Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

pnwmom

(108,973 posts)
Wed Feb 14, 2018, 05:25 PM Feb 2018

Michael Cohen never said Trump HIMSELF didn't reimburse him for the $130,000 [View all]

or that Trump HIMSELF hadn't been a "party to the transaction."

Or that Trump was unaware of the payment.

He only spoke of the "campaign" and the "organization." But Trump has personal accounts outside of his businesses -- and Cohen hasn't ruled any of them out as the source of the $130K, or of its reimbursement.

So, if Trump himself was the source, why cover it up? Wouldn't it have been legal for Trump to pay her off, as long as he paid the appropriate gift tax and didn't claim it as some kind of business expense?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/13/us/politics/stormy-daniels-michael-cohen-trump.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&mtrref=undefined

Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly,” Mr. Cohen said in a statement to The New York Times. “The payment to Ms. Clifford was lawful, and was not a campaign contribution or a campaign expenditure by anyone.”

He declined to answer several follow-up questions, including whether Mr. Trump had been aware that Mr. Cohen made the payment, why he made the payment or whether he had made similar payments to other people over the years.

82 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Boy Cohen is a real lite brite isn't he? underpants Feb 2018 #1
Maybe, but more likely that he put in back in the news his way vs. some other story about to break. CincyDem Feb 2018 #2
Please don't play that game. Trumpocalypse Feb 2018 #3
Why shouldn't I? A lawyer tried to game us with some legalese. pnwmom Feb 2018 #4
It's playing a dishonest semantics game. Trumpocalypse Feb 2018 #5
What is dishonest about it? The Trump ORG and the Trump CAMPAIGN pnwmom Feb 2018 #6
Deal in facts, not possibilities Trumpocalypse Feb 2018 #9
I AM. And the FACT is that the lawyer refused to answer whether Trump was aware pnwmom Feb 2018 #11
That is still playing semantics games. Trumpocalypse Feb 2018 #15
No, it is stating facts and drawing logical conclusions. We should be smart enough to do that -- pnwmom Feb 2018 #23
It is not stating facts Trumpocalypse Feb 2018 #25
No, it isn't. pnwmom Feb 2018 #28
You're talking possibilities, not facts. Trumpocalypse Feb 2018 #36
I would be prepared to give Mr Cohen the benefit of the doubt meadowlander Feb 2018 #34
Asking questions is one thing Trumpocalypse Feb 2018 #37
It depends on the degree of certainty you ascribe to the conclusion. meadowlander Feb 2018 #39
That's a dishonest argument Trumpocalypse Feb 2018 #40
Science does not "tell us so". meadowlander Feb 2018 #41
No Gravity is a law Trumpocalypse Feb 2018 #48
Why is it a dishonest semantic game to try to decipher what someone who may have very carefully Ms. Toad Feb 2018 #20
It is one thing to question what they said. Trumpocalypse Feb 2018 #21
There is nothing dishonest about pointing out the gaping holes in what he said pnwmom Feb 2018 #24
Yes it is dishonest if you make conclusions Trumpocalypse Feb 2018 #26
There is nothing dishonest in laying out facts and then pointing out the logical conclusions. pnwmom Feb 2018 #29
Basing an argument on what someone didn't say is not logical Trumpocalypse Feb 2018 #35
Pointing out what someone did NOT say is perfectly honest. And smart. pnwmom Feb 2018 #42
Still dishonest. Trumpocalypse Feb 2018 #44
And everything I said was a fact, or a conclusion based on the facts. n/t pnwmom Feb 2018 #45
Not when you draw a conclusion Trumpocalypse Feb 2018 #50
You obviously never took a single logic class. You would have learned this in Logic 101. nt pnwmom Feb 2018 #51
No but took many ethics classes and basing a conclusion Trumpocalypse Feb 2018 #55
fully agree with YOU on this subject!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11 bluestarone Feb 2018 #46
That's just silly. Ms. Toad Feb 2018 #27
Your concern is duly noted. Lisa0825 Feb 2018 #31
The argument can be made that it is an in-kind donation no matter where the money came from infullview Feb 2018 #32
Depends on what you're basing the argument. Trumpocalypse Feb 2018 #38
What assumption? infullview Feb 2018 #58
Good for Stormy! nt Trumpocalypse Feb 2018 #59
I wasn't suggesting otherwise. Ms. Toad Feb 2018 #64
We tried being honest and doing the right thing, and lose. pwb Feb 2018 #12
That is just rationalization Trumpocalypse Feb 2018 #16
Wrong thing? You want to be nice.? Y pwb Feb 2018 #17
Yes fight for our rights Trumpocalypse Feb 2018 #18
like using trumps name in your profile? pwb Feb 2018 #19
Not the same thing and you know it. Trumpocalypse Feb 2018 #22
So you can be nice all you want trump ocalypse. pwb Feb 2018 #30
Don't put words in my mouth. Trumpocalypse Feb 2018 #33
No one is making stuff up about what Cohen didn't say. It is a FACT that Cohen's pnwmom Feb 2018 #43
It also leaves the door open for Trump Trumpocalypse Feb 2018 #49
That is irrelevant to this argument. Again, logic 101. You can probably find a class in it pnwmom Feb 2018 #52
I recommend ethics 101. nt Trumpocalypse Feb 2018 #57
Funny, because you clearly never took that, either. n/t pnwmom Feb 2018 #60
Drawing a conclusion again Trumpocalypse Feb 2018 #62
Someone who had taken an ethics class -- and remembered it -- surely would know pnwmom Feb 2018 #65
But you're not dealing in facts. Trumpocalypse Feb 2018 #67
Still drawing a conclusion Trumpocalypse Feb 2018 #70
Again not logic, but ethics Trumpocalypse Feb 2018 #69
That is about as intellectually dishonest a statement as I've read recently Ms. Toad Feb 2018 #66
Sorry what is dishonest is drawing a conclusion Trumpocalypse Feb 2018 #68
Please point to a single conclusion in the OP Ms. Toad Feb 2018 #71
True Trump didn't say Trump didn't personally pay Trumpocalypse Feb 2018 #72
You have not pointed to a single conclusion that was drawn. Ms. Toad Feb 2018 #73
The top post speaks for itself. Trumpocalypse Feb 2018 #74
I walked through the OP line by line for you. Ms. Toad Feb 2018 #75
The OP admitting to drawing a conclusion Trumpocalypse Feb 2018 #76
It is not a false argument. Ms. Toad Feb 2018 #77
Youre right its a moot point Trumpocalypse Feb 2018 #78
Pretty sorry that after two days of ranting you cannot provide a single example Ms. Toad Feb 2018 #79
Im not the one ranting Trumpocalypse Feb 2018 #80
He is a lawyer NewJeffCT Feb 2018 #54
Have you ever seen Cohen on TV? Trumpocalypse Feb 2018 #56
He is the worst kind of lawyer: a Trump toady. But he is excellent at that job. pnwmom Feb 2018 #61
Trump toady! LOL Trumpocalypse Feb 2018 #63
From Prof. Hasen Gothmog Feb 2018 #7
From Ari Melber Gothmog Feb 2018 #8
Yeah, there were so many sloppy headlines yesterday. pnwmom Feb 2018 #47
Everything about this is so obvious and clear oberliner Feb 2018 #10
Josh Marshall on Cohen: he's a seriously rich Trump crony who wouldn't need specific paying back muriel_volestrangler Feb 2018 #13
Doesn't matter. It doesn't change the fact that he never said Trump didn't reimburse him -- pnwmom Feb 2018 #14
As has been discussed in detail by legal experts, the key word in all this is FACILITATE, Gabi Hayes Feb 2018 #81
Exactly right. "Facilitate" could have meant almost anything. pnwmom Feb 2018 #82
He is a courier for services rendered. Deb Feb 2018 #53
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Michael Cohen never said ...