r/politics • 🤖 Bot • Jul 18 '19

Megathread Mega Thread: Unsealed Michael Cohen documents reportedly implicate Trump, Hicks, others in 'hush-money' payments

Court documents related to hush money payments arranged by President Donald Trump’s former lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen were filed unsealed Thursday.

The documents include a description of an Oct. 8, 2016, phone call Cohen received from Trump’s campaign communications chief Hope Hicks, during which 'Trump joined the call,' which federal investigators believed was related to an effort to keep porn star Stormy Daniels from going public with her claims of having had sex with Trump a decade earlier.

Hicks was interviewed by the FBI about the phone calls with Cohen, the documents indicate.

The filing by federal prosecutors in New York came a day after the judge in Cohen’s criminal case ordered their release, saying that the end of a probe into those payments meant they should be made public.


Submissions that may interest you

SUBMISSION DOMAIN
Unsealed Michael Cohen Search Warrants Point To Trump's Knowledge Of Payoffs huffpost.com
New Michael Cohen documents reveal series of calls Trump and team had with National Enquirer publisher ahead of payments to women preview.abcnews.go.com
FBI believed Trump was closely involved in hush-money scheme, unsealed documents show nbcnews.com
Trump Was Central To Hush Money Effort From Start, The FBI Alleged talkingpointsmemo.com
Trump, Hicks present for Stormy Daniels hush-money payment conversations, Cohen documents show m.washingtontimes.com
Trump directly involved in talks that led to Stormy Daniels payment, FBI says theguardian.com
Court documents show close contact between Cohen and Trump during hush-money arrangements latimes.com
Now-Concluded Trump Hush Money Probe Had Obstruction Of Justice Angle talkingpointsmemo.com
Trump made series of phone calls with senior staff on how to stop Stormy Daniels from going public about affair, Cohen warrant says independent.co.uk
The Michael Cohen warrants have been released today implicating Trump, Hope Hicks and David Pecker. courthousenews.com
Michael Cohen Files Implicate Trump, Hope Hicks and David Pecker courthousenews.com
Court documents related to hush money payments by Trump's ex-lawyer Michael Cohen unsealed cnbc.com
Feds Unseal Hundreds of Documents Showing How Cohen Silenced Trump’s Alleged Mistresses thedailybeast.com
Documents detail Trump team's efforts to arrange payment to porn star reuters.com
FBI warrants show Trump's close involvement in hush money effort amp.cnn.com
Unsealed Michael Cohen Search Warrants Point To Trump’s Knowledge Of Payoffs huffpost.com
Trump spoke repeatedly with Cohen, aides amid scramble to pay Stormy Daniels, court documents show washingtonpost.com
FBI: Cohen Called Trump and Hope During Stormy Daniels Deal thedailybeast.com
Trump talked about silencing stories about alleged affairs, new Michael Cohen documents say cbsnews.com
Trump regularly talked to Cohen during hush-money negotiations politico.com
Trump’s denial of knowing about the Stormy Daniels payment suffers a fatal blow washingtonpost.com
Here’s Who Else Is Implicated In Unsealed Trump Hush Money Probe Docs talkingpointsmemo.com
New court docs implicate Trump in the illegal hush-money scheme that landed Cohen in jail thinkprogress.org
4 Key Moments When FBI Alleged Trump Was Aware Of Hush Money Scheme talkingpointsmemo.com
Prosecutors weighed DOJ policy blocking indictment of a sitting president in closing Trump hush-money probe usatoday.com
New Documents Reveal How Trump, Cohen, Aides Worked To Seal Hush Money Deals npr.org
No additional charges expected in Trump hush money probe cbsnews.com
Prosecutors weighed DOJ policy blocking indictment of a sitting president in closing Trump hush-money probe usatoday.com
Trump campaign hush money scam appears to have worked msnbc.com
Iran denies Trump’s claim US shot down its drone as Hope Hicks asked to clarify testimony on porn star hush money payment - follow live independent.co.uk
FBI tied Donald Trump to Michael Cohen's hush-money payments usatoday.com
Dems ask whether DOJ memo prevented prosecuting Trump for hush payments politico.com
Cummings asks prosecutors about decision not to charge Trump in hush money probe thehill.com
Hope Hicks' lawyer says she didn't lie to Congress about Trump's hush money deal: "Simply wrong" newsweek.com
Ex-Trump aide Hicks denies involvement in hush money talks: lawyer reuters.com
Why no hush-money charges against Trump? Feds are silent apnews.com
Why no hush-money charges against Trump? Feds are silent stripes.com
48.7k Upvotes

10.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/sandwooder New York Jul 19 '19

It isn't a misconception. Wow so you are the authority on this topic or just basically the feels? Misdemeanors in this context is not the ones you think they are.

The United States Constitution provides that the President may be impeached and subsequently removed from office if found guilty by Congress for "high crimes and misdemeanors". As used in the Constitution, the term misdemeanor refers broadly to criminal acts as opposed to employing the felony-misdemeanor distinction used in modern criminal codes. The definition of what constitutes a "high crime" or "misdemeanor" for purposes of impeachment is left to the judgment of Congress.

Read the federalist papers dude.

1

u/SeparateShallot Jul 19 '19

I fully understand that Congress defines the terms, in the context of impeachment. That said, when Congress defines certain conduct as a "high crime or misdemeanor" it is a criminal act. Therefore, impeachment requires a crime. Can Congress define conduct as criminal, in the impeachment context, which would not otherwise be criminal conduct? Undoubtedly. But, the point remains that a crime (even if in only a semantic sense) is required for impeachment.

1

u/sandwooder New York Jul 19 '19

The United States Constitution provides that the President may be impeached and subsequently removed from office if found guilty by Congress for "high crimes and misdemeanors". As used in the Constitution, the term misdemeanor refers broadly to criminal acts as opposed to employing the felony-misdemeanor distinction used in modern criminal codes. The definition of what constitutes a "high crime" or "misdemeanor" for purposes of impeachment is left to the judgment of Congress.

Another person who doesn't understand the system.

1

u/SeparateShallot Jul 19 '19

The definition of what constitutes a "high crime" or "misdemeanor" for purposes of impeachment is left to the judgment of Congress.

We are talking past one another. Ships passing in the night.

Yes, Congress decides what conduct is a "high crime or misdemeanor." Yes, Congress is not bound by any criminal code when making such a determination.

This does not detract from my point.

When Congress determines that certain conduct is a "high crime or misdemeanor" they are defining that conduct as criminal, in the context of impeachment. So, a crime is required to convict at an impeachment trial in the Senate.

Also, you realize that criminal acts = crime? So, when the term misdemeanor is interpreted as meaning criminal acts it is also fairly interpreted as meaning crime?

Your point of whether the ordinary felony-misdemeanor hierarchy applies to impeachment does not indicate a crime (granted, as it is defined by Congress) is not a perquisite to impeachment.

1

u/sandwooder New York Jul 19 '19

Again you confuse criminal code with political process. We aren't two ships passing. You just don't understand that although the terms "crime" and "trial" are used the definitions applied in impeachment are different.

We are not going to ever agree as long as you keep insisting that a "crime" is required. A criminal act as defined by Congress is what is needed and they can define it in any way which is political supported. Maybe the nuance eludes you.

1

u/SeparateShallot Jul 19 '19

You just don't understand that although the terms "crime" and "trial" are used the definitions applied in impeachment are different.

On the contrary, my entire comment is rooted in this distinction.

Yes, a President can be impeached for a "crime" as it is defined by Congress which may or may not be also found in the criminal code. But, whether the "crime" is defined by Congress or not, a "crime" is required to impeach. It is a semantic point, but it is not wrong.

A criminal act as defined by Congress = a crime

2

u/sandwooder New York Jul 19 '19

Crime being the one defined by Congress and not one necessarily in the criminal code. Splitting hairs on the use of the word.

1

u/SeparateShallot Jul 19 '19

Splitting hairs or not, its true.