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.

 

I am so very confused

page: 6
75
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus
And now THIS:



David Pecker Granted Immunity in Cohen Case
Publishing executive met with prosecutors to describe involvement of Cohen, Trump in hush-money deals to women ahead of 2016 election


www.wsj.com...

This is Trump's (former) long-time friend at the National Enquirer that would catch and suppress stories for him during the campaign.


Now that is very interesting.




posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: drewlander

originally posted by: annoyedpharmacist

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: DBCowboy
So Trump is in trouble because he had his lawyer pay off a porn star so she wouldn't talk and harm his chances of being elected.


Who said Trump was in trouble? I didn't even here CNN claiming his in "trouble".

Its just that his dirty laundry has been hang out to dry for everyone to see... But his the POTUS, so his got nothing to worry about... Since theirs no precedent in charging a sitting POTUS with a crime.

Though, if he wasn't the president, then I'm sure he'd be sitting right next to Cohen right now... pleading guilty.



what? pretty much every cable network is accusing of Trump of violating campaign finance laws....so yeah, they are saying he is in trouble.


They want to sway public opinion but they know he is not in trouble. Midterms are coming up. They're just trying to create division among Republican voters.


pretty much



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: jhn7537
a reply to: DBCowboy

Second... People keep stating Trump MADE Cohen pay off Stormy... How does Trump MAKE him?? I mean, Cohen is a adult, he is a lawyer, he understands right from wrong and "legal vs illegal"...


???

What "People keep stating Trump MADE Cohen pay off Stormy"?

Trump DIRECTED his personal attorney to pay her off.

Psst....If you hire someone to commit a crime, you can go to jail. "He didn't have to do it" is not a good defense.

That's pretty stupid. Hire someone to kill your wife then try that defense in court.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: drewlander

They want to sway public opinion but they know he is not in trouble. Midterms are coming up. They're just trying to create division among Republican voters.


Define "trouble".

I believe when a President and his defenders has to repeatedly remind the public that he can not be indicted for crimes he commits and has the power to Pardon himself, I consider that "trouble".



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: jhn7537
a reply to: DBCowboy

Second... People keep stating Trump MADE Cohen pay off Stormy... How does Trump MAKE him?? I mean, Cohen is a adult, he is a lawyer, he understands right from wrong and "legal vs illegal"...


???

What "People keep stating Trump MADE Cohen pay off Stormy"?

Trump DIRECTED his personal attorney to pay her off.

Psst....If you hire someone to commit a crime, you can go to jail. "He didn't have to do it" is not a good defense.

That's pretty stupid. Hire someone to kill your wife then try that defense in court.


well not in this particular law.


“The fact Cohen did something illegal doesn’t mean Trump did anything illegal,” said Jan Baran, a longtime Republican campaign finance lawyer.

...

“Under the law, it’s quite easy for two people involved in the same act to have different criminal consequences,” said Andy Grewal, a University of Iowa law professor.

That distinction is particularly critical in campaign finance cases because the law limits criminal prosecutions on those charges to instances where someone “knowingly and willfully” defied legal requirements.

In his plea Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, Cohen admitted that he was intending to benefit Trump’s presidential bid when he arranged the payment to Daniels and another payment of $150,000 to a former Playboy playmate, Karen McDougal. Daniels claimed a one-time sexual encounter with Trump, who was married at the time. McDougal said she had sex with Trump dozens of times over a 10-month period.

...

But as a lawyer, Cohen could be assumed to have some familiarity with federal election law. Prosecutors may well have proof in emails or other documents that he regularly discussed compliance with such statutes.

Proving that Trump knew at the time that the payouts were intended to influence the presidential race, and that he knew they were illegal, could be much harder. Perhaps such records exist, or maybe Cohen is prepared to say that he told Trump the way they were handling it was illegal, but the lawyer never said that in court on Tuesday.

“In order to prove criminal intent, you have to point to evidence that the actors knew or had reason to know what they were doing was illegal,” said Baran, the GOP campaign finance lawyer.


www.politico.com...

So basically it goes like this.

Assuming this was a campaign donation (which seems unlikely)

Cohen as a lawyer would be expected to know the law.

If trump tells him, pay off this woman, and cohen does it in an iellegal way, then trump is not at fault.

However, if cohen can prove he told trump that to do this would be illegal, or has recordings of trump ackonowledging this ia against the law, then trump would be guilty as well.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Ignorance of the law is an excuse?

Awesome.

edit on 8/23/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
Ignorance of the law is an excuse?

Awesome.


Its not quite that, not in the way that all of you hillary supporters palyed it (oh I am sorry, i didnt know I couldnt destroy evidence subpoenaed by the FBI!)

The law was still broken, and someone must be held accountable.

So say I, a bumbling oaf, run for congress.

I have a lawyer and we meet and discuss how i have to pay my caterers or something. I tell him to pay them and e says "no problem I will pay them" and then does so in a manner that is illegal.

He would be charged, but I wouldnt, because I didnt know he was breaking the law.

In this case, if cohen and trump are discussing this, and trump says yeah do what you got to to pay them, and cohen does so in an illegal manner without telling trump its illegal, then cohen is at fault, but trump isnt.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
Ignorance of the law is an excuse?

Awesome.


Ignorance of this particular law makes it civil and not criminal. Others have used this same defence so the president is set. And in this case it makes sense. This is a victimless crime, if it is even a crime, which I still highly doubt.

This is not like Hillary's server which should have been classified gross negligence. Because mishandling classified information is not without victims.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 01:06 PM
link   
originally posted by: Grambler





Proving that Trump knew at the time that the payouts were intended to influence the presidential race, and that he knew they were illegal, could be much harder. Perhaps such records exist, or maybe Cohen is prepared to say that he told Trump the way they were handling it was illegal, but the lawyer never said that in court on Tuesday.

“In order to prove criminal intent, you have to point to evidence that the actors knew or had reason to know what they were doing was illegal,” said Baran, the GOP campaign finance lawyer.




The fact that Trump continued to claim he did not reimburse Cohen and knew nothing about it AFTER it became known it was Illegal shows he did it knowingly.

Secondly, as far as this bit "Proving that Trump knew at the time that the payouts were intended to influence the presidential race, and that he knew they were illegal, could be much harder. Perhaps such records exist"

That was written before it was known that the Head of the National Enquirer was given Federal Immunity and testified in from the Grand Jury.

It is the same reason Cohen stated under oath that he was "Directed" by Trump and it's "principle purpose was to influence the campaign" Trump's legal team hasn't said a thing about perjury charges and Prosecutors did not flinch.

Trump undoubtedly chatted about this with his buddy at the National Enquirer who he trusted to squash stories and that buddy was granted immunity for a reason.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73




Ignorance of this particular law makes it civil and not criminal.
No. These are violations of federal campaign spending laws. Federal felonies.



Ignorance can be voluntary or involuntary. It is voluntary when a person might by taking reasonable pains could have acquired the necessary knowledge. For example every man can acquire knowledge of the laws which have been promulgated. Therefore neglect to become acquainted with them is voluntary ignorance.
definitions.uslegal.com...

As a rotund German prison guard often said, "I know nothing."

edit on 8/23/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: Phage
Ignorance of the law is an excuse?

Awesome.


Ignorance of this particular law makes it civil and not criminal. Others have used this same defence so the president is set.


This was not oversight. It was fraud and cover-up. That is why Cohen pled guilty. that is why the head of the National Enquirer was granted immunity to testify. That is why Trump's legal team hasn't made any accusation of perjury when Cohen said he was "Directed" by Trump.



The National Enquirer publisher provided prosecutors at the Manhattan U.S. Attorney’s office with details about the “hush money” payments arranged by Michael Cohen and also confirmed Trump’s knowledge of the transactions, according the newspaper.

www.sfgate.com...

You guys really don't need to scrape the absolute bottom of the moral barrel conceiving of defenses for this crime.
Preserve whatever crumbs of credibility are left.

The President will and likely can not be indicted criminally.

Doesn't change the facts though.



edit on 23-8-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

Trump believing he was protected due to attorney client privilege and lying to not disclose his dirty laundry is not the same as knowing he was breaking campaign finance laws. Nor is publicly telling a lie the same as lying under oath. It is not illegal to tell a lie, except when under oath.

He should have been honest up front then there would litteraly be nothing other than questionable relationships with women, which is historically a nothing burger politically speaking

You're making many assumptions, but the court doesn't rule on assumptions only facts.


edit on 23-8-2018 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Then why were previous violators only charged with civil and not criminal charges? The legal precedence has already been set on these types of cases.

Your opinion is irrelevant. You used to be smart enough to understand this. What happened?



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

The most similar case I can think of is John Edwards/Rielle Hunter. The DOJ prosecuted six charges. Five charges were dismissed after a mistrial, but he was found 'not guilty' on the remaining charge.

That is the charge that's similar to Trump's potential situation, now.

On the charge that John Edwards gave campaign donor money ($200,000) to a third party for use in an effort to keep his politically damaging affair from being made public, the jury found that prosecutors did not prove he committed any crime. The defense argued that Edwards was trying to prevent his wife from finding out and that is legal.

Mueller was FBI director, back then.

FWIW.

***

ETA: Also, your analogy is outstanding!
edit on 8/23/2018 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus
originally posted by: Grambler





Proving that Trump knew at the time that the payouts were intended to influence the presidential race, and that he knew they were illegal, could be much harder. Perhaps such records exist, or maybe Cohen is prepared to say that he told Trump the way they were handling it was illegal, but the lawyer never said that in court on Tuesday.

“In order to prove criminal intent, you have to point to evidence that the actors knew or had reason to know what they were doing was illegal,” said Baran, the GOP campaign finance lawyer.




The fact that Trump continued to claim he did not reimburse Cohen and knew nothing about it AFTER it became known it was Illegal shows he did it knowingly.

Secondly, as far as this bit "Proving that Trump knew at the time that the payouts were intended to influence the presidential race, and that he knew they were illegal, could be much harder. Perhaps such records exist"

That was written before it was known that the Head of the National Enquirer was given Federal Immunity and testified in from the Grand Jury.

It is the same reason Cohen stated under oath that he was "Directed" by Trump and it's "principle purpose was to influence the campaign" Trump's legal team hasn't said a thing about perjury charges and Prosecutors did not flinch.

Trump undoubtedly chatted about this with his buddy at the National Enquirer who he trusted to squash stories and that buddy was granted immunity for a reason.




First, it is stil,. not known that it was illegal, that is just your opinion. I and many lawyers disagree, saying that as long as the primary purpose of the payment wasnt the election, then it wasnt illegal.

Lying because someone violated an NDA and you say you never sent it does not prove he knew it was a campaign issue.

In fact. quite the opposite.

The fact that he contniued to deny the payment AFTER the election shows that even after the election was over, he didnt want this info coming out. Showingg that there were other reasons for him to want to not have these women tell of sleeping with him, such as his image in general, marriage and family, etc.

Now as for the enqurier guy.

You could be totally right, maybe this guy will say trump knew it was illegal and told him to do it anyway.

But certainly that hasnt been made pubblic yet.

And at the end of the day, maybe trump was guilty of a campaign finance violation.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73


Then why were previous violators only charged with civil and not criminal charges?
Because there was no evidence of a conspiracy to conceal a crime.

But what are "civil charges", do you mean fines?



edit on 8/23/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
So Trump is in trouble because he had his lawyer pay off a porn star so she wouldn't talk and harm his chances of being elected.

And that is illegal.

I think that your confusion lies in believing that an NDA with money attached is illegal, even if it coincides with a candidate's campaign for presidency.

If you can get past that belief, then I think that your confusion will melt away.

As for the congressional tax-funded settlement fund, THAT is an abomination and abuse of the tax system and taxpayers in America. If it were a tangible thing, I'd take a piss on it after eating asparagus, just to add a little stank to it.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Isurrender73


Then why were previous violators only charged with civil and not criminal charges?
Because there was no evidence of a conspiracy to conceal a crime.



From what I have seen there is no evidence against Trump in this case either.

Even if he told someone that he knew it would hurt his campaign, if he didn't intend to break campaign finance laws then there is no conspiracy to conceal a crime.

If he wasn't running for office there would be absolutely no crime committed. And it is likely he would have paid these women off to protect his brand, meaning he would have done the same thing regardless of running for office. I'm sure he has paid off others in the past so this is truly nothing but propaganda by a bias witch hunt.

You are making assumptions that the court cannot make. They would litteraly have to have some documentation that Trump knowingly was violating campaign finance laws for this to be criminal and not civil.

Yes I mean fines not jail, by civil.


edit on 23-8-2018 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye



First, in the Edwards prosecution, DOJ presented no evidence that Hunter was planning or threatening to speak to the press about her affair with Edwards.

Edwards’ lawyers made a big deal out of this at trial, arguing that the payments were intended to keep news of Edwards’ affair from his very-ill wife, not from the voting public.

By contrast, regarding the payments at issue in the Trump/Cohen matter, both McDougal and Clifford were in negotiation with national media outlets to sell the rights to their stories of affairs with Trump. McDougal and Clifford understood that the rapidly-approaching presidential general election gave them leverage over Trump. These facts are highly relevant to the motive and purpose of the payments.

...

Second, all but one of the payments made to Hunter on behalf of Edwards were made before a single primary ballot had been cast, in the calendar year preceding the election year. The one exception was a late January 2008 payment after Edwards had dropped out of the presidential race—the count on which he was acquitted. By contrast, the two payments related to Cohen’s guilty plea came in August (McDougal) and October (Clifford) of the election year, immediately before Americans voted in the general election.

...

Third, the payments to Hunter on behalf of Edwards were made contemporaneously to the affair and the pregnancy—timing that arguably makes sense if the true purpose was to keep knowledge of the affair from Edwards’ wife.

By contrast, the payments to both McDougal and Clifford were made a decade after the alleged affairs—timing that doesn’t make much sense if the purpose was to keep knowledge of the affairs from Mrs. Trump, but makes a lot of sense (combined with the proximity to the election) if the purpose was to keep the information from voters in order to influence the election.


www.justsecurity.org...



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

They came forward because the election gave added value to their stories.

If Trump would have paid them to protect his marriage and brand regardless of their motivations he still didn't commit a crime. Their motivation to come forward has nothing to do with Trump's motivation to pay them off.

You only see the side you want to see. This is not how the legal system works.


edit on 23-8-2018 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
75
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join