Trump accused of a Felony in today's Southern District of New York Filing

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: BlackJackal

Paying someone hush money, so long as it is not paying them to keep them quiet about a crime, is not a crime. Adultery is no longer a crime, so while I am very sure a number of people wish a crime had taken place here, none did. Covering up something prior to an election... also not a crime.

I guess I should have expected this type of reaction on this site.

So your defense is just denial. So how well do you think that is going to work out for the president? Do you honestly believe he can just tell the prosecutors “I don’t think that’s a crime, go away!”

Yep, let’s see how well that defense works out.

a reply to: chr0naut

Via Cohen.

Think that witness is credible?

And the standard "lalalalala I can't hear you!!!!" defense has been activated.

a reply to: highvein


I believe that they are trying to get Trump on campaign finance violations. They are going to say that he didn't report the "hush money" to the FEC and therefore, he violated campaign finance rules.

a reply to: BlackJackal

No, my point is it isn't a crime and a number of people who are still sore because they hate the man who won that election squeezing their eyes shut while wishing really, really hard that is is a crime won't magically make it a crime. You're talking about inventing an interpretation of the law that has never existed purely because you must have something, anything to bring this POTUS down in a court seeing as how everything else has miserably failed.

News flash, this one will fail too, joining 2+ years of accusations, wishes, and prayers against him in the trash heap of forgotten history.

As an aside, let's not throw the "defense" word around. Defenses are for actual accusations of crime, not imagined wannabe "a law must have been broken here because I wish it had been" wild hair allegations. The term being looked for here is more of a "disdainful rejection."

originally posted by: BlackJackal

I want to make something clear before we proceed. This is not the Mueller investigation. This is a separate investigation by the Southern District of New York into crimes committed by the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.

Today was a big day. But perhaps the most consequential bit of news to come out today is that the president of the United States, Donald Trump, has been accused of a felony.

Taken directly from the court filing today:

During the campaign, Cohen played a central role in two similar schemes to purchase the rights to stories – each from women who claimed to have had an affair with Individual-1 – so as to suppress the stories and thereby prevent them from influencing the election. With respect to both payments, Cohen acted with the intent to influence the 2016 presidential election. Cohen coordinated his actions with one or more members of the campaign, including through meetings and phone calls, about the fact, nature, and timing of the payments. (PSR ¶ 51). In particular, and as Cohen himself has now admitted, with respect to both payments, he acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1. (PSR ¶¶ 41, 45). As a result of Cohen’s actions, neither woman spoke to the press prior to the election. (PSR ¶ 51).

Cohen Sentencing Memo

Individual 1 is Donald Trump and the Southern District of New York has accused him of directing Michael Cohen to commit multiple felonies.

Trump responded to today's news with this tweet:

Totally clears the President. Thank you!

Trump's Twitter

This reminds me of Baghdad Bob. For those of you too young to remember Operation Desert Storm, Baghdad Bob was an Iraqi diplomat loyal to Saddam Hussein. While US troops were racing toward Baghdad, Baghdad Bob went on the air many times and said things such as "the American's are losing", "the American's are going to surrender or be burned in their tanks. They will surrender, it is they who will surrender", and that American soldiers were committing suicide "by the hundreds" outside the city due to their fear of the overwhelming Iraqi military might. His last broadcast kept up the same level of absurdity as American's were raiding the building he was broadcasting from.

Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf

So from now on, Trump is the new Baghdad Bob.

Let me see if i got this straight, so if nothing comes from this, youre Baghdad Bob, did I understand that right?

Anyways, there is so much obivious corruption going on from ALL SIDES, and it is stuff like this they focus on? I dont have high hopes anything will change, no matter the outcome, do you?

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: BlackJackal

Paying someone hush money, so long as it is not paying them to keep them quiet about a crime, is not a crime. Adultery is no longer a crime, so while I am very sure a number of people wish a crime had taken place here, none did. Covering up something prior to an election... also not a crime.

I guess I should have expected this type of reaction on this site.

So your defense is just denial. So how well do you think that is going to work out for the president? Do you honestly believe he can just tell the prosecutors “I don’t think that’s a crime, go away!”

Yep, let’s see how well that defense works out.

Well, pointing out the fact that the alleged act does not violate any criminal statute or federal regulation is in fact an excellent legal defense.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: BlackJackal

No, my point is it isn't a crime and a number of people who are still sore because they hate the man who won that election squeezing their eyes shut while wishing really, really hard that is is a crime won't magically make it a crime. You're talking about inventing an interpretation of the law that has never existed purely because you must have something, anything to bring this POTUS down in a court seeing as how everything else has miserably failed.

News flash, this one will fail too, joining 2+ years of accusations, wishes, and prayers against him in the trash heap of forgotten history.

I do see some crazy eye shut squeezing.


That's for sure.

a reply to: Jefferton

Ah, projection... yes, we've all seen quite a lot of that one over the past 2 years, haven't we all?

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: BlackJackal

Paying someone hush money, so long as it is not paying them to keep them quiet about a crime, is not a crime. Adultery is no longer a crime, so while I am very sure a number of people wish a crime had taken place here, none did. Covering up something prior to an election... also not a crime.

I guess I should have expected this type of reaction on this site.

So your defense is just denial. So how well do you think that is going to work out for the president? Do you honestly believe he can just tell the prosecutors “I don’t think that’s a crime, go away!”

Yep, let’s see how well that defense works out.

Officer pulls me over, “drivers license, insurance and registration sir. I comply. Officer asks if I know how fast I was going. I say 45 mph. Officer says “I’m writing you a ticket for going 45 in a 45”. I say “that’s not a crime”. Officer says “ oh, never mind” then walks away. LOL

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: BlackJackal

Paying someone hush money, so long as it is not paying them to keep them quiet about a crime, is not a crime. Adultery is no longer a crime, so while I am very sure a number of people wish a crime had taken place here, none did. Covering up something prior to an election... also not a crime.

I guess I should have expected this type of reaction on this site.

So your defense is just denial. So how well do you think that is going to work out for the president? Do you honestly believe he can just tell the prosecutors “I don’t think that’s a crime, go away!”

Yep, let’s see how well that defense works out.

Denial. It worked great for Hilary.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Jefferton

Ah, projection... yes, we've all seen quite a lot of that one over the past 2 years, haven't we all?

And 8 years before that!
And 8 years before that!

History is fun.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: chr0naut

Via Cohen.

Think that witness is credible?

Well, he did confess to lying, so, there's that.

However court cases are built on more than testimony. You cannot charge someone with a crime without evidence that a crime has been committed and that they were the perp.

Taken with a now substantial body of other incriminating evidence, e-mails, legal documents, financial accounts and that from other sources, I would have to say that it is extremely likely that Cohen was telling the truth in this particular case .

a reply to: BlackJackal

Paying ex-partners not to talk during an election is illegal?

Is this about his marriage vows? That's a felony?

He had consensual adult sex! Great.

What is this an inquisition? Has his pastor been alerted?



No one denies it, dimwits. You are out of touch. No one cares.

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: BlackJackal

Paying someone hush money, so long as it is not paying them to keep them quiet about a crime, is not a crime. Adultery is no longer a crime, so while I am very sure a number of people wish a crime had taken place here, none did. Covering up something prior to an election... also not a crime.

I guess I should have expected this type of reaction on this site.

So your defense is just denial. So how well do you think that is going to work out for the president? Do you honestly believe he can just tell the prosecutors “I don’t think that’s a crime, go away!”

Yep, let’s see how well that defense works out.

Since I am seeing a severe downward spiral in your TDS, let me post some questions in advance for next month to you.

Can you please post a link where it is illegal in America to have bad hair?

Can you please post a link where it is illegal in America to have an orange hue?

Can you please post a link where it is illegal in America to use twitter?

Can you please post a link where it is illegal in America to have opinions other than the DNC's?

I think that's it for now...



I usually post a "to the OP" after my opinion but will not for this thread.

Because honestly, why bother?

Keep posting!!!

An actual ETA... I need to post on DB's thread about liberal translation one more...

Hush Money ---> NDA

If you can post a link where a NDA is illegal, please help me out because I'd love to get rid of mine.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: BlackJackal

Can you link to the actual law that was broken?

Cohen was indicted on eight charges. This is a sentencing memo - guidelines on the sentencing decision.

If you want to know the laws broken, refer to the charge sheet.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: BlackJackal

Can you link to the actual law that was broken?

Cohen was indicted on eight charges. This is a sentencing memo - guidelines on the sentencing decision.

If you want to know the laws broken, refer to the charge sheet.

So Cohen is Trump now?

Because the OP states that Trump committed a felony.

Keep up.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: BlackJackal

Can you link to the actual law that was broken?

Cohen was indicted on eight charges. This is a sentencing memo - guidelines on the sentencing decision.

If you want to know the laws broken, refer to the charge sheet.

dbl

edit on 7-12-2018 by Lumenari because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: chr0naut

Via Cohen.

Think that witness is credible?

Well, he did confess to lying, so, there's that.

However court cases are built on more than testimony. You cannot charge someone with a crime without evidence that a crime has been committed and that they were the perp.

Taken with a now substantial body of other incriminating evidence, e-mails, legal documents, financial accounts and that from other sources, I would have to say that it is extremely likely that Cohen was telling the truth in this particular case .

First, what law are we talking about here. What action violated the statute?

What evidence is there to support it?