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.
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.
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.
The thread is loaded with intellectual dishonesty.
SSDD, different thread.
OK, but buried in that response is an assumption that what Cohen said was untrue, and that there's no evidence to support his story. You just don't know that. I can't prove he does have evidence, but we know Cohen didn't trust Trump and recorded lots of conversations. It's also unbelievable that an attorney comes out of pocket for $150k, and is repaid that with bogus retainers totaling over $400k, and Trump isn't made aware of what the legal bills are paying for, which was Cohen taking care of bimbo eruptions. It's also unbelievable he'd risk $150k of his own money to pay off Stormy, and not run that by the boss ahead of time.
And Cohen didn't use his own money, at least not at the end of the day. He advanced the money and was repaid, plus taxes, plus fees, plus a bonus. The argument is the money was used for campaign purposes, which made it campaign funds.
You're right, as I understand it, that the argument for Trump is paying off the bimbo eruptions had nothing to do with the election, but with protecting his reputation as a choir boy, which he fostered by sleeping with a constant stream of women... That's a possible defense but it's a matter for a jury.
What felonies? You just proved my point again.
Womp womp.
Since the relationships Trump has with MacDougal and Daniels had already been made public, I do not think that argument will be found credible.
LOL! How on earth would you know?
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.
It doesn't matter what Cohen said, it's a proven fact that he didn't think he deserved jail time because he gave the NY prosecutors precisely what they wanted to hear to save his own ass. He said that!
It's a matter of public record. Now if there is something more damning in the eleven tapes we haven't heard yet, that's another story. IF Trump is indicted, the state will have to prove Trump used campaign funds so he could get elected.
That's their burden. Tough to prove; John Edwards?
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.
With the exception of this post of yours, I only reply to your intellectual dishonesty every now and then...
Obstruction of justice. I would imagine that using fake evidence bought by your campaign to get FISA warrants on your opponent and lying to the judge about it multiple times is also a felony. But hey, Trump paid Stormy to shut up. Oh, the humanity!!!!:lamo
Thanks again for proving my point.
Still, it's fun to watch you in so far over your head you just spout inanities.
Your tired canned responses simply let me know I'm right and you have no factual rejoinder. Thanks for playing.
Um, yeah, we all know that's how it works. :lol:Actually it was the House committee that initiated impeachment.
For what? All you'll do is hand wave them away and let out a primal "BUT HILLARY!" again.You'll have to provide a source/link for each and every one of those points.
Um, yeah, we all know that's how it works. :lol:
For what? All you'll do is hand wave them away and let out a primal "BUT HILLARY!" again.
And unless you've been stranded on an island, most of those points made the evening news.
Waits for the "fake news!" cry.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?