Trump accused of a Felony in today's Southern District of New York Filing

a reply to: Sillyolme

What the hell are you going to do when Trump is president in 2020 - 2024 ? If they try and impeach him they are done , look what happened to the republicans after the house impeached Clinton . You do know Trump was a democrat far longer than a republican . Would you still be this bat# crazy about getting rid of him if he was a democrat ? The truth is that Trump is a democrat , I think he will get along just fine with Pelosi . That is why he will get reelected . These are just opinions so please take them as that . Have a great night

originally posted by: 10uoutlaw
a reply to: Sillyolme

What the hell are you going to do when Trump is president in 2020 - 2024 ? If they try and impeach him they are done , look what happened to the republicans after the house impeached Clinton . You do know Trump was a democrat far longer than a republican . Would you still be this bat# crazy about getting rid of him if he was a democrat ? The truth is that Trump is a democrat , I think he will get along just fine with Pelosi . That is why he will get reelected . These are just opinions so please take them as that . Have a great night

Do you know why they impeached Clinton? Because he had an extra-marital affair and lied about it. They paid for that decision because people thought it was incredibly petty. However, Trump is accused of something much much worse than an extra-marital affair, ( even though he has two of those that he lied about as well ) he is accused of working with an enemy of the state to affect the 2016 election. Not just to affect the election but to alter it so that he would win.

If Mueller is able to prove that, the public will be screaming for his impeachment just like with Nixon. If Mueller is able to prove that Trump had a quid pro quo with Russia then that would be treason.

So, serious question. If Mueller is able to prove that Trump was working with Russia during the campaign are you still going to defend him?

originally posted by: mamabeth
a reply to: BlackJackal

I have not forgotten about 4 dead Americans,get over it! Then,there is that uranium
deal with a Russian firm.

Sigh, have you done your research about Uranium One? What would you say if I told you that Hillary Clinton didn't even sign off on the deal? What would you say if I told you that eight other heads of government signed off on the deal too? Would that change your mind?

originally posted by: proteus33
a reply to: BlackJackal

I am a simpleton but how does paying people for rights to stories that may or may not be the truth a felony? Also why is it a big thing for Mr Trump to ask for nda s. From people everyone in Hollywood does it . Remember when lady broke her dna about Michael Jackson and his Jesus juice in the coke cans what happened to her? Stormy Daniels took money to keep quiet then decided to run her mouth I would sue her for 20 million dollars if I was potus she broke a contract. Remember when Congress got caught with a multimillion dollar off books slush fund for paying off ladies to keep them quiet nobody made a big stink about that did they?

You are absolutely not a simpleton. You asked two very good questions. Much more relevant than the people posting "What about Hillary".

If all the prosecutors had was the word of the liar Michael Cohen or Paul Manafort then they would not have a case and I wouldn't believe them. Since Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort are on the record as being liars there is no way in the world that a court would find their testimony credible. Unless, there is hard evidence to back up their stories. This evidence is not released to the general public at this point because it is part of an ongoing investigation but it is available to judge overseeing the case. The judge must have access to the evidence in order to verify that the cooperating witness gave meaningful and truthful testimony and uses that information in the sentencing.

Bottom line - There is evidence to back up Cohen's testimony because otherwise there wouldn't be a case.

As for why it's a big deal for Trump to ask for NDA's from people, it really isn't. I mean signing an NDA is pretty common in the business world, I have even signed one for my employer. There are some people upset that Trump has made everyone who works in the White House sign an NDA since the White House works for the people. Personally, I'm not that upset with this move because these NDA's wont hold up in court.

Sorry, I got a little sidetracked. I think you are really referring to the NDA's signed by Karen McDougal and Stormey Daniels. In this case the NDA's aren't really the subject of the felonies. There are two felonies outlined in the sentencing document. One is felony campaign finance fraud and the second is money laundering. The first is the use of campaign money to pay the aforementioned ladies as hush money so that they would not tell their stories. The second is the act of hiding the money transactions used to pay those ladies through multiple bank accounts and shell companies.

Hopefully that cleared it up a bit. But again, both of those were good questions and especially the first one. Because you can bookmark this if you want, but if Mueller is unable to provide evidence to back up the stories of Cohen or Manafort, I will not buy it.

Which, according to the SDNY they do have hard evidence to back up the stories of Michael Cohen.

originally posted by: timequake
a reply to: BlackJackal

Really? Who among them did he appoint exactly? You're saying Trump appointed Comey? Orr? do you have any clue what you're talking about? He didn't appoint any of those people SDNY included.

Hmmmm, you're a lawyer right? Don't you know who appoints a special prosecutor?

The man who named Robert Mueller as the special prosecutor was Rod Rosenstein. He was appointed to his post by none other than Donald J Trump.

LINK

Trump isn't being prosecuted. He hasn't even been charged. Additionally, Republicans do not control the DOJ. AT the time Hilary was "exonorated" it was by Comey and Strozk who, as had been made obvious, where very bias. In fact, Just recently the email case for Hilary was offically reopened by a federal judge. Surprised you didn't realise that.

Are you sure you are a lawyer? You do know there is a difference between the DOJ and the FBI, right? Because the guys you keep naming work for the FBI. The DOJ is the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, etc. Surely since you went to law school you know that.

But to your point, nope, he hasn't been charged yet. He probably will not be in a court of law since he is a sitting president. Once the investigation is concluded the evidence will be turned over to Congress for investigation and possible impeachment. But that is just for the Mueller investigation. I'm really not sure what the SDNY is going to do. It is very possible that they will just sit on this case until he is out of office and then indict him. Either way, they are building a case against him.

But, you knew all that already didn't you? You were just testing me.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

Paying someone hush money, so long as it is not paying them to keep them quiet about a crime, is not a crime. Adultery is no longer a crime, so while I am very sure a number of people wish a crime had taken place here, none did. Covering up something prior to an election... also not a crime.

Obviously Blackjackal is either ignorant, or ignores the fact every President who ever ran for office have had certain stories quiet, as long as they weren't burying crimes it is no crime to use your own money to bury stories/claims of adultery. The real felony is how people like "the porno star" have been blackmailing Trump, despite the fact that she signed an agreement and accepted money not to come forward with these allegations of adultery that occurred before Trump ever ran for POTUS. That (blackmail) is a real crime.

originally posted by: BlackJackal

Do you know why they impeached Clinton? Because he had an extra-marital affair and lied about it. They paid for that decision because people thought it was incredibly petty....

WRONG... Clinton had the "extra-marital affair" while he was a sitting President, this occurred in the White House, and he lied about it... Big difference...

The alleged affairs Trump had occurred BEFORE he was President, and did not happen in the White House...

originally posted by: BlackJackal
However, Trump is accused of something much much worse than an extra-marital affair, ( even though he has two of those that he lied about as well ) he is accused of working with an enemy of the state to affect the 2016 election. Not just to affect the election but to alter it so that he would win.
...

He is FALSELY accused without any evidence to prove your false claims... What's more, the "evidence" was paid by the political opposition, and was collected by a FOREIGN AGENT who used to be a spy and stated he will do everything to stop Trump becoming or being POTUS, and the "dossier" is full of lies from the Russians and an Australian pro-Clinton politician.

You falsely accuse Trump about "election interference" yet you ignore the fact that the dossier and the witch hunt are "real election interference..." I find it ironic how you always cry about "LIES" yet YOU love to LIE in every one of your threads...

originally posted by: BlackJackal
If Mueller is able to prove that, the public will be screaming for his impeachment just like with Nixon. If Mueller is able to prove that Trump had a quid pro quo with Russia then that would be treason.

So, serious question. If Mueller is able to prove that Trump was working with Russia during the campaign are you still going to defend him?

It's almost going to be 3 years now that this false claim started and so far the only "crimes" being shown were "alleged affairs," or alleged crimes, such as tax evasion, committed by Manafort over a decade BEFORE Manafort was part of the Trump campaign. Back in 2005 Rod Rosenstein himself stated we wouldn't go after these alleged crimes, but now that Manafort was part of the Trump campaign the left/RINOs are using it as an excuse to go after Trump. Meanwhile "pro-Clinton" allies have been given immunity for the same crimes Manafort committed... As for Cohen, he is a weasel who committed his own crime, and now he is being forced to "side" with the claim that by Trump paying with his own money women to stop the stories of "his alleged affairs" and you, and the clowns in the Mueller team/DNC want to claim that is "election interference..."

a reply to: Sillyolme

a reply to: JinMI

I found the laws that cohen broke.

52 U.S. Code § 30116
www.law.cornell.edu...
52 U.S. Code § 30118
www.law.cornell.edu...

Cohen says that he did this on the orders of trump.

If in fact trump did tell cohen to do this, Does muller have evidence that trump knew it was against the law?

We will have to wait and see.

a reply to: scraedtosleep


Is Trump as an individual authorized by congress?

I.E. Bank, withholding or governmental body?

As a private citizen that is?

a reply to: scraedtosleep

Why are the news media treating this "co-conspirator" accusation by Cohen against President Trump, like it's the first time he's made this accusation? I recall CNN/MSNBC foaming at the mouth over the Summer when Cohen made this same accusation.

a reply to: carewemust

Cohen will become the golden boy of the anti-Trumpers. Given his testimony thus far, methinks they will be lacking for 'any reasonable prosecutor."

originally posted by: Painterz

originally posted by: Agit8dChop


... that is insane and you amaze me how you keep lowering the bar on this pathetic attempt to oust the one President who actually keeps his promises and works for Americans...

Just mind boggling

How are all those closed factories and bankrupt farmers working out for you there fella?

I thought this was Obama's economy~

No broke farmers around here. Factory's come and go. How many factory's closed under Clinton? Bush's? Obama?

I feel bad for this guy's kids...shown on his Twitter homepage.

twitter.com...

Tony Schwartz will lose his sanity (or worse) when he realizes that President Trump isn't going to be indicted, impeached, or forced to resign (like Nixon).

a reply to: BlackJackal

The man who named Robert Mueller as the special prosecutor was Rod Rosenstein. He was appointed to his post by none other than Donald J Trump.

Comey/ the FBI was the one who made the recommendation for the creation of a special counsel. And he obviously didn't appoint anyone in the SDNY as you claimed.

Are you sure you are a lawyer? You do know there is a difference between the DOJ and the FBI, right? Because the guys you keep naming work for the FBI. The DOJ is the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, etc. Surely since you went to law school you know that.

But to your point, nope, he hasn't been charged yet. He probably will not be in a court of law since he is a sitting president. Once the investigation is concluded the evidence will be turned over to Congress for investigation and possible impeachment. But that is just for the Mueller investigation. I'm really not sure what the SDNY is going to do. It is very possible that they will just sit on this case until he is out of office and then indict him. Either way, they are building a case against him.

Like I said, it was created on the recomendation of the FBI. And no one in the DOJ is prosecuting Trump. If you knew that, then why did you state that Trump was being prosecuted? The SDNY is the entity that will attempt to invesigate campaign finance violations since it falls beyond the scope of the special counsel.

a reply to: timequake

Sorry man, most folks here don't understand the application of law and the process of courts.

Being implicated in an alleged crime is enough to equal guilt in their eyes. Lack of education is an issue here as is on prolific display.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: carewemust

Cohen will become the golden boy of the anti-Trumpers. Given his testimony thus far, methinks they will be lacking for 'any reasonable prosecutor."

Citizen traitors need somebody to replace the disgraced Avenatti. Cohen cooperated and flipped so well and thoroughly, that Mueller told the judge to reward him with maximum time in prison.

a reply to: JinMI

You would have to ask a lawyer or a judge if your looking for an explanation of the finer points of US law.

a reply to: carewemust

I believe you.

However, we do not KNOW that. What we do know however that if Cohen is to be used as a witness he will be ridiculed absolutely based on his past statements, thus providing a witness of ill report.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: JinMI

You would have to ask a lawyer or a judge if your looking for an explanation of the finer points of US law.

Trump, as a name or a brand is not a given of congressional support. That was the point I was making given your given statute.

originally posted by: Allaroundyou

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: 1947boomer

Following that line of logic, what was contributed to the campaign?

It's obvious what this law is meant to prevent.

The law doesn’t say that a person has to contribute money to the campaign. But any money flowing from anyone including candidates to others to not affect the outcome. So in this instance trump paying off people to shut up to not affect the outcome of the election.

So if this is actually proven it is an impeachable.

Is that anything like pay to play?