First Charges Filed in Mueller Investigation
- Thread starter WakeForestRanger
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
dartsndeacs
THE quintessential dwarf
What else would you lead with? The breaking news that rich people cheat on their taxes?
dartsndeacs
THE quintessential dwarf
My question on the campaign finance issue is did they get caught using funds they weren't allowed to in order to pay off the pornstar, presumably because Trump is a cheap bastard?
Or are they arguing that the act of Trump himself paying off a pornstar constitutes a violation as it helped his campaign? (A stupider charge)
Or are they arguing that the act of Trump himself paying off a pornstar constitutes a violation as it helped his campaign? (A stupider charge)
WFcatamount22
Well-known member
Does any of the Manafort convictions have Russian collusion implications, or are they saving that for the next trial?
WFcatamount22
Well-known member
I think it was Trump's personal cash, but since it was in the lead up to the election it impacted the campaign which cause the violation, but who knows?
MichDeac25
Well-known member
It's both. And not sure why they are "stupid charges". Recall that at least as to Stormy, Cohen paid her through Essential Consultants LLC, and was then repaid by Trump. It was all a means to obscure what was really going on.
Newenglanddeac
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 1, 2011
- Messages
- 13,135
- Reaction score
- 390
BirdinBama
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2015
- Messages
- 1,105
- Reaction score
- 163
RJ, each federal district has its unique policies and procedures, but my educated guess is that Ellis would still be the trial judge.
BirdinBama
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2015
- Messages
- 1,105
- Reaction score
- 163
warak, the answer to your question is yes. I think the pardon power is unlimited.
Newenglanddeac
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 1, 2011
- Messages
- 13,135
- Reaction score
- 390
Tangentially.
Long story/short - all of the income Manafort has been hiding came from his Ukrainian political consulting work. Who supported the Ukrainian party he was paid by? Putin and Russia. Who did Manafort work closely with while in Ukraine? Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian intelligence officer.
Then this trial showed how Manafort was broke in 2016 (owed millions of dollars to Russian oligarchs) yet he was willing to work for Trump’s campaign for free?
This was all about setting up the story for chapter 2 and beyond.
WakeForestRanger
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2011
- Messages
- 22,959
- Reaction score
- 1,169
Newenglanddeac
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 1, 2011
- Messages
- 13,135
- Reaction score
- 390
This dude who’s been trolling Paul Manafort for months deserves a medal.
WakeandBake
Well-known member
He wins it with the rubes, for sure. But he always wins it with the rubes. He will prattle on and on tonight in WV about Tibbets and incite violence against all immigrants. wash, rinse, repeat. But you are right, even if it isn't really a win, he plucks a small victory out with the Tibbets confession. And its not that he is a slick criminal, he's awful at crime, he just gets breaks like these because he has catered to the lowest scum in America and an immigrant murdering a white girl is their jet fuel
JuiceCrewAllStar
Whole Milk Drinker
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2014
- Messages
- 37,746
- Reaction score
- 10,560
From the Guardian:
Cohen entered the courtroom on the 20th floor of the federal courthouse in lower Manhattan at 4:03pm and sat at a table with his attorneys. He turned and winked at someone in the crowd. He reviewed a series of documents and shook his head repeatedly as he looked them over.
The judge, William Pawley, asked a series of questions to establish his competence. Asked his age, Cohen said: “in four days I’ll be 52.” Asked if he had any drugs or alcohol in the last 24 hours, said yes: “last night at dinner I had a glass of glenlivit 12 on the rocks.”
Asked if he wanted to enter a plea of guilty, Cohen said: “yes sir.”
It was explained to Cohen that, if sentenced concurrently, he faced a total of up to 65 years and that any estimate of how much time he would get from his attorney might be inaccurate. Cohen said: “No estimate was given to me your Honor.”
Cohen was asked to describe what he did with regard to each crime. On the first five counts, he said: “I evaded paying substantial taxes” on income he knew was omitted from his tax returns.
On count six, he said that, in order to get approved for a home equity line of credit, he signed an application that omitted some of his liabilities.
On count seven, the illegal corporate contribution, he said that, in the summer of 2016 – in coordination with and “at the request of” a candidate for federal office, in order “to keep an individual with information that would be harmful to the candidate and the campaign from publicly disclosing this information,” he arranged a payment through a media company of which he was the chief executive.
“She received compensation of $150,000.” This was done “for the principle purpose of influencing the election”.
On count eight – the illegal excessive campaign contribution – he said that, in coordination with the candidate, he “arranged to make a payment to a second individual with information that would be harmful to the candidate and the campaign”. He said he used a company under his control and paid $130,000. These funds “were later repaid to me by the candidate”.
This was done “for the principle purpose of influencing the election”.
Asked if he knew these actions were illegal and wrong when he took them, Cohen said: “Yes your Honor.”
The assistant US attorney, Andrea Griswold, reviewed what would have been the government’s case.
On tax evasion, she said Cohen failed to report more than $4m (£3.1m) in income.
On illegal contributions: “These payments were made in order to ensure that each recipient did not publicise their stories” about “alleged affairs with the candidate”.
She said the government had texts, phone and email records, and statements from the individuals involved as evidence.
Asked how he now pleaded, Cohen said: “Guilty, your Honor.”
He was released on a $500,000 personal recognisance bond to be signed by his wife and one other person. His travel was restricted to parts of the states of New York, New Jersey and Illinois, as well as the city of Washington DC. He agreed to surrender his password. Sentencing was set for 12 December this year.
After the hearing, Cohen left in a car with his attorneys as some bystanders shouted, “lock him up!”
Cohen entered the courtroom on the 20th floor of the federal courthouse in lower Manhattan at 4:03pm and sat at a table with his attorneys. He turned and winked at someone in the crowd. He reviewed a series of documents and shook his head repeatedly as he looked them over.
The judge, William Pawley, asked a series of questions to establish his competence. Asked his age, Cohen said: “in four days I’ll be 52.” Asked if he had any drugs or alcohol in the last 24 hours, said yes: “last night at dinner I had a glass of glenlivit 12 on the rocks.”
Asked if he wanted to enter a plea of guilty, Cohen said: “yes sir.”
It was explained to Cohen that, if sentenced concurrently, he faced a total of up to 65 years and that any estimate of how much time he would get from his attorney might be inaccurate. Cohen said: “No estimate was given to me your Honor.”
Cohen was asked to describe what he did with regard to each crime. On the first five counts, he said: “I evaded paying substantial taxes” on income he knew was omitted from his tax returns.
On count six, he said that, in order to get approved for a home equity line of credit, he signed an application that omitted some of his liabilities.
On count seven, the illegal corporate contribution, he said that, in the summer of 2016 – in coordination with and “at the request of” a candidate for federal office, in order “to keep an individual with information that would be harmful to the candidate and the campaign from publicly disclosing this information,” he arranged a payment through a media company of which he was the chief executive.
“She received compensation of $150,000.” This was done “for the principle purpose of influencing the election”.
On count eight – the illegal excessive campaign contribution – he said that, in coordination with the candidate, he “arranged to make a payment to a second individual with information that would be harmful to the candidate and the campaign”. He said he used a company under his control and paid $130,000. These funds “were later repaid to me by the candidate”.
This was done “for the principle purpose of influencing the election”.
Asked if he knew these actions were illegal and wrong when he took them, Cohen said: “Yes your Honor.”
The assistant US attorney, Andrea Griswold, reviewed what would have been the government’s case.
On tax evasion, she said Cohen failed to report more than $4m (£3.1m) in income.
On illegal contributions: “These payments were made in order to ensure that each recipient did not publicise their stories” about “alleged affairs with the candidate”.
She said the government had texts, phone and email records, and statements from the individuals involved as evidence.
Asked how he now pleaded, Cohen said: “Guilty, your Honor.”
He was released on a $500,000 personal recognisance bond to be signed by his wife and one other person. His travel was restricted to parts of the states of New York, New Jersey and Illinois, as well as the city of Washington DC. He agreed to surrender his password. Sentencing was set for 12 December this year.
After the hearing, Cohen left in a car with his attorneys as some bystanders shouted, “lock him up!”
thanks..
dartsndeacs
THE quintessential dwarf
What are the penalties for an "illegal contribution"?