Dem lawmaker: Stormy Daniels revelation could result in 4 felony charges

[workinclasszero]

Dem lawmaker: Stormy Daniels revelation could result in 4 felony charges
BY JULIA MANCHESTER - 05/03/18 08:23 AM EDT

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) said on Thursday that four possible felony charges could arise from former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani's (R) admission that President Trump reimbursed his attorney, Michael Cohen, for a $130,000 payment to adult-film star Stormy Daniels to stay quiet about their alleged affair.

Link to tweet

Lieu had retweeted former Obama ethics chief Norm Eisen, who said that the revelation could mean that Trump filed a false financial disclosure.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/385984-dem-lawmaker-says-stormy-daniels-revelation-could-result-in-4-possible

[Stallion]

1. Wire-Fraud if Funds were Transmitted to Reputed California Bank

[workinclasszero]

2. The lawless turd in the white house

makes Nixon look like a choir boy!

[spooky3]

3. Can anyone help me understand? If Trump or the Trump

organization paid the $, how does this violate the law? Can’t an individual pay a private settlement if s/he is running for his office? I get why a third party can’t get pay it, because that’s clearly a gift or contribution.

[workinclasszero]

5. Info from the tweet

4 possible felonies from Rudy Giuliani admission:

1. $130k payment to Stormy was in-kind coordinated contribution above limits

2. Cohen was a straw donor used to cover up true source of contribution

3. False statements on financial disclosures

4. False statements on banking forms

[spooky3]

9. But re: 1, if individual A gives $130K to individual B, that has nothing to

do with a campaign. That's what makes no sense to me.

Is the problem that it went through multiple hands before getting to SD?

[csziggy]

12. If the money was paid to benefit the Trump campaign that is a violation - in-kind contribution

Here is how the Federal Elections Commission defines it:

In-kind contributions

An in-kind contribution is a non-monetary contribution. Goods or services offered free or at less than the usual charge result in an in-kind contribution. Similarly, when a person or entity pays for services on the committee’s behalf, the payment is an in-kind contribution. An expenditure made by any person or entity in cooperation, consultation or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate’s campaign is also considered an in-kind contribution to the candidate.

The value of an in-kind contribution—the usual and normal charge—counts against the contribution limit as a gift of money does. Additionally, like any other contribution, in-kind contributions count against the contributor’s limit for the next election, unless they are otherwise designated.
https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/filing-reports/in-kind-contributions/

Emphasis added by me.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

17. If A pays B before election to quash a scandal & B pays A that amount after the election

... then it is coordinating a payment that exceeds personal contribution limits.

Either Cohen's payment was an in-kind contribution that exceeded the $5400 limit (for couples), or it was a coordinated effort to contribute to the campaign in a way to avoid reporting requirements.

And there are the mysterious four RNC payments to Trump in one week totaling 28 cents short of $130,000.00.

[spooky3]

20. I agree that your final pgh REALLY connects it to the campaign. Nt

[unblock]

6. had he paid directly and disclosed it on campaign and banking forms

Then probably it would have been all legal.

But not disclosing it would be a campaign financing violation, and trying to make it look like it wasn't his contribution is illegal.

[spooky3]

10. why does it have anything to do with a campaign, requiring disclosure?

If you give your child a Tesla, why would you as a candidate have to disclose that? You have to pay gift tax on it but that's an IRS matter.

Is the problem that it went through multiple hands?

[unblock]

16. if the tesla is for his own private, personal use, then it's not related to the campaign. no problem

but if i gave my child a tesla that had "vote for unblock!" painted on it and the tesla was payment for him driving around key voting areas, then it's related to the campaign and has to be disclosed.

one of the many reasons there are gasps from guiliani's statements is that he admitted that the payment to stormy was because it was relevant to the campaign. donnie could have insisted it was all strictly personal, he bought stormy's silence only to keep it from melania to spare her any pain.

now, it should be straightforward for a prosecutor to convince a jury that a scandal like that coming out shortly before an election was of course related to the campaign, but it's still something that has to be decided by a jury. then here comes big gob ghouliani and he just comes out and says he did because can you imagine the scandal right before an election. well then! it's a whole lot easier to convince a jury that it's campaign-related when the defendant's lawyer agrees with that!

[Dave Starsky]

19. It still would have been illegal.

There are limits on how much one person can contribute to a political campaign, even "in kind" contributions. This goes way beyond that.

Which is why they have always gone to elaborate lengths to cover it up.

[unblock]

21. that's true for anyone other than the candidate.

donnie can contribute an unlimited amount to the campaign.

now, that probably only applies to donnie's personal accounts.
so if the money actually came from the trump organization, then yeah, i think the strict limits apply.

[spooky3]

23. Thx nt

[spooky3]

22. Thx--that makes sense.

[avebury]

7. Because the Trump campaign benefitted from the payoff

because it protected Trump at the end of the Presidential race. That is what makes it an in kind donation which was illegal because it was not reported. Even though Guiliani claims that Trump repaid Cohen, after the fact, his campaign still benefitted.

[spooky3]

11. How can this be demonstrated? In the Edwards case it was a more clear link, IMHO, and

he was not convicted, in part because the prosecution couldn't prove that he knew about it, IIRC.

[SunSeeker]

14. If you saw a "clear link" in the Edwards case, it should be even clearer to you here.

Trump himself ultimately made the payment, and it all went down just days before the election, not over a year before the election like with the Edwards supporter's payment.

[spooky3]

18. No question that Trump knew, but the "clear" had to do

With the fact that Edwards campaign assistant got the money from Bunny Mellon. Had Edwards directly paid Hunter out of his own $ I think the jury would have been even more likely to see it as a personal bribe paid to keep Mrs. Edwards from finding out, rather than campaign-related.

In Trump’s case my problem is not only that I’m ignorant of campaign finance law, but also that on the surface it appears that if Trump took the $ out of his own personal account, it would appear more personal.

IMHO, I suspect trump took the $ from campaign $ or another illegitimate place. If so I completely get why he’s in big trouble.

Thanks to all who replied.

[SunSeeker]

29. Here, George Conway (yep, THAT Conway!) explains why it is still a campaign finance violation:

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5aeb056fe4b06748dc9047e8

In a nutshell, since Cohen paid the amount up front then got reimbursed by Trump, it amounted to a $130k loan to the campaign, which should have been reported.

And yes, it was campaign related, as Rudy Giuliani stated clearly on Fox: “Imagine if that came out on Oct 15, 2016 in the middle of the, you know, last debate with Hillary Clinton...Cohen didn’t even ask. Cohen made it go away. He did his job.”

It's all at the above link.

[spooky3]

31. Thanks. It appears that what prosecutors would have to show is that Trump's intent was to influence

the campaign/election, versus prevent Melania's wrath or get rid of a personal annoyance. The timing of the payment given that it had been a long time since the tryst, would certainly work in the prosecutor's favor, as Bernardo de la Paz suggested. I suppose the defense would try to show that Trump was merely a victim of Daniels' timing and when she chose to bring it up.

These idiots just can't seem to stop talking...

[unblock]

4. Structuring? -- if wires were broken up to obscure the nature of the payment?

[jmowreader]

8. Now they have justification to punish Trump for the blue wave

If the GOP loses either house of Congress, the remaining R’s are going to take it out on Trump. These four felonies will let them impeach the bastard with a clear head.

“While President Trump has been an excellent President, we cannot ignore the clear facts that he committed numerous crimes while seeking office. His removal by unanimous vote shows that we will not accept corruption in our leaders.”

[BamaRefugee]

13. HAHAHAHAHAHA

That's some comic genius writing, and one hell of an imagination to come up with Republicans saying anything of the sort!

[jmowreader]

24. I'm serious.

If the GOP loses the House and Senate, they are going to be PISSED. And I really believe they'll take it out on Trump. They're willing to accept his numerous flaws - most people here have a different term for said flaws, the most popular being "treason" - as long as he gives them the ability to get what they want, which is a Christian version of Saudi Arabia.

The problem with that is, he has given them next to nothing. Even the vaunted GOP Tax Cut bill is highly flawed in their eyes: remember, the only deductions they wanted were mortgage interest and church contributions. He hasn't ended abortion, gay marriage, or immigration. There are still mosques in America. He hasn't killed Obamacare. He hasn't built the wall. And he's started a trade war that is going to completely hose the farm states. You know they can't be sitting there thinking, "we don't mind if he fucked a porn star while his wife was sitting at home nursing his son, that's just Donald being Donald."

[BamaRefugee]

28. Sorry. I can't recall Republicans ever punishing another Republican for anything. They can NEVER

admit they were wrong.

[workinclasszero]

30. I am going to dream about this scenario until the day the blue wave hits!

Thanks!

[ffr]

15. Man, I love this man!!!

[Cognitive_Resonance]

25. It looks like the grand unraveling is well underway as lies beget more lies and each shifting story

leads to ever deeper criminal exposure.

[beachbum bob]

26. Some are crimes under New York State...

Takes DOJ out of the mix.

[Johnny2X2X]

27. I pay off so many hookers I don't even keep track

That's his next line of tweets. Melania must be so proud.