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.

 

Help me to understand. . . . .

page: 8
36
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2018 @ 04:23 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

The purpose of that lying on a bank loan application statute is supposed to be to prevent terrorist funding and things like that. This is just more stretching of statutes to criminalize trump associates.




posted on Dec, 12 2018 @ 05:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

That's what I thought, too. But apparently it will stretch.

I wonder if those so happy with this legal jeopardy for Cohen are aware that they are setting a precedent that they can be charged with a crime and jailed for forgetting to include information on a bank loan application, should this legal theory hold?

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 12 2018 @ 05:57 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Doubtful, they're pretty unaware of themselves or the future consequences of their actions.



posted on Dec, 12 2018 @ 08:57 AM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal

Wow, you are a word twister, you must be getting paid for this kind of subterfuge. Since i am not a full timer like you, I will address 1 of the many errors or slants you are purveying.
"Also, that FISA crap originated from Alex Jones (you know, gay frog guy) and it has been proven wrong. LINK :"

To say the FISA abuse statement is crap is doing your cause great disservice. here is the proper link you should study

www.google.com... &es&source=web&cd=2&ved=2ahUKEwjZ0-nSwprfAhVIgK0KHf_ZBkoQFjABegQICBAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dni.gov%2Ffiles%2Fdocuments%2Ficotr%2F51117%2F2016_Cert_FI SC_Memo_Opin_Order_Apr_2017.pdf&usg=AOvVaw22R5Ede0-4--7NUiD8iW1J

This report clearly outlines the abuse by the DOJ and FBI. Have you wondered why we haven't heard anything from the FISA court? I happen to know a few Judges and if they caught you lying to them they would have your ass in front of them to explain why and this hasn't happened. I think this is because this is being taken further than a Judge admonishing them. It has no doubt been referred for prosecution.

Good Luck with your job, err argument, and as I am sure you know, you are not really changing anyones mind on the corruption that abounds in DC and the fact that the President was on the receiving end of it.

Keep hoping and maybe "the Swamp" will find that President Trump removed a mattress tag or something similar to bring about some sort of charge. Time will tell.



posted on Dec, 12 2018 @ 09:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Extorris

Well, yes, it helps a bit. Thank you. I am still a bit confused, however.

This part makes no sense:

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.
www.courthousenews.com...

My confusion stems from the statement that, by acting to prevent an influence to the election, Cohen influenced the election? What is that, a statement that whoever wins influenced the election by default?


It is also possible to influence an election favorably for your candidate and still lose.
As far as Illegal campaign contributions are concerned, a winning or losing outcome in the election is irrelevant, it is illegal if the contributions were for the purpose of influencing the election and Michael Cohen testified that was the exact purpose of the payments. The payment was made near immediately after the Access Hollywood tapes went public and was perceived by the Trump Campaign that the second blow of a Porn-Star detailing an affair with Candidate Trump had strong potential to suppress the Evangelical vote.




That's one thing about this whole debacle, from the Mueller investigation to the Steele Dossier to Michael Cohen, that bothers me... is not every advertisement, every rally, every press conference, every debate, heck, every statement made by either candidate or their supporters by definition an attempt to influence the election?


Yes. A campaign is designed to influence an election.
There are laws restricting what money and things of value a campaign can knowingly accept for that purpose.

"every advertisement"
Paid for by the campaign declared expense to FEC
If it is a PAC, the PAC declares the expense to the FEC and they are not permitted to "co-ordinate directly" with the campaign
"every rally"
Campaign expense
"every press conference"
Public event where a candidate can be asked questions that don't favor the candidate, it is not a contribution.
"every debate"
Same as above

A "contribution" of significant value for the express purpose of helping a campaign. It must be assigned a worth in transaction. If Russia conducted a campaign to help President Trump win the election and no one on President Trump's campaign team was directly aware or offered anything in return, then Russia broke American laws, but the Trump Campaign did not. If the Trump campaign negotiated something in return (e.g. Stripping anti-russia language from the RNC platform or a promise of lifting Russian Sanctions) then both Russia and the Trump Campaign broke American Laws.



As such, while there may be regulations as to how the bank operates, why has lying on a bank loan application risen to the level of a Federal crime investigated by the FBI?

It was not the principle charge, but one of many associated with the Felony Campaign Violations. The DOJ does not typically divide each charge into different cases with different attorneys, court proceedings etc.



Now, I will admit freely that I am out of date on this; I haven't approached a bank about a loan in something like 20 years. I don't think I want to now, since leaving something off the loan app will apparently get a visit from the FBI!


It is the purpose of the falsification on the loan document. A secondary charge.
If you exaggerate your income in order to purchase a more expensive house, you might get threatened by the bank, but it is not worth the expense for the bank to file charges.

If you do the same for the purposes of Money Laundering or larger criminal activity that you are charged for, then the authorities will likely include that charge among the charges they are already bringing.



The document clearly states that had Cohen not executed the NDAs in question, both women would have been guilty of influencing the election themselves. I guess they should be thankful to Cohen, since by influencing the election, he prevented them from influencing the election. Stormy even had a lawyer more crooked than Cohen!


Again, influencing an election is not illegal. Expenditures by a campaign to influence an election must be declared so that the Government knows who has paid for a candidates campaign and how much.

If Stormy Daniels had gone public and influenced the election? (Legal)
If some Media company had paid Stormy to go public? (Legal)
If some Media company had paid her to go public and that media company was reimbursed by the Clinton campaign? (Illegal)
If the Clinton Campaign had paid her to do so and hidden the payment? (Illegal)
Ditto for the Trump Campaign to pay her to stay silent and hiding the payment from FEC, IRS and public (Illegal)




My brain hurts. Thank you for the info, but this is something the lawyers need to figure out.


You are welcome. I believe the law is very clear and accessible on this issue.



In any case, even if Cohen is guilty of everything claimed and spends the next five centuries in jail, I saw nothing about the Trump campaign or Trump himself, other than they did follow some legal advise from a lawyer who turned out to be shady.


Michael Cohen explained in the statement of offenses that he endeavored to hide the transactions from the FEC, IRS and the voters at the "Direction of" President Trump (Individual 1). He apparently has documents and tapes as supporting evidence. The notion that then candidate Trump was naively just following the advice of counsel and did not conspire to hide the payments from the FEC seems unlikely, but that defense won't be tested unless the claim rises to impeachment proceedings or an indictment after President Trump leaves office.




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



posted on Dec, 12 2018 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Extorris


As far as Illegal campaign contributions are concerned, a winning or losing outcome in the election is irrelevant, it is illegal if the contributions were for the purpose of influencing the election and Michael Cohen testified that was the exact purpose of the payments.

And as I understand it, this accusation towards Trump is based almost wholly on Cohen's testimony, which also includes lies to Congress under oath. Back in my day, such testimony carried very little weight. One lie = extreme skepticism as to veracity of anything else said.


Expenditures by a campaign to influence an election must be declared so that the Government knows who has paid for a candidates campaign and how much.

So what we are discussing is nothing more than an error on a report, correct? After all, Trump personally financed the majority of his campaign, so whether or not he declared the expense is really a matter of accounting practice with no victims being harmed... hardly an infamous crime.

On the other hand, I wonder if Clinton reported the money paid for the Steele Dossier? Don't answer that... just me thinking out loud.


It is the purpose of the falsification on the loan document. A secondary charge.
If you exaggerate your income in order to purchase a more expensive house, you might get threatened by the bank, but it is not worth the expense for the bank to file charges.

My point was and is that it is not a bank that is pressing charges. It is the Federal government, for lying to a bank on a loan application. That is a long way from money laundering or supporting terrorism, which is the reason such laws exist.


Michael Cohen explained in the statement of offenses that he endeavored to hide the transactions from the FEC, IRS and the voters at the "Direction of" President Trump (Individual 1). He apparently has documents and tapes as supporting evidence. The notion that then candidate Trump was naively just following the advice of counsel and did not conspire to hide the payments from the FEC seems unlikely, but that defense won't be tested unless the claim rises to impeachment proceedings or an indictment after President Trump leaves office.

In any client/lawyer relationship, the purpose of the relationship is for the attorney to instruct the client on the law. If Trump had demanded that Cohen perform an illegal activity, Trump would be guilty. If Trump just told Cohen what he wanted to accomplish, and Cohen went along with it and during the process committed illegal acts, that's on Cohen.

This far, it would seem to be the latter.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 12 2018 @ 09:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Extorris


As far as Illegal campaign contributions are concerned, a winning or losing outcome in the election is irrelevant, it is illegal if the contributions were for the purpose of influencing the election and Michael Cohen testified that was the exact purpose of the payments.

And as I understand it, this accusation towards Trump is based almost wholly on Cohen's testimony, which also includes lies to Congress under oath. Back in my day, such testimony carried very little weight. One lie = extreme skepticism as to veracity of anything else said.


I agree his testimony is suspect. The sentencing letters of cooperation cited that the testimony Cohen provided in cooperation was validated through multiple channels and other evidence. Most people speculate this has do with the large amount of tape recordings and documents seized from Cohen's offices plus other evidence the SDNY has collected in the investigation. No legitimate prosecutor would take Cohen's word on anything without corroborating it in multiple ways.



posted on Dec, 12 2018 @ 09:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck

So what we are discussing is nothing more than an error on a report, correct?


No.
During President Obama's campaign, several individual donors contributed more than was allowed.
I believe (but am not certain) that a handful of foreign donors also contributed a few thousand dollars.
This was out of millions of individual donors.

The FEC became aware of it by reviewing the actual documents, lists and amounts that the Obama campaign itself turned over and filed with the FEC for their review to catch exactly those types of errors.

Contrast that to the President's Personal Attorney working in coordination with and the direction of the President to prevent the expenses and purpose of the expenses from being known to the FEC, IRS and voting public and creating multiple shell corporations and using a 3rd party (editor NE) to knowing hide the transactions from legal authorities.



posted on Dec, 12 2018 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck

On the other hand, I wonder if Clinton reported the money paid for the Steele Dossier? Don't answer that... just me thinking out loud.


No, and I believe there was a failed lawsuit regarding that.
An attorney associated with the Clinton Campaign paid for part of the Dossier work. A GOP operative also paid for part of it prior to that.
The issue there is that there is no evidence I am aware of that the Dossier was ever given to the Clinton Campaign as a work product and it was never used during the campaign. The Dossier was first published after President Trump won the election.

Edit to add: Apologies for answering that contrary to your request.
edit on 12-12-2018 by Extorris because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2018 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Extorris

My point was and is that it is not a bank that is pressing charges. It is the Federal government, for lying to a bank on a loan application. That is a long way from money laundering or supporting terrorism, which is the reason such laws exist.



It is a charge related to a principle charge. One greater crime can involve other lesser crimes. A bank robber hypothetically is often charged with unlawful use of a weapon, public endangerment, illegal possession of a weapon and other things secondary to the principle charge.



posted on Dec, 12 2018 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I'll tell you who the smocking gun is...covfefe

I've said it before Trumps PR manager needs to reign him in, Social media addiction is a real thing. All these accusations and investigations are so convoluted that it's laughable, i'm starting to think that the next revelations will be that Hilary orchestrated the hit on JFK and Trump built the pyramids to channel his demonic reptilian overlords from the planet Zarg.

This whole thing is becoming a mess and a joke, and it's not going to end till the cows come home, however those cows might be in collusion with Russia but later defected. That's how ridiculous these ongoing investigations are.

It's going to be long and messy but eventually the leader of the Jersey cows will be impeached for bootlegging moonshine in a UFO. Once again, it's ridiculous and shows us the state of modern politics.



posted on Dec, 12 2018 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Extorris


During President Obama's campaign, several individual donors contributed more than was allowed.
I believe (but am not certain) that a handful of foreign donors also contributed a few thousand dollars.
This was out of millions of individual donors.

The fact remains that the only difference between paying out of campaign funds and paying out of personal funds was which account was used. I can also see the reasoning behind classifying the payment as a legal expense, since it arose out of a legal contract and was handled through an attorney.

That is simply how such things are done. I doubt anyone has ever written a check out as "payable to [insert name of hooker/porn star/whatever here]" with a memo entry of "blackmail money." That would sort of defeat the purpose of keeping something quiet. I suppose one could call that "money laundering," but I really don't see it as criminal and I don't think that was what the statute was intended to address.


Contrast that to the President's Personal Attorney working in coordination with and the direction of the President to prevent the expenses and purpose of the expenses from being known to the FEC, IRS and voting public and creating multiple shell corporations and using a 3rd party (editor NE) to knowing hide the transactions from legal authorities.

The questionable part of that is "at the President's direction." For that statement to be true, Trump would have had to specifically tell Cohen to set up shell companies, work through a third party, etc., in direct knowledge that such was illegal. Without direct knowledge of the illegality, the attorney is required to explain the legalities to the client. Anything less is entrapment and malpractice by the attorney.

No client of an attorney, unless an attorney themselves, is or reasonably can be expected to understand the law. That would defeat the purpose of having an attorney/client relationship in the first place. Now, if someone can show evidence that Trump directed the setting up of shell companies and working through a third party, knowing that such would be illegal, that would be one thing. I would imagine, however, that someone of Trump's means would leave the details to the attorney he is paying... something closer to "just keep this quiet, OK?" That is not "acting at the direction of."


It is a charge related to a principle charge.

I understand that. My point is that omitting information from a loan application is not hiding information from the government, nor is it connected to money laundering. At best, I fail to see how it can be considered anything more than a tort. To use your example, it would be like the bank robber being behind on a payment on his getaway car.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 12 2018 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

This has probably been addressed, but I'll state it outright before reading any other comments...

The congressional fund is for sitting public officials who have done something while they are in office, and it's intention is to maintain the image of the Congress more than to directly affect elections or benefit the individual (those are just byproducts of an effed-up concept to begin with...making taxpayers pay for the politicians' wrongdoings).

With the Trump issue, it is presumed to be that he directed Cohen to pay the "hush money" specifically to affect an election. If that is the case, and it may be, then that is an offense for which a sitting president can be charged with federal crimes. While charging a president is generally reserved for action done while in office, it can also extend to actions done in effort to get elected into office (the latter being the much more rare instance, and the one that would apply here).

So, while it seems rather trivial to you and me, to the letter of the law, it's not, and it certainly is an impeachable offense if there is proof of the intent to payoff someone to salvage a presidential run.

As for the NY prosecutors who were investigating this, how they act in the coming days will determine whether or not they have irrefutable proof of their claims. It's entirely possible that they will refuse to prosecute, but it's possible that the evidence is so overwhelming that they choose to indict. If the former, nothing will change, but if the latter, Trump needs to stop publicly pretending like this is no big deal.

Most of what I just wrote comes from listening to Judge Andrew Napolitano this morning on the radio, but he tends to be pretty correct in his interpretations of legal processes and the implications of public actions by federal prosecutors.



posted on Dec, 12 2018 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

But. . . the congressional fund hides issues that would impact an election.



posted on Dec, 12 2018 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Isn't it something?

It is actually about "collusion" or no "collusion" yet the bitter and petty left has tried to once again move the goalposts to encompass some kind of weird procedural/technical campaign finance laws or something along those lines



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 07:09 AM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

You didn't read any of the replies, did you. Cohen's sentencing had nothing to do with muellers Russia investigation. Totally different.



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Extorris

That is simply how such things are done. I doubt anyone has ever written a check out as "payable to [insert name of hooker/porn star/whatever here]" with a memo entry of "blackmail money." That would sort of defeat the purpose of keeping something quiet.


The purpose of "keeping something quiet" was in part or principally to deny voters knowledge that would have been relevant to their vote. Some will rightly say it would not have effected their vote, but as long as it would have effected some people's vote then it matters. AMI Media (National Enquirer) has filed a plea agreement with the DOJ admitting they acted in "coordination and cooperation" with the Trump Campaign in hiding these payments.

This was a campaign contribution and it is a Felony Campaign Violation.

Do I think this, by itself warrants impeachment of a sitting President? Personally, no, but that is a political decision.

I believed it was appropriate for the Special Prosecutor to make public that President Clinton was having an affair.
I believed it was within the authority of Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against President Clinton, although I don't believe the perjury crime about an affair warranted it. The public embarrassment and exposure sufficed as consequence, but in our system that was a decision congress is tasked with making.
I believe they came to proper conclusion in not removing him from office.

In short, I believe transparency and accountability are necessary in a democracy, most so with our elected officials and even more so with the President of the United States.

All of that without even discussing the severe compromised state any President is in where he/she has hidden something embarrassing or damning from the public that can be used as an influence lever by others.

And while Mr. Cohen's plea agreement and sentencing is receiving the most media coverage for these illegal payments, he was charged with a long list of crimes involving Tax Evasion and Money Laundering with regards to Taxi-Cab Medallions and other activities. I doubt he would have received any jail time for the Felony Campaign Violations alone.

Transparency, accountability and equal application of the law.
The law protects Presidents from specific minor charges, it does not protect former Personal Attorney's of the President.

The law also affords for impeachment proceedings as a political process, but I don't believe Democrats in congress have the same naked partisan abandon as the GOP led congress did when they impeached President Clinton in December of 1988.

If the Democrats in Congress begin impeachment Proceedings, these Campaign Finance crimes will be an item on a list with much more serious demonstrable crimes or violations at the top, kind of like the Cohen charges.



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Like I said, that's one of the end results (although I'm uncertain as to the absolute secrecy of the NDAs that come from the fund), but it's not necessarily the main intent of the fund.

And intent matters.

I'm still uncertain as to whether Trump's role in the payoffs was with criminal intent or not--"knowingly" is a big word that generally exists in all criminal charges, so if Trump didn't really know that an NDA would be illegal because he was a candidate for president, I'm of the thinking that this goes nowhere.

And there's the issue--we are not privy to all of the details and evidence that he NY prosecutors have that make them confident enough to have brought this stuff before a judge. Until we know that, we won't really have a clue as to whether it's going to lead anywhere. And even if there's enough to indict, that's no guarantee of a conviction, the same as impeachment proceedings don't guarantee the removal of a president (and I think that we both know that the senate would never approve the impeachment of the president anyhow).

In any event, it's still not about the Russians...something many are easily willing to forget. But it doesn't have to be with the NY prosecutors...



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Extorris

That's quite the dangerous process you are espousing. While I agree with transparency, there is also a point where privacy overrides the public's right to see. 100% transparency is not possible, if for no other reason than national security.

As I have stated before, I did not vote for a Pastor-in-Chief. I voted for a Commander-in-Chief. Anything that affects his performance in that role matters to me. The recent negotiation with Pelosi and Schumer matters. His thoughts on world events and the allegations against him (via Twitter) matter. Who he porked when and how does not matter. I am also not interested in what positions he and Melania use on a nightly basis. All of that is irrelevant to the job he was selected to perform. That is what I mean above by privacy overriding the public's right to see.

I felt the same way about Slick Willy. So he got frisky in the Oval Office. Who cares? He shouldn't have lied under oath (for my part, if he had said "Yeah, I did... look who I'm married to!" I could have laughed it off easily), but that one lie to avoid an embarrassment that did not endanger his ability to perform his job did not warrant impeachment either. If I had any ire back then, it was that my kids were getting sex education from the news! That was on the MSM... not Billy-Boy.

Now I'm supposed to care about something similar that happened before the election, was unquestionably consensual, against a President who I have something like a 90% satisfaction rating toward otherwise? Nope, sorry. I simply don't care about Stormy Daniels or her claims, and I don't think most of the country does either. I do care about Russian involvement, at least I did for a while, but that dead horse has been beaten to death too.

It has become so blatantly obvious that all of the investigations around Trump are nothing more than political butt-hurt taken to an extreme level, just an attempt to find some reason, any reason, to destroy a man over politics, up to and including destroying his associates and his family as well, that it would literally take a confession by Trump himself, under oath, with tons of corroborating evidence on top of it, to make me care. The law has been turned upside down and inside out, used as a tool for political expediency rather than a means to justice, that it no longer matters.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Extorris

That's quite the dangerous process you are espousing.


That is our constitution, system of justice and democracy. Did I mis-communicate something?



While I agree with transparency, there is also a point where privacy overrides the public's right to see. 100% transparency is not possible, if for no other reason than national security.

As I have stated before, I did not vote for a Pastor-in-Chief. I voted for a Commander-in-Chief. Anything that affects his performance in that role matters to me.


Any crimes large or small or illicit activity that a President has hidden from the public is a profound security threat.
The Russians have invested in an expansive "Kompromat" program over many decades for good reason and they are just one player in a world Nation States both friendly and adversarial and general influence peddlers.

The fear of divorce, public embarrassment, political damage or even legal jeopardy can cause politicians to move the needle a little or a lot on any given decision. It is human nature.

Especially for a President, these things must be outed.

You, personally, don't need to care about these things in order for them to be a leverable threat. For the threat to be effective it only requires the potential that a sufficient number of people would care to effect the President negatively.



edit on 13-12-2018 by Extorris because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join