Donald Trump Played Central Role in Hush Payoffs

[K1052]

As a presidential candidate in August 2015, Donald Trump huddled with a longtime friend, media executive David Pecker, in his cluttered 26th floor Trump Tower office and made a request.

What can you do to help my campaign? he asked, according to people familiar with the meeting.

Mr. Pecker, chief executive of American Media Inc., offered to use his National Enquirer tabloid to buy the silence of women if they tried to publicize alleged sexual encounters with Mr. Trump.

Less than a year later, Mr. Trump asked Mr. Pecker to quash the story of a former Playboy model who said they’d had an affair. Mr. Pecker’s company soon paid $150,000 to the model, Karen McDougal, to keep her from speaking publicly about it. Mr. Trump later thanked Mr. Pecker for the assistance.

The Wall Street Journal found that Mr. Trump was involved in or briefed on nearly every step of the agreements. He directed deals in phone calls and meetings with his self-described fixer, Michael Cohen, and others. The U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan has gathered evidence of Mr. Trump’s participation in the transactions.

He told federal prosecutors he conferred with Mr. Trump in the weeks before the 2016 election about paying Stephanie Clifford, the former adult-film star known professionally as Stormy Daniels, to keep quiet about her allegations of a sexual encounter with Mr. Trump. He told them that Mr. Trump urged him to “get it done.”
Mr. Cohen has also described to prosecutors his discussions with Mr. Trump and a Trump Organization executive about how to pay Ms. Clifford without leaving the candidate’s fingerprints on the deal.

Mr. Trump’s involvement in the payments, by itself, wouldn’t mean he is guilty of federal crimes, according to Richard Hasen, a law professor at University of California, Irvine, who specializes in election law. A criminal conviction would require proof Mr. Trump willfully skirted legal prohibitions on contributions
companies or from individuals in excess of $2,700, he said.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald...-stormy-daniels-and-karen-mcdougal-1541786601

Hard to escape the reality that we've got a flat out criminal as President. Some of Trump's kids were also involved in these schemes and they aren't protected from indictment like he (allegedly) is.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald...-stormy-daniels-and-karen-mcdougal-1541786601

Hard to escape the reality that we've got a flat out criminal as President. Some of Trump's kids were also involved in these schemes and they aren't protected from indictment like he (allegedly) is.

His name is Mr. Pecker? And he works(ed?) for National Enquirer? What a pick.

 

[interchange]

Mr. Trump’s involvement in the payments, by itself, wouldn’t mean he is guilty of federal crimes, according to Richard Hasen, a law professor at University of California, Irvine, who specializes in election law. A criminal conviction would require proof Mr. Trump willfully skirted legal prohibitions on contributions
companies or from individuals in excess of $2,700, he said.

Mr. Cohen has also described to prosecutors his discussions with Mr. Trump and a Trump Organization executive about how to pay Ms. Clifford without leaving the candidate’s fingerprints on the deal.

Hmmm.... Doesn't sound too hard to show that...

 

[fskimospy]

This is kind of all that needs to be said. We now know the president is literally a felon.

 

[UNCjigga]

You liberals need to lighten up. This is all a big nothingburger. Why would anything Trump did with his pecker/Pecker--before or after the election--have any bearing on his ability to run the country??? Why would it matter if he even lied about his involvement?

Y'all act like it's an impeachable offense or something!!

 

[fskimospy]

And remember, the incidents being described here have already been adjudicated as felonies by a federal court. During his plea, one of the principals involved in these felonies stated under oath that Trump was involved with them for the primary purpose of influencing the election.

We now have pretty ironclad proof that the current sitting president committed a number of felonies in order to win the office he currently has. Felonies. People have gone to prison for this sort of thing many times.

 

[mect]

You liberals need to lighten up. This is all a big nothingburger. Why would anything Trump did with his pecker/Pecker--before or after the election--have any bearing on his ability to run the country??? Why would it matter if he even lied about his involvement?

Y'all act like it's an impeachable offense or something!!

testing my sarcasm meter now.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

And remember, the incidents being described here have already been adjudicated as felonies by a federal court. During his plea, one of the principals involved in these felonies stated under oath that Trump was involved with them for the primary purpose of influencing the election.

We now have pretty ironclad proof that the current sitting president committed a number of felonies in order to win the office he currently has. Felonies. People have gone to prison for this sort of thing many times.

And this is where things really get nasty. The Republicans have no reason to not support Trump and they fear him while possibly adoring at the same time, but the House is where their lifeblood comes from in the form of money and Maxine Waters is going to be the Senate's banker.

If the Republicans want anything, guess who they have to make happy? What has she repeatedly called for which starts with "I"? No, not Indian take-out.

And this is where the new Great Game of American politics really begins.

 

[Fenixgoon]

testing my sarcasm meter now.

best to do an hourly calibration. some people have really been messing with mine!

 

[ecogen]

The WSJ is a far-left fake news peddling rag. This is obviously bullshit meant to smear the President.

 

[Jhhnn]

The WSJ is a far-left fake news peddling rag. This is obviously bullshit meant to smear the President.

Enemy of the People!

 

[alien42]

His name is Mr. Pecker? And he works(ed?) for National Enquirer? What a pick.

none of this should be news to anyone, however, he is the Chairman, CEO and President, not just some employee.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I doubt anyone is surprised by this. I think most on both sides already suspected it. So I can’t see it changing anything.

From a legal standpoint it reminds me of Edwards and the dual purpose defence. One side will say to protect his campaign. The other will say the payments were to protect his reputation, business and marriage.

Pecker did apparent testify that Trump phrases it as “what can you do to help my campaign” but I don’t think that in itself will be enough. Certainly not to impeach.

 

[ImpulsE69]

None of this matters because he'll just deny it and point fingers somewhere else. Same as he's done with everything else he gets caught doing. It hasn't done any good yet, and will continue to just go nowhere. It is beyond proof that our politicians are useless and only worried about their own welfare.

 

[interchange]

I doubt anyone is surprised by this. I think most on both sides already suspected it. So I can’t see it changing anything.

From a legal standpoint it reminds me of Edwards and the dual purpose defence. One side will say to protect his campaign. The other will say the payments were to protect his reputation, business and marriage.

Pecker did apparent testify that Trump phrases it as “what can you do to help my campaign” but I don’t think that in itself will be enough. Certainly not to impeach.

There seems to be clear evidence that Trump knew about and directed the payments, and there is a co-worker conspirator who plead guilty and stated that the purpose was to influence an election. The timing of the payments is also directly antecedent to the election, and we have another party in David Pecker here who can provide some context. The stories were already owned by AMI, and intentionally buried in order to get some leverage from Trump for just such a time. Clearly the reason for the payments at the time they were made was specifically for his Presidential bid. I think the level of evidence against him appears much greater than that against Edwards.

 

[soulcougher73]

I'd love it if his side (GOP) would all band together and man up and take him down themselves. Would be awesome to witness as he finally learns he has no friends in Washington anymore.

 

[Thebobo]

testing my sarcasm meter now.

Yea I had to tap it to see if the needle got stuck

 

[UNCjigga]

Yea I had to tap it to see if the needle got stuck

It only works if your meter was made before 1998.

 

[zinfamous]

Thoughts and prayers, America

 

[skooma]

I thought the cohen deal cited an "unindcted co-conspirator runnig for Executive Office" or something such.

 

[sportage]

Same story over at CNN

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/09/politics/trump-cohen-payments-women/index.html

WSJ: Draft indictment detailed Trump's role in hush money scheme

The transactions may have violated campaign finance laws.

Here is the problem.....
For all of these allegations and accusations, the words always appear in the article MAY HAVE, MIGHT HAVE, COULD HAVE, POSSIBLY.
Every article points the weapon but never is there that unquestionable undoubtable smoking gun.

And as always, the headlines appear outstanding and criminal in nature, but then again we see those same words over and over MAY HAVE, MIGHT HAVE, COULD HAVE, POSSIBLY.
And it goes nowhere.....

Does nothing that Donald Trump does or has done ever contain definite proof of corruption or law breaking or criminal activity?
If all we see are the words MAY HAVE, MIGHT HAVE, COULD HAVE, POSSIBLY, and nothing ever comes of it then I say just let it go.
Just forget about it because either NO ONE cares to actually investigate, or there is no smoking gun.
Only the MAY HAVE, MIGHT HAVE, COULD HAVE, POSSIBLY.

 

[nakedfrog]

Same story over at CNN

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/09/politics/trump-cohen-payments-women/index.html



Here is the problem.....
For all of these allegations and accusations, the words always appear in the article MAY HAVE, MIGHT HAVE, COULD HAVE, POSSIBLY.
Every article points the weapon but never is there that unquestionable undoubtable smoking gun.

And as always, the headlines appear outstanding and criminal in nature, but then again we see those same words over and over MAY HAVE, MIGHT HAVE, COULD HAVE, POSSIBLY.
And it goes nowhere.....

Does nothing that Donald Trump does or has done ever contain definite proof of corruption or law breaking or criminal activity?
If all we see are the words MAY HAVE, MIGHT HAVE, COULD HAVE, POSSIBLY, and nothing ever comes of it then I say just let it go.
Just forget about it because either NO ONE cares to actually investigate, or there is no smoking gun.
Only the MAY HAVE, MIGHT HAVE, COULD HAVE, POSSIBLY.

It's pretty standard for articles about criminals, even when there's a video of the perpetrator performing the act embedded in the article, to say "alleged" and so forth.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

.....................aaaannnndddd............................................nobody will care.

 

[sportage]

True! No one cares.

Just eye candy headlines, same old subjects - just another day.
And Trump has been in for what? Two years now?
And not one "alleged to have" has survived one 24 hour news cycle?
Considering all of those Trump associates that have already been found guilty and went to jail?
Yet, Donald Trump goes untouched?

The only common dominator seems to be TAX EVASION when it come to Trump and his associates and their criminal activities.
So... if there is a smoking gun to be found, and look at me I use the word IF, then that smoking gun will be Donald Trump and his taxes.
Because despite it all, the money seems to be one major motivating factor with all of these people.
Not so much the Russian collusion or election hacking or the Hillary emails, but.... THE MONEY.
And I assume the same criminal activity will be found for Donald Trump. Tax evasion.
Now, if only democrats in the house can subpoena those Donald Trump's tax returns.
Those same tax returns Donald Trump continually claims are under IRS audit.
Trump said it again just yesterday, "My taxes are under IRS audit".
Really?
A two year+ IRS tax audit?
Either Donald did something really really bad, or there is no IRS tax audit at all.
Still, Nancy Pelosi will find out the truth. Give em hell Nancy!