Posted on 12/08/2018 10:25:47 PM PST by Para-Ord.45
Not sure what you are asking... To whom the payments were made? Via what shell corporations? With whose money? We now know all those details.
OK I follow all that logic, not disputing or necessarily agreeing. The Framers were pretty wise, they put the EC in place but they all pretty much believed that the House would select the POTUS, never really thinking that enough of the very diverse (at that time what was considered ethnically, culturally and economically diverse) states would ever rally behind one candidate for the EC to choose the winner.
But what does this have to do with the Manhattan DA filing charges? I presume that the Manhattan DA would file state charges, not federal charges. Is your argument that Trump ran afoul of NY State law and nothing FedGov can do about it? If so you might be right on principle but we are no longer that Republic as described.
So here’s the counter argument. Cohen bills Trump campaign, Trump reimburses Trump campaign. He financed his own election. They can (and would I imagine) argue it is merely a series of loans, Cohen loans the campaign and Trump reimburses the campaign.
That was the just if my multi-point post. A candidate can put as much money as he wants into his own campaign. Trump put tons of money into his own campaign. Maybe there is a paperwork trail mistake, I don’t know. But that would I imagine be one of his many defenses. I think all major enterprises adjust their books after the fact eg they may enter an expense as one thing, but then make an adjustment entry later on. I know corporations do this all the time, and I imagine campaigns do this just the same way.
Do you happen to know about the paperwork? Cohen may have invoiced the campaign... did the campaign write the check? I distinctly recall Guiliani saying on TV that Trump paid her with personal money. I would add, that as I understand it, he did not pay her hush money he paid her for the “rights to the story”. That means she could not speak of the story since she sold the rights to Trump. It’s not quite the same as hush money or a settlement for any kind of action. On the surface it is no different than Hollywood producers buying the story rights of some affair.
The issue of the tabloid is another question. So I’ll throw some food for thought. The LA Times purchased (I think) and then buried a speech by Obama, refusing to publish or release the tapes. A photographer cropped a photo of Obama with Farrakhan so as to make it seem they didn’t meet. Both of those were acts intended to hide a story. I don’t know if NY State has jurisdiction over those issues but how far off are they in terms of intent?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.