Michael Cohen plea

[Belsnickel]

(08-22-2018, 08:54 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: The problem for the Administration that I am seeing here is not so much that they were trying to cover up the affairs. Lord knows, the American people have an exceedingly high tolerance for that from a male politician (cough, cough, Clinton). Rather, the problem is that campaign funds were used for this purpose. That is proven fact. And I am seeing reports which say that Cohen claims he was instructed to do this by "the candidate".

In America, we pat our male politicians on the back for their hetero-sexual sexploits while condemning them for misappropriation of campaign funds. That is America 2018.

In my personal opinion, if you are still fuming over the Clinton sexploits of the '90's (like me), you should be consistent and be angry over the current exploits.

BTW - Isn't soliciting prostitutes illegal in this country outside of some backwoods place in Nevada?

We have a society that wants to pretend out political leaders are moral authorities. I don't know why, to be honest, as that is something that comes with the divine right to rule territory. We put founding fathers on pedestals, thinking them to be of the highest moral character, but they were men and they were fallible, just as the political leaders are today.

If anything, what the Trump presidency shows is that there are a number of unwritten norms that have existed in Washington that act as the glue that holds the institutions together. Slowly, but surely, these norms have been facing an erosion. Trump is merely the product of this, not the cause. This isn't to say that Trump has not done anything wrong or criminal, just that decades of bullshit have brought us to this place. What befuddles us about Trump is that his wrongdoings are public, not in secret. We're not used to that. We're used to digging to find some secret wrongdoing but Trump's activity is all out in the open and we can't handle this very well. He has no shame.

[Bengalzona]

(08-22-2018, 09:27 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: We have a society that wants to pretend out political leaders are moral authorities. I don't know why, to be honest, as that is something that comes with the divine right to rule territory. We put founding fathers on pedestals, thinking them to be of the highest moral character, but they were men and they were fallible, just as the political leaders are today.

If anything, what the Trump presidency shows is that there are a number of unwritten norms that have existed in Washington that act as the glue that holds the institutions together. Slowly, but surely, these norms have been facing an erosion. Trump is merely the product of this, not the cause. This isn't to say that Trump has not done anything wrong or criminal, just that decades of bullshit have brought us to this place. What befuddles us about Trump is that his wrongdoings are public, not in secret. We're not used to that. We're used to digging to find some secret wrongdoing but Trump's activity is all out in the open and we can't handle this very well. He has no shame.

We have no shame. After all, he is OUR President.

I am held to a high standard of conduct by society. There are a lot of things that contribute to that (age, marital status, occupation, being a parent, etc.). Some of those standards are societal norms. Some are regulated by the various levels of government and/or professional organizations. Be that as it may, if my conduct breaks those standards then I am held to account. There are consequences. Try as I may, most of those consequences are not avoidable. And some have no consideration for mitigating circumstances.

I am by no means unique in this. In fact, almost everyone I know is in the same circumstance. And most of us make do with our daily existence and try to meet those standards of conduct as best we can because we don't want the consequences (or also because some of us also recognize and respect the need for those standards of conduct).

I do not believe it is unreasonable to require a higher standard of conduct by our elected officials. When I was an officer in the Army, we had a pretty darn high standard of conduct. We were public employees. We were "your tax dollars at work". When we were TDY somewhere, we were not supposed to wear a t-shirt with any slogans or pictures on them so that we did not misrepresent the Army or the government. God forbid that you got caught having an affair or wrote a bad check as an active duty officer. There were severe consequences. These are just a few examples of the many regulations we had. So, if an Army officer is held to such standards, why wouldn't elected officials be held to the same or even higher standards? And of all elected officials, shouldn't the President, our leader and representative to the world, be held to the highest standards?

No, Clinton's low standards do not excuse Trump's even lower standards. This is not a contest to reach the bottom. And a society which claims to have high standards but refuses to follow through on consequences is the equivalent of a society that hands out "participation trophies".

[GMDino]

(08-22-2018, 09:27 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: We have a society that wants to pretend out political leaders are moral authorities. I don't know why, to be honest, as that is something that comes with the divine right to rule territory. We put founding fathers on pedestals, thinking them to be of the highest moral character, but they were men and they were fallible, just as the political leaders are today.

If anything, what the Trump presidency shows is that there are a number of unwritten norms that have existed in Washington that act as the glue that holds the institutions together. Slowly, but surely, these norms have been facing an erosion. Trump is merely the product of this, not the cause. This isn't to say that Trump has not done anything wrong or criminal, just that decades of bullshit have brought us to this place. What befuddles us about Trump is that his wrongdoings are public, not in secret. We're not used to that. We're used to digging to find some secret wrongdoing but Trump's activity is all out in the open and we can't handle this very well. He has no shame.

(08-22-2018, 10:19 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: We have no shame. After all, he is OUR President.

I am held to a high standard of conduct by society. There are a lot of things that contribute to that (age, marital status, occupation, being a parent, etc.). Some of those standards are societal norms. Some are regulated by the various levels of government and/or professional organizations. Be that as it may, if my conduct breaks those standards then I am held to account. There are consequences. Try as I may, most of those consequences are not avoidable. And some have no consideration for mitigating circumstances.

I am by no means unique in this. In fact, almost everyone I know is in the same circumstance. And most of us make do with our daily existence and try to meet those standards of conduct as best we can because we don't want the consequences (or also because some of us also recognize and respect the need for those standards of conduct).

I do not believe it is unreasonable to require a higher standard of conduct by our elected officials. When I was an officer in the Army, we had a pretty darn high standard of conduct. We were public employees. We were "your tax dollars at work". When we were TDY somewhere, we were not supposed to wear a t-shirt with any slogans or pictures on them so that we did not misrepresent the Army or the government. God forbid that you got caught having an affair or wrote a bad check as an active duty officer. There were severe consequences. These are just a few examples of the many regulations we had. So, if an Army officer is held to such standards, why wouldn't elected officials be held to the same or even higher standards? And of all elected officials, shouldn't the President, our leader and representative to the world, be held to the highest standards?

No, Clinton's low standards do not excuse Trump's even lower standards. This is not a contest to reach the bottom. And a society which claims to have high standards but refuses to follow through on consequences is the equivalent of a society that hands out "participation trophies".

I wonder if people still think politicians are "moral"?  At least on the federal level I bet they don't.

In Trump's case no supporter ever told me they thought he was a moral person, good family man, etc.  They all said he was "better than Clinton".

No amount of bad press will change those voters minds.

And I don't believe the GOP would vote to impeach.  Ever.

Not this current version at least.  I was busy this morning and haven't looked but has there been any backlash from the House or Senate Republicans about any of this?  Probably not.

Trump's entire campaign was about lowering the bar.  From the debates to now.  Nothing has changed.  

[Bengalzona]

(08-22-2018, 10:39 AM)GMDino Wrote: I wonder if people still think politicians are "moral"?  At least on the federal level I bet they don't.

In Trump's case no supporter ever told me they thought he was a moral person, good family man, etc.  They all said he was "better than Clinton".

No amount of bad press will change those voters minds.

And I don't believe the GOP would vote to impeach.  Ever.

Not this current version at least.  I was busy this morning and haven't looked but has there been any backlash from the House or Senate Republicans about any of this?  Probably not.

Trump's entire campaign was about lowering the bar.  From the debates to now.  Nothing has changed.  

This is among the excuses given. "Everyone knows that all politicians are crooked.". Or "I'm not perfect. And I don't expect elected officials to be any better than me.". And most of us are guilty of playing along with these excuses at some point in our lives. We contribute to the reduced expectations. But we don't have to contribute to reduced standards of conduct. There is a still a line there between expectations and standards. And, moreover, we can also change our expectations.

[GMDino]

And it begins....

If anyone is looking for a good lawyer, I would strongly suggest that you don’t retain the services of Michael Cohen!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 22, 2018

I feel very badly for Paul Manafort and his wonderful family. “Justice” took a 12 year old tax case, among other things, applied tremendous pressure on him and, unlike Michael Cohen, he refused to “break” - make up stories in order to get a “deal.” Such respect for a brave man!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 22, 2018

A large number of counts, ten, could not even be decided in the Paul Manafort case. Witch Hunt!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 22, 2018

Michael Cohen plead guilty to two counts of campaign finance violations that are not a crime. President Obama had a big campaign finance violation and it was easily settled!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 22, 2018

That's just in the last hour...mostly in the last 30 minutes.

Edit: For reference about the Obama violation

https://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/obama-2008-campaign-fined-375000-085784

Quote:President Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign was fined $375,000 by the Federal Election Commission for campaign reporting violations — one of the largest fees ever levied against a presidential campaign, POLITICO has learned.

The fine — laid out in detail in FEC documents that have yet to be made public — arose from an audit of the campaign, which was published in April. POLITICO obtained a copy of the conciliation agreement detailing the fine, which was sent to Sean Cairncross, the chief lawyer for the Republican National Committee, one of the groups that filed complaints about the campaign’s FEC reporting from 2008.

...

FEC officials declined to comment on the fee or the existence of the agreement. But for context, failed Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole set a record for FEC fines on his 1996 campaign when he paid $100,000 two years later.

...

The major sticking point for the FEC appeared to be a series of missing 48-hour notices for nearly 1,300 contributions totaling more than $1.8 million — an issue that lawyers familiar with the commission’s work say the FEC takes seriously. The notices must be filed on contributions of $1,000 or more that are received within the 20-day window of Election Day.

More than half of those contributions were transferred from the Obama Victory Fund,a joint committee between the campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

Sources said the fine resulting from the settlement agreement has been paid, with $230,000 coming from the Obama campaign’s coffers and the remainder from the DNC.

The document outlined other violations, such as erroneous contribution dates on some campaign reports. The Obama campaign was also late returning some contributions that exceeded the legal limit.

For critics of the Obama campaign, the audit was a reminder of other reporting errors by the 2008 effort, which campaign officials said they tried to correct in real-time. But independent experts, including former FEC commissioner Michael Toner, said after the audit was released that the infractions were relatively minor, given the scope of the campaign.

[*Nately120*]

(08-22-2018, 12:18 AM)Vlad Wrote: Lol...you must have had a special dislike for Bill Clinton.

Poor Hillary was the most cheated on woman in America!

That asshat paid Paula Jones $850,000 to settle a sexual harassment case.

I'm a libertarian, you dingleberry.

[Belsnickel]

I do want to say that I don't think past behavior of presidents excuses our current one, or that politicians should not be held to a high standard. I just think that we should be realistic in those expectations and recognize that this is a path we have been on for a long time. Those high standards I would like to see are norms that existed in Washington, the ones I discussed being eroded. I'd love to see them built back up but it's going to take a strong course reversal.

[GMDino]

(08-21-2018, 08:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I've got a feeling Mollie Tibbets might make the talking points. 

(08-21-2018, 08:59 PM)GMDino Wrote: I had not followed up the story so I didn't know his favorite kind of killer was charged.

Yeah, he'll use that to gloss over everything else with his sheep.

Just heard the crowd chanting "lock her up" while another speaker was on stage.  

Just an aside about Tibbet's killer.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/08/22/mollie-tibbetts-undocumented-immigrant-suspect/1060204002/

Quote:Cristhian Rivera, the man accused in the death of a 20-year-old University of Iowa student, worked for an Iowa farm owned by the brother of a prominent Iowa Republican.

In a statement Tuesday night, Dane Lang, of Yarrabee Farms, said Rivera was an “employee in good standing” and was “shocked to hear” Rivera was implicated in the death of Mollie Tibbetts.


Read the full statement from Yarrabee Farms below:

Quote:“First and foremost, our thoughts and prayers are with the family and friends of Mollie Tibbetts. This is a profoundly sad day for our community. All of us at Yarrabee Farms are shocked to hear that one of our employees was involved and is charged in this case.

This individual has worked at our farms for four years, was vetted through the government's E-Verify system, and was an employee in good standing. On Monday, the authorities visited our farm and talked to our employees. We have cooperated fully with their investigation.

Yarrabee Farms follows all laws related to verifying employees are legal to work in the United States, and we regularly seek outside counsel to ensure we stay up-to-date on employment law matters. We keep records on all employees and have shared that information with authorities.

We appreciate the hard work of law enforcement officials. We will continue to cooperate with authorities as the investigation moves forward.”

If he was here illegally I hope they got after them also.

[Belsnickel]

An interesting component of this saga is that Cohen fingering Trump as a co-conspirator, under oath, to his crimes carries some weight. There was no deal made with the SDNY for Cohen's cooperation, which would have opened the door for Trump's team to discredit Cohen's claims. Cohen made his plea with no guarantee of a lighter sentence which is kinda huge.

[GMDino]

(08-22-2018, 11:16 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: An interesting component of this saga is that Cohen fingering Trump as a co-conspirator, under oath, to his crimes carries some weight. There was no deal made with the SDNY for Cohen's cooperation, which would have opened the door for Trump's team to discredit Cohen's claims. Cohen made his plea with no guarantee of a lighter sentence which is kinda huge.

And his attorney said he does not want a pardon?

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/402972-attorney-cohen-would-not-accept-a-pardon-from-trump

Quote:Lanny Davis, an attorney representing Michael Cohen, said Wednesday that Cohen "would never accept" a pardon from President Trump after pleading guilty in Manhattan court to tax fraud and campaign finance law violations.


“Not only is he not hoping for it, he would not accept a pardon," Davis said on NBC's "Today."

"He considers a pardon from somebody who has acted so corruptly as president to be something he would never accept," Davis added.

The White House previously did not rule out the possibility that Trump would pardon his former personal attorney and fixer.

Cohen on Tuesday pleaded guilty to bank fraud, tax fraud and campaign finance law violations in the Southern District of New York.

While reviewing the charges, Cohen told the judge that he made two six-figure payments to women at the direction of a candidate for federal office, essentially implicating the president. 

Cohen did not refer to Trump by name during the proceedings, but his comments match the accounts of payments to adult-film star Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal. Both women have said they were paid to remain quiet about alleged affairs with the president.

Davis said Wednesday that Cohen regrets some of his work for Trump, but has decided "that his family and his country were his priorities."

"He certainly found Donald Trump as president to be unsuitable to hold the office after Helsinki," Davis said, referring to a summit earlier this year with Russian President Vladimir Putin. "He worried about the future of our country with somebody who was aligning himself with Mr. Putin.”

Cohen’s plea and implication of the president marks a stark reversal for a man who said last September he would “take a bullet” for the president. He spent years working for the Trump Organization, and until recently served as the deputy finance chairman of the Republican National Committee.

Davis said following Cohen's guilty plea that his client would be "more than happy" to speak with special counsel Robert Mueller, who is investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Cohen's plea agreement does not stipulate that he cooperate with investigators, but does not preclude him from doing so.

My personal take remains the same as when Trump was running for office:  A guy who has spent his entire adult life swindling and covering up should have been smarter than to WANT to be in elected office where something could be looked at closely.

He thinks his "loyalty pledges" will protect him.  Not as POTUS. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-22-2018, 11:16 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: An interesting component of this saga is that Cohen fingering Trump as a co-conspirator, under oath, to his crimes carries some weight. There was no deal made with the SDNY for Cohen's cooperation, which would have opened the door for Trump's team to discredit Cohen's claims. Cohen made his plea with no guarantee of a lighter sentence which is kinda huge.

That directly contradicts what I've read about his plea deal, that he accepted it under the condition he serve no more than 56 months, iirc.

[hollodero]

(08-22-2018, 11:16 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: An interesting component of this saga is that Cohen fingering Trump as a co-conspirator, under oath, to his crimes carries some weight. There was no deal made with the SDNY for Cohen's cooperation, which would have opened the door for Trump's team to discredit Cohen's claims. Cohen made his plea with no guarantee of a lighter sentence which is kinda huge.

Yeah I do not know your legal system, but that is something I do not believe. I figure a deal wouldn't necessarily become public, at least not right away. Would be my guess.

(08-22-2018, 10:39 AM)GMDino Wrote: I wonder if people still think politicians are "moral"?  At least on the federal level I bet they don't.

In Trump's case no supporter ever told me they thought he was a moral person, good family man, etc.  They all said he was "better than Clinton".

Then again, 3/4 of Republicans believe Trump is a good role model for children.
And I'm not certain if all conservatives just switched to Trump or if that means the party is eroding and only the hard core of Trump supporters is remaining. Maybe someone who's good with polls can explain that one to me.

[*bfine32*]

(08-22-2018, 12:36 AM)Benton Wrote: Hoe many times has Clinton used campaign funds to pay off porn stars?

Er, how many.

Sorry.

Oh, I thought you said Hillary didn't do anything. My bad

[GMDino]

(08-22-2018, 11:31 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh, I thought you said Hillary didn't do anything. My bad

[Bengalzona]

Interesting how many times the name "Hillary" pops up in a thread about Michael Cohen plea deal.

Did she do something important yesterday?

[Belsnickel]

(08-22-2018, 11:22 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That directly contradicts what I've read about his plea deal, that he accepted it under the condition he serve no more than 56 months, iirc.

If you actually read the plea agreement, they did the calculations for the crimes and everything. There was no reduction for his cooperation in any investigation. https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/21/politics/read-michael-cohen-plea-deal/index.html

Plea agreements get lighter sentences, usually, just because they are accepting responsibility (I know you know this, just saying it outright). However, cooperation can gain even lighter sentencing or dropped charges and/or immunity. He received no consideration for cooperation which is where the claims would have to be for discrediting his statements.

Edit: So I should have said he had no guarantee of a lighter sentence for his testimony.

[jj22]

The "Religious" Right spending the day defending/excusing and making light of Trump paying off porn stars and prostitutes while married makes for a dark moment in the history of Christianity. But this is the candidate they said best reflects their values.

Organized religion is on life support thanks to Politics taking over.

Jesus wept.

[*bfine32*]

(08-22-2018, 11:36 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: Interesting how many times the name "Hillary" pops up in a thread about Michael Cohen plea deal.

Did she do something important yesterday?

I agree introducing Hillary into the discuss is simple deflection and trying to paint a two wrongs make a right scenario. I've said as much. I just found "she didn't do anything" to be 2funny 2avoid.

[*Nately120*]

(08-22-2018, 11:36 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: Interesting how many times the name "Hillary" pops up in a thread about Michael Cohen plea deal.

Did she do something important yesterday?

At least the Cliton's being dirty keeps neo-cons from having to dust of "the Kennedys" when they want to defend Trump.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-22-2018, 12:05 PM)Nately120 Wrote: At least the Cliton's being dirty keeps neo-cons from having to dust of "the Kennedys" when they want to defend Trump.

You forgot Dan Rostenkowski.