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

a reply to: carewemust

Ratings? I guess?


Yes he plead guilty to these crimes back in augest.
www.cnbc.com...

The difference is back then the media did NOT have confirmation that cohen directly implicated the president. Except from cohens lawyer. They also didn't have the details that they have now.

It's just more information coming out about the same case.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: carewemust



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.

Agreed.

And it looks like UNLESS muller has some other evidence that what cohen is saying about trump is true, it will come down to trump just denying it.

In the end this will just be more stuff used to sway republicans to impeach. If muller has NO other evidence that is.

a reply to: JinMI

Right. Cohen is not credible for the prosecution or the defense. However, if Trump is found guilty of campaign finance violations, he'll pay a fine like Obama did ($375,000) in 2013, and continue making America even greater.

Sen. Hart's "Monkey Business" caper put the lie to this in one respect. A rich candidate can pay for NDA's to keep his family from scandal. Trump self funded his campaign, so this is an extra bar, as he didn't mis direct any donor's money. But N.Y. does still consider adultery a crime, so that may be what they're hanging their hats on. But this is a Federal, not a N.Y. State Court, so where does this go?? I'm thinking N.Y. ain't a gonna push this one, and a non campaign crime, from before that campaign, and maybe in other States, as with Jeffords, really are stretching the limits. Trump has denied Jefford's B.S., and the Playboy Bunny has a lot of mileage on her. For a germaphobe like the Donald, that's a biggie, and it will be he said, she said, at best.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: carewemust



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.

Agreed.

And it looks like UNLESS muller has some other evidence that what cohen is saying about trump is true, it will come down to trump just denying it.

In the end this will just be more stuff used to sway republicans to impeach. If muller has NO other evidence that is.

No other evidence would be a mockery of the court. However a theoretical touchdown in the court of public opinion.

If we were to base the actuality of courts vs the court of public opinion, which would win? That there is an obvious red flag.

a reply to: carewemust

I'm trying my deepest to not fall into the trap of 'whataboutism' but you are correct in this instance.

a reply to: JinMI
a reply to: carewemust

This is a detailed explanation of how what obama did was different than what trump is being accused of.
Even if you don't like the source it's worth a read.
www.snopes.com...

President Trump attempted to compare the criminal charges brought against Cohen by the U.S. Justice Department with a series of civil violations brought against the Obama campaign by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), a separate, independent body which cannot prosecute criminal cases.

a reply to: chr0naut

Campaign finance violations. I love that you guys keep saying "felonies" because it sounds worse. Very vapid, like all of liberalism these days. Truth is, Obama/bush/Clinton also committed similar "felonies" aka campaign finance violations. Obama received the biggest fine in campaign finance history. But go on thinking that you've finally got him.

Oh BTW, the reason you only have speculation from prosecutors instead of an indictment or charges for trump is that they don't have jurisdiction and therefore can do nothing about these "felonies." The FEC has jurisdiction.

Duplicate

a reply to: carewemust

It's all just recycling the same talking points. Has been since the manafort indictment.

a reply to: 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. 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.

Actually Clinton was impeached for perjury.. Lying to Congress. At least that was the official reason given. Is Trump being accused of working with "an enemy of the state"? Well we aren't at war with Russia so that isn't it. What he is being accused of is working with a foreign power to "influence" the election by agreeing to accept "dirt" on Hilary. That isn't a crime. And honestly, how is that any different than what the DNC did by paying for a foreign agent to manufacture a dossier (something we actually know to have occurred as opposed to the Trump-Russia collusion theory). What the hell, why not also call it campaign finance violation since Hilary's campaign spent money to influence the election...

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: BlackJackal

They are all beside themselves today. They can see it all going south and they cant spin fast enough to make it go the other way. They can see plainly that everything we have been saying about trump is true and they backed the wrong horse.

You know, I’ve said it before but part of my job is to be aware of what all news organizations are putting out to the public. That means I not only listen to the people from MSNBC and CNNbut also Brietbart, InfoWars and Fox. Most of the people on this board get their news and worldview from these extreme right wingers. How do I know? Because the defense they use here is the exact same as those used by the right wing news hosts. They can’t think for themselves, they just regurgitate what they hear.

Just last night Sean Hannitys response to these sentencing documents was one of denial as well. He said the documents were so unrelated to Trump that they put him to sleep. Since there is no way to truly spin this in their favor, they instead spin it as a nothingburger. They will keep doing this for as long as they possibly can. But, the truth is there will come a day soon when the amount of evidence is just too much to ignore.

It was the same way with Nixon. He maintained support until the very end, it will be the same for Trump.

You sound like a spook.

Mockingbird anyone?

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: BlackJackal

As the Mueller statement says, that he acted on his own volition?

The Special Counsel did not say that Cohen committed felony campaign finance violations on hi own volition.

The Southern District of New York explains in detail he committed those crimes at the direction and close consultation with then candidate, now President, Trump.

originally posted by: Agit8dChop
So let me get this straight...

Cohen paid 2 girls who 'apparently' had a sexual romp with Trump long before his candicacy..

And this is now "election interference" ?

He paid the two women during the campaign at the direction of Candidate Trump.
Trump directed the payments to remain secret so as to keep the voting public in the dark about the conduct.
Both President Trump and his Personal Attorney lied to the public about the payments, Cohen under oath.

The covert payments, directed by Candidate Trump, constituted illegal campaign contributions. Felonies to be specific.

This is being investigated and prosecuted by the SDNY, not Special Counsel.

Also hinted at in the recent plea agreements is a separate investigation into illegal and covert campaign contributions by certain Russian Oligarchs and payments made for President Trump's inaugural celebration.

a reply to: BlackJackal

Paying off women is not a campaign finance violation and the former FEC chair stated as much. The left is getting ridiculously desperate.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Ridiculously desperate might be an understatement. They are showing total ignorance of the law, and pulling random things out of their nether regions to call crimes.

Also, didn't Corsi file a criminal complaint against Mueller claiming that he was allegedly trying to secure a false testimony?

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

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.

Hahahahahaha!!!

So every president has covered stuff up huh? I guess every president committed campaign finance fraud and money laundering? You have proof of that? I’m sure you do since you claim I’m ignorant. Please, by all means show me where Obama, Bush, Clinton, and Reagan committed those crimes while they were running for president. Shouldn’t be that hard, because like you say all presidents do it.

But, the real crime is that the porn star he boned while his wife was pregnant decided to try and get out of an NDA that Trump didn’t even sign..... You know what an NDA signed by one party is worth? About as much as a piece of paper. But, but but people are being mean to Trump. Give me a break, if he didn’t want to be called out on his crimes he shouldn’t have committed crimes. It’s as simple as that. He can’t claim to be the smartest president of all time and then turn around and claim ignorance of his actions.

Dude, you don’t even have half a leg to stand on, yet you still insist on defending the indefensible.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: BlackJackal

Paying off women is not a campaign finance violation and the former FEC chair stated as much. The left is getting ridiculously desperate.

Well the SDNY begs to differ. Also what about money laundering to hide the payments from the campaign to these porn stars. You know the creation of fake bank accounts and shell companies to hide these transactions from law enforcement, I assume you believe that to be legal too?

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: BlackJackal

Paying off women is not a campaign finance violation and the former FEC chair stated as much. The left is getting ridiculously desperate.

Well the SDNY begs to differ. Also what about money laundering to hide the payments from the campaign to these porn stars. You know the creation of fake bank accounts and shell companies to hide these transactions from law enforcement, I assume you believe that to be legal too?

Circumstantial evidence is not good enough. You need hard evidence. And that is not Cohen's word.

originally posted by: timequake
a reply to: 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. 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.

Actually Clinton was impeached for perjury.. Lying to Congress. At least that was the official reason given. Is Trump being accused of working with "an enemy of the state"? Well we aren't at war with Russia so that isn't it. What he is being accused of is working with a foreign power to "influence" the election by agreeing to accept "dirt" on Hilary. That isn't a crime. And honestly, how is that any different than what the DNC did by paying for a foreign agent to manufacture a dossier (something we actually know to have occurred as opposed to the Trump-Russia collusion theory). What the hell, why not also call it campaign finance violation since Hilary's campaign spent money to influence the election...

For a lawyer you aren’t very good at reading comprehension. Why don’t you reread what I said about the Clinton impeachment.

Yep, America and Russia have such a long history of being the best of buddies and always want the same goals. Yep, you’re right there’s no issue at all with a presidential candidate working with an advisory of the nation to alter our election in their favor. No problem at all!

Also, you claiming that working with a foreign power to get dirt on Hillary Clinton isn’t a crime pretty much proves you aren’t a lawyer. If you are, you are one of least educated there is because that fact has been discussed ad nauseam by legal scholars and that law is the central reason why there is a Mueller investigation.

So here is a scenario for you. During the campaign Obama works with Iran to get dirt on his opponent while Iran runs a campaign influence campaign to swing public opinion against Obama’s opponent. Then at a point in the campaign Obama says “Iran, if you’re listening try and get the deleted emails of my opponent” after Iran has already dumped thousands of those emails already. After Obama is elected he is openly antagonist toward Americas alliance which holds Iran in check. A little bit later we find out that Obama had a secret meeting with Iranian representatives at his personal office. At first he said it was about adoptions from Iran, then after more evidence comes out he changes his story, then after even more news come out he changes his story yet again. Then we find out that Obama’s son in law tried to setup secret back channel communication channels to Iran. He also refuses to enact sanctions against Iran that were passed by Congress. Then later he fires the head of the FBI who was investigating his connections to Iran and goes on national TV and says “I did it to stop the Iran thing”

There’s plenty more I could add to that analogy but this should suffice. So you are going to tell me with a straight face that if Obama did those things you are going to say it’s ok?