America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 5 years ago by dstieger. 77 replies replies.
2 Pages<12
Bye Cohen...Now Trump has a Pecker Problem
frankj1 Offline
#51 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
delta1 wrote:
I was trying to be funny to call attention to another day in the saga of Trump...but only infuriated the cons who say I'm being zealous...

I'm just reporting the news on Trump, and have let a bunch of stuff go without comment...

me too.
patience. all will be known, right or wrong.
it's beyond crazy.
tailgater Offline
#52 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
I read a good analysis of this somewhere... Can't remember where.

Comes down to intent.

If you don't record the funding from certain locations properly because you have a national organization whipped together over the past 2 years with a ton of volunteers and others who aren't primarily focused on it... You get a fine.

If you have a meeting with your lawyer regarding the best way to pay off your hooker without it being noticed by anyone and using money from your campaign fund... Then to government is a bit more interested.

The first case apparently happens with just about every presidential campaign. Not so much the second.


But you realize in the first instance that the "mistake" of unrecorded funding is just another term for covering the trail of illegal funding.

Don't get me wrong. Rules are rules and if the law allows a certain level of punishment then so be it.
But there are campaign finance rules for a reason that is much bigger than where a politico may have hid his mushroom.
So Trump's antics were unique, but far less of a concern to joe public.
tailgater Offline
#53 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
frankj1 wrote:
well, you are comparing it. so...

There are zillions of campaign finance offenses due to an insane amount of complicated requirements.
98.2% fall under the stuff Dersch and Rand Paul have addressed...failure to fill in line 14c, etc.

Let's wait on lumping in Trump's situation. It's not related to Joe Tailgater sending in $25 and it was reported incorrectly.
It may come out in the wash, but no one has quite enough info yet to decide. We have the exchange of two documented liars (Cohen and Trump) and the rest is in the real documenting and filing.

I'll wait for the truth.


Wow.
I thought on this one issue that you'd actually fall on the side of Trump.

Hush money to a whore is no true threat to America.
"unreported" funding is an obvious tactic to hide illegal funding.
VERY obvious.

So if we're being honest, then what Obama (and virtually all before him) did is far worse.

Sure, we can hide behind legal wording and "intent" and all the other loopholes.
But if we remove the names Trump and Obama, we're left with:
A. Using campaign funds as hush money from a whore.
B. Hiding the source of campaign funding.

One is embarrassing. The other is dangerous.

Speyside Offline
#54 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
So, Trump violated the law by definition. In this case the definition of the law is F'd up in my opinion. None of the money came from campaign funds. The money became considered campaign funds based on how it was used. WTF? If I follow the money trail correctly, Cohen made a payment and Trump personally repaid Cohen. Then the Inquirer made a payment. So the money was never campaign funds other than by definition of the law.
frankj1 Offline
#55 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
tailgater wrote:
Wow.
I thought on this one issue that you'd actually fall on the side of Trump.

Hush money to a whore is no true threat to America.
"unreported" funding is an obvious tactic to hide illegal funding.
VERY obvious.

So if we're being honest, then what Obama (and virtually all before him) did is far worse.

Sure, we can hide behind legal wording and "intent" and all the other loopholes.
But if we remove the names Trump and Obama, we're left with:
A. Using campaign funds as hush money from a whore.
B. Hiding the source of campaign funding.

One is embarrassing. The other is dangerous.


I see nothing in your post related to what I wrote at all. Absolutely nothing, makes me think you replied to the wrong post!

I did not fall on the side of anyone, I specifically said I'd wait for the truth.

Didn't you recently tell me to not use quotation marks when paraphrasing? I never used nor did I imply any of the words you "quoted". Not even a paraphrase of my post.

You have missed my point.

I'll break it down...

My initial remarks bemoan the silly complicated reporting that the campaign finance laws require. It's ridiculous.
This results in many unintended violations that were not meant to deceive...as pointed out by Derschowitz and Paul. Harmless accounting errors, no evil math genius maneuvers...98.2% of the violations are due to this stupidity.

Then I said an improperly reported donation (line 14c, or d, or e, et al!) by you should not be equated to criminal intent...a phrase that does, in fact, have serious meaning.

Finally, I stated we should wait to find out what may or may not have actually transpired here. We need to know the source of the money paid to hush the "whores" and the intent of said payoffs...threats to America is not the standard of proof here.

But even you might end up saying "Wow!" if it is obviously intentional deceit.

So far in our history, the violations of Obama and those before (and since) his campaign fund violations have been limited to filing errors/clerical missteps (skipping that rascally line 14b, eg), not intentional deceit. Many have been found guilty of filing mistakes and paid fines...like Obama's campaign. No one hurt, no personal gain, no harm/no foul so to speak.

My final point was that perhaps this will also come under that type of mistake as well. Or not.

Let us be patient.

Hardly the stuff of partisanship...unlike your repetitive protective reaction...in this case for no reason.

Relax. No one knows yet.
Talk about TDS!
victor809 Offline
#56 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
One could argue that intentionally hiding payments to prostitutes would constitute a much higher threat to america than any other campaign finance issue. Secrets like that are the sort of thing compromat is based on. Good thing it was exposed early on, so he could not be leveraged.

And, we still have not found necessarily where the funds came from. My understanding is from the most recent information the money came from the inquirer... but I'm not sure that's true or not. If it is, great... that's less an issue. If it came from general campaign funds, that's pretty sketchy.
SteveS Offline
#57 Posted:
Joined: 01-13-2002
Posts: 8,751
tailgater wrote:
I'm curious how election fund violations are suddenly an impeachable offense.


Obama got a free pass from the liberal press and from Congress even when his actions were illegal or unconstitutional ...

Trump gets to be assailed by the liberal press 24/7 and hear cries of "Impeachment" since a few minutes past noon on 1/20/17
tailgater Offline
#58 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
frankj1 wrote:
I see nothing in your post related to what I wrote at all. Absolutely nothing, makes me think you replied to the wrong post!

I did not fall on the side of anyone, I specifically said I'd wait for the truth.

Didn't you recently tell me to not use quotation marks when paraphrasing? I never used nor did I imply any of the words you "quoted". Not even a paraphrase of my post.

You have missed my point.

I'll break it down...

My initial remarks bemoan the silly complicated reporting that the campaign finance laws require. It's ridiculous.
This results in many unintended violations that were not meant to deceive...as pointed out by Derschowitz and Paul. Harmless accounting errors, no evil math genius maneuvers...98.2% of the violations are due to this stupidity.

Then I said an improperly reported donation (line 14c, or d, or e, et al!) by you should not be equated to criminal intent...a phrase that does, in fact, have serious meaning.

Finally, I stated we should wait to find out what may or may not have actually transpired here. We need to know the source of the money paid to hush the "whores" and the intent of said payoffs...threats to America is not the standard of proof here.

But even you might end up saying "Wow!" if it is obviously intentional deceit.

So far in our history, the violations of Obama and those before (and since) his campaign fund violations have been limited to filing errors/clerical missteps (skipping that rascally line 14b, eg), not intentional deceit. Many have been found guilty of filing mistakes and paid fines...like Obama's campaign. No one hurt, no personal gain, no harm/no foul so to speak.

My final point was that perhaps this will also come under that type of mistake as well. Or not.

Let us be patient.

Hardly the stuff of partisanship...unlike your repetitive protective reaction...in this case for no reason.

Relax. No one knows yet.
Talk about TDS!


The quotation marks were to emphasize the words. I wasn't quoting you, which should have been obvious.

But when you say things like "It's not related to Joe Tailgater sending in $25 and it was reported incorrectly." (yes, I quoted you) and follow up with "We have the exchange of two documented liars (Cohen and Trump)...." You're clearly implying that something even worse is happening.
Dressing it up with "I'll wait for the truth" feels disingenuous.
Because if we've learned anything over the past two years it's that the Trump haters are going for the kill, and if they don't get it with today's news then they'll jump on the next "outrage" du juor.
From the Dossier, to Russia, to campaign funding, it's obvious that many are just sitting around salivating waiting for something to stick.

We saw it with the Ken Starr investigation when the Whitewater land deal morphed into fat intern sex.
I'm willing to be patient and wait for the truth (as you say), but I'm afraid that if today's "crimes" don't stick then we'll just be onto the next something-shiny.

Not entirely sure how your misuse of TDS got interjected there.
You keep using that term. I don't think it means what you think it means.




tailgater Offline
#59 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
One could argue that intentionally hiding payments to prostitutes would constitute a much higher threat to america than any other campaign finance issue.


I don't agree with this.
I think one could argue that HAVING the sex with a prostitute could prove to be a threat. But I don't think hiding the hush money payments would increase that threat.

Alternatively, if campaign funding doesn't get reported correctly, then persons or corporations could funnel untold millions into the campaign in exchange for future favors. This is precisely why campaign funding laws were written to begin with.

frankj1 Offline
#60 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
tailgater wrote:
The quotation marks were to emphasize the words. I wasn't quoting you, which should have been obvious.

But when you say things like "It's not related to Joe Tailgater sending in $25 and it was reported incorrectly." (yes, I quoted you) and follow up with "We have the exchange of two documented liars (Cohen and Trump)...." You're clearly implying that something even worse is happening.
Dressing it up with "I'll wait for the truth" feels disingenuous.
Because if we've learned anything over the past two years it's that the Trump haters are going for the kill, and if they don't get it with today's news then they'll jump on the next "outrage" du juor.
From the Dossier, to Russia, to campaign funding, it's obvious that many are just sitting around salivating waiting for something to stick.

We saw it with the Ken Starr investigation when the Whitewater land deal morphed into fat intern sex.
I'm willing to be patient and wait for the truth (as you say), but I'm afraid that if today's "crimes" don't stick then we'll just be onto the next something-shiny.

Not entirely sure how your misuse of TDS got interjected there.
You keep using that term. I don't think it means what you think it means.





the two documented liars are contradicting each other...that's why we need to wait for the documentation. You're assuming my conclusion. I think they are both unsavory characters, hard for me to be all in on either. One of them might be correct, neither of us know yet. You love Trump, I don't like him. Our emotions do not affect the truth. I think that was pretty non partisan.

But your measly donation, done correctly but misfiled somehow, is pretty much what 98.2% of the stuff all campaigns have been dealing with due to overly complicated laws. We aren't looking at a donation per se in these issues, it is money that traveled different routes...which still does not mean I have concluded anything since the laws will determine if the truth is even criminal at all.
tailgater Offline
#61 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
frankj1 wrote:
the two documented liars are contradicting each other...that's why we need to wait for the documentation. You're assuming my conclusion. I think they are both unsavory characters, hard for me to be all in on either. One of them might be correct, neither of us know yet. You love Trump, I don't like him. Our emotions do not affect the truth. I think that was pretty non partisan.

But your measly donation, done correctly but misfiled somehow, is pretty much what 98.2% of the stuff all campaigns have been dealing with due to overly complicated laws. We aren't looking at a donation per se in these issues, it is money that traveled different routes...which still does not mean I have concluded anything since the laws will determine if the truth is even criminal at all.


Just so you know, waiting with bated breath is not the same as having patience.



frankj1 Offline
#62 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
tailgater wrote:
Just so you know, waiting with bated breath is not the same as having patience.




not being a fanboy kneejerk defender of Trump (the REAL TDS) is not necessarily the same as being a drooling hater...you need to explore the vast land in between where normal people reside..and you really can't read minds...even feeble lib minds!

btw, I love doing this, so thanks.
tailgater Offline
#63 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
frankj1 wrote:
not being a fanboy kneejerk defender of Trump (the REAL TDS) is not necessarily the same as being a drooling hater...you need to explore the vast land in between where normal people reside..and you really can't read minds...even feeble lib minds!

btw, I love doing this, so thanks.


If you ask me to explore your "vast land in between" one more time, I'm going to tell Caren.

victor809 Offline
#64 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Huh... So tails irrational behavior is simply because he's afraid of Frankie tripod's taint?

Is all of right wing TDS ultimately tied back to fear of Frankies taint? This could explain a lot
frankj1 Offline
#65 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
should have stayed with my plan to take today off....

smiling against my will!
delta1 Offline
#66 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,772
this place is like crack...


easy to crack a smile
victor809 Offline
#67 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Are you still talking about Frankie's taint?
frankj1 Offline
#68 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
from Trump's pecker problem to my taint...


oh my!

Wheel.
victor809 Offline
#69 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Last I heard from the stormy daniels interview Trump's pecker problem isn't really gonna satisfy anyone's taint... Or any other anatomical regions...
tailgater Offline
#70 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
Huh... So tails irrational behavior is simply because he's afraid of Frankie tripod's taint?

Is all of right wing TDS ultimately tied back to fear of Frankies taint? This could explain a lot


Nothing irrational about my behavior.
It's like his taint has a guard dog, and the dog is actually a python.

Speyside Offline
#71 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Most call it his tripod, but I guess python works too.
frankj1 Offline
#72 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
check please!
tailgater Offline
#73 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
frankj1 wrote:
check please!


I did.
It's real, and it's spectacular.


frankj1 Offline
#74 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
glad I showed up today...truth.
tailgater Offline
#75 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
And when Frankie Tripod shows up, he really shows UP.

delta1 Offline
#76 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,772
*crack*
dstieger Offline
#77 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
Cohen just won't go away. Not anytime soon, anyway.

What a fn idiot. Even IF Cohen was 100% responsible for every illicit thing done by the Trump campaign....even IF that were the case...Trump should be tried for criminal stupidity for trusting Cohen and keeping him around

WSJ:

Updated Jan. 17, 2019 9:25 a.m. ET



In early 2015, a man who runs a small technology company showed up at Trump Tower to collect $50,000 for having helped Michael Cohen, then Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, try to rig online polls in his boss’s favor before the presidential campaign.

In his Trump Organization office, Mr. Cohen surprised the man, John Gauger, by giving him a blue Walmart bag containing between $12,000 and $13,000 in cash and, randomly, a boxing glove that Mr. Cohen said had been worn by a Brazilian mixed-martial arts fighter, Mr. Gauger said.


Mr. Cohen disputed that he handed over a bag of cash. “All monies paid to Mr. Gauger were by check,” he said, offering no further comment on his ties to the consultant.

Mr. Gauger owns RedFinch Solutions LLC and is chief information officer at Liberty University in Virginia, where Jerry Falwell Jr., an evangelical leader and fervent Trump supporter, is president.

.
Mr. Gauger said he never got the rest of what he claimed he was owed. But Mr. Cohen in early 2017 still asked for—and received—a $50,000 reimbursement from Mr. Trump and his company for the work by RedFinch, according to a government document and a person familiar with the matter. The reimbursement—made on the sole basis of a handwritten note from Mr. Cohen and paid largely out of Mr. Trump’s personal account—demonstrates the level of trust the lawyer once had within the Trump Organization, whose officials arranged the repayment.

After this story published Thursday morning, Mr. Cohen said in a tweet that he attempted to have the polls rigged with Mr. Trump’s knowledge.

“What I did was at the direction of and for the sole benefit of [Mr. Trump],” Mr. Cohen wrote. “I truly regret my blind loyalty to a man who doesn’t deserve it.”

The Trump Organization declined to comment. Rudy Giuliani, a lawyer for Mr. Trump, said Mr. Cohen’s being reimbursed more money than he paid RedFinch showed the former Trump lawyer to be a thief. “If one thing has been established, it’s that Michael Cohen is completely untrustworthy,” he said.
.
The reimbursement was mentioned by federal prosecutors when they charged Mr. Cohen in August with eight felonies, including campaign-finance violations for arranging hush-money payments to an adult-film star and a Playboy model who allege Mr. Trump had extramarital sexual encounters with them.

Prosecutors wrote in a charging document that when Mr. Cohen asked Trump Organization executives for a $130,000 reimbursement for a hush payment he made to Stephanie Clifford, the porn actress known as Stormy Daniels, he also scrawled a handwritten note asking for $50,000 he said he spent on “tech services” to aid Mr. Trump’s campaign. Prosecutors didn’t name the company providing those services, but people familiar with the matter say it was RedFinch.

Mr. Cohen’s dealings with the company and Mr. Gauger haven’t previously been reported.

Mr. Cohen has pleaded guilty to campaign-finance violations, tax evasion, lying to Congress and other charges. He was sentenced last month to three years in prison. None of the charges were connected to his interactions with Mr. Gauger and RedFinch.

The episode further illustrates how the former self-described fixer for Mr. Trump, who incriminated the president in the hush payments, once operated in secret to advance his boss’s political fortunes. Mr. Cohen’s dealings involving Mr. Trump over the years, including during the 2016 presidential race, will be a focus of Mr. Cohen’s testimony at a Feb. 7 hearing before the House Oversight Committee.

Mr. Gauger’s lawyer, Charles E. James Jr. of the firm Williams Mullen, said federal investigators interviewed Mr. Gauger about his interactions over six years with Mr. Cohen, from their first meeting in 2012 until last April, when the Federal Bureau of Investigation raided Mr. Cohen’s home, office and hotel room.


Mr. Gauger, who recounted those dealings to The Wall Street Journal, said that though Mr. Cohen promised him lucrative work for the presidential campaign, his activities related to Mr. Trump consisted of trying unsuccessfully to manipulate two online polls in Mr. Trump’s favor.

During the presidential race, Mr. Cohen also asked Mr. Gauger to create a Twitter account called @WomenForCohen. The account, created in May 2016 and run by a female friend of Mr. Gauger, described Mr. Cohen as a “sex symbol,” praised his looks and character, and promoted his appearances and statements boosting Mr. Trump’s candidacy.

When Mr. Cohen requested the $50,000 reimbursement for technology services, he didn’t tell Trump Organization executives what specific services were performed, and they didn’t ask, people familiar with the matter said.

The reimbursement he obtained for the deal with Ms. Clifford and the technology work was paid to him over the course of a year and characterized by the Trump Organization as legal fees, though it didn’t pertain to any legal work he performed at the time, prosecutors said. Overall, Mr. Cohen was paid $420,000, mostly from Mr. Trump’s personal account, including $180,000 to reimburse him for Ms. Clifford and RedFinch, a $60,000 bonus, and another $180,000 to cover taxes he would owe because the money would be declared as income, according to prosecutors.

Richard Hasen, an election-law expert and law professor at University of California, Irvine, said Mr. Cohen had an obligation to disclose the payment to RedFinch as an independent expenditure if it was for campaign-related work he didn’t discuss with the Trump campaign. Had he coordinated with the Trump camp, the campaign would have been required to report any unpaid-for work as an in-kind contribution.

The connection between Messrs. Trump and Cohen and Liberty University dates at least to 2012, when Mr. Falwell invited Mr. Trump to give a speech and Mr. Cohen accompanied him. Soon after, Mr. Gauger was introduced to Mr. Cohen, helped him set up an Instagram account and gave him his cellphone number should he need more assistance, he said.

Over the next several years, Mr. Cohen asked Mr. Gauger for help with services intended to elevate positive content in internet-search results for himself and for friends, Mr. Gauger said. While he didn’t pay for most of what Mr. Gauger did, Mr. Cohen often promised to connect RedFinch with executives at Mr. Trump’s hotel and golf-course businesses, though he never did, Mr. Gauger said.

In January 2014, Mr. Cohen asked Mr. Gauger to help Mr. Trump score well in a CNBC online poll to identify the country’s top business leaders by writing a computer script to repeatedly vote for him. Mr. Gauger was unable to get Mr. Trump into the top 100 candidates. In February 2015, as Mr. Trump prepared to enter the presidential race, Mr. Cohen asked him to do the same for a Drudge Report poll of potential Republican candidates, Mr. Gauger said. Mr. Trump ranked fifth, with about 24,000 votes, or 5% of the total.

After making the cash payment at Trump Tower, Mr. Cohen kept saying he would pay the balance of the $50,000 but never did, Mr. Gauger said. Mr. Cohen also promised to get RedFinch work for Mr. Trump’s campaign. He set up two phone calls for Mr. Gauger with campaign officials, who didn’t hire him, he said.

“Mr. Cohen promised but never was able to develop the business he predicted,” said Mr. James, Mr. Gauger’s lawyer.

Mr. Cohen did give Mr. Gauger some other paying work. Early in 2016, Mr. Cohen hired RedFinch to help create positive web content about the chief executive of CareOne Management LLC, a New Jersey assisted-living company that had given Mr. Cohen a consulting contract.

Mr. Cohen sent RedFinch checks totaling $50,000 for that work, Mr. Gauger said. Mr. Cohen collected $200,000 from CareOne but didn’t pay taxes on it, according to the charging document filed by federal prosecutors, who didn’t identify the assisted-living company by name. Mr. Cohen pleaded guilty to evading taxes on that income. CareOne didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Mr. Cohen asked Mr. Gauger to create the @WomenForCohen account, still active in 2019, to elevate his profile. The account’s profile says it is run by “Women who love and support Michael Cohen. Strong, pit bull, sex symbol, no nonsense, business oriented and ready to make a difference!”

Mr. Gauger said he last spoke with Mr. Cohen in April 2018, shortly after the raid by federal agents. He said Mr. Cohen told him the investigation was about taxes and how he had accessed money from some of his accounts. “It’s not a big deal,” Mr. Cohen said, according to Mr. Gauger.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages<12