Cohen hearing

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-01-2019, 11:24 PM)GMDino Wrote: Fred you're just an attorney.  How DARE you suggest that there are many ways to get around SSF's (who is well versed in damn near EVERYTHING we talk about on these boards) take on how Trump can simply say he's a lying, cheating jerk and that he paid those women off solely to save the feelings of his wife...who he cheated on (repeatedly).

If you were a hard core Trump supporter you'd understand.  

Yeah, GM, everyone else is the problem, not you.  As I said, enjoy your weekend and maybe spend a second or two of it in introspection.  We would all here benefit from that I am sure.

[hollodero]

(03-01-2019, 08:53 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: In any event, as the Obama campaign clearly demonstrated, admitting you made a campaign funding oopsie just results in a fine if you own it.

Trump doesnt own it though.

In general, I agree, Stormy won't be his downfall (and is just mildly interesting).

What about this mansion in Bedford he bought for 7.5 million - but valued it with a slightly increased worth of 291 million to get a loan from Deutsche Bank?
Wouldn't that be a crime?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-01-2019, 11:33 PM)hollodero Wrote: Trump doesnt own it though.

Already accepted, but point taken.

Quote:In general, I agree, Stormy won't be his downfall (and is just mildly interesting).

It's not even that, but I appreciate the point.

Quote:What about this mansion in Bedford he bought for 7.5 million - but valued it with a slightly increased worth of 291 million to get a loan from Deutsche Bank?
Wouldn't that be a crime?

I honestly have no knowledge of this.  Maybe blame those damn Germans!

[hollodero]

(03-01-2019, 11:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Already accepted, but point taken.

Oh, alright. I was a bit lazy in catching up. It can be tough.
- Maybe the cover-up is more of a problem than the actual deed though.

(03-01-2019, 11:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's not even that, but I appreciate the point.

Well, maybe not legally. But it's still an US president betraying his wife with a pornstar and then telling one thousand lies about it.
Maybe as a non-American I take more, say, derisive enjoyment in this. It's interesting because it's embarrassing.

(03-01-2019, 11:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I honestly have no knowledge of this.  Maybe blame those damn Germans!

I saw it in a Maddow clip from yesterday. Obviously that gross overvaluation was in the files Cohen gave to the Committee.

Usually the bank isn't at fault for this things, I'd guess. But I do not know much, meaning squat, about US financial laws, I only have Maddow's thinly veiled excitement over this affair as indication this might constitute an actual crime. Of the kind Cohen actually goes to jail for.

--- I deem that interesting enough to leave a link: Said link. Forgive the source.

[GMDino]

(03-01-2019, 11:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, GM, everyone else is the problem, not you.  As I said, enjoy your weekend and maybe spend a second or two of it in introspection.  We would all here benefit from that I am sure.

Not everyone. Some don't claim to always be right.

"introspection"

[jj22]

Trump is now blaming the failed NK summit (at least he's acknowledging it was a failure) on the Cohen Hearing....

I know right. This only makes sense to Trump supporters.

But he claims if it wasn't for the Cohen hearing he may not have walked. And here we thought it was because of a bad deal.

https://splinternews.com/trump-has-a-new-theory-on-why-the-north-korea-summit-fa-1833026141

http://www.newser.com/story/272071/trump-blames-cohen-hearing-for-collapse-of-kim-summit.html

Is there any hope for any of this to get any better as long as Trump supporters blindly follow along with these outrageous lies?

Even our Allies are reporting this foolishness.

https://japantoday.com/category/world/update-1-trump-says-cohen-hearing-may-have-contributed-to-north-korea-summit-failure

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-02-2019, 12:28 AM)GMDino Wrote: Not everyone.  Some don't claim to always be right.  

"introspection"

I've backed up my position on this with logical, fact based, points.  You have stated that Trump definitively violated campaign finance law.  I've asked you to cite your proof for being so certain.  You have failed to do so.  Perhaps you're projecting a little bit here?  In any event I'd ask, again, that you provide proof of your assertion.  Thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter.

[GMDino]

(03-04-2019, 12:30 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I've backed up my position on this with logical, fact based, points.  You have stated that Trump definitively violated campaign finance law.  I've asked you to cite your proof for being so certain.  You have failed to do so.  Perhaps you're projecting a little bit here?  In any event I'd ask, again, that you provide proof of your assertion.  Thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter.

Where?

Back up that position with logical, fact based points.  Please.  Pretty please.

I have argued that the proposition of "Well, he's a piece of crap that regularly pays off women he cheated with" is a lame excuse and that his own lawyer said it was because of the election (as part of his continually changing defense of the payment).

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/may/03/130000-stormy-daniels-payoff-was-it-campaign-expen/

Quote:But as he spoke further, Giuliani did tie Daniels’ allegation to the Trump campaign.

"Imagine if that came out on Oct. 15, 2016, in the middle of the last debate with Hillary Clinton?" Giuliani said.

Does that make it "definitive"? I'm not making that decision but I will point out that fact when someone wants to act like there is no evidence of the payoff being about the campaign.

DJT went from not knowing about the payment to admitting the payment to saying it wasn't a crime anyway.

But I am SURE you will have hard core evidence to back up what you said I said.  Thank you for your consideration in this manner.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-04-2019, 12:57 PM)GMDino Wrote: Where?

So long ago that it's literally a few pages back, post #213.

Quote:Back up that position with logical, fact based points.  Please.  Pretty please.

I have argued that the proposition of "Well, he's a piece of crap that regularly pays off women he cheated with" is a lame excuse and that his own lawyer said it was because of the election (as part of his continually changing defense of the payment).

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/may/03/130000-stormy-daniels-payoff-was-it-campaign-expen/

I think you're still struggling with the concept of proving intent.  You've literally made no attempt to address this point.

Quote:Does that make it "definitive"? I'm not making that decision but I will point out that fact when someone wants to act like there is no evidence of the payoff being about the campaign.

Well, except when you did exactly that in post #213.

Quote:DJT went from not knowing about the payment to admitting the payment to saying it wasn't a crime anyway.

Well, there was a non-disclosure agreement that he would have been violating if he admitted it occurred.

Quote:But I am SURE you will have hard core evidence to back up what you said I said.  Thank you for your consideration in this manner.

Sure do, it's in post #213.

You're most welcome.

[GMDino]

(03-04-2019, 01:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So long ago that it's literally a few pages back, post #213.





I think you're still struggling with the concept of proving intent.  You've literally made no attempt to address this point.




Well, except when you did exactly that in post #213.





Well, there was a non-disclosure agreement that he would have been violating if he admitted it occurred.



Sure do, it's in post #213.

You're most welcome.

Okie dokie.  I said "yes" to your question

Quote:Was Trump's intent to pay off Daniels to spare himself and his family embarrassment or  did he do it to prevent damage to his campaign? 

Which part of your question did I say "yes" too?  Do you not get that?  

I even provided this little ditty at the end (which you are ignoring)...in post 213.

Quote:I guess that's why they do investigations.  I guess that why I didn't say he was guilty OR give him a pass.

Context sir.  Give it all or stop trying.

I'll be awaiting your apology now.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-04-2019, 01:14 PM)GMDino Wrote: Holy crap you're denser than I thought.

Okie dokie.  I said "yes" to your question

I see literally no need to belittle my intelligence, especially as you're the one in the wrong here.

Quote:Which part of your question did I say "yes" too?  Do you not get that?  

I even provided this little ditty at the end (which you are ignoring)...in post 213.

Yeah, you said yes to both, meaning you believe both points to be true.  This is a definitive statement.  You stated that Trump definitely paid of Daniels in order to protect his campaign.  The fact that you also believe he did so to prevent embarrassment to himself and his family does not alter this at all.

Quote:Context sir.  Give it all or stop trying.

I'll be awaiting your apology now.  

I'll happily apologize when I'm wrong, hence one is not forthcoming here.  Do please try and find a way to respond further without further juvenile attempts to denigrate me.  My thanks.

[*bfine32*]

(03-04-2019, 01:14 PM)GMDino Wrote: Which part of your question did I say "yes" too?  Do you not get that?  

I'm gonna go with "both". I'm most likely wrong, but that's how I read it.

[GMDino]

(03-04-2019, 01:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm gonna go with "both". I'm most likely wrong, but that's how I read it.

You are correct.  It was a facetious answer to a loaded either/or question.  I provided why it could be for the campaign (Rudy said it was) but added that I'm not saying it was or was not just because he has a history of doing such crappy things.  That is for the investigation.

As I am accused of a total bias against DJT I think that's a pretty fair answer on my part.

[GMDino]

(03-04-2019, 01:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'll happily apologize when I'm wrong, 

But perhaps I went too far in my comments and for that I WILL apologize. And I have edited them for that reason. Allow to me explain further:

I am presented with two propositions.  One there is some evidence of, one there is a history off.  They can both be true.

When answering that they can both be true ("yes") and then saying that I personally cannot say until there is further research that is exactly what I mean.  If someone else wishes to interpret that "yes" as only answering one way or the other reflects on the quality of the question...not the answer.  And if they choose to ignore a declarative statement that "I don't know and did not say either way" that is on them.



With that...enough about me.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-04-2019, 01:41 PM)GMDino Wrote:

But perhaps I went too far in my comments and for that I WILL apologize. And I have edited them for that reason.  Allow to me explain further:

Apology accepted, thank you.

Quote:I am presented with two propositions.  One there is some evidence of, one there is a history off.  They can both be true.

Yes, they can both be true.

Quote:When answering that they can both be true ("yes") and then saying that I personally cannot say until there is further research that is exactly what I mean.  If someone else wishes to interpret that "yes" as only answering one way or the other reflects on the quality of the question...not the answer.  And if they choose to ignore a declarative statement that "I don't know and did not say either way" that is on them.

Except you said yes to a question that literally cannot be answered in the affirmative with the evidence at hand.

Quote:With that...enough about me.

I'll take on last stab at the concept of proving intent, why it matters in this case and how it cannot be definitively determined in this case, at this time.


In most criminal cases the prosecution is seeking to prove you committed the alleged offense and the defense is trying to inject reasonable doubt that you did.  A robbery is a robbery is you took property from the victim's person by force or fear.  Your intent in committing the robbery is not consequential in regards to proving your guilt.  It can be a mitigating or aggravating factor, which is important in sentencing, but it has almost no bearing on your guilt or innocence.  Where intent become very important is when you're dealing with enhancement such as hate crime or gang enhancements.  Given the sensitive nature of hate crime enhancements I'll use the gang enhancement for this example.

Scenario 1: Man approached another man, brandishes a firearm and demands the victim's wallet.  Suspect then flees the scene.  A clear cut case of robbery, intent is not important in proving this case.

Scenario 2:  Man approaches another man, brandishes a firearm and then states, "You in Rollin 30's hood, your ass is getting taxed".  This is also a clear cut case of robbery but will carry the gang enhancement. 

The gang enhancement alleges that the enhanced offense was committed at the behest of, in furtherance of or to the benefit of a criminal street gang.  If the suspect in scenario one was a known and documented gang member his mere membership in a gang would not trigger the gang enhancement.  His intent may very well have been the financial benefit of his gang, but the DA would have a very difficult time proving that was his intent.  In scenario 2 the suspect would not even have to be a known or documented gang member.  His intent is exemplified by his won words and subsequent action.

In the Daniels case the entire alleged offense, campaign finance violations, is predicated solely on the allegation that Trump's intent in the payoff was to prevent damage to his campaign.  If you cannot prove this was his intent then you have no case at all.  This being the case, the fact that there are other, highly plausible, reasons he made the payment, and in fact has a history of doing exactly that, is highly relevant to any defense and severely damages any attempt to prove his intent was to prevent damage to his campaign.

Consequently, unless there is concrete evidence that Trump's intent was demonstrably to prevent damage to his campaign you have a non-starter of a case.  It is highly possible, even probable, that Trump's intent was to prevent damage to his campaign.  However, unless you can demonstrably prove this you have no violation of campaign finance law.

[GMDino]

(03-04-2019, 09:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Except you said yes to a question that literally cannot be answered in the affirmative with the evidence at hand.


Consequently, unless there is concrete evidence that Trump's intent was demonstrably to prevent damage to his campaign you have a non-starter of a case.  It is highly possible, even probable, that Trump's intent was to prevent damage to his campaign.  However, unless you can demonstrably prove this you have no violation of campaign finance law.

I disagree because we have his lawyer saying "can you imagine what would happen if that came up during the last debate".  Now if DJT wants to play dumb and say Rudy didn't know he can try, but RG was working for the President for a while when he said that and the President's own lies about the payments won't help his case.

Concrete? No.  Enough to convince enough people?  Maybe.

That's what hearings are for. (Which is what I said.)

I'm going to go out on a limb and say people have been convicted of worse without concrete evidence.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-05-2019, 10:11 AM)GMDino Wrote: I disagree because we have his lawyer saying "can you imagine what would happen if that came up during the last debate".  Now if DJT wants to play dumb and say Rudy didn't know he can try, but RG was working for the President for a while when he said that and the President's own lies about the payments won't help his case.

We're well aware that you disagree.  Rudy's comments don't do anything to dismantle the credible doubt that the payments were made for other reasons.

Quote:Concrete? No.  Enough to convince enough people?  Maybe.

It's disturbing that you're admitting there's not solid evidence but that won't matter to "enough people".

Quote:That's what hearings are for. (Which is what I said.)

Hearings were, in Congress?  I'm afraid that forum has been irrevocably tainted by calls for Trump's impeachment from day one.  I've said it from the start, if the Dems actual goal was impeachment they should never have brought it up until they had evidence to back such a move.  As it is it appears that they had a conclusion predetermined and then set out for evidence to help support that conclusion.  Not a good way to achieve the stated goal.

Quote:I'm going to go out on a limb and say people have been convicted of worse without concrete evidence.

I'm sure there's been some miscarriage of justice of they type you state.  I would hope they were extremely rare and always overturned on appeal.  As of now you don't have any evidence that the payment was used in the way you assert other than the word of a convicted perjurer trying to salvage what little he can of his reputation.

[GMDino]

(03-05-2019, 11:44 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: We're well aware that you disagree.  Rudy's comments don't do anything to dismantle the credible doubt that the payments were made for other reasons.

So one of the President's lawyer saying it isn't enough to be credible?

(03-05-2019, 11:44 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's disturbing that you're admitting there's not solid evidence but that won't matter to "enough people".

Because that would be all it takes. There is no solid evidence that Hillary Clinton killed someone but enough people believe it.

(03-05-2019, 11:44 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Hearings were, in Congress?  I'm afraid that forum has been irrevocably tainted by calls for Trump's impeachment from day one.  I've said it from the start, if the Dems actual goal was impeachment they should never have brought it up until they had evidence to back such a move.  As it is it appears that they had a conclusion predetermined and then set out for evidence to help support that conclusion.  Not a good way to achieve the stated goal.

Democrats are not approaching impeachment yet. They are providing oversight. They will investigate and have hearings. So will SDNY and others. Just because "impeachment" is a trigger word doesn't mean that there isn't enough smoke to look for the fire.

And, again, that doesn't mean they WILL find anything. But DJT put himself in a spot where it needs to be looked at. If it clears him then he's better off.

(03-05-2019, 11:44 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm sure there's been some miscarriage of justice of they type you state.  I would hope they were extremely rare and always overturned on appeal.  As of now you don't have any evidence that the payment was used in the way you assert other than the word of a convicted perjurer trying to salvage what little he can of his reputation.

And one of DJT's lawyers.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-05-2019, 11:55 AM)GMDino Wrote: So one of the President's lawyer saying it isn't enough to be credible?

Not if you're trying to prove intent.  Rudy could be expressing his personal opinion.

Quote:Because that would be all it takes.  There is no solid evidence that Hillary Clinton killed someone but enough people believe it.

Enough people believe it to do what exactly?  Your use of the word "enough" implies that there is a tipping point regarding the number of believers that will allow some action or event to occur.  Or is your use of this word not intended to imply that?

Quote:Democrats are not approaching impeachment yet.  They are providing oversight.  They will investigate and have hearings.  So will SDNY and others.  Just because "impeachment" is a trigger word doesn't mean that there isn't enough smoke to look for the fire.

Sorry, no.  The Dems have been approaching impeachment since the day after the election.  They've been screeching "impeach" for well over a year.

Quote:And, again, that doesn't mean they WILL find anything.  But DJT put himself in a spot where it needs to be looked at.  If it clears him then he's better off.

So what is Mueller doing?  I thought he was "looking at" Trump this whole time.

Quote:And one of DJT's lawyers.  

I think you're lending way too much credence to that one sentence.  Could he not be expressing his personal opinion?  I do find it interesting that Rudy is mocked as a mumblemouth who spouts inanities right up to the point that he says something people think they can use against Trump.  Logical inconsistencies annoy me.

[jj22]

Trump supporters spewing Russian talking points over Americas is a disgrace.

And they wonder why more and more consider them anti America.