Twittler says, he doesn't "punch back" at everything. Far as I know, there are only TWO people against whom he doesn't punch back against: Putin, for obvious reasons, and Stormy Double D. Also, if he denies everything she says, why did he pay her 130 CENTS, let alone 130 grand? Then there is the Twittler claim that there many lawyers eager to represent him...we've heard of multiple lawyers who said, "Thanks, but, NO thanks," but where are these eager beaver lawyers stampeding to represent him?
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/27/politics/sanders-defends-trump-silence-stormy-daniels/index.html
[h=1]White House defends Trump's Stormy silence[/h]
By Dan Merica, CNN
Updated 5:45 PM ET, Tue March 27, 2018
Anderson Cooper’s long-anticipated 60 Minutes interview with adult film actress Stormy Daniels, in which she expanded on previous statements about her alleged 2006 affair with President Trump, finally aired on Sunday. And in its wake it’s becoming increasingly apparent that Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, who gave Daniels $130,000 to keep quiet, may have imperiled more than protected the president, legally speaking.
Cohen’s focus on timing is odd given just how many factors weigh more strongly against Trump than anything prosecutors had on Edwards—namely, Cohen’s ties to Trump, his affiliates, and his organization.
(Otherwise, he’s stayed quiet and deployed surrogates.)
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/27/politics/sanders-defends-trump-silence-stormy-daniels/index.html
[h=1]White House defends Trump's Stormy silence[/h]
By Dan Merica, CNN
Updated 5:45 PM ET, Tue March 27, 2018
Anderson Cooper’s long-anticipated 60 Minutes interview with adult film actress Stormy Daniels, in which she expanded on previous statements about her alleged 2006 affair with President Trump, finally aired on Sunday. And in its wake it’s becoming increasingly apparent that Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, who gave Daniels $130,000 to keep quiet, may have imperiled more than protected the president, legally speaking.
Paying someone not to disclose information that would damage a political campaign qualifies as an “in-kind contribution” to that campaign, under federal law. Further, campaign-finance laws also prohibit corporations from “facilitating the making of contributions to candidates or political committees.”
Thus, if Cohen made the payment to Daniels with the intention of aiding Trump’s campaign, then he made an undisclosed and illegal donation to that campaign. And if he “facilitated” that donation in his capacity as a human resource of the Trump Organization, then the Trump Organization illegally facilitated an illegal donation.
Along with the Daniels interview, the show included Cooper engaging Trevor Potter, former commissioner and chairman of the Federal Election Commission, about the possibility Cohen will face prosecution for making the deal with Daniels. Thus, if Cohen made the payment to Daniels with the intention of aiding Trump’s campaign, then he made an undisclosed and illegal donation to that campaign. And if he “facilitated” that donation in his capacity as a human resource of the Trump Organization, then the Trump Organization illegally facilitated an illegal donation.
Anderson Cooper: Is there any recent precedent for p-- prosecuting somebody for an undisclosed campaign contribution?
Trevor Potter: As it happens, there is. There's sort of a pretty spectacular one.
Former senator John Edwards was prosecuted, but never convicted, for payments a supporter and his campaign finance chairman made a year before the 2008 election to a woman who'd had Edwards' child.
Trevor Potter: I think the Edwards case is not as strong as the facts we have so far in the Trump case.
Anderson Cooper: Why do you think the potential case against Cohen or Trump is a stronger case than the Edwards case?
Trevor Potter: The timing of it. It wasn't the year before the election. It's right in the middle of the run-up to Election Day. When-- Trump's conduct with women was a prime campaign issue. In fact, it was what everyone was focused on.
Cohen has claimed the timing—and Trump—had nothing to do with it.Trevor Potter: As it happens, there is. There's sort of a pretty spectacular one.
Former senator John Edwards was prosecuted, but never convicted, for payments a supporter and his campaign finance chairman made a year before the 2008 election to a woman who'd had Edwards' child.
Trevor Potter: I think the Edwards case is not as strong as the facts we have so far in the Trump case.
Anderson Cooper: Why do you think the potential case against Cohen or Trump is a stronger case than the Edwards case?
Trevor Potter: The timing of it. It wasn't the year before the election. It's right in the middle of the run-up to Election Day. When-- Trump's conduct with women was a prime campaign issue. In fact, it was what everyone was focused on.
“If she would have come to me a month before, or three months before, I would have done the same thing.” It was a Wednesday afternoon and Cohen, President Donald Trump’s longtime personal attorney and loyal fixer, was sitting on a desk chair in the office of a friend’s townhouse on the Upper East Side. He was referring, of course, to Stephanie Clifford, the adult-film actress also known as Stormy Daniels, who has alleged that she and Trump had a consensual affair in 2006. As Cohen spoke, his combativeness and notoriously deep fealty to Trump were indeed evident. “People are mistaking this for a thing about the campaign,” he continued. “What I did defensively for my personal client, and my friend, is what attorneys do for their high-profile clients. I would have done it in 2006. I would have done it in 2011. I truly care about him and the family—more than just as an employee and an attorney.”
Cohen’s claim that the timing was happenstance is almost as laughable as his claim that any attorney would have taken the steps Cohen did to protect a high-profile client. As pointed out previously, that sort of thing is considered unethical by the bar.
Cohen’s focus on timing is odd given just how many factors weigh more strongly against Trump than anything prosecutors had on Edwards—namely, Cohen’s ties to Trump, his affiliates, and his organization.
As Daniels and her lawyer, Michael Avenatti, recount, Cohen was the point of contact in Trump’s negotiations to keep Daniels quiet about their affair. Cohen paid her $130,000 to sign a nondisclosure agreement. This could well be an illegal campaign expenditure on Trump’s behalf — Cohen was paying Daniels for the purpose of aiding Trump’s campaign. Cohen claims he paid the money out of his own pocket, which would make Cohen the perpetrator of the campaign finance violation. But Avenatti has documents showing that the payment was sent to Cohen at his Trump Tower location, and communicated through his official Trump Organization email. That strongly indicates, and perhaps even proves, Cohen was making the payment on Trump’s behalf.
Aside from humiliation, why does this matter?
Anderson Cooper: Is there any way that special counsel Robert Mueller could investigate the Stormy Daniels payment?
Trevor Potter: Yeah that's the wildcard here.
Anderson Cooper: As a prosecutor, you wanna get leverage over somebody that you could then use to get them to give you other information on which--
Trevor Potter: Correct.
Anderson Cooper: --you're really interested in?
Trevor Potter: Correct.
That's what special counsel Mueller appears to be doing with Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump's former campaign chairman, who faces multiple charges including tax and bank fraud.
Anderson Cooper: Paul Manafort has been charged with crimes that don't have anything to do with Russia in some cases.
Trevor Potter: Well, and that certainly preceded the campaign. And so-- clearly, the Justice Department, the deputy attorney general who is ultimately in charge of this, has determined that looking at what Manafort did in other contexts-- is relevant to the investigation. And I think you can say exactly the same thing about [Michael] Cohen. He was-- involved-- indisputably with Trump Organization activities with Russia and negotiations with the Russians. Mr. Cohen is in the middle of a place that's of great interest to the Special Counsel.
Jonathan Chait put it well at New York Magazine.Trevor Potter: Yeah that's the wildcard here.
Anderson Cooper: As a prosecutor, you wanna get leverage over somebody that you could then use to get them to give you other information on which--
Trevor Potter: Correct.
Anderson Cooper: --you're really interested in?
Trevor Potter: Correct.
That's what special counsel Mueller appears to be doing with Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump's former campaign chairman, who faces multiple charges including tax and bank fraud.
Anderson Cooper: Paul Manafort has been charged with crimes that don't have anything to do with Russia in some cases.
Trevor Potter: Well, and that certainly preceded the campaign. And so-- clearly, the Justice Department, the deputy attorney general who is ultimately in charge of this, has determined that looking at what Manafort did in other contexts-- is relevant to the investigation. And I think you can say exactly the same thing about [Michael] Cohen. He was-- involved-- indisputably with Trump Organization activities with Russia and negotiations with the Russians. Mr. Cohen is in the middle of a place that's of great interest to the Special Counsel.
The saga of Donald Trump and Stormy Daniels ultimately has very little to do with sex, and in a sense is only incidentally about Stormy Daniels at all. The most important figure in the new 60 Minutes report on the episode is Michael Cohen, Trump’s lawyer and fixer. Cohen might be facing significant legal jeopardy, and this could expose Trump himself as deeply as anything related to Russia.
Trump responded to Daniels’ 60 Minutes interview Monday morning.
(Otherwise, he’s stayed quiet and deployed surrogates.)
Chris Ruddy, CEO of Newsmax and a friend of Trump, did tell ABC News This Week that Trump considered the Daniels story a “political hoax.”
“You know, at the bottom line, there’s just never been a claim of harassment,” Ruddy said. “So the president looks at this and I think he’s looking at it like I’m looking at it. This is politically motivated to hurt and embarrass him in some way.”
It may only be a matter of time before Trump has a true Twitter meltdown. The Cohen-Trump-Daniels saga—which also now involves allegations of physical threats—is starting to make Edwards’ scandal look vanilla.“You know, at the bottom line, there’s just never been a claim of harassment,” Ruddy said. “So the president looks at this and I think he’s looking at it like I’m looking at it. This is politically motivated to hurt and embarrass him in some way.”
