F.B.I. Raids Office of Trump’s Longtime Lawyer Michael Cohen

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: matafuchs

Like firing everybody that's looking at you?

If they serve at the pleasure of the president then yes.

That's called obstruction of justice.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: matafuchs

Like firing everybody that's looking at you?

If they serve at the pleasure of the president then yes.

That's called obstruction of justice.

No really its not. Not when its a Constitutional authority.

You guys need to learn what obstruction is before parroting the talking heads on tv.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: matafuchs

Like firing everybody that's looking at you?

If they serve at the pleasure of the president then yes.

That's called obstruction of justice.

No really its not. Not when its a Constitutional authority.

You guys need to learn what obstruction is before parroting the talking heads on tv.

No. You need to learn that there is no "Constitutional authority" to commit illegal acts and obstructing justice is illegal.

a reply to: Aazadan

The AP is reporting this AM that the Inquirer also used "Catch and Kill" to snuff out a story about Trump fathering an illegitimate child with an employee at one his properties in NYC.

They paid a doorman 30K for the rights and then never investigated or published and banned him from talking about it.

Same as the Playboy Model and the Porn Star. (Both subjects of Cohen's search warrant)

A pattern is emerging here.

Cohen being Trump's "fixer" very likely was the go between. The question is, did he have shell companies set up to funnel money to the Enquirer to catch and kill these stories.

If so, where did the money originate? If campaign funds were laundered into shell corps for a catch and kill program working with Trumps buddy that owns the enquirer, then that is a broad conspiracy of bank fraud, wire fraud, campaign violations etc.

www.apnews.com...

On a separate note I find it (Once Again) a perfect irony that the thing the right wing accuses the left of (enjoying Media Bias) is actually full-on, through the roof, corruptly true for their candidate.

The GOP candidate for President literally had a news outlet paying to squash negative stories about Trump.

Just wild.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: matafuchs

Like firing everybody that's looking at you?

If they serve at the pleasure of the president then yes.

That's called obstruction of justice.

No really its not. Not when its a Constitutional authority.

You guys need to learn what obstruction is before parroting the talking heads on tv.

No. You need to learn that there is no "Constitutional authority" to commit illegal acts and obstructing justice is illegal.

No you need to learn what obstruction is and the elements required to be in violation of it. Terminating a person is not obstruction, especially when the person has no direct involvement in the investigation itself.

Let me help you out.

* - 18 U.S. Code Chapter 73 - OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
* - 18 U.S. Code § 1510 - Obstruction of criminal investigations

(a) Whoever willfully endeavors by means of bribery to obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information relating to a violation of any criminal statute of the United States by any person to a criminal investigator shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(b)
(1) Whoever, being an officer of a financial institution, with the intent to obstruct a judicial proceeding, directly or indirectly notifies any other person about the existence or contents of a subpoena for records of that financial institution, or information that has been furnished in response to that subpoena, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(2) Whoever, being an officer of a financial institution, directly or indirectly notifies—
(A) a customer of that financial institution whose records are sought by a subpoena for records; or
(B) any other person named in that subpoena;
about the existence or contents of that subpoena or information that has been furnished in response to that subpoena, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
(3) As used in this subsection—
(A) the term “an officer of a financial institution” means an officer, director, partner, employee, agent, or attorney of or for a financial institution; and
(B) the term “subpoena for records” means a Federal grand jury subpoena or a Department of Justice subpoena (issued under section 3486 of title 18), for customer records that has been served relating to a violation of, or a conspiracy to violate—
(i) section 215, 656, 657, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1014, 1344, 1956, 1957, or chapter 53 of title 31; or
(ii) section 1341 or 1343 affecting a financial institution.
(c) As used in this section, the term “criminal investigator” means any individual duly authorized by a department, agency, or armed force of the United States to conduct or engage in investigations of or prosecutions for violations of the criminal laws of the United States.
(d)
(1) Whoever—
(A) acting as, or being, an officer, director, agent or employee of a person engaged in the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce, or
(B) is engaged in the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce or is involved (other than as an insured or beneficiary under a policy of insurance) in a transaction relating to the conduct of affairs of such a business,
with intent to obstruct a judicial proceeding, directly or indirectly notifies any other person about the existence or contents of a subpoena for records of that person engaged in such business or information that has been furnished to a Federal grand jury in response to that subpoena, shall be fined as provided by this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(2) As used in paragraph (1), the term “subpoena for records” means a Federal grand jury subpoena for records that has been served relating to a violation of, or a conspiracy to violate, section 1033 of this title.
(e) Whoever, having been notified of the applicable disclosure prohibitions or confidentiality requirements of section 2709(c)(1) of this title, section 626(d)(1) or 627(c)(1) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681u(d)(1) or 1681v(c)(1)), section 1114(a)(3)(A) or 1114(a)(5)(D)(i) of the Right to Financial Privacy Act [1] (12 U.S.C. 3414(a)(3)(A) or 3414(a)(5)(D)(i)), or section 802(b)(1) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 436(b)(1)),[2] knowingly and with the intent to obstruct an investigation or judicial proceeding violates such prohibitions or requirements applicable by law to such person shall be imprisoned for not more than five years, fined under this title, or both.

Feel free to point out how Trump obstructed.

Now - back to why he cant.
It is called separation of powers and goes with our checks and balances. We have 3 independent branchs and no branch can interfere with the powers of another.

IE Certain people in the Executive branch serve at the pleasure of the President and can be let go without warning or cause. Each of the 3 branches have limited immunity from prosecution for exercising their constitutional duties.


As an example members for Congress cannot be charged with a crime while going to or coming from an official function that is constitutionally required.

a reply to: soberbacchus
of course you left this out from your link.....

The woman at the center of the rumor about Trump denied emphatically to the AP last August that she’d ever had an affair with Trump, saying she had no idea the Enquirer had paid Sajudin and pursued his tip. The AP has not been able to determine if the rumor is true and is not naming the woman. “This is all fake,” she said. “I think they lost their money.”

Hard to publish a story when the subject of said story is on the record as saying it did not happen.

On a separate note I find it (Once Again) a perfect irony that the thing the right wing accuses the left of (enjoying Media Bias) is actually full-on, through the roof, corruptly true for their candidate.

The irony of you posting this while leaving out the quote from the actual story subject is epic.

But flame away....cause you know this is "grounds" for searching trumps lawyers offices.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: soberbacchus
of course you left this out from your link.....

The woman at the center of the rumor about Trump denied emphatically to the AP last August that she’d ever had an affair with Trump, saying she had no idea the Enquirer had paid Sajudin and pursued his tip. The AP has not been able to determine if the rumor is true and is not naming the woman. “This is all fake,” she said. “I think they lost their money.”

Hard to publish a story when the subject of said story is on the record as saying it did not happen.

But flame away....cause you know this is "grounds" for searching trumps lawyers offices.

The national enquirer, if you guys are discussing the story I think you are, paid a former doorman from a Trump property 30k for the rumor. It never happened.

The fact these types of stories are popping up en mass again just further highlights the desperation of the left.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: soberbacchus
of course you left this out from your link.....

The woman at the center of the rumor about Trump denied emphatically to the AP last August that she’d ever had an affair with Trump, saying she had no idea the Enquirer had paid Sajudin and pursued his tip. The AP has not been able to determine if the rumor is true and is not naming the woman. “This is all fake,” she said. “I think they lost their money.”

Hard to publish a story when the subject of said story is on the record as saying it did not happen.

But flame away....cause you know this is "grounds" for searching trumps lawyers offices.

The national enquirer, if you guys are discussing the story I think you are, paid a former doorman from a Trump property 30k for the rumor. It never happened.

Why are you claiming it never happened?
He passed a polygraph they administered.
Why would they pay him for a story that was not true and have him sign an NDA with a 1M penalty.
A whole swath of former Enquirer staffers said the circumstances were highly unusual and they had never heard of it being done before.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The fact these types of stories are popping up en mass again just further highlights the desperation of the left.

I agree.
Seems they actually have nothing on trump after a year of mueller looking with a fine tooth comb.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Why are you claiming it never happened?

Why didn't you read the ENTIRE story you posted?

The woman at the center of the rumor about Trump denied emphatically to the AP last August that she’d ever had an affair with Trump, saying she had no idea the Enquirer had paid Sajudin and pursued his tip.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: soberbacchus
of course you left this out from your link.....

The woman at the center of the rumor about Trump denied emphatically to the AP last August that she’d ever had an affair with Trump, saying she had no idea the Enquirer had paid Sajudin and pursued his tip. The AP has not been able to determine if the rumor is true and is not naming the woman. “This is all fake,” she said. “I think they lost their money.”

Hard to publish a story when the subject of said story is on the record as saying it did not happen.

The woman denies it now.
Obviously if she denied it then, the Enquirer wouldn't be paying to squash the story.

Stormy Daniels also originally denied the story due to fear and threats both legal and physical.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: soberbacchus
of course you left this out from your link.....

The woman at the center of the rumor about Trump denied emphatically to the AP last August that she’d ever had an affair with Trump, saying she had no idea the Enquirer had paid Sajudin and pursued his tip. The AP has not been able to determine if the rumor is true and is not naming the woman. “This is all fake,” she said. “I think they lost their money.”

Hard to publish a story when the subject of said story is on the record as saying it did not happen.

But flame away....cause you know this is "grounds" for searching trumps lawyers offices.

The national enquirer, if you guys are discussing the story I think you are, paid a former doorman from a Trump property 30k for the rumor. It never happened.

Why are you claiming it never happened?
He passed a polygraph they administered.
Why would they pay him for a story that was not true and have him sign an NDA with a 1M penalty.
A whole swath of former Enquirer staffers said the circumstances were highly unusual and they had never heard of it being done before.

No - please learn to read.
The woman in question has come out and stated the guy is lying and it never happened.

As for lie detector tests - I get the impression a lot of people on this sight dont really understand how they work or there legal weight in court.

A lie detector measure galvanic skin responses to questions. The test does not definitively say a person is lying or not lying. It gives a readout of the responses which are then compared to the baseline questions asked at5 the start. At most it can suggest a person is not being truthful.

It is not an exact science and has absolutely no value in a court of law as far as the results go. It is the same for portable breath tests. For the most part those portable tests, which give you a BAC readout, is not admissible in court. The only thing admissible is yes, a PBT was given or no it was not given and did it detect the presence of alcohol (these pbts are the ones that are not calibrated).

a reply to: soberbacchus

Guess you don't even read the crap you attempt to fling here.

good day.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Xcathdra

The fact these types of stories are popping up en mass again just further highlights the desperation of the left.

I agree.
Seems they actually have nothing on trump after a year of mueller looking with a fine tooth comb.

Mueller and the left is in a race... They desperately need something, anything, to get Trump before the judges in Manafort or Flynns case throws their charges out or the OIG report comes out.

I still think the OIG report wil be the end of this sham.

a reply to: Xcathdra

If they know incriminating information like they all were shown James Comeys contemporaneous notes on the let Flynn go conversation. You mean.

I'm sure that displeased the # out of trump.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I think if there was anything to "get" trump mueller would have given it up already. I also think with out trump incriminating himself mueller has nothing.
The OIG report will be interesting, but peripheral to the "rushya" investigation as it was to focus on fbi conduct during the clinton email investigation. I think it will HIGHLIGHT the double standards some of the fbi personnel have been using, and it will re-open the wound of all the immunity granted during that investigation. The "making false statements" garbage will bite them in the ass as many of the figures questioned in that investigation made questionable statements. To charge one for "false statements" but, not all over the last year is going to be horrible optics for those involved.

a reply to: Xcathdra

No one is using the tape for anything other than its an example of sleazy crap from a sleazy dude.

The reason it's important again is did trump try to suppress the revelation of the tape and...
Did wiki leaks release the Podesta emails to disrupt the news cycle indicating get ready for it
.
.
.
COLLUSION with Russia who hacked the emails.

Oh man.....

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

If they know incriminating information like they all were shown James Comeys contemporaneous notes on the let Flynn go conversation. You mean.

I'm sure that displeased the # out of trump.

Firing Comey is not obstruction and is constitutionally protected.
Trump asking Comey to let Flynn go is also not obstruction. While Comey was the head of the FBI Trump is the chief law enforcement officer of the federal government. The legal term your looking for is prosecutorial discretion.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

No one is using the tape for anything other than its an example of sleazy crap from a sleazy dude.

The reason it's important again is did trump try to suppress the revelation of the tape and...
Did wiki leaks release the Podesta emails to disrupt the news cycle indicating get ready for it
.
.
.
COLLUSION with Russia who hacked the emails.

Oh man.....

So now every news story that may or may not "disrupt the news cycle" is collusion?
Holy crap who told you that idea?

Nevermind
I have the answer to that.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
No one is using the tape for anything other than its an example of sleazy crap from a sleazy dude.

Which is illegal. It was illegal to record it and it was illegal to release it.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
The reason it's important again is did trump try to suppress the revelation of the tape and...

Trump should have done that and should have sued the media outlet for releasing it. In this instance suppressing the tape is a vlaid action because of the illegal way the conversation was obtained.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Did wiki leaks release the Podesta emails to disrupt the news cycle indicating get ready for it

I could care less about wikileaks. They are their own entity and violated many federal laws and have no connection to Trump.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
COLLUSION with Russia who hacked the emails.

It has never been confirmed Russia hacked anything. I figured by now you would understand this but apparently not. There was no forensic analysis done by any law enforcement entities.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Oh man.....

Exactly my thought as well.