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.

 

The point of cohens plea deal

page: 2
39
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 09:47 AM
link   


The truth is, if you raided any high powered lawyer like cohen, you would find evidnce of crimes.


Imagine the dirt if this law office was RAIDED!



Perkins Coie is counsel of record for the Democratic National Committee, Democratic Leadership Council, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Other political clients include nearly all Democratic members of the United States Congress. It has also represented several presidential campaigns, including those of John Kerry,[2] Barack Obama,[3] and Hillary Clinton.[2]




n 2006, Perkins Coie, led by partner Harry Schneider, represented Salim Ahmed Hamdan, the alleged driver and bodyguard of Osama Bin Laden. The case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld,[6] in which the Court ruled that the Bush Administration's use of military commissions to try terrorism suspects was unconstitutional.[7]


Treasonous #'s

en.wikipedia.org...




posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Obviously framed with a Non-Existent Crime. Some judge would throw it out, if tested.



Despite the media hype it is not a campaign contribution for a candidate to instruct his attorney to pay-off a nuisance claim to avoid any issues or embarrassment. It is not a campaign donation for Donald Trump to reimburse his attorney for paying the claim.

♦The issue of the Cohen payment being an “in kind” campaign contribution is the bottom line question which underpins the charge.

There is no FEC rule or law that says a candidate cannot pay-off an accuser to avoid further issues, a nuisance claim. Paying an accuser to avoid controversy or embarrassment, is no different than a candidate buying an American made car -with personal funds- to gain the beneficial public optics of not driving a foreign car. Neither expense example makes the payment an aspect of am “in kind” campaign contribution.

There is no connected claim that President Trump used campaign funds to repay his attorney for eliminating the nuisance claim. President Trump, a businessman, used his own business income to repay his attorney; an attorney on a monthly retainer.

The entire charge of Cohen making a campaign contribution, or campaign finance violation, is a manufactured claim, made only by the SDNY, for political benefit.
theconservativetreehouse.com... ere-the-media-focus/#more-153144



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 10:02 AM
link   
So,
Here we have an attempt to distance Manafort from Trump as if Manafort has nothing to do with Russia, (no collusion ever happened)
Mueller though has every reason for getting his mitts on both Manafort and Trump.
Thing is Manafort is tied deeply with pro Russian Ukraine politicos, and up to now, strict unreporting of certain telephone calls both to Trump House in regard to the Russian meeting there and, the telephone messages made at the Republican convention where Ukraine was given better treatment that was expected by most of those attending that convention.
Mueller knows about the contents as well as witnesses from the convention, and those along with evidence of money laundering and God knows what else are all Muellers, 'Trump' cards...and nothing will be revealed until Mueller feels the time is right.

Trump can attempt to distance himself all he wants from Manafort, but it cuts no ice.
edit on 22-8-2018 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
I'm not stupid. I see the double standard. The Clinton family is running what is quite literally a criminal enterprise, and they get a free pass, both from the Feds and the media. And I'm supposed to be outraged by a couple of (dubious) campaign finance violations?

No. The media and the Dems can take their phony outrage and shove it. Serve indictments against Hillary, Comey, Clapper, Brennan, Strzok, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, and all the other crooks who've flaunted their invulnerability in our faces. Then come back and ask me to care about this crap.


So you only care about laws being enforced if those you disagree with politically are held accountable for similar crimes, for which they have not been formally accused of or put on trial for?

That makes no sense whatsoever. That's a very immature, illogical argument.


We all know both parties protect each other, and there are no go zones when it comes to going after someone.

Bush and Cheney wiped the Whitehouse email servers before they left.

Colin Powell has/had a private email account, he was the one who directed Hillary get one.

I'll blast both sides, everyone has been hiding their actions, why should they if there is nothing to hide? I won't hold my breath on investigations, and I'm all for Trump and co getting investigated, hell, prosecuted if need be.

But lets not stop there, lets keep this going and hold everyone accountable.


I agree. Let's go after people if we have evidence of a crime being committed, but I think it's illogical and clearly shows a disregard for law based on bias, to say that there is a double standard at play here and the law should only be applied if the "other" is held accountable as well.

Which is what the other member implied.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

They’ve been promising us for the last two years they’d get Trump on campaign finance violations and Manafort on tax fraud. Oh wait, no they haven’t. Maybe they lied to you.

edit on 22-8-2018 by TheSubversiveOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
I'm not stupid. I see the double standard. The Clinton family is running what is quite literally a criminal enterprise, and they get a free pass, both from the Feds and the media. And I'm supposed to be outraged by a couple of (dubious) campaign finance violations?

No. The media and the Dems can take their phony outrage and shove it. Serve indictments against Hillary, Comey, Clapper, Brennan, Strzok, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, and all the other crooks who've flaunted their invulnerability in our faces. Then come back and ask me to care about this crap.


So you only care about laws being enforced if those you disagree with politically are held accountable for similar crimes, for which they have not been formally accused of or put on trial for?

That makes no sense whatsoever. That's a very immature, illogical argument.


I cant speak for him, but I think if trump committed crimes, he should be held accountable.

This is directly opposed to you, he didnt even want investigations into hillary or the intel agents.

You ok with hillary teeam not being charged with destroying subpoenaed evidence? You ok that hillarys team hasnt had their lawyers office raided over thier finance violations?




a) trump LET Hillary off the hook ..'she suffered enough ' I believe he said

b) 'lock her up' was another pillar of promises solidifying trump's campaign ...ummmm

c) trump is in office and a bunch of yes-men in top cabinet positions, yet $Hillary is still banking as speaker or books or TV shows. while Trump is the president , this is still going on. now you should be asking the real questions as opposed to why didn't Hillary get raided


you're channeling your dismay at the wrong persons
edit on 22-8-2018 by odzeandennz because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

Yes manafort is connected to russian oligarchs like deripaska.

I have no problem with him be investigated for these connections.

But hillarys hired law firm fusion gps is also connected to him, and many other russian oligarchs.

Bruce Ohr from obamas doj was connected to him.

Democratic seator mark warren was connected to him, seeing to avoid paper trails in his dealings with him.

The hillary connected podesta group was working with those same ukranians right along side manafort.

So if this investigation is about stopping russian influence, why isnt just as much pressure being put on any of those people?



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I am confused.
All this time I thought there was an actual agency whose job it was to investigate campaign finance. If only there were something like a panel to determine if real life situations were violations........



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: odzeandennz

Hillarty didnt get raided because the people in charge of the agencies, despite being appointed by trump, are not listening to him.

DO you truly feel that if they were just listening to trump, they wouldnt just end the mueller investigation?

Chuck schumer answered your question, he blatantly told us the intel community would take trump down if he criticized them.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 10:14 AM
link   
It is pretty clear the end game is to threaten anyone associated with Trump to get them to flip and implicate Trump whether true or not. They find some crime committed years ago that has nothing to do with Trump and threaten long jail sentences unless they implicate Trump in some other crime. It is pretty shady behavior, but it is a fairly common strategy. They do this all the time with drug cases, etc when they are trying to get to a kingpin.

I think we all should be pretty alarmed that this is being done in an attempt to unseat a lawfully elected President. Playing politics and legislative games during negotiations over bills and stonewalling opponents agendas is one thing and fair game in politics, but using the legal system in this manner is shameful imho.

I don't think any side should be engaging in these kind of tactics. It is no wonder most people who are smart and successful don't want anything to do with politics.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

trump is the sitting president right now. if the law is not being enforced, you know whom to blame. much like everything inevitably was Obama's fault, no matter what the topic, during his presidency.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: neo96



...And is there anyone who actually believes that had hillary one and the violatuions you site came to light, the media and everyone would be calling for impeachment and making a huge deal like they are about trump?...

Of course they wouldnt.



You mean like she was hounded about Benghazi for years with absolutely nothing to show for it? I think the american people have seen enough commiserate 'witch-hunting' after Hillary that you're likely only to find agreement with those with a hate hard-on already for her.


Oh so because their was an investigation into benghazi, we should never look at if hillary committed other crimes?

And why did none of the invetsigations into hillary involve he lawyers office getting raided to get evidence.

In fact, quite to the contrary, hillarys team destroyed subpoenaed evidence and wasnt charged for it.

But we get it, trump committs campaign violations, its a huge deal requiring lawyers be raided, talk of impeachment, etc.

Hillary does it, going after it would be a witch hunt. Obama found guilty of it, just a simple fine to pay.


The point I was trying to make is that EVERYONE here perpetually uses the same tired trope of "Well, its not so bad when my person did it because the other side did it". Hillary was hounded with an investigation longer that Trump, and yet Trump is apparently the most oppressed politician ever.....

You started off well enough, but invalidated your own position as soon as you jumped on that same old tired bandwagon. Yes, Trump should be punished for it, and yes, Hillary should too if she is in fact guilty to the same level as Trump (and that's not an admission that she was/is). The fact that Hillary managed to avoid it (a discussion had hundreds of times already on ATS and quite frankly moot at this point) is irrelevant as anything other than a smokescreen meant to hide the fact that while you prefer to act righteous with your equal application of the law, you're secretly upset that your man Trump is facing consequences for it.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

if there's nothing to 'flip' then no one would flip.
now how is Cohen flipping when we know those tramps and sleaze bags trump slept with were subsequently paid off by trump via Cohen.

this isn't 'of news' to anyone; it's simply ON the record now.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
I'm not stupid. I see the double standard. The Clinton family is running what is quite literally a criminal enterprise, and they get a free pass, both from the Feds and the media. And I'm supposed to be outraged by a couple of (dubious) campaign finance violations?

No. The media and the Dems can take their phony outrage and shove it. Serve indictments against Hillary, Comey, Clapper, Brennan, Strzok, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, and all the other crooks who've flaunted their invulnerability in our faces. Then come back and ask me to care about this crap.


So you only care about laws being enforced if those you disagree with politically are held accountable for similar crimes, for which they have not been formally accused of or put on trial for?

That makes no sense whatsoever. That's a very immature, illogical argument.

I want equal justice for all. Justice determined by what political party you support is not justice, and that is quite obviously the system we have now. These people should not be getting a free pass because they're Democrats, and yet every one of the people I mentioned, and many more, have apparently committed one or more crimes: bribery/kickback, perjury, obstruction of justice, criminal conspiracy are all crimes that those people appear to have committed, but there does not appear to be any serious investigation into any of it.

But they raid Trump's lawyer and get him to please guilty to a ticky-tacky campaign finance charge just to justify their own illegal conduct, and we're supposed to accept that as "justice"? No, that's beyond stupid.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan



I want equal justice for all.


That is not what your post indicated. It indicated you only want justice if others are also held accountable, though they had not been convicted, etc.



Justice determined by what political party you support is not justice, and that is quite obviously the system we have now. These people should not be getting a free pass because they're Democrats, and yet every one of the people I mentioned, and many more, have apparently committed one or more crimes: bribery/kickback, perjury, obstruction of justice, criminal conspiracy are all crimes that those people appear to have committed, but there does not appear to be any serious investigation into any of it.


The language you use indicates quite a bit of confusion.

You say it is obvious that we have the sort of system you describe in place, yet you also use the word "apparently", because you know there has not been clear evidence to suggest such a claim, let alone a conviction.

And it has been investigated. Perhaps it still is.



But they raid Trump's lawyer and get him to please guilty to a ticky-tacky campaign finance charge just to justify their own illegal conduct, and we're supposed to accept that as "justice"? No, that's beyond stupid.


To justify their own illegal conduct? Who's illegal conduct? The prosecution team/invesigators?

Please specify and provide proof.

I think the real issue here is that you believe in the unfounded conspiracies and disinformation/propaganda that you willingly subject yourself to on a regular basis.

That is why you rely on false equivalencies and unproven rhetoric to justify your illogical positions.
edit on 22-8-2018 by introvert because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-8-2018 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 10:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: Edumakated

if there's nothing to 'flip' then no one would flip.
now how is Cohen flipping when we know those tramps and sleaze bags trump slept with were subsequently paid off by trump via Cohen.

this isn't 'of news' to anyone; it's simply ON the record now.


People lie and rat on others all the time to save their own hides. Go to any jail house and talk to petty criminals about "informants". People will try to implicate others to get their own sentence reduced even if there is nothing to the claim.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: neo96



...And is there anyone who actually believes that had hillary one and the violatuions you site came to light, the media and everyone would be calling for impeachment and making a huge deal like they are about trump?...

Of course they wouldnt.



You mean like she was hounded about Benghazi for years with absolutely nothing to show for it? I think the american people have seen enough commiserate 'witch-hunting' after Hillary that you're likely only to find agreement with those with a hate hard-on already for her.


this is something I still just don't get. Posters like you will say you don't support Hillary, but when all that is asked is justice, you still find ways to defend her from the monumentally obvious crimes she committed. If she was investigated and charged, I'd call it a win for justice, and if Trump did bad things, and he was charged, I'd say the same.

But rather than admit that indeed she broke some laws and somehow has no recourse to the law, you find ways to shield her from scorn. Why not just admit you have a massive hard on for her and go with it. It's obvious.

A fair shake for her would do WONDERS for uniting the left vs. right divide. But rather than have fairness, you offer deflection.
edit on 22-8-2018 by network dude because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 10:34 AM
link   


obstruction of justice


Clinton/Lynch tarmac meetings.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
I'm not stupid. I see the double standard. The Clinton family is running what is quite literally a criminal enterprise, and they get a free pass, both from the Feds and the media. And I'm supposed to be outraged by a couple of (dubious) campaign finance violations?

No. The media and the Dems can take their phony outrage and shove it. Serve indictments against Hillary, Comey, Clapper, Brennan, Strzok, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, and all the other crooks who've flaunted their invulnerability in our faces. Then come back and ask me to care about this crap.


You took the words out of my mouth.
The double standard is so un-American and patently unfair it makes my blood boil.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust


The entire charge of Cohen making a campaign contribution, or campaign finance violation, is a manufactured claim, made only by the SDNY, for political benefit.


This is where it gets really sticky...


Specifically, prosecutors say Cohen "sought reimbursement for that money by submitting invoices to the candidate's company, which were untrue and false."

"They indicated that the reimbursement was for services rendered for the year 2017, when in fact the invoices were a sham," the document said.


I haven't seen anything that states what money was used to pay Cohen. Trump said that he was paying Cohen on a monthly retainer, but the question remains on where that retainer was coming from. Was Cohen only doing "election related" work for Trump? Cohen was Trump's attorney for ten years prior to his candidacy. I haven't seen anything from the prosecutors stating that they know that Trump paid Cohen with campaign money. All we know for sure is that Cohen got busted for issuing false invoices that may have been considered a campaign contribution because they stated they were "election related", but were they? According to the prosecutors, stating that the invoices were election related appears to be a sham. Which is it?



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join