Trump's Second and Third year in office
Quote: billryanSo who signed Trumps petition to force ESPN to play the National Anthem, which he apparently thinks is called "America".?
If they don't play the anthem on TV, the only coverage the protesters will get is whatever time the media gives them in still or video shots. I did not have a problem with them not showing the anthem pre-2009 (I think that is when it started being shown more, but I don't remember for sure.
Now if these protesters (and I am sure some of them do) want to get publicity for their cause by putting their money and time into assisting the group, more power to them. They have every right to do so...or to not do so....
I don't dislike the anthem being played when I am at an event; I stand proudly and may even say something to people who are disrespectful during the anthem. I just don't have to see it on TV.
No signature for me. No matter how often he tweets about it.
I don't watch as much NFL as I have in the past; that is a function of being busier and not having a compelling team to watch among the ones I like. That is always subject to change.
No boycott, either.
Quote: RonCIf they don't play the anthem on TV, the only coverage the protesters will get is whatever time the media gives them in still or video shots. I did not have a problem with them not showing the anthem pre-2009 (I think that is when it started being shown more, but I don't remember for sure.
Now if these protesters (and I am sure some of them do) want to get publicity for their cause by putting their money and time into assisting the group, more power to them. They have every right to do so...or to not do so....
I don't dislike the anthem being played when I am at an event; I stand proudly and may even say something to people who are disrespectful during the anthem. I just don't have to see it on TV.
No signature for me. No matter how often he tweets about it.
I don't watch as much NFL as I have in the past; that is a function of being busier and not having a compelling team to watch among the ones I like. That is always subject to change.
No boycott, either.
I always yell the letter O in the middle of the anthem as loud as I can.
Its a Baltimore thing
As to football, i dont watch it anymore.
Reminds me of the fights in Django
I think what upsets conservatives about the protests is that they dont have the backbone to boycott football. Its the Texas state religion. I find it very easy not to watch football
There has been a lot of hype about Cohen’s guilty plea and that some of what he did was done to “influence an election”.
Could someone cite the section of the US Code, which shows that “influence an election” is a crime. If it is, could you also provide what are the penalties if convicted of this crime?
Quote: FleaswatterI know that we have a lot of smart people here who are always ready provide facts and their opinions.
There has been a lot of hype about Cohen’s guilty plea and that some of what he did was done to “influence an election”.
Could someone cite the section of the US Code, which shows that “influence an election” is a crime. If it is, could you also provide what are the penalties if convicted of this crime?
Do your own research
I am not a lawyer
Write an email to Cohen's lawyer and let us know what he says
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30116
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30118
Quote: terapinedDo your own research
I am not a lawyer
Write an email to Cohen's lawyer and let us know what he says
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
Just the type of "non-response" I expected from you.
Hook, line and sinker
Quote: SteverinosThese are the two campaign finance laws that Cohen violated at the direction of Trump.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30116
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30118
Actually it was specific subsections of the code you referred to that Cohen pleaded guilty to:
Title 52, United States Code, Sections 30118(a), 30109(d) (1) (A), 30116(a) (1) (A),
30116(a) (7), and 30109(d) (1) (A),
Where in those I listed is "influencing an election" a crime?
Quote: FleaswatterActually it was specific subsections of the code you referred to that Cohen pleaded guilty to:
Title 52, United States Code, Sections 30118(a), 30109(d) (1) (A), 30116(a) (1) (A),
30116(a) (7), and 30109(d) (1) (A),
Where is the ones I listed is "influencing an election" a crime?
Don't know what you're getting at, but it smells of the "I will defend Trump even if he stands in the middle of 5th ave and shoots people" defense.
/yawn
Quote: FleaswatterLOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
Just the type of "non-response" I expected from you.
Hook, line and sinker
So you admit you're trolling. Good to know that about YOU.
Quote: beachbumbabsSo you admit you're trolling. Good to know that about YOU.
I have never admitted to trolling. But if YOU believe it, so be it, YOU do have a GREEN name.
If you consider it trolling, YOU need to hold other posters here to the SAME standard. I could (but won't) name a bunch who could easily fit the "troll" accusation.
Quote: SteverinosDon't know what you're getting at, but it smells of the "I will defend Trump even if he stands in the middle of 5th ave and shoots people" defense.
/yawn
3 minutes of research yields 18 USC $371 - Conspiracy to Defraud the United States
People who deny that Trump is not in danger are delusional. The Mueller investigation carries on... No one at the Trump tower meeting has been indicted. There is still plenty of evidence and time left. At best the political damage to the GOP has been catastrophic and Trump did nothing wrong. At worst... Who knows?
Quote: FleaswatterThere has been a lot of hype about Cohen’s guilty plea and that some of what he did was done to “influence an election”.
Could someone cite the section of the US Code, which shows that “influence an election” is a crime. If it is, could you also provide what are the penalties if convicted of this crime?
Cohen pled guilty to 8 counts, none of which was “influencing an election.”
I have no idea why you think that’s relevant.
Quote: ams288Cohen pled guilty to 8 counts, none of which was “influencing an election.”
I have no idea why you think that’s relevant.
Quote: ams288
*thinking face emoji*
I guess you thought it was relevant when posting this.
Also, try googling "cohen influencing an election".
Quote: RomesForgive my forgetful ignorance, but why can't a sitting president be indited again? Something in the constitution?
There is nothing in the constitution on the matter. The theory is that all federal law enforcement falls under the executive branch, which is all under the president. It would essentially be the president indicting and charging himself. Most people believe in this theory because Congress has the power to impeach and the Senate has the power to convict. Now in a case that is so obvious: a lawyer pleads guilty to crimes that came under direction of his client, there is absolutely no reason not to indict the client. And because the constitution doesn't address the issue, it could go to the courts where the person at the center of the crimes gets to choose who the judges are based on loyalty, and not their ability to uphold the law. Fortunately we've spent the past two years draining the swamp, so there shouldn't be any problems with all of this going forward
(at least that's my understanding. someone with a stronger political science background can correct anything that's wrong)
Quote: SOOPOOYou are joking right? You seriously think the plea deal happens and THEN he tells the prosecutors what he will say? It is the exact opposite of course. He tells the prosecutors what they WANT to hear, what Cohen perceives will get him the most lenient sentence possible. I can assure you, since it will all be a 'he said, she said' type of evidence, Cohen could not care IN THE LEAST whether he is telling the truth or lying, as long as his sentence is as short as possible. And if you cannot understand this, I can't help you.Quote: TomGThe leniency comes from avoiding a trial, not from ratting out his boss. That is true for every single person charged with a felony. Once Cohen takes the plea deal, he no longer has anything to gain from lying. But Trump certainly does.
If I'm ever charged with a felony can I just tell the identity of who killed Jon Benet Ramsy? Or perhaps I could just tell them Osama Bin Laden was behind the attacks on the World Trade Center. My guess is it wouldn't help, because it would have to be information that was backed with enough evidence to help them actually move forward with other crimes. Prosecutors WANT to hear facts with evidence, "he said, he said" is with as much to them as saying Hillary was the one who killed Jon Benet. So Cohen cared very much to tell the truth, because it is the only way he could benefit (under the assumption there are more crimes to go after).
It doesn't say he took legal actions, to illegally influence the election, thereby breaking the law.
Quote: TomGIf I'm ever charged with a felony can I just tell the identity of who killed Jon Benet Ramsy? Or perhaps I could just tell them Osama Bin Laden was behind the attacks on the World Trade Center. My guess is it wouldn't help, because it would have to be information that was backed with enough evidence to help them actually move forward with other crimes. Prosecutors WANT to hear facts with evidence, "he said, he said" is with as much to them as saying Hillary was the one who killed Jon Benet. So Cohen cared very much to tell the truth, because it is the only way he could benefit (under the assumption there are more crimes to go after).
Though I glossed over what SooPoo was saying...
A plea is usually an admission of guilt to avoid a long trial and a tougher sentence. Common examples would include a drunk driver who has a non-zero probability of winning their case on a technicality and agrees however to plead guilty to a motor vehicle offense which carries no criminal penalty and a lesser fine. Cohen plead guilty. He committed the crime. He with his defense council in cooperation with the prosecution came up with the appropriate verbage. The judge accepted the agreement knowing the circumstances of the case to be true.grnerally a judge will be quite aware of the facts of a case and whether a defendant is bring coerced into a plea that is not true, especially white rich businessmen with deep pockets.
I have very little doubt that Trump directed Cohen to make the illegal paymentby which makes trump accessory and therefore guilty of a crime. And given how he ran his charitable foundation and his businesses is anyone surprised? No, it's not collusion. But it's a fairly serious felony nonetheless. We shall see.
2 days after cohen flips
Trump interviewed says cooperating with prosecutors oughtta be outlawed
He wishes. Trump running scared
Quote: boymimboThough I glossed over what SooPoo was saying...
A plea is usually an admission of guilt to avoid a long trial and a tougher sentence. Common examples would include a drunk driver who has a non-zero probability of winning their case on a technicality and agrees however to plead guilty to a motor vehicle offense which carries no criminal penalty and a lesser fine. Cohen plead guilty. He committed the crime. He with his defense council in cooperation with the prosecution came up with the appropriate verbage. The judge accepted the agreement knowing the circumstances of the case to be true.grnerally a judge will be quite aware of the facts of a case and whether a defendant is bring coerced into a plea that is not true, especially white rich businessmen with deep pockets.
I have very little doubt that Trump directed Cohen to make the illegal paymentby which makes trump accessory and therefore guilty of a crime. And given how he ran his charitable foundation and his businesses is anyone surprised? No, it's not collusion. But it's a fairly serious felony nonetheless. We shall see.
I don't know, legally, whether Trump would be "accessory " or what. Not picking nits, just don't know the law. If they can prove he ordered it, and/or paid for it, and/or profited by it, that seems similar to people who order a paid hit on someone, or a mob boss who has people acting at their direction. Seems like those people are charged with the same crime, not abetting, a lot of the time.
Probably we'll all know in the next year what, if anything, they can charge him with, but we're really still just guessing what they have or what happened. Still just seeing the edges of this.
Quote: FleaswatterQuote: ams288
*thinking face emoji*
I guess you thought it was relevant when posting this.
Also, try googling "cohen influencing an election".
The payments were the crime. Not that hard to comprehend.
Quote: ams288
The payments were the crime. Not that hard to comprehend.
I guess that I am confused. So are you saying that the payments to the women was Cohen's crime?
Is anyone here a state or federal prosecutor?
Does anyone here even have a law degree?
You guys are arguing for no reason like your opinions will determine someone's guilt or innocence.
Quote: FleaswatterI guess that I am confused.
No kidding
Probably due to getting all your info from right wing propaganda machines pretending to report the news
Quote: FleaswatterI guess that I am confused. So are you saying that the payments to the women was Cohen's crime?
Uhm, no?
Cohen paid hush money to the women out of his own pocket.
Since that money was to influence the election (or rather not influence the election by keeping Trump's affairs secret) it became a campaign contribution.
Since it exceed the limits for individual contributors, it became an illegal campaign contribution. <--- this is the crime
We have yet to see if Trump reimbursing Cohen later is money laundering.
Quote: terapinedNo kidding
Good answer.
Actually I am not confused at all. I am probably one of the few contributors here who has actually read the entire court document detailing Cohen's crimes. I have also read the applicable sections of the US code which concern the crimes he plead guilty to, to wit:
Count 7; Title 52, United States Code, Sections 30118(a) and
30109(d) (1) (A), and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2(b}.
Count 8:(Title 52, United States Code, Sections 30116(a) (1) (A),30116(a) (7), and 30109(d) (1) (A), and Title 18, United States
Code, Section 2(b)
Quote: terapined
Probably due to getting all your info from right wing propaganda machines pretending to report the news
Actually I do not rely on Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert or other left wing spin sources, It is surprising what one can learn when one reads the actual source documents.
Would you like to compare the independent politifact ratings of your news sources compared to even those TV hosts???Quote: Fleaswatter...Actually I do not rely on Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert or other left wing spin sources, It is surprising what one can learn when one reads the actual source documents.
For starters, paying someone off to keep quiet in it of itself isn't a crime. (Keep reading before you get your panties in a bunch.)
Secondly, there can certainly be other motives to pay someone off, other than influencing an election. Just because it would be beneficial to his election to pay her off, doesn't make it the only reason to do so, or even if that's the primary reason to. He very well may have paid her off regardless. Didn't Trump have a history of paying hush money to women?
It's possible Trump told Cohen to pay her off, but be sneaky about it, because it's illegal, election finance laws, or this or that. <--- That would be illegal.
On the other hand, it's also possible Trump just told Cohen, "this whore is saying she's going to go to the press or something, take care of it okay?" <--- That wouldn't be a crime, since a lawyer's client should have the expectation the lawyer is going to help him legally. It could be very well that Cohen acted in a criminal manner, because his intent was to help/influence the election, while Trump's intent was to keep his wife from finding out.
Here's an example so you can see a potential side to it -- Let's say I own a big company and a chunk of my employees go on strike. I talk to someone in management and say, "I don't have time to deal with this, can you take care of it? Just make it go away, whatever you think is best." I'm expecting him to talk to them and give them a raise, meet their demands, talk to them back into going to work, or just firing them all and replacing them, whatever. I'm not expecting him to hire a bunch of hitmen and kill all those employees, thereby making the problem go away. THAT wouldn't be on me, that's on the guy who did it. Now, if I told him to hire a bunch of hitmen and kill all the employees, then yeah, that's obviously different.
EDIT: Oh yeah, Cohen taking a plea deal on condition he spills all the beans is kinda....eh, I don't even know how to describe it, really. I see it more like, he's just going to tell them whatever they want to hear (and he gets a lighter sentence or benefits because of it). There are plenty of cases where people take a plea deal because they got rail-roaded and now are confessing to something they didn't do, just to get a lighter sentence, because the alternative is an almost certain conviction and a much worse sentence. That's different than taking a plea deal and "confessing" on someone else's behalf.
Trumps longterm CFO just accepted an immunity deal. Nothing to see here folks.
We all know what that means...
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/what-happens-if-john-mccain-leaves-the-senate-things-could-get-messy.html
This article was written back in April. May 30th was the cutoff for a special election for his seat for this November. The Republican AZ governor will appoint a Senator who basically gets a free ride till Nov. 2020, when they would have to run for reelection.
Quote: RS
EDIT: Oh yeah, Cohen taking a plea deal on condition he spills all the beans is kinda....eh, I don't even know how to describe it, really. I see it more like, he's just going to tell them whatever they want to hear (and he gets a lighter sentence or benefits because of it). There are plenty of cases where people take a plea deal because they got rail-roaded and now are confessing to something they didn't do, just to get a lighter sentence, because the alternative is an almost certain conviction and a much worse sentence. That's different than taking a plea deal and "confessing" on someone else's behalf.
I think I would describe it as, "Something that happens to even lower level criminals who are not in the national spotlight every single day."
Quote: RSWell, I think there are a few things here......
For starters, paying someone off to keep quiet in it of itself isn't a crime. (Keep reading before you get your panties in a bunch.)
Secondly, there can certainly be other motives to pay someone off, other than influencing an election. Just because it would be beneficial to his election to pay her off, doesn't make it the only reason to do so, or even if that's the primary reason to. He very well may have paid her off regardless. Didn't Trump have a history of paying hush money to women?
It's possible Trump told Cohen to pay her off, but be sneaky about it, because it's illegal, election finance laws, or this or that. <--- That would be illegal.
On the other hand, it's also possible Trump just told Cohen, "this whore is saying she's going to go to the press or something, take care of it okay?" <--- That wouldn't be a crime, since a lawyer's client should have the expectation the lawyer is going to help him legally. It could be very well that Cohen acted in a criminal manner, because his intent was to help/influence the election, while Trump's intent was to keep his wife from finding out.
Here's an example so you can see a potential side to it -- Let's say I own a big company and a chunk of my employees go on strike. I talk to someone in management and say, "I don't have time to deal with this, can you take care of it? Just make it go away, whatever you think is best." I'm expecting him to talk to them and give them a raise, meet their demands, talk to them back into going to work, or just firing them all and replacing them, whatever. I'm not expecting him to hire a bunch of hitmen and kill all those employees, thereby making the problem go away. THAT wouldn't be on me, that's on the guy who did it. Now, if I told him to hire a bunch of hitmen and kill all the employees, then yeah, that's obviously different.
EDIT: Oh yeah, Cohen taking a plea deal on condition he spills all the beans is kinda....eh, I don't even know how to describe it, really. I see it more like, he's just going to tell them whatever they want to hear (and he gets a lighter sentence or benefits because of it). There are plenty of cases where people take a plea deal because they got rail-roaded and now are confessing to something they didn't do, just to get a lighter sentence, because the alternative is an almost certain conviction and a much worse sentence. That's different than taking a plea deal and "confessing" on someone else's behalf.
But if after your guy hired the hitmen and the murders took place you then reimbursed your guy for the contract killings I dont think you have some "I didnt know about get outta jail free card"
I suspect your reimbursing the party who hired the hitmen will open a whole bunch of wormy cans
Quote: Mission146I think I would describe it as, "Something that happens to even lower level criminals who are not in the national spotlight every single day."
Yeah, that's certainly true. But it seems like those kinds of deals are on contingency, where there needs to be collaborating evidence to support what they say. Unless there's actual evidence of Trump telling Cohen what to do and why (and it being illegal), it's a moot point. If there's evidence to back it up, then that's fine.
Quote: RSYeah, that's certainly true. But it seems like those kinds of deals are on contingency, where there needs to be collaborating evidence to support what they say. Unless there's actual evidence of Trump telling Cohen what to do and why (and it being illegal), it's a moot point. If there's evidence to back it up, then that's fine.
From my perspective, that's kind of where we are at. I would assume that Cohen can only plead guilty to something that constitutes a crime. I seriously doubt he would plead down to something that is not, at least, arguably a crime. With that, the question then becomes, did Donald Trump aid and abet the crime, if it is even a crime for which aiding and abetting is a charge? Did he do something to obstruct justice? Is there evidence that he actively participated in the crime?
I think the whole discussion of somebody being entirely not credible because they, "Roll," on someone else is kind of silly, though. It's a fundamental mechanism of our legal system. The concept of plea bargains exists for a reason. Maybe a reasonable case could be made for getting rid of the concept, but people can't just bemoan the subject because they possibly voted for, support and continue to support someone who is possibly a criminal, and if true, will be made to feel silly.
Quote: darkozBut if after your guy hired the hitmen and the murders took place you then reimbursed your guy for the contract killings I dont think you have some "I didnt know about get outta jail free card"
I suspect your reimbursing the party who hired the hitmen will open a whole bunch of wormy cans
Again, paying someone off to keep quiet about your affairs isn't a crime. Just because it was right before an election doesn't mean the payments were made to influence the election or had anything to do with the election (the payment, that is -- not the whore wanting to talk about what happened). It's very possible he would have paid her off regardless of the election. Cohen could have made the payment with the intent to influence the election while Trump's intent was to keep his wife from finding out or just to not tarnish his reputation.
Quote: Mission146From my perspective, that's kind of where we are at. I would assume that Cohen can only plead guilty to something that constitutes a crime. I seriously doubt he would plead down to something that is not, at least, arguably a crime. With that, the question then becomes, did Donald Trump aid and abet the crime, if it is even a crime for which aiding and abetting is a charge? Did he do something to obstruct justice? Is there evidence that he actively participated in the crime?
I think the whole discussion of somebody being entirely not credible because they, "Roll," on someone else is kind of silly, though. It's a fundamental mechanism of our legal system. The concept of plea bargains exists for a reason. Maybe a reasonable case could be made for getting rid of the concept, but people can't just bemoan the subject because they possibly voted for, support and continue to support someone who is possibly a criminal, and if true, will be made to feel silly.
If it went down like in the scenario I presented, I wouldn't think that's aiding and abetting a crime, since his intent wouldn't have been for a crime to be committed. I'm not sure how that'd be obstructing justice. Of course, AFAIK, none of us knows whether there is evidence or not right now.
I'm not saying someone isn't entirely credible just because they can roll on someone....but like I said, AFAIK, it's done on contingency and there being evidence to support what the person is saying. If there's evidence -- great. If there's no evidence and it's just the person's word being taken as 'evidence', then that's not so great. Just saying "he did this crime, his guilty, he runs a big meth operation", is kind of lame and not really evidence. It's more like all that plus "this is where the meth labs are....this is where he lives....our next drug deal is going to be at X location on Y date....I have texts on my phone that prove all this, I have documents, pictures, etc. and that'll all collaborate [I think I used that right] what I'm saying."
EDIT: Mission how come you ain't "thank you"-ing all the posts anymore? :(
Quote: RS
If it went down like in the scenario I presented, I wouldn't think that's aiding and abetting a crime, since his intent wouldn't have been for a crime to be committed. I'm not sure how that'd be obstructing justice. Of course, AFAIK, none of us knows whether there is evidence or not right now.
I agree with both of those things, but we obviously have no idea how it went down. As far as obstruction of justice, you could argue that Trump flagrantly publicly lying to the contrary on national news could have been done with the idea of getting people off of it. He's also hinted at firing...who hasn't he threatened to fire? Also, he apparently thinks (chuckle) Jeff Sessions who he appointed (snicker) is a Democrat, because he sure talks like Sessions is in league with the Democrats.
Anyway, I'm just in wait and see mode to see if there is an actual crime that Trump could have conceivably committed and if there is actual evidence. Truthfully, I don't really much care what happens. It's just mildly entertaining and amusing if I limit my exposure to it to about twenty minutes a week.
Quote:I'm not saying someone isn't entirely credible just because they can roll on someone....but like I said, AFAIK, it's done on contingency and there being evidence to support what the person is saying. If there's evidence -- great. If there's no evidence and it's just the person's word being taken as 'evidence', then that's not so great.
I mean, "Someone's word being taken as evidence," is what is legally called, 'Testimony.' When a witness, which is what Cohen would be, gives testimony, then a jury decides whether or not that testimony is sufficient if other evidence is lacking. But, before that, it would have to survive a Motion to Dismiss, and in order to do that, a crime must theoretically have occurred, at a minimum.
Again, I don't know if it's crime or no crime, but I seriously think you've got enough circumstantial evidence already if you can find a crime that it applies to.
Quote:Just saying "he did this crime, his guilty, he runs a big meth operation", is kind of lame and not really evidence. It's more like all that plus "this is where the meth labs are....this is where he lives....our next drug deal is going to be at X location on Y date....I have texts on my phone that prove all this, I have documents, pictures, etc. and that'll all collaborate [I think I used that right] what I'm saying."
EDIT: Mission how come you ain't "thank you"-ing all the posts anymore? :(
THey've put street criminals away with less, I'm sure.
I'll thank your last post. The answer is because it's a pain to thank you them on my phone, so I stopped doing it constantly.
If Trump said to Cohen... "Please pay off any and all bimbos I slept with so as to influence the election" that to me would be evidence of Trump's guilt.
Since there are no recordings (apparently), what do you think Cohen would be selling the prosecutor? If Cohen went to the prosecutor and said "Trump only wanted to hide his affairs from Melania" do you think they offer him a deal?
And for those who say "it has to be truthful or no deal", THERE WILL BE NO WAY TO PROVE THIS other than deciding if you believe Cohen or Trump.
If Cohen has ACTUAL EVIDENCE (email, tape, etc...) then it is a different story. I'm betting against any hard evidence. But we shall see.
I mean, it's pretty obvious what happened here. Access Hollywood tape gets released on Oct 7th. They paid Stormy on October 17th. I don't know if we have the information about when the Cohen recording was made where the two are discussing the payment, but I bet the Southern District of New York and Mueller do.
1. If "they" had the evidence, they wouldn't be offering Cohen a plea deal. At least....I don't think so.
2. That implies Cohen would have the evidence, if it exists. If it's damning evidence ("Please pay off...to influence the election"), then Cohen would be an idiot to keep such evidence, him knowing it's a crime.
3. Cohen's office(s?) and stuff were raided a little while back. This goes back to #1 -- presumably, the evidence would have been acquired during the raid, unless we're thinking Cohen has a USB drive hidden somewhere under his mattress at home....which also goes back to #2 -- he'd be an idiot to keep evidence that would implicate him in a crime.
Then again, it's possible Cohen kept evidence as a "get out of jail free" card, in case heat would turn up.
Quote: Mission146I agree with both of those things, but we obviously have no idea how it went down. As far as obstruction of justice, you could argue that Trump flagrantly publicly lying to the contrary on national news could have been done with the idea of getting people off of it. He's also hinted at firing...who hasn't he threatened to fire? Also, he apparently thinks (chuckle) Jeff Sessions who he appointed (snicker) is a Democrat, because he sure talks like Sessions is in league with the Democrats.
If a crime was committed, I believe you have the right to not self-incriminate yourself. Also, I believe it's legal to lie to the media and reporters. Police, FBI, etc. is not legal. Although I'm not so sure about it, if there's a difference, legally, for the president.
Quote: MissionAnyway, I'm just in wait and see mode to see if there is an actual crime that Trump could have conceivably committed and if there is actual evidence. Truthfully, I don't really much care what happens. It's just mildly entertaining and amusing if I limit my exposure to it to about twenty minutes a week.
Yeah, pretty much.
Quote: MissionI mean, "Someone's word being taken as evidence," is what is legally called, 'Testimony.' When a witness, which is what Cohen would be, gives testimony, then a jury decides whether or not that testimony is sufficient if other evidence is lacking. But, before that, it would have to survive a Motion to Dismiss, and in order to do that, a crime must theoretically have occurred, at a minimum.
I'm not saying it does or doesn't happen, it's legal or illegal, or anything like that. I'm just saying it's not right (IMO) if there isn't evidence to back it up...especially in a situation where it's "tell us what we want to hear and we'll let you off easy".
Quote: MissionAgain, I don't know if it's crime or no crime, but I seriously think you've got enough circumstantial evidence already if you can find a crime that it applies to.
And there are plenty of explanations and reasons why it wasn't a crime, barring actual evidence. I'm not sure of any circumstantial evidence, other than payments being made.
Quote: MissionTHey've put street criminals away with less, I'm sure.
I have a feeling it's not a "Jose and Tyrone sell meth!" -- "Okay, lock 'em up, Tyrese and Jamal said those two sell meth!" Maybe they do that, but I have a feeling they don't...or at minimum, it shouldn't work like that.
Quote: MissionI'll thank your last post. The answer is because it's a pain to thank you them on my phone, so I stopped doing it constantly.
:)
Quote: SOOPOOIf Trump said to Cohen.... "Please pay off any and all bimbos I slept with so Melania doesn't find out" that to me is 'evidence' of Trump's innocence.
If Trump said to Cohen... "Please pay off any and all bimbos I slept with so as to influence the election" that to me would be evidence of Trump's guilt.
Since there are no recordings (apparently), what do you think Cohen would be selling the prosecutor? If Cohen went to the prosecutor and said "Trump only wanted to hide his affairs from Melania" do you think they offer him a deal?
And for those who say "it has to be truthful or no deal", THERE WILL BE NO WAY TO PROVE THIS other than deciding if you believe Cohen or Trump.
If Cohen has ACTUAL EVIDENCE (email, tape, etc...) then it is a different story. I'm betting against any hard evidence. But we shall see.
The timing of the payment were reactive based on threats to his campaign. The stories came out to thwart his campaign. Legal scholars are mixed on the issue. Proof is key as is intent. Given that Trump first denied about knowing about the payments, then said he knew about them, then stated they were not campaign related only adds to the mystery, and you can bet that the myriad of documents, emails, and takes sequestered from Cohen's office will prove slot. At least it proved Cohen's complicitness and formed the basis of the charges.
Quote: SteverinosIt's a hard sell to say he only paid her to protect Melania when the affair happened in 2006 5 months after Baron was born. Sometime soon after that would've been the time to pay the hush money if it's only intent was to protect his wife. And of course, he could've just told the truth about it if that was his only intent.
I mean, it's pretty obvious what happened here. Access Hollywood tape gets released on Oct 7th. They paid Stormy on October 17th. I don't know if we have the information about when the Cohen recording was made where the two are discussing the payment, but I bet the Southern District of New York and Mueller do.
It was my understanding the hush money came after it was discovered that the whore was going to publicly discuss the affair.
It's possible (likely) Stormy's motivation was to hurt Trump in the election, also while Trump wanted to save his marriage and/or 'tarnish' his reputation.
Quote: RSIt was my understanding the hush money came after it was discovered that the whore was going to publicly discuss the affair.
It's possible (likely) Stormy's motivation was to hurt Trump in the election, also while Trump wanted to save his marriage and/or 'tarnish' his reputation.
She did an interview in 2011 to a magazine where she talked about it.
Quote: RS
If a crime was committed, I believe you have the right to not self-incriminate yourself. Also, I believe it's legal to lie to the media and reporters. Police, FBI, etc. is not legal. Although I'm not so sure about it, if there's a difference, legally, for the president.
I would think because he’s literally in charge of the entire Federal Executive Branch if Government, as such, I should think anything he says could theoretically be construed as a directive. Certainly the open threats to fire people investigating him aren’t good.
Quote:I'm not saying it does or doesn't happen, it's legal or illegal, or anything like that. I'm just saying it's not right (IMO) if there isn't evidence to back it up...especially in a situation where it's "tell us what we want to hear and we'll let you off easy".
I agree with you. I think I’d be more likely to express that opinion in the context of someone being found guilty on a low-level drug offense and not some rich dude who spends his days surrounded by lawyers who should know better.
Quote:And there are plenty of explanations and reasons why it wasn't a crime, barring actual evidence. I'm not sure of any circumstantial evidence, other than payments being made.
There is the, “When,” as relates payment, for one thing. But, maybe Trump didn’t know he had sex with either of them until just recently. He should try that line. His most fervent supporters would believe him.
Quote:I have a feeling it's not a "Jose and Tyrone sell meth!" -- "Okay, lock 'em up, Tyrese and Jamal said those two sell meth!" Maybe they do that, but I have a feeling they don't...or at minimum, it shouldn't work like that.
I agree it shouldn’t work like that, definitely happens. You get one guy that testified that another guy up on charges told the first guy all about it while in County lockup and it’s admissible. What’s that tell you?
Quote: RSIt was my understanding the hush money came after it was discovered that the whore was going to publicly discuss the affair.
Here are pertinent excerpts from Cohen's plea document.
First, in or about June 2016, a model and actress( "Woman-1") began attempting to sell her story of her alleged extramarital affair with Individual-1 that had taken place in 2006 and 2007. Woman-1 retained an attorney ("Attorney-1"), who in turn contacted the editor-in-chief of Magazine-1 ("Editor-1"),
and offered to sell Woman's story to Magazine-1. Chairman-1 and Editor-1 informed MICHAEL COHEN, the defendant, of the story. At COHEN'S urging and subject to COHEN'S promise that Corporation-1 would be reimbursed, Editor-1 ultimately began negotiating for the purchase of the story. On or about August 5, 2016, Corporation-1 entered into an agreement with Woman-1 to acquire her "limited life rights" to the story of her relationship with "any then-married man," in exchange for $150, 000 and a commitment to feature her on two magazine covers and publish over one hundred magazine articles authored by her.
Quote: RSIt's possible (likely) Stormy's motivation was to hurt Trump in the election, also while Trump wanted to save his marriage and/or 'tarnish' his reputation.
Quote: FleaswatterHere are pertinent excerpts from Cohen's plea document.
First, in or about June 2016, a model and actress( "Woman-1") began attempting to sell her story of her alleged extramarital affair with Individual-1 that had taken place in 2006 and 2007. Woman-1 retained an attorney ("Attorney-1"), who in turn contacted the editor-in-chief of Magazine-1 ("Editor-1"),
and offered to sell Woman's story to Magazine-1. Chairman-1 and Editor-1 informed MICHAEL COHEN, the defendant, of the story. At COHEN'S urging and subject to COHEN'S promise that Corporation-1 would be reimbursed, Editor-1 ultimately began negotiating for the purchase of the story. On or about August 5, 2016, Corporation-1 entered into an agreement with Woman-1 to acquire her "limited life rights" to the story of her relationship with "any then-married man," in exchange for $150, 000 and a commitment to feature her on two magazine covers and publish over one hundred magazine articles authored by her.
That's the McDougal story...not Stormy.
Quote: SteverinosThat's the McDougal story...not Stormy.
Okay, here is Stormy:
Second, on or about October 8, 2016, an agent for an adult film actress ("Woman-2") - informed Editor-1 that Woman-2 was willing to make public statements and confirm on the record her alleged past affair with Individual-1. Chairman-1 and Editor-1 then contacted MICHAEL COHEN, the defendant, and put him in touch
with Attorney-1, who was also representing Woman-2. Over the course of the next few days, COHEN negotiated a $130,000 agreement with Attorney-1 to himself purchase Woman-2's silence, and
received a .signed confidential settlement agreement and a separate side letter agreement from Attorney-1.
