Cohen and Trump are in trouble for. It's illegal to run for office while also paying people to say, or not say, things about you.

      Suppose I'm an unbearable asshole, a really obnoxious piece-of-shit guy, and everyone knows it. (Go look at my comment history, and I'm sure you'll find something to confirm this.) Every time I open my mouth, out comes another lie, or if it's not a lie, it's a true statement of what I'm actually thinking at that moment, which is even worse. On my wedding day, I banged the bridesmaids while my wife watched in disbelief, crying. Someone was carrying a baby in public and showed it to me, and I screamed "Holy fuck, what's that ugly horror?!" and I slapped the baby. I'm a creationist Scientologist who sells Amway. I have truck nuts, walk around in public talking on a bluetooth headset, I don't use my turn signals when I drive, and I have an autographed photo of Pol Pot on my desk, where he writes, "Had a great time with you in the fields, let's kill time again!"

      But I want to be dogcatcher, an elected position.

      Problem is, people hate me. I take a poll and it turns out that O.J. Simpson wants to be dogcatcher too, and he's a likeable guy and people laugh when they remember him in the Naked Gun movies. O.J. is going to fucking murder me on election day unless I do something.

      That's ok. I can do something. I can run a TV ad where I hire a super-likable and highly respected actress, let's say Gwyneth Paltrow, to say she thinks I'm a cool guy and O.J. is a lameass. That's legal, as long as I report my campaign expense.

      I can tell the mother of the baby that I slapped, "stop telling people the baby-slapping story and I'll give you a million dollars." That's legal too, as long as I report my campaign expense.

      So, you're totally right, Train0987, these things are perfectly legal.

      But let's say I don't report that I paid Paltrow. I don't want people to see that payment, because it makes her look like an ignorant whore. I want people to really think Gwyneth Paltrow respects me, because everyone respects her, her wisdom, and her judgment!

      That wouldn't be a problem if I weren't running for dogcatcher. But it is a problem, because I am running for dogcatcher. It's illegal. So I have to disclose that payment unless I want to take a risk.

      Similarly, I don't really want to disclose my payment to the slappee mommy, because I want people to think she's not talking about it anymore, because she no longer believes it. I don't want people to know she shut up because I paid her off.

      That wouldn't be a problem if I weren't running for dogcatcher. I wouldn't have to disclose the payment. It would work! Uh oh, but I am running for dogcatcher.

      So I have to disclose that payment, too.

      No problem. All I have to do is forget! People make mistakes, after all. "I forgot that I paid Gwyneth Paltrow" has a certain ring to it, doesn't it?

      Ok, so that's the plan! As long as nobody brings it up, everything is fine. My fraud will go undetected, a victimless crime like punching someone in the dark. And if someone does bring it up, I can just say "OMG, you're right! I paid Gwyn! Oh shit, I need to amend my campaign finance report!" That will suck, but it works. I'll get a slap-on-the-wrist fine. My slimy plan has probably helped you figure it out by now: I'm running for dogcatcher as a Democrat.

      Similarly, I can say I forgot that I had paid the slappee mommy. Same plan. Just don't report anything until I'm called on it, and then slap my forehead, say "duuh, I forgot, because I'm just a Democrat" and amend the reporting. You can't prove the mens rea, so it's probably just another slap-on-the-wrist fine.

      Unfortunately, when someone brings up my payment to the slappee mommy, I say "I don't kno

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    137. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please cite your source. By source I mean the US code and an actual law not a pundit.

    138. Re:Really? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Considering the two relationships were in 2006, and the payoffs were done ten years later in 2016, just before the election, Trump will have an almost impossible task arguing that these payoffs weren't related to his candidacy in a federal election.

      He won't have to. Instead he can argue:

      - Cohen is a liar. Prove Cohen isn't lying.
      - Cohen was Trump's lawyer and he has a 6th Amendment right to attorney-client confidentiality. And any evidence discovered from privileged attorney-client communications is inadmissible.
      - There aren't 60 votes in the Senate to convict on impeachment
      - Campaign finance laws and the FEC process are so complicated that no one can ever be certain he obeyed them, and that makes them unconstitutional because they violate due process rights.

      and on from there.

    139. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nicely put. I would say that for a large number of his supporters, they would have cheered harder knowing he was able to bed a porn actress and playboy playmate in his 60's. In the end, all men are pigs to some extent. If anything, I think it would have just put him in the news more, which is usually his M.O.

    140. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mens rea is central to any legal discussions.
      Secondly, the same evidence and testimony would be treated very differently, depending on whether it comes from a disinterested observer, vs e.g. your ex-boyfriend who is bitter over a nasty divorce.

      The sad part is, you fucking know it, and yet you actively chose to mislead the people. Why?
      Are you seriously so bitter over the guy who lowered your taxes, and made you cry on Nov. 8, 2016? Aren't you, deep down, just a bunch of wannabe nazis?

    141. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is he so stupid that he didn’t see that coming? Yes, he is.

    142. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As Indiana Jones said, âoeWhat a vivid imagination...â

    143. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The illegality comes along where corporations are not allowed to donate directly to political campaigns, and the Trump Organization paying back the hush money is a pass-through donation made for political reasons.

      If there's an actual statute that talks about this is best left for the FEC and their lawyers.

    144. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ageeed. How could it make you not guilty, when lack of awareness of the law (via any means) is not a usable defense in court?

    145. Re:Really? by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

      How are they ridiculous? It's basically a campaign PR expense and thus should be treated as any other contribution. Has nothing to do with team sports.

      To make a CHUD-understandable example: if Obama was paying off the Kenyan doctor that oversaw his birth during the campaign, the same rules would've applied. Nothing to do with team sports.

    146. Re:Really? by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      > The entire purpose of the hush money was to benefit the campaign.

      This is going too far.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    147. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since you asked so nicely, here are the statutes listed in those counts of the plea deal.

      For count seven (covering Karen McDougal and the payment with the National Enquirer) 52 U.S. Code 30118, penalties in 52 U.S. Code 30109(d)(1)(A), and 18 U.S. Code 2 defining his role as a principal.
       
        For count eight (the Stormy Daniels payment) 52 U.S. Code 30116(a) with the same sections for penalties and principal definitions.

    148. Re:Really? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      We have free speech. Paying money for speech or ideas or communication to voters during a campaign is free speech.

    149. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It literally happens every day... It's how politics works. Got dirt? Get paid or read about it on CNN.

      Not sure why an ethics committee has any relevance here? We're not taking about censure or recusals. Why even bring it up?

    150. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look, unless Stormy Daniel's was working for somebody's campaign, it's kind of a stretch to say that Trump paying her with his own money was an improper political donation. Like, if he buys a new Toupee to wear during the campaign and doesn't disclose it, is that a campaign law violation?

      I'm sick of people throwing logic out the window just because it's Trump. He has to embezzle campaign funds for it to be a violation. That's the whole reason Edward's was indicted. He used the campaign's funds, not his own.

      FFS, isn't there enough actual shit for people to legitimately complain about with Trump without jumping on whatever bs the neo-con press thinks constitutes "oppostion". God forbid we talk about the tax cuts.

    151. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol what?

      Trying to influence an election is perfectly and entirely legal. Literally every politician and news corporation does exactly that, all day, every day, spending tens of billions of dollars yearly.

      What the absolute fuck are you incoherently rambling about? Are you really this retarded?

    152. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhhh nope. It was three years of paying his mistress before and during his campaign.

      Nice try though. Hillary is still going to prison.

    153. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Literally a 4 second Google search, you blithering fucking moron.

      https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/11/27/sexual-harassment-fund-exposes-congress-editorials-debates/898008001/

    154. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump literally wrote a book about cheating on wives and living the celebrity playboy life.

      We voted for him because he's an asshole who pisses off the ultra-sensitive left and their media overlords... Not despite it.

      His election was a giant "fuck you"... And the middle finger just got 10 feet taller.

      Will absolutely vote for him again, without reservations.

      Also my taxes are 7% lower, so that's nice too.

    155. Re: Really? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      The illegality is being an excess campaign contribution and not reporting it. Paying off someone is legal, paying off someone from campaign funds is legal (though ethically bad), the campaign can even pay more than $2700 for this legally. The crime comes in from paying more than $2700 by an individual to a campaign.

      The snag is tying this to the campaign. There is the proven defense, used by politicians in the past, of claiming the payment was done to keep the affair secret from the spouse rather than keeping it secret for campaign reasons. It's a very very fuzzy line. So while this is embarrassing to Trump it's not going to get him convicted of anything.

      Remember, the investigations by special counsel are not there in order to "get" Trump. Trump can remain peripheral to the whole thing if he just stops twitting about it and lets it run its course.

    156. Re:Really? by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

      No the person using ad hom here is you.

      There is no equal protection under the law and its enforcement is arbitrary. Here is an example, and here is another one.

      It's perfectly reasonable to ascribe ulterior motives to dogged legal persecutions of which was initiated under false pretenses to begin with. Cohen is a pawn and you know it. To pretend otherwise is some seriously sanctimonious bullshit.

    157. Re: Really? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      One of the jurors who just convicted Manafort also said the same thing, that she supports Trump and thinks they're "out to get" him. And yet, the paper-trail was very solid, Guilty!

      Lots of people believe whatever is said on the teevee, and yet, when it actually comes down to brass tacks they might still get the same answer.

    158. Re: Really? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Absolutes in mayhem? Come now. This is slashdot.org, and logic is of the order here. I don't know much about campaign finance laws because I find them to be against freedom and liberty. That being said, are there limits to how much a candidate can contribute to his own campaign? ...because, it ain't Cohen that paid her.

      Well, it sorta is that Cohen paid her. The leaked conversation between Trump and Cohen, when Trump suggested paying her in cash, Cohen told him no, that he would take care of it. Cohen was smart enough to know he needed to hide that money. So if caught, Cohen could (and did) just say that he paid the bribe. Cohen also knew that following the money, the cash would need to come from somewhere, so could be easily traced.

      Problem was, it was pretty obvious that they were attempting to silence people to keep them from negatively affecting the election prospects of Trump. Let us not forget that the good Mister Pecker has been cooperating with his role in shutting people up.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    159. Re: Really? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      You can talk all you like about it not being money to influence a campaign, but there are laws, and the law doesn't agree with you. And listening to the tape between Trump and Cohen, it is pretty clear they paid off Danials to keep her mouth shut, and Cohen even attempted to hide it by paying it himself, as Trump wanted to pay cash.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    160. Re: Really? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      No it isn't. Congressman do it EVERY DAY.

      https://www.pbs.org/newshour/p...

      No. That is about settling on-the-job complaints, it isn't about campaign contributions.

      If you engage in sexual harassment on the job while a congressperson, and you get sued right away in the normal course of things, then that fund might help. Those are people who worked in Congress, getting paid for violations of their rights while at work.

      When it didn't happen at work, 1) make sure to get it paid off when it is not an election cycle. Don't wait until right before the election when people are threatening to go public to show your true colors; it isn't legal to spend secret money during the campaign to hide your true colors! That's what it is really all about; if it is during the campaign, you're supposed to tell people you spent the money.

      It isn't about spending the money, it is about spending the money secretly during a campaign. That is totally different than when your employer spends money to settle a claim that arose during normal work.

    161. Re: Really? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      I just want to know what does a guy like Cohen spend all his money on, if he needed a loan for that? I thought "fixers" for VIPs were supposed to make more money than average lawyers. What's his deal? Is he in really really deep with some bookies from a Very Respectable Family? Or is it just hookers and blow, like a slashdot neckbeard who won the lottery?

    162. Re:Really? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      There are all sorts of things you can hire a private investigator to do for you that would be felonies if you did them yourself.

      But it isn't the normal case, to be sure.

    163. Re:Really? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      That's pretty good, 2 libelous claims in only 7 words.

      Luckily for you, Avenatti is running for President and that case would be bad publicity.

    164. Re: Really? by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 2

      Had he owned up to them, then it would have been just like Obama and Biden -- a paperwork error to correct, and a fine. Instead, his lying about it and directing Cohen to make what constitutes an illegal payment brought felony charges.

      Quite often it is not the original act but the coverup that gets you in the end.

      Just ask Martha.

    165. Re: Really? by dog77 · · Score: 1

      Many conservatives believe Mueller is out to "get Trump and will fabricate information to do so, which is ludicrous

      Correction, many conservatives believe Mueller is out to get Trump and the investigation was started based largely on false evidence (the Steele Dossier). To date there has not been any evidence that has been publicly released that supports the Steele Dossier. So unless some additional evidence comes out, it amounts to the FBI going after the Trump administration based on rumors and suspicion raised from the opposition party.

      Instead of finding any substantial evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign, Mueller has found a mix of crimes unrelated to Russia and the election. All reports of what Mueller is doing is that he is trying to get those around Trump to turn on him and trying to get Trump on obstruction of justice for reasons like firing Comey.

      So yes, it would be Ludicrous to say Mueller is fabricating evidence, but it is not ludicrous to say that Mueller is trying to trap and bring down Trump based on anything he can use to do so.

      If Mueller was truly unbiased, I think he would have stuck to investigating how the Russians stole the emails and how they tried to influence the election and not gone after anyone in the Trump administration unless they had credible evidence that someone in the Trump administration asked Russia for help in the election.

    166. Re: Really? by erp_consultant · · Score: 1

      Right. And if he really did pay off Daniels then she would have signed what is effectively a non disclosure agreement. A contract to keep her trap shut in exchange for money. If she did in fact receive the money and spilled the beans then she is in violation of that contract. As such, none of her testimony should be allowed in a court of law.

      Cohen was pressured into admitting to an alleged crime (the payment to Daniels) in exchange for leniency towards actual crimes (alleged multiple counts of tax evasion).

      This is all part of the Get Trump tactic. What Cohen is admitting to is not a crime. What the prosecutors wanted was a tie into Trump. Why else would they cut a deal with Cohen? They will attempt to play the illegal campaign contribution angle by suggesting that the payment to Daniels is a campaign contribution rather than hush money. It won't stick.

    167. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So when the opposition (who is also running for said office) PAYS for false intel to UNFAIRLY influence the same election...is that illegal as well? Tit for tat, right?

    168. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      B.S. Seems quite clear they will do anything to try and influence the midterms since the blue-wave isnâ(TM)t.

    169. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are correct, I feel even more sorry for the left than I did before. Like, seriously, that is all you have?

    170. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spot on. Nothing but an obvious attempt to influence the coming midterms, since they know they are going to lose bad in those as well.

    171. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trying to influence an election is perfectly and entirely legal. Literally every politician and news corporation does exactly that, all day, every day, spending tens of billions of dollars yearly.

      Yes ... and every one of those tens of billions of dollars needs to be documented per the FEC. People can spend money to influence elections, but the amount and source needs to be recorded and tracked.

    172. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The facts of the case are pretty clear here. Cohen paid hush money to a couple women with the clear intent of influencing the outcome of a federal election. You can tell because Cohen turned down Stormy Daniels' offer at first, but then accepted when the Access Hollywood tape became public. Plus, Trump's own lawyer said on national TV that he had to make the payment because the election was coming up!

      If Cohen doesn't get reimbursed, that's a campaign contribution in excess of the legal limits. If he does get reimbursed, the campaign has to report it.

      The McDougal payoff was illegal because it wasn't reimbursed, making it a contribution in excess of the legal limit. The Daniels payoff was illegal because rather than reporting the contribution, they went to great pains to hide it.

      None of those parts are in dispute. Trump is offering red herrings like "it was my money rather than the campaign's money", but it doesn't matter because the charge was not reporting it rather than misuse of campaign funds.

      I'm not sure you understand the gravity of Cohen's situation. Even if Cohen may have committed the crimes entirely by himself (which is not the case), he did so at the direction of the Trump. That makes Trump criminally liable as if he had done it himself. This is the same principle that makes hiring a hitman attempted murder, even if you have no contact with the victim.

      The only way Trump isn't liable here is if Cohen (and Pecker) did this without him knowing about it. And the odds of that are nil. Trump is a nosy micromanager so you know he had a finger in every illegal pie in the campaign.

      dom

    173. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ethical voters would've been influenced to vote for the Clinton Crime Syndicate instead of the Trump Titty Committee? Give me a break! Let's see: vote for the candidate who pays people to keep quiet, or vote for the candidate who has people murdered to keep quiet. Who killed Seth Rich?

    174. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Naked Gun trilogy and Police Squad are national treasures you monster!

    175. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, so it was a paperwork error just like Obama's violation. Write down the amount/source, submit an amendment, pay a fine, and lets all give a "Hip-hip hooray!" for worthless bureaucracy. Long live the king!

    176. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as I understand, paying someone to keep quiet is not illegal, even in a campaign. What is illegal is doing that secretly during a campaign (which kind of is the goal of paying someone to keep quiet).

      Is like paying a lot of money to actors and famous people to support you publicly. It is not illegal to have an advertisement campaign, but voters should know that you paid somehow that people to "legally lie" about you.

    177. Re: Really? by houghi · · Score: 1

      Well, at leasr he did not loe about getting a blowjob or trie to hide that, because that would be bad.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    178. Re: Really? by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      But elections are only supposed to be fair in fair ways, right ? Private life of candidates causes vote sways - but is it fair ? If a candidate has warts on his / her genitals, I am sure it would cause votes to sway if known. Should this information be made public just because someone is running for office ?

      If the information were about the political stance of a candidate - e.g. his past deeds which betray his real political stance as opposed to his avowed political position, maybe you can argue it matters.

      Although there are 2 aspects of this deed : having a mistress, and paying somebody off using campaign contributions. The second one, purely from a financial perspective, should be illegal. But trial of that part should take place without divulging the fact that the person paid off was a mistress.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    179. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Immunity removes his ability to plead the 5th. The immunity deal may just be intended to force him to talk.

    180. Re: Really? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      all news is "a blatant attempt to influence the election"

      I'm finding this all rather strange, because, yes, that news is a blatant attempt to influence the election.

      It could be argued that NBC weren't attempting to influence it in any particular direction but they broadcast knowing that there would be an impact.

    181. Re: Really? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. It happens EVERY DAY. Members of Congress pay hush money to former staffers EVERY DAY. Celebrities do it EVERY DAY.

      They're all running for president EVERY DAY?

    182. Re:Really? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Not when Trump directed Cohen to do certain things, which he apparently has, and those things are illegal, which they apparently are

      T: "What are my legal options here?"
      C: "Well, we could let the shit hit the fan, or you could offer a large sum of money contingent on an NDA"
      T: "Make the payment"

      In that hypothetical conversation T just instructed C to do a certain thing that may or may not be illegal. Tell me, did T intend C to break the law?

    183. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      was acquitted by the jury. That doesn't set a legal precedent.

      WTF? A jury trial happened, the defendant was acquitted and you say that doesn't set precedent? So then what does set precedent if not a prior court case, plea deals with bogus accusations against a sitting President that will never be tried in a court law?

      No other candidate has been charged since Edwards, whether there were incidence of "hush money" payments or not, but as soon as the next one is charged and goes to trial you can bet you bottom dollar the Edward's case will be cited as precedence.

    184. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alan Dershowitz and Bradley Smith say you're wrong. I'd trust them before I trusted blatantly partisan prosecutors from New York who are tag-teaming with Mueller.

    185. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it is not according to former FEC chairman who helped write the regulations, Bradley Smith. It is only an issue if he used campaign funds and not personal finances. Was it a campaign donation to Hillary when NBC purchased the Access Hollywood video to air in October against Trump? Was it "influencing an election" when Obama had his college records sealed? The answer is also "no if campaign funds were not used".

      Now if Trump had had Cohen funnel say $12m from the campaign to a foreign national for opposition research and didn't report that, then you have a legal violation. Good thing no one did that.

      What you have here is grasping at straws and deflection. Call me when charges are actually leveled against Trump.

    186. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Monies paid for the purpose of influencing an election are campaign contributions, by definition

      Show me the statute!

    187. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As the election cycle moves towards "perpetually", things are going to get interesting.

    188. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As told over and over to the point of ad nauseam - hush money isn't illegal - UNTIL it's done to influence an election... Then it's a a crime that 100 years ago would have gotten Trump hanged.

      Gee, it sure is too bad that controlling the media machine isn't considered influencing an election too. I mean, what's the world coming to when you can kick and scream and get the sugary cereal you want? Or is it have your cake and eat it too? Pot calling the kettle... Oh, who cares.

      It is at least entertaining to see how frothy the Hillary-worshipers still get over every little thing. As far as what would get you hanged 100 years ago, Woodrow Wilson should have been hanged for starting the income tax but contributions and hush money weren't publicly reported.

    189. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just exactly what is it that you think "large donors" do, if not "influence an election"? This whole thing reeks of "you have to look at it this way".

      Let's cut to the chase, put the fucker in front of a judge and get him to lie under oath and be done with it, maybe this time it'll stick. I don't think he's as slick as Wild Bill. As we've seen from history, it's perfectly ok to lie to a camera or at a press conference, so if you want to get someone on dishonesty it has to be in front of a judge.

      Maybe the next time the Dems have the office they'll focus on useful things like entrenching the separation of powers, rather than making sure the President can do whatever he wants whenever he wants. Dammit guys, you were getting screamed at the entire past Presidency, and here we are just one bloody cycle later with the results. Not to mention the new Senate rule which is just a complete pain in the ass. It's like once these cretins get in office, they think they are the last ones that will ever be there.

    190. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When a campaign discovers it and self reports it, it's a paperwork error.

      When there's an honest-to-god conspiracy and cover-up, complete with obstruction of justice, that's a string of felonies and jail time.

      But good job making it us-and-them and playing the whataboutism card. Break election laws, get punished. Self-report and save the taxpayer the cost of an investigation and trial, and it will be a fine. Stonewall, lie, and fuck around and feel the full weight of the scales.

    191. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that's why he'll ultimately see the inside of a jail cell - because he did commit bank fraud.

      The reimbursement is the problem - if those funds came from the Trump corporation coffers, then it's an illegal campaign donation under current election law.

    192. Re: Really? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      What a nuanced opinion.

      You know there's a concept in US law that a punishment should fit the crime, right? A paperwork SNAFU that ends up with the campaign returning some donations once they figure out they were more than the maximum allowed by law and then self-reporting the issue to the FEC means that a fine is levied for not finding it and returning it / reporting it sooner.

      This shit here, where not only did they not self-report, they continue to deny after sworn testimony to violating the law and guilty pleas - that's not self reporting. That's not paperwork. That won't be a fine and a wink.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    193. Re: Really? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      So because some fuckwits in Congress misappropriate funds and break the law, it's ok for the President to misappropriate funds and break the law?

      Great fucking logic there. Classic "Whataboutism".

      How about ALL politicians who misappropriate campaign funds, or even worse: taxpayer funds; upon conviction in a proper court of law, are immediately removed from office and sent to prison.

      Stop pointing to the bad behavior of others to justify your chosen favorite's bad behavior. It makes you look like an idiot.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    194. Re: Really? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      No, but if you (and her) attest to those things in affidavits or in sworn testimony, you commit perjury (she gets the perjury, you get felony conspiracy charges) and you go to jail, and the Senator gets to grandstand a bit with a bunch of free media. And slashdot gets one less anonymous idiot posting stupid crap.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    195. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *pet*pet*pet*

      Me too, lil' buddy. Me too.

    196. Re: Really? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Unless the money came from the Trump corporation coffers, then it's a corporate donation to a campaign, which is illegal. Corporations cannot contribute to the campaign of a candidate - McCain-Feingold prohibits corporations and labor unions from making direct contributions or expenditures in connection with federal elections - if a corporation is to spend money in politics, it needs to go through either the party, or a PAC / SuperPAC.

      Also, Cohen is on the hook for the campaign finance violation if they can make it stick that he wasn't reimbursed, because he donated more than $5000, which is the individual contributor limit per election ($10000 in a Presidential election year, as the primary is considered to be separate, but this happened after the nomination, so the limit is $5000).

      Do you think Trump would actually pay with his own money? This is the guy that gets his "charity" to pay for 6-foot tall portraits of himself...

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    197. Re:Really? by chill · · Score: 1

      Cohen has to proven he isn't lying, yes. HOWEVER, you don't get a deal from a prosecutor just because you say "I've got the goods". You actually have to convince them you have what you say you have before you're going to get any sort of deal. If you *can't* deliver, your deal goes out the window. Also keep in mind the judge has to approve a deal as well. His criteria is different from the prosecutor, and is focused on ensuring the deal is within the norms and there is reasonable belief the individual can deliver. The odds of Cohen lying, considering it would not only get his deal thrown out and angering both the prosecutors and the judges, is very slim.

      Attorney-Client privilege doens't extend to assisting in committing or covering up a crime. Cohen's statement that he did what he did at the express direction of Trump, and that he's shown audio tapes of Trump discussing these payments, is enough to give reasonable believe privilege doesn't apply.

      Go back and look at the news surrounding the raid on Cohen's hotel and office. There is a court-supervised process for determining what materials are covered by privilege and what aren't. In complex cases, like this one, the judge can bring in a third party to do the reviews and determine what can be used and what can't. They've done that, and between this and normal process, the idea that A-C privilege is going to be a big hurdle is wishful thinking on Trump's part.

      Votes for Impeachment (conviction, technically). I, personally, don't care. I'm more interested in 1/21/2020 -- the day Trump leaves office -- and the day, I hope, criminal charges are filed. I'm also not convinced that a sitting President is immune from all prosecution, so I would like to see him charged as soon as the prosecutors believe they have a solid case. If, for not other reason, to see the Courts rule on the immunity of a sitting President from criminal prosecution.

      Campaign finance laws have been successfully followed for several years, so arguing they're impossible to meet won't fly. Even it they try that, as you said elsewhere, it isn't the violation of the FEC, it is the cover-up. The law in this area is very, very clear. You follow what the FEC says. If you disagree, you PAY then take it to court/arbitration, you don't refuse to pay and wait to get charged/sued. This is how disputes with landlords and other contracts work, too.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    198. Re: Really? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      You're right. Clearly Cohen needs a lawyer like you to tell him he's not guilty and to not plead as such.

    199. Re: Really? by fropenn · · Score: 1

      I don't even have to come into the office. I can do this job from home.

    200. Re:Really? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      ...enough to give reasonable believe privilege doesn't apply.

      That's an argument for judges to decide, not Cohen. For everyone's sake, I hope judges don't go with the "nevermind the 6th Amendment" attitude.

      Votes for Impeachment (conviction, technically). I, personally, don't care. I'm more interested in 1/21/2020 -- the day Trump leaves office

      If he's impeached (over something that's only technically illegal -- as opposed to something that's actually wrong because there's a victim) and then not convicted, 1/21/2024 becomes a lot more likely.

      I don't care what happens to Trump after he leaves office in 2020 or 2024. It would be better if the justice system was actually just rather than arbitrary though -- or a system that plays favorites based on elite sensibilities, like we have see lately.

      follow what the FEC says. If you disagree, you PAY then take it to court/arbitration, you don't refuse to pay and wait to get charged/sued. This is how disputes with landlords and other contracts work, too.

      Agreed. If the FEC rules on the payments to Stormy Daniels, Trump should abide by the ruling, just like other candidates.

    201. Re: Really? by houghi · · Score: 1

      Go home, houghi. You are drunk.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    202. Re:Really? by chill · · Score: 1

      That's an argument for judges to decide, not Cohen. For everyone's sake, I hope judges don't go with the "nevermind the 6th Amendment" attitude.

      Yes. The point I was trying to make was, it isn't Cohen deciding -- the judge has already appointed a 3rd party to go thru all seized documents and make a determination. Both the prosecuting and defense attorneys play a role as well. There is even the option of a "taint team" being assigned to assist the defense, if the judge thinks it is needed.

      There is a detailed process and it looks like it is being followed carefully, from what few reports I've seen so far.

      https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/nyregion/cohen-special-master-review.html/

      If the FEC rules on the payments to Stormy Daniels, Trump should abide by the ruling, just like other candidates.

      The FEC isn't going to rule, because Trump's campaign didn't ask for an opinion -- they denied the payment occurred originally. The legal problem started when candidate Trump signed the form attesting to the correctness of his filings. He already excluded the payment and swore the numbers were correct. To this day he still denies *he* made a payment, that it was an independent act of a third party -- if it happened at all. Like Nixon before him, this issue will revolve around what the President knew and when he knew it.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    203. Re: Really? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      So when the opposition (who is also running for said office) PAYS for false intel to UNFAIRLY influence the same election...is that illegal as well?

      If the campaign paid for it, and the campaign properly documented what they were paying for, it's legal.

    204. Re: Really? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      It wasn't a donation made to the campaign.

      You don't have to literally send the money to a campaign for it to be legally considered a donation to the campaign. If you're helping a campaign financially, you're making a donation.

      If I start buying millions of pencils and drop them off with teachers saying "this is from Trump", how is that a donation?

      Because you're spending money to help the campaign.

      How does it implicate Trump in wrongdoing?

      In your scenario, it doesn't because Trump isn't asking you to do it. It's your campaign finance violation.

      Cohen has testified that Trump told him to pay off the mistresses. That is what implicates Trump.

      Cohen did this on his own and billed the candidate the standard large amount for "lawyer stuff".

      These are both false. According to Cohen, Trump told him to make the payments. And Cohen did not bill the campaign (aka "the candidate"). In fact, it's not completely clear in the stories I've read that there is a bill at all.

    205. Re:Really? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      The defense is pretty easy though: Trump will say he hired a lawyer to keep him out of legal trouble. He will say he trusted Cohen. It's the opposite of conspiracy to commit a crime, it's a conspiracy to avoid committing a crime. Cohen misled him. Unless there's a document or a tape where Cohen said "This is against the law" and Trump said "Do it anyway", then reasonable doubt is more than satisfied. With no hard evidence, prosecutors seem to have a very weak case.

    206. Re:Really? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      WTF? A jury trial happened, the defendant was acquitted and you say that doesn't set precedent?

      So, murder is now legal in California, because OJ was acquitted. Right?

      Oh wait, that's not how it works.

      So then what does set precedent if not a prior court case

      What actually sets precedent is an appeals court (or higher) saying that a particular law is invalid or must be interpreted in a different way.

      No other candidate has been charged since Edwards, whether there were incidence of "hush money" payments or not

      If you have evidence of hush money being paid during a campaign, please file a complaint with the FEC.

      Also, people have been charged and convicted after Edwards. They were not running for president.

      but as soon as the next one is charged and goes to trial you can bet you bottom dollar the Edward's case will be cited as precedence.

      Just how exactly do you think that works? "Your honor, this other guy was found not guilty, so you have to dismiss this unrelated case too!!". You better let every murderer in California know to use this strategy.

    207. Re: Really? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Where does "using the power of the state to uphold laws of the state enacted by the peoples' representatives" rate with you?

      No, there's no law against paying someone to go away. There's not even really laws against using campaign funds to pay someone to go away - after all, John Edwards is still walking free after his acquittal / mistrial and DoJ deciding not to pursue further trial.

      However, there is laws about a private citizen paying someone to go away for a politician who's running for office, as making them go away is a campaign contribution, and the payoff amount was greater than the maximum contribution allowed under Federal election laws.

      Cohen violated the law as outlined in McCain-Feingold, and he pled guilty to that. The campaign violated the same law in not reporting the contribution. I guess you could say that the repayment of the hush money to Cohen was actually refunding the contribution because it was over the maximum allowed amount if you want to lie about it (they say it was a retainer payment); but they still haven't reported it to this day, which is a violation of the law.

      Don't be a fucking apologist.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    208. Re: Really? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Maybe it was Heisenberg's checking account?

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    209. Re:Really? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Just because the legal advice is bad, doesn't make the action legal and justified all of a sudden because a lawyer says so.

      That might be the dumbest god damn thing you've said yet, and that's really saying something.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    210. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Extortion? By that logic Girl Scouts are "extorting" every shopper that buys their cookies. It's only extortion if one party is trying to threaten the other; it has been known for a long time that Trump offered that money of his own free will to silence the porn star he cheated on his wife with.

    211. Re: Really? by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      As usual, the thing that Trump is accused of doing isn't actually illegal in the first place. FEC regulations have a long-standing ban on the "personal use" of campaign funds. Expenses are broken into two categories: those that must be paid using campaign funds and those that cannot be paid using campaign funds. Hush money specifically cannot be paid using campaign funds, even if would help the campaign, and thus, paying hush money cannot be an in-kind campaign contribution, regardless of who pays it or why, since the payment is not for something that the campaign is allowed to spend money on. Trump tweeted as much. Fun fact: paying hush money with campaign funds was one of the articles of Impeachment against Nixon.

      Also, the FEC and a Court of Law specifically ruled in the 2012 case of Democrat John Edwards that third parties paying hush money on his behalf cannot be an in-kind campaign contribution. It seems that Mueller wants Congress to re-adjudicate these prior rulings and just make up whatever law its partisan hacks feel like, though this plan only works if the Democrats take the House in November.

    212. Re: Really? by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      Trump would be in trouble if he paid using campaign funds, since campaign funds cannot be used for this purpose (and it's impossible to give an in-kind campaign contribution for things that campaign funds aren't allowed to be spent on). Also keep in mind that Stormy Daniels has been blackmailing Trump for hush money since 2011, long before the election.

      An example that often comes up is a candidate getting their teeth fixed to help with their campaign. This is "personal use" and even if it happens in the middle of the campaign, campaign funds cannot be spent on it. If someone were to donate money to the candidate to get their teeth fixed, and it was his perfect smile that won the election, it still couldn't be an in-kind contribution.

      It appears that Trump paid for Cohen's services through the Trump Organization. According to Alan Dershowitz, this method of payment is perfectly legal, even for something that must be paid with campaign funds (and hush money doesn't even qualify for that).

    213. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're citing a coerced false confession, you lowlife Stalinist shitlord.

    214. Re: Really? by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      The FEC has also ruled that hush money is outside of the scope of what campaign funds can be spent on, and therefore outside the scope of what can be considered a campaign contribution.

    215. Re: Really? by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      "After reviewing the campaign's financials for four years, the FEC determined last month that money Edwards' aides collected from wealthy donors Rachel "Bunny" Mellon and Fred Baron were "not campaign contribution[s]," Lora Haggard, Edwards' 2008 chief financial officer, said today." [John Edwards' Hush Money Was Not Illegal, FEC Told Campaign

    216. Re: Really? by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      Except that it was Trump's money. Cohen paid it out of what was supposed to be Trump's retainer fees (which Cohen had already spent). The overall charges plus service fees were paid in the normal way through their attorney-client billing procedures.

    217. Re: Really? by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      They were discussing paying by cheque ("cash") vs. borrowing the money ("financing"). This is how business people talk.

    218. Re: Really? by WeezulDK · · Score: 1

      Incorrect. It is illegal if you make the payments using money from the Campaign funds and do not disclose it. It is NOT illegal if you do it from your OWN personal funds and do not disclose it. There's a big difference. Trump did it from his own funds, it had been an ongoing issue for a few years prior. And the idea that it's to "influence an election" is entirely subjective based on those criteria. Paying for a nice suit or a haircut or tanning or dental work to influence your own election for example, would be considered illegal if paid for by the Campaign, but not out of the candidate's own pocket. It's the same thing with hush money. It's not normally taken to this extent, even Obama had campaign violations and no one took it to this level. This is entirely a political hatchet job. It's a partisan attempt to unseat a president. Nothing more, nothing less.

    219. Re: Really? by WeezulDK · · Score: 1

      If those funds came from Trump corporation coffers it would be a personal or business expenditure, not a campaign one. The Campaign coffers, however, cannot pay hush money and NOT report it.

    220. Re: Really? by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      Mueller didn't "find" crimes about Manafort. Those were already investigated, hanging in the air for quite a while. He just withdrew that deposit.

      I'm not a Trump supporter. That doesn't mean I suspend all reason and sense like I see many of my fellow Americans doing. When someone is tasked to look for Russian interference in our election but only looks at the Republican side that points to limitations in the scope of the investigation. When that person then prosecutes people for things that are not at all related to Russian interference in our election that points toward no limitations in the scope of the investigation.

      Mueller and his cohorts are obviously dredging up charges against anyone they can find who is connected to Trump in an effort to extort these people into testifying against Trump. He is wagering their freedom against their cooperation. This is a situation ripe for all sorts of abuse by someone who is willing to abuse. If you know Mueller's history of prosecution you know that he is more than willing to overstep boundaries.

      It is very interesting that when Hillary Clinton was being investigated for security related issues her lawyer was never raided, even though he had a copy of "missing" information that was under subpoena.
        Questioning was not done under oath in some cases, and in the most important one. Possible accessories were granted immunity instead of charged with crimes. They were also allowed to destroy evidence, and plead the fifth even though they were provided with immunity. Other irregularities were there as well. If you glossed over them when they happened I won't be able to convince you now. You're too far gone.

      Taken as a whole, it points to a vast difference in the methods used to investigate. If you have a problem with blind justice then this situation will suit you just fine. If you are a thinker and a student of theater you might get a different impression. I leave this as an exercise for the reader. Do try to keep up.

      Here's one last thing to consider, though I doubt many of you will get the point even when I mention it. If any other candidate for the Republicans won the presidency there would be an enormous vacuum in the news cycle. There would be only one thing to fill it, and its exactly what we aren't seeing right now. Hillary is very lucky her opponent has such an objectionable public persona. If you want to call it luck...

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    221. Re: Really? by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Or this could be because campaign finance law is so complicated that nobody knows what is illegal and what is not.

      http://reason.com/archives/201...

    222. Re: Really? by Agripa · · Score: 1

      It isn't illegal to pay someone to keep quiet. It happens every single day. Congress even has a special tax-payer fund they use to pay off people who accuse them of sexual harassment - to get the money they have to sign NDA's. When will those people be indicted for paying hush-money?

      That Trump paid off the porn star with his own money may be seedy but is easily explained by trying to protect his family and he would've done it even if he weren't running for office.

      Nearly every law expert disagrees with you.

      But not to worry, if it's not this, something else will bring him down. There's plenty of evidence. He's the opposite of honest.

      It was illegal for Trump to personally pay her because it would be for "the purpose of influencing any election" and it was illegal for Trump's campaign to pay her because it would be "diverting campaign funds to "personal use". I am all for these aspects of election law to be enforced against every elected politician in government so that they may be sent to prison with no exceptions.

      http://reason.com/archives/201...

    223. Re: Really? by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Congresspeople using Congress's funds to pay off accusers isn't a private person spending money to further the campaign, failing to document it properly and exceeding contribution limits. It's different and it should be illegal, but it's not.

      It is illegal; it is diverting funds to personal use.

      Heads they win and tails you lose if the prosecutor wants it that way.

    224. Re: Really? by Agripa · · Score: 1

      If it's not illegal - then why did Cohen plead guilty to it?

      Because it *is* illegal.

      It was illegal for Trump to personally pay her because it would be for "the purpose of influencing any election" and it was illegal for Trump's campaign to pay her because it would be "diverting campaign funds to "personal use".

    225. Re: Really? by dog77 · · Score: 1

      If Mueller finds other crimes in the process, why not prosecute?

      Putting aside the issue of whether Mueller should have been investigating these individuals in the first place; if serious crimes are found they should be prosecuted without prejudice.

      And if Trump committed no crimes, he has nothing to worry about.

      Trump tried to pay women he had affairs with to keep quiet. Normally that is not illegal, but because of the intent maybe it is. My opinion on the matter is that individuals should be free to spend our money on anything that does not infringe on the rights of others. Campaign finance laws infringes on our right to spend our money as we see fit and is already on thin ice as a law.

      Trump's own party (if he is actually even a Republican) is in control of this despite Trump constantly calling it a witch hunt and "17 angry Democrats"

      The Republican congress is all over the map on Trump and the Mueller investigation. Some strongly dislike Trump (e.g. Lindsay Graham and John McCain), some try to walk a tight rope (Paul Ryan), and some are vocally supportive of Trump's assertion what the FBI is doing is wrong (Rand Paul). I am sure their motivations are all over the map as well. So I don't think there is much unification or control in this matter.

      There was clearly something fishy going on before Trump was even elected with his shifting stories about Putin and Russia. A person telling the truth naturally does not change their story.

      I would characterize Trump as someone who speaks with his instincts like someone who is playing a sport and trying to win a game. He says a lot of things that seems very contradictory. Think of what he has said about people like Hilary Clinton, Lebron James, and Kim Jong-un. Sometimes he insults them, sometimes he threatens them, and sometimes he praises them. So yes he is shifty as heck, but that is who he is. I remember when Trump was asked about his favorite book and he said the Bible and then he was asked his favorite verse and it was funny as hell to watch him talk his way through that. So does his shifty speech really say anything about some conspiracy with Russia? I don't see it.

    226. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If she tried to shake him down, she would be in jail for blackmail. This clearly didn't happen. Let the record show that the payoff was considered, planned, and executed entirely by Trump and his team.

    227. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you really think the law works like this, or are you just grasping at straws?
      I would have urinated whether I was outside or not, so how is it illegal that I peed on that cop?

  5. Good thing we aren't like China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and have a government that spends so much effort on snooping and trying to tear everyone down to the lowest common denominator. /Sarcasm

    1. Re:Good thing we aren't like China by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 3, Insightful

      and have a government that spends so much effort on snooping and trying to tear everyone down to the lowest common denominator. /Sarcasm

      Good job we have are not like China and corruption IS investigated and occasionally punished. The man or woman on top IS accountable here.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    2. Re:Good thing we aren't like China by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      The information was acquired via Search Warrants threw a rigorous legal pathway.

      Chances are he kept all his passwords on his monitor.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:Good thing we aren't like China by gweihir · · Score: 1

      My guess would be he gave them up under duress. Well, when the Government threatens you with torture, it is called something else, but the mechanism is the same.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    4. Re:Good thing we aren't like China by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

      Good job we have are not like China and corruption IS investigated and occasionally punished. The man or woman on top IS accountable here.

      When big players face trial and actual punishment for corruption, it's only an indication of political weakness.

      But sure, it's good for society to believe that we have institutions of justice to be revered, and not just a legal system. Just make sure that noone sees the back side of the Potemkin village gaming hall where the winners and losers come out.

  6. Deep Throat by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

    "The truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand."

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Deep Throat by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      In general anyone who wants to Run For President or actively help someone to run for president, means a degree of stupidity on your part.
      The smart people are the ones way down in the food chain, who are the analysts and specialists who do the actual work.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:Deep Throat by sarren1901 · · Score: 1

      I think you are confusing dumb with power seeking. Our politicians may not be nerds (that's putting it lightly) but I would not say they are stupid. People that help other people run for president are either terribly ideological or think they are going to somehow advance if their person wins. If you backed Trump and he wins, there is a solid chance you will be rewarded.

      The FBI people thought the same thing backing Hillary and then she lost. Just imagine, we may never have been made away of this whole Russian thing if Hillary would of won because there would of been no need.

      It would of been business as usually. That's really why Trump won. Enough people were tired of business as usually, didn't feel they were getting any of the positive sides of "change" and were willing to watch things burn. Hence we have Trump.

    3. Re:Deep Throat by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      People who play politics, are generally pretty shitty at everything else, likely career prospect used car or insurance salesperson, so politics and a chance to get their snout into the trough of corruption, the only way they will make it. Of course that is our fault, want an end to that, simply make them do sit down tests when they run for election, public tests, we see them mark the paper and the paper than being checked. Tests for intelligence, test for knowledge and psychological screening, so the psychopaths are exposed. Do that and most of our problems will be solved over time. Those dumb arse holes sit down and take a public test, ohh yeah, would we get to laught at them.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  7. Yay! more Trump stories by Train0987 · · Score: 0

    3 of the last 5 stories on Slashdot's home page are anti-Trump election pieces. Going for a new record?

    1. Re:Yay! more Trump stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3 of the last 5 stories on Slashdot's home page are anti-Trump election pieces. Going for a new record?

      Yay! more of Trumps inner circle have been convicted of felonies. Yay!
      Oh, how is that swamp draining going?

      Former campaign manager Paul Manafort
      Former deputy campaign manager Rick Gates
      Former national security adviser Michael Flynn
      Former personal lawyer Michal Cohen

      All now convicted of felonies.

      Then you've got former Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, HUD Secretary Ben Carson.

      Again, how is that swamp draining going?

    2. Re: Yay! more Trump stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The swamp set them up, obviously.

      / I'll let you figure out if Poe's law is applicable yourself

    3. Re:Yay! more Trump stories by Train0987 · · Score: 1

      What happens when he doesn't get impeached? How will you feel about yourself then? Irrelevant to the world.

    4. Re:Yay! more Trump stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The story about the DNC hack being a false alarm is relevant, but it's hardly anti-Trump. There was plenty of reporting about the initial story, but follow-ups like this often get far less coverage. I think it's responsible for Slashdot to post that story.

      There's a broader implication to this story. Law enforcement complains loudly about encryption impeding their investigation. That may impact the ability for ordinary users to encrypt their private data. This story matters because Michael Cohen was a high profile attorney with access to considerable resources to keep his communications private. Despite the encryption, federal investigators were able to obtain the data they sought. This was in June, before it was obvious that Cohen was cooperating with investigators. This story matters because it's a counter-narrative to the claim that encryption is stifling investigations.

      I'll give you the story about Reality Winner, but that's one out of three. I just don't think the real significance of this story is about Trump, but rather that about the impact of encryption on the abilities of law enforcement to conduct investigations.

    5. Re:Yay! more Trump stories by jwhyche · · Score: 1

      Haven't you figured it out yet? We are now competing with the huffington post, vox, and cnn to see who can come up with the most anti-Trump stories that we can. After all Trump is the embodiment of everything evil. Everything from cooties to the black death of the middle ages. We can't have articles on technology, science, and coding on a technology site any more.

      And if anyone missed the dripping sarcasm, here are the tags ,

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    6. Re:Yay! more Trump stories by Train0987 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      None of those have anything at all to do with Trump or his campaign though, especially nothing to do with The Russians! and collusion (remember that one?). Commit the amount of resources the Mueller investigation has and they'll dig up something on you too. That's the point of witch hunts.

    7. Re:Yay! more Trump stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aww. do you need a safe space? Somewhere insulated from the big bad media who pick on daddy Trump.

      Maybe head to one of his campaign rallies. That's the kind of bubble you crave.

      What a shame you've thrown away your dignity and integrity supporting this clown.

    8. Re:Yay! more Trump stories by wizkid · · Score: 1

      3 of the last 5 stories on Slashdot's home page are anti-Trump election pieces. Going for a new record?

      Yay! more of Trumps inner circle have been convicted of felonies. Yay!
      Oh, how is that swamp draining going?

      Former campaign manager Paul Manafort
      Former deputy campaign manager Rick Gates
      Former national security adviser Michael Flynn
      Former personal lawyer Michal Cohen

      All now convicted of felonies.

      And yet, none of Hillary's crimes have ever had a conviction, and none of the people associated with her have ever been convicted.
      Trump associates are being targeted. Notice how they're going after 5-10 year old tax law violations, stuff that would normally be a fine and as slap on the wrist for first convictions.
      Do you really think that if they had anything on Trump, they'd be sitting on it?

      --
      I take no responsibility for what I say. Even though I'm never wrong :)
    9. Re:Yay! more Trump stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Hillary hasn't gone to prison by now. Trump won't either.

    10. Re:Yay! more Trump stories by bobbied · · Score: 1

      When Trump gets impeached I guess you'll still be the desperate faggot Republican like you're being now? Aww, Trump's going to prison, are you sad? LOL

      I'm just curious... Impeachment is possible, but only if the midterms go well for democrats, but there is zero chance that Trump is convicted in the Senate. Trump doesn't seem to be the "I'll just quit" type, so what's going to happen here?

      What exactly are you trying to do and what do you hope to accomplish by doing it? Seems this whole narrative is focused on tactics and missing a working long term strategy.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    11. Re:Yay! more Trump stories by mbkennel · · Score: 1, Funny

      "And yet, none of Hillary's crimes have ever had a conviction, and none of the people associated with her have ever been convicted."

      Maybe because in fact Hillary Clinton is not a felon?

    12. Re:Yay! more Trump stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Whether he gets impeached or not is irrelevant.
      What is relevant, especially to the world, is that Trump will go down in history as the most corrupt and least able American president.

      Also what is relevant is how he will be viewed by Americans in the future, because you see, the values of those future generations will be much different than the values of those who support him now. Trump and the xenophobic authoritarians who are his base are the minority now, and will be even more the minority as the years go by.

      Whether you like it or not, the US is becoming less white, less christian, and becoming more diverse.
      Younger generations now are more accepting of differences in gender, race and religion.
      You can either accept that and work with it or live in fear and denial.

    13. Re:Yay! more Trump stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the DNC said it isn't a witch hunt.

      Even though most DNC constituents I talk to also seem to think it is a witch hunt.

      The difference being that DNC leadership and associates have illegal motivations and are committing illegal actions, whereas the DNC constituents simply think its funny and have no incentive or motive to stop it.

      Reminder to democrats: This isn't OK (the whole Meuller team and Russiagate situation) and it WILL backfire in a bad way, for your side, but for all of us too, eventually, if we just let it happen.

      I don't need to provide examples, the extreme liberal democrat side is supposed to be the smarter group of people, right?

    14. Re:Yay! more Trump stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many convictions came out of all the Benghazi hearings? How much more was spent? How much longer did it go on?

    15. Re:Yay! more Trump stories by gtall · · Score: 1

      Well, if Trump is going to hog the news cycle, then it will leak to Slashdot as those announcements and decisions effect the techno world. Maybe you could ask him really nicely to STFU for awhile. We'd be oh so grateful.

    16. Re:Yay! more Trump stories by dwpro · · Score: 1

      What? how is Flynn lying to the FBI about discussions with Russia about sanctions not 'anything at all to do with Trump or his campaign'?

      Besides, why tarnish your credibility defending these criminals? The worst is yet to come, unless you think that Manafort's upcoming trial where he's being tried for not registering as a foreign agent is going to go much better for him. Given the publicly known information about Manafort emailing a Russian oligarch - to whom he owed many millions of dollars - asking how the oligarch might be 'made whole' via his position on the campaign and other similarly damning facts, I wouldn't bet on it. That doesn't necessarily point to Trump, but it certainly does point to his campaign.

      --
      Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
    17. Re:Yay! more Trump stories by turp182 · · Score: 1

      The timing and details around the Stormy payment makes it seem related to the election. That payment was about a month before the election (right after the "pussy grabbing" story broke). Her lawyer had mentioned a possible payment (she was going to go public with the story) to Cohen a month before that and was rebuffed.

      Here's an article going over the timeline details.

      http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-ma...

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    18. Re:Yay! more Trump stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      She is not a felon simply because the DOJ and FBI could not go after her without involving then-president Obama. Hillary had a number of classified (including top-secret) emails on her unsecured, private server. One violation is enough for a conviction, regardless of intent or ignorance of the law. There is also the matter of deleting emails that were under FBI subpoena and destroying communication devices that were under subpoena, both obstuction of justice charges.

      It is plain that the fix was in. Obama was sending emails to Hillary's private email server (despite his claims of ignorance), so he was aware of her actions. Any attempt to prosecute Hillary would have resulted in Obama being forced to testify in court and that was to be avoided at all costs.

    19. Re:Yay! more Trump stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jaywalking is "something". Inappropriately classifying depreciable assets in a rental is "something". Millions of dollars of verifiable fraud is actual crime, not the kind of incidental or accidental crime you're implying it is.

      Now here's something to think about. These men are criminals, intentional criminals, that went to great lengths to hide their crimes. Muller's team may be looking for leverage, or they may just be prosecuting criminals that were found in the course of an investigation. But I want you to prepare yourself, because men who employ many men studied in committing crimes have very rarely throughout history not themselves had a hand in such things. There is a very high likelihood Donald Trump has committed crimes, and just because you like him does not mean he gets a pass.

      Also, remember that whitewater was a years long effort that was easily recognizable as an attempt to embarrass and damage a sitting president. The acts Bill Clinton was accused of were themselves were not criminal (at least until he lied under oath about them), but they were politically useful for conservatives. While I don't get the sense this is a "witch hunt", understand that even if it is a broad precedent for this type of investigation was established by conservatives attempting to destroy Bill Clinton. And if you think it's a witch hunt now, wait until democrats eventually make their way back into power and give it some teeth. The years of Benghazi hearings, the blatant attacks on liberal America for sport... all of those chickens will come home to roost. While I'm disgusted with what conservatives have done in recent years in their attempts to solidify power, I'm just as afraid what liberals are going to do with these weapons of political war when they have control of them. McConnel's hold the line and win at all cost conservative style may go down in history as extremely effective and painfully short sighted.

    20. Re:Yay! more Trump stories by Deef · · Score: 1

      I have noticed that the people who complain loudest about "witch hunts" with regards to Trump were strangely silent when it came to investigations on issues such as Obama's birth certificate, the multiple Benghazi investigations, Hillary's emails, Whitewater, etc. It seems that only Democrats are capable of witch hunts, and Republican investigations are only done with the purest of motives.

      Some discussion here:
      https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/29...

      Regardless, the best way to protect yourself from witch hunts, is to not be a witch, and to not associate with those who are. When numerous people around you start pleading guilty to felonies ("I'm a witch and I admit it!") your case for being a blameless pious churchgoer that never had an impure thought in your life starts to look shaky, and the case for you being the head of the local coven starts seeming more plausible.

      So far, the rate of admitted criminality among Trump's friends and associates is starting to make the crime rate among the immigrants he is always complaining about seem paltry by comparison, and yet Trump steadfastly maintains that he has never done anything illegal. I find that very hard to believe, given the evidence that has come out so far, and given Trump's own behavior (e.g. the glowing way he talks about Putin and Russia in general, and seems to consider them no threat whatsoever, while our allies (Europe, NATO, etc.) somehow he sees as a major problem). He seems to have a massive blind spot when it comes to Russia specifically, and I think that one can reasonably ask why that is. His repeated threats to fire Mueller, Sessions, and others, and threats to pull other nasty tricks (threatening to withhold security clearances from those who criticize him, etc.) do not make him seem to be acting like someone who is innocent.

      As for "The Russians" and "collusion" being irrelevant to Cohen, a very small amount of research turns up articles like the following. It's not hard to find information on this stuff. If you're actually interested in knowing. Not likely to be covered on Fox News, though.

      Some examples:
      https://www.reddit.com/r/polit...
      http://thehill.com/homenews/ad...

    21. Re:Yay! more Trump stories by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      I'll give you the story about Reality Winner, but that's one out of three.

      Even that one is a technology story - she was caught because of data embedded in the printout of the documents she leaked.

    22. Re:Yay! more Trump stories by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "Despite the encryption, federal investigators were able to obtain the data they sought"

      No encrypted app in the world helps you when you are too stupid to delete the messages after reading them.
      If you keep your incriminating messages on your phone, you belong in jail just for the sheer stupidity. Can't have people like that running around.

    23. Re:Yay! more Trump stories by jbengt · · Score: 1

      None of those have anything at all to do with Trump or his campaign though.

      LOL

    24. Re:Yay! more Trump stories by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 1

      None of those have anything at all to do with Trump or his campaign though, especially nothing to do with The Russians!

      LoL! You're a funny guy!

    25. Re:Yay! more Trump stories by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The point is to make it clear enough to the voting population that Trump is a thoroughly corrupt crook who should be voted out in 2020, and make it clear that the GOP is filled with people who can't be counted on to check the blatant excesses of this administration, and therefore should be voted out in 2018.

    26. Re: Yay! more Trump stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go long on popcorn my friend.

    27. Re:Yay! more Trump stories by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      And yet, none of Hillary's crimes have ever had a conviction, and none of the people associated with her have ever been convicted.

      Do you really think this point supports your argument?

      Trump associates are being targeted.

      Yes, that's how it goes: prosecutors target people who break the law.

      Notice how they're going after 5-10 year old tax law violations, stuff that would normally be a fine and as slap on the wrist for first convictions.

      Interesting that you leave out charges like conspiracy against the United States, money laundering, making false and misleading statements in documents filed and submitted under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, and bank fraud. Also interesting that you think tax law violations are minor issues not worth pursuing.

      Do you really think that if they had anything on Trump, they'd be sitting on it?

      Given that the a) the investigation is ongoing, b) Robert Mueller is known for being as by-the-book as they come, and c) the current justice department policy is that you can't indict a sitting president, I don't know why you would think that they *wouldn't* be sitting on it.

      If you really believe this stuff, you are more of a credulous simp than a wizkid.

    28. Re: Yay! more Trump stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This.

    29. Re:Yay! more Trump stories by bobbied · · Score: 1

      The point is to make it clear enough to the voting population that Trump is a thoroughly corrupt crook who should be voted out in 2020, and make it clear that the GOP is filled with people who can't be counted on to check the blatant excesses of this administration, and therefore should be voted out in 2018.

      Good luck. May I suggest that impeaching the guy, but failing to convict him is pointless and may only make it easier for him to get re-elected. Yea, I know, you think this might damage him enough to make him lose the election in 2020, but what if it just ticks off the people who voted for him in the first place? Might not be a good thing if you are trying to get him booted though the voting booth.

      Remember, the political rules of thumb don't seem to apply to this guy.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    30. Re:Yay! more Trump stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Comey, McCabe were both fired from the FBI for improper behavior because of it. McCabe has 2 referrals to the DOJ for prosecution. We also have Ohr, Roseinstein, Yeats, Lynch, Powers all committing illegal acts in relation to what happened from it. Anthony "Carlos Danger" Weiner ended up in prison on a sidebar from it.

      Can't help that the DOJ is corrupt, but we have TONS of huge crimes committed, the DOJ just refuses to prosecute because it is basically run by Roseinstein who is one of the people guilty of the crimes committed.

      So no convictions, but we learned just how corrupt the FBI/DOJ is because of it.

    31. Re: Yay! more Trump stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After all. This is a man who wants to retain evidence of his and others crimes just in case he needs leverage.

    32. Re:Yay! more Trump stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right that most of the criminals that Trump surrounds himself with tend to commit their own crimes independent of Trump. There's no reason to think that Trump had any involvement in Cohen's taxi fraud or Manafort's tax evasion.

      I mean, it's not a coincidence or just bad luck that everybody around Trump is getting indicted (including his first two supporters in Congress). It's not some "Deep State conspiracy". It's just that you don't get to be that close to Trump without being some sort of criminal.

      However some of the recent convictions have been directly tied to Trump: Flynn lied about what happened as part of the transition team; Cohen pleaded to campaign finance violations that Trump directed him to do; Manafort was offering positions in the administration in exchange for a loan.

      And if you think unlimited resources can dig up dirt on anyone, look at the Clintons. The Republicans have been collectively investigating them for decades and haven't dug up anything worse than lying about getting a blowjob from an intern. You can cry "Benghazi!" and "But her emails!" all you want, but the fact of the matter is that Trump does crimes worse than those any given week.

      dom

    33. Re:Yay! more Trump stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate to say it as much as I despise her, Hillary did not commit a crime. She broke an executive order, not a law. Were it the law, the test is intent to do harm to the United States. Her intent was laziness and self-serving, but not to do harm to the nation; thus, no crime. I would revoke her clearance along with all of her distantly related cronies, but she didn't commit a crime.

    34. Re:Yay! more Trump stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you really believe this stuff, you are more of a credulous simp than a wizkid.

      You deserve +5 for that retort alone! :)

      I do also applaud your ability to address each of the parents bogus points.

      WELL DONE!

  8. Are their deals with feds for back doors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have to consider with encryption or secure apps that the feds probably have deals in place for back doors to gather evidence and do surveillance.

    1. Re:Are their deals with feds for back doors? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Have to consider with encryption or secure apps that the feds probably have deals in place for back doors to gather evidence and do surveillance.

      Why make this complex.. They simply searched his phone and found the information that way. They had a warrant, took the phones involved and searched them. It's not like they didn't know or couldn't find out who sent and received messages with Cohen.

      Such tools only protect messages "in transit". Both ends have to be able to decrypt them. Take either device, then it's likely you can decrypt messages in transit if you captured them.

      The moral of the story is that if you don't immediately delete these messages on both ends of the conversation, they can be found. Even then, best to delete the messages AND the application if you suspect law enforcement is interested in you.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:Are their deals with feds for back doors? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Why make this complex.. They simply searched his phone and found the information that way. They had a warrant, took the phones involved and searched them. It's not like they didn't know or couldn't find out who sent and received messages with Cohen.

      My take also. May also have involved "your phone password now or a deal is off the table"...

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    3. Re:Are their deals with feds for back doors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also change your keys.

    4. Re:Are their deals with feds for back doors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It takes more than that to ensure that the messages are totally deleted from memory (RAM and Flash), rather than just the directory entries being deleted. Otherwise a forensic examination may well be able to recover data that was thought to be deleted.

    5. Re:Are their deals with feds for back doors? by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Phones also have security options so they should be pretty much bricks by the time law enforcement gets to them (Mine are setup to be automatically wiped and I’m not even a lawyer). Additionally you can encrypt within the app or make the session entirely remote (so no data is ever stored on the device)

      Signal and WhatsApp are compromised. You HAVE to rely on keeping your own private key with a strong password.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    6. Re:Are their deals with feds for back doors? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      And you wonder why they don't knock when they have warrants..

      I would suggest that if your phone is subject to a legal search, that you might want to discuss the issue with a lawyer before you let your phone automatically wipe itself clean. You could be convicted of destroying evidence which is a crime if you don't take the steps to stop it's destruction, further law enforcement can imply that your failure to do so was because you knew what they would find would be damming.

      You may routinely destroy data and documents any time up to the point you become aware that the data or documents you are destroying are possibly evidence. The problem is, you may NOT destroy anything that could be construed as evidence the moment you become aware that it's evidence. So not stopping your phone from self erasing, is tantamount to willful destruction of evidence.

      The legal issues here are not as easy as you might think.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    7. Re:Are their deals with feds for back doors? by jbengt · · Score: 1

      This is the most informative post I've read on this story, but no mod points today.

    8. Re:Are their deals with feds for back doors? by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Steps to stop automatic destruction would violate the 5th amendment. It's not a crime to automatically destroy documents unless you are legally required to hold onto the documents or in certain cases, anticipate legal action and only then there needs to be proof that the documents were there and would have had a particular effect on the case.

      This is similar to a self-destructing safe, which are legal to own in the US. The government would have to anticipate the safe being self-destructing, and cannot require you to tell them it is or give the combination because of the fact it is self-destructing.

      Device destruction cannot be an active attempt to destroy evidence, that is indeed illegal, but I do not have the obligation to cooperate with an investigation or perform a certain action while in custody.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    9. Re:Are their deals with feds for back doors? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Like I said. Should you find yourself faced with this dilemma, I strongly recommend you discuss this with your legal counsel and take heed to their advice.

      That being said, I strongly suspect that the advice you are going to be given is to stop the destruction of evidence and give it to investigators, despite your claim of 5th amendment protection. There is case law that shows what I'm saying to be true and that there is a risk of an obstruction charge for destroying evidence plus the ability of the prosecution to use this destruction of evidence to argue that you where hiding stuff from investigators. You don't have to show them where the damming evidence is, but you cannot prevent them from searching, assuming they have a warrant. Some judges have ruled that failure to unlock an electronic device, or failure to stop the destruction of evidence is both contempt and obstruction. I suggest you don't get into more trouble by doing what you suggest.

      But, don't take MY word for it, consult a criminal defense attorney, and please do so BEFORE answering any questions.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  9. Trump now resorts to blackmail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now Trump resorts to no less than blackmail, publicly declaring that the U.S. economy would collapse if he was impeached. But I would expect no less of such a miserable pathetic piece of shit.

    But you know what's even more pathetic ? That his hard-core base will actually believe him. The desperate little scumbag is so disgusting that I expect him at some point to invite his supporters to actually take up arms and try to overthrow the governement. We are seriously looking at the possibility of a civil war.

    Putin must be ecstatic right now.

    1. Re:Trump now resorts to blackmail by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      I guess the CEO of Target is all wrong about the great economy?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    2. Re:Trump now resorts to blackmail by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Now Trump resorts to no less than blackmail, publicly declaring that the U.S. economy would collapse if he was impeached.

      Honestly, he might be right. I doubt it would be as severe as he predicts but we're overdue for a downturn. Global economy is weak. Tarriffs are causing issues. Our GDP and employment numbers are strong- but real wages are down after inflation and falling.

      Any turbulence with the running of the country could cause a stock market shock and that might be all it takes to bring down the economy, it's already on shaky ground.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    3. Re:Trump now resorts to blackmail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All accusations of corruption are obvious false. You are a cult democrat member who hates regular americans and then wonder why you lose all election.

    4. Re:Trump now resorts to blackmail by bigfinger76 · · Score: 1

      And this was obviously typed by a russian troll.

    5. Re:Trump now resorts to blackmail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I'm sure Trump's pals on Wall Street are doing everything in their power to hold the markets up until November so they can blame the inevitable correction-or-worse on "the Blue Wave" the same way they tried their best to blame the Great Recession (which was most certainly in effect in 2007) on Obama.

    6. Re:Trump now resorts to blackmail by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      I doubt it would be as severe as he predicts but we're overdue for a downturn.

      Let's see...

      - We've seen a very long bull market - basically ongoing since the US managed to recover from the banking meltdown in 2008-2009
      - A giant tax cut passed last year which will added billions/trillions in debt to the US going forward
      - Over the last 12 months the US has started trade wars with US allies and foes, unsettling world markets

      Nah, there's no reason to worry about the economy

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    7. Re: Trump now resorts to blackmail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might be guilty of whoosh on this one.

    8. Re: Trump now resorts to blackmail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's no longer possible to tell.

    9. Re:Trump now resorts to blackmail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What may or may not happen to the economy should make no difference. It comes as no surprise that Trump and I suspect many of his followers are most concerned with money; society, sustainability, and integrity be damned.

    10. Re:Trump now resorts to blackmail by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      I doubt it would be as severe as he predicts but we're overdue for a downturn.

      Let's see...

      - We've seen a very long bull market - basically ongoing since the US managed to recover from the banking meltdown in 2008-2009
      - A giant tax cut passed last year which will added billions/trillions in debt to the US going forward
      - Over the last 12 months the US has started trade wars with US allies and foes, unsettling world markets

      Nah, there's no reason to worry about the economy

      He predicted "Every American" would be poor. I can see a return to 2008 around the corner- but I don't see another Great Depression (which is essentially what he is predicting).

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    11. Re:Trump now resorts to blackmail by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Global economy is weak. Tarriffs are causing issues.

      Something tells me if Trump resigns or is impeached then the US markets may see a very sudden uptick.

      Any turbulence with the running of the country could cause a stock market shock

      When you throw a stone in a rake it causes a ripple. When you do it during the fucking thunderstorm that is known as the 45th US Presidency then you won't even notice. There's been several cases in the past of the US government suddenly losing its figurehead in both good and bad economies, for both good (natural death / resignation) and bad (assassination) reasons. The only thing that is certain is that this form of upset in the government can't predict market outcomes.

  10. From TFA by chill · · Score: 2

    The bottom line: People sending messages through encrypted apps should probably not hang on to copies of their messages and call logs any longer than they have to if they really want to keep those messages secret.

    Apps like Signal protect the messages from in transit snooping, mostly from the telco. However, if you leave the messages on your device, in the app, then anyone with access to your phone can get the messages.

    The big questions would be did he encrypt the device itself, and did he use a strong passcode? Pattern unlock and 4-digit PINs aren't difficult to figure out.

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    1. Re:From TFA by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Even a strong passcode isn't much use against a search warrant unless you're willing to go to jail indefinitely to maybe prevent the feds from unlocking your phone.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    2. Re: From TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whatever happened to pleading the fif?

    3. Re: From TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is more like "The right to be secure with your home and your papers". Specifically digital data behind a locked device is effectively a pile of papers inside a vault. Those papers are legally secured. ...Unless they have a warrant. Then the cops have a right to ask you for the key to the vault or to drill into it. Now.... you can always claim you lost a key or simply don't remember a password. Which is apparently contemptible. Personally I think that's bullshit. Who of us doesn't have some encrypted file on some old platter that we've forgotten the password to. With the current system, unless you have perfect memory, they'll throw you in jail.

    4. Re:From TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another thing to consider: maybe Cohen WANTED to be able to make plea deals against his clients if the cops got that far. This just means Trump was really terrible at choosing a fixer, not exactly surprising.

    5. Re:From TFA by chill · · Score: 1

      I'm uncertain about this. IANAL, but I know there have been legal rulings and discussions about the difference between compelling a subject to present a KEY -- a physical object -- versus a COMBINATION -- something in your mind, which requires a communicative act and thus could constitute self-incrimination. That would be a violation of your 5th Amendment rights.

      There was a lot more surrounding this when phones started adding fingerprint locks. The cops can compel a finger touch, but not, I believe, your passcode.

      This is one of those murky areas that would require a team of lawyers and I'm sure would depend on the judge. I've refused to give my phone to cops are traffic stops before, and all I get is a glare. If someone had a warrant, I'd do exactly what my paid-for lawyer said.

      https://www.uclalawreview.org/the-fifth-amendment-encryption-and-the-forgotten-state-interest/

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    6. Re: From TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whatever happened to pleading the fif?

      The war on terrorism thanks to Bush II.

    7. Re:From TFA by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      Even a strong passcode isn't much use against a search warrant unless you're willing to go to jail indefinitely to maybe prevent the feds from unlocking your phone.

      No doubt -- and what do you do if you set up a very strong passcode, and later forgot what it was? Rot in jail for the rest of your life, because you can't convince the police that you genuinely forgot it and aren't just trying to stonewall them?

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    8. Re:From TFA by Kohath · · Score: 1

      The big questions would be did he encrypt the device itself, and did he use a strong passcode?

      Most likely: the conversations were subpoenaed and Cohen responded to the subpoena rather than face Obstruction of Justice and other charges.

    9. Re:From TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That assumes you talk when the police start asking questions. You have no obligation to talk or acknowledge anything. If you do they may be able to force you to surrender a password. However not talking opens up defenses thereof. Typically they can't force you to reveal the password within the USA, but they might be able to in certain circumstances, or if you provide it, and then later refuse to provide it again.

    10. Re:From TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      WhatsApp associates accounts to phone numbers, and only allows one phone to be connected to an account at any one time. If you sign on to WhatsApp from another phone, you lose access to your WhatsApp messages stored on your old phone. To get them back - create a new account with your old phone. Suddenly all your old account's message history is available to your new user. I reported this to Facebook some months ago, but they said it was not eligible for their bug bounty program, as it was a feature of the software, not a bug.

    11. Re:From TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoiler: He used iCloud, & thought he was protected due to misunderstanding what Apple's assertions about encryption of that data meant.

    12. Re:From TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NB that's not speculation but... i'm not sure it'll get published in that form.

      But if you recall a conversation a few months ago about where the boundaries of whatsapp's encryption and backup functions lay, this event was partially the genesis of that discussion.

    13. Re:From TFA by houghi · · Score: 1

      Then there is the person on the other side. You can encrypt and destroy all you want. If the other person has it and hands it over, your encryption means nothing.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    14. Re:From TFA by jandrese · · Score: 1

      No doubt -- and what do you do if you set up a very strong passcode, and later forgot what it was? Rot in jail for the rest of your life, because you can't convince the police that you genuinely forgot it and aren't just trying to stonewall them?

      Yes. Amazingly enough the courts have gone along with this.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
  11. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  12. Re:Encrypted chat apps are worthless by jeff4747 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You are trusting third party with your enc pub key. Thereby they can do whatever with it. Including using to decrypt your messages

    You really don't understand how public key cryptography works.

  13. They probably asked for the pins and login info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Been through the lawyer "discovery" period myself - when they image the phone they will ask for all of the pins and passwords to these apps, so unless he refused to provide them they probably had direct access to this info, especially if he is cooperating. Of course, even if you delete a conversation in these apps it might still be recoverable, which the average user might not be aware of.

  14. Fruit of the Poisoned Tree by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2

    Investigators also managed to reconstruct at least 16 pages of physically shredded documents.

    WAIT just a minute here...

    I was under the impression that the Supreme Court had ruled that intact papers discarded in the trash could be used as evidence, but discarded shreds needed a warrant - BEFORE their seizure - because the person discarding shredded documents had an expectation of privacy.

    Am I mistaken? Did they get a warrant before the papers were shredded and discarded (i.e. he was destroying evidence?) Did he shred them and then hang on to the shreds? If not, they're "Fruit of the Poisoned Tree".

    (If I'm right, I'd like to see how the Supremes ruled if someone made the same argument about encrypted phone calls. The analogous ruling might protect against seizing logs of encrypted traffic without a before-the-call warrant, breaking the "no expectation of privacy in data stored with a third party" argument for encrypted calls. B-) )

    I was also under the impression that such "Fruit" not only can't be used as trial evidence, but can't be used to develop leads without tainting them as well. (Cops routinely work around this by "calling in an anonymous tip" from the next desk over. But that won't work if they ADMIT they got the lead by improper behavior.) Something like this could run like wildfire through the whole investigation's findings, making it useless in court and reducing it to prosecutorial harassment.

    Also: What kind of idiot uses a strip-shredder for anything he really wants to keep secret? Have they developed a way to reassemble crosscut shreads? If so, how do they avoid the "ransom note assembled from cut out newspaper letters" risk of reassembling fine shreads into somethig that looks coherent but is nothing like the original.

    (Not that any of this matters for Cohen. He already pled guilty.)

    Stuff like this is part of why there used to be a big separation between criminal investigation and counterintelligence work. You really don't want to let a spy keep spying if you can identify him and stop him using investigative techniques (short of torture) that would bring a criminal case down in flames.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:Fruit of the Poisoned Tree by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      Am I mistaken? Did they get a warrant before the papers were shredded and discarded (i.e. he was destroying evidence?) Did he shred them and then hang on to the shreds? If not, they're "Fruit of the Poisoned Tree".

      Doesn't matter, he already copped a plea deal.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    2. Re:Fruit of the Poisoned Tree by bobbied · · Score: 2

      They had warrants.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    3. Re:Fruit of the Poisoned Tree by jeff4747 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Am I mistaken? Did they get a warrant before the papers were shredded and discarded

      Yes, you are mistaken. First, there was a warrant. Second, you can get the warrant post-shredding. Just because you hid the evidence (by shredding) does not make it immune to a warrant. The entire point of warrants is to pierce your expectations of privacy, but only when a judge says the government can.

      Also: What kind of idiot uses a strip-shredder for anything he really wants to keep secret? Have they developed a way to reassemble crosscut shreads

      The kind of idiot that decides to be a fixer for a crooked real estate developer. And yes, they have developed a way to reassemble crosscut shreds as long as the shreds are big enough. The size you get from a shredder you buy at Staples is plenty big.

      If so, how do they avoid the "ransom note assembled from cut out newspaper letters" risk of reassembling fine shreads into somethig that looks coherent but is nothing like the original.

      By dumping the shreds on a flatbed scanner and scanning both sides. Then having a computer re-assemble the shreds based on characters that cross more than one shred. It's just a big jigsaw puzzle with identically-shaped pieces.

    4. Re:Fruit of the Poisoned Tree by chill · · Score: 1

      They had warrants for essentially everything in the hotel room where he was living and his office. That would cover the shredded documents, and those warrants were issued before the raid.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    5. Re:Fruit of the Poisoned Tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd love to see anybody recover any documents from the center of the bonfire shredder we use.

    6. Re:Fruit of the Poisoned Tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is the New USA, you are sadly mistaken if you believe that the FBI/NSA/CIA/any other 3 letter acronym in the government is going to actually have to follow the law that us plebs have to follow.

    7. Re:Fruit of the Poisoned Tree by guruevi · · Score: 2

      Physics says it is technically possible, just read all particles state in the Universe and then wind back time. Thanks to your methods FBI is now advancing particle physics research and calling to ban bonfires.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    8. Re:Fruit of the Poisoned Tree by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      I was under the impression that the Supreme Court had ruled that intact papers discarded in the trash could be used as evidence, but discarded shreds needed a warrant - BEFORE their seizure - because the person discarding shredded documents had an expectation of privacy.

      Your impressions are meaningless. Find some actual case law. California v. Greenwood says that garbage is abandoned property, and requires no warrant. No provision is made for what the garbage is; if you're discarding it, you're obviously done with it.

      I can't find anything more recent about shredded documents being protected, though I do find references that they specifically aren't. See https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2508&context=clr

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    9. Re:Fruit of the Poisoned Tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " Then having a computer re-assemble the shreds based on characters that cross more than one shred. "

      Wow, it's that easy. I have been composting my shredded paper recently just to help with the process - but probably not a bad idea now that I know about this way to reconstruct documents.

    10. Re:Fruit of the Poisoned Tree by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      > By dumping the shreds on a flatbed scanner and scanning both sides. Then having a computer re-assemble the shreds based on characters that cross more than one shred. It's just a big jigsaw puzzle with identically-shaped pieces.

      Fun technology. I always imagined it to be not very different from NGS assemblers.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    11. Re:Fruit of the Poisoned Tree by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter, he already copped a plea deal.

      As I pointed out in my next--to-the-last paragraph.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    12. Re:Fruit of the Poisoned Tree by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      It sounds easy, but it's very slow and painstaking.

      So unless you are shredding documents that will end up in a national security investigation or similar, no one will expend the effort to reassemble your shredded documents. For example, identity thieves will just go next door to an easier target.

    13. Re:Fruit of the Poisoned Tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. It is stupidly easy to reassemble shredded documents even if they're shredded within a mm thin. It actually gets easier as the shreds get smaller, as there are more frames of reference for software to use.

      To put it shortly, if you want documents destroyed, burn them.

    14. Re:Fruit of the Poisoned Tree by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      But the privileged evidence can be excluded from the court cases of other Mueller targets on the basis that it was illegally obtained or violated attorney-client privilege.

  15. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  16. Lynfag traitor cant keep Trump from prison either! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Keep whining in defense of a traitor but HE'S GOING TO DIE IN FEDERAL PRISON either way ya dumb SNOWFLAKE FAGGOT LYNNFAG LOL!!! HOW YOU LIKE IT TRAITOR FAGGOT? GET READY, ASSPLAY@LEAVENWORTH!

    Ahaha you pathetic Republican faggot traitors all deserve to hang, but TRUMP MIGHT! TRAITORS HANG! LYNCH THE TREASONOUS TRUMP FAGGOTS! AMERICA IS ABOUT TO BE SO FUCKING GREAT!!!! USA! USA!

  17. RE... by outlandishgal1970 · · Score: 0

    What is actually the best way to tap your spouse’s mobile phone? This is a common question of people who think that their spouses are cheating on them. Many of us experienced the feeling of being suspicious. But it’s not a problem anymore! To Tap cell phone,jailbreaking,employee monitoring,spouse tracking, spy facebook messages,SMS,snapchat,whatsapp,microsoft,social networking sites,google play,recorder,gmail,skype,linked-in and also for MSPY,Cpanel and any hacking and tracking tools of all kind and you’ll get the opportunity to dispel all doubts and be sure about your spouse’s honesty. Contact CharlescyberWIZ @ gMAIL .com for any spying services!!

    1. Re:RE... by gweihir · · Score: 1

      I recommend not doing it, since it is a felony....

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  18. Looking for some illumination on this one.. by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Apparently in violation of campaign finance laws"
    I'm confused how paying off Denials was part of Trumps political campaign any more then any of the payments Bill Cosby made to those he was trying to keep silent. I mean, isn't 'protection your reputation' something you can do at any time regardless of running for public office? Aren't those kinds of payments normal for CEO's and various celebrities? He made a bunch of his staff sing NDA's , so does the salary of all of those staffers which was only received on condition of signing an NDA count as a campaign contribution?

    Not saying the man isn't dishonest or doesn't deserve what he get's here, but that seems like a real stretch of the law's intent if not it's actual practice.

    --
    âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
    1. Re:Looking for some illumination on this one.. by larryjoe · · Score: 1

      "Apparently in violation of campaign finance laws"
      I'm confused how paying off Denials was part of Trumps political campaign any more then any of the payments Bill Cosby made to those he was trying to keep silent. I mean, isn't 'protection your reputation' something you can do at any time regardless of running for public office?

      The obvious answer to that question is no. Campaign finance laws exist. One could argue that those laws are unreasonable and should be changed, but they currently exist, and therefore there are legal sanctions for violating those laws.

      Yes, protecting one's reputation is legal as part of electioneering. The potential problem for the President is that the combination of protecting one's reputation coupled with money used for that purpose is subject to campaign finance laws. If max contribution limits are exceeded or proper reporting is not followed, then there are problems. We'll see if there is evidence of the breaking of any campaign finance laws.

    2. Re:Looking for some illumination on this one.. by bigfinger76 · · Score: 1

      One of these men was running for public office, and the other was not. It's really not that confusing.

    3. Re:Looking for some illumination on this one.. by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      I think the efforts that were put into hiding the payment are where you may have crimes, not that someone was paid to be quiet. The thing that is making everyone nervous is the items seized probably point to all manner of crimes.

    4. Re:Looking for some illumination on this one.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are rules for what you can use campaign money for. Political contributions can't just be pocketed. Imagine you donate a million dollars to someone's political campaign. Then he "pays off" someone with an "embarrasing story" to the tune of a million dollars. The potential for embezzlement there is simply too great.

      (I mean, they CAN effectively pocket the money, there's like a dozen different ways around this. Hire someone to design you an ad, pay them a million dollars, get a bullshit slogan. Have THEM do whatever the fuck you want with the money. Laundering 101. But if you don't jump through the hoops, or a commission turns the laundering guy against you (which is what happened here), then you're fucked)

    5. Re:Looking for some illumination on this one.. by jeff4747 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I mean, isn't 'protection your reputation' something you can do at any time regardless of running for public office?

      "Running for public office" triggers additional rules. Those rules consider the payments to be a campaign contribution and/or expense (contribution if non-campaign funds were spent, expense if campaign funds were spent).

      In this case, it's a contribution. The contribution was not properly documented and it exceeded the maximum allowed contribution.

      It is considered a contribution/expense because the payoff is intended to influence the election, not just make someone look better to the public.

    6. Re:Looking for some illumination on this one.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not if he also had other legitimate reasons for paying the hush money. An FEC violation requires the election motivation to be the sole purpose.

    7. Re:Looking for some illumination on this one.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not. They're lying and trying to trap Cohen. Doesn't matter because ultimately it has no impact on Trump.

      I can guarantee one thing- if Trump is removed as president there will be blood.

      Civil war. Mark my words.

    8. Re:Looking for some illumination on this one.. by larryjoe · · Score: 1

      Not if he also had other legitimate reasons for paying the hush money. An FEC violation requires the election motivation to be the sole purpose.

      Is this true? If so, it seems like a really easy, huge loophole that pretty much guts the entire idea of campaign finance limits.

    9. Re:Looking for some illumination on this one.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are partially correct. Since "protecting one's reputation is legal", it is not possible to try a person for violating campaign law.

    10. Re:Looking for some illumination on this one.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not a contribution. It's not a crime. Google what Alan Dershowitz, a very liberal lawyer, has been saying about this.

      Captcha: unravel

    11. Re:Looking for some illumination on this one.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's what I don't understand, though. This payment is consistent with what I'd expect from Trump, campaigning for office or not. It is true that during a campaign, one could argue that it's intended to influence the election. But by that logic, were Trump's breakfast costs also campaign expenses? I mean, sure he ate breakfast his whole life, just like he's probably paid hush money to mistresses his whole life, but a man can't campaign well on an empty stomach. It could just as well be argued that any breakfasts he ate were also intended to influence the election. No?

    12. Re:Looking for some illumination on this one.. by larryjoe · · Score: 1

      You are partially correct. Since "protecting one's reputation is legal", it is not possible to try a person for violating campaign law.

      Well, protecting one's reputation is legal in general. However, protecting one's reputation is legal using some means and illegal using other means. For example, it's illegal to kill someone under the guise of protecting one's reputation. Similarly, it's also illegal to violate campaign finance laws under the guise of protecting one's reputation.

    13. Re:Looking for some illumination on this one.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not if he also had other legitimate reasons for paying the hush money. An FEC violation requires the election motivation to be the sole purpose.

      Cohen said "a candidate" for federal office directed him to make illicit payments to two women meant to influence the 2016 elections.
      Are you paying attention?

    14. Re:Looking for some illumination on this one.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not if he also had other legitimate reasons for paying the hush money. An FEC violation requires the election motivation to be the sole purpose.

      Is this true? If so, it seems like a really easy, huge loophole that pretty much guts the entire idea of campaign finance limits.

      It's up to a jury (not the FEC) to decide. John Edwards was charged by the FEC, but acquitted by the trial jury. Cohen has already pleaded guilty. What happens to Trump is still unclear.

    15. Re:Looking for some illumination on this one.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Running for public office" triggers additional rules. Those rules consider the payments to be a campaign contribution and/or expense (contribution if non-campaign funds were spent, expense if campaign funds were spent).

      Wrong. If one can argue the payments would have happened regardless of the election, they aren't campaign finance violations. There's little doubt Trump has a long history of paying off women and others in exchange for their discretion. The rich, famous, and politically-connected do it all the time. Everyone knows what an NDA is these days.

      That Trump's lawyer paid someone for something while Trump ran for office means nothing. Maybe we should investigate payments to his cleaning and garbage service too because that's essentially what these payments were for -- to clear out the trash. If you have some proof that these payments were to influence the election, by all means, please share it with the special council.

      In any case, this latest episode demonstrates well the reason we need to do away with most campaign finance laws. Politicians still find ways to hide their money, while the corrupt abuse our legal system to hammer their political enemies. That was never the purpose of these laws. However, when laws are made to intentionally undermine freedom "for our own good", we should expect nothing less.

    16. Re:Looking for some illumination on this one.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But by that logic, were Trump's breakfast costs also campaign expenses?

      If someone else paid for them, yes. The whole point of campaign fiance laws is to figure out who is paying for things and prevent some third party to have unreasonable influence. It is not meant to prevent individuals from self-funding their campaign.

      It could just as well be argued that any breakfasts he ate were also intended to influence the election. No?

      Obviously. Which is why a large part of campaign financing is simply who is paying you, directly or indirectly, and how much. If you know people are in violation or are actively encouraging their violation, you might be punished.

    17. Re:Looking for some illumination on this one.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as I know Trump never reimbursed the National Enquirer for its payments. If those payments were meant to bury the story, then the only reasonable interpretation is that the National Enquirer made them to help Trump's campaign bid, not to spare him from Melania finding out. If Trump asked Cohen to arrange this, it would mean he was conspiring with Cohen to cause an unlawful corporate campaign contribution.

    18. Re:Looking for some illumination on this one.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If one can argue the payments would have happened regardless of the election, they aren't campaign finance violations.

      In other circumstances, Trump would likely have pushed the money through a shell company and Cohen wouldn't have had to take out a loan to make the payments. It's precisely because of the election that Cohen let Trump effectively borrow money for a time because the election apparently made the whole situation too time critical for him to pay him in some other fashion.

      There's little doubt Trump has a long history of paying off women and others in exchange for their discretion. ... If you have some proof that these payments were to influence the election, by all means, please share it with the special council.

      So, you think paying women for their discretion was not intended to have an influence on the public perception of Trump? Or do you think the public perception of Trump would not have an influence on the election? Btw, the "proof that these payments were to influence the election" was in part a statement made by Trump's laywer, Cohen.

      In any case, this latest episode demonstrates well the reason we need to do away with most campaign finance laws. Politicians still find ways to hide their money, while the corrupt abuse our legal system to hammer their political enemies.

      You know, a similar argument was made to justify not going after various Bush officials on their sanctioning and use of torture. It seems clear to me that if a crime is committed, especially by the powerful, you pursue it. If it warrants a pardon because we rightly change the law, then let them beg for a pardon just like every other criminal.

      That was never the purpose of these laws. However, when laws are made to intentionally undermine freedom "for our own good", we should expect nothing less.

      All laws carry with them the punishment of a deprivation of property or liberty which inherently results in self-censor of action. So, I guess we shouldn't have laws?

    19. Re:Looking for some illumination on this one.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NPR has an explanation of why this is a violation:
      https://www.npr.org/2018/08/23/640878259/fact-check-trumps-misguided-defense-of-cohen-payments

    20. Re:Looking for some illumination on this one.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you think paying women for their discretion was not intended to have an influence on the public perception of Trump? Or do you think the public perception of Trump would not have an influence on the election?

      Using your logic, everything Trump did or failed to do while running for office would be subject to campaign finance laws because it could influence public opinion, which could then influence the election. Not all things that happen to help Trump, politically, are subject to campaign finance laws.

      Btw, the "proof that these payments were to influence the election" was in part a statement made by Trump's laywer, Cohen.

      That's not proof. That's what they call a he-said-she-said or he-said-he-said in this case.

      Cohen was pressured by the special council to "say what we tell you or you go to jail the rest of your life". Cohen even said he was going to do what he had to in order to protect his family. If you stack enough charges against someone, they will say anything to get rid of them.

      This is yet more abuse of our legal system. In a fair and just legal system, if Cohen committed crimes, there should be nothing he could say that would prevent prosecution of those crimes. The corruption is "hiding" in plane sight.

      I'm glad you agree:

      It seems clear to me that if a crime is committed, especially by the powerful, you pursue it.

      All laws carry with them the punishment of a deprivation of property or liberty which inherently results in self-censor of action. So, I guess we shouldn't have laws?

      No, we shouldn't have laws that unnecessarily undermine our freedom and facilitate political corruption and retribution. Candidates should be able to receive and spend money as they wish during a campaign while being as transparent as their voters demand. If the voters find a candidate wasn't transparent enough, they don't win the election.

      The 2016 election, once again, proved money does not buy elections or votes -- instead, superior ideas do. Hillary outspent Trump by double and Trump largely funded his own campaign, yet Trump soundly defeated Hillary.

    21. Re:Looking for some illumination on this one.. by OutOnARock · · Score: 1



      lighten up Francis.........

    22. Re:Looking for some illumination on this one.. by Kohath · · Score: 1

      I'm confused

      Everyone dealing with campaign finance laws is confused. Campaign finance laws are ridiculous. No candidate obeys them 100%.

    23. Re:Looking for some illumination on this one.. by avandesande · · Score: 1

      You could argue that eating food should be included because if you die of starvation you will lose the election.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    24. Re:Looking for some illumination on this one.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh, the US right is a bunch of blowhard crybabies, they couldn’t even get 400 people to march. Try it and you will get your asses kicked just like the civil war.
      Cowards, liars and losers to the last. Sad.

    25. Re:Looking for some illumination on this one.. by jrumney · · Score: 1

      If Trump paid them with his own personal money, then your point is valid. His problem is the lies he and his lawyer told that keep him at arms length from the transaction. These make it look like a donation, and since he was a politician in the middle of a campaign, and the effect of that donation is to keep undesirable news from upsetting his campaign, that donation must be assumed to be a political donation.

    26. Re:Looking for some illumination on this one.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of these men was running for public office, and the other was not. It's really not that confusing.

      If a payment to keep someone silent is a "campaign contribution", any payment for speech is also a "campaign contribition".

      In other words, all the payments to Stormy Daniel's lawyer Michael Avenatti are also "campaign contributions". You really think Daniels is paying him? Why isn't that being investigated by the FEC? Oh, yeah. Because it's all about "getting" Trump.

      And wouldn't every time a newspaper or TV station runs a political quote from anyone in their news feed also therefore be a "contribution in kind"?

      The free speech implications of tossing out all the rules just to nail Trump here are scary, aren't they? Never mind the bald hypocrisy that it's being done by the same people who tried to minimize Bill Clinton's actual perjury and history of actual sexual harassment as "it's just about sex!"

      But "progressives" only care about winning - and shoving their failed 19th century ideas down your throat. How fascist and authoritarian of them.

    27. Re:Looking for some illumination on this one.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of people posting that it also matters if "it swayed the election results". I'm finding it difficult to believe that anything could "trump" the "grab them by the pussy" statement on audio recording that was released. I mean, come on. Hillary still lost to that, and that's kind of the hardest pill to swallow.

    28. Re:Looking for some illumination on this one.. by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Google what Alan Dershowitz, a very liberal lawyer

      You mean the guy who wrote an op-ed in the NY Times about how all the liberals stopped inviting him to parties because of his devotion to Trump?

      Why, that gentlemen sounds completely unbiased in this situation!

    29. Re:Looking for some illumination on this one.. by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      That's what I don't understand, though. This payment is consistent with what I'd expect from Trump, campaigning for office or no

      If Trump had made the exact same payments in 2014, it would be legal. It is only the fact that he was running for office that triggers campaign finance laws that make it illegal.

      But by that logic, were Trump's breakfast costs also campaign expenses?

      They can be declared as campaign expenses and paid for using campaign funds. But it's unlikely that one specific breakfast in itself is intended to influence the election. So it would also be legal to pay for breakfast out-of-pocket.

      There isn't some tenuous "he had to eat so he could go campaign therefore eating was influencing the election" bullshit that you are trying to create.

    30. Re:Looking for some illumination on this one.. by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Wrong. If one can argue the payments would have happened regardless of the election, they aren't campaign finance violations

      This is completely and utterly false. And you'll get to see proof of that as people are sentenced to prison for it.

    31. Re:Looking for some illumination on this one.. by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      You could if you were desperately trying to misapply federal election laws in order to excuse violation of those laws.

    32. Re:Looking for some illumination on this one.. by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Then why did Trump make the payments? If buying silence was so routine, why'd he wait more than a decade to do so?

      The only reason to pay at that time was to influence the election. Which is why there's laws against paying at that time. Pay the mistresses off in 2014, and it's completely legal.

    33. Re:Looking for some illumination on this one.. by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      Campaign funds cannot be spent on hush money. Therefore, hush money cannot be a campaign contribution. QED.

  19. LOL TRAINFAG SO DESPERATE, TRUMP COULD HANG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too late though, bitch! HAHAA, Trump is prison bound and there's nothing your pooooooor Republican snowflake ass can do about it, faggot traitor Trainfag lol. KEEP WHINING SNOWFLAKE, TRUMP MAY HANG FOR TREASON!

    You faggot traitors deserve NOTHING LESS, Trainfag! Ahahaaa you feckless cunt you should flee to Moscow soon! MUELLER IS COMING!!! Hahahaa

  20. BleachBit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He should have used BleachBit. I hear it gets rid of all evidence.

  21. TRAINFAG SO DESPERATE TO KEEP TRUMP FROM PRISON! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too late though, bitch! HAHAA, Trump is prison bound and there's nothing your pooooooor Republican snowflake ass can do about it, faggot traitor Train lol. KEEP WHINING SNOWFLAKE, TRUMP MAY HANG FOR TREASON!

    You faggot traitors deserve NOTHING LESS.

  22. TRAINFAG SO DESPERATE TO KEEP TRUMP FROM PRISON! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TOO LATE TRAINFAG! HAHA! Trump is prison bound and there's nothing your pooor Republican snowflake ass can do about it, faggot traitor lol. KEEP WHINING SNOWFLAKES, TRUMP HANGS FOR TREASON!

    You faggot traitors deserve NOTHING LESS!!! I can't wait until all Trumps are UNDER THE PRISON!

  23. Correction by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    Looking at the Forbes article I see I misinterpreted two of 'em. But no change:

    - Lying to investigators.
    Make that "Lying on a loan application". Still just Cohen being an jerk in his own personal dealings.

    - Making improper use of corporate money.
    The "improper use" was "making a campaign contribution". Same argument as the charges from page 2.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  24. Obligatory XKCD: by JoeDuncan · · Score: 1
  25. TRAINFAG SO DESPERATE TO KEEP TRUMP FROM PRISON! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TOO LATE TRAINFAG! HAHA! Trump is prison bound and there's nothing your pooor Republican snowflake ass can do about it, faggot traitor lol. KEEP WHINING SNOWFLAKES, TRUMP HANGS FOR TREASON!

    MUELLER HAS YOU BY THE VAGINA!

    You faggot traitors deserve NOTHING LESS!!! I can't wait until all Trumps are UNDER THE PRISON!

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/david-pecker-immunity-michael-cohen_us_5b7ee53fe4b0cd327dfacb11 - TRUMP LOSES HIS PECKER TOO?!? OH NOES!

  26. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  27. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  28. Explain again why I should care? by Jarwulf · · Score: 1

    What a lawyer may or may not have done with a hooker regarding a several year old alleged private affair when I've been told by the same people out for blood that it's okay to get a blowjob in the oval office and lie about it under oath?

    1. Re:Explain again why I should care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The President did face impeachment for that

    2. Re:Explain again why I should care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What a lawyer may or may not have done with a hooker regarding a several year old alleged private affair when I've been told by the same people out for blood that it's okay to get a blowjob in the oval office and lie about it under oath?

      The President did face impeachment for that

      [I saw what you did there ;-p]

      Clinton didn't just face impeachment. He was in fact impeached by the House. That triggered a trial in the Senate, in which he was acquitted.

      And Clinton was not impeached for receiving a blow job. He was impeached for lying under oath and obstruction of justice.

      And finally, Clinton was not running for office at the time. So even if he did spend money to make it go away (and he didn't, IIRC) it wouldn't have been an FEC issue.

    3. Re:Explain again why I should care? by Jeremi · · Score: 2, Informative

      You should care, beause it's now been established beyond any reasonable doubt that the President is a crook.

      Now that it's established that the President is a crook, America must decide whether it is to remain a country that is governed by the rule of law, or whether it is going to look the other way on Trump's criminality and become another corrupt pseudo-democracy like Russia or Saudi Arabia. Because it's one or the other, we can't have it both ways.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    4. Re:Explain again why I should care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because if you donated money to the guy, instead of using it to get elected, he used it as hush money. Which is against campaign finance law. And he conspired with his lawyer to do so. The FBI is about to turn said lawyer just like they've done with... what? 5 of the president's administration? It builds the case for impeachment, which is inevitably coming.

    5. Re:Explain again why I should care? by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

      I'm not a crook! I mean RIGGED WITCH HUNT!!!

    6. Re:Explain again why I should care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's nothing wrong with the affair because it wasn't with a prostitute. That makes the sex legal. What's illegal is that he made a payment to have influence on an election and did not report that payment. It doesn't matter where the money came from or where it went. All that matters is that it was to influence an election and did not get reported.

      Had he filled out the proper paperwork or made the payoff either before he decided to run or after the election, this would not have been a federal case.

      Of course had he made the payoff from his foundation, it would have been illegal self-dealing from a charity, but that's not what happened so it's not an issue here.

      dom

    7. Re:Explain again why I should care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should care, beause it's now been established beyond any reasonable doubt that the President is a crook.

      Here's the big flaw in that argument: relevance. Honestly, If you think it's only NOW, and only HIM, then you haven't been paying attention since, um, ancient Rome? As long as we're all letting the game be rigged so that the only choice is to "vote for the right lizard so the wrong lizard wont get in" we're never going to get anything but lizards. Being a successful lying crook is basically line 1 in the job requirement section of running for public office, and this should not be a surprise to anybody over age 12.

      Now that it's established that the President is a crook, America must decide whether it is to remain a country that is governed by the rule of law, or whether it is going to look the other way on Trump's criminality and become another corrupt pseudo-democracy like Russia or Saudi Arabia. Because it's one or the other, we can't have it both ways.

      That's a nice thought, but the real world disagrees with it. "Rule of law" is something us little nothing people cry about when life looks unfair. Surprise! It is, always has been, and likely always will be unfair. Why? Because the lizards referenced above don't care about you or your perception of fairness. If they lie to you, and you believe it, whose fault is it really? Now take a step back and think about who "they" refers to. It is probably a larger set than you realize.

    8. Re:Explain again why I should care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what about what about, us versus them etc.
      Have a little critical self reflection sometimes.

  29. Waaaaah, TRAINFAG SO SAD, Trump is prison bound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Keep crying snowflake, but your tears aren't going to do anything but LUBE TRUMP'S FAT FAGGOT TRAITOR ASS FOR HIS PRISON ASSPLAY! #UNDER THE PRISON!

    You treasonous faggots deserve to be HANGED, and you might get it!

  30. In unrelated news... by lionchild · · Score: 1

    And today, in unrelated news, the document incineration segment of the market had a sharp increase in installations and therefore matching record profits!

    --
    Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
    1. Re:In unrelated news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They should have known, the Germans already developed technology to restore "shredded" paper to reconstruct the Stasi archives.

  31. Violation of Law? Uhm, no, maybe not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "whom Cohen allegedly paid on behalf of Trump, violating campaign finance law" Apparently you have to use campaign funds this way in order to violate law. There is no law against a private individual (Trump) paying someone with their own funds to keep the someone quiet. Whether or not we want a President who paid off a mistress to keep quiet is another matter, but its pretty clear that the law was NOT violated by Mr Trump in this instance, as incorrectly stated by the OP. There are a whole slew of relatively minor and a few major infractions of the law perpetrated by Bill, Hillary, Obama, Susan Rice et al....but of course none of those are worth discussing.

  32. Probably stored them locally by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Then it only requires a deal and the police has everything. Not the fault of the software at all.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  33. Lol, check out the whiny Trainfag traitor, aww sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    TRAINFAG is having a tough time accepting the reality that Trump is headed to Federal prison to die there, lol. Pity the poooooor snowflake, he can't handle reality any more and has to live in his Fox News faggot fantasy land lol. #Hanged

  34. Re:Encrypted chat apps are worthless by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Indeed. This person does not even understand why this is called a "public" key.....

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  35. Re:Encrypted chat apps are worthless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are trusting them (Facebook) with your PRIVATE key, but everything else said was true.

    If you give your private key to a party, that party can decrypt your data.

    That's how just it works.

  36. Don't worry Trump traitors, Vlad will let you suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe when Trump dies in Federal prison you can take over his duties of fellating Vlad Putin, eh Whyche crybaby?

  37. Re:Encrypted chat apps are worthless by gweihir · · Score: 2

    That is why you do _not_ give your private key to anybody. The hint is in the name. Are you stupid?

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  38. Pah, alternative facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wake me up when you post the real facts from Fox news, these spurious 80% enemy of the people sources are just making Trump look bad because they haven't MAGA'd their own brains out.

  39. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  40. Woo, woo, all aboard the truth train by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And here is TruthTrain's simple errors, by which you should frame the rest of his desperate casting about for an excuse, any excuse, for the president's(presumably illegal) behavior.
    Stormy Daniels is one of two women that trumps lawyer paid at trumps direction.
    Stormy Daniels is not a hooker, but is an adult film star. If you can't get this simple fact right, or even if you don't care about the difference, how can anyone put stock in your other arguments?

    1. Re:Woo, woo, all aboard the truth train by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A person accepting things of value in exchange for sex as a business transaction is a hooker, regardless of any other business they may engage in.

    2. Re: Woo, woo, all aboard the truth train by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being paid for sex makes you a whore, regardless of there being a camera in the room.

  41. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  42. Re: Really? Murder? by Zorro · · Score: 0

    Have you ever heard of OJ Simpson?

  43. Why pick the lock by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

    when you can break the window ?

    Unless there is some undisclosed backdoor ( possible, but unlikely ) in the software he's
    using to encrypt his messages, the more plausible scenario is the FBI has more control
    over his phone that he does. ( Probably true for all of us sadly )

    They need only drop in some sneaky malware ( pick your favorite method up to and including
    your telco doing it for you ) and presto!, even the greatest crypto ever made can be rendered
    useless.

    Moral of this story: If you can't confirm your platform ( in this case, the phone ) is secure,
    then you should assume none of the traffic going through it is secure either.

    2nd Moral: If you're going to do any criminal shit of any kind, don't be stupid enough to do
    it over your GD phone.

  44. Re: Really? Murder? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What? OJ was found not guilty because some racist cop fucked up the evidence. He was guilty, the cop fucked up.

  45. All Encryption is Compromised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have we not learned anything from TrueCrypt? There is always a back door.

  46. Maybe instead of a shredder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps in addition to a shredder, they can feed the waste into an industrial power plant and burn off the paper evi^H^H^H trail.

  47. That's just great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The same politics-n-whores crap I've subjected my poor eyeballs to has made it to slashdot. It looks like my computer monitor is going to be joining the remains of the TVs in my front yard that I've thrown out through my living room window. Won't someone please nuke the American media from orbit.

    1. Re: That's just great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those freeze peaches didn't last too long. Censorship for all!

  48. Really?! (was: Re:Really?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really? Then how come the hush payment wasn't made in 2006 or shortly after? Even the Trump circle have admitted that the purpose of the payment was to prevent the story going public right before the election. If you're gonna stand up and chump for Trump, you should at least check what their narrative of the day is (I know, it's difficult when the "truth" can change several times before breakfast).

  49. it was not the paying which was illegal by aepervius · · Score: 1

    It was not disclosing it during the campaign. There are certain thing you have to disclose as campaign finance. That was the illegal thing.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  50. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  51. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  52. "Hush money" is meaningless weasel words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah, you've fallen for Trump's smokescreen of "its not a campaign fund violation if it's not sourced from the campaign". Which is completely orthogonal to the actual issue : money paid for the purpose of influencing the election is a campaign contribution by definition and therefore has to follow the rules. That's precisely why Cohen used that form of words when he said under oath "...for the principle purpose of influencing the election".

  53. Thin ice is right, but not how you mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The knots you are tying yourself in to justify criminal activities. #shameful.

  54. I agree with Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Re:I agree with Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you expect to impress anyone by linking to a twitter page that immediately discredits what you just made up as a quote? Been working for Fake News long?

  55. The rule of law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Putting crooks in jail is "evil overreach" of government, but separating children from their families is merely upholding the laws.

  56. Better still to not engage in criminality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The moral of the story is that if you don't immediately delete these messages on both ends of the conversation, they can be found. Even then, best to delete the messages AND the application if you suspect law enforcement is interested in you.

    The moral I got from the story is that sleazebag crooks can still sometimes get their comeuppance.

    --
    [Edit] Capture : "shifty"

  57. Best type of shredder? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Brick fireplace.

    1. Re:Best type of shredder? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not being a prat, but burning papers in a conventional fireplace is actually pretty hard work if you have more than a dozen sheets of paper. What happens is the paper doesn't burn very well, and a thick wad of paper thrown into the fire will only burn around the edges. Even then, when pages burn, sometimes large sections remain perfectly readable even as ash.

      So yes, if you have the time to burn the pages one by one, or the fire is gas fueled as are commercial incinerators, then burning works. Otherwise, there's a reason people use shredders.

    2. Re:Best type of shredder? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Or shred it and burn the shreds. Increased surface area makes it more likely the paper will burn completely, and reconstructing the shredded pages requires too much handling for the ashes to stay in former-paper-shape.

  58. Re: Lol, check out the whiny Trainfag traitor, aww by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I told you all to vote for McAfee...at least he's not a Trump or Clinton.

  59. Finally got it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...when the campaign might be impacted by her revelations. So you are now finally admitting the payment was made in the context of an election campaign, with a view to influencing the outcome. Glad we got there in the end...

  60. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  61. There likely isn't a person in this room... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That wouldn't pay off a porn star* who had dick dirt on you in order to save your rep and/or marriage, if you had the wherewithal to afford it.

    * Or, for the slashdot crew, read 'hooker'.

  62. Likewise by eaglesrule · · Score: 2

    Handing your karma bonus over to what is most likely a paid troll also won't help the situation. Please be considerate.

  63. Re:Encrypted chat apps are worthless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I honestly don't know the details of how whatsapp handles keys. It obviously must handle your private key as... you know.... you can see the unencrypted message in whatsapp.

    So, _of course_ you give your private key to Facebook's whatsapp. Duh, don't you know how public-private key encryption works? Are you stupid?

  64. Re:Encrypted chat apps are worthless by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    PRISM should have told people all about US big brand crypto standards and efforts.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  65. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  66. If the Republicans keep the house by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    you're more or less correct. They've already signaled that they're not willing to do act against Trump so long as he supports their agenda of low taxes for corporations, reduced expenditures on social programs and reduced regulations on business. And Trump's all in on those items. His trade war doesn't really concern them. They'll get to pocket the money from the tariffs as tax cuts.

    And So far it's looking like the Republicans will hold the House and Senate. Polling shows the election is close with a slight favor to the Dems, but every time that's happened its been a victory for the Repubs in seats while the Dems take the (completely useless) popular vote.

    It'll come down to voter turn out, but, well, In Ohio they just closed a ton of polling places in black neighborhoods using the transparent excuse of "but the Americans with Civil Disabilities Act". And they've packed the courts with judges that're letting them do it...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  67. Fear makes you forget! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look for a number in your environment, and give it to them.
    Usually an address.

    When they use it, and it doesn't work, say that number is all you can remember.

    If they mention that's the address where they arrested you, and asked you for the passcode, just tell them that's all you can remember after how frightened they made you feel when they arrested you.

    You just remember the numbers on the wall. Nothing else.

  68. Three words! by EETech1 · · Score: 1

    Darpa Shredder Challenge

    Once you shred it, and throw it away, it's not yours anymore!

  69. You have to declare contributions to yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "So, if Trump ordered this and paid Cohen to do it either from his personal or business funds, it's legal all around. "

    Not quite.. if it's to influence the campaign, then you are making a contribution to your own campaign, and it must be declared.

  70. Re: Lol, check out the whiny Trainfag traitor, aw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Finally. A candidate that publicly does hookers and blow.

  71. officials at the National Enquirer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I'll have you know", he sniffed, "I am an official at the National Enquirer".

  72. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  73. Re:Encrypted chat apps are worthless by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    You are trusting third party with your enc pub key.

    Well yes that's how it works.

    And we have way to do it already. [GPG Link]

    Well yes that's how it works.

  74. Re:Encrypted chat apps are worthless by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

    You still don't understand how public key cryptography works.

    The "public" or "private" label on the keys is arbitrary.
    Facebook does not require that you upload "your private key" or any key.
    You are not required to only have one keypair.
    These encrypted "chat" programs only protect data in transit. They have never protected data at rest (beyond whatever the OS does for data at rest)

  75. Re: Really? Murder? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

    Are you trying to argue that murder is now legal in California because OJ was acquitted?

  76. Re:Encrypted chat apps are worthless by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Well, often arbitrary (some conditions may force you to make a specific assignment based on how the keys are generated), but the important thing is that before any use of the keys, the assignment which one is public and which one is private must be made and it then must be respected in all future use.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  77. Re:Encrypted chat apps are worthless by gweihir · · Score: 1

    So, _of course_ you give your private key to Facebook's whatsapp.

    And at that point you have screwed up and all the bad things that result from this are your fault.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  78. It's not about "impressing" anyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lol. Is my version so very different from Trump's?

    Seriously, Trump is advising people not to hire the dodgy "lawyer", the same sleazebag that has been doing his dirty work for a decade. So either Trump didn't know Cohen was a crook (ie he's an idiot), or he does know and is fine with that (because he's a crook).

    If you have an alternative explanation, I would love to hear it. Seriously.

  79. You ain't seen nothing yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All the Sturm and Drang here about the arcana of campaign finance law and Trump's culpability is only the tip of an enormous iceberg. David Pecker the chairman of American Media Inc., a Trump buddy for ~20 years, has a safe full of docs that likely implicate Trump in illegal acts; the CFO of the Trump Org and keeper of the crown jewels has been granted immunity (!); Trump, Donnie John Jr, Eric the Dunce, and Ivanka the Vacuous have been sued alleging illegal acts, such as self dealing, regarding the Trump Foundation, a "charity" and about which Cohen will testify. And we haven't even gotten to Mueller yet. The walls of Trump's impunity are closing in. The guy has skated all his adult life but no more. All his tweets, all his lies and bluster, all his appeals to his brain-dead base won't save him. Even quisling Mitch McConnell is not a miracle worker.

  80. Everyone has committed a crime by NewYork · · Score: 1

    "Everyone has committed a crime, it's about who we decide to prosecute" --KGB
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704471504574438900830760842