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.
When you just leave the secrets lying around.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
In short: we have no idea, but we can help you become hysterical and in the process bag some click bait cents.
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.
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.
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
I guess the CEO of Target is all wrong about the great economy?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
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.
Dude, Michael Cohen is Saul.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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
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.
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.
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
What happens when he doesn't get impeached? How will you feel about yourself then? Irrelevant to the world.
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
It is illegal to pay someone to keep quiet while running for office. Subtle, but important, difference.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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.
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.
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.
But you CAN contract it. Ever heard of a non-disclosure agreement?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
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.
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
"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.
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
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...
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Cohen was Trump's lawyer. EVERYTHING that happened is on Cohen. Trump was acting on the advice of his lawyer no matter what.
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
He was found not guilty at his trial.
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
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
https://xkcd.com/538/
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.
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
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.
"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?
And this was obviously typed by a russian troll.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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.
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?
Ask Cohen, it was his idea and he's the lawyer in this scenario.
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.]
The hooker wasn't extorting him until 2016.
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.
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.
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.
Trump would've paid the extortion whether he was running for office or not, so how is that a campaign finance violation?
How can it be a campaign contribution if he would've paid even if he wasn't running for anything?
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
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.
Not true. The client is ultimately always responsible for their actions.
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.
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
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.
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]
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.
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
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]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Alan Dershowitz never met a defendant he didn't defend.
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.
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.
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
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...
False. John Edwards was put on trial and was acquitted by the jury. That doesn't set a legal precedent.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Dershowits is a pretty big name, and he agrees.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"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.
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.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
He wouldn't have paid if he weren't running.
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.
LOL
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.
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
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.
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.
Get yourself a criminal lawyer. No, a criminal lawyer.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
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.
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!
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.
His checks usually bounce, and so he did not know it would be an actual pay-off.
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.
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
It's probably somewhere in here but I'll admit I didn't actually read it.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
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.
With John Edwards, the payment was made after he dropped out of the race - a crucial difference.
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.
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?
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
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
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
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
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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.
Were the payments received reported to the IRS?
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...
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?
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.
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
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.
This is the most informative post I've read on this story, but no mod points today.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Handing your karma bonus over to what is most likely a paid troll also won't help the situation. Please be considerate.
PRISM should have told people all about US big brand crypto standards and efforts.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
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.
> 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.
We have free speech. Paying money for speech or ideas or communication to voters during a campaign is free speech.
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.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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/
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.
Darpa Shredder Challenge
Once you shred it, and throw it away, it's not yours anymore!
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You're right. Clearly Cohen needs a lawyer like you to tell him he's not guilty and to not plead as such.
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.
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
I don't even have to come into the office. I can do this job from home.
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.
...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.
Go home, houghi. You are drunk.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
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/
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Are you trying to argue that murder is now legal in California because OJ was acquitted?
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.
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.
Maybe it was Heisenberg's checking account?
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
"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
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.
They were discussing paying by cheque ("cash") vs. borrowing the money ("financing"). This is how business people talk.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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...
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.
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".
"Everyone has committed a crime, it's about who we decide to prosecute" --KGB
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704471504574438900830760842
Casteism
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.