Giuliani Links Michael Cohen's Stormy Daniels Payoff to 2016 Election

[DonViejo]

Source: The Daily Beast





Rudy Giuliani on Thursday morning contradicted his own assertion that Michael Cohen’s payment to Stormy Daniels in October 2016 was not a campaign contribution. During an interview on Fox & Friends, Giuliani reiterated that Donald Trump reimbursed Cohen for the $130,000 paid to Daniels in exchange for her silence about an alleged affair. Then Giuliani, who joined Trump’s legal team this week, said: “Imagine if that came out on October 15, 2016 in the middle of the last debate with Hillary Clinton. Cohen didn’t even ask. Cohen made it go away. He didn’t even ask.”

Link to tweet

READ IT AT THE HOUSTON CHRONICLE

###


Read more: https://www.thedailybeast.com/giuliani-links-michael-cohens-stormy-daniels-payoff-to-2016-election

---

[ollie10]

1. It doesn't seem to be a smart move on Gillie's part

[BootinUp]

2. I don't think there are any good

Options. IOW he is just trying to let the air out of the balloon a little at a time.

[GusBob]

3. Gosh, thats makes it A-OK, dont it? Its like they are super heroes I reckon

Fending off the forces of evil with their powerful dick-head moves.

I bet even Melania high-fives these guys

[SayItLoud]

4. Get out and over

Mid terms coming, Evagels don't give a shit if he banged, silenced whatever a woman The F'n MORON is their Jesus on earth. Rudy is getting it out and over because without doubt there will be something more emerging in the next days. Only when Putin releases the proof that there are men in cement shoes at the bottom of the East River and Volga will the Rupubes .....well, forget where I was going with that because nothing will break this cult except seizure of assets and jail time. But then we must be prepared for the DICKtator wannabe to dog whistle his lemmings to rise up...and they will...and they have the guns.

[safeinOhio]

13. Not to worry, because...

[louis c]

5. This statement is bad for Trump and Cohen

People like to use the Gary Hart analogy in this case.

First off, Hart was not acquitted , he was released after a hung jury resulted in a mistrial. In Hart's case, the fact that the agreement and payment were made one and a half years before the next election and that he wanted to keep the affair and child from his ailing wife, convinced half the jury.

In Trump's case, the fact that the agreement and payment to Stormy Daniels just 11 days prior to the General Election for President of the United States makes it much more plausible that it's an "in-kind" contribution. Add to that fact all these admissions from Cohen and Giuliani about the urgent nature of the NDA and the inconsistent stories from all concerned, including Trump, makes guilt seem more likely You can see that this case has already reached "probable cause" of, at least, a campaign finance violation.

[Pachamama]

6. Gary Hart Analogy? You mean John Edwards....

[louis c]

15. Ya, Ya. My fault. I'm getting old

[unc70]

8. If you meant Edwards, he was found not guilty

John Edwards was found not guilty on the main charge that he solicited and used campaign contributions from Bunny Mellon to support his mistress and child. That money was actually being scammed by Edwards aide Andrew Young and was used to build Young's own home near Chapel Hill. Young was chief witness against Rdwards and made up many of the claims.

There was a hung jury on the other charges. With Young exposed as a con man and liar, the DOJ dropped the remaining charges. Young had full immunity and I believe got to keep the monies involved. The main Federal prosecutor used the case as a springboard to Congress. Most people belief Edwards was found guilty.

[louis c]

16. I meant Edwards

Link:
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/05/john-edwards-jury-has-finally-reached-verdict/327435/

[keithbvadu2]

7. Is Rudy really on Donald's side?

Is Rudy really on Donald's side?

D'ya suppose that, after their brief fling, Donald moved on and Rudy still hasn't gotten over it?

[Turbineguy]

9. Imagine...

if you were robbing a bank and you run out into the street with the swag and your getaway car was gone!

These people think like criminals.

[bucolic_frolic]

10. Oh my

As far as Rudy's gotten in life, I wouldn't want to hire him for brain power

[forgotmylogin]

11. "Imagine if that came out on October 15th 2016 in the middle of the last debate with Hillary Clinton

Yeah, wouldn't that have been some dirty pool?

PUBLISHED: 08:50 EDT, 25 October 2016

Rudy Giuliani echoed Donald Trump's daughter-in-law this morning by hinting that the candidate has an 'October surprise' in the works.

'Fox & Friends' host Brian Kilmeade asked the Trump surrogate if the Republican nominee for president has 'anything except for a series of inspiring rallies' on the docket before Election Day.

'Yes,' Giuliani replied. 'What?' Fox and Friends' Ainsley Earhardt inquired.

Laughingly mischievously, Giuliani told her, 'You'll see. We've got a couple of surprises left.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3870834/We-ve-got-couple-surprises-left-Rudy-Giuliani-joins-Donald-Trump-s-daughter-law-hinting-Republican-nominee-planning-October-surprise.html#ixzz5ERyTnJGm

[Nitram]

12. Yeah. Imagine that. Now imagine Trump and Giuliani as cell mates.

[Cognitive_Resonance]

14. Keep talking Rudy, Keep talking! nt

[djg21]

17. I think you're missing the point.

My understanding is that Trump himself can contribute as much of his own money as he wants to his own campaign, and there are no campaign contribution limits that are applicable. On the other hand, Cohen would have to disclose any money he paid out to third parties on behalf of the Trump Campaign and the value of any services he provided on behalf of the campaign, as in-kind contributions. The $130,000 payment to Stormy also would exceed applicable contribution limits (https://www.fec.gov/updates/contribution-limits-for-2015-2016/).

Cohen and Trump are in a hard place: either (1) Trump reimbursed Cohen, in which case there is no campaign finance law violation, but Trump confirms that he is a lying and adulterous POS who paid hush money to those he sexually exploited; (2) Trump knew of or learned of the payment after the fact, and failed to disclose it in campaign finance reports his campaign committee filed with the FEC, in which case the Trump campaign violated election laws and committed a crime, and Cohen also committed a crime by making an overlimit contribution; or (3) Trump claims he didn’t know about the payment at the time and wasn’t represented by Cohen in connection with his Stormy daliance, but nevertheless refunded Cohen the money he paid out, in which case, Cohen breached any number of ethical rules pertaining to attorneys, and there arguably was no attorney-client privilege.

The option that seems to subject Trump to least immediate peril seems to be number 1. We all already know that Trump is a lying and adulterous POS, and unfortunately, that alone is not a crime. Moreover, most of his base probably thinks it great that he was screwing porn stars.

This is getting good, but don’t think for a minute this was a gaffe.

[Exultant Democracy]

20. Even if Trump reimbursed him it's still a campaign finance violation.

They would have had to file the bribe to Stormy in their campaign disclosures even if it was Trump spending the money he isn’t allowed to do it in secret just in unlimited amounts. I’m also pretty sure there isn’t a vehicle for having private individuals to make a personal loan on behalf of the principal, but that part can be wiggled around without too much trouble if they had the right paper work at the time which I’m sure they didn’t.

[djg21]

22. I'd like to think you're correct.

But it seems grey to me. At what point do legitimate personal expenses become campaign expenditures? Not that hush money is a legitimate personal expense, but I can see the argument being made that the relationship between Stormy and Trump was a personal matter unrelated to Trump’s campaign. As to the loan, if it was paid back immediately so no interest would have accrued if it were legitimately a loan from a commercial lender, what then?

The reality is that the Trump team is throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks, and what will hurt Trump less. It’s all nonsense.

[bluescribbler]

18. Does Rudy actually think he's helping #45?

If so, he's as dumb as a stump.

[DeminPennswoods]

19. Josh Marshall has an interesting take

His blog post: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/an-mo-for-other-more-serious-crimes.

The bagman’s job is to get bribe money to people while insulating and giving deniability to the ultimate payor of the bribe. Having a dirty lawyer as a bagman provides a number of advantages.

First, bribe money can be laundered from the “client” through the lawyer as fictitious legal services.
...
Second, by disguising the bribes as payments for legal fees, businesses can try to write them off as expenses (bribes are not deductible). This is tax evasion, of course, but it is common practice for the corrupt. Third, the lawyer-client relationship can be an impediment to law enforcement.
...

So now we have Giuliani confirming that this is exactly how Trump and Cohen operated. Hush money to Stormy Daniels is one thing and certainly raises potential serious campaign finance violations, but she is not a public official. What I find most significant about Rudy’s admission is what it says about the nature of the relationship between Trump and Cohen and how it suggests an M.O. for other more serious crimes.

[wishstar]

21. I'm wondering how much of the payments Cohen reported as income, and Trump reported as an expense

on their income taxes since Cohen was getting paid for his services and Trump probably wrote what he paid Cohen as expense against his taxes.

[DeminPennswoods]

24. My bet's Mueller et al have copies

of all relevent tax returns.

[briv1016]

23. I think at this point Donald's trying for a mistrial.

Claims his lawyer was incompetent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ineffective_assistance_of_counsel