SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Brumar89 who wrote (216532)11/5/2021 2:12:42 PM
From: combjelly  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 362845
 
On the one hand, we are living in a dangerous time with a growing number of people willing to engage in violence. I imagine the only thing keeping people like Noodles from grabbing a gun and marching on government is that they'd have to leave the house and it is a long walk. On the other, I hope that the DOJ is making sure they have all of their ducks in a row before doing anything. Admittedly, based on the suits that the Trump lawyers have brought so far, their competence can be questioned. But still...



To: Brumar89 who wrote (216532)11/5/2021 2:47:38 PM
From: Thomas M.1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Bill

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 362845
 
The SDNY had it own thorough investigation and found enough to send Cohen to prison for three years while at the same time noting that Trump (as Individual-one) told Cohen to do the things he did.
SDNY found Cohen did illegal things unrelated to Trump. They used this as leverage to pressure Cohen to plead guilty to a non-crime that he committed with Trump.

Cohen and Trump's actions were 100% legal. The prosecutors included proof in the court filings!

The law says that if the action is partly for personal benefit, it's not a campaign violation. And the charging statement says the payment was partly for personal benefit.

in writing its implementing regulations for the statute, the Federal Election Commission specifically rejected a proposal that an expense could be considered a campaign expenditure if it were merely “primarily related to the candidate’s campaign.” This was done specifically to prevent candidates from claiming that things that benefitted them personally were done because they would also benefit the campaign.

And with that in mind, it is worth noting Mr. Cohen’s sentencing statement, in which he writes that he “felt obligated to assist , on instruction, to attempt to prevent Woman-1 and Woman-2 from disseminating narratives that would adversely affect the Campaign and cause personal embarrassment to Client-1 and his family.”

nationalreview.com

Tom