Trump Lawyer Arranged $130,000 Payment for Adult-Film Star’s Silence

[Breccia]

TIME Magazine goes into detail as to what could happen.

Experts say that the payment could still be considered a violation because there is a strong argument that it was an unreported “in-kind contribution” — money that directly benefits the campaign even if it does not go into its coffers, in the same way that a building owner allowing free use of a meeting space would have to be reported.

If the FEC deemed the payment an in-kind contribution, it would be in violation of campaign finance laws for exceeding the maximum amount of $2,700 and for not being disclosed by the Trump campaign. That’s the argument being made by Common Cause, which filed a complaint after the Wall Street Journal reported on the payment calling for the FEC and the Department of Justice to investigate it.

“If [the payment] was money to keep damaging information out of the news cycle at a pivotal point in the election … we’re well within the realm of possible violations, specifically an excessive in-kind campaign contribution that was not reported and shared then,” said Stephen Spaulding, a strategist at Common Cause and a former attorney with the Federal Election Commission.

Cohen’s statement, which came in response to the Common Cause filing, may have already had an effect, however. Daniels’ manager, Gina Rodriguez, told the Associated Press on Tuesday that Cohen’s acknowledgement of the payment invalidated the non-disclosure agreement, enabling her to tell her story publicly.

Common Cause is not the only group that thinks the payment could have been a violation. Brendan Fischer, the Federal & FEC Reform Program Director at the Campaign Legal Center, had a similar opinion.

“The fact that this came one month before the election means there is strong evidence that this was a payment made in connection with the Trump campaign and therefore was an in kind contribution to the Trump campaign and would have exceeded the $2,700 contribution limit and was never reported by the Trump campaign as a contribution,” Fischer told TIME.

The FEC declined to comment. But even if the argument holds up legally, there’s a widespread skepticism among experts on this topic that the agency will actually take any action; In conversations with TIME, Spaulding called the FEC a “notoriously dysfunctional agency.” The commission, which is supposed to have six members, will effectively begin functioning with 4 by the end of this week, after Lee Goodman leaves his post to work in private practice.

That means that, for anything to happen — such as launching an investigation or declaring a violation of a law — all members have to agree. That is unlikely, seeing as the panel will consist of two Democrats, a Republican and an independent.

Fischer noted that the Republican-appointed commissioners have often adopted “very narrow reading of the law” even on “clear violations” in the past.

“There is a chance the FEC will fail to enforce the law in this instance, that they’ll accept an argument from Cohen that this statement had nothing to do with the campaign and it was simply a personal transaction,” he said.

Common Cause has also sent a copy of the complaint to the Department of Justice, which could pursue its own investigation. This is what happened with former Presidential candidate John Edwards, when the government argued that payments to cover up the candidate’s affair with Rielle Hunter violated campaign finance laws. The Department of Justice has not replied to a request for comment.

Just so we're clear, all four members of the relevant FEC panel are W's appointees. Obama had one, Goodman, and he left years ago. Trump hasn't appointed, nor has he nominated, anyone to fill the missing spots, which seems odd -- for someone who likes to attack media sources that don't flatter him 24/7 you'd think having the FEC in his pocket would be helpful come election season.

[Ivanstone]

So what is the relevance of this though?

He banged someone 11 years before he was President and this is somehow a smoking Gun how?

Not someone. Some people. Not all of which was consensual. Its also makes his religious supporters look extremely hypocritical for supporting a serial adulterer.

Oh and then there's the campaign money being used for the pay off.

[Machismo]

So what is the relevance of this though?

He banged someone 11 years before he was President and this is somehow a smoking Gun how?

Well, she was paid hush money right before the elections. It may be that the lawyer committed a crime by doing so (similar to the accusations against John Edwards and his love child). We also should investigate if Trump paid him back for this, and where the money came from. After all, his campaign did pay that exact amount out.

Of course, there's also the utter hypocrisy from the social conservatives who voted for him, and continue their undying support for him. If nothing else, it's yet another chance to mock them for being lying hypocrites.

[Grapemask]

So what is the relevance of this though?

He banged someone 11 years before he was President and this is somehow a smoking Gun how?

He made that payment a little more recently than 11 years ago.

Although I agree with the idea that this isn't going to change anything anyone thinks about Trump. Trump supporters are experts at "yesterday never happened, and if it did, well, it's not today;" that's the only thing keeping their worldview intact.

[Breccia]

Oh and then there's the campaign money being used for the pay off.

That might take a little effort to prove, but, if Cohen was paid by the campaign, and he paid off one of Trump's mistresses with it during the campaign, there might be some probable cause.

[Super Kami Dende]

That's right, don't read the story and just comment like the Trumpster you are. Well done - you are a shining example of what Trump needs to stay in office. MAGA?

"HURR DURR YOU ASKING QUESTIONS MUST BE DA TRUMPSTER DURRRRRRRRRR"

I mean if asking Questions is all that requires Trump to stay in Office, I guess he's gonna be there for 7 more years. lmao.

[cubby]

TIME Magazine goes into detail as to what could happen.



Just so we're clear, all four members of the relevant FEC panel are W's appointees. Obama had one, Goodman, and he left years ago. Trump hasn't appointed, nor has he nominated, anyone to fill the missing spots, which seems odd -- for someone who likes to attack media sources that don't flatter him 24/7 you'd think having the FEC in his pocket would be helpful come election season.

We would normally expect the FEC (and other Commissions) to just sweep this under the rug - and I wouldn't be surprised if it happens here. We don't really need it for the Mueller investigation.

However, at least in the past, public opinion sometimes sways for awhile regarding an issue or person and then topples over with a tidal wave of vitriol aimed at the person they were just protecting the week before.

I'm fairly sure an affair with a porn star won't cause that tectonic movement - but it could.

[Ivanstone]

That might take a little effort to prove, but, if Cohen was paid by the campaign, and he paid off one of Trump's mistresses with it during the campaign, there might be some probable cause.

You'd figure that this would be easy to bury but I wouldn't be too shocked if they half-assed even this and there was a paper trial.

[Super Kami Dende]

It wouldn't be if he didn't pay hush money with campaign funds. Or wasn't attached to the party of "muh blowjobs by president".

Campaign funds, Since he financed a lot of the campaign himself, wouldn't that just be his Money though?

[Machismo]

"HURR DURR YOU ASKING QUESTIONS MUST BE DA TRUMPSTER DURRRRRRRRRR"

I mean if asking Questions is all that requires Trump to stay in Office, I guess he's gonna be there for 7 more years. lmao.

Your question was answered. Of course, it was clear you either didn't read the article, or were trying to deflect by omitting pertinent information .

[cubby]

"HURR DURR YOU ASKING QUESTIONS MUST BE DA TRUMPSTER DURRRRRRRRRR"

I mean if asking Questions is all that requires Trump to stay in Office, I guess he's gonna be there for 7 more years. lmao.

If you can't be bothered to read what you're asking questions about, there's not much we can do for you. If you're so stupid as to not realize that the very questions you're asking are answered in posts above, as well as the article that was linked - well, my comments above stand.

You're exactly what Trump needs to stay in office. Thanks for making the world worse, every single day.

[Machismo]

Campaign funds, Since he financed a lot of the campaign himself, wouldn't that just be his Money though?

Not really, it falls under different laws, and could mean such a payment were illegal. If he paid her with campaign funds, or repaid the lawyer with those funds, then he almost certainly committed a major crime.

Also, he largely lied about funding the campaign himself.

[Vanyali]

Campaign funds, Since he financed a lot of the campaign himself, wouldn't that just be his Money though?

1) he didn't finance the campaign himself; he loaned himself money and repaid himself via campaign donations. And we don't know what happened to the rest, as a bunch of money floated to the great nowhere. It's a very specific way of getting money that means he did not fund it, because the money wasn't "his" since you can't loan yourself money.

2) it ultimately wouldn't matter if he had loaned it or donated it without return - once it goes into campaign funds there are a bunch of laws saying what you can and cannot do with it. Paying people bribe money to keep silent falls into the "haha no" category, but there's actually a ton of things you're restricted from doing with anything that's designated campaign funds.

[cubby]

Campaign funds, Since he financed a lot of the campaign himself, wouldn't that just be his Money though?

The porn star was paid off by the attorney. FFS it's in the article. How many people have to tell you to go read it before you'll actually fucking do it. Literally all your questions are answered in the article.

[Kujako]

1) he didn't finance the campaign himself; he loaned himself money and repaid himself via campaign donations.

and tax funds. Don't forget he applied for and got "matching funds".

[Breccia]

You'd figure that this would be easy to bury

He used an LLC in Delaware. Pretty much everyone covered it, including WaPo.

When the Journal first confronted him with its reporting in January, Cohen offered a denial that didn't directly address whether he had made the payment; instead, he focused on whether the affair happened. “This is now the second time that you are raising outlandish allegations against my client,” he told the Journal. “You have attempted to perpetuate this false narrative for over a year; a narrative that has been consistently denied by all parties since at least 2011.”

Again, that sounds a lot like a denial, but he's denying something very specific — and turns out it wasn't the payment. (Cohen still denies that an affair occurred, for what it's worth. In his latest statement, he suggests that he was merely combating the rumors of an affair: “Just because something isn’t true doesn’t mean that it can’t cause you harm or damage. I will always protect Mr. Trump.”)

When the Journal reported a week later that Cohen formed an LLC in Delaware and used pseudonyms to facilitate the payment to Daniels, Cohen again offered a non-denial denial. “You’re [sic] obsessive drive to prove a false narrative, one that has been rebuked by all parties, must come to an end,” Cohen wrote.

But the lion's share of that “narrative” has now been confirmed by Cohen himself. And whether Trump actually engaged in an affair with Daniels is kind of beside the point — at least legally speaking.

And that's what Cohen seems concerned with. By singling out the Trump Organization and the Trump campaign as not having participated, he's suggesting that he wasn't serving as a conduit for either. In either case, failure to disclose such payments would be pretty easy to spot and could cause problems.

The big question is whether Cohen served as a conduit for anyone else -- especially Trump. Cohen emphasizes that he used his own personal funds to "facilitate" the payment, but he doesn't directly say that he wasn't reimbursed by anyone. Indeed, the word "facilitate" means to make something easy or less difficult, which could be read to describe serving as a middle man for such payments.

Given all of that, the fact that Cohen doesn't explicitly deny serving as a conduit for Trump personally — and then says he doesn't “plan to provide any further comment” — is tough to dismiss as a coincidence.

Almost as tough as it is to believe that Cohen would make such a payment without Trump having any knowledge of the situation.

It's a common tactic. My home state has loads of these. As I posted in during the campaign, Trump has one that he used to loan his own campaign money at prime plus five percent. He disclosed it and everything. DE is a haven for that kind of scummy behavior.

[Ivanstone]

He used an LLC in Delaware. Pretty much everyone covered it, including WaPo.

It's a common tactic. My home state has loads of these. As I posted in during the campaign, Trump has one that he used to loan his own campaign money at prime plus five percent. He disclosed it and everything. DE is a haven for that kind of scummy behavior.

I'm familiar with some of the details, just wondering out loud if there's an additional layer of stupidity that hasn't been extracted yet. Almost expecting Don Jr to come onto Fox and saying nothing happened by detailing exactly what happened.

[Felya]

I'm familiar with some of the details, just wondering out loud if there's an additional layer of stupidity that hasn't been extracted yet. Almost expecting Don Jr to come onto Fox and saying nothing happened by detailing exactly what happened.

You think Don jr will go on Fox and Friends to explain what the term ‘just the tip’ means?

[Ivanstone]

You think Don jr will go on Fox and Friends to explain what the term ‘just the tip’ means?

I didn't expect to wake up this morning and find out the Trump had an affair with Karen McDougal and then flaunted that affair in front of Jr and friends.

I still need to see the pee tape though. That bits still important.

[Breccia]

You think Don jr will go on Fox and Friends to explain what the term ‘just the tip’ means?

It means "the employer gets to keep the tips collected by their waitstaff as long as they're paid minimum wage". It would cost billions to the workers by the WH's own analysis and I thought the matter was dropped, why are we even talking about this in this thread, it seems kind of OHHHHHHHHHHHHHH I get it.