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

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

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.

Agreed, the SDNY state they have that evidence and have handed it over to the judge. I have said it before but I will say it again, Michael Cohen is a proven liar and his word doesn’t prove anything without evidence. Those lawyers know that as well, there is no way they would waltz into court proceedings against the president with nothing but a proven liar and criminals word.

originally posted by: JinMI

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.

The SDNY stayed they had the evidence to back everything up and gave it to the judge.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
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.

I was referring to Cohen's felonies, which he has plead guilty to. They aren't just charges, they are convictions. Eight of them. They include, but are not limited to, campaign finance violations. You have mixed up the convicted, and also only concentrated on a single conviction.

One of the charges that may possibly be brought for the alleged conspiracy to collude with the Russians, is treason. The sentence for a conviction of treason alone is likely to be execution.

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.

Hiding and not declaring those payments is.
In discussion with "Individual 1" Cohen admitted the express purpose of the payments were for the purpose of the campaign, specifically to prevent voters from becoming aware of Trumps infidelity.

Other potential felonies are suborning testimony (aka directing or convincing someone to lie under oath) and obstruction of justice (promises of federal pardons for false testimony).

The left is getting ridiculously desperate.

The Attorney General for the Southern District of New York who secured this plea deal from Michael Cohen is Geoffrey S. Berman.

He was interviewed and appointed by President Trump and he is a Republican who volunteered for the Trump Transition Team before Trump took office.

Is this who you mean by the "left"?

a reply to: BlackJackal

No I will not . I also can't wait till this is over . I am sick and tired of the back and fourth people on both sides of the issue take . My opinion is if they had any info to impeach Trump or charge him with anything it would have happened by now . I personally think Trump is a jerk , but I agree on his border policy and tax policy . Healthcare will not be fixed by anyone in either party . I think Government should shrink and get the hell out of my life . I voted for Trump because he wasn't Hillary , who I think is the devils daughter . I do not think there is much difference between the Democrats or the Republicans . They are not there for you or me , only for themselves .

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
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.

That law only applies to "national bank, or any corporation, any officer or any director of any corporation or any national bank or any officer of any labor organization"

Trump paid "the porno star" with his own PERSONAL money... If that was illegal then a lot of politicians, former Presidents, and vice-Presidents would have been breaking the law... But the fact is, that you are not understanding what that law says.

a reply to: BlackJackal

You mean Trump was accused of a crime in NY? Hillary's very Throne? No one saw THAT coming.

originally posted by: BlackJackal

Agreed, the SDNY state they have that evidence and have handed it over to the judge. I have said it before but I will say it again, Michael Cohen is a proven liar and his word doesn’t prove anything without evidence. Those lawyers know that as well, there is no way they would waltz into court proceedings against the president with nothing but a proven liar and criminals word.

Really?... Is that why an investigation was started with no evidence but the unproven claims from Russian officials, and a pro-Clinton Australian politician who claims to have heard someone, who heard someone, who heard someone else in a bar while everyone was drinking, and this was paid for by the opposition candidate and the DNC and has been used as the base for "the witch hunt/aka the investigation"?...

So far it has been proven that "unproven claims with no evidence from foreign agents paid for by the political opposition" is being used to try to influence the Presidential election, by using such false and egregious allegations to go after a duly elected POTUS...

The contrary of what you claim is what has been done so far...

originally posted by: BlackJackal

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.

...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.

This is 100% false. I use NDA's all the time for work. They are not a contract which requires countersigning. They are a pledge by one party to maintain confidentiality in line with certain conditions (ie. an agreed fee to sign, or sometimes a defined penalty if broken).

a reply to: BlackJackal

I just heard that if there is any prosecution that it will happen after Trump leaves office .

originally posted by: 10uoutlaw
a reply to: BlackJackal

I just heard that if there is any prosecution that it will happen after Trump leaves office .

So six years away still?

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
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.

That law only applies to "national bank, or any corporation, any officer or any director of any corporation or any national bank or any officer of any labor organization"

Trump paid "the porno star" with his own PERSONAL money... If that was illegal then a lot of politicians, former Presidents, and vice-Presidents would have been breaking the law... But the fact is, that you are not understanding what that law says.

No, it wasn’t Trump’s personal money. Cohen’s shell companies handled the transactions. Cohen was reimbursed by the Trump Organization:

After the election, Cohen sought reimbursement for election-related expenses, including
the $130,000 payment he had made to Woman-2. Cohen presented an executive of the Company with a copy of a bank statement reflecting the $130,000 wire transfer. Cohen also requested reimbursement of an additional $50,000, which represented a claimed payment for campaign- related “tech services.” Executives of the Company agreed to reimburse Cohen by adding $130,000 and $50,000, “grossing up” that amount to $360,000 for tax purposes, and adding a $60,000 bonus, such that Cohen would be paid $420,000 in total. Executives of the Company decided to pay the $420,000 in monthly installments of $35,000 over the course of a year. (PSR ¶¶ 52-53).

At the instruction of an executive for the Company, Cohen sent monthly invoices to the Company for these $35,000 payments, falsely indicating that the invoices were being sent pursuant to a “retainer agreement.” The Company then falsely accounted for these payments as “legal expenses.” In fact, no such retainer agreement existed and these payments were not “legal expenses” – Cohen in fact provided negligible legal services to Individual-1 or the Company in 2017 – but were reimbursement payments. Cohen then received the $420,000 during the course of 2017. (PSR ¶¶ 54-56).

a reply to: chr0naut

What treason do you speak? As president elect it would have been a good idea to try to improve relations with countries we have long had an adversary role with. Plus any thing that Cohen says that trump as,ed him to do or any recordings of conversations or meeting with Trump would likely be thrown out of court be a use it falls under attorney client privilege Mueller knows this so he tells his story to media hoping to discredit the president.

originally posted by: nataylor

No, it wasn’t Trump’s personal money. Cohen’s shell companies handled the transactions. Cohen was reimbursed by the Trump Organization:

Cohen can claim whatever he wants after being coerced to make such statements, but even the taped conversations say a completely different story...

...
Mr. Trump then asked, “What financing?”

“We’ll have to pay,” Mr. Cohen said.

Mr. Trump then appears to say, “Pay with cash.”

Mr. Cohen then says, “No, no.”

The word “check” is uttered, but it is not clear by whom, and the audio is then cut off.
...

www.nytimes.com...

The recording proves POTUS Trump told Cohen to pay with his own money. The conversation does not indicate that Trump told Cohen to go to corporate Trump Tower officials to pay for this...

BTW, the whole conversation, taped by Cohen without Trump's knowledge, is in that link.

Point to me where Trump directs Cohen to go to Trump Tower officials to get money and pay for "the porno star..."

Heck, I can see in my mind what Trump Tower officials would have told Cohen if "HE" decided to pocket the money Trump gave him, and then Cohen went to ask Trump Towers officials for "money to pay a porn star who may, or may not have had sex with Trump..."

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I agree that IF the only evidence that trump knowingly used finance money is the word of cohen then it's nothing. IMO
Lawyers might see it differently?

But no one knows what other evidence, if any ,that they have.

a reply to: scraedtosleep

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

And that is the question.
Trump and his family love to play stupid when it suits them all the while telling us how smart they are...
Oh we didnt know..... I'm not a politician. They are not familiar with all Washington protocol.
I call it the Podunks of fifth avenue syndrome.

originally posted by: 10uoutlaw
a reply to: BlackJackal

I just heard that if there is any prosecution that it will happen after Trump leaves office .

That is the only way any prosecution could happen.

The DOJ "policy" is to not indict sitting Presidents.
That was an open question with President Clinton, less so now, but still "possible".

But let's say they do indict President Trump now. He could just instantaneously pardon himself. He could direct the DOJ to drop the charges. He could fire the Prosecutor and the AG or all of the above. There are dozen ways in which he could immediately invalidate any indictment even if the DOJ opted to break policy and indict.

With Special Prosecutor Ken Star, he was directed to turn over any "impeachable offenses" directly to congress.
He did not need the AGs approval to indict anyone and he was mandated to report everything to congress.
He functioned as an independent Attorney General for all things in regards to President Clinton.

With Special Counsel Mueller, his mandate is narrowed to Russian involvement in the 2016 election and any crimes uncovered in that investigation.
He must get AG approval to issue any indictments and it is up to the AG, not SC Mueller, whether any impeachable offenses are referred to congress.
He functions more like a district AG reporting to the AG with a narrow scope of what he can investigate and prosecute.

President Trump might be impeached, but he will not be indicted, at least not while he is office.

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician
a reply to: BlackJackal

You mean Trump was accused of a crime in NY? Hillary's very Throne? No one saw THAT coming.

President Trump is lifelong, second generation NYC.

The Attorney General for the Southern District of New York who secured this plea deal from Michael Cohen is Geoffrey S. Berman.

He was interviewed and appointed by President Trump and he is a Republican who volunteered for the Trump Transition Team before Trump took office.

Hillary Clinton moved to NY in 1999 to run for a Senate Seat.

I don't understand what you are suggesting.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: BlackJackal

No, my point is it isn't a crime and a number of people who are still sore because they hate the man who won that election squeezing their eyes shut while wishing really, really hard that is is a crime won't magically make it a crime. You're talking about inventing an interpretation of the law that has never existed purely because you must have something, anything to bring this POTUS down in a court seeing as how everything else has miserably failed.

News flash, this one will fail too, joining 2+ years of accusations, wishes, and prayers against him in the trash heap of forgotten history.

The flip side of this is shutting your eyes and wishing really hard that your guy isn't a career criminal wont magically make him innocent.

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

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.

Agreed, the SDNY state they have that evidence and have handed it over to the judge. I have said it before but I will say it again, Michael Cohen is a proven liar and his word doesn’t prove anything without evidence. Those lawyers know that as well, there is no way they would waltz into court proceedings against the president with nothing but a proven liar and criminals word.

The FBI waltzed into a FISA court with an unverified dossier containing opposition research. You don't think a small time prosecutor looking to pin a large feather in his cap wouldn't try?