Cohen to plead guilty

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

They know the charge is bogus, but they had cohen for life so what's the most damaging thing he could do? claim trump made him violate campaign finance laws. It's all about getting trump, even just politically.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

They know the charge is bogus, but they had cohen for life so what's the most damaging thing he could do? claim trump made him violate campaign finance laws. It's all about getting trump, even just politically.

Alan Dershowitz said Cohen’s guilty plea to the campaign-finance violations doesn’t put Mr. Trump in legal jeopardy, because candidates can contribute any amount to their own campaigns.

So Since Trump did so with his own money its not a crime.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth

Solely for the purposes of the campaign. If it was not, and not paid by campaign funds there is no crime.

Considering the timing, from any reasonable perspective it was directly related to the campaign. But you have that backwards. If it was from campaign funds there was no crime.

Trouble is, if it was from campaign funds it would have to have been declared as such and I seem to recall the president himself saying there was no payment made. Until he changed the story.

Phage. According to Lawyer Alan Dershowitz Cohen’s guilty plea to the campaign-finance violations doesn’t put Mr. Trump in legal jeopardy, because candidates can contribute any amount to their own campaigns.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth

Solely for the purposes of the campaign. If it was not, and not paid by campaign funds there is no crime.

Considering the timing, from any reasonable perspective it was directly related to the campaign. But you have that backwards. If it was from campaign funds there was no crime.

Trouble is, if it was from campaign funds it would have to have been declared as such and I seem to recall the president himself saying there was no payment made. Until he changed the story.

Phage. According to Lawyer Alan Dershowitz Cohen’s guilty plea to the campaign-finance violations doesn’t put Mr. Trump in legal jeopardy, because candidates can contribute any amount to their own campaigns.

So far, this is shaping up like the Trump Tower meeting: the media & Dems are breathlessly panting "This is it! We have him!", while people who actually understand the law mostly seem to think it doesn't matter, and have put forth multiple arguments about how Cohen effectively plead guilty to stepping on sidewalk cracks.

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth

Solely for the purposes of the campaign. If it was not, and not paid by campaign funds there is no crime.

Considering the timing, from any reasonable perspective it was directly related to the campaign. But you have that backwards. If it was from campaign funds there was no crime.

Trouble is, if it was from campaign funds it would have to have been declared as such and I seem to recall the president himself saying there was no payment made. Until he changed the story.

Phage. According to Lawyer Alan Dershowitz Cohen’s guilty plea to the campaign-finance violations doesn’t put Mr. Trump in legal jeopardy, because candidates can contribute any amount to their own campaigns.

So far, this is shaping up like the Trump Tower meeting: the media & Dems are breathlessly panting "This is it! We have him!", while people who actually understand the law mostly seem to think it doesn't matter, and have put forth multiple arguments about how Cohen effectively plead guilty to stepping on sidewalk cracks.

DING DING DING!!! star and a flag for you kind sir. The bad thing here is...this will go on another 2 years ESPECIALLY if the democrats lose in november. Shoot Trump might a got more votes if he would had admitted to screwing porn stars and milania would had said it was ok by her. And then apologizing and citing he is trying to do better and change for his familys sake.

a reply to: Dfairlite

I view the presidency as an office, occupied by a person. You view the presidency as a person, occupying an office. In my view the needs of the office transcend the person. In yours the person is the office.

I view the presidency as an office and the president as a man. A man that has no more rights than the average person. He has powers he wields due to his position in the office he holds, but he is not greater or "more equal" than you or I and is not above the law.

Let me explain my view: Police have to speed, to catch someone who is speeding (going faster than the person they are pulling over for the violation). They don't get ticketed for their speeding because the position they are in demands them to do so. The same is said of the office of president. They don't have to defend themselves against legal jeopardy because their other responsibilities are far more important.

That is not a good example. There are situations in which an ordinary citizen is able to speed legally.

There's not really such a thing as equal application of the law. Andrew Jackson shot and killed a man who defamed his wife, and never faced a charge. Aaron burr (while serving as vice president) killed Alexander Hamilton, was charged, but was never tried. I won't speculate on whether that was right or wrong, I'm just pointing out that we literally had presidents and vice presidents who did kill people and were never held to account. Much closer to our nations founding.

There is such a thing as equal application of the law. The problem is that we do not seem to want to uphold that ideal. That is the most basic reason why we are dealing with many of the issues we do today.

I guess I don't understand how any of that makes people extremists.

Have you seen some of the absolutely nutty and extreme levels people are taking these conspiracies and accusations?

Do you know any trump supporters in real life?

If you only knew what I do and the things I get to see/hear.

are they white supremacists?

Some, yes. But I think you should read what I said again. There is a bit more context to what I said.

Do they want to be associated with white supremacists?

Unless they are completely ignorant, yes. They make that choice.

As for the media, why are they above persecution? Most of them are as bad as most politicians. They lie and mislead for political gain.

No one should be persecuted, whether they lie or you disagree with them.

The dinosaur news media needs to plummet into the earth, and they will without any interference from government. There's nothing authoritarian about regular people not liking the media.

True. There is nothing authoritarian about not liking the media. I'm not a fan of the media. But there is something authoritarian about wanting to persecute them. Considering your question above, it appears you have no problem with persecuting the media. In fact, you may invite it.

That's a problem. That, in my opinion, shows a lack of understanding of the 1st amendment and freedom in general.

We can assume they weren't made blind and ignorant by trump, but were blind and ignorant before trump, right?

Trump has helped perpetuate that ignorance. He has skin in that game.

So, Why did they vote for trump?

Because they like his message. A message that appeals to the most basic scum in society and the republican party is now associated with that scum now more than ever.

a reply to: introvert

A man that has no more rights than the average person. He has powers he wields due to his position in the office he holds, but he is not greater or "more equal" than you or I and is not above the law.

While president he absolutely has more power and more rights. Do you have the right to be protected by secret service? Do you have the right to declassify information? Do you have the right to keep secret your conversations between yourselves and your advisors? These rights are granted to the person who holds the office. The office and the man elected to it, are offered protections not offered to the average person. Whether you like it or not, that's how it is and how it should be.

That is not a good example. There are situations in which an ordinary citizen is able to speed legally.

Ok, drive recklessly. But you get the point, regardless of whether the example is perfect or not.

If you only knew what I do and the things I get to see/hear.

That's suspiciously vague.

Some, yes. But I think you should read what I said again. There is a bit more context to what I said.

You know white supremacists? OR you know of white supremacists? The context was that you thought trump supporters liked being lumped in by white supremacists. Which is odd since I remember many of them getting booed out of trump rallies.

Unless they are completely ignorant, yes. They make that choice.

I don't think you understand what you are saying. To illustrate: Do you want to be associated with Mao? According to your logic, you make that choice.

No one should be persecuted, whether they lie or you disagree with them.

Depends on what you mean by persecuted. I only used the word because you did. I don't think the media is persecuted. They're simply being held to account.

Because they like his message. A message that appeals to the most basic scum in society and the republican party is now associated with that scum now more than ever.

What was that message? Please provide links.

a reply to: yuppa

But do they have to report those amounts?

a reply to: carewemust

Any testimony provided against Trump would likely be kicked out because it is protected by attorney client privilege

originally posted by: yuppa

DING DING DING!!! star and a flag for you kind sir. The bad thing here is...this will go on another 2 years ESPECIALLY if the democrats lose in november. Shoot Trump might a got more votes if he would had admitted to screwing porn stars and milania would had said it was ok by her. And then apologizing and citing he is trying to do better and change for his familys sake.

So both have been convicted of basically tax fraud... That is the best they can do after what a year plus...lol

I'm waiting for a waitress to suggest Trump gave her a big tip during the campaign and so that was also "influencing the outcome of an election"...

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: yuppa

But do they have to report those amounts?

I dont know. if its a personal money prolly not judging by the unlimited amount you can give yourself from your own money.

a reply to: Xtrozero

It's hilarious to watch them try to morph the Russia language into these absurd witch hunt crimes. Trump tried to "influence the election" lol. No f-ing #, he was a candidate, it's his job. He "colluded with his lawyer" that's the point of having a lawyer dumb#'s.

They're literally trying to turn his running for election into a crime.

So, now that his personal lawyer as well as a campaign administrator have been charged and tried there is no way that the "other side" or media can say he plays favorites.

So, what did Manafort say about his ties to the Podesta Brothers? His charges stem from his time working with them. He had to give key information and as we know one Podesta brothers is being investigated heavily and the other has been pretty quiet. He was aware and had intimate knowledge of HRC's Russian Uranium dealings as well as other items that could come back to bite certain people.

Link

NBC previously reported that Mueller had been looking into Podesta and his Democratic-leaning lobbying firm as part of its broader investigation into the finances of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.

By allowing the Manafort investigation to move forward it gives those who want the truth the time and excuse of saying they are doing one thing but opening the door in another.

Just me 2 cents....

originally posted by: [post=23695689]

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.

Isn't that a campaign expense? Looks like it to me.

Hush money, black mail, whatever you want to call it... This event happened during the campaign. She approached the lawyer to blackmail a President elect. She said she'd go public, if not given "hush" money.

If he wasn't running for President, she wouldn't have blackmailed him. Therefore, it is a campaign expense. It is an expense that occured BECAUSE of the campaign.

Now, had Trump slept with hookers during the campaign and used campaign funds to pay them for their services, that would be illegal since he received a personal service that was NOT connected to the campaign.

So, what law was broken?

originally posted by: SourGrapes

originally posted by: [post=23695689]

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.

Isn't that a campaign expense? Looks like it to me.

Hush money, black mail, whatever you want to call it... This event happened during the campaign. She approached the lawyer to blackmail a President elect. She said she'd go public, if not given "hush" money.

If he wasn't running for President, she wouldn't have blackmailed him. Therefore, it is a campaign expense. It is an expense that occured BECAUSE of the campaign.

Now, had Trump slept with hookers during the campaign and used campaign funds to pay them for their services, that would be illegal since he received a personal service that was NOT connected to the campaign.

So, what law was broken?

I would argue that laws pertaining to blackmailing people have been broken, but nobody seems to want to run with that headline...

a reply to: SourGrapes

Isn't that a campaign expense?

Yes, it would seem to be so. But because Cohen made the payment it would be considered a campaign contribution by him. Far too large a campaign contribution by an individual. Major violation.

But, you say, Trump reimbursed Cohen. Well, maybe. But so far no one has produced a receipt to that effect that I know of. And, if it were to be considered a campaign contribution from Trump it would have had to have been reported as such. As far as I know, it wasn't.

So, you say, it was a reporting oversight on the part of the campaign. Plausible, that happens, except that it appears that Trump and Cohen conspired to keep the payment (contribution) a secret. Until it wasn't.

a reply to: Rewey

I would argue that laws pertaining to blackmailing people have been broken,

Is an NDA blackmail, or a legal document? Did Stormy demand money, or did Cohen/Trump offer it?

After learning of Ms. Clifford's efforts to publicly disclose her affair with Mr. Trump, Ms. Clifford states that "Mr. Trump, with the assistance of his attorney, Mr. Cohen aggressively sought to silence Ms. Clifford as part of an effort to avoid her telling the truth, thus helping to ensure he won the Presidential Election."[15] Mr. Cohen subsequently drafted the Nondisclosure Agreement, pursuant to which Ms. Clifford would receive $130,000 for her silence.[16] The Nondisclosure Agreement used aliases to refer to Ms. Clifford and Mr. Trump. Ms. Clifford was referred to as "Peggy Paterson" or "PP" and Mr. Trump was referred to as "David Dennison" or "DD".[17]

source

The NDA can be found here:
tmz.vo.llnwd.net...

a reply to: Phage

Well, given that Trump's Campaign was largely self-funded, who's to say it wasn't his own self-funded portion that paid the lawyer back?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Rewey

I would argue that laws pertaining to blackmailing people have been broken,

Is an NDA blackmail, or a legal document? Did Stormy demand money, or did Cohen/Trump offer it?

After learning of Ms. Clifford's efforts to publicly disclose her affair with Mr. Trump, Ms. Clifford states that "Mr. Trump, with the assistance of his attorney, Mr. Cohen aggressively sought to silence Ms. Clifford as part of an effort to avoid her telling the truth, thus helping to ensure he won the Presidential Election."[15] Mr. Cohen subsequently drafted the Nondisclosure Agreement, pursuant to which Ms. Clifford would receive $130,000 for her silence.[16] The Nondisclosure Agreement used aliases to refer to Ms. Clifford and Mr. Trump. Ms. Clifford was referred to as "Peggy Paterson" or "PP" and Mr. Trump was referred to as "David Dennison" or "DD".[17]

source

The NDA can be found here:
tmz.vo.llnwd.net...

Don't know, and not really fussed. It was just a comment to Sourgrapes who used the term blackmail liberally in his post.

a reply to: Phage

Except according to Alan dershowitz as well as the former FEC chair, it's not a campaign contribution. That really should be enough to put this issue to bed for 99% of people.