SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Donald Trump and his wife Melania fill out their ballots at a polling station in a school during the 2016 presidential elections on November 8, 2016 in New York. (Photo: Mandel Ngan/Getty Images)
Sorry, Say Legal Experts, Creating Shell Company During 2016 Campaign for Secret Payments to Hide Extramarital Affairs Not 'Simple Private Transaction'
What the president claims was no big deal, say critics, was actually a very clear campaign violation and at least one member of Congress says they "certainly" could be "impeachable offenses"
Dec 09, 2018
Legal experts and prosecutors are pushing back against the claim President Donald Trump made early Monday morning when he said his secret payments to silence women claiming extramarital sexual affairs with him were nothing more than a "simple private transaction."
Trump was referring to the recent court filings involving his former personal lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen and the revelations that Cohen, at the order of the president, created payment schemes to get both porn actor Stormy Daniels and former playboy model Karen McDougal to be quiet about the affairs they claim to have had with Trump while he was married to First Lady Melania Trump. Trump has denied the affairs, but previously pretended not to know anything about the payments.
\u201cTrump calls creating a shell company to pay off a porn star from disclosing an extramarital affair weeks before a presidential election a "simple private transaction."\n\nIt's also *smoking gun.\u201d— Kyle Griffin (@Kyle Griffin) 1544443503
New York Times columnist Jim Rutenberg noted in response to Trump's morning tweet, "In Stormy Daniels/Karen McDougal hush $ deals prosecutors didn't see 'simple transactions,' they saw a brazen effort to deceive the voting public through illegal means meant to hide that deception from campaign disclosure requirements."
As Reuters notes in its reporting on the president's claim, "Under U.S. law, campaign contributions, defined as things of value given to a campaign to influence an election, must be disclosed. Such payments are also limited to $2,700 per person."
According to a Saturday column in the Times by government watchdog experts Barry Berke, Noah Bookbinder and Norman Eisen, the sentencing memos released last week are, in fact, quite damaging to Trump and put him at legal risk:
The Trump Organization's reimbursements to Mr. Cohen for payments were fraudulently disguised as legal fees -- and, according to the memo, were approved by senior executives at the organization. The New York prosecutors also disclosed that they are investigating additional unspecified matters involving Mr. Cohen and, presumably, the Trump Organization. In light of these disclosures, the likelihood that the company and the Trump campaign face charges is now high.
Although President Trump may avoid a similar fate because the Justice Department is unlikely to indict a sitting president, he could be named as an unindicted co-conspirator, as was President Richard Nixon, or charged if he leaves office before the statute of limitations runs out (most likely in 2022).
"Contrary to the president's claim that all of this 'totally clears' him," the trio of legal experts wrote, "the danger to Mr. Trump, his business and his campaign has compounded significantly."
In response to Trump's morning tweet on Monday, the Washington Post reports that "prosecutors disagree" with the president's latest claim:
\u201cIn morning tweets, Trump says payments to silence women were a "simple private transaction," not illegal campaign contributions.\n\nProsecutors disagree. https://t.co/BnkUE59Wqs\u201d— The Washington Post (@The Washington Post) 1544448620
Appearing on CNN's State of the Union on Sunday morning, Rep. Jerrod Nadler (D-NY) said that what Cohen is alleging transpired during the 2016 campaign in terms of Trump's personal payments to the women would be a clear campaign law violation and could be grounds for impeachment:
\u201cRep. Jerry Nadler: Illegal payments would "certainly" be "impeachable offenses" if directed by President Trump https://t.co/6v4G1zc3VP\u201d— The Hill (@The Hill) 1544420460
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Legal experts and prosecutors are pushing back against the claim President Donald Trump made early Monday morning when he said his secret payments to silence women claiming extramarital sexual affairs with him were nothing more than a "simple private transaction."
Trump was referring to the recent court filings involving his former personal lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen and the revelations that Cohen, at the order of the president, created payment schemes to get both porn actor Stormy Daniels and former playboy model Karen McDougal to be quiet about the affairs they claim to have had with Trump while he was married to First Lady Melania Trump. Trump has denied the affairs, but previously pretended not to know anything about the payments.
\u201cTrump calls creating a shell company to pay off a porn star from disclosing an extramarital affair weeks before a presidential election a "simple private transaction."\n\nIt's also *smoking gun.\u201d— Kyle Griffin (@Kyle Griffin) 1544443503
New York Times columnist Jim Rutenberg noted in response to Trump's morning tweet, "In Stormy Daniels/Karen McDougal hush $ deals prosecutors didn't see 'simple transactions,' they saw a brazen effort to deceive the voting public through illegal means meant to hide that deception from campaign disclosure requirements."
As Reuters notes in its reporting on the president's claim, "Under U.S. law, campaign contributions, defined as things of value given to a campaign to influence an election, must be disclosed. Such payments are also limited to $2,700 per person."
According to a Saturday column in the Times by government watchdog experts Barry Berke, Noah Bookbinder and Norman Eisen, the sentencing memos released last week are, in fact, quite damaging to Trump and put him at legal risk:
The Trump Organization's reimbursements to Mr. Cohen for payments were fraudulently disguised as legal fees -- and, according to the memo, were approved by senior executives at the organization. The New York prosecutors also disclosed that they are investigating additional unspecified matters involving Mr. Cohen and, presumably, the Trump Organization. In light of these disclosures, the likelihood that the company and the Trump campaign face charges is now high.
Although President Trump may avoid a similar fate because the Justice Department is unlikely to indict a sitting president, he could be named as an unindicted co-conspirator, as was President Richard Nixon, or charged if he leaves office before the statute of limitations runs out (most likely in 2022).
"Contrary to the president's claim that all of this 'totally clears' him," the trio of legal experts wrote, "the danger to Mr. Trump, his business and his campaign has compounded significantly."
In response to Trump's morning tweet on Monday, the Washington Post reports that "prosecutors disagree" with the president's latest claim:
\u201cIn morning tweets, Trump says payments to silence women were a "simple private transaction," not illegal campaign contributions.\n\nProsecutors disagree. https://t.co/BnkUE59Wqs\u201d— The Washington Post (@The Washington Post) 1544448620
Appearing on CNN's State of the Union on Sunday morning, Rep. Jerrod Nadler (D-NY) said that what Cohen is alleging transpired during the 2016 campaign in terms of Trump's personal payments to the women would be a clear campaign law violation and could be grounds for impeachment:
\u201cRep. Jerry Nadler: Illegal payments would "certainly" be "impeachable offenses" if directed by President Trump https://t.co/6v4G1zc3VP\u201d— The Hill (@The Hill) 1544420460
Legal experts and prosecutors are pushing back against the claim President Donald Trump made early Monday morning when he said his secret payments to silence women claiming extramarital sexual affairs with him were nothing more than a "simple private transaction."
Trump was referring to the recent court filings involving his former personal lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen and the revelations that Cohen, at the order of the president, created payment schemes to get both porn actor Stormy Daniels and former playboy model Karen McDougal to be quiet about the affairs they claim to have had with Trump while he was married to First Lady Melania Trump. Trump has denied the affairs, but previously pretended not to know anything about the payments.
\u201cTrump calls creating a shell company to pay off a porn star from disclosing an extramarital affair weeks before a presidential election a "simple private transaction."\n\nIt's also *smoking gun.\u201d— Kyle Griffin (@Kyle Griffin) 1544443503
New York Times columnist Jim Rutenberg noted in response to Trump's morning tweet, "In Stormy Daniels/Karen McDougal hush $ deals prosecutors didn't see 'simple transactions,' they saw a brazen effort to deceive the voting public through illegal means meant to hide that deception from campaign disclosure requirements."
As Reuters notes in its reporting on the president's claim, "Under U.S. law, campaign contributions, defined as things of value given to a campaign to influence an election, must be disclosed. Such payments are also limited to $2,700 per person."
According to a Saturday column in the Times by government watchdog experts Barry Berke, Noah Bookbinder and Norman Eisen, the sentencing memos released last week are, in fact, quite damaging to Trump and put him at legal risk:
The Trump Organization's reimbursements to Mr. Cohen for payments were fraudulently disguised as legal fees -- and, according to the memo, were approved by senior executives at the organization. The New York prosecutors also disclosed that they are investigating additional unspecified matters involving Mr. Cohen and, presumably, the Trump Organization. In light of these disclosures, the likelihood that the company and the Trump campaign face charges is now high.
Although President Trump may avoid a similar fate because the Justice Department is unlikely to indict a sitting president, he could be named as an unindicted co-conspirator, as was President Richard Nixon, or charged if he leaves office before the statute of limitations runs out (most likely in 2022).
"Contrary to the president's claim that all of this 'totally clears' him," the trio of legal experts wrote, "the danger to Mr. Trump, his business and his campaign has compounded significantly."
In response to Trump's morning tweet on Monday, the Washington Post reports that "prosecutors disagree" with the president's latest claim:
\u201cIn morning tweets, Trump says payments to silence women were a "simple private transaction," not illegal campaign contributions.\n\nProsecutors disagree. https://t.co/BnkUE59Wqs\u201d— The Washington Post (@The Washington Post) 1544448620
Appearing on CNN's State of the Union on Sunday morning, Rep. Jerrod Nadler (D-NY) said that what Cohen is alleging transpired during the 2016 campaign in terms of Trump's personal payments to the women would be a clear campaign law violation and could be grounds for impeachment:
\u201cRep. Jerry Nadler: Illegal payments would "certainly" be "impeachable offenses" if directed by President Trump https://t.co/6v4G1zc3VP\u201d— The Hill (@The Hill) 1544420460
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.