• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ken Starr on Trump's Legal Jeopardy: 'We're Nowhere Near' Indictable or Impeachable Offenses

veritas1 said:
Third degree Trump hate is a nasty thing to observe. Law means nothing, only the objective.
Click to expand...

Over two years of this already... One would think the energizer batteries would need replacing by now.
Elections only mean something if the DEMS. don't lose...
 
veritas1 said:
Where you fail is in calling it a "campaign contribution" It is no such thing.
Click to expand...

Where you fail is in that it was, Cohen copped to it, and he's been sentenced tomorrow according;.

Thanks for proving my point about you and admitting that you simply have no idea what you're talking about.
 
sangha said:
That is what Nixon said
Click to expand...

Comparing Nixon's high crimes to Trump paying out of his own pocket hush money is really, really a dumb reach.
 
JasperL said:
It would be very difficult to come up with someone whose opinion I care less about than Ken Starr, but on the narrow claims he's making, he's correct. We basically don't know anything and nothing will happen until Mueller gets done and issues a report.
Click to expand...

Bingo!
 
JasperL said:
I think we're all better off going with the opinion of the SDNY than hacks like Dershowitz.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5453401-SDNY-Cohen-sentencing-memo.html

Stormy tried to sell her story to the National Enquirer. The chairman contacted Trump's team, said, hey, we got another bimbo eruption, you guys need to handle it! So they did - buying her story with an NDA. How is that extortion? If Cohen had done nothing, she'd have simply told her story, which she's entitled to do, for money or for free depending on whether bottom feeders like the National Enquirer believe her story is worth paying for.

BTW, Avenatti didn't get hired until well after the NDA, so your timeline is pathetically wrong.

And the crime isn't that Trump paid her off with his own, personal, funds. If he wasn't advised by idiots perhaps that's what he would have done. Instead, he had his fixer (Cohen) pay off Stormy, then ran that bill through his companies as 'legal expenses' over the next year or so. And Cohen cannot legally make campaign contributions on behalf of Trump for $150,000, and he sure cannot do it without the campaign disclosing the contributions. Also, companies cannot make those kinds of contributions either, which is what Trump's companies did by paying off Cohen's illegal contribution.
Click to expand...

I see. So, Dershowitz is a hack now because he has debunked this nonsense. Paying Stormy to keep quiet is not a campaign contribution nor is it a crime unless the thing she's being paid to shut up about is a crime, which this obviously is not. This whole line of attack is specious and it will fail.
 
veritas1 said:
Of course it happened. Otherwise there was no reason for Trump to give them a dime.
Click to expand...

The women initially approached the National Enquirer, not Trump. When Trump found out because the National Enquirer owner was a MAGA man, and then Cohen and Trump colluded with the National Enquirer to buy the women's silence, that's just not extortion. The women have the right to tell their story.
 
veritas1 said:
No, the standard is that an actual crime has to occur. People refer to the John Edwards case but Edwards took money from campaign donations to cover up his affair. Trump did no such thing. If using your own money to keep derogatory information from becoming public is a crime, then probably many members of Congress could be charged. What's really funny is that taxpayers pay to maintain a fund for Congress to pay settlements with victims of sexual abuse by members. That is OK but Trump paying his own money is some crime? Not even close.
Click to expand...

That’s not the standard. The Constitution does not define what constitutes a high crime and misdemeanor. There is the common usage of those terms from the time of the founding which covered a wide range of behavior much of which weren’t actual crimes. For example dereliction of duty was considered a high crime by the founders.

The truth though is that the House and the House alone has impeachment power so they can define the terms anyway they want. The only check on that is the Senate’s ability to refuse to convict.
 
Last edited:
veritas1 said:
Where you fail is in calling it a "campaign contribution" It is no such thing.
Click to expand...

Cohen plea bargained and told the prosecutors exactly what they wanted to hear. That doesn't mean the prosecutors proved their case against Trump.

The burden, if push comes to shove, will be for the state of NY to prove Trump used campaign funds to repay Cohen who used his own loan money in a private transaction to protect Trump's reputation, brand, and keep the affair from his wife, Melania. It's going to be an awful tough burden for NY to prove Trump's money was "intended" for any other reason. Cohen's word is not credible. He told the NY prosecutors what they wanted to hear to save himself.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Where you fail is in that it was, Cohen copped to it, and he's been sentenced tomorrow according;.

Thanks for proving my point about you and admitting that you simply have no idea what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

Cohen can "cop" to anything. That doesn't mean any crime occurred or that Trump violated any law whatever. Threaten people and you can get them to say pretty much anything. That's the tactic Mueller and his crew are using. As Judge Ellis said, threaten people and they will not only sing but compose.
 
veritas1 said:
Please, D'Souza made an illegal campaign contribution to a Senate candidate. That is wholly different from this situation. Funny that Dershowitz also found the charges against D'Souza to be exaggerated and called it "selective prosecution".
Click to expand...

And Trump made an illegal contribution to a presidential candidate
 
trixare4kids said:
Cohen plea bargained and told the prosecutors exactly what they wanted to hear. That doesn't mean the prosecutors proved their case against Trump.

The burden, if push comes to shove, will be for the state of NY to prove Trump used campaign funds to repay Cohen who used his own loan money in a private transaction to protect Trump's reputation, brand, and keep the affair from his wife, Melania. It's going to be an awful tough burden for NY to prove Trump's money was "intended" for any other reason. Cohen's word is not credible. He told the NY prosecutors what they wanted to hear to save himself.
Click to expand...

Precisely.
 
veritas1 said:
I see. So, Dershowitz is a hack now because he has debunked this nonsense. Paying Stormy to keep quiet is not a campaign contribution nor is it a crime unless the thing she's being paid to shut up about is a crime, which this obviously is not. This whole line of attack is specious and it will fail.
Click to expand...

Dersh has an opinion, and hasn't debunked anything.

Whether it's a campaign contribution or not is a question of fact. If the parties did it for purposes of winning an election, and that's what the evidence shows - a rush to get it done so that Stormy (for example) stays quiet through the election - then it's at least arguably election related, and if taken to trial a question for a jury. Maybe the argument is Trump did it to protect his marriage, or to avoid public embarrassment. That's a decent enough argument, but if that's the case, why do they care whether the NDA gets done before the election?

What it most definitely is not is extortion by Stormy or McDougall. They tried to sell their stories to the National Enquirer, which is also legal. When Trump and Cohen decide to buy their silence, that's their choice, to prevent her from doing what she has every right to do, which is talk about an affair she had with Trump.
 
JasperL said:
Dersh has an opinion, and hasn't debunked anything.

Whether it's a campaign contribution or not is a question of fact. If the parties did it for purposes of winning an election, and that's what the evidence shows - a rush to get it done so that Stormy (for example) stays quiet through the election - then it's at least arguably election related, and if taken to trial a question for a jury. Maybe the argument is Trump did it to protect his marriage, or to avoid public embarrassment. That's a decent enough argument, but if that's the case, why do they care whether the NDA gets done before the election?

What it most definitely is not is extortion by Stormy or McDougall. They tried to sell their stories to the National Enquirer, which is also legal. When Trump and Cohen decide to buy their silence, that's their choice, to prevent her from doing what she has every right to do, which is talk about an affair she had with Trump.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
sangha said:
That is true

Trumps crimes are far more serious and extensive
Click to expand...

You forgot to add to the above, "IMO."

Unless you're all knowing, no way one can honestly make a statement like yours.
 
trixare4kids said:
Esteemed legal scholar Jonathan Turley, a commentator and writer for MSM also can't see the there that is there regarding Trump being in hot water.
I guess we shouldn't take Turley seriously either. :lol:
Click to expand...

Why, let's take a look at what Turley actually said. This was in regards to the filings agianst Michael Cohen, a large portion of which was redacted.

He wrote

The fact is these filings present a serious threat for Trump but do not yet establish a clear likelihood of imprisonment or even impeachment of the president.
Click to expand...

Now, there are certain points to be made. He said 'not yet', and he is basing his evaluation on just the parts made public. The key was 'it was a serious threat', but 'not yet to the point of impeachment or imprisonment'. Now, it all depends on what you think is 'hot water', and what the redacted sections say, and what those dozens of seal indictments are.
 
JasperL said:
Dersh has an opinion, and hasn't debunked anything.

Whether it's a campaign contribution or not is a question of fact. If the parties did it for purposes of winning an election, and that's what the evidence shows - a rush to get it done so that Stormy (for example) stays quiet through the election - then it's at least arguably election related, and if taken to trial a question for a jury. Maybe the argument is Trump did it to protect his marriage, or to avoid public embarrassment. That's a decent enough argument, but if that's the case, why do they care whether the NDA gets done before the election?

What it most definitely is not is extortion by Stormy or McDougall. They tried to sell their stories to the National Enquirer, which is also legal. When Trump and Cohen decide to buy their silence, that's their choice, to prevent her from doing what she has every right to do, which is talk about an affair she had with Trump.
Click to expand...

In avoiding public embarrassment he will prevent possible damage to his presidential prospects. That would go for anyone, not just Trump. John Edwards did the same but the difference was that he used $1M in campaign funds to do it. That's why his career ended. Had he used his own funds, he may have lost the nomination but he would not have been charged with a crime. There is a difference between a poor personal choice and breaking the law. Democrats are attempting to conflate the two in their eagerness to get Trump.
 
JasperL said:
Maybe the argument is Trump did it to protect his marriage, or to avoid public embarrassment. That's a decent enough argument, but if that's the case, why do they care whether the NDA gets done before the election?
Click to expand...

Since the relationships Trump has with MacDougal and Daniels had already been made public, I do not think that argument will be found credible.
 
veritas1 said:
Cohen can "cop" to anything. That doesn't mean any crime occurred or that Trump violated any law whatever. Threaten people and you can get them to say pretty much anything. That's the tactic Mueller and his crew are using. As Judge Ellis said, threaten people and they will not only sing but compose.
Click to expand...

Yawn. If he were innocent, he wouldn't have to cop to anything. He'd be well-served by fighting the charges.

Again: why are you talking about things you're completely and laughably ignorant of? Trump is alleged to have directed him to commit felonies. He's an as-of-yet unindicted co-conspirator.

Sad how some people simply can't face facts.

Thanks for proving my point yet again.
 
trixare4kids said:
You forgot to add to the above, "IMO."

Unless you're all knowing, no way one can honestly make a statement like yours.
Click to expand...

The statement he made is absurd. Nixon engaged in a campaign to protect his underlings and in so doing committed obstruction of justice. The Trump situation is miles away from that. It's not in the same solar system.
 
RAMOSS said:
Why, let's take a look at what Turley actually said. This was in regards to the filings agianst Michael Cohen, a large portion of which was redacted.

He wrote



Now, there are certain points to be made. He said 'not yet', and he is basing his evaluation on just the parts made public. The key was 'it was a serious threat', but 'not yet to the point of impeachment or imprisonment'. Now, it all depends on what you think is 'hot water', and what the redacted sections say, and what those dozens of seal indictments are.
Click to expand...

Which precisely is my point as it relates to the name of the thread title; "Ken Starr on Trump's Legal Jeopardy: 'We're Nowhere Near' Indictable or Impeachable Offenses."

Turley said: The fact is these filings present a serious threat for Trump but do not yet establish a clear likelihood of imprisonment or even impeachment of the president.

There's NO there, there.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Yawn. If he were innocent, he wouldn't have to cop to anything. He'd be well-served by fighting the charges.

Again: why are you talking about things you're completely and laughably ignorant of? Trump is alleged to have directed him to commit felonies. He's an as-of-yet unindicted co-conspirator.

Sad how some people simply can't face facts.

Thanks for proving my point yet again.
Click to expand...

What felonies? Using your own money for something NOT a crime, is hardly a felony. Now, destroying evidence subpoenaed by Congress. yea that's a felony. Wonder who did that.
 
trixare4kids said:
Which precisely is my point as it relates to the name of the thread title; "Ken Starr on Trump's Legal Jeopardy: 'We're Nowhere Near' Indictable or Impeachable Offenses."

Turley said: The fact is these filings present a serious threat for Trump but do not yet establish a clear likelihood of imprisonment or even impeachment of the president.

There's NO there, there.
Click to expand...

I rather suspect that when push comes to shove, yes, there will be. This is only in the case of building a campaign finance case against Trump.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom