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.

 

Allen Weisselberg: Trump's financial factotum granted immunity

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

That may be, but it is disputed by legal scholars, who advance arguments on both sides of the question. The DOJ doesn't make the law. Congress makes and unmakes law.

There is a good discussion of the subject at:

scholarship.law.georgetown.edu...
edit on 24-8-2018 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: ipsedixit
a reply to: yuppa

The contention in court would be that he did violate campaign finance laws by not declaring the expenditures since they were campaign related. Cohen asserts unequivocally that these expenditures were campaign related.


Only campaign-related if the expense would not have been incurred if the candidate was not running for office.
Trump has a history of paying off people and getting them to sign NDA's completely outside any campaign. He's in no trouble.
You should take a clue from the fact that an FEC complaint was filed 9 months ago on this and nothing has come of it.

You are watching theatre - it's why the SC bolted this on to a plea deal. They don't need to argue it. They know they would lose in court.


edit on 24/8/2018 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: ipsedixit

On the slim chance that paying off women are campaign Finance violations, Trump will pay a fine just like Obama did. We live in an America that applies Equal justice to all citizens.



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: ipsedixit

Even if Weaselberg does flip that still doesn't mean Trump has done anything wrong.



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

Only campaign-related if the expense would not have been incurred if the candidate was not running for office.
Trump has a history of paying off people and getting them to sign NDA's completely outside any campaign. He's in no trouble.
You should take a clue from the fact that an FEC complaint was filed 9 months ago on this and nothing has come of it.


The delay is quite in character for the FEC, which can take years to make rulings. The DOJ is a different animal. Trump is in big trouble.

About the FEC:

slate.com...



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: ipsedixit

Even if Weaselberg does flip that still doesn't mean Trump has done anything wrong.


Yeah. Weisselberg is doing this just for fun.







/sarc



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: ipsedixit

Even if Weaselberg does flip that still doesn't mean Trump has done anything wrong.


"Flipping" involves a plea deal, whereby a witness (usually one who has been charged) gets something out of the deal.

Use immunity means that he can testify without incriminating himself, so he cannot refuse to testify on those grounds. The Fifth Amendment does not apply because of his immunity.

Weisselberg has nothing to gain here. He now must testify or be subject to contempt of court charges. He must testify truthfully or be subject to perjury charges.

edit on 8/24/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

It is the failure to declare the campaign "contribution" that is the offense. This situation is not just simple. We know that Cohen attempted to conceal the purpose for which the money was going to be used when he lied to the bank about what the loans he was seeking were intended to fund. I don't have time to get into detail about this but the word conspiracy comes into Trump's maneuvers around this money. This sort of conspiracy is a violation of federal law. Sorry for being sketchy but I'm too busy right now to spend the time this discussion requires.
edit on 24-8-2018 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: ipsedixit

originally posted by: UKTruth

Only campaign-related if the expense would not have been incurred if the candidate was not running for office.
Trump has a history of paying off people and getting them to sign NDA's completely outside any campaign. He's in no trouble.
You should take a clue from the fact that an FEC complaint was filed 9 months ago on this and nothing has come of it.


The delay is quite in character for the FEC, which can take years to make rulings. The DOJ is a different animal. Trump is in big trouble.

About the FEC:

slate.com...



If you say so, fella, but don't be too disappointed when the latest 'get Trump' ploy flops again. Don't say I didn't warn you. I should have known that once the 'impeach Trump' fantasies get going, there's no stopping them until they die a natural death.



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

If Trump is not in trouble, having nothing to fear, he should just talk to Mueller and put the whole thing to rest. What's all this business about perjury traps? What is Trump so afraid of?



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: mzinga
a reply to: vinifalou

If I recall there have already been plenty of investigations into Hillary with absolutely no charges. Did I miss something, or we going to talk about the Clinton death squad.

I'm all for people getting prosecuted who do things wrong, could care less about party lines here. I'm tired of the right wingers using their typical crutches.


Now that's comedy right there...



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: ipsedixit
a reply to: UKTruth

If Trump is not in trouble, having nothing to fear, he should just talk to Mueller and put the whole thing to rest. What's all this business about perjury traps? What is Trump so afraid of?


Mueller is clearly on a campaign to get Trump - so why would Trump risk talking to him. Just a small inconsistency about something not even illegal could land him with a perjury charge. The FBI don't even have to record the conversation verbatim, simply their statements on interview notes are enough.
Flynn was charged with lying to the FBI about a perfectly legal conversation with the Russian Ambassador.

It's obvious why Trump would not talk to Mueller, so your question is either naive or you actually think Mueller and his team would not try and trap Trump, even after they have done the same with Flynn.



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: ErrorErrorError

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: ipsedixit

Even if Weaselberg does flip that still doesn't mean Trump has done anything wrong.


Yeah. Weisselberg is doing this just for fun.







/sarc


He must have his own reasons. You think he volunteered out of conscience?



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

good point



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: ipsedixit
a reply to: UKTruth

That may be, but it is disputed by legal scholars, who advance arguments on both sides of the question. The DOJ doesn't make the law. Congress makes and unmakes law.

There is a good discussion of the subject at:

scholarship.law.georgetown.edu...


Legal scholars carry no weight when the rubber hits the road. It's the DoJ who will decide whether to act and their policy says not. If and when Congress pass a law relating to this, the debate will carry more substance. Until then, the debate is hot air.



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ipsedixit

originally posted by: UKTruth

Only campaign-related if the expense would not have been incurred if the candidate was not running for office.
Trump has a history of paying off people and getting them to sign NDA's completely outside any campaign. He's in no trouble.
You should take a clue from the fact that an FEC complaint was filed 9 months ago on this and nothing has come of it.


The delay is quite in character for the FEC, which can take years to make rulings. The DOJ is a different animal. Trump is in big trouble.

About the FEC:

slate.com...



If you say so, fella, but don't be too disappointed when the latest 'get Trump' ploy flops again. Don't say I didn't warn you. I should have known that once the 'impeach Trump' fantasies get going, there's no stopping them until they die a natural death.


Will never die. Even after he is dead.



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: toms54

originally posted by: ErrorErrorError

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: ipsedixit

Even if Weaselberg does flip that still doesn't mean Trump has done anything wrong.


Yeah. Weisselberg is doing this just for fun.







/sarc


He must have his own reasons. You think he volunteered out of conscience?


The resignation has nothing to do with Trump.
He did it because he has fresh info about Clinton foundation. Right?








/sarc



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
Weisselberg has nothing to gain here. He now must testify or be subject to contempt of court charges. He must testify truthfully or be subject to perjury charges.

...AND lose his immunity, if I recall correctly. Let's face it, he ain't in it fer the lulz. But I can wait.



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

That too.

But it should also be noted that, if he was granted "use immunity", it does not mean he can't be charged at all, it just means that his own testimony cannot be used against him.

If it's "transactional immunity", it applies to anything involved with the case. No matter where the evidence comes from.

edit on 8/24/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: ipsedixit
a reply to: yuppa

The contention in court would be that he did violate campaign finance laws by not declaring the expenditures since they were campaign related. Cohen asserts unequivocally that these expenditures were campaign related.


NO. those were outside of campaign funds and as such not illegal. just because it was during his run does not mean he used campaign funds. he has more than one account.




top topics



 
9
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join