Stormy Daniels' lawyer: Cohen was paid $500K by Putin-tied company after election

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Kharron

Ok so I will ask again.

Someone close to a politician recieving half a million from russians is treason.

Thats the standard, right?

And what is the penalty for treason?

Are we now calling for the execution of anyone close to a politician that receives large sums of money from russians?

I just want to get you on the record.

Bill Clinton got 500k for a speech after the U-1 deal from russia.

No biggie then, no biggie now.

Shhhh!!!!

I am enjoying these people calling this treason, the very people who downplayed any need for investigation into U1.

It is absolutely hilarious!

originally posted by: Grambler
Would you like to see an investigation of equal veracity to anyone in similar circumstances connected to a politician who recieved half a million dollars from russians?

The now former AG of New York state didnt require the Clinton foundation to report foreign donors.

The irony..

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Grambler
Would you like to see an investigation of equal veracity to anyone in similar circumstances connected to a politician who recieved half a million dollars from russians?

The now former AG of New York state didnt require the Clinton foundation to report foreign donors.

The irony..

Notice not one person on here saying this is evidence of a crime has had the nerve to say the same would have been true for Bill clinton.

They just pathetically ignore it.

a reply to: Grambler

Would you like to see an investigation of equal veracity to anyone in similar circumstances connected to a politician who recieved half a million dollars from russians?

Similar circumstances? Absolutely.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Grambler
Would you like to see an investigation of equal veracity to anyone in similar circumstances connected to a politician who recieved half a million dollars from russians?

The now former AG of New York state didnt require the Clinton foundation to report foreign donors.

The irony..

Notice not one person on here saying this is evidence of a crime has had the nerve to say the same would have been true for Bill clinton.

They just pathetically ignore it.

Of course they do.. as does the media...

Laws only apply to some.

This story coupled with Mueller's team questioning this same Russian coming out on the same day seems fishy.

Mueller using Stormy lawyer to leak parts of the investigation to salvage support, after getting three knocks from three federal judges?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Grambler

Would you like to see an investigation of equal veracity to anyone in similar circumstances connected to a politician who recieved half a million dollars from russians?

Similar circumstances? Absolutely.

Cool.

So would you say Bill Clinton meeting Putin in secret while his wife was SOS during the sell of uranium rights, the recieving half a million dollars from a russian state bank is a similar circumstance.

If not, can you explain why this circumstance is more worthy of investigation?

If so, are you concerned that the investigation into that payment was no where near as veracious or indepth as the one into cohen?

GD Evenflows.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
This story coupled with Mueller's team questioning this same Russian coming out on the same day seems fishy.

Mueller using Stormy lawyer to leak parts of the investigation to salvage support, after getting three knocks from three federal judges?

Judge Ellis already called it.

The goal by going after all these people is to find any path that leads to Trumps indictment or impeachment. The left does not seem to grasp the dangerous waters they are trolling and what the reaction will be by the people if they succeed in their coup.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The summary provided claims CN is "controlled by Vekselberg and his cousin Andrew Intrater".

It appears Intrater is still the CEO.

www.columbusnova.com...

Is Intrater Vekselberg's cousin?

a reply to: Grambler

By itself, it would be difficult to prove that the $500k paid to Bill Clinton by itself proves any collusion or legal impropriety. It might carry some weight as supporting evidence, but by itself? No, sorry. It was simply a paid service.

Do I think it was a payoff? Probably. But that's different from legal proof.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Grambler

By itself, it would be difficult to prove that the $500k paid to Bill Clinton by itself proves any collusion or legal impropriety. It might carry some weight as supporting evidence, but by itself? No, sorry. It was simply a paid service.

Do I think it was a payoff? Probably. But that's different from legal proof.

TheRedneck

Correct. While it is possible it was some sort of payoff, there is no evidence to suggest it was anything other than what you described and to compare it to this situation is a false equivalence.

That is, of course, if this information released is accurate.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Grambler

By itself, it would be difficult to prove that the $500k paid to Bill Clinton by itself proves any collusion or legal impropriety. It might carry some weight as supporting evidence, but by itself? No, sorry. It was simply a paid service.

Do I think it was a payoff? Probably. But that's different from legal proof.

TheRedneck

Of course you are right.

That is my point in this situation; if cohen got these payments it is not proof of guilt of a crime.

Yet here we have people saying it is, and so I am asking them why that shouldnt apply in all cases like this, such as Bill getting that money.

Additionally, many of these same people have argued against even an investigation of the U1 debacle, yet the are prclaiming guilt here.

I dont mind an investigation here, my point is I want one of equal varacity against the Hillary camp.

I will continue below.

a reply to: Grambler

So would you say Bill Clinton meeting Putin in secret while his wife was SOS during the sell of uranium rights, the recieving half a million dollars from a russian state bank is a similar circumstance.

The uranium deal? Seriously?
I believe that Bill was paid for a speech he gave. Did Cohen give a speech? But then, he's not a former president. Or a president's son.

If not, can you explain why this circumstance is more worthy of investigation?

I can't. There are many things about the Cohen investigation (and civil suit) which are not public knowledge.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
This story coupled with Mueller's team questioning this same Russian coming out on the same day seems fishy.

Mueller using Stormy lawyer to leak parts of the investigation to salvage support, after getting three knocks from three federal judges?

Judge Ellis already called it.

The goal by going after all these people is to find any path that leads to Trumps indictment or impeachment. The left does not seem to grasp the dangerous waters they are trolling and what the reaction will be by the people if they succeed in their coup.

The alt-left believes they are the majority, so of course they won't grasp it.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Grambler

By itself, it would be difficult to prove that the $500k paid to Bill Clinton by itself proves any collusion or legal impropriety. It might carry some weight as supporting evidence, but by itself? No, sorry. It was simply a paid service.

Do I think it was a payoff? Probably. But that's different from legal proof.

TheRedneck

Correct. While it is possible it was some sort of payoff, there is no evidence to suggest it was anything other than what you described and to compare it to this situation is a false equivalence.

That is, of course, this information released is accurate.

Hahahahahahahaha!!!!!

Prcieless!

This coming from you, who claimed that anyone who wanted an investigation of uranium one was some sort of right wing conspiracy theorist!

You are all for looking in to cohen payments, and I hevent seen you criticize the investigation into him.

But same as it ever was for you.

The person who clearly outlined that the reason for the investigation into trumps team was their shady connections to russians, but totally changed that standard when it came to rather we should investigate hillarys team.

Just another day of hypocrisy for you!

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Grambler

So would you say Bill Clinton meeting Putin in secret while his wife was SOS during the sell of uranium rights, the recieving half a million dollars from a russian state bank is a similar circumstance.

The uranium deal? Seriously?
I believe that Bill was paid for a speech he gave. Did Cohen give a speech? But then, he's not a former president. Or a president's son.

If not, can you explain why this circumstance is more worthy of investigation?

I can't. There are many things about the Cohen investigation (and civil suit) which are not public knowledge.

And here we have it!

Bill meets in secret with Putin, and the a week later gets a half a million dollar payment for a rissian bank, and its perfectly innocent, no need to investigate.

Cohen, a lawyer gets a half a million dollar payment from a US company that may be controlled vy a russian, and it could be money laundering so it warrants a huge investigation.

Just be honest already.

Hillarys team can committ no wrong, but if trumps team does the same things they should be punished for crimes.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Grambler

By itself, it would be difficult to prove that the $500k paid to Bill Clinton by itself proves any collusion or legal impropriety. It might carry some weight as supporting evidence, but by itself? No, sorry. It was simply a paid service.

Do I think it was a payoff? Probably. But that's different from legal proof.

TheRedneck

Why is he giving speeches in russia?

His wife is Sec state!

Nothing wrong?

lol!

Jr meets a fake lawyer and it's treason.

If he was in cahoots with Trump,

Why would Trump allow him to be sanctioned in April 2018?

Once again, ''CNN Have reviewed the documents'' usually means the core of the story is blatantly false.

Ante and Co like to push those kinds of stories.... Especially when the Mueller witch hunt is doing badly.

Again, IF this is true - this would have been front page news long ago and Mueller would already be dishing out indictments

Just another nonsense piece of junk

a reply to: Phage

So you dont think this was info was placed in the headlines to suggest collusion? It's odd due to the fact the reason this is in the headlines seems to be to suggest collusion, yet mueller didn't find enough information to compel him to make a move in that regard.

Why would her lawyer have this information if it's an ongoing investigation? Surely the FBI raided his office for a CRIMINAL investigation why would a civil lawyer be privied anything?