The dumbest thing you'll read today (maybe this week)

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-13-2018, 01:24 PM)Au165 Wrote: Au165
Actually, none of this is true. You literally just said that a criminal turned state's evidence, which happens every day, will get eviscerated in court. In fact it is one of the main pieces of evidence used in prosecuting conspiracy based crimes.

Actually, in this case it's all completely true.  Real evidence for the crime didn't exist until Cohen pled to it.  If they had evidence that trump committed this crime then it would have been brought forward.  The crime exists because Cohen agreed to plea to it in return for a lighter sentencing on his tax evasion.  If there is evidence of a crime outside of Cohen pleading guilty then you'd be absolutely right.  Seeing as how I've pointed out several times that there is an easy and foolproof defense for Trump against this charge, basically saying the payment for for anything else on Earth other than preventing her from hurting his campaign.  If all you have is Cohen saying it was for the campaign and Trump saying it was not then you have no real case outside of a guy trying to save his own ass on completely unrelated charges.

[Au165]

(11-13-2018, 11:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Actually, in this case it's all completely true.  Real evidence for the crime didn't exist until Cohen pled to it.  If they had evidence that trump committed this crime then it would have been brought forward.  The crime exists because Cohen agreed to plea to it in return for a lighter sentencing on his tax evasion.  If there is evidence of a crime outside of Cohen pleading guilty then you'd be absolutely right.  Seeing as how I've pointed out several times that there is an easy and foolproof defense for Trump against this charge, basically saying the payment for for anything else on Earth other than preventing her from hurting his campaign.  If all you have is Cohen saying it was for the campaign and Trump saying it was not then you have no real case outside of a guy trying to save his own ass on completely unrelated charges.

No, it's not. You can want it to be true but it doesn't make it so. David Pecker helps establish a pattern of behavior that Trump sought to limit exposure to protect his campaign. Pecker will be put on the stand to say that Trump asked him to pay people off to cover up stories. There are other records and witnesses that will corroborate the charges, Cohen didn't plead guilty with no proof. Don't confuse the lack of you knowing about it with it existing. Federal prosecutors aren't cutting a plea deal for testimony on a case with a single witness and nothing else.

The biggest flag here for me talking to you is you continue to act as if turning state evidence somehow diminishes his testimony with comments like "save his ass". It is a commonly used and successful tactic used every day in prosecution. The fact you claimed it would be "eviscerated" in court shows me you don't really care about the legal intricacies, but rather want to frame it as impossible to be true.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-14-2018, 09:26 AM)Au165 Wrote: No, it's not. You can want it to be true but it doesn't make it so. David Pecker helps establish a pattern of behavior that Trump sought to limit exposure to protect his campaign. Pecker will be put on the stand to say that Trump asked him to pay people off to cover up stories. There are other records and witnesses that will corroborate the charges, Cohen didn't plead guilty with no proof. Don't confuse the lack of you knowing about it with it existing. Federal prosecutors aren't cutting a plea deal for testimony on a case with a single witness and nothing else.

The biggest flag here for me talking to you is you continue to act as if turning state evidence somehow diminishes his testimony with comments like "save his ass". It is a commonly used and successful tactic used every day in prosecution. The fact you claimed it would be "eviscerated" in court shows me you don't really care about the legal intricacies, but rather want to frame it as impossible to be true.

But you do have to have other evidence, and I'm not saying they don't.  One guy saying it was to protect the campaign and the other saying it wasn't doesn't give you much.  If Pecker can testify that he was told to cover these stories up to protect the campaign then now you have something.  And of course there could be evidence we don't know about.

[GMDino]

(11-14-2018, 10:58 AM)michaelsean Wrote: But you do have to have other evidence, and I'm not saying they don't.  One guy saying it was to protect the campaign and the other saying it wasn't doesn't give you much.  If Pecker can testify that he was told to cover these stories up to protect the campaign then now you have something.  And of course there could be evidence we don't know about.

The key is we don't KNOW what else they have.  One side believes they don't have anything or they would have let it be known by now (for some reason) the other believes they must have some evidence or why even pursue that line of questioning.

But we also have one guy (Trump) who denied all of this...until Cohen's office turned up evidence and then all of sudden he knew about it all along.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-reimbursed-michael-cohen-s-130-000-payment-stormy-daniels-n870951

Now Trump lying and then lying about his lies isn't anything new, but his, shall we say "evolving" story on the entire Stormy Daniels affair (pun intended) makes Cohen's account more believable, IMHO.

[Au165]

(11-14-2018, 10:58 AM)michaelsean Wrote: If Pecker can testify that he was told to cover these stories up to protect the campaign then now you have something.

Pecker has already stated he did this. He was also involved in the Daniels pay off which means he can corroborate that Cohen's testimony as well.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-14-2018, 11:36 AM)Au165 Wrote: Pecker has already stated he did this. He was also involved in the Daniels pay off which means he can corroborate that Cohen's testimony as well.

I thought you said to cover up the stories, but not specifically why.

[Au165]

(11-14-2018, 11:37 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I thought you said to cover up the stories, but not specifically why.

Pecker claims Trump knew about the payments and the reason for them. That was part of his immunity deal.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-14-2018, 11:36 AM)Au165 Wrote: Pecker has already stated he did this. He was also involved in the Daniels pay off which means he can corroborate that Cohen's testimony as well.

This is becoming frustrating.  No one is denying that Daniels was paid off.  The reason she was paid off is the issue at hand.  Unless it can be proven that the intent was to prevent her from hurting Trump's campaign then you have no violation of campaign finance law.  They may have other evidence of this, but Cohen stating it was isn't remotely enough to press charges against Trump.

[Au165]

(11-14-2018, 11:50 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This is becoming frustrating.  No one is denying that Daniels was paid off.  The reason she was paid off is the issue at hand.  Unless it can be proven that the intent was to prevent her from hurting Trump's campaign then you have no violation of campaign finance law.  They may have other evidence of this, but Cohen stating it was isn't remotely enough to press charges against Trump.

...but Pecker, a close trump friend, is corroborating Cohen's testimony that trump knew what it was for. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-14-2018, 11:52 AM)Au165 Wrote: ...but Pecker, a close trump friend, is corroborating Cohen's testimony that trump knew what it was for. 

That the payment was for Daniels?  Or that the payment's intent was to prevent her from damaging the campaign?

[GMDino]

(11-14-2018, 12:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That the payment was for Daniels?  Or that the payment's intent was to prevent her from damaging the campaign?

Yes.

[fredtoast]

(11-13-2018, 11:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Actually, in this case it's all completely true.  Real evidence for the crime didn't exist until Cohen pled to it.  If they had evidence that trump committed this crime then it would have been brought forward.  The crime exists because Cohen agreed to plea to it in return for a lighter sentencing on his tax evasion.  If there is evidence of a crime outside of Cohen pleading guilty then you'd be absolutely right.  Seeing as how I've pointed out several times that there is an easy and foolproof defense for Trump against this charge, basically saying the payment for for anything else on Earth other than preventing her from hurting his campaign.  If all you have is Cohen saying it was for the campaign and Trump saying it was not then you have no real case outside of a guy trying to save his own ass on completely unrelated charges.

What about the fact that the money Cohen paid horseface was re-imbursed as "campaign expenses".

[Au165]

(11-14-2018, 12:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That the payment was for Daniels?  Or that the payment's intent was to prevent her from damaging the campaign?

That the payment's intent was to protect the campaign heading into the election. That is why they gave Pecker immunity from being charged for this very crime. Had it not been with the intent to protect the campaign it would not have been illegal, and pecker wouldn't have needed immunity from federal prosecutors. While you can make the case about Cohen's intent with the other charges pending, the campaign finance charge was the only thing on the table for Pecker.

[fredtoast]

This is an amazing example of how brainwashed the Trump supporters are. Trump flat out lied about his knowledge of the payoffs to Danials. If he tries to take the stand the prosecution will use his lies to impeach him. But Trump supporters think that every juror will believe everything Trump says no matter what.

They simply can not imagine anyone doubting that Trump is telling the truth even when there is evidence that he has already lied about it.

[Benton]

(11-13-2018, 11:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Actually, in this case it's all completely true.  Real evidence for the crime didn't exist until Cohen pled to it.

That we know of.

If one person's word is the only evidence, it wouldn't make a lot of sense to admit it, immunity aside. Unless there's evidence,or he fears trump might say something.