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

a reply to: yuppa

No. There are technicalities involved. By not running the story without declaring it to election officials, the publisher was making an undeclared, illegal, corporate campaign contribution. No problem, Trump will throw the publisher under the bus too.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: yuppa

No. There are technicalities involved. By not running the story without declaring it to election officials, the publisher was making an undeclared, illegal, corporate campaign contribution. No problem, Trump will throw the publisher under the bus too.

Does this also pertain to the other candidate having negative stories spiked ? Or is it just for the Trump campaign ?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Grambler

What pardon? Trump threw Cohen under the bus. Like the rest of Trumpworld, this is all a reality TV drama.

Exactly, the offer wasn't even made and there's very little chance it will ever be made so why would Davis even say such a thing when it clearly goes against the interests of his client, unless he was trying to push some sort of political agenda.

originally posted by: DJW001
Joe Arpaio, racist sheriff. Kristian Saucier, Russian mole. Scooter Libby, outed the identity of an active CIA agent. Dinesh D'Sousa, election fraudster. The Hammonds, refused to pay to graze on taxpayer owned land; seized our property at gunpoint. See a pattern here?

I'm not seeing a pattern which indicates Trump has pardoned any political allies or any people involved with collusion or violating campaign laws. And where exactly are you getting this Russian mole thing from, an accusation like that needs some sort of evidence to back it.

Cohen's plea agreement was signed back in April. There's something else going on behind the scenes.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: yuppa

No. There are technicalities involved. By not running the story without declaring it to election officials, the publisher was making an undeclared, illegal, corporate campaign contribution. No problem, Trump will throw the publisher under the bus too.

Good lord, what a load of nonsense.
Have you any idea about the FEC rules?
By your crazy logic, if a publisher decided not to run a negative story on a candidate the candidate should go to jail! LOL. Seriously try and do some thinking for yourself. Your scenario would be great for opponents - hey Time magazine, don't run that story on my opponent and they'll end up in the slammer!

It's just hilarious...

By not running the story without declaring it to election officials, the publisher was making an undeclared, illegal, corporate campaign contribution.

WTF??? I can see every editor in the country doing their weekly meeting.. "now, people, can you let me know all the stories we didn't run so I can get my FEC report done"!

a reply to: UKTruth

I know American election laws make no sense, but if the publisher did it with intent to influence the campaign, it was a contribution.

I didn't read the thread. I only want to address the title,

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

I would like to hear Michael Cohen say that when he is facing 6 years in prison.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

I know American election laws make no sense, but if the publisher did it with intent to influence the campaign, it was a contribution.

So ABC,NBC and all of them broke th elaw with well over millions of dollars in free publicity for trump and clinton.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

I know American election laws make no sense, but if the publisher did it with intent to influence the campaign, it was a contribution.

So ABC,NBC and all of them broke th elaw with well over millions of dollars in free publicity for trump and clinton.

Exactly.

Surely it is more nuanced than this.

Why is stopping negative stories from running a campaign contribution, but buying stories to run attacks on the candidate you favors opponent (the access hollywood tape) is not a contribution?

a reply to: Southern Guardian

A pardon seriously . This clown threw his client s under a bus to cover his ass . I would not be surprised if all his clients past and present do not sue the everloving crap out of him after it was found he secretly recording them for his golden ticket or future black male. His testimony most likely would be thrown out because it would fall under protected speech. Cohen actions should be disbarred for his acts against his clients.

originally posted by: proteus33
a reply to: Southern Guardian

A pardon seriously . This clown threw his client s under a bus to cover his ass . I would not be surprised if all his clients past and present do not sue the everloving crap out of him after it was found he secretly recording them for his golden ticket or future black male. His testimony most likely would be thrown out because it would fall under protected speech. Cohen actions should be disbarred for his acts against his clients.

Actually in NY you dont have to have permission to record someone. he can legally blackmaile his clients.

a reply to: Grambler

Why is stopping negative stories from running a campaign contribution, but buying stories to run attacks on the candidate you favors opponent (the access hollywood tape) is not a contribution?

Intent. Also, there was money changing hands between the candidate, his lawyer, the publisher, and the women Trump was "involved with." Incidentally, the media do not "buy stories" to "run attack ads." The parties buy research, pay for the ads, and the media run them for any party that pays. The "Access Hollywood" tape was provided free of charge, and benefited Trump because it sucked the air out of the Russian hacking story.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

I know American election laws make no sense, but if the publisher did it with intent to influence the campaign, it was a contribution.

They actually do make sense if you take the time to actually read them.
Having done so, I can tell you that your postulation is pure nonsense.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Grambler

Why is stopping negative stories from running a campaign contribution, but buying stories to run attacks on the candidate you favors opponent (the access hollywood tape) is not a contribution?

Intent. Also, there was money changing hands between the candidate, his lawyer, the publisher, and the women Trump was "involved with." Incidentally, the media do not "buy stories" to "run attack ads." The parties buy research, pay for the ads, and the media run them for any party that pays. The "Access Hollywood" tape was provided free of charge, and benefited Trump because it sucked the air out of the Russian hacking story.

You are making up fantasy laws as you go along.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Grambler

Why is stopping negative stories from running a campaign contribution, but buying stories to run attacks on the candidate you favors opponent (the access hollywood tape) is not a contribution?

Intent. Also, there was money changing hands between the candidate, his lawyer, the publisher, and the women Trump was "involved with." Incidentally, the media do not "buy stories" to "run attack ads." The parties buy research, pay for the ads, and the media run them for any party that pays. The "Access Hollywood" tape was provided free of charge, and benefited Trump because it sucked the air out of the Russian hacking story.

You are making up fantasy laws as you go along.

Not me.

Cohen pleaded guilty in federal court on Tuesday to campaign finance violations related to his role in brokering the deals with McDougal and Pecker. He also testified that he made the payments to the women “in coordination with and at the direction of” a candidate for federal office, a direct implication of Trump.

Real journalism.

In other words, Pecker was acting on behalf of the campaign. Don't you actually follow the news?

a reply to: UKTruth

They actually do make sense if you take the time to actually read them.
Having done so, I can tell you that your postulation is pure nonsense.

Please cite the relevant laws. You have read them, right?

a reply to: DJW001

Can you cite specifically what law did Trump broke on the Cohen case?

I mean, can you be REALLY specific?

I don't know American laws, but you sure seems to know them.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

I know American election laws make no sense, but if the publisher did it with intent to influence the campaign, it was a contribution.

So when the New York Times and the Clinton campaign were conspiring what stories to publish or not and how ; They were breaking the Law ?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: yuppa

No. There are technicalities involved. By not running the story without declaring it to election officials, the publisher was making an undeclared, illegal, corporate campaign contribution. No problem, Trump will throw the publisher under the bus too.

Does that mean if facebook or twitter were censoring bad stories about hillary and didnt declare it with election officials, they also broke the law?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Grambler

Why is stopping negative stories from running a campaign contribution, but buying stories to run attacks on the candidate you favors opponent (the access hollywood tape) is not a contribution?

The "Access Hollywood" tape was provided free of charge, and benefited Trump because it sucked the air out of the Russian hacking story.

This has to be one of the most outlandish arguments I have seen.

The access hollywood tape benfitted trump?

hahahahaha!!!!


Well I guess this whole russia investigation is nonsense then, because the wikileaks of the dnc emails beenfitted hillary by sucking the air out of her deplorables comment.