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
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Trump Tries to Deny His Crime With Cohen, Confesses by Mistake [View all]underpants
(194,562 posts)5. This Vox article has the 50 second video. If it's campaign related - Either way it's illegal.
https://www.vox.com/2018/8/22/17770074/fox-and-friends-trump-cohen-campaign-finance-payment
But just like lying on the disclosure form would be illegal and refusing to do the disclosure would be illegal, paying for campaign expenses out of a non-campaign account and then declining to report that as a contribution to the campaign is also illegal.
Simply put, there is no legal way to spend money on your election campaign without disclosing that fact.
There are two ways to get out of legal hot water here.
One would be to argue that the payments were genuinely not a campaign expense. Perhaps Trump had no concern about the political impact of Danielss revelations but simply didnt want his wife and kids to find out about the affair. Trump seems to have messed this up, and instead of making the correct argument, he appeared to confess to a crime.
The other would be to argue that Cohen was lying in court and Trump had no knowledge that the payments happened. In the course of the interview, Trump first denies knowing about it, then concedes he did know but says it was only after the fact. Its not entirely clear that this would really exonerate Trump, since even by his account it appears he was aware that Cohen committed a crime on his behalf and didnt say or do anything about it.
But just like lying on the disclosure form would be illegal and refusing to do the disclosure would be illegal, paying for campaign expenses out of a non-campaign account and then declining to report that as a contribution to the campaign is also illegal.
Simply put, there is no legal way to spend money on your election campaign without disclosing that fact.
There are two ways to get out of legal hot water here.
One would be to argue that the payments were genuinely not a campaign expense. Perhaps Trump had no concern about the political impact of Danielss revelations but simply didnt want his wife and kids to find out about the affair. Trump seems to have messed this up, and instead of making the correct argument, he appeared to confess to a crime.
The other would be to argue that Cohen was lying in court and Trump had no knowledge that the payments happened. In the course of the interview, Trump first denies knowing about it, then concedes he did know but says it was only after the fact. Its not entirely clear that this would really exonerate Trump, since even by his account it appears he was aware that Cohen committed a crime on his behalf and didnt say or do anything about it.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
68 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Yep. Fortunately for rump there are a minimum of FORTY FIVE MILLION Americans
Eliot Rosewater
Aug 2018
#27
This Vox article has the 50 second video. If it's campaign related - Either way it's illegal.
underpants
Aug 2018
#5
From my reading/understanding- the source doesn't matter because it was campaign related
underpants
Aug 2018
#30
If the rabbit were related to the campaign, say, a mascot, it would be legal but have to be
Fred Sanders
Aug 2018
#56
Well said...Did the RNC know and approve? Also unindicted co-conspirators?
Fred Sanders
Aug 2018
#57
I doubt a defense of "I was afraid my wife would find out" would work to well though given
cstanleytech
Aug 2018
#41
Thank you- it's simply been policy based on past WH occupants. It's not law.
bettyellen
Aug 2018
#11
I truly think that policy depends on the crime. If he murdered someone on TV no one would argue
bettyellen
Aug 2018
#20
Probably. But it would still take Congress impeaching him to remove him from office.
onenote
Aug 2018
#54
I think congress might change their tune and be amenable to at least threatening to impeach
bettyellen
Aug 2018
#59
Perhaps its time to take the DOJ out from under the executive branch and create one for it?
cstanleytech
Aug 2018
#44
And they want to count this as an "election year" for Mueller but not Kavanaugh's appointment ...
bettyellen
Aug 2018
#47
I'm not sure it's in the system. It's my understanding there's no consensus on this issue.
Garrett78
Aug 2018
#53
big fail presenting as fact the republican claim that sitting presidents can't be indicted.
unblock
Aug 2018
#8