Michael Cohen plea

[Nebuchadnezzar]

(08-22-2018, 07:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If the people decide to vote Democrat how does Pence get re-elected?

Because you and I both know that Democrats are flying to the left and the base will nominate a far left loonie toons that will freak everyone out.

[Belsnickel]

(08-22-2018, 07:42 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: Because you and I both know that Democrats are flying to the left and the base will nominate a far left loonie toons that will freak everyone out.

Oh no! We could nominate someone like FDR!

[Yojimbo]

(08-22-2018, 07:42 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: Because you and I both know that Democrats are flying to the left and the base will nominate a far left loonie toons that will freak everyone out.

Worked out pretty well for the Republicans in 2016. Who would’ve thunk that having a candidate the base of the party actually likes would turn out the vote.

[*bfine32*]

(08-22-2018, 07:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If the people decide to vote Democrat how does Pence get re-elected?

Perhaps the same way the GOP took control of the House and Obama was reelected in 2012

[Dill]

(08-22-2018, 07:16 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You're missing that the original payment was made by Cohen. He took out a home equity line for the payment to Daniels. Even if paid back by Trump, that constitutes a loan to the campaign because of its purpose/timing and thus a contribution by Cohen.

Yes I forgot that. Though now that appears crucial to Trump's narrative which clears himself.  He didn't know Cohen did that.

Dershowitz seems to think, what?--that if Trump directed Cohen to do it, then it is not really a 3rd party transaction. Trump is clear. If Cohen did it on his own, then he alone is guilty of the violation. Trump is clear.  My question is about how Cohen is paid back, what money is actually shifted from where.

In my view, contra Dershowitz, there must still be a campaign violation somewhere since the law requires transparency and integrity in the record of contributions. I don't really see that here in any scenario. And there was a conspiracy to keep it that way, even if Cohen acted alone, as Trump claims.

[Dill]

(08-22-2018, 07:42 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: Because you and I both know that Democrats are flying to the left and the base will nominate a far left loonie toons that will freak everyone out.

Well history shows the American people would NEVER elect a looney toon who freaks everyone out.  Never.

[Belsnickel]

(08-22-2018, 07:57 PM)Dill Wrote: Yes I forgot that. Though now that appears crucial to Trump's narrative which clears himself.  He didn't know Cohen did that.

Dershowitz seems to think, what?--that if Trump directed Cohen to do it, then it is not really a 3rd party transaction. Trump is clear. If Cohen did it on his own, then he alone is guilty of the violation. Trump is clear.  My question is about how Cohen is paid back, what money is actually shifted from where.

In my view, contra Dershowitz, there must still be a campaign violation somewhere since the law requires transparency and integrity in the record of contributions. I don't really see that here in any scenario. And there was a conspiracy to keep it that way, even if Cohen acted alone, as Trump claims.

So Cohen made an illegal contribution, but even if Trump did not make an illegal contribution, if he took part in the planning of it he would be guilty of conspiracy for the crime Cohen has pleaded guilty to, which would then be a crime.

Personally, I don't see this going anywhere for Trump. I'll just wait for Mueller to conclude his investigation.

[Vlad]

(08-22-2018, 07:57 PM)Dill Wrote: Yes I forgot that. Though now that appears crucial to Trump's narrative which clears himself.  He didn't know Cohen did that.

Dershowitz seems to think, what?--that if Trump directed Cohen to do it, then it is not really a 3rd party transaction. Trump is clear. If Cohen did it on his own, then he alone is guilty of the violation. Trump is clear.  My question is about how Cohen is paid back, what money is actually shifted from where.

In my view, contra Dershowitz, there must still be a campaign violation somewhere since the law requires transparency and integrity in the record of contributions. I don't really see that here in any scenario. And there was a conspiracy to keep it that way, even if Cohen acted alone, as Trump claims.

There was no violation any way you look at it.

Perhaps you folks might want to check out what former SEC chief had to say....

“Payments used to silence people who have potentially damaging information on a political candidate cannot be classified as a campaign contribution, according to the former chairman of the Federal Election Commission (FEC), Bradley Smith. ‘Not everything that might benefit a candidate is a campaign expense,’ Smith wrote in an editorial for the Wall Street Journal.

“Personal debts, for example, are ‘related to’ the campaign—if unpaid, the candidate’s reputation might suffer, Bradley wrote. ‘A Rolex watch, a new suit, or a haircut might help a candidate look good on the trail. … If paying hush money is a campaign expense, a candidate would be required to make that payment with campaign funds.'

“Cohen’s payment to the woman who claims to have had an affair with Trump would have to be paid with campaign funds if it is to be viewed as a campaign contribution. But paying someone to keep silent about an alleged extramarital affair is not an expense solely related to a campaign, Bradley explained. ‘There are many reasons, including personal and commercial ones, why Mr. Trump might want to keep allegations of extramarital affairs out of the press,’ Bradley wrote.”


Furthermore this payment to Stormy Daniels was made Oct. 27. The election was less than 2 weeks later.

Any half wit could deduce that this payment would have had zero impact on the campaign.


Dream on haters.

[Belsnickel]

(08-22-2018, 08:16 PM)Vlad Wrote: There was no violation any way you look at it.

Perhaps you folks might want to check out what former SEC chief had to say....

“Payments used to silence people who have potentially damaging information on a political candidate cannot be classified as a campaign contribution, according to the former chairman of the Federal Election Commission (FEC), Bradley Smith. ‘Not everything that might benefit a candidate is a campaign expense,’ Smith wrote in an editorial for the Wall Street Journal.

“Personal debts, for example, are ‘related to’ the campaign—if unpaid, the candidate’s reputation might suffer, Bradley wrote. ‘A Rolex watch, a new suit, or a haircut might help a candidate look good on the trail. … If paying hush money is a campaign expense, a candidate would be required to make that payment with campaign funds.'

“Cohen’s payment to the woman who claims to have had an affair with Trump would have to be paid with campaign funds if it is to be viewed as a campaign contribution. But paying someone to keep silent about an alleged extramarital affair is not an expense solely related to a campaign, Bradley explained. ‘There are many reasons, including personal and commercial ones, why Mr. Trump might want to keep allegations of extramarital affairs out of the press,’ Bradley wrote.”


Furthermore this payment to Stormy Daniels was made Oct. 27. The election was less than 2 weeks later.

Any half wit could deduce that this payment would have had zero impact on the campaign.


Dream on haters.

Except, Cohen was charged for the crime and pleaded guilty to it. So an anti-campaign finance reform, Republican appointed, former FEC chairman has his interpretation of the laws, but it seems the SDNY, the courts, and Cohen himself recognize what happened as criminal.

[ballsofsteel]

Furthermore this payment to Stormy Daniels was made Oct. 27. The election was less than 2 weeks later.

Any Dimwit could deduce that this payment would have had an impact on people voting.


Dream on haters.

[Dill]

(08-22-2018, 08:16 PM)Vlad Wrote: Furthermore this payment to Stormy Daniels was made Oct. 27. The election was less than 2 weeks later.

Any half wit could deduce that this payment would have had zero impact on the campaign.

Dream on haters.

Certainly Trump's affairs would have no impact on the election if no one knew about them BEFORE the election. That would be the point of paying for silence.

But, positioning yourself as a full wit, are you claiming public knowledge that Trump had affairs with a porn star and playmate would have "zero impact" on the election because the porn star was paid off two weeks before election day?  If so, it seems the public was scammed--at least those independents who might have not voted for Trump had they known.

Or are you claiming that even if these affairs were public knowledge, they'd have had no effect on the election?

[Bengalzona]

Knock it off with the "halfwit"/"dimwit" comments.

Thank you,
The Management

[Nebuchadnezzar]

(08-22-2018, 10:31 PM)Dill Wrote: Certainly Trump's affairs would have no impact on the election if no one knew about them BEFORE the election. That would be the point of paying for silence.

But, positioning yourself as a full wit, are you claiming public knowledge that Trump had affairs with a porn star and playmate would have "zero impact" on the election because the porn star was paid off two weeks before election day?  If so, it seems the public was scammed--at least those independents who might have not voted for Trump had they known.

Or are you claiming that even if these affairs were public knowledge, they'd have had no effect on the election?

You must remember, the comments made by Trump on that audio tape about grabbing women in the _______ and that he could get anything he wanted from them had no bearing on the election.

The way Trump acts, talks and carried himself before the election had no bearing.

These stories about Trump raping women didn't sway voters.

If people think that Trump having an affair with porn stars would turn people off and keep them from voting for him, you are seriously delusional. As a matter of opinion(got you, you thought I was going to say "Fact"), if these stories came out about Trump before the election, he most likely would have won the popular vote.

I get it, people hate the guy, He is a loonie toon. It's just too bad the Democrats nominated a Loonier Toonier candidate than him.

[Benton]

(08-22-2018, 07:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Perhaps the same way the GOP took control of the House and Obama was reelected in 2012

Fear of losing guns and hatemongering over false religious persecution?

[Millhouse]

(08-22-2018, 07:49 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Oh no! We could nominate someone like FDR!

Someone more racist than Trump?

[Dill]

(08-22-2018, 11:50 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: You must remember, the comments made by Trump on that audio tape about grabbing women in the _______ and that he could get anything he wanted from them had no bearing on the election.

The way Trump acts, talks and carried himself before the election had no bearing.

These stories about Trump raping women didn't sway voters.

If people think that Trump having an affair with porn stars would turn people off and keep them from voting for him, you are seriously delusional. As a matter of opinion(got you, you thought I was going to say "Fact"), if these stories came out about Trump before the election, he most likely would have won the popular vote.

I get it, people hate the guy, He is a loonie toon. It's just too bad the Democrats nominated a Loonier Toonier candidate than him.

Hillary, an experienced and steady politician who wasn't paying of porn stars and playmates and grabbing P was "loonier"?

About the best you can say is that despite the Hollywood acess tape, Trump still had enough to win the electoral vote. That does not mean these scandals did not depress his vote count.  If 19 women were not accusing him of harassment and assault, perhaps he'd have won the popular vote.

While it is true that many Trump voters embrace lower standards, its not clear he could have won the necessary states without a critical fraction of independents, women, and traditional conservatives who aren't so comfortable with deceit and immorality, and might have rejected the idea of the nation's foremost representative baning a porn star as his wife recovered from birthing their child and then paying for silence. 

[hollodero]

(08-22-2018, 11:50 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: You must remember, the comments made by Trump on that audio tape about grabbing women in the _______ and that he could get anything he wanted from them had no bearing on the election.

The way Trump acts, talks and carried himself before the election had no bearing.

These stories about Trump raping women didn't sway voters.

If people think that Trump having an affair with porn stars would turn people off and keep them from voting for him, you are seriously delusional. As a matter of opinion(got you, you thought I was going to say "Fact"), if these stories came out about Trump before the election, he most likely would have won the popular vote.

I get it, people hate the guy, He is a loonie toon. It's just too bad the Democrats nominated a Loonier Toonier candidate than him.

The fact that he got elected in spite of being an indecent human being doesn't make it right for him to potentially violate regulations so something doesn't come out.

What is that, the "he was caught talking grabbing *****, so nothing matters anyway" defense?

Also, how many mulligans has the christian right to offer. He would have won the popular vote if affairs had come out? Seriously, why you'd think that? Did the right ache for someone brave enough to be unfaithful to his wife?
Did Hillary pay off that National Enquirer guy so Trump's extremely popular extramarital affairs don't come out? (A thesis I'm only waiting for FOX to entertain, since Cohen only said "at the direction of a candidate")

[Belsnickel]

(08-23-2018, 01:17 AM)Millhouse Wrote: Someone more racist than Trump?

I don't know if he was more racist than Trump. They were probably on par with each other. But that is why it is important to acknowledge the failings of those policies with regards to minorities and focus on New Deal types of policies that benefit everyone.

[Bengalzona]

Somewhere in Russia, Putin watches Trump on U.S. news reports, chuckles, nudges the bodyguard next to, and says the Russian equivalent of, "Can you believe this guy we found!".

[GMDino]

Truth isn't truth, crimes aren't crimes...and we can't hold the POTUS accountable for crimes because he's doing an "A+" job.  

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/08/23/donald-trump-impeachment-fox-news-interview/1071321002/

Quote:Raising the specter of removal from office, President Donald Trump says that impeachment would "crash" the stock market and the economy because he is doing such a good job.


"I think everybody would be very poor," Trump said in an interview that aired Thursday with Fox & Friends.


Without his kind of "thinking," Trump said as he pointed to his head, "you would see numbers that you wouldn’t believe in reverse.”


Some congressional Democrats have raised impeachment after Trump's former attorney, Michael Cohen, implicated Trump this week in a felony: a scheme to pay hush money to women who claim to have had affairs with Trump, and to prevent them from going public during the 2016 presidential election.


More: Michael Cohen's plea deal exposes President Trump to legal, political trouble
More: Scandal: Cohen charge against Trump recalls Nixon and Watergate, Clinton and Lewinsky


Trump is also part of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election by hacking Democrats.
Additionally, the president is under investigation over allegations that he tried to obstruct the Russia probe through actions like firing FBI Director James Comey.


During his Fox News interview, Trump denied wrongdoing and said the claims against him don't amount to "high crimes" necessary for impeachment.


"I don't know how you can impeach somebody who has done a great job," Trump said.



Asked to grade his presidency, Trump said he would give himself an "A-plus," and that the only thing he is doing badly is "the press doesn't cover me fairly."