Michael Cohen's lawyer says he will not accept pardon from 'criminal' Donald Trump

a reply to: yzgi59


Why not, its almost certain that Ross Perot had his family threatened all those years ago, and if they do that to a presidential candidate, a lawyer wouldn't be any trouble.

ETA: On topic, is this a Cohen statement or a closely connected Clinton lawyer statement.

If Cohen is making the statements like that there is a little more weight behind them, but someone close to the Clinton cabal meh... them saying something bad about an opponent is kinda like saying the sun is hot.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

And it's not very tragic for America if you actually care about metrics that measure the overall health of our nation--it is, I suppose, tragic if you only view America through the eyes of ideology.

Inflation due to trade wars? Falling consumer confidence? An overheated deregulated stock market? A failing health care system? Rolled back environmental regulations? What metrics are you thinking of?

Please do quote me in the future. Both parties are having a near death experience. They will need to co-operate to survive.

a reply to: Irishhaf

We now know that the porn actress was probably telling the truth when she said that Cohen hired a mack to threaten her. Cohen is now on the receiving end of that philosophy.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

What made Cohen turn on Trump so unexpectedly I wonder? Is it because Trump turned his back?

Look at the plea deal and see the why:

In consideration of his plea to the above o?enses, the defendant will not be further prosecuted criminally by this Of?ce and, with respect to tax offenses, the Tax Division, Department of Justice, for any crimes relating to: evasion of payment of income taxes, for the calendar years 2012 through 2016, as charged in Counts One through Five of the Information; (2) making false statements to a ?nancial institution in connection with a credit decision, from at least in or about February 2015, up to and including in or about April 2016, as charged in Count Six of the Information; (3) causing an unlaw?ll corporate contribution, from at least in or about June 2016 through in or about August 2016, as charged in Count Seven of the Information; (4) making an excessive campaign contribution, on or about October 2016, as charged in Count Eight of the Information, and (5) making false statements to a ?nancial institution in connection with a credit decision by Sterling National Bank, ?om at least in or about October 2016, up to an including in or about April 2018, it being understood that this agreement does not bar the use of such conduct as a predicate act or as the basis for a sentencing enhancement in a subsequent prosecution including, but not limited to, a prosecution pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq. In addition, at the time of sentencing, the Government will move to dismiss any open Count(s) against the defendant. This Agreement does not provide any protection against prosecution except as set forth above. The defendant agrees that with respect to any and all dismissed charges he is not a ?prevailing party? within the meaning of the ?Hyde Amendment,? Section .617, PL. 105?] 19 (N ov. 26, 1997), and will not ?le any claim under that law.

www.cnn.com...

They essentially bought the witness.

originally posted by: TheSubversiveOne
a reply to: Southern Guardian

What made Cohen turn on Trump so unexpectedly I wonder? Is it because Trump turned his back?

Look at the plea deal and see the why:

In consideration of his plea to the above o?enses, the defendant will not be further prosecuted criminally by this Of?ce and, with respect to tax offenses, the Tax Division, Department of Justice, for any crimes relating to: evasion of payment of income taxes, for the calendar years 2012 through 2016, as charged in Counts One through Five of the Information; (2) making false statements to a ?nancial institution in connection with a credit decision, from at least in or about February 2015, up to and including in or about April 2016, as charged in Count Six of the Information; (3) causing an unlaw?ll corporate contribution, from at least in or about June 2016 through in or about August 2016, as charged in Count Seven of the Information; (4) making an excessive campaign contribution, on or about October 2016, as charged in Count Eight of the Information, and (5) making false statements to a ?nancial institution in connection with a credit decision by Sterling National Bank, ?om at least in or about October 2016, up to an including in or about April 2018, it being understood that this agreement does not bar the use of such conduct as a predicate act or as the basis for a sentencing enhancement in a subsequent prosecution including, but not limited to, a prosecution pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq. In addition, at the time of sentencing, the Government will move to dismiss any open Count(s) against the defendant. This Agreement does not provide any protection against prosecution except as set forth above. The defendant agrees that with respect to any and all dismissed charges he is not a ?prevailing party? within the meaning of the ?Hyde Amendment,? Section .617, PL. 105?] 19 (N ov. 26, 1997), and will not ?le any claim under that law.

www.cnn.com...

They essentially bought the witness.

That's what you do in racketeering cases. You do realize that this is a racketeering case?

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: TheSubversiveOne
a reply to: Southern Guardian

What made Cohen turn on Trump so unexpectedly I wonder? Is it because Trump turned his back?

Look at the plea deal and see the why:

In consideration of his plea to the above o?enses, the defendant will not be further prosecuted criminally by this Of?ce and, with respect to tax offenses, the Tax Division, Department of Justice, for any crimes relating to: evasion of payment of income taxes, for the calendar years 2012 through 2016, as charged in Counts One through Five of the Information; (2) making false statements to a ?nancial institution in connection with a credit decision, from at least in or about February 2015, up to and including in or about April 2016, as charged in Count Six of the Information; (3) causing an unlaw?ll corporate contribution, from at least in or about June 2016 through in or about August 2016, as charged in Count Seven of the Information; (4) making an excessive campaign contribution, on or about October 2016, as charged in Count Eight of the Information, and (5) making false statements to a ?nancial institution in connection with a credit decision by Sterling National Bank, ?om at least in or about October 2016, up to an including in or about April 2018, it being understood that this agreement does not bar the use of such conduct as a predicate act or as the basis for a sentencing enhancement in a subsequent prosecution including, but not limited to, a prosecution pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq. In addition, at the time of sentencing, the Government will move to dismiss any open Count(s) against the defendant. This Agreement does not provide any protection against prosecution except as set forth above. The defendant agrees that with respect to any and all dismissed charges he is not a ?prevailing party? within the meaning of the ?Hyde Amendment,? Section .617, PL. 105?] 19 (N ov. 26, 1997), and will not ?le any claim under that law.

www.cnn.com...

They essentially bought the witness.

That's what you do in racketeering cases. You do realize that this is a racketeering case?

What do you do in a racketeering case?

This is interesting:

Former Clinton Pollster: Hillary Clinton Broke Campaign Finance Laws, Not Donald Trump

Mark Penn, former pollster for the Clintons wrote this article:

The usual procedures here would be for the FEC to investigate complaints and sort through these murky laws to determine if these kinds of payments are personal in nature or more properly classified as campaign expenditures. And, on the Daniels payment that was made and reimbursed by Trump, it is again a question of whether that was made for personal reasons (especially since they have been trying since 2011 to obtain agreement). Just because it would be helpful to the campaign does not convert it to a campaign expenditure. Think of a candidate with bad teeth who had dental work done to look better for the campaign; his campaign still could not pay for it because it’s a personal expenditure.

Contrast what is going on here with the treatment of the millions of dollars paid to a Democratic law firm which, in turn, paid out money to political research firm Fusion GPS and British ex-spy Christopher Steele without listing them on any campaign expenditure form — despite crystal-clear laws and regulations that the ultimate beneficiaries of the funds must be listed. This rule was even tightened recently. There is no question that hiring spies to do opposition research in Russia is a campaign expenditure, and yet, no prosecutorial raids have been sprung on the law firm, Fusion GPS or Steele. Reason: It does not “get” Trump.

It appears as if the prosecutors didn't even go through the proper channels to determine if an election violation actually occurred.

originally posted by: wylekat
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Michael Cohen's lawyer has said his client will refuse any pardon from Donald Trump, branding the US president a "criminal".

I find this... intriguing. Why punish himself, by not accepting a pardon? If he's that PO'd, why not accept it, move somewhere without extradition laws, middle finger him, and laugh all the way to the beach or lounge chair?

I wonder if he's been instructed not to accept a pardon (insert whatever threats you can dream up), and this was the excuse given?

Oh this is in exchange for him keeping all his money to be sure,and that the clintons told him to play ball or join the ever growing list of people they had killed,suicided.robbed,and plane crashed.

a reply to: TheSubversiveOne

Well A plea bargain is also called LEGAL FICTION for a reason. It doesnt have to be truthful,and can be based on just opinions alone.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Probably that he couldn’t trust any republican lawyers not to be a trump lapdog..

a reply to: yuppa

What?!?!


A plea deal means you are cutting a deal because you know you will be convicted..

a reply to: yuppa

BWAHAHAHA

So then why isn’t Sean Hannity and every other rightwing propaganda whore dead???

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: yuppa

What?!?!


A plea deal means you are cutting a deal because you know you will be convicted..

That is not necessarily true.

Fior example, the fbi could tell me that if I dont plea, my son will be arrested. I may take the deal thinking full well I wont be convicted, but I want to spare my sone.

Or in this case, cohen may plea to a crime he is innocent of to get out of being charged with a much more severe crime.

originally posted by: TheSubversiveOne

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: TheSubversiveOne
a reply to: Southern Guardian

What made Cohen turn on Trump so unexpectedly I wonder? Is it because Trump turned his back?

Look at the plea deal and see the why:

In consideration of his plea to the above o?enses, the defendant will not be further prosecuted criminally by this Of?ce and, with respect to tax offenses, the Tax Division, Department of Justice, for any crimes relating to: evasion of payment of income taxes, for the calendar years 2012 through 2016, as charged in Counts One through Five of the Information; (2) making false statements to a ?nancial institution in connection with a credit decision, from at least in or about February 2015, up to and including in or about April 2016, as charged in Count Six of the Information; (3) causing an unlaw?ll corporate contribution, from at least in or about June 2016 through in or about August 2016, as charged in Count Seven of the Information; (4) making an excessive campaign contribution, on or about October 2016, as charged in Count Eight of the Information, and (5) making false statements to a ?nancial institution in connection with a credit decision by Sterling National Bank, ?om at least in or about October 2016, up to an including in or about April 2018, it being understood that this agreement does not bar the use of such conduct as a predicate act or as the basis for a sentencing enhancement in a subsequent prosecution including, but not limited to, a prosecution pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq. In addition, at the time of sentencing, the Government will move to dismiss any open Count(s) against the defendant. This Agreement does not provide any protection against prosecution except as set forth above. The defendant agrees that with respect to any and all dismissed charges he is not a ?prevailing party? within the meaning of the ?Hyde Amendment,? Section .617, PL. 105?] 19 (N ov. 26, 1997), and will not ?le any claim under that law.

www.cnn.com...

They essentially bought the witness.

That's what you do in racketeering cases. You do realize that this is a racketeering case?

What do you do in a racketeering case?

Cut a deal so that the flunky turns on his boss.

a reply to: Grambler

Or in this case, cohen may plea to a crime he is innocent of to get out of being charged with a much more severe crime.

Which suggests he may have a much bigger crime over his head.

Such as the tax evasion on MILIIONS of dollars. the IRS wanted him to serve decades.

a reply to: DJW001

Cut a deal so that the flunky turns on his boss.

Right, you make backroom deals promising your client immunity to certain charges while wavering their right to a fair trial, all to get to someone else. That's real justice.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: yuppa

What?!?!


A plea deal means you are cutting a deal because you know you will be convicted..

Ill get you the link since you are playing coy.

www.washingtonexaminer.com...


Now carefully read this.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Grambler

Or in this case, cohen may plea to a crime he is innocent of to get out of being charged with a much more severe crime.

Which suggests he may have a much bigger crime over his head.

Then why not go after him for it ? Take him to court, prosecute and sentence him... Because it has nothing to do with President Trump.

Go after a real crime and get no political benefit ? Or get a plea deal on nothing and make political hay ?
They said "lets make hay."

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Inflation due to trade wars?

Trump's goal is free trade, or at the very least, removing the advantage that some countries hold in our trade deals--are you against that? If we have to deal with temporary price increases on SOME items in the interim, would that not be worth the final result?

I'm not claiming that the tactic will work, but on some fronts thus far, it has, although not on all.

Falling consumer confidence?

Not according to macro trends, nor last month's polling report from The Conference Board. Now, Trading Economics notes a decline, but since the Great Recession, we have seen the highest consumer index rating under Trump. I think that we're doing okay with a small decline, especially considering that it is assumed to be tied to the tariffs (which I noted should be temporary...and if they work, should drive the confidence index even higher).


Gallup, while a few months behind, also shows a nice upward overall trend at the macro level.


No more mountains out of molehills, agreed?

An overheated deregulated stock market?

.
The Stock Market has been out of control for decades, and the rebound since its low about a decade ago has been overinflated, in my opinion. I fail to see how that's mainly Trump's fault or how it's a bad thing, at this point, for Americans. I do see a large correction in the future, but again, is that Trump's fault that a correction needs to happen?

In the span of a decade, the DOW has increased by about 18,500 points. That's not sustainable, and will correct itself, but it's certainly not the reflection of a poor economy.

As for government regulations, I'm generally opposed to them unless there's an absolute need, and much like everything else, Wall Street has had regulations piled on to the point of overkill. Unless you care to cite specific deregulation efforts, I can't comment on whether or not I agree with them.

A failing health care system?

The health care system is fine, it's the health insurance industry that is failing, catalyzed by the government dicking with the private industry to begin with. There are very few metrics on which we can measure the PPACA against the health care (well, health insurance) industry before hand where the direct-to-patient effects are better or drastically better.

But, lemme guess, that's because of Trump?

Rolled back environmental regulations?

Which were over-burdensome to begin with. I approve mostly of what's happening at the EPA...mostly.

What metrics are you thinking of?

Unemployement, wages, home values rebounding, retirement savings rebounding, taxes getting cut, record tax revenues by quarters since the tax cut, some rolled back environmental regulations, giving some land back to states, better negotiating with other countries (or negotiating at all), diplomacy with places like North Korea and Russia, holding other nations accountable for their fiscal participation in international organizations and agreements, a reduction in focus on political correctness, and the list could go on and on.

Please do quote me in the future. Both parties are having a near death experience. They will need to co-operate to survive.

To be fair, I'll probably forget that we even discussed this issue, let alone exactly what you said. I just find assertive predictions to be comical, especially when they're seemingly based on ideology alone.

In any event, I'm bowing out of this conversation as well, because like in the other thread where we've been talking, this has become an off-topic conversation, and I'm just not interested in continuing to derail the thread anymore.

Best regards.