Dershowitz says paying off women not a criminal offense
Written in August, but the same facts are in play.
I realize attorneys disagree with each other all the time, so we'll see who's right.
Link: Dershowitz: Trump committed no crime
Replies to: Dershowitz says paying off women not a criminal offense
He would likely have experience in the area.
(no message)
Cohen copped to a crime that does not exist to obtain a lower sentence for his own real crimes
Congress paid off women for actually harassment for years. Trump only paid off women with whom he had consensual relationships.
Link: https://newrepublic.com/minutes/145538/course-congress-huge-sexual-harassment-problem-too
Well, you and your far Rightwing rag have it all figured out.
Problem is, that's not what this is all about, consensual relationships. It's about using campaign moneys to silence two women and influence the election.
When Edwards was found to have used campaign finances to conceal his private affairs, that was wrong and he was indicted on felony charges.
Now Mueller either has the goods on Trump or he doesn't. Trump is obviously nervous about this as his tweets suggest.
If in fact Trump/Cohen used campaign moneys to hush these women to influence the outcome of the elections, then he should be charged. This would only follow what R's had pushed for with Edwards. Though not the same on influence, Trump is in deep doo-doo if Mueller can prove this happened.
Uh, regarding Edwards...
He was never convicted.
He wasn’t acquitted either and timing wise had a much better defense than Orange has.
(no message)
He was charged with the crime and brought to court where one count was dismissed
The others were deadlocked.
You know, being a guy is tough. You spend all kinds of money to get in her pants and then you have
to spend all kinds of money to get out of them.
It is interesting how the Dems like to criminalize being a victim of blackmail.
(no message)
You want to run that by us all again? See if we can all make sense out of that.
(no message)
Blackmail is threatening to tell the truth about someone unless they pay you.
It is illegal in most states.
But, you guys like to act like making the payment to the blackmailer is a crime. Not just with trump. Happened with Hastert, who was never charged with what he was blackmailed about, only for making the blackmail payments (actually, for "structuring" the blackmail payments so that they were just under the required bank reporting rules, which is illegal).
Blackmail? Stormy D and the other woman blackmailed Trump? Is that what you're saying?
Being paid not to tell your story isn't the same as being blackmailed. There has been no attempt to show by Trump that he was being blackmailed.
As for Hastert = That's not exactly how it went down.
NYTimes
By Monica Davey, Julie Bosman and Mitch Smith
April 27, 2016
CHICAGO — J. Dennis Hastert, once among the nation’s most powerful politicians, was sentenced on Wednesday to 15 months in prison for illegally structuring bank transactions in an effort to cover up his sexual abuse of young members of a wrestling team he coached decades ago.
In a hearing that was by turns harrowing and revelatory, Mr. Hastert publicly admitted for the first time to abusing his athletes, was confronted in emotional addresses by one of the former wrestlers and the sister of another, and faced a long, scathing rebuke from the judge.
Mr. Hastert, 74, who made an unlikely rise from beloved small-town wrestling coach in Illinois to speaker of the House in Washington, sat slouched in a wheelchair in a federal courtroom here as a judge announced that he was rejecting pleas for probation from Mr. Hastert’s lawyers, as well as prosecutors’ endorsement of a shorter prison stay.
While the sentencing hearing was, technically, about a violation of banking rules and regulations, the proceedings focused squarely on the underlying reason for Mr. Hastert’s puzzling bank withdrawals — his abuse of young wrestlers who had viewed him as a role model.
“The defendant is a serial child molester,” said Judge Thomas M. Durkin of Federal District Court, as Mr. Hastert sat impassively, often staring downward, hands crossed on his lap. He added, “Some actions can obliterate a lifetime of good works. Nothing is more stunning than having ‘serial child molester’ and ‘speaker of the House’ in the same sentence.”
Mr. Hastert was not charged with sexual abuse because statutes of limitation for acts in the 1960s and ’70s have run out; the judge noted pointedly that punishment for such a conviction would have been far worse.
Illegally structuring bank transactions to keep such abuse secret — the felony count to which Mr. Hastert pleaded guilty — carried a maximum sentence of five years in prison.
Mr. Hastert, whose date to report to prison has yet to be set, was ordered to pay $250,000 in fines, never to contact his victims and to receive sex-offender treatment.
“If there’s a public shaming of the defendant because of the conduct he’s engaged in, so be it,” Judge Durkin said.
Mr. Hastert has had a series of illnesses since last year, including a stroke, a blood stream infection and a spinal infection — factors his lawyers and family members argued should be taken into account in the sentencing. They urged the judge to consider the entire arc of his life and career, including his years of public service.
As Mr. Hastert prepared to address the judge, he used a walker to rise to his feet, but his voice was firm and clear.
“The thing I want to do today is say I’m sorry to those I hurt and misled,” said Mr. Hastert, whose grown sons were in the courtroom. “I want to apologize to the boys I mistreated when I was their coach. What I did was wrong and I regret it.”
Mr. Hastert’s remarks followed a tearful, halting statement from one of his victims, Scott Cross, a former wrestler, who had never before spoken publicly about his abuse and who said that he had not even been sure whether he could bring himself to make his statement now.
“As a high school wrestler I looked up to Coach Hastert — he was a key figure in my life,” said Mr. Cross, now 53 and a businessman who works in financial services in the Chicago area.
From a podium just feet from Mr. Hastert’s wheelchair, Mr. Cross recalled abuse that occurred on a locker room training table when he was 17. “I felt intense pain, shame and guilt,” he said.
He said that he had gone years without speaking of what had happened, even to his parents and closest friends.
I’ve always felt that what Coach Hastert had done to me was my darkest secret,” Mr. Cross said.
The revelation that Mr. Cross was among Mr. Hastert’s victims caused a ripple through Illinois’s Republican Party, where Mr. Hastert had gotten his political start and had been a political mentor to Mr. Cross’s brother, Tom Cross, a former state House Republican leader. Judge Durkin noted that Mr. Hastert had recently unsuccessfully sought a letter of support from Tom Cross.
Judge Durkin is the brother of another prominent lawmaker here, Jim Durkin, the Republican leader in the state House, and the judge had offered last year to recuse himself in the case.
The sister of another victim, Stephen Reinboldt, spoke directly to Mr. Hastert, describing lonely, isolated years Mr. Reinboldt spent after repeated abuse by Mr. Hastert in high school until his death of AIDS in 1995.
“You took his life, Mr. Hastert,” Jolene Burdge, the sister, said. “Not because he died of AIDS, but because you took his innocence and turned it against him.”
At one point, the judge stared down at Mr. Hastert from the bench, and questioned him about the victims, one by one.
“You said you mistreated athletes. Did you sexually abuse Mr. Cross?” he asked.
“I don’t remember doing that, but I accept his statement,” Mr. Hastert replied.
Did you sexually abuse Victim B?” Judge Durkin asked, referring to one of at least two other former wrestlers whose names have not been made public.
Mr. Hastert paused. “Yes,” he said.
“How about Mr. Reinboldt – did you sexually abuse him?” Judge Durkin asked.
Mr. Hastert said that was “a different situation,” but eventually acknowledged the abuse.
Patrick Collins, a former federal prosecutor in Chicago who has handled corruption cases including that of former Gov. George Ryan, a Republican, said that it was unusual for a judge to veer so far from the sentencing guidelines, which recommended no prison time or up to six months.
“It’s extraordinary that the case was on its face a cut-and-dry financial structuring case with the conduct acknowledged, but the sentencing was about everything, essentially, but the structuring,” Mr. Collins said.
Mr. Hastert’s fall from genial retired House speaker and hometown celebrity was sudden and steep. For decades, both in Washington and in Yorkville, on the edge of Chicago’s western suburbs, where Mr. Hastert had coached the local high school wrestling team to state championship, he had a reputation for appearing down-to-earth and steady.
Mr. Hastert, who had served in the Illinois legislature and was then elected to Congress, found himself catapulted to speaker in 1999, in part because he seemed to be a safe, agreeable option. After leaving Congress, he went on to become a lobbyist.
He was charged last May with lying to the F.B.I. and making cash withdrawals in a way devised to hide the fact that he was paying $3.5 million to a former wrestler for misconduct.
The wrestler, whose name has not been revealed and who is identified in documents only as Individual A, told of abuse in a motel room during a wrestling camp trip when he was 14.
After the payments began, around 2010, the federal authorities took notice of large, unexplained withdrawals Mr. Hastert was making from his bank. When told that large withdrawals had to be reported, Mr. Hastert began drawing smaller sums, prosecutors say, to avoid notice.
The wrestler sued Mr. Hastert this week, saying he still owed him $1.8 million of their agreed-to settlement.
Before the hearing, a long list of supporters — from Mr. Hastert’s wife, Jean, to Tom DeLay, the former House majority leader — had sent letters to Judge Durkin. “He doesn’t deserve what he is going through,” Mr. DeLay wrote.
But for nearly 45 minutes on Wednesday, Judge Durkin held forth in a passionate, often contemptuous tone, with little interruption.
He said that Mr. Hastert had “manipulated” the F.B.I. and the United States attorney’s office, diverted their investigation and knowingly tried to “set up” Individual A, actions that were “intentional, thought out and desperate.”
The judge spoke broadly about child sexual abuse and the lifelong damage it inflicts. “Can you imagine the whispers, the finger-pointing, the sideways glances if you’re a 14-year-old boy and you accuse the town hero of molesting you?” he said.
He dismissed the defense’s arguments that Mr. Hastert was too old, frail or ill to be properly taken care of in a federal prison.
And he ended with a blunt synopsis. “This is a horrible case — a horrible set of circumstances, horrible for the defendant, horrible for the victims, horrible for our country,” he said. “I hope I never have to see a case like this again. Court adjourned.”
Remember when Congress used taxpayer money to quiet harrassment/discrimination claims? 2017 news.
I'm curious if you think we should impeach the Congressmen who were the cause of those 268 claims which totaled $17 million paid out by the Congressional Office of Compliance, at the direction of party leaders, to keep the victims from harming the election chances of the accused Congressmen. One wonders why that couldn't be considered using taxpayer money as "campaign contributions" to those Congressmen?
We are going down an interesting road here. I look forward to seeing where you guys stop the car. To change metaphors...this sword has two edges. It will be interesting if the edge which only cuts non-Dems will be used, or if both edges will be used in the future.
Personally? I could be convinced to come over to your side, and impeach them all...every...last...one of them...without even knowing who they are. And, the leadership of both parties who approved the hush money payments (campaign contributions)...I would support impeaching them, as well. Both sides. Both parties. Are we in agreement? Or, do you only want to use this impeachment theory on Trump?
Side note: I'm setting aside the blackmail discussion, because I think it is self evident that Trump would not pay anyone hush money unless he was being threatened with a disclosure. You can argue the opposite, and I'm letting you have the last word on that subject. I just think this is an interesting strategy you are adopting to get Trump, and I think we could improve our government by applying it to everyone fairly. What do you think?
I'm missing the correlation.
Your "whataboutisms" are just too bizarre.
"Whataboutism"...a term you use when you argue for an unfair application of the law.
(no message)
No, it's you and your kin on here who can't stick to one story. You red herring your very own
questions so much so, one can not keep up, follow or make sense of.
You claim blackmail of Trump by two women then you ask about Congress and on and on.
The issue isn't that he had an affair, it's 1. he lied about them (sort of Clintonesque if I read your posts correctly) which is a "who the fuck cares". 2. and more important, he appears to have used campaign money to buy their silence (ala Edwards)
So. "lay on, McDuff" - but you're just spinning wheels with your whataboutisms.
Do you think paying hush money is a campaign contribution?
You have only a few options:
1) No it isn't. That let's Trump off the hook, so you can't use that answer.
2) Yes, it is. That puts up to 270 Congressman in jeopardy due to the OOC payments that went public in 2017. So, I'm just waiting to see if you are willing to go there. But, it probably doesn't matter. Congress won't give that answer, because it puts too many of them at risk. So, it can't actually be a campaign contribution to pay hush money.
3) It is now (while Trump is in office), but it won't be later (when Democrats are in charge).
4) Slink away and forget all about the crazy posts by Frankbasil Chris521 after the news cycle moves on.
I'm betting on 3 or 4, but 2 is an interesting option, if only you guys would apply the law fairly, without regard to the politics of the defendant.
Is campaign or candidate money used for the OOC payments?
If not, you are talking apples and oranges as usual.
You seem confident that Trump campaign money was used to make the payment.
Can you support that statement? I don't think that has been established as a fact at all.
In fact, I think the anti-Trump argument is this: It would be illegal to use campaign funds to pay Stormy Daniels. Granted, the money did not come from campaign coffers, so the payment was not illegal in the normal use of the law. However, it is argued that the payment was on behalf of the campaign, so it was (1) essentially the same as an unreported campaign contribution, and (2) if it was a campaign contribution, then it was an illegal use of campaign funds for personal purposes. Which is kind of funny, if you think about it. If the payment was for personal purposes, how could it be a campaign contribution? If his campaign benefitted from the payment, how could it be for personal purposes? But, I think the anti-trumpers will just grab the half of that theory that seems to stick best.
All of this is very interesting, because now private (non-campaign) spending becomes campaign spending under this theory. Every expenditure by a candidate which benefits the candidate in any way becomes both a reportable campaign contribution and a potentially illegal campaign expenditure for non-campaign purposes. Basically, all of their income is automatically campaign money when it suits the prosecutor, and a fair amount of campaign money can become personal when it suits the prosecutor. Nothing like increasing the power of the state over political candidates. I don't see how that can end badly, do you?
I love how you do these set ups of what I’m confident of and what the anti Trump argument would be.
It’s not a hard argument to make, especially given the timing after the Access Hollywood tape.
Orange directed Cohen to make the payment to shut her up to help the campaign after the pussy grabbing tape. He later reimbursed the money which would qualify as a contribution as would the original directed payment by Cohen.
Orange’s counter is that it was all for personal reasons unrelated to the campaign.
A simple factual, motive issue for a jury.
Clear PC to file charges.
Now what did Barry personally do, or had knowledge of that is remotely similar?
And how are OOC payments even marginally relevant unless they came from private sources?
Why can't you stay on point? :-) RE: the Cohen payment...
You said: "Orange directed Cohen to make the payment to shut her up [and Trump] later reimbursed the money which would qualify as a contribution as would the original directed payment by Cohen."
So, the campaign received two contributions:
(1) Cohen paid Stormy Daniels, and
(2) Trump paid his attorney back.
Obviously, neither of those is literally a campaign contribution. We have to treat what is normally a non-contribution as if it were a contribution under some legal theory, such as: "Because the campaign benefited, what would normally be a private transaction became a campaign contribution in the eyes of the law. OK. That's fair. But, the logic has to work.
Let's look at the first payment: A payment that helps him get elected (by keeping her quiet) on his behalf is actually a donation. I get it. That might be true.
But, when Trump reimbursed Cohen?...how can that be a campaign donation? He was just paying his lawyer. And, of course, Trump is allowed to contribute to his own campaign. Perhaps there is a reporting issue, like Obama had.
Now, I don't know what Trump's and Cohen's relationship was structured, but let me ask you some questions:
If Cohen had a client trust account, full of a retainer Trump had provided, and Cohen paid SD from that, and Trump replenished the account, would that be a campaign contribution from Cohen?...from Trump? Maybe you could argue that it was a contribution because the campaign benefited, but it is not illegal to donate to your own campaign. And, you don't have to report until after the campaign is over. So, we can fine him just like Obama was fined.
Now (and I think this is more likely, because they likely wanted to hide the payment trail), if Cohen wrote a personal check, or otherwise drew on his own company's funds and not funds allocated to Trump, then that could be a contribution by Cohen to the Trump Campaign. But, if Trump contemporaneously reimbursed him it would not be. Or, if Trump and Cohen had a history of doing business like this (advance and replenish), then I think the argument against it being a campaign contribution gets very weak, don't you agree?...because Trump can legally contribute to his own campaign?
While we are turning private acts into campaign contributions, couldn't SD's attempt to blackmail Trump be considered a campaign contribution in kind to HRC? I mean, it was a private transaction which benefited the HRC campaign.
What if I spend $500 on gas and hotel to go to a Trump Campaign rally. Have I donated to the Trump campaign? The campaign did receive the benefit of my otherwise private transaction. What if I told the campaign about my expenses. What if I was a celebrity, and Trump said, "Hey, want to come to my rally?" and I came, and paid that money for expenses on my trip, and my trip therefore benefited Trump? Are my expenses campaign contributions because they benefited the campaign?
Anyway, fun to think about. The issue is how far away from normal are we willing to go...and will it be precedent for future candidates. My guess is that the Dems think they can control the future, and they are willing to very far away from normal right now.
Bottom line: If this convoluted campaign finance issue is the worst to come out of the Mueller investigation, Trump has to be feeling pretty good. You guys need a blue dress, and you don't have it yet. I'm not saying you won't find it. Trump is a shady character, and he hangs out with shady characters.
They both clearly qualify as violations under the law.
Enough to impeach? I wouldn’t support it.
What I want to happen is that your boy loses in 20 and then gets indicted. There is clearly PC for it.
You do recall this is the reason Clinton admitted wrongdoing and gave up his law ticket as he was leaving office. Otherwise they were gonna prosecute him. I would love for that asshole to be put in braclets and be “locked up”.
Your constant whine about apply the law to both sides makes you sound like a little female dog.
Somehow, in all this unfairness you cry about, the only President to be impeached in our lifetimes was a Democrat.
Give it a rest. You can be better than this.
Wait, did you just whine, "What about Clinton?"
Look, I agree that the impeachment of Clinton was wrong. So, if you want to use whataboutism to even the score, go ahead. It will make for good theatre...among other things.
You do now. You didn't then. Easy to say it now.
If we play by the impeachment rules of the Right and the GOP, there will be more than enough to impeach Orange.
You have to say the impeachment of Slick was wrong to maintain yer current position.
Of course, but I am also saying they should feel free to use whataboutism to support impeachment.
Although, I do think they should find something that Obama did not do first. If Obama was given a pass on campaign finance violations, and Trump is not, whataboutism would be a legitimate defense, so I think that would be a tactical mistake on their part. They need to find something else, like perjury, then they should go for it if they want. It worked out well for the GOP, after all.
Trump would be a fool to talk to the FBI in person, though. It would be an automatic lying to the FBI charge, even if he only read from the bible during the interview. But, if they can get him on the stand in someone else's case....
Interestingly, none of this justifies the use of foreign intelligence assets to spy on a political campaign. I imagine that you will scream loudly when Trump does that to them.
Can you stay on topic? I’m talking the Slick impeachment.
You supported it back then when it was a chance to damage or remove a D prez.
The only reason you now say it was wrong when it doesn’t matter was that you have to to defend Orange.
More hypocrisy.
You don't like my comment, just say so. Don't pretend I didn't comment.
I'm against impeachment in both cases. I'm not hiding that I changed my mind. If there is one thing that is certain, it is that I am a different person now than I was 20+ years ago.
I get what you are saying. It's like the Dems who now say that they condemn Hillary for the acts that they excused before, but now wish to condemn Trump for doing. I get it. That seems disingenuous.
But, in acknowledgement of that, I went further and said, "they should feel free to use whataboutism to support impeachment" if that is what they want to do. I guess you didn't like that, because you now pretend I strayed off topic, which I didn't. Using Slick to justify impeachment of Trump is still talking about Slick...and, indeed, it is being consistent. I'm telling them to go for it.
But, again, if they want to do it because the GOP did (which is "whataboutism"), they should do it on a basis which cannot be refuted by the same theory of whataboutism. Since Obama got a pass for record campaign finance violations, they can't now say that Trump should be impeached for less. Whataboutism can then be used to defend Trump. They should go for something like Russian collusion. Throw that evidence out there. That might work.
Your comment was simply a diversion. I don’t care what arguments people can make.
I am not a fan of what about arguments soo I’m not impressed.
I’m simply pointing the convenience of your argument about now being against impeachment of BC when it doesn’t count and just a leetle coincidentally supports your argument in favor of a R president.
I was against an investigation that morphed into an impeachment over lies about a blow job in a civil depo. And I was against it when it meant something. If all they end up with is the election violation, I would be against it here as well. Called consistency Ned. You should try it sometime.
Nope. I didn't whine. I didn't do a whatabout. Just pointing out facts. It's my job.
(no message)
Heh. Yeah, me too.
(no message)
It's a big internet. There is room enough for two fact checkers.
(no message)
From, campaign contributions - that's illegal.
(no message)
Cool.
(no message)
He also thinks that having sex with 16-year-olds is not a criminal offense
(no message)
Sadly it seems these days a lot of 16 year olds are having sex and worse don't care if they
get knocked up.
Fact Check: Teen sex and teen birth rates are lower than ever.
The 70s are over, man.
Link: http://time.com/4946997/teens-sex-dating-drinking/
True.
1) Porn freely available to all (which is also why we have so many E.D. commercials...by the time men decide they want to have sex with a real women, they've ruined themselves on porn)
2) Video games and online/headset based social lives (no need to get a car from Mom and Dad to interact with friends...just go to your room or the basement or whatever)
3) high school dances where you can go without a date (no need to work hard to build relationships, or have your friends set you up)
This surely is not the 70's.
...or today's youth lie more on surveys.
(no message)
Not to mention he has eyes for his daughter.
(no message)
Other than the family values issue, I'm not so sure paying off women is the problem
It's where the money came from to pay them off.
But you supporters of trump are the family values people so you should know best.
Not just Dershowitz, Mueller knows his stuff would never hold up in court, but dresses it up for
for his final report. He knows hiis report is for politicians (congress) and propaganda machines to impeach Trump, not for judge. All those crimes he found are either processes crimes, the processes created by Mueller which happened after 2016 campaign, or the financial crimes that happened long before 2016 campaign. They have found nothing on his original mandate: investigate Russia collusion in 2016 campaign.
Hope Trump, not being bothered by this dirty play by a dirty cop, just continue his MAGA agenda.
and sometimes paying for someone to go away is a preferable strategy-even when your innocent....
....now, I wouldn't presume to know if Trump is innocent, but i wouldn't presume him to be guilty either. But either way, such a claim in the months before an election could have lost him the election either way. Thus, paying her off made sense and is not an admission of guilt as has been pushed by the MSM.
To me, it doesn't even matter whether he aid her off for real services or not. It didnt for the Left with Clinton, why should it for the right with Trump? (Remember the Left and the MSM mantra with Clinton that "it's just a lie about sex"?)
But to be sure, Mueller and the Dems never plans on any of this to go to court where something could be challenged. instead, it is simply menat to damn by implication, and the Dems and Deep State are happy because they are at least partially thwarting Trump during his time in office - the REAL goal.
Right, Trump is innocent of those relationships, the ones he's already agreed he was involved in.
Oh and he agreed he paid them off. The problem is, he used campaign moneys and that's illegal.
Lol. Nope. But is this the Russian Collusion you promised? I'm underwhelmed.
(no message)
We had to have surveillance on Trump's campaign...so we could catch him in campaign finance fraud.
Um, ok. That totally justifies doing it to the Dems in 2020. Allege collusion...surveil illegally (lying to the courts to get it done if necessary)...and then just charge with a domestic crime. Frank's rules.
Amazing how this is passed over by the Left.
(no message)
Re: Amazing how you just can't hear what the facts of those events were
and accept them as - fact
Heh.
(no message)
And after all this time, you're still getting it wrong.
Someone who was being followed communicated with the Trump campaign people or even Trump himself, that is how he was being looked at. It appears unrelated to campaigning (Russian mafia) there were communications with Trump org or Trump himself. That's how it all began. It had nothing to do with party affiliation or Democrats.
You realize, the FBI and justice department actually do their tasks in catching or at least stopping criminals from their pursuits in the US?
Was there any illegal collusion with Russia? That's the claim that justified the surveillance.
(no message)
Again, the surveillance wasn't initiated forTrump, rather his biz partners and their crime dealings.
(no message)
Are you sure it was a criminal investigation, and not an intelligence investigation (e.g., FISA)?
(no message)
We know they were all done through FISA warrants.
(no message)
You are conceding a lot of points tonight. I appreciate your honesty.
(no message)
I C, you are having difficulty with what the facts really are and what they amount to.
FISA warrants were put out on Criminals and Russians who were in contact with Trump and his campaign - The FBI did their job by following up on who those under surveillance to see who they were operating with and lo and behold, it was Trump at the end of the line.
Still not something the D's had done even if FOX TV tells you so.
Odd how you want the FBI and DHS to do their jobs but when the turn up information on someone like Trump it's a D conspiracy to bring down a great man.
So, I guess, with that I have conceded a lot of points to you.
Heh.
(no message)
I C, well, I was just sticking to the tread.
(no message)