It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Air tight defense for Trump

page: 1
42
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+26 more 
posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 08:25 PM
link   
So there is a chance trump may be found guilty of campaign finance violations working with his lawyer cohen who plead guilty today.

As I have stated all along, if trump did the crime, he should be punished.

But I have a strategic question involving trumps defense.

There is a solid chance that cohens testimony enough may not be enough evidence.

In fact, there is also a chance that they will need more evidence from trump that they didnt get from cohen. Cell records, emails, etc.

And so this evidence will be subpoenaed.

So why doesnt trump just destroy all requested evidence?

The precedent has been set with the hillary case, destroying subpoenaed evidence is a ok, and nothing bad will happen to you because of it.

In fact, why doesnt everyone use this strategy from now on?

I mean, its not like the fbi agents who were praising hillary and bashing trump that were in charge of both initial investigations would have had different standards for the two cases, right?

And then once that evidence is destroyed, and no possible conviction can be made, trump supporters can then brag that the investigation exonerated him, just like hillary supporters did, right?

I mean I myself would be appalled if trump did this, but as a legal defense, it seems pretty air tight.

And hillary supporting trump haters would no doubt agree that there is nothing unethical about it, and it is a perfectly legal thing to do.



+16 more 
posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Well, they would have to prove that Trump actually used campaign contributions.

We have a tape from Cohen... in that recording Trump states not to do that.

So... where is the actual crime? Unless Cohen did anyways (no idea how he would have access to Trump's campaign funds) then that would be embezzlement on the part of Cohen.



+3 more 
posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

Sure all of that is true.

But I am saying why even let it get that far, just destroy all evidence now of any potential crime(again I think this is unethical, but precedent has been set that this is a legal, viable strategy)

If the destruction of subpoenaed evidence is not enough proof of a crime when hillarys team does it, then what does the threshold have to be against trump to prove a crime?


+6 more 
posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

this is a Hillary thread in disguise

but trump has nothing to be worried about. this is just a dog and pony show with one cup...
the investigation ended months ago. it ended when Clinton started to come back the deeper they looked into the Russia thing.



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I just posted this on ATS Q thread. While it doesn't exactly answer your question I considered it relevant.

the right scoop Mark Levin There is a vid at the link with former FEC chair...first 3-5 minutes explains


“When the FEC wrote the regulation that says what constitutes campaign expenditures and what constitutes personal use, it rejected specifically the idea that a campaign expenditure was anything related to a campaign,and instead says it has to be something that exists only because of the campaign and solely for that reason.


The reason is Stormy threatened during the campaign and it threatened the campaign, so payment was made.

This needs to be understood before people come in here crying abuse of funds or whatever.
edit on 21-8-2018 by liveandlearn because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 08:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
So there is a chance trump may be found guilty of campaign finance violations working with his lawyer cohen who plead guilty today.

As I have stated all along, if trump did the crime, he should be punished.

But I have a strategic question involving trumps defense.

There is a solid chance that cohens testimony enough may not be enough evidence.

In fact, there is also a chance that they will need more evidence from trump that they didnt get from cohen. Cell records, emails, etc.

And so this evidence will be subpoenaed.

So why doesnt trump just destroy all requested evidence?

The precedent has been set with the hillary case, destroying subpoenaed evidence is a ok, and nothing bad will happen to you because of it.

In fact, why doesnt everyone use this strategy from now on?

I mean, its not like the fbi agents who were praising hillary and bashing trump that were in charge of both initial investigations would have had different standards for the two cases, right?

And then once that evidence is destroyed, and no possible conviction can be made, trump supporters can then brag that the investigation exonerated him, just like hillary supporters did, right?

I mean I myself would be appalled if trump did this, but as a legal defense, it seems pretty air tight.

And hillary supporting trump haters would no doubt agree that there is nothing unethical about it, and it is a perfectly legal thing to do.





You say this as if the special counsel doesn't already have all the evidence they need. How many months ago was Cohen's office raided?



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 08:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
So why doesnt trump just destroy all requested evidence?

The President probably reads this site anonymously. We're all pretty sure of that.

Were you sliding a suggestion by him? ;-)


+11 more 
posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

A lawyer is supposed to guide their client to follow the law, and must never do anything illegal. If Cohen did something wrong it is his own fault. If he did not guide his client in the law, it is Cohen's fault.

A client trusts their lawyer to make sure everything is done legally. That's why people use a lawyer.



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 08:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deplorable

originally posted by: Grambler
So why doesnt trump just destroy all requested evidence?

The President probably reads this site anonymously. We're all pretty sure of that.

Were you sliding a suggestion by him? ;-)


Hehehe.

I support trump, but he probably would not like me, cause I would tell him when I think he is wrong.

I ask of trump what I ask of everyone; be honest, if you committed a crime, fess up to it.

So I wouldnt want him to delete evidence at all.

But.....


Hillary supporters would think its cool. And clearly the fbi thinks its legal.

So if he destroyed evidnce, it would disappoint me, but the fbi and hillary supporters would be ok with it.
edit on 21-8-2018 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 08:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: liveandlearn
a reply to: Grambler

I just posted this on ATS Q thread. While it doesn't exactly answer your question I considered it relevant.

the right scoop Mark Levin There is a vid at the link with former FEC chair...first 3-5 minutes explains


“When the FEC wrote the regulation that says what constitutes campaign expenditures and what constitutes personal use, it rejected specifically the idea that a campaign expenditure was anything related to a campaign,and instead says it has to be something that exists only because of the campaign and solely for that reason.


The reason is Stormy threatened during the campaign and it threatened the campaign, so payment was made.

This needs to be understood before people come in here crying abuse of funds or whatever.


Levin was just on Hannity, and he did a great job of explaining this bullsnip, and why there is no violation of campaign finance laws by Trump here. Spells it out really well.



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari
I could be wrong, but as I understand it, Cohen paid the hush money out of his own money and then Trump repaid him. I think the way it is being classified as campaign funds is that the money paid out as hush money is seen to be a “loan” from Cohen used for campaign reasons—those reasons being to keep Stormy quiet since she only came forward as a result of Trump’s campaign for President. And then that “loan” was more than legally allowed as a campaign donation, which is what it is being labeled. It is a bit of a stretch in my opinion, but that is how I understand the charges.

Why Trump didn’t just pay her cash through an intermediary out of his own pocket still seems to be the question to me, then none of this would be an issue.

edit on 21/8/2018 by xtradimensions because: Added a sentence for clarification



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 08:57 PM
link   
My reply to the OP is that Trump shouldn’t do what is suggested because it makes him no better than Hillary. Personally, I don’t want Trump to act like Hillary or I might as well have voted for her. To become as bad as the person he ran against would waste his entire effort, imo.



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 09:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


The leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee said on Tuesday that they want President Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen to testify before the panel regarding recent media reports indicating he knew about the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting before it took place.

As Cohen surrendered to the FBI ahead of his guilty plea on charges of tax fraud, bank fraud and campaign finance violations in New York, Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Vice Chairman Mark Warner (D-Va.) issued a joint statement.

"[Cohen] appears to be pleading guilty to very serious charges," the senators said. "However, we have no insight into any agreements he and his legal team have allegedly reached with the prosecutors in New York."

"What we can say is we recently re-engaged Mr. Cohen and his team following press reports that suggested he had advanced knowledge of the June 16th meeting between campaign officials and a Russian lawyer at the Trump Tower," the senators added.

Burr said on MSNBC on Tuesday that Cohen previously testified before the committee and said he was not aware of the Trump Tower meeting until reports emerged in the press the following year.


The Hill

Credibility being called in to question?



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 09:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Grambler

A lawyer is supposed to guide their client to follow the law, and must never do anything illegal. If Cohen did something wrong it is his own fault. If he did not guide his client in the law, it is Cohen's fault.

A client trusts their lawyer to make sure everything is done legally. That's why people use a lawyer.


But, ignorance is no excuse for the law.

"I didn't know it was illegal" doesn't work well in most cases.



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I've always wondered this... Wasn't his campaign almost entirely self-funded? He wouldn't need to use campaign finances. Or are they going to consider it campaign finances because it was self-funded?



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 09:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

We can't stoop to their level. "What, with like a cloth?" Is not how true conservatives behave. Dems may find this behavior acceptable but not Patriots.



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 09:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

If..IF there was evidence, I'm sure it was destroyed within 12 hours of Cohen being raided.



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 09:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: rollanotherone
a reply to: Grambler

We can't stoop to their level. "What, with like a cloth?" Is not how true conservatives behave. Dems may find this behavior acceptable but not Patriots.


Oh I agree, and said as much, I wouldnt want trump to do this.

But we do need to come to terms that no matter what we consider ethical, the fbi has set the precedent that it is a perfectly legitimate and legal defense to destroy evidence they subpoena.



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft


Cohen's personal credibility was officially ripped to shreds today.



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 09:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: ausername

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Grambler

A lawyer is supposed to guide their client to follow the law, and must never do anything illegal. If Cohen did something wrong it is his own fault. If he did not guide his client in the law, it is Cohen's fault.

A client trusts their lawyer to make sure everything is done legally. That's why people use a lawyer.


But, ignorance is no excuse for the law.

"I didn't know it was illegal" doesn't work well in most cases.


It worked for Hillary. That's why Comey didn't recommend that she be prosecuted.




top topics



 
42
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join