Donald Trump Played Central Role in Hush Payoffs to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal

Arkage

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,289
974
540
#1
Taken together, the accounts refute a two-year pattern of denials by Mr. Trump, his legal team and his advisers that he was involved in payoffs to Ms. McDougal and a former adult-film star. They also raise the possibility that the president of the United States violated federal campaign-finance laws.

The Wall Street Journal found that Mr. Trump was involved in or briefed on nearly every step of the agreements. He directed deals in phone calls and meetings with his self-described fixer, Michael Cohen, and others. The U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan has gathered evidence of Mr. Trump’s participation in the transactions.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald...gal-1541786601?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=1

https://outline.com/fFhsqK (non-paywall)

One thing I never understood is why Trump came out of the gate lying about this and continued to lie about this. Would it be too damaging to his marriage and she would feel compelled to divorce if he admitted it? Does he think he'd lose evangelical voters (he wouldn't)? And then he makes his lawyers and advisers complicit in covering his ass.

In any case he probably violated campaign finance laws over his secret hush money porn star deals. What a world we live in.
 
Sep 11, 2007
5,147
392
920
#3
In any case he probably violated campaign finance laws over his secret hush money porn star deals.
No he didn't. They tried to get Edwards on a similar charge when a rich benefactor paid off his mistress. Edwards was acquitted.

In this case, Trump used his own money. Dershowitz has already deconstructed any possibility of campaign finance violations. The law says the benefit has to be solely for the election, but it's plain Trump can argue it was to protect his family from embarrassment.
 
Likes: Teletraan1
May 17, 2012
5,402
1,366
455
Canada
#5
They would have to prove that the money was used to influence the election. He can come up with any number of excuses that have nothing to do with the election as to why they were paid off. He wasn't a politician prior to becoming President, he was the owner of a large family business. He has more outs than a Senator or Congress Member paying off porn stars would have.
 

PKM

Gold Member
Oct 11, 2017
802
823
370
#8
I really didnt care when Clinton got a blowjob and Republicans shit a brick.

I really dont care if Trump was out slaying porn stars and paying them off.

That's what rich dudes do. That's what they always will do.

Shits been going on since the first cave man had the most most meat and biggest fire.
 

Arkage

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,289
974
540
#9
No he didn't. They tried to get Edwards on a similar charge when a rich benefactor paid off his mistress. Edwards was acquitted.

In this case, Trump used his own money. Dershowitz has already deconstructed any possibility of campaign finance violations. The law says the benefit has to be solely for the election, but it's plain Trump can argue it was to protect his family from embarrassment.
I mean the WSJ subtitle literally says:

Federal prosecutors have gathered evidence of president’s participation in transactions that violated campaign-finance laws
And they're a conservative leaning group.

We have mass shootings going on and people care about the President and his lawyers lying to the public and breaking campaign finance laws. Jesus.
FTFY.
 
Last edited:

Arkage

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,289
974
540
#11
I'm going to trust an expert criminal defense attorney and decades tenured Harvard Law professor over some hack "journalists".
I assume this is the same Harvard Law professor who has made his second career being a TV personality for Fox News. :unsure:

With the Cohen testimony, prosecutors would have good reason to believe that this case is far stronger than the one brought against Edwards. The Edwards trial was notable for the absence of two key witnesses: the Edwards political supporters who financed the scheme of concealment and support for his lover and their child. One witness was dead and the other, at age 101, was unable to testify at trial. In this case, the key witness is talking: His statement to the court Tuesday included the admission that in arranging these payments, he had acted “in coordination with” and “at the direction of … a candidate for federal office.” Cohen’s lawyer Lanny Davis then confirmed on Twitter that his client had “testified under oath that Donald Trump directed him to commit a crime.” Together with other evidence, such as the timing of the payments, Cohen’s plea transforms a potentially difficult case about motive into a solid bet for the prosecution.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/michael-cohen-plea-agreement-possible-meanings-campaign-finance-counts
 
Likes: Madonis

Arkage

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,289
974
540
#17
You fix nothing. That’s what I do, and always have done. I’m just a man. I saved my brother from death, Metlife with a simple recording, the people of California, once, and now I put my faith in those people, because damn it. I’m only one man. With one eye. And asthma. And CP. What can you do with your two hands?

There are far greater things to worry about. Paying off hookers should be the least of your concern. Fires. Shootings. I live in California and am engulfed in the smoke covering Sonoma County coming from the Camp Fire. And even with all this smoke, I just was given a free iPad to give to a friend who had his stolen while remodeling a house. I am the shit. What can you do? What can you do with your two hands?
What can I do with my two hands?

I'LL TELL YOU WHAT I CAN DO WITH MY OWN TWO HANDS!


(lol wtf is this post)
 
Nov 23, 2010
4,270
210
625
#18
I'm going to trust an expert criminal defense attorney and decades tenured Harvard Law professor over some hack "journalists".
I'd look at it as an American company having compromising information on the president as people let conspiracies about Donald Trump being a Russian agent run wild.

In any event, I hope prosecutors decide soon to bring an indictment against Trump while he's in office or make it clear they have to wait until he's done in 2020 or 2024.
 
Last edited:
Apr 8, 2009
20,196
855
405
#19
No he didn't. They tried to get Edwards on a similar charge when a rich benefactor paid off his mistress. Edwards was acquitted.

In this case, Trump used his own money. Dershowitz has already deconstructed any possibility of campaign finance violations. The law says the benefit has to be solely for the election, but it's plain Trump can argue it was to protect his family from embarrassment.
The law does not say that. Alan Dershowitz is a criminal defense attorney who likes being on television, not an expert on campaign finance. Gonna be hard for Trump to argue it was simoly to save his family from embarrassment when he’s a notorious philanderer and the payments were made a month prior to the election.
 
May 16, 2005
5,634
1,025
1,200
#20
I assume this is the same Harvard Law professor who has made his second career being a TV personality for Fox News. :unsure:



https://www.lawfareblog.com/michael-cohen-plea-agreement-possible-meanings-campaign-finance-counts
You saying that does not diminish his credentials, or credibility.

Once again I'll say it again;

Every single news source is biased in some way.

With that said, any person who has ever been on a news program would fall under your snarky remark. Any person ever paid to contribute would fall within your parameters.

We work with what we got, and that is all news outlets are crap that need to be checked, and rechecked for accuracy.

Look at his career as a whole with the same snark. Be my guest.