Trump's Financial Disclosure: Cohen Payments

Donald Trump has filed new financial disclosures.

“In 2016 expenses were incurred by one of Donald J. Trump’s attorneys, Michael Cohen,” Trump reported in a footnote of his official Personal Financial Disclosure report, required of top federal officials. “Mr. Cohen sought reimbursement of those expenses and Mr. Trump fully reimbursed Mr. Cohen in 2017. The category of value would be $100,001 — $250,000 and the interest rate would be zero.”

The disclosure is here. The Office of Government Ethics says in a footnote that Trump is required to disclose the payment/liability.

< 52 Dead in Gaza Protests as US Embassy Opens in Jerusalem | Judiciary Committee Releases Hearing Testimony on Russia Meeting >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Hottie Avenatti has vetted two more (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Towanda on Thu May 17, 2018 at 11:47:05 AM EST
    women who received hush money -- more than Stormy did. -- from Trump via Cohen. Avenatti says that the women are deciding whether to go public.

    And he isays that he is vetting even more women. . . .

    I Finally Decided to Look Up "To Vet" (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by RickyJim on Thu May 17, 2018 at 12:14:23 PM EST
    To vet was originally a horse-racing term, referring to the requirement that a horse be checked for health and soundness by a veterinarian before being allowed to race. Thus, it has taken the general meaning "to check".

    "Hottie Avennati" (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Yman on Thu May 17, 2018 at 01:54:53 PM EST
    I like it!  

    Seems strange that they would make this decision after approaching Avennati, although I'm sure he advised them to give done serious thought to all the negative attention they will receive from going public.  The amounts of $ going into and out of Essential Consultants is going to get really interesting - although I guess it's possible they were paid outside that LLC.


    I like Avenhottie ;-) (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by vml68 on Fri May 18, 2018 at 12:19:40 PM EST

    I didn't see any other (none / 0) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 18, 2018 at 08:40:23 AM EST
    Extra lines on Trump's financial disclosure.

    Helluva news day (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 16, 2018 at 07:19:17 PM EST
    New Yorker breaking this just now

    Missing Files Motivated the Leak of Michael Cohen's Financial Records
    A law-enforcement official released the documents after finding that additional suspicious transactions did not appear in a government database.

    In the days since, there has been much speculation about who leaked the confidential documents, and the Treasury Department's inspector general has launched a probe to find the source. That source, a law-enforcement official, is speaking publicly for the first time, to The New Yorker, to explain the motivation: the official had grown alarmed after being unable to find two important reports on Cohen's financial activity in a government database. The official, worried that the information was being withheld from law enforcement, released the remaining documents.

    The report also refers to two previous suspicious-activity reports, or sars, that the bank had filed, which documented even larger flows of questionable money into Cohen's account. Those two reports detail more than three million dollars in additional transactions--triple the amount in the report released last week. Which individuals or corporations were involved remains a mystery. But, according to the official who leaked the report, these sars were absent from the database maintained by the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, or fincen. The official, who has spent a career in law enforcement, told me, "I have never seen something pulled off the system. . . . That system is a safeguard for the bank. It's a stockpile of information. When something's not there that should be, I immediately became concerned." The official added, "That's why I came forward."

    I saw this (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 16, 2018 at 07:21:44 PM EST
    and wondered if the banks that reported the transactions don't keep records themselves. Seriously my bank has records going back probably a good 7 years or more.

    A guy a Hayes show (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 16, 2018 at 07:25:21 PM EST
    Is saying he doesn't even know by what mechanism this could be done.

    This seems like a very big deal.  

    He says it either had to be done by Mueller, the SDNY or Trump and Cohen did it.


    Or adds Maxine Waters (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 16, 2018 at 07:28:26 PM EST
    Mnuchin who she says has not responded to requests for information on this subject.

    Personally (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 16, 2018 at 07:36:52 PM EST
    I'm thinking Mnuchin. However if he did I hope Mueller got the receipts before records were scrubbed.

    I wonder (none / 0) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 17, 2018 at 10:58:37 AM EST
    There is talk both sides want to delay this whole thing until after the midterms to avoid interfering with an election.

    I wonder if Mueller will subpoena Trump.  Knowing that would involve a court battle that could last month's?

    He'll subpoena Trump if he thinks that ... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 17, 2018 at 01:29:03 PM EST
    ... Trump actually has something to add as a material witness. But if Trump's likely to invoke his right against self-incrimination under the 5th Amendment, then what would be the point of that - other than, of course, to have Trump on record invoking the 5th? but that would amount to a public relations stunt, which has heretofore not been part of Robert Mueller's repertoire in this case.

    And speaking of PR stunts, I'm rather annoyed with the media for having repeated over and again yesterday and today Rudy Giuliani's unsubstantiated assertion that the Special Counsel's office has already ruled out an indictment of the president.

    I mean, Mueller has been nothing but meticulous about absolutely everything, especially with keeping a tight lid on any direct information pertaining to the investigation until he's actually filed motions and indictments with the court. But suddenly, he decides to tip his hand to Nosferatu because - what and why, exactly?

    Uh-uh, I don't believe that. And further, there's not been one peep on the subject from the Special Council's office, so I think Rudy Giuliani's likely full of crap. He's simply looking to play the base with that assertion, so that if / when the major indictments do subsequently come down, that base will arise as a self-righteously indignant chorus against "Lyin' Bob" Mueller.



    "Rudy Giuliani's likely (none / 0) (#11)
    by Zorba on Thu May 17, 2018 at 04:18:01 PM EST
    full of crap"
    When isn't he?  😄

    FTR (none / 0) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 17, 2018 at 05:15:56 PM EST
    I was not suggesting Mueller would subpoena Trump as a "stunt"

    It seems to me establishing clearly that a presidents testimony is as fair game as anyone else would not be a pointless exercise  

    One of the, at least to me, annoying things here has been there is even arguments that a presidents testimony can not be subpoenaed

    Nixons was not for testimony.  Clinton did testify in response to a subpoena

    There are DOJ guidelines against taking any kind of legal action that might influence an election.
    Yeah, I know, but seriously, there is.  They say the whole thing will be put in a kind of holding pattern after the August congressional recess.

    Seems link a good time to set some legal precedent.


    Is there really an argument that a President (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 18, 2018 at 08:54:31 AM EST
    Can't be subpoenaed? I thought there was really only the argument that a sitting President can't be indicted. I thought there was too much precedent of Presidents being subpoenaed for there to be a relevant argument.

    I dont think there is any real argument (none / 0) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 18, 2018 at 03:59:48 PM EST

    But that has not stopped them.

    Seems to me settling that once and for all, beyond any argument, would not be a bad thing.


    I think Mueller subpoenas Trump (none / 0) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 18, 2018 at 08:51:25 AM EST
    It isn't his job to affect elections by trying not to affect elections as Comey did. Trump isn't running so I don't know how anyone can legitimately claim giving Trump a subpoena this summer affects someone else's election.

    I think Mueller subpoenas Trump when the investigation is prepared to do that. Whether it is before, during, or midterms I don't believe is his focus. The law and ethics are his focus.


    I agree (none / 0) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 18, 2018 at 11:09:39 AM EST
    We don't really know Mueller's timeline even if there is one. He just keeps moving along and we only find things out at some later date usually months after something has happened.

    I think the question of a supoena has been answered previously and Mueller knows he can do it.


    I think the FBI (none / 0) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 18, 2018 at 11:19:00 AM EST
    I still smarting from the Hillary incident.

    I can see them being cautious

    That said, I hope with all my heart you are right.


    This has (none / 0) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 18, 2018 at 12:21:22 PM EST
    been a hard lesson for them to learn but hopefully they are learning it---do not interfere with the electoral process. They helped install someone who wants nothing more than their destruction.

    They installed someone (none / 0) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 18, 2018 at 02:34:20 PM EST
    Who may yet destroy them

    That thang from Gulliani (none / 0) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 18, 2018 at 02:33:27 PM EST
    About Mueller said he believes you can't indict a sitting President, sounds like that wasn't exactly how that went down. And seems that Mueller still wants an interview.

    Trump is so stupid about what he can say and do, until it is over he is capable of saying and doing things that could end up setting new legal precedent for sitting Presidents IMO. And wtf happened to the two SARs?

    I think the most important thing is that the investigation is appropriately conducted.

    But Trump isn't stupid about everything. I see how he has exhausted people in litigation. He continuously moves goal posts, introduces new issues even if he's just pulling them out of a$$. And he always seems able to find a fresh body who commits to standing in front of the cannons for him.

    That isn't an intelligence easily recognizable by most of the folks I gravitate to, but it is now obvious it is some form of smarts. Right out of the jungle.


    What they have done (none / 0) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 18, 2018 at 03:56:30 PM EST
    Definitely shows some feral smarts

    Rudy say they can't do it until "after the Korea thing"

    That would push it into election season where they think he won't do it.

    Mueller definitely would want an interview.  Trump definitely does not.  I don't think he has or has ever had any intention of doing it.  

    I think Mueller might subpoena him


    If Mueller (none / 0) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 18, 2018 at 06:08:41 PM EST
    really wants to talk to him he will issue a supoena. Surely if you and I can tell that Trump really is not going to talk to Mueller then Mueller himself can see it. Mueller seems to be playing some sort of game with Rudy and Trump of which neither of them seem to realize it.

    OTOH (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 18, 2018 at 06:19:16 PM EST
    I wonder if he will think it's worth the headache just for him to take the 5th.  Which I think he would do if forced to testify.

    Is it even worth it.  I'm sure he doesn't need anything he would expect to get from Trump.

    One thing fer sure, Mueller is on the move.  We just heard today about still more subpoenas for associates of Roger Stone.  Manafort son in law.  And that's just the stuff we know about.

    It sure seems like Trump and Rudy and whoever have realized they only have one option.  Try to undermine the investigation.  That's a pretty desperate place it seems to me.


    Well (none / 0) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 18, 2018 at 08:51:46 PM EST
    if you read some of the ex-CIA types on twitter they say that Rudy himself is in trouble with all this.

    Trump pleading the 5th would be political suicide. Even the crack heads would have a hard time justifying that one. You could play the tape over and over of Trump saying only the mob pleads the 5th.

    Considering recent news they are incredibly desperate willing to break the law in an attempt to save themselves.


    Disagree about the suicide (none / 0) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 18, 2018 at 09:18:38 PM EST
    Everything Rudy and Hannity and others is doing right now is preparing the ground for Trump to take the 5th, if necessary.  Or do whatever else is necessary.

    IMO they have realized they cannot stop the investigation.  They know they are guilty and they know Mueller is coming for them.  This is now for them all political PR.

    They are not trying to explain or defend.  It's all about making the investigation illegitimate.  As long as they have the hard core, they believe, they have the republican congress.  And they are correct.  I think the republicans plan to run on the threat of impeachment.  Will that work.  I don't think so.  But what else do they have.

    I think their central mistake is believing it will ultimately be a political decision.

    I think Mueller will indict Trump.


    By (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by FlJoe on Sat May 19, 2018 at 06:38:13 AM EST
    this time I have come to the conclusion that "political suicide" is not a thing that applies to tRump.

    By the time tRump is forced to plead the fifth, Fox and the base will be convinced that it is the honorable and patriotic thing to do.

    Rudy was on CNN yesterday viciously demonizing the entire Justice department and the FBI (he went slightly easier on Sessions, but still took shots at him). When confronted with the video evidence of his total flip-flop on presidential subpoenas, he turned that into some kind of proof of the mendacity of the press, he called it disgusting attack.

    That's the strategy now, cold hard facts are proof positive that they are the victim of a total witch hunt.

    I am not not too hopeful that Mueller will indict tRump, I think it's Rosenstein's call anyway. The DOJ as an institution believes it "shouldn't" do that although my understanding nothing in the constitution says they can't.

    Personally I think it is time has come to lay down the marker that the president is not above the law, giving him virtual immunity from legal action and waiting for some political blow back to mete out justice is a ludicrous concept.  


    Yep (none / 0) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 19, 2018 at 07:29:41 AM EST
    Pretty much.

    A Trump indictment is a bit more hope than expectation.

    But I think Mueller and Rosenstein and the whole justice department including possibly Sessions will agree with your last paragraph.

    These people have spent their lives on the rule of law.  What Trump is doing makes a mockery of their whole life and careers.  A "marker" is needed.  

    I think they will take down the whole criminal enterprise.  And I suspect they will see it as the most important work they have ever done.


    It is the most (none / 0) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 19, 2018 at 12:24:11 PM EST
    important work they will ever do from the standpoint of they are saving democracy for our country.

    Summer Zervos get a green light (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 17, 2018 at 08:39:59 PM EST