F.B.I. Raids Office of Trump’s Longtime Lawyer Michael Cohen

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: soberbacchus

Doesn't matter if he did.

He self financed some of it.

Wait. You mean Trump lied about knowing nothing about the deal?

I'm gobsmacked.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: soberbacchus

Oh FFS who cares. We are talking about a world leader with serious responsibilities.

So if Obama was paying off porn stars, the right wing would just ignore it?

The GOP tried to impeach slick willy for a BJ. after years of investigation.

It's a tabloid nation and Trump brought all this attention down upon his own head.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Trump didn't borrow money. Cohen supposedly did. Trump can't be implicated if this is true, even if the FEDS found evidence he knew about the payoff, so what? How is that a crime. He was a private citizen at the time of the confidentiality agreement.

No matter WHAT!

Trumps guilty.

They can't tell you what he's guilty of.

It ranges from being a racist,rapist,adulterer,has sex with pornstars,cheated on his taxes, colluded with Russia to win the election.

There's no proof other than their idiotic opinions.

But Gawd dammit.

He's guilty!

Get a rope an hang em high.

Take a stick and beat him like an orange pinata.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
And I should also say that firing Mueller will not stop this case against Cohen with the state of New York. He's in it for the long haul. No pardons can touch this.

Again it is not the State of New York doing this. It is the Federal district court.

As for firing Mueller this goes back to what Democrats plotted sometime back. Try to find crimes that could be prosecuted at the state level in order to nullify Trump's pardon authority. That strategy may come back to bite the left in the ass since it shows calculated bias against the suspect.

While the Federal government and state government are separate sovereigns its not often you see both entities prosecuting the same person for the same crimes. Usually the jurisdiction with the best case gets the case since the ultimate goal is justice in the name of the people.

Start politicizing that even more than it is right now and the only person that loses are the people themselves.

The goal is justice and not political dinner theater.

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: Xcathdra

It only goes to 2015 so you can add 2016 presidential run in there also. So none of these "crimes" the left keeps talking about, going all the way back to 2000, werent relevant when he was running but are relevant now that he won? Really?

The Right still brings up "birther" BS about Obama and Crooked Hillary crimes from years ago and Trump still hasn't indited her.

Revelant?

The President doesnt indict anyone. Grand Jury's do.

As of right now those investigations have been reopened or are under investigation by the OIG.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Napolitano suspects Cohen took out the $140k as part of a mortgage loan to pay the porn star and possibly lied to the bank about what the loan was for.

Too bad he is not from Pakistan and didnt work in IT. It never would have been a problem.

a reply to: olaru12

Sir,

My issue with Obama has nothing to do with the fact that he consumed drugs and slept with men.

I am not talking about any of that. Why did you even bring it up?

The FBI is not the private army of any political party.

This is affecting a standing president while heightened tensions with Russia are nearing war time considerations.

Right now, the opposition to Trump within our government may be the most valuable asset to our enemies.

There is law. This goes beyond the scope of the investigation. End of story. I say arrest everyone involved.

Some have lost their damned minds.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Napolitano suspects Cohen took out the $140k as part of a mortgage loan to pay the porn star and possibly lied to the bank about what the loan was for.

Too bad he is not from Pakistan and didnt work in IT. It never would have been a problem.

Or Trump had an affair with another dude.

Selective outrage is selective.

originally posted by: EchoesInTime
a reply to: soberbacchus

Trump didn't borrow money. Cohen supposedly did. Trump can't be implicated if this is true, even if the FEDS found evidence he knew about the payoff, so what? How is that a crime. He was a private citizen at the time of the confidentiality agreement.

Correct on all of it.

If Trump gave him the money? Everyone lied, but OK.
If Cohen paid out of his pocket? Fine?
If Cohen lied to the bank for the loan saying it was for home improvement? He'd get a court date, but not raided.

If they used campaign funds and lied to the Feds? That is a raid.

I suspect that Cohen used this secret shell company for general "fixing" and once that rock got turned over there was a lot of other stuff and was enough there to warrant a raid.

Like, what if they found the thug that threatened Stormy Daniels? And he got paid by Cohen?

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: TinfoilTP

They're saying this is because of stormy Daniel's which means they're using her story as a front to find something anything about Russia and bring down the president.

The interesting thing about that is that, while charges can stem from things found during a warrant raid for something else (let's say, stuff surrounding Stormy Daniels but they find evidence of "collusion" [not itself a crime] with Russia), that can be used to pursue charges pertaining to Russian collusion, but it does open up ammunition from the defense.

In that regard, it's like I noted earlier, this could be a backhanded way for both Mueller and the FBI to get back at Trump, using a rather pointless case of adultery from a time when he was not POTUS to find evidence of other illegal happenings.

It's a pretty crappy way to use the legal system if this ends up being the case, and I would be highly disgusted with the actions if this is what it ends up being.

I feel the same way if that's the case. I'm no fan of trump but this seems like really dirty tactics

a reply to: EchoesInTime

Looks like possibly bank fraud (to get the money) and the actual pay off is a clear campaign finance violation.

a reply to: soberbacchus

IF Cohen took out a loan and it was paid back there's nothing to snip about.

a reply to: IAMTAT

So let me get this straight, this happened because potentially Stormy was paid off by campaign contributions which I get is wrong, but tell me again why the Congress gets to use taxpayer money?

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: soberbacchus

IF Cohen took out a loan and it was paid back there's nothing to snip about.

What makes you think that happened?

That does not get warrants signed off on. Certainly not for the Presidents attorney.

Love him or hate him, Mueller doesn't make a move or hand a case to an AG (Appointed by Trump no less) unless it is rock solid and serious.

a reply to: tadaman

Yes it does. That is why all Mueller could do was report what he had found to N.Y. and the FBI operating out of that state.

originally posted by: TheLead
a reply to: IAMTAT

So let me get this straight, this happened because potentially Stormy was paid off by campaign contributions which I get is wrong, but tell me again why the Congress gets to use taxpayer money?

Because in our system everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.

With that said it might be a good idea to see if Congress violated any laws by doing that.

Actually they might have broken the law -
1661. Protection Of Government Property -- Embezzlement Of Public Funds

In addition, there are a series of sections prohibiting misuse or theft of public funds. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 643, 644, 648, 649, 650, 651, 652, and 653. The coverage of these sections is summarized below:

18 U.S.C. § 643 provides that any officer, employee or agent of the United States who receives money which he is not authorized to retain as salary and fails to account for it as provided by law is guilty of embezzlement.
18 U.S.C. § 644 prohibits persons who are not authorized depositaries of public money from knowingly receiving any such money or using, transferring, converting, appropriating or applying such money for any purpose not prescribed by law.
18 U.S.C. § 648 forbids custodians of public funds from loaning, using, or converting those funds, or depositing or exchanging them, except as authorized by law.
18 U.S.C. § 649 provides that any person who possesses or controls money belonging to the United States and fails to deposit it when required to do so is guilty of embezzlement.
18 U.S.C. § 650 applies to the Treasurer of the United States or any public depositary and provides that if these officials fail to keep safely all money deposited with them, they have violated the law. One case has suggested that this section is violated when a depositary of government money negligently loses these funds. See Shaw v. United States, 357 F.2d 949, 957-58 (Ct.Cl. 1966). The better view on this question, however, seems to be that some criminal intent must be proven as part of a prosecution under this section. See Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 266-67 (1952).
18 U.S.C. § 651 relates to the disbursement of public funds and prohibits disbursing officers from falsely certifying full payment of government obligations.
18 U.S.C. § 652 also relates to the disbursement of government funds. This section prohibits disbursing officers from disbursing a sum less than that required by law.
18 U.S.C. § 653 prohibits any other misuse of government funds by disbursing officers including: (1) converting, loaning or depositing these moneys except as authorized by law; and (2) withdrawing, transferring or applying these funds without authority.
Finally, 18 U.S.C. § 654 forbids government employees from wrongfully converting the property of others which they receive in the course of their employment.

Penalties for violations of these sections are similar to the penalties prescribed under 18 U.S.C. §§ 634-647. If the value of the property is $100 or less, a defendant is subject to one year imprisonment, a $1,000 fine, or both. When the value of the property exceeds $100, the defendant may be sentenced to ten years imprisonment, a fine equal to the amount of the property taken, or both. In the case of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 651 or § 652, the maximum fine may equal twice the value of the property taken.

Most of these sections involve situations in which 18 U.S.C. § 641 would be equally applicable. Note, however, that the penalties provided by 18 U.S.C. § 641 differ from the penalties provided for in 18 U.S.C. §§ 643 - 654. Violations of 18 U.S.C. § 641 are punishable by ten years imprisonment and/or a $10,000 fine. In contrast, 18 U.S.C. §§ 643 - 654 provide for a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment and/or a fine equal to the amount taken, or double that amount. Thus, in a given case, the defendant could be subject to a greater or lesser fine, depending upon the statute used. Because of this difference in the penalties provided by these statutes, defendants who fall within these specific sections generally should be prosecuted under the specific statute rather than 18 U.S.C. § 641.

[cited in USAM 9-66.300]

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: tadaman

Yes it does. That is why all Mueller could do was report what he had found to N.Y. and the FBI operating out of that state.

Question -
If this is outside Muellers authority then please explain Manafort and Gates and how they are in his authority. Or is it your contention Rosensteins secrete memo to Mueller only applied to Manafort and Gates?

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: soberbacchus

IF Cohen took out a loan and it was paid back there's nothing to snip about.

What makes you think that happened?

That does not get warrants signed off on. Certainly not for the Presidents attorney.

Love him or hate him, Mueller doesn't make a move or hand a case to an AG (Appointed by Trump no less) unless it is rock solid and serious.

better not be Mueller saving face for finding nothing in the Russia investigation or using a porn star to raid a presidents lawyer to find something. Even if he does find something at this point im still suspect based on these circumstances. Far worse crap happens daily in Washington to act this way.

a reply to: EchoesInTime

If its all happened as said, and theres nothing else we dont know about...I dont think its Trump on the hot seat here legally on this matter, just Cohen.