Cohen to plead guilty

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TheSubversiveOne

You mean colluding? Of course they were.

It's the conspiring part that's getting interesting.

I think the word you used was “collaborating”. It appears Michael cCohen was conspiring with someone else, given that he was recording him.

a reply to: Grambler

As part of his secret conspiring and collaborating with russia, he no doubt would have been obtaining info and passing it along, making him a spy.

Covertly obtaining info? Got any evidence he was doing that?

Can you explain how the fact that he was accused of conspiring and collaborating with russia instead of spying for russia has any relevance to the point I was making in that post?

Yes. I think words mean something.

But beyond that, no more than I can figure out what Cohen and his seeming conspiracy with Trump has to do with Page. But maybe, as time goes on, we'll learn more.

a reply to: TheSubversiveOne

It appears Michael cCohen was conspiring with someone else, given that he was recording him.

According to Cohen, he was conspiring with "a candidate for federal office" to commit the crime he has pleaded guilty to.

Now, which of his many clients was a candidate for federal office. Let me think...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Grambler

As part of his secret conspiring and collaborating with russia, he no doubt would have been obtaining info and passing it along, making him a spy.

Covertly obtaining info? Got any evidence he was doing that?

Can you explain how the fact that he was accused of conspiring and collaborating with russia instead of spying for russia has any relevance to the point I was making in that post?

Yes. I think words mean something.

But beyond that, no more than I can figure out what Cohen and his seeming conspiracy with Trump has to do with Page. But maybe, as time goes on, we'll learn more.

Yes, the warrant claims he was collaborating with russia in his duty as a member of the trump campaign, implying he would have no doubt been providing them info.

It was obviously covert, as he hadnt announced it.

And this is all just semantic garbage that should be beneath you. You know it ads nothing to the conversation.

And as far as what it has to do with cohen, you chirped in with this semantic argument in a discussion I was having with another user.

As far as conspiring, I have yet to see you provide how there is any more evidence for conspiring here than there was for Obama team to three times violate campaign finance laws.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TheSubversiveOne

It appears Michael cCohen was conspiring with someone else, given that he was recording him.

According to Cohen, he was conspiring with "a candidate for federal office" to commit the crime he has pleaded guilty to.

Now, which of his many clients was a candidate for federal office. Let me think...

You should see what he’s getting away with for making that deal.

a reply to: Grambler

As far as conspiring, I have yet to see you provide how there is any more evidence for conspiring here than there was for Obama team to three times violate campaign finance laws.

The only evidence here, so far, is in Cohen's plea deal. But as we know, the FBI gathered a bunch of stuff (including recordings) so that evidence is yet to be seen.

A quick review of the documents about Obama campaign reporting violations don't indicate any conspiracy, much less a conspiracy involving the president.

a reply to: TheSubversiveOne

You should see what he’s getting away with for making that deal.

Do tell.
Is it conspiracy charges?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TheSubversiveOne

You should see what he’s getting away with for making that deal.

Do tell.
Is it conspiracy charges?

Cohen saying he was conspiring to commit a federal offence is nothing really major for Trump to worry about for 2 reasons.

1) a plea bargain statement means zilch in terms of determining whether a 3rd party committed any crime.

2) a guilty plea against an indictment does not mean a crime had even been committed.

What we learned yesterday is not new. We already knew Cohen and Trump discussed the payment.

What the SC did was sneaky. They got Cohen to go public under oath that he was given direction tho make the payment to stormy and one other woman. Because there is no trial the SC don't have to prove these payments were illegal. They just leave it out there for the dumb people to eat up as a conspiracy theory. Don't be one of the dumb people.

The question that is STILL most pertinent is whether paying hush money out of Your own pocket is a campaign finance violation or just a private issue. According to the ex chairman of the FEC who discussed these rules everyday and implemented some of them, this is a private transaction and nothing to do with the campaign.

Mueller will have known that he would never get a conviction on this, but he had Cohen on multiple other crimes, so he got creative as his main target is Trump and he has come up dry thus far. The desperation of this play by Mueller should tell you he is clutching at straws.

Trump should simply call him out... dare him to bring an indictment.

a reply to: UKTruth

They got Cohen to go public under oath that he was given direction tho make the payment to stormy and one other woman.

I don't think that a plea agreement means under oath. Not that it's particularly pertinent. Nor does it mean that evidence gathered to produce the charge(s) goes away.

According to the ex chairman kid the FEC who discussed these rules everyday and implemented some of them, this is a private transaction and nothing to do with the campaign.

According to others, that argument doesn't hold water considering evidence which has been made public (the audio tape) , not to mention evidence which has not been made public.

Trump should simply call him out... dare him to bring an indictment.

The legal grounds for indictment of a standing president on any grounds are arguable. Even shooting someone in the middle of 5th avenue. However, Congress may have trouble ignoring an ever growing accumulation of evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors.


We'll see what happens.

a reply to: Phage
If you think Congress is going to remove him based on conspiring with his attorney to violate campaign finance laws you're kidding yourself.
If the House flips, they will draw up articles of impeachment on whatever bs is in the news anyway, but there's just about no way the Senate will move on this comparativley minor charge.
Mueller will need to come up with more. And thus far there is no indication he has anything gamechanging.

a reply to: mightmight

His name is Mueller. And you, and I, don't know much about what he actually knows.

a reply to: Phage
And until he finally produces something serious enough hoping for the demise of Trump will be futile. This scandal - while actually probably implicating Trump for the first time - isnt it.

a reply to: mightmight

As a famous (but not great) man is fond of saying:
We'll see what happens.

a reply to: Phage

The audio tape is irrelevant to the ex FEC chairs argument.
It's not illegal to discuss making a private payment to a person to stop them talking about you. The existence of a tape doesn't change that.

Seriously, the Senate will not vote in favour of removing the President over a private payment outside of the campaign. Remember that to be campaign related it has to be solely for campaign purposes. He's paid women off before ever running for office, so there is zero chance that a prosecutor could win an argument that he only did it because of the campaign.

a reply to: UKTruth

It's not illegal to discuss making a private payment to a person to stop them talking about you.

Correct. On the other hand, if it is in the context of an election campaign, the context is something else.

He's paid women off before ever running for office, so there is zero chance that a prosecutor could win an argument that he only did it because of the campaign.

Yeah. He is sleazy, isn't he. But we don't know much about what other evidence the government has. On a few topics.

a reply to: Phage

We've been seeing what happens for 2 years.

Liberal media create a scandal.
Democrats jump on it and push push push.
Liberals get hopeful based on a lack of understanding, falling for pure propaganda.
Hopes are dashed.
Onto the next 'scadal'...

a reply to: UKTruth

We've been seeing what happens for 2 years.

Really? Two years? When was Mueller appointed?
How much have we heard from him?

a reply to: Phage

The payment had to be solely related to the campaign.
The argument that the context of it being during an election thereby making it a campaign payment is bogus. It's propaganda for those that don't want to research.

Solely for the purposes of the campaign. If it was not, and not paid by campaign funds there is no crime.

a reply to: UKTruth

Solely for the purposes of the campaign. If it was not, and not paid by campaign funds there is no crime.

Considering the timing, from any reasonable perspective it was directly related to the campaign. But you have that backwards. If it was from campaign funds there was no crime.

Trouble is, if it was from campaign funds it would have to have been declared as such and I seem to recall the president himself saying there was no payment made. Until he changed the story.

a reply to: Phage
Directly related to the campaign is also a bogus argument.
It has to be solely related to the campaign.
Common sense should tell you that an individual does not lose their rights as a private citizen just because they are running for office. If he was not running for office, would a payment to keep a woman quiet about an affair land you in jail or in receipt of a fine?

Remember the term. SOLELY for the purposes of the campaign. Given Trump has a history of making these payments to protect his personal image, there is no chance of a successful indictment.