Trump's Second and Third year in office
Quote: beachbumbabsHe stated specifically to the judge in both counts 7 and 8 it was in order to get Trump elected. I doubt that verbiage was used casually - he read it off prepared notes. I don't see him perjuring himself over prepared remarks, with his lawyers standing there.
I'm not sure your contention that ONLY that motive is necessary would hold water, but IANAL. There could be multiple reasons to do it, intended or unintended consequences, and election fraud or manipulation still be considered the primary objective.
"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."
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/07/did-trump-break-campaign-finance-laws/566180/
It is cut and dried that Cohen has admitted to committing a crime...one that he may not have even committed, based on the actual law.
It is not as "open and shut" as his lawyer is on the circuit talking about this morning while begging for money so that he gets paid. Much like Guiliani, Davis may be a good lawyer but he is also a political hack.
Quote: RonC"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."
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/07/did-trump-break-campaign-finance-laws/566180/
It is cut and dried that Cohen has admitted to committing a crime...one that he may not have even committed, based on the actual law.
It is not as "open and shut" as his lawyer is on the circuit talking about this morning while begging for money so that he gets paid. Much like Guiliani, Davis may be a good lawyer but he is also a political hack.
The point of a plea bargain is usually to plead to lesser charges than they could throw at you. We know, also, that they have more than a million docs, some amount of tapes, and texts and other stuff. I think it would be a mistake to take yesterday as anything other than the tip of the iceberg. More likely, that light at the end of the tunnel is a 200 car freight train.
Quote: FleaswatterI have no doubt that if Hillary's campaign came under the same level of scrutiny, just as many or more persons would be guilty.
Hillary lost. Get over it.
She's been investigated into the ground for years, if not decades. How much more time and money do you want to waste on her?
Quote: RonC
Oh...no they won't...your prize will be President Pence!!
DEAL!
EDIT: Cohen has flipped and will give evidence Trump colluded with Russia.
Thoughts and prayers....
Quote: RonC"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."
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/07/did-trump-break-campaign-finance-laws/566180/
It is cut and dried that Cohen has admitted to committing a crime...one that he may not have even committed, based on the actual law.
It is not as "open and shut" as his lawyer is on the circuit talking about this morning while begging for money so that he gets paid. Much like Guiliani, Davis may be a good lawyer but he is also a political hack.
Ron, I believe you are on the right track:
President Trump has not violated campaign finance laws and here is why
Quote: beachbumbabsThe point of a plea bargain is usually to plead to lesser charges than they could throw at you. We know, also, that they have more than a million docs, some amount of tapes, and texts and other stuff. I think it would be a mistake to take yesterday as anything other than the tip of the iceberg. More likely, that light at the end of the tunnel is a 200 car freight train.
A point I made yesterday....once they have and present actual evidence, they may tie Trump to this crime or others...I just don't think a "Cohen said it" would do the trick in this case...
Quote: RonCI am certainly not going to say that this won't ever be proven, but there would have to be actual evidence of it involving campaign money/donation--just paying someone to shut up is either not a crime at all or it is an often committed one...take your pick. NDAs are quite common and unless they can prove it was solely paid for by the campaign to help the campaign, just paying someone not to say something is likely not a violation.
I'm not sure the "iceberg" is as big as you think it is due to the lengths they have had to go to in order to convict someone of something related to the campaign. It was posited here some time ago that it is likely all of us commit violations of the law--and maybe even felonies--at some point; it then becomes a matter of being caught and prosecuted. Manafort's crimes (at least some of them) were apparently passed over before, but now have more value--either to add to new charges or to help try and roll him to say something. Some people are known to have committed an indictable (and likely one that would result in a conviction) and not prosecuted.
Are any of these guys and gals peaches? Nope.
My thought is that they could not find something really bad as quickly as they wanted, so they are putting a bigger net out and hoping they get more.
I am not saying they won't...but they haven't...yet!
Quote: TigerWuDEAL!
EDIT: Cohen has flipped and will give evidence Trump colluded with Russia.
Thoughts and prayers....
Lanny Davis has both a political and financial interest in keeping this case hyped up...he has hawked the go fund me account (I provide a link for you guys to send your money in!) to raise money to pay for Cohen's expenses. I have seen him on several shows this morning. Funny, his largest expense right now is most likely the legal expenses...owed to Davis.
Again, Cohen has a lot of stuff and may present something that the Mueller team does not have.
If he does, and it takes out the President because he actually did something, I am fine with that.
Until then, he still gets to be President.
So far, he isn't Nixon, sulking in the White House. He is still out working at his job as president.
We'll see what happen!
Quote: RonCLanny Davis has both a political and financial interest in keeping this case hyped up...he has hawked the go fund me account (I provide a link for you guys to send your money in!) to raise money to pay for Cohen's expenses. I have seen him on several shows this morning. Funny, his largest expense right now is most likely the legal expenses...owed to Davis.
That's just how the world works nowadays. Everyone makes the publicity circuit and drops soundbites on social media and tries to drum up extra money to fund whatever they have going on. In fact, it's seen as odd if someone DOESN'T do that; see: Mueller. We're in a publicity-driven world more than ever nowadays.
But like you said, if he has true evidence, it will come to light, and if not, so be it, but I'm not going to be critical of someone just because they're going on talk shows and starting go fund me accounts. That kind of posturing is normal in this day and age.
Quote: FleaswatterRon, I believe you are on the right track:
President Trump has not violated campaign finance laws and here is why
I quit reading when they get the facts wrong in, literally, the first sentence.
Quote: RonCA point I made yesterday....once they have and present actual evidence, they may tie Trump to this crime or others...I just don't think a "Cohen said it" would do the trick in this case...
They laid it out pretty clearly yesterday that “Cohen’s word” is not the only evidence they’ve got in relation to the campaign finance crimes:
Quote: ams288They laid it out pretty clearly yesterday that “Cohen’s word” is not the only evidence they’ve got in relation to the campaign finance crimes:
Surely you didn't expect them to actually read that did you? You can see the pattern here.. something happens and they come up with an excuse for why it doesn't matter or it's wrong. Then that excuse gets blown out of the water, and they come up with a new excuse or reason why it doesn't matter that's just a little more preposterous. The cycle keeps continuing until you have what we see now.... a total disregard to the facts and evidence against Cohen, and ultimately the President.
Quote: SteverinosQuote: FleaswatterRon, I believe you are on the right track:
President Trump has not violated campaign finance laws and here is why
I quit reading when they get the facts wrong in, literally, the first sentence.
Please give me your expert analysis of what facts are wrong.
Manafort didn't plead guilty.
And it's going to be a hard sale to convince it had "dual purposes" when the affair happened in 2006 and the payment was made 3 weeks before the election. Good luck with that.
Quote: rsactuarySurely you didn't expect them to actually read that did you? You can see the pattern here.. something happens and they come up with an excuse for why it doesn't matter or it's wrong. Then that excuse gets blown out of the water, and they come up with a new excuse or reason why it doesn't matter that's just a little more preposterous. The cycle keeps continuing until you have what we see now.... a total disregard to the facts and evidence against Cohen, and ultimately the President.
Eventually we are going to get to the point where they just keep repeating: “A sitting President cannot be indicted!” over and over.
Quote: Steverinos"The media is in a frenzy louder than feeding time at the zoo over the guilty pleas by Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign manager,"
Manafort didn't plead guilty.
The first part is right; the second part should read that he was found guilty. That does not really change the actual law, which is what is discussed later on...
Quote: SteverinosAnd it's going to be a hard sale to convince it had "dual purposes" when the affair happened in 2006 and the payment was made 3 weeks before the election. Good luck with that.
While your point may be valid as to the timing, there could well be enough doubt introduced as to it not being the "only" purpose and possibly being a "dual" purpose. If part of it was to avoid additional embarrassment to the family, that doubt could be there...if it gets to court or an impeachment trial.
This is what we know--
--Cohen entered a guilty plea, perhaps because he felt that the sole purpose of the payments were to help elect Trump. Hell, it is even possible the plea on that particular charge was not even correct...
--Cohen is a slimeball
--Cohen's statement alone is not enough evidence to convict anyone. They would have to prove that it was solely for campaign purposes.
--Cohen may have additional evidence that could make a case for a lot of things. Speculating on what that evidence is and what it might prove if it exists is really not much different than saying it is 100% certain Trump did nothing...both things are equally unproven at this time.
I didn't want Trump to win, at least until he was the last Republican standing.
I did not think he could win.
I did not want Hillary to be President.
I am happy Hillary is not President.
I am not happy with the way Trump acts.
I am happy with some of Trump's results.
I will be fine with Pence completing Trump's term should he end up leaving office.
I concede that it is at least a possibility.
Quote: ams288Eventually we are going to get to the point where they just keep repeating: “A sitting President cannot be indicted!” over and over.
...and likely can't be indicted, but impeachment is certainly a possibility should the bar be met for that.
Not the bar set by that Waters fool out in California.
I also see removal as a possibility should he be impeached for something actually criminal in nature.
Quote: FleaswatterRon, I believe you are on the right track:
President Trump has not violated campaign finance laws and here is why
An op ed piece written by some nobody on a right wing website is hardly an objective analysis of the situation.
Quote: ams288Mike Pence, while batsh** crazy, isn't a Russian asset. So it'd be a slight improvement for our country.
Um...This is where I don't understand those who are likely to vote Democrat. (It's not impossible, but I'm not likely to do it) I think that Pence would be a tougher candidate to beat in 2020 than would Trump, so why should anyone want Trump impeached?
Bookies slash odds on Trump impeachment
Quote: Mission146Um...This is where I don't understand those who are likely to vote Democrat. (It's not impossible, but I'm not likely to do it) I think that Pence would be a tougher candidate to beat in 2020 than would Trump, so why should anyone want Trump impeached?
Because some of us simply don't care about "winning" for "our team," but rather having a competent adult in the Oval Office. I'm sure I would disagree with most of Pence's policies, but he's at least not an embarrassment and walking punchline.
Quote: TigerWuQuote: FleaswatterRon, I believe you are on the right track:
President Trump has not violated campaign finance laws and here is why
An op ed piece written by some nobody on a right wing website is hardly an objective analysis of the situation.
"Smith has made the point that "dual use" expenditures are not "campaign expenditures" under the meaning of the Act."
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/08/trump_has_not_violated_campaign_finance_laws_and_heres_why.html#ixzz5Ovw5pkON
I don't just read op eds from anyone and believe them; they are opinions. I do take the facts that may be presented along with the opinions and consider them.
Quote: TigerWu
Because some of us simply don't care about "winning" for "our team," but rather having a competent adult in the Oval Office. I'm sure I would disagree with most of Pence's policies, but he's at least not an embarrassment and walking punchline.
From a policy standpoint, I'm not entirely sure that I would prefer to have Pence in there as opposed to Trump. I think most likely it's effectively the same thing.
Basically, Trump says stupid stuff on Twitter and sticks his foot in his own mouth a lot. I think that bodes well for the Democrats in 2020 and I really don't think (if the House goes Democrat) that either Trump or Pence can get much accomplished Legislatively. I also think they'll do more or less the same stuff in terms of Executive power.
Don't get me wrong, I would love it because everyone will finally STFU and Twitter can be Twitter again. I'm tired of being constantly bombarded with this crap. That said, Trump is the easier candidate to beat and a Pence 2019-2020 doesn't look that much different from a Trump one, policy-wise.
Oh, and Pence is an embarrassment and a punchline, but we'll cross that bridge if we find it. At least Trump is sometimes funny, if I'm honest. Pence is just a White Evangelical Christian Racist Homophobic Sanctimonious PoS, but never in a funny way.
TigerWu, still like our $10 over/under 5 year mark if Trump/Melania will still be married after he's no longer president? =)Quote: TigerWuAnybody got money on this yet?...
Quote: Mission146Pence is just a White Evangelical Christian Racist Homophobic Sanctimonious PoS, but never in a funny way.
He is also the epitome of a boring hypocrite.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/06/politics/kfile-mike-pence-moral-columns/index.html
Quote: MaxPenCampaign finance rules are broken all the time. Bill Clinton, Hillary, and Obama have all paid 6-7 figure fines in the past. It is just the nature of politics.
What Trump did is not even close to what happened with the Obama campaign. Reporting violations are handled civilly. What Trump/Cohen did was a criminal offense.
Quote: RomesTigerWu, still like our $10 over/under 5 year mark if Trump/Melania will still be married after he's no longer president? =)
Haha... yeah, didn't I say they would still be together? I might have to kiss that ten bucks goodbye...!
Quote: SteverinosWhat Trump did is not even close to what happened with the Obama campaign. Reporting violations are handled civilly. What Trump/Cohen did was a criminal offense.
Your quote is incorrect at this point. I don't change quotes for people; I think that should be banned from this place.
Quote: SteverinosWhat do you mean? What's incorrect?
There have been no charges filed against the President at this point.
I've been clear that evidence may be found that leads to charges and beyond, but that does not mean that, at this point, Trump did it. Cohen saying it does not make it true.
Like Trump's own words on the audio recording where they discuss poll numbers and then transition into paying hush money...maybe in an effort to maintain the poll numbers? lol
Forgive my forgetful ignorance, but why can't a sitting president be indited again? Something in the constitution?Quote: SteverinosThe ONLY reason he hasn't is because of this "you can't indict a sitting President" debate. We'll see. But a crime was definitely committed. And if you think it's a he said/he said thing, you underestimate the plethora of evidence suggesting otherwise.
Like Trump's own words on the audio recording where they discuss poll numbers and then transition into paying hush money...maybe in an effort to maintain the poll numbers? lol
What happens if a sitting president murders someone? Wouldn't being president be cool if you just got to ignore the laws for your 4 year term =P.
Some Democrat canceled an appointment to meet him today. That is just as well. For whatever reason, we have spent years moving way past "advice and consent" to political treatment of appointees without regard to qualifications (unless they can find a negative to use against them). The Senator would have met with him and made a negative statement about him, as Chuck did recently.
Hold the hearings; have the vote.
Quote: RomesForgive my forgetful ignorance, but why can't a sitting president be indited again? Something in the constitution?
There's nothing in the Constitution that says you can't indict a sitting President.
But it's never happened and the Supreme Court has never said anything about it, which is why everyone is unsure about whether or not we should even attempt it, I guess because of what kind of precedent it might set.
Quote: RonCThe Democrats will not get their way on the process of confirming Judge Kavanaugh. Unless they can find some "smoking guns" (which has happened before, of course. it appears he will at least get a vote before the coming election.
Some Democrat canceled an appointment to meet him today. That is just as well. For whatever reason, we have spent years moving way past "advice and consent" to political treatment of appointees without regard to qualifications (unless they can find a negative to use against them). The Senator would have met with him and made a negative statement about him, as Chuck did recently.
Hold the hearings; have the vote.
I personally don't think a criminal president should get the opportunity to shape the Supreme Court for the next several decades, but that's just me.
Quote: SteverinosI personally don't think a criminal president should get the opportunity to shape the Supreme Court for the next several decades, but that's just me.
Life went on while President Clinton was impeached and tried; it shall do the same while we wait on the possibility of any actions against President Trump.
"Criminal president" is an opinion, at this point. Again, it could become a reality...but not today (well, at least I don't think today!).
Quote: RonCLife went on while President Clinton was impeached and tried;
Which Supreme Court justices got confirmed during that time?!
Quote: ams288Which Supreme Court justices got confirmed during that time?!
I said life went on. He was still President. He did the stuff Presidents do.
Did I say something about a SC justice?
It may be an important thing, but it is a thing Presidents do.
It is his job until it is not.
Do you think Clinton would have declined to appoint someone if an opening existed during that time?
LOL
Quote: RonCI said life went on. He was still President. He did the stuff Presidents do.
Did I say something about a SC justice?
It may be an important thing, but it is a thing Presidents do.
It is his job until it is not.
Whereas it is Congresses job to sit on their hands for a year and half and wait for the next election before confirming a SCJ
Quote: terapinedNope
Cohen lies then no deal
That's how it works
Wow! So if Cohen says Trump told him to influence the election how do you know if Cohen is lying or not? The naivete expressed in this matter is stunning.
Quote: SOOPOOWow! So if Cohen says Trump told him to influence the election how do you know if Cohen is lying or not? The naivete expressed in this matter is stunning.
That's for Mueller to determine.
He has evidence that has not been made public that he uses to determine if testimony is truthful.
Nobody except Mueller knows what the investigation has uncovered
If Mueller determines Cohen is telling the truth, deal
If Cohen lies to Mueller, jail.
Quote: rxwineWhereas it is Congresses job to sit on their hands for a year and half and wait for the next election before confirming a SCJ
It is their job to provide advice and consent.
They did not wait a year and half of the last President's failed nominee. They did follow a precendent.
Sadly, lots of new precedents have been set and it is no longer just advice and consent; it is political process.
Both parties are to blame, but we are where we are.
Quote: terapinedThat's for Mueller to determine.
He has evidence that has not been made public that he uses to determine if testimony is truthful.
Nobody except Mueller knows what the investigation has uncovered
If Mueller determines Cohen is telling the truth, deal
If Cohen lies to Mueller, jail.
He's already going to jail as part of the agreement.
Are you talking about a potential perjury charge from Mueller?
Quote: SOOPOOWow! So if Cohen says Trump told him to influence the election how do you know if Cohen is lying or not? The naivete expressed in this matter is stunning.
I suspect they wouldn't have charged him with a crime and then accepted his guilty plea for said crime unless they had a preponderance of evidence to support it. It's not just his word that this whole thing is based on.
EDIT: Poor guy just can't catch a break...
New York issues subpoena to Cohen as part of Trump Foundation probe.
Trump admits to federal crime on national TV.
Just another Wednesday in Trumptown!
Michael Cohen attorney Lanny Davis: "Mr. Cohen has knowledge on certain subjects that should be of interest to the special counsel and is more than happy to tell the special counsel all that he knows, not just about the obvious possibility of a conspiracy to collude and corrupt the American democracy system in the 2016 election which the Trump Tower meeting was all about, but also knowledge about the computer crime of hacking and whether or not Mr. Trump knew ahead of time about that crime and even cheered it on."
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/cohen-more-than-happy-to-tell-mueller-all-that-he-knows-attorney-1303813187974?v=railb
If the Judge didn't think he was telling the truth, he wouldn't have accepted. Cohn is guilty. He admitted it and the Justice Department and the courts accepted it. That a couple of loons deny it is meaningless.
Quote: RonCIt is their job to provide advice and consent.
They did not wait a year and half of the last President's failed nominee. They did follow a precendent.
Sadly, lots of new precedents have been set and it is no longer just advice and consent; it is political process.
Both parties are to blame, but we are where we are.
"the last President's failed nominee". Nice spin, there, RonC. Who failed whom?
I would say McConnell and the Republicans failed the country. Too cowardly to do their jobs. If Garland was so undeserving, vote him down. The problem was, that he was in fact eminently qualified, acceptable to the majority of the Senate (or McConnell WOULD have put it to a vote) and only undermined through political gamesmanship and partisan politics. Shameful, then and forever.
Quote: beachbumbabs"the last President's failed nominee". Nice spin, there, RonC. Who failed whom?
I would say McConnell and the Republicans failed the country. Too cowardly to do their jobs. If Garland was so undeserving, vote him down. The problem was, that he was in fact eminently qualified, acceptable to the majority of the Senate (or McConnell WOULD have put it to a vote) and only undermined through political gamesmanship and partisan politics. Shameful, then and forever.
Dear Lord. The whole bipartisan process for confirming nominees has been going downhill and you give a simple answer as if no one else was involved in it happening. That is the problem with posts that make it sound like one is a partisan hack for either side--just spouting off the last one result instead of actually going deeper into the process that led to that point.
I've said it more than once here--neither party gives a flying crap about you or me. They are all in it for power. The longer they stay in office, the more power they have. They govern more for themselves than anyone else. There is plenty to hate about both of them and there is not really a good alternative that has electable candidates at this point.
You can see it in how the Republicans have become big spenders and the Democrats have flipped on border security issues...they are all in for themselves.
Quote: RonCI've said it more than once here--neither party gives a flying crap about you or me. They are all in it for power. The longer they stay in office, the more power they have. They govern more for themselves than anyone else. There is plenty to hate about both of them and there is not really a good alternative that has electable candidates at this point.
You can see it in how the Republicans have become big spenders and the Democrats have flipped on border security issues...they are all in for themselves.
While I agree that there individuals in both parties that are in it for themselves, I do not believe that this applies equally to both parties collectively. I sat and watched Republicans put party over country for the duration of Obama's presidency, collectively, as a group. I'm witnessing the exact same thing today as they line up to support quite possibly the most corrupt president in history. His approval with republicans is in record breaking territory. That is SAD.
And by the way, Republicans have ALWAYS been big spenders. They have ALWAYS grown the size of government. I'm not sure what you mean when you say Dems have flipped on border security. But if you mean that Dems at one point supported a fence, they still do. They in fact offered Trump funding for his wall in January in exchange for other common sense reforms, like DACA. He turned it down, after saying he wanted a "bill of love" for the dreamers.
This current version of the GOP has to go. They live in a fact-free universe where conspiracy and paranoia has replaced facts and reality. It smells of 1972-74.
Great podcast, highly recommend:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/slow-burn/id1315040130?mt=2
