Of*course if it is shown he did not collude then there will be no shortage of low info people who will ignore it and believe he did anyway. Just as there is no shortage of low info people who honestly believe Russia actually rigged votes.
Unsubstantiated claims made somehow in a guilty plea are not proof.
I'm not trying to "defend Trump", I'm trying to be realistic. Trump will claim he ordered the payments but not in an illegal manner, or he didn't know his request was in an illegal manner and no one told him. That is what "proof" is up against, and it's gonna need more than a scumbag lawyer's word.
I didn't say you trying to "defend Trump." I'm taking issue with the no proof claim.
You're making a credibility judgment, but that doesn't mean that Cohen's word - and potential eventual testimony - does not count as evidence aka "proof". In a hypothetical trials, other jurors might find him credible. Then it would be probative evidence to them. And as I said, a single witness's testimony can be not just evidence but proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Maybe it seems like a fine distinction, but it's an important one. People around here are constantly declaring that what people say they saw/heard isn't proof or isn't evidence when it is.
I'm responding to the claim of the thread title. For me at least, and I would bet in court, the tapes we've already seen and Cohen's word does not constitute proof.
If that's all there is, Cohen's claims (somehow appearing in a guilty plea) are a nothing burger legally.
Your credibility judgment of Cohen doesn't represent all possible (or even likely) credibility judgments of Cohen.
:shrug:
I'm responding to the claim of the thread title. For me at least, and I would bet in court, the tapes we've already seen and Cohen's word does not constitute proof.
If that's all there is, Cohen's claims (somehow appearing in a guilty plea) are a nothing burger legally.
Again, it's not about proof. You just need to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. No reasonable person would believe that Cohen acted on his own. If Cohen says Trump directed him then any reasonable person would believe him.
After Cohen took out a $130k home equity loan to pay off Stormy, the Trump organization paid Cohen $400k as compensation. Trump paid Cohen to commit a crime so his hands wouldn't get dirty.
Two charges, 7 & 8. Right now we have only Cohen's word, which is worthless.
Prosecutors accepted his guilty plea after he made his statements under oath. Not exactly worthless.
Not proof for me. There needs to be something behind the claims.
No offense, but if it was good enough for prosecutors, then that carries more weight than what is good enough for you.
Prosecutors didn't convict Trump.
Do you personally believe that Trump is innocent? Do you think a jury would believe Cohen acted on his own?
Prosecutors didn't convict Trump.
I get your point, but it's important to take things one step at a time. And each step is definitely important.
It's my opinion that a convicted, slimeball, self serving, ass saving lawyer pointing the finger at others does not constitute anything.
How his claims appeared in a guilty plea is beyond me.
I think people are way over-expecting the significance of this step. Cohen's word and the tapes we've seen are not proof. Trump will claim, "nah uh". Then what?
You're still making excuses for him. And good luck with the insults.I'm not a Trump supporter. Your idiocy is cute.
Cohen, who is still a lawyer and knows the consequences, said under oath that Trump directed him to make the payoff, in order to influence the election.Cohen's word is not proof. The tapes we've access to are not proof. The thread title is "proof".
And good luck with the insults.
That's a total failure to respond to my points. Very impressive.Snowflakes shouldn't throw stones. How's that one, cutie?
Thread title.
Doing it doesn't mean he said to do it illegally or knew that a way he proposed was illegal.
You're still making excuses for him. And good luck with the insults.
Cohen, who is still a lawyer and knows the consequences, said under oath that Trump directed him to make the payoff, in order to influence the election.
This is not like bragging to your buddies or telling CNN that "truth is not truth." If he is caught in a lie, he could be looking at perjury charges, another trial and another 5 years in jail. He could face a defamation suit too, given that Trump sues at the drop of a hat.
Cohen has absolutely nothing to gain with this confession. The plea does not include any cooperation with prosecutors. He's wrecking any chance he has for a pardon with this statement. If the prosecutors haven't already found evidence to back up what Cohen is saying, it's only a matter of time.
The timing fits. The payment fits. Claiming that "Cohen is now lying" doesn't fit.
There is little doubt that Trump violated campaign finance laws and lied about it. If you need more proof, just be patient. It won't be long.
I think people are way over-expecting the significance of this step. Cohen's word and the tapes we've seen are not proof. Trump will claim, "nah uh". Then what?
I can assure you that Cohen has proof, probably in the form of another tape. Cohen has to prove his allegation or he would not have made the allegation. Simple as that.
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?