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.

 

Prosecutors: Michael Cohen acted at Trump's direction when he broke the law

page: 7
22
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2018 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454

It probably comes from that recording of their conversation about it that Cohen had and which the FBI seized from his office.




posted on Dec, 9 2018 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

TDS is real but it stand for his fan club The Trump Denial Society.



posted on Dec, 9 2018 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined




You can't indict a sitting President


There are different thoughts on that. It is true that the Dept of Justice has a "policy" against it.
However there apparently isn't anything in the constitution that prohibits it as they certainly did not intend a president to be above the law.

The biggest and strongest argument seems to be that a president shouldn't be burdened with this kind of distraction while trying to run a country which is perfectly logical.
An article from the (failing lol) New York Times states that there is nothing in the constitution that prohibits it.


One of the perplexing questions of constitutional law is what to do about a sitting president who is suspected of having committed a crime. This much is clear: A sitting president should not be required to submit to a criminal trial, an undertaking that would be incompatible with the duties of the nation’s chief executive.




That should not, however, preclude a grand jury from indicting a president when the facts and the law warrant, even if the trial itself has to be postponed until he or she is no longer in office.


They site the Clinton impeachment trial for reference

There is nothing in the constitutional text or judicial precedent that provides for a categorical bar to the indictment of a sitting president. The closest the Supreme Court has come to addressing the question was in Clinton v. Jones in 1997, in which the issue was whether a president could delay until the end of his term a civil suit by a private individual. I argued Clinton v. Jones for the United States, urging the court to hold that a civil trial would unduly impair a president’s ability to carry out his duties. The court unanimously rejected that position.

The Supreme court rejected the idea.


In Clinton v. Jones the entire court agreed that the fact that a federal court’s exercising of its constitutional power to hear a case “may significantly burden the time and attention of the chief executive is not sufficient to establish a violation of the Constitution.” Mere indictment of a president would not meet the stringent standard in Clinton v. Jones for presidential immunity from ordinary legal processes



Whether indicting a sitting president would facilitate or inhibit the pursuit of justice is a question calling not just for logic but for wisdom and judgment as well. The exercise of that judgment, however, should not be inhibited by an assumption that indictment is categorically barred by the Constitution. In any event, before a prosecutor declines to indict a president, he should seek an agreement that the president will not subsequently seek to bar prosecution based on deadlines that expired while he was in office. The White House should not be a sanctuary from justice.

www.nytimes.com...

So they could indict him and then delay the proceedings until later. Or he would have to agree not to invoke the statute of limitations when indictments come after he is out of office.
This is a test of the constitution, the department of justice and possibly the supreme court.

edit on 1292018 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2018 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme


There are different thoughts on that. It is true that the Dept of Justice has a "policy" against it.
However there apparently isn't anything in the constitution that prohibits it as they certainly did not intend a president to be above the law.


That's why we have the impeachment process. Trust me when I say that the DOJ wouldn't dare try to indict a sitting President when so many before Trump have committed the same offenses and worse than what he's being accused of. The first time our out-of-control Justice system tries this move, they'll be sorry when the tables turn back on them for their own offenses. Mueller has already told Giuliani that he won't be doing it. The most we can expect from Mueller is a twisted and scathing report to try and turn public opinion against Trump.



posted on Dec, 9 2018 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Wardaddy454

It probably comes from that recording of their conversation about it that Cohen had and which the FBI seized from his office.


A recording that doesn't specify anything, does it. In fact, it provides exculpatory evidence for Trump. Go back and listen to the tape.



posted on Dec, 9 2018 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454

You're Going to have to tell me what you think is exculpatory on that tape because I do not hear anything like that.



posted on Dec, 9 2018 @ 08:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Wardaddy454

You're Going to have to tell me what you think is exculpatory on that tape because I do not hear anything like that.


I would suggest this portion, for one:


COHEN: So, I’m all over that . And, I spoke to Allen about it, when it comes time for the financing, which will be —

TRUMP: Wait a sec, what financing?

COHEN: Well, I’ll have to pay him something.

TRUMP: [UNINTELLIGIBLE] pay with cash.

COHEN: No, no, no, no, no. I got it.

TRUMP: ... check.


Literally, Trump's only comment is 'what financing'?

Literally every comment from Cohen is 'I, I, I...'. Does that sound like someone paid specifically for providing legal advice giving due advice about what the law is? As per the title of the thread, does it sound like someone acting under direction or duress?



posted on Dec, 10 2018 @ 08:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Rewey




TRUMP: [UNINTELLIGIBLE] pay with cash.



posted on Dec, 10 2018 @ 08:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Rewey




TRUMP: [UNINTELLIGIBLE] pay with cash.


His LAWYER AND LEGAL COUNSEL just told him that he'd have to make a payment. So Trump suggests or asks or instructs (uncertain which) Cohen to make the payment in cash (not literally cash as in paper notes, BTW).

To which Cohen says 'no, I got this...'

Before Cohen told him, Trump seems entirely unaware that a payment is required. Trump naturally suggests a cash payment (as ANY businessman would).

AT THIS POINT his legal counsel is supposed to say "no, according to the campaign financing laws, that can't be done. Instead we need to blah, blah, blah..." . But he didn't do that at all...



posted on Dec, 10 2018 @ 09:02 AM
link   
This was "normal business" for trump pre campaign. It was "normal business" during the campaign.
Those in here claiming otherwise should look up the FEC and their election rules.



posted on Dec, 10 2018 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Rewey




AT THIS POINT his legal counsel is supposed to say "no, according to the campaign financing laws, that can't be done. Instead we need to blah, blah, blah..." . But he didn't do that at all...


Emmmm to be fair, you don't actually know that though.



posted on Dec, 10 2018 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

This was "normal business" for trump pre campaign. It was "normal business" during the campaign.
Those in here claiming otherwise should look up the FEC and their election rules.


Correct. No campaign finance violation.
Source: www.foxnews.com...



posted on Dec, 10 2018 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

There were threads about this 6 months ago. The actual fec regs are in them.
But hey "could be" and "possible" sell ads right?



posted on Dec, 10 2018 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Rewey




AT THIS POINT his legal counsel is supposed to say "no, according to the campaign financing laws, that can't be done. Instead we need to blah, blah, blah..." . But he didn't do that at all...


Emmmm to be fair, you don't actually know that though.



To be fair, neither do you. Little thing called reasonable doubt.
edit on 10-12-2018 by Wardaddy454 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2018 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Wardaddy454

You're Going to have to tell me what you think is exculpatory on that tape because I do not hear anything like that.


Well, get your head out of your ass and listen better.




posted on Dec, 10 2018 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454

True but I a, not claiming to know it



posted on Dec, 10 2018 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin


No, but the portion of the tape we're discussing suddenly ends. So maybe Cohen did point out campaign finance law, but why not record that part too? It would be more damning for him to do so and have Trump on tape dismissing those laws and telling him to do it anyway.



posted on Dec, 10 2018 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454

I don't know that he did discuss the legalities of this with Trump or not and neither do you.

All we know is that the federal prosecutors have said that Cohen was acting under Trumps direction.

We do not have all of the information so lets not pretend that either of us can claim anything other than the prosecutors are saying that Cohen was acting under Trumps direction.



posted on Dec, 10 2018 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Wardaddy454

I don't know that he did discuss the legalities of this with Trump or not and neither do you.

All we know is that the federal prosecutors have said that Cohen was acting under Trumps direction.

We do not have all of the information so lets not pretend that either of us can claim anything other than the prosecutors are saying that Cohen was acting under Trumps direction.


Well, for one thing, it most likely would have been leaked. So..



posted on Dec, 10 2018 @ 05:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Wardaddy454

I don't know that he did discuss the legalities of this with Trump or not and neither do you.

All we know is that the federal prosecutors have said that Cohen was acting under Trumps direction.

We do not have all of the information so lets not pretend that either of us can claim anything other than the prosecutors are saying that Cohen was acting under Trumps direction.


Well, for one thing, it most likely would have been leaked. So..


Thats speculation and opinion on your part, its not fact.







 
22
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join