Despite Trump's denials, new witness states that hush money was paid for political gain
Originally Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal had the same lawyer, who negotiated with Michael Cohen. But Cohen did not make a timely payment, which negated the contracts with the women.However, this was renegotiated quickly after the infamous Access Hollywood "grab them by the puss.." bus video had been broadcast. The Trump campaign likely saw that if the alleged affairs came to light, it would be "the straw that broke the camel's back". The camel, being Trump's presidential campaign.
This verifies what the owner of The National Enquirer and Michael Cohen have already testified.
This alone should be sufficient evidence to impeach Trump.
Moreover, there are many other investigations exploring other alleged crimes by Trump ongoing.
Recently ABC News interviewed that attorney.
Thus, today;
TOM LLAMAS and KAITLYN FOLMER
Good Morning America March 11, 2019
Keith Davidson, the former attorney for adult-film star Stormy Daniels and Playboy Playmate Karen McDougal, detailed his role in negotiating hush-money deals to keep both women quiet about alleged affairs with Donald Trump, claiming a $130,000 payment to Daniels was "done for political reasons."
In an exclusive interview with ABC News, Davidson provided new details about his discussions with Trump's longtime personal attorney and fixer Michael Cohen in the months preceding the 2016 election that led to agreements in which Daniels and McDougal received hefty payments in exchange for their silence. He also described Cohen's anger when the nomination he expected for a key position within Trump's administration, such as chief of staff, never materialized.
Last year, Cohen pleaded guilty to federal campaign finance violations, telling the court that he made the arrangements for those hush-money deals "in coordination with and at the direction of a candidate for federal office," referring to then-candidate Trump, "for the principal purpose of influencing the election."
Although Trump has insisted "there were no violations of the campaign finance laws by me," Davidson told ABC News the motivation was clearly political.
"You cannot talk about Stormy Daniels and the settlement without talking about 'Access Hollywood,'" Davidson said. "They come hand in hand. It was clear to me that the 'Access Hollywood' tape was the motivating factor in this case resolving."
According to Davidson, Cohen initially missed the deadline to make a payment to Daniels, effectively cancelling their contract, but after The Washington Post published behind-the-scenes video from the reality show in which Trump can be heard bragging about groping women, the deal took on new urgency.
"It defeats the argument that this was done purely for personal reasons," Davidson said. "It was done for political reasons. The natural conclusion is that after the 'Access Hollywood' tape, that something like this could be the straw that broke the camel's back."
Federal prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York implicated Trump in the scheme in a December court filing in which they asserted that Cohen "deceived the voting public by hiding alleged facts that he believed would have had a substantial effect on the election."
Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison for his crimes following his guilty plea, while American Media Inc., the publisher of the National Enquirer, admitted to paying McDougal $150,000 to "suppress the woman's story so as to prevent it from influencing the election" as part of a non-prosecution agreement.................
Comments (13)
Blackmail is illegal. That is where someone demands payment for not revealing something damaging. In Trump's case Karen McDougal SOLD exclusive rights of her story to The National Enquirer and Trump paid The National Enquirer to squash the story. That is not close at all to blackmail. In Stormy Daniels case, Trump had her threatened to take money to not tell her story.
She never demanded money. Again, not close to blackmail.
D -
There is also a law against doings so to alter election outcomes.
Trump and his campaigners feared that if word got out about these affairs it would impact
the election results.
Mi - Either you don't comprehend what was said, or you are attempting to mislead readers.
From the article you linked;
I’m not for impeachment. This is news. I’m going to give you some news right now because I haven’t said this to any press person before. But since you asked, and I’ve been thinking about this: Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it.
#2. She said she is not for impeachment "UNLESS....."
When the "unless" becomes public and public sentiment changes, Pelosi will be all for impeachment.
And even if she is not, many others will be.
demanding it.
Should Trump be found guilty of misuse of campaign funds leading to fraud and tax evasion, then the focus would be on that and impeachment would become a moot point.
She knows those who have heard testimony first hand and is probably a lot more attune
than all of us on what evidence is known. However, as a REPRESENTATIVE, she properly does not want to go against public opinion. But her "UNLESS" statement likely fortells of what will come.
As the evidence is released, she can sway along with the changed public opinion and their
demand to impeach, all the while maintaining popularity.
The "stormy" dead end saga barely continues. Trump becomes one of the first candidates to use his own money to hide elicit behavior that was consensual. No one really cares. He's not the first or last in history. Congress gets to use tax payer funds to cover up advances that WEREN'T or AREN'T welcomed and consensual.
No one cares but the same people pushing to sway or change the outcome of an election for political gain. AT TAX PAYER EXPENSE!
The Republicans in Congress have ensured that nothing was sufficiently investigated while they held the majority in the House.
If they somehow won the midterms, more blind eyes would not follow through on the many investigations connected to Trump.
Thankfully, the Republicans lost many representative seats.
Thus, much investigative work needed will be done and evidence resulting from it will likely fry Trump. People rarely find evidence if they don't even look for it. With Republicans as the minority in the House, Congress will be better able to do their job.
Regardless, lets keep on the topic of the blog. Thanks.
If I remember correctly, it was something like 17 lines of investigation against Trump recently
opened up and 81 subpoenas recently issued to Trump associates.
Someone is going down, perhaps several people, and it probably won't be gentle.
The news in the following months will likely be HUGE.