Straining Credulity (1 Viewer)

[Xelor]

There's a line going around that it hasn't been proven that Trump instructed or bid Michael Cohen to pay $130K or more to keep two women quiet. Puh-lease!

Who in their right mind would take a loan against their home to issue a $130K hugh-money payment to a third party and do so unilaterally rather than at the behest of the person on behalf of whose reputation the payment is made?

I don't know a soul, not even my demented mother or my adolescent nephews and nieces, who'd do that, or even consider doing it. Yet that's the essence of what some folks'd have us, the public, believe Michael Cohen did when he set up a shell company and paid Ms. Clifford to keep mum about her tryst with Trump.

Could that have happened? Yes, but it strains credulity to think it did happen. Because preposterous is the proposition that Cohen just up and shelled out $130K to Ms. Clifford, if one's of a mind to convince me Trump didn't bid Cohen to make the payment, one's going to have to show me some sort of very credible evidence that Michael Cohen made that payment of his own originally-conceived volition.

 

[Mycroft]

There's a line going around that it hasn't been proven that Trump instructed or bid Michael Cohen to pay $130K or more to keep two women quiet. Puh-lease!

Who in their right mind would take a loan against their home to issue a $130K hugh-money payment to a third party and do so unilaterally rather than at the behest of the person on behalf of whose reputation the payment is made?

I don't know a soul, not even my demented mother or my adolescent nephews and nieces, who'd do that, or even consider doing it. Yet that's the essence of what some folks'd have us, the public, believe Michael Cohen did when he set up a shell company and paid Ms. Clifford to keep mum about her tryst with Trump.

Could that have happened? Yes, but it strains credulity to think it did happen. Because preposterous is the proposition that Cohen just up and shelled out $130K to Ms. Clifford, if one's of a mind to convince me Trump didn't bid Cohen to make the payment, one's going to have to show me some sort of very credible evidence that Michael Cohen made that payment of his own originally-conceived volition.

What strains credulity is the notion that paying women to keep their mouths shut is illegal...but the Trump haters want people to think that.

 

[ttwtt78640]

What strains credulity is the notion that paying women to keep their mouths shut is illegal...but the Trump haters want people to think that.

More so the idea that someone running for office must disclose the existence of a NDA or be guilty of a federal crime.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

What strains credulity is the notion that paying women to keep their mouths shut is illegal...but the Trump haters want people to think that.

It is if it's done like Cohen and Trump did it.

But the Trump worshipers don't want people to think that.

 

[Amelia]

There's a line going around that it hasn't been proven that Trump instructed or bid Michael Cohen to pay $130K or more to keep two women quiet. Puh-lease!

Who in their right mind would take a loan against their home to issue a $130K hugh-money payment to a third party and do so unilaterally rather than at the behest of the person on behalf of whose reputation the payment is made?

I don't know a soul, not even my demented mother or my adolescent nephews and nieces, who'd do that, or even consider doing it. Yet that's the essence of what some folks'd have us, the public, believe Michael Cohen did when he set up a shell company and paid Ms. Clifford to keep mum about her tryst with Trump.

Could that have happened? Yes, but it strains credulity to think it did happen. Because preposterous is the proposition that Cohen just up and shelled out $130K to Ms. Clifford, if one's of a mind to convince me Trump didn't bid Cohen to make the payment, one's going to have to show me some sort of very credible evidence that Michael Cohen made that payment of his own originally-conceived volition.

Trump admitted it happened. Now the question is whether or not it is illegal.

Of course Trumpsters say no, it is not illegal -- though they would easily have deduced it to be illegal if Obama had been involved in trying to squash stories of infidelity in order to avoid bad election publicity, especially with payment off the books so that it wouldn't be subject to campaign finance scrutiny.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Corroborating evidence is available, I believe, in the Cohen sentencing redactions. And IIRC, Cohen revealed that he had a habit of recording conversations with clients.

 

[sangha]

More so the idea that someone running for office must disclose the existence of a NDA or be guilty of a federal crime.

Why do you continue to argue that the crime was not disclosing the existence of an NDA when you know the crime is not reporting campaign contributions?

 

[Praxas]

Why do you continue to argue that the crime was not disclosing the existence of an NDA when you know the crime is not reporting campaign contributions?

Because deflection is all they have. Thanks to trumps own lies and tweets, along with coroberating evidence, it is painting a picture that Trumps actions were illegal and they can’t have that because it destroys their narrative of “fake news” and “witch hunt”.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Why do you continue to argue that the crime was not disclosing the existence of an NDA when you know the crime is not reporting campaign contributions?

I understand the 'process crime' idea but the crime seems to be simply that Trump (foolishly?) did not make that DNA payment himself.

 

[sangha]

Corroborating evidence is available, I believe, in the Cohen sentencing redactions. And IIRC, Cohen revealed that he had a habit of recording conversations with clients.

Yes, the SDNYs sentencing statements states that they have evidence which corroborates Cohen. In addition, David Pecker -- personal friend of Trump and publisher of the National Enquirer who signed and paid for an NDA with Ms McDougal -- has been granted immunity in exchange for his testimony about the illegal campaign contribution

 

[sangha]

I understand the 'process crime' idea but the crime seems to be simply that Trump (foolishly?) did not make that DNA payment himself.

Why do you continue to dishonestly argue that the crime about making a payment for an NDA, when you know it is about not reporting it?

 

[JustHanging]

Why do you continue to argue that the crime was not disclosing the existence of an NDA when you know the crime is not reporting campaign contributions?

Because distraction and deflection are their only arguments.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Not reporting a payment intended to influence an election is a felony.

 

[Rexedgar]

Not reporting a payment intended to influence an election is a felony.

I hope there is more; but this fits the Trump/GOP playbook: “no we didn’t, maybe we did, we did, but it isn’t illegal, in your face!”

 

[Xelor]

Trump admitted it happened. Now the question is whether or not it is illegal.

Of course Trumpsters say no, it is not illegal -- though they would easily have deduced it to be illegal if Obama had been involved in trying to squash stories of infidelity in order to avoid bad election publicity, especially with payment off the books so that it wouldn't be subject to campaign finance scrutiny.

I think you've been mislead.

• What you've described, the adultery, is the moral/ethical offense, and it is the transgression Trump aimed to keep secret, at least until after the election.
• The first legal offense isn't that Trump/Cohen attempted to squash the story. It's that:
  • Cohen made the payment --> That Cohen made the payment violates campaign contribution laws/limits.
  • Trump didn't personally make the payment --> Trump could have made the payment from his own funds and it'd have been lawful. If Trump had personally made the payment, so long as he reported it as one of his campaign's disbursements, there'd be no legal violation.
• The second legal offense is that Trump created a personal financial liability to Michael Cohen when Trump agreed to reimburse Cohen for the payment and didn't report the liability on his SF-87 form.

 

[Xelor]

More so the idea that someone running for office must disclose the existence of a NDA or be guilty of a federal crime.

See post 15.

 

[Amelia]

I think you've been mislead.

• What you've described, the adultery, is the moral/ethical offense, and it is the transgression Trump aimed to keep secret, at least until after the election.
• The first legal offense isn't that Trump/Cohen attempted to squash the story. It's that:
  • Cohen made the payment --> That Cohen made the payment violates campaign contribution laws/limits.
  • Trump didn't personally make the payment --> Trump could have made the payment from his own funds and it'd have been lawful. If Trump had personally made the payment, so long as he reported it as one of his campaign's disbursements, there'd be no legal violation.
• The second legal offense is that Trump created a personal financial liability to Michael Cohen when Trump agreed to reimburse Cohen for the payment and didn't report the liability on his SF-87 form.

I don't see how you think I am "mislead". I was being snarky and projecting what Trumpsters would say. And I nailed it.

As to when I mentioned a squashed story, I was also thinking of how the National Enquirer is involved. FWIW.

 

[Xelor]

I think you've been mislead.

• What you've described, the adultery, is the moral/ethical offense, and it is the transgression Trump aimed to keep secret, at least until after the election.
• The first legal offense isn't that Trump/Cohen attempted to squash the story. It's that:
  • Cohen made the payment --> That Cohen made the payment violates campaign contribution laws/limits.
  • Trump didn't personally make the payment --> Trump could have made the payment from his own funds and it'd have been lawful. If Trump had personally made the payment, so long as he reported it as one of his campaign's disbursements, there'd be no legal violation.
• The second legal offense is that Trump created a personal financial liability to Michael Cohen when Trump agreed to reimburse Cohen for the payment and didn't report the liability on his SF-87 form.

Apologies for the typo: misled. That sentence originally had a different construction. I opted to switch it to the passive voice and didn't correct the verb.

 

[Xelor]

I don't see how you think I am "mislead". I was being snarky and projecting what Trumpsters would say. And I nailed it.

As to when I mentioned a squashed story, I was also thinking of how the National Enquirer is involved. FWIW.

Red:
I didn't realize that's what you were doing. My mistake.

 

[JANFU]

What strains credulity is the notion that paying women to keep their mouths shut is illegal...but the Trump haters want people to think that.

I am sure he has paid women to keep their mouths open. Stories killed by AMI at a later date, and or were some of these requests from Trump??

Now Trump has been named, by SDNY for 2 counts of election fraud. One can argue how important or not this is, one biggie, regardless of how one colors except for one big problem. Felonies

DOJ has indicated that Trump committed election fraud -Felonies

Not often that happens, nor should it. Felonies that is
Off topic
One song came to mind in all this, a play on Dean Martins song Memories, more Felonies are coming.
For lyrics start with how Trump played so many, and still plays them or as I see it, really ****ed them over

 

[Mr Person]

What strains credulity is the notion that paying women to keep their mouths shut is illegal...but the Trump haters want people to think that.

More so the idea that someone running for office must disclose the existence of a NDA or be guilty of a federal crime.

Psssst: it's about campaign finance laws, not about "the notion that paying women to keep their mouths shut"

If the real complaint is that you don't like campaign finance laws, say that. Don't pretend it's about "the notion that paying women to keep their mouths shut" is illegal." Anyone who has bothered to pay even a little attention knows full well that that is an oversimplification so great that it resulted in a dishonest statement.

At any rate, I can rest assured that federal juries are told what the actual law is, and do seem to make a least a bit of effort of fitting the facts into the actual law. Unless the lawyers and judge to a terrible job of screening biased jurors, they're not going to be sitting in the jury room pretending that they're being asked to decide something other than what they're actually being asked to decide.





That's what people need to understand: you can build coalitions online of people lying to each other, sure, but an actual crime was committed the only thing saving Trump would be that it's a federal crime and a GOP'er wins next. Claiming an investigation about campaign finance violations is actually about hush agreements in general is not going to do a damned thing in court (and if the lawyer tells the jury that, the judge is going to embarrass them by cutting them off and telling the jury the argument was false, then perhaps referring them to the BBO)

 

[Mr Person]

I understand the 'process crime' idea but the crime seems to be simply that Trump (foolishly?) did not make that DNA payment himself.

Allright, which RW media source suddenly started telling everyone to use the term 'process crime'? I don't care if the term previously existed. Suddenly, a whole lot of people somewhere on the right started using it, and doing so in a manner that gives it a disparaging connotation, as if a "process crime" is somehow less serious than a "non-process crime". (And of course, nobody bothers to argue that. They just label it a "process crime" and say no more).

 

[Risky Thicket]

Corroborating evidence is available, I believe, in the Cohen sentencing redactions. And IIRC, Cohen revealed that he had a habit of recording conversations with clients.

In addition, though we haven't heard much about Trump CFO, Allen Weisselberg, there is certainly a fair chance that given his position and tenure with the Trump Organization Weisselberg may well be able to corroborate evidence related to Trump payoffs to keep at least two of his paramours silent during the campaign.

 

[Mycroft]

I am sure he has paid women to keep their mouths open. Stories killed by AMI at a later date, and or were some of these requests from Trump??

Now Trump has been named, by SDNY for 2 counts of election fraud. One can argue how important or not this is, one biggie, regardless of how one colors except for one big problem. Felonies

DOJ has indicated that Trump committed election fraud -Felonies

Not often that happens, nor should it. Felonies that is
Off topic
One song came to mind in all this, a play on Dean Martins song Memories, more Felonies are coming.
For lyrics start with how Trump played so many, and still plays them or as I see it, really ****ed them over

shrug...

They can charge Jesus Christ for consorting with the Devil. Doesn't mean a thing unless they:

1. Prove that is a crime.

2. Prove that Jesus is guilty of committing it.

The same is true with this nonsense about Trump.

 

[Mycroft]

Psssst: it's about campaign finance laws, not about "the notion that paying women to keep their mouths shut"

If the real complaint is that you don't like campaign finance laws, say that. Don't pretend it's about "the notion that paying women to keep their mouths shut" is illegal." Anyone who has bothered to pay even a little attention knows full well that that is an oversimplification so great that it resulted in a dishonest statement.

At any rate, I can rest assured that federal juries are told what the actual law is, and do seem to make a least a bit of effort of fitting the facts into the actual law. Unless the lawyers and judge to a terrible job of screening biased jurors, they're not going to be sitting in the jury room pretending that they're being asked to decide something other than what they're actually being asked to decide.





That's what people need to understand: you can build coalitions online of people lying to each other, sure, but an actual crime was committed the only thing saving Trump would be that it's a federal crime and a GOP'er wins next. Claiming an investigation about campaign finance violations is actually about hush agreements in general is not going to do a damned thing in court (and if the lawyer tells the jury that, the judge is going to embarrass them by cutting them off and telling the jury the argument was false, then perhaps referring them to the BBO)

shrug...

You don't need to convince me. You'll need to convince a judge.