Cohen to plead guilty

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Kharron

No let me help with your analogy.

K,. you own costco. Your company doesnt pay taxes and pays a fine.

I own sams club. My lawyer is found to have not paid taxes.

Now you make a a big scenario about how I then must be guilty as the owner, and demand people discuss about how guilty I am, with not on shred of evidence at all.

Then when other people say "But wait, wouldnt that be like assuming because your company of costco was guilty, you yourself as the owner must personally be guilty of a crime"

And you are like, no there is no proof you yourself committed a crime.

do you see how dumb this is?

give me one piece of evidence trump personally ordered any crime.

When you do, I would admit that that seems to be different than Obama.

Until then, your made up hypothetical scenario with no proof proves nothing.

Here is what we know right now.

People in both trumps team and Obamas were charged with violating campaign finance laws.

The media is foaming at the mouth over trumps with people calling for impeachment They did no such thing under Obamas.

Yes, i know, in your imagined hypotehtical scenario that you made up with no evidence whatsoever, trump is dr. evil and super ultra guilty, but again, thats your fun little made up fiction, and doesnt seem relevcant to the conversation.

In your new analogy example you conveniently left out tapes of hush payments made to girls that adultery was committed with. Why is that?

Or are you trying to say that in your analogy, making hush payments to porn stars is Cohen not paying taxes, leaving yourself as the owner out?

I asked you to be honest, please. Care to try again, or should I focus on the rest of my day?


Edit to add: The evidence is the tapes. Trump authorizing payments and saying, ok what do we owe for this? If you missed the tapes I can look for them for you. I know you've been gone a while, you may have missed them.

You have no evidnece that trump oredered any crime at all. None.

The tapes do not show that, if they did, trump would already be charged

I am done having this discussion with you.

You set up hypothetical crimes trump committed with no evidence, then set up nonsensical analogies defending them.

Post your evidence that trump ordered Cohen to break the law or admit you are making it up.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: dawnstar

Yes trump associates with crappy people; no argument here.

But so does Hillary, all the bushes, mccain, schumer, pelosie, feinstein, nunes, sessions, booker, warren, and almost every single major politician in washington.

Isnt it funny how only trump people get raided.

I can post evidence after evidence of how trump team is dealt with in totally different ways than any of these others.

We know Obamas team broke campaign finance laws. Any of his lawyers raided?

we know the hillary coonected groups such as the podesta group committed the exact same crime as manafort with the very same oligarchs, failing to register as a foriegn lobbyist. Yet manafort is charged because he is connected to trump, podesta group get to refile the paperwork.

we know that mills and abedin lied to the fbi like flynn. Flynn gets charged cause he is connected to trump, mills and abedin walk free.

I could go on and on.

I will say for the millionth time; if trump or his people committed crimes, punish them to the fullest extent of the law.

All I want is for the law to be applied equally to all of these people, regardless of what side they are on.

And it is abundantly clear that this is not occuring, and whats more, many many peiople are perfec tly fine with that because they dont like trump.

well thats fine, but as I have been warning for well over a year, be careful,. because that same unfair application will eventually be applied to anti establishment people on the left (like how they already screwed bernie out of the primary) and then you will cry foul and it will be too late.

Grambler, damn man. This is not about Hillary or about Obama, or anyone else you want to apply whataboutism to. This is about Donald Trump authorizing payments, on tape, for his lawyer to pay off adultery in order to influence public opinion prior to an election.

I know you could go on an on, but I don't want you to. I want to get back to my day, so please provide proof of these two being related or I'll have to bid you a good day.

Did Obama or his attorneys instruct anyone in the campaign to fudge the numbers on those donations?

a reply to: Kharron

You do understand the difference between a campaign being found making an error in reporting and a President being taped personally giving order to break campaign finance laws?

These weren't just errors in reporting. There was intentional hiding of large donors. There was also a stunt that Obama's campaign tried to pull that he got off on, but Hillary Clinton sure didn't when she tried to pull the same thing. Here's how it went...

The Anatomy Of Hillary Clinton's $84 Million Money-Laundering Scheme

www.investors.com...

If you read the audit on Obama's campaign, it looks like he tried to pull the exact same thing, but I don't think the auditors were able to catch what they were really trying to do. I'll be curious to see what the FEC does to Hillary's campaign over it though. We now have 34 states involved in her little scheme.

Duplicate post.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Kharron

No let me help with your analogy.

K,. you own costco. Your company doesnt pay taxes and pays a fine.

I own sams club. My lawyer is found to have not paid taxes.

Now you make a a big scenario about how I then must be guilty as the owner, and demand people discuss about how guilty I am, with not on shred of evidence at all.

Then when other people say "But wait, wouldnt that be like assuming because your company of costco was guilty, you yourself as the owner must personally be guilty of a crime"

And you are like, no there is no proof you yourself committed a crime.

do you see how dumb this is?

give me one piece of evidence trump personally ordered any crime.

When you do, I would admit that that seems to be different than Obama.

Until then, your made up hypothetical scenario with no proof proves nothing.

Here is what we know right now.

People in both trumps team and Obamas were charged with violating campaign finance laws.

The media is foaming at the mouth over trumps with people calling for impeachment They did no such thing under Obamas.

Yes, i know, in your imagined hypotehtical scenario that you made up with no evidence whatsoever, trump is dr. evil and super ultra guilty, but again, thats your fun little made up fiction, and doesnt seem relevcant to the conversation.

In your new analogy example you conveniently left out tapes of hush payments made to girls that adultery was committed with. Why is that?

Or are you trying to say that in your analogy, making hush payments to porn stars is Cohen not paying taxes, leaving yourself as the owner out?

I asked you to be honest, please. Care to try again, or should I focus on the rest of my day?


Edit to add: The evidence is the tapes. Trump authorizing payments and saying, ok what do we owe for this? If you missed the tapes I can look for them for you. I know you've been gone a while, you may have missed them.

You have no evidnece that trump oredered any crime at all. One.

The tapes do not show that, if they did, trump would already be charged

I am done having this discussion with you.

You set up hypothetical crimes trump committed with no evidence, then set up nonsensical analogies defending them.

Post your evidence that trump ordered Cohen to break the law or admit you are making it up.

Yeah I think it's best if you're done with this discussion too. Here's some proof for you before you leave:

Tape and Transcript

This is what I'm asking from you -- proof, not pages of opinion. Can you do it?

Mr. Trump then asked, “What financing?”

“We’ll have to pay,” Mr. Cohen said.

Mr. Trump then appears to say, “Pay with cash.”

Mr. Cohen then says, “No, no.”

The word “check” is uttered, but it is not clear by whom, and the audio is then cut off.

Let's say he didn't say "Pay with cash." and instead said "Don't pay with cash." just for #s and giggles. He is still giving instructions and orders on what to do and how to make a payment.

This would be enough proof in the court of law. Is it enough for a Trump fan?

a reply to: Kharron

Politicians pay people off all of the time. Did Trump or Cohen say to pay Stormy Daniels with campaign cash or check?

Unless someone has proof of a transaction from campaign accounts, I don't see any illegal offense.

a reply to: Deetermined

No. Rudy Giuliani just told Fox News that the president's team is very satisfied. But they are saddened for Michael Cohen.

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Kharron

Politicians pay people off all of the time. Did Trump or Cohen say to pay Stormy Daniels with campaign cash or check?

Unless someone has proof of a transaction from campaign accounts, I don't see any illegal offense.

Ahhh that's what you don't understand. It does not have to be paid from a campaign account. It can be paid from any account because the crime is not how it was paid, the crime is that it was not disclosed on the campaign disclosures, as it was a major investment into the outcome of an election.

This money, no matter what account it came from, influenced public opinion and therefore the results of an election. That makes it a campaign finance crime.

Make sense?

NYTimes Timeline

originally posted by: Kharron

You did not just say that!

Actually, I did, because I understand the law better than most people.

I'll even reiterate what I just said: Everything that you are speculating on concerning the NDA is nothing but ideologically driven crap at this point. Of course, I welcome you to prove it, since you are the one making the claim in this regard concerning his motives and stating it as a fact.

I'll patiently wait.

You are making a claim that hiding adultery from voters months before the election is not an influence on the election? You, sir, are going to have a rough time when this investigation finishes.

Nope, the claim that I made is exactly what I said (you can reread my comment at your leisure). And even so, typing up an NDA between lawyers and the other party willingly signing it is not illegal, even if the timing seems suspect. People try to keep things that can be perceived as negatives on their campaign efforts from seeing the light of day all of the time, but again, NDAs are not illegal.

Also, considering all of the negative press that Trump weathered and still won, are you telling me that an accusation by a porn start that she had sex with Trump would have been the last straw? I doubt it, but like I said, you can't prove that it would have been.

I'm not going to have a rough time about anything, because I'm also open to the possibility that there are illegalities that have yet to surface, and if so, Trump should be called on it and indicted if appropriate.

That said, I will also repeat something else that I've already mentioned--this isn't about Trump, so I'm done with that line of discussion in this thread because it is a derailment.

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Kharron

No let me help with your analogy.

K,. you own costco. Your company doesnt pay taxes and pays a fine.

I own sams club. My lawyer is found to have not paid taxes.

Now you make a a big scenario about how I then must be guilty as the owner, and demand people discuss about how guilty I am, with not on shred of evidence at all.

Then when other people say "But wait, wouldnt that be like assuming because your company of costco was guilty, you yourself as the owner must personally be guilty of a crime"

And you are like, no there is no proof you yourself committed a crime.

do you see how dumb this is?

give me one piece of evidence trump personally ordered any crime.

When you do, I would admit that that seems to be different than Obama.

Until then, your made up hypothetical scenario with no proof proves nothing.

Here is what we know right now.

People in both trumps team and Obamas were charged with violating campaign finance laws.

The media is foaming at the mouth over trumps with people calling for impeachment They did no such thing under Obamas.

Yes, i know, in your imagined hypotehtical scenario that you made up with no evidence whatsoever, trump is dr. evil and super ultra guilty, but again, thats your fun little made up fiction, and doesnt seem relevcant to the conversation.

In your new analogy example you conveniently left out tapes of hush payments made to girls that adultery was committed with. Why is that?

Or are you trying to say that in your analogy, making hush payments to porn stars is Cohen not paying taxes, leaving yourself as the owner out?

I asked you to be honest, please. Care to try again, or should I focus on the rest of my day?


Edit to add: The evidence is the tapes. Trump authorizing payments and saying, ok what do we owe for this? If you missed the tapes I can look for them for you. I know you've been gone a while, you may have missed them.

You have no evidnece that trump oredered any crime at all. One.

The tapes do not show that, if they did, trump would already be charged

I am done having this discussion with you.

You set up hypothetical crimes trump committed with no evidence, then set up nonsensical analogies defending them.

Post your evidence that trump ordered Cohen to break the law or admit you are making it up.

This would be enough proof in the court of law. Is it enough for a Trump fan?

would it?

well the surely trump has been charged?

Oh whats that, he hasnt?

Wel surely though every left leaning media outlet would be blaring stories every day that this is open and shut, trump broke the law?

Oh whats that they arent?

The Cohen tape is not helpful to the president, but because of the structure of campaign-finance rules, it may not be conclusive. The question for legal purposes is whether Trump would have made this payment even if he had not been a candidate.

Trump would argue that even if he had powerful political reasons to hide the McDougal relationship, he also had personal ones. He does not have to deny that politics played some part in his and Cohen’s plotting to bury the McDougal story. After all, he may contend, a revelation in the heat of the political season would be even more intensely covered and add considerably to whatever marital or family reaction he would have to deal with. And he could have both objectives in mind—to spare himself political as well as personal trouble. Under the rules, a dual motive is enough to muddy the legal waters.

www.theatlantic.com...

The only serious legal issue raised by the McDougal-AMI-Trump triangle (or quadrilateral, if one includes Michael Cohen’s role) is the campaign finance issue; if AMI used $150K of its money to help Trump in the election and Trump failed to report it, that’s problematic.

...

It’s worth pointing out that those hoping for means to bring down Trump’s presidency might want to hold off their jubilation until they’re sure the Cohen tape isn’t something of a Trojan horse. If the tape does prove that Trump planned to purchase the McDougal story using his own funds, it may still be considered an unreported campaign loan, but even that is unclear given how little information is conveyed by the recording.

One of the toughest things about living in Trump’s America is maintaining barriers between that which breaks the law and that which simply offends our sensibilities. 2016 was the year we elected a president with a long history of seedy affairs and Mafia-esque preservation tactics. Audio tape of that president being exactly who we already knew he was is as far from shocking as it gets.

lawandcrime.com...

How is this possible.

Clearly you KNOW this tape proves guilt. Heck, why is cohen even pleading guilty news?

You KNEW trump was guilty as soon as you heard this tape.

Only strangely, legal experts seem to not think this proves guilt in any way at all.

a reply to: Grambler

the Democrat spin is beginning to occur in the MSM. Two of President Trump's closest allies have been convicted today.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

I'm not going to have a rough time about anything, because I'm also open to the possibility that there are illegalities that have yet to surface, and if so, Trump should be called on it and indicted if appropriate.

That said, I will also repeat something else that I've already mentioned--this isn't about Trump, so I'm done with that line of discussion in this thread because it is a derailment.

this is exactly where I am at.

If trump broke the law, let him pay the price.

But I want to see equal application of the law, and it seems obvious to me that we havent seen that.

And it is so frustrating watching people that are absolutely certain they know the law, and have 100% proof of trumps guilt from publicly available evidnce, and acting like if we dont agree with them we are somehow partisan hacks.

While ignoring that even the rabidly anti trump media has not dared to claim things such as "The cohen tape 100% proves trump broke the law."

a reply to: Grambler

Your argument is really that because he hasn't been charged for this one crime yet, it's all good?

The investigation has practically just started and there are already incriminating tapes and orders given, people making plea deals and you think that because they haven't charged him at this point, it's all over?

You, sir, it appears will also not take the results of this investigation well when it ends.

If they have to nab him for a smaller crime in the end, they will, just like nabbing a mafia boss for a tax crime in the end -- but the investigation may bring A LOT more before any charges are filed. Why would any charges on a President of the United States be filed before the investigation is all done? That makes no sense.

I know I'm making sense to you, your intelligence is above that of many here, I just don't know why you're deflecting at every chance you can.

As I've stated many times before -- I am looking forward to seeing the end of this investigation, whenever it happens. We already have a good idea based on the tapes that Trump was involved himself and was making the calls. I am just wondering how deep this iceberg goes.

originally posted by: Grambler



Only strangely, legal experts seem to not think this proves guilt in any way at all.

11 Legal Experts opinions

Interestingly, these 11 legal experts paint a different picture.

Take care, Grambler. I'll be back tonight if you want to talk about Obama and Hillary more.

a reply to: Kharron

Trump may be charged with crimes in the future, if so tahst fine he should be punished.

what you have done is claimed you know he is guilty, and you have proof.

You do not, as has been shown.

You claims the tapes f=prove his guilt, but legal experts disagree.

Now he may be guilty of what you accuse him; because more proof may arise.

But your claims of knowing his is guilty are wrong, plain and simple.


I repeat, at this point, we have his lawyer pleading guilty to finance violations, the same thing people connected to Obama we found guilty of.

Yet the treatment between the two cases by the media is night and day.

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: Grambler



Only strangely, legal experts seem to not think this proves guilt in any way at all.

11 Legal Experts opinions

Interestingly, these 11 legal experts paint a different picture.

Take care, Grambler. I'll be back tonight.

Strange, I didnt see one of those legal experts say that this is definitive proof of trumps guilt. Not one.

Perhaps they should call you, seeing as how you know this is proof of guilt.

a reply to: Kharron

So then every tax paying American as well as those who dipped into the the taxpayer funded congressional slush fund should all be awaiting charges?

a reply to: Grambler

There is a possible positive outcome to all this. The people might continue holding power accountable into the future instead of remaining apathetic. The press might continue their scrutiny, "speaking truth to power", well into the future, as opposed to the wheeling and dealing they did in the past.

Manafort was just found guilty if crimes that stem from well into the past two administrations. Where was the scrutiny then? There wasn't any. Their hatred of the president has finally inspired them out of their apathy. They did without the indignation in the past. It will be interesting to see if they can maintain it into the future.

originally posted by: TheSubversiveOne
a reply to: Grambler

There is a possible positive outcome to all this. The people might continue holding power accountable into the future instead of remaining apathetic. The press might continue their scrutiny, "speaking truth to power", well into the future, as opposed to the wheeling and dealing they did in the past.

Manafort was just found guilty if crimes that stem from well into the past two administrations. Where was the scrutiny then? There wasn't any. Their hatred of the president has finally inspired them out of their apathy. They did without the indignation in the past. It will be interesting to see if they can maintain it into the future.

I totally agree with this.

If this would be the start of holding all of these powerful to account, it would be a great thing.

But I am not optimistic about that.

It seems to me that a clear pattern is emerging; play ball with tghe establishment and deep state and be let off for almost any crime; have the nerve to be assocoiated wth a team that doesnt, and you will be targeted with both barrels.

a reply to: TheSubversiveOne

Nope, that's the problem with the whole thing. This isn't the public holding anyone accountable. This is the swamp prosecuting people not in their club because they can. Believe me, once the next swamp rat gets in there will be no prosecutions.