It looks like we’re all going to learn more about campaign finance law than we want to know. For example, did you know that you can’t lend your friend money for groceries if he’s a candidate for office without that being considered a way of influencing the campaign? Your grocery loan would have to be reported as a campaign contribution, subject to all applicable per-election limits. You could loan your buddy $2,700 to help him keep his fridge stocked, but it would exceed the limits and be a crime to give him $130,000 to spend on stocking his End Days bomb shelter.
Trump’s new attorney, Rudy Giuliani, has now made appearances on both Fox & Friends and Sean Hannity’s television program and made quite clear both that Michael Cohen loaned Donald Trump $130,000 and that the purpose of the loan was to prevent his affair with Stormy Daniels from becoming a topic in the third and final presidential debate.
It’s true that Giuliani has also offered other motives for the pay-off, including saving Trump from embarrassment and preventing possible problems in his marriage to Melania. Legally speaking, though, Trump could have spent the $130,000 filling his extra freezer with Japanese Wagyu Rib Eye steaks and it wouldn’t make any difference. Money is fungible, and a candidate’s time is a limited resource. Time he doesn’t have to spend dialing for dollars is time he can spend on the campaign trail. You can’t give candidates for office giant loans. We have banks for that.
The Federal Election Commission is clear that Cohen’s loan to Trump cannot be considered Trump’s money.
Not considered the candidate’s personal funds
Personal gifts and loans
If any person, including a relative or friend of the candidate, gives or loans the candidate money “for the purpose of influencing any election for federal office,” the funds are not considered personal funds of the candidate even if they are given to the candidate directly. Instead, the gift or loan is considered a contribution from the donor to the campaign, subject to the per-election limit and reportable by the campaign. This is true even if the candidate uses the funds for personal living expenses while campaigning.
This isn’t some sensational crime. It’s a technical campaign finance violation that can be addressed by correcting the record and paying all applicable fines and penalties. It’s pretty much the definition of a low crime or low misdemeanor, as opposed to an impeachable offense. On the other hand, considering the size of the loan and what it was actually for, it isn’t a small violation and would be enough to end most politicians’ political careers. This is especially true when we consider how many lies Trump and his surrogates have told the public about this matter.
Of course, Donald Trump is not your ordinary politician, and not only because he’s the president. That he’s an unfaithful husband and a liar who sleeps with Playboy models and porn stars without using anything to protect his wife from contracting venereal disease or HIV is not shocking to the public or particularly damaging to him.
In this case, his brief tryst with Stormy Daniels may end his presidency for a reason he never anticipated, which is that it gave the Feds a rationale for getting a warrant to seize Michael Cohen’s legal and business records. Trump can sustain the fallout from his lying about extramarital affairs, just as Bill Clinton survived despite lying under oath. But can he survive scrutiny of Michael Cohen’s other activities?
To me, that’s doubtful.
It’s hard to assess how much of Rudy Giuliani’s behavior can be considered legal cluelessness and how much of it can be considered an example of taking a bullet to the leg in order to prevent a bullet to the heart. Presumably, they know that the old lies about the Stormy Daniels payment cannot be sustained now that the Feds have Cohen’s records. They can no longer defend against a campaign finance violation so there’s no point in trying. Their main concern is trying to prevent Cohen from becoming a cooperating witness, so Rudy says, “Cohen made it go away. He did his job.”
It hasn’t gone away though.
Ghouliani also made a point of saying that the president’s son-in-law is “expendable”.
What does that tell a toadying, frequently humiliated lickspittle like Michael Cohen?
Ruh-roh.
Giuliani gave the prosecutors a road map on how they operated.
.
. . . gambit suddenly come to mind?
I can only imagine that the legal bar is very high in a case like this, and that there would need to be significant credible evidence of the likelihood of a crime for this wiretap to be approved. Trump and Giuliani will, no doubt, try to paint this as some wild federal overreach. That’s their only option.
How far along are we in this script:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl4zXroojwM
(From Ted Lieu tweet)
TedLieu
Above in response to this from Boo’s post:
. . . to browse Lieu’s twitter feed for the first time. So thx for that.)
But a clarification, pls: you seemed to imply that Lieu was tweeting “in response to [your quote] from Boo’s post”. Having found no reference to booman or that quote in Lieu’s feed, I now think you must have meant instead, “[I am quoting Lieu’s tweets] in response to this from Boo’s post”. Not that Lieu was tweeting in response to boo. That right?
I posted TedLieu stuff as my response to what Martin had posted.
I can’t even imagine how high a bar it is to get a wiretap approved between the WH and a personal lawyer, by a Federal judge.
Trump’s ability to incriminate himself is epic and I hope the wiretaps are stored in a bank vault.
Let’s hope that the wiretapped conversations revealed what Trump & Cohen have kept secret even from their own lawyers.
“I can’t even imagine how high a bar it is to get a wiretap approved between the WH and a personal lawyer, by a Federal judge.”
Good point, which likely means the Stormy Daniels payout wasn’t what caused a judge to approve the wiretap. They’ve got much more on the moron and his consigliere than the Daniels affair, and probably have the wiretaps and documents from Cohen’s office that justify the wiretap and the raid.
Has Rudy resigned yet or been fired? There may be a panic in Trumpworld. Oh make it so. Cohen looks to be frightened about something. Whatever could it be? Flip man and save your sorry ass.
Why would that happen? This was all Giuliani and Trump’s plan, which WaPo is now reporting.
Ummm bc he screwed up?
But he didn’t screw up! He did what Trump planned:
He’s living his life through television. It’s like the legal ramifications don’t matter to him.
Trump will figure it out or Hannity will or Flood will. Trump changes his mind every 24 hours or so.
Well, does Rudy go back to Fox News tonight before he quits?
Taking bets on when he joins Scaramucci?
Unless Cohen has done some serious state crimes in NY, which may well be the case, Trump will simply pardon Cohen for any federal crimes so he doesn’t really need to flip unless he’s unsure whether Trump would actually save his butt.
I wouldn’t bet against that prospect and if he is pardoned, doesn’t he have to answer the questions then?
He DOES have to answer every single question if he gets a pardon, because he can’t take the 5th.
He can be forced the testify against Trump, and if he lies, he will have committed another crime that he could then be prosecuted for.
And the crimes he is being investigated for are absolutely crimes in New York State.
.
I am curious: what precisely in this comment warranted a troll rating? I wonder if Oui can stop copying and pasting together diaries (with minimal analysis of his own) long enough to enlighten us.
I am also curious. Precisely what in the hundreds of troll ratings on my posts by the nalbar/marduk duo warranted that kind of treatment? I would love to see a post-by-post examination of their “1”s and “zeroes.”
Of course…I will never see that.
Maybe if they fessed up to their own trolldom, then perhaps Oui’s rating above could be questioned.
Until then?
Naaaaahhh…
What is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander as well.
Bet on it.
AG
P.S. I refuse to play their ratings game, myself. I prefer argument to cowardice. Every time.
if Cohen is pardoned
.
Why couldn’t Mr Trump just keep the pardon machine running? Refuse to answer – another crime – conviction – presidential pardon. (Perhaps analogous: the Arpaio pardon, over a contempt of court issue.)
NY is one of those states that does not permit state prosecution for pardoned federal offenses. There was recent discussion of changing this law.
Sounds messy. Maybe a real expert could shed some light.
The only thing I’ve seen written on this topic is that anyone who has been pardoned can no longer plead the 5th to avoid testifying against DT.
I thought the NY law pertained to a second trial for the same offenses.
Well, Shitmidas could. And if he did, that’d be a pretty blatant breach of the rule of law (I know, I know, he breaches it every damn day, it seems like, but still ….) and at that point, when the GrOPer congresscritters refuse to do their jobs, it’d be up to us.
B/c in America, the people are sovereign. A combination of civil disobedience (mass demonstrations) and (if it comes to it) action by state governments. B/c if we’re no longer a nation of laws, then really, why should California (for instance) allow the (lawless) Federal Government to have any power whatsoever on our territory.
I know this sounds like a worst-case scenario, and it is. But you’re right, that -procedurally-, holding all three branches of government, there’s nothing we can do to stop him … if he’s willing to use any and all of his powers.
I wonder if Oui would care to enlighten us as to how this fairly on-topic comment deserved a troll-rating over two weeks after the fact. There seems to be a pattern of these ratings, done in large quantities, targeting specific individuals regardless of content. What’s up with that?
IOKIYAR.
Really, it’s been going on for years. Every once in awhile they, and maybe a sock puppet account or two, love to go through the archives and give me 0’s across the board.
I’m surprised you noticed, you have a good eye.
.
I get that the 1s and 0s are inevitable if someone says something that is really beyond the pale. I use the “don’t be a prick” rule as a rough guide. Those typically get doled out fairly immediately. Absent moderators in a position to enforce whatever level of decorum deemed suitable, there’s not much more that becomes of it.
What’s going on with you and oaguabonita is definitely a bit on the odd side. Oui is actually combing through the archives to troll rate the both of you over on-topic comments (a big no-no here) and doing so weeks after the fact. I do admire the cleverness in that approach. It’s stealthy, and one might not ever notice before posts become archived (and hence no possibility for uprating). As a form of passive aggressiveness there is definitely a deranged genius to that approach. Neither of us can probably do more than accept that it is going to continue to happen and absent blog owner intervention we are relatively powerless to do much. I do see some value in calling out the offender in this case – especially as this was someone I once respected in this blog’s early days.
Sanders had a couple of beautiful meltdowns today at the presser.
Oh …and now there is wire taps!
Looking like Spanky is gonna get some tapes!
Can we say RICO … collusion?
For the wire taps … thanks … Obama?
Oh lawd … this is some funny shit!
Rudy “I got your back” G dug a much bigger hole!
That makes him Spanky’s back HOE!
I can dig it!
Apparently MSNBC ran a story correcting the NBC story. Phones not tapped. They just have some kind of call log. Shoddy work by NBC. Now is not a time to screw up like that.
Pretty big, embarrassing screw-up getting that wrong.
I thought the reason Giuliani is making this case is to counteract Cohen’s story that Trump didn’t know about the payoff.
The reason he needs to counteract that is, if Trump didn’t know about it, Cohen can’t claim attorney/client privilege, because he couldn’t be acting as Trump’s attorney in an action that Trump didn’t know about.
In other words, Giuliani is hoping to to activate attorney/client privilege between Cohen and Trump WRG to the Stormy Daniels payoff.
Oh, I forgot to add: the irony of this is that Cohen disclaimed Trump’s knowledge of the payoff precisely to shield him from the campaign finance law.
Giuliani obviously thinks it’s better for Trump to face that charge then to be without attorney/client privilege.
This is puzzling because if an attorney aids his client in breaking the law, the attorney/client privilege is overridden.