Donald Trump was the third person in the room in August 2015 when his lawyer Michael Cohen and National Enquirer publisher David Pecker discussed ways Pecker could help counter negative stories about Trump's relationships with women, NBC News has confirmed.
As part of a nonprosecution agreement disclosed Wednesday by federal prosecutors, American Media Inc., the Enquirer's parent company, admitted that "Pecker offered to help deal with negative stories about that presidential candidate's relationships with women by, among other things, assisting the campaign in identifying such stories so they could be purchased and their publication avoided."
The "statement of admitted facts" says that AMI admitted making a $150,000 payment "in concert with the campaign," and says that Pecker, Cohen and "at least one other member of the campaign" were in the meeting. According to a person familiar with the matter, the "other member" was Trump.
Trump was first identified as attending the meeting by The Wall Street Journal.
Daniel Goldman, an NBC News analyst and former assistant U.S. attorney said the agreement doesn't detail what Trump said and did in the meeting. "But if Trump is now in the room, as early as August of 2015 and in combination with the recording where Trump clearly knows what Cohen is talking about with regarding to David Pecker, you now squarely place Trump in the middle of a conspiracy to commit campaign finance fraud."
This effectively causes the last of Trump's narrative in defense of himself to evaporate. Since both David Pecker and Michael Cohen, along with the corroborating evidence the SDNY already has, support criminal intent on the part of Trump to engage in criminal conspiracy to commit campaign finance fraud, we should see trump's defense changing soon to "this crime isn't enough for impeachment."
Assuming the current rate of revelations remains consistent, Trump's narrative will turn to "You can't indict me; I'm the President" in under a month.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/ju...nbc-news-confirms-n947536?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma
His argument is "If you try to overturn an election on this sort of phony bologna BS the people will riot".
His argument is "If you try to overturn an election on this sort of phony bologna BS the people will riot".
If it's phony then he has nothing to worry about. Unfortunately, it's most likely not, considering what we even publicly know.
I figure that you may actually know what I am talking about but pretend that you dont, an uncivil act, but here goes the restate.....what is claimed happened and what almost certainly did happen is an extremely minor error
, it is not worthy of the charging of a crime much less the over turning of a free and fair election.
Do you think that's a good argument for committing a crime?
This effectively causes the last of Trump's narrative in defense of himself to evaporate. Since both David Pecker and Michael Cohen, along with the corroborating evidence the SDNY already has, support criminal intent on the part of Trump to engage in criminal conspiracy to commit campaign finance fraud, we should see trump's defense changing soon to "this crime isn't enough for impeachment."
Assuming the current rate of revelations remains consistent, Trump's narrative will turn to "You can't indict me; I'm the President" in under a month.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/ju...nbc-news-confirms-n947536?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma
High crimes and misdemeanors....
I'm no lawyer but isn't a felony considered a high crime?
If a sitting president is known to have committed a felony, and a felony is considered a high crime, would we not be amiss just to let it go unchallenged?
Are we, or are we not, a nation of laws?
Still, until Trump is proven, as a matter of fact, to have committed a felony, we are all getting ahead of ourselves.
Patience...
Soon come, mon. Soon come.
Cultists like Hawkeye here think that a felony is an extremely minor thing to do, and that it's very tough to not just accidentally commit one, so he should get a pass.
Not sure what that means for the rule of law. I suppose we should enforce laws based on how Hawkeye feels about them. Idk
You realize that during reelection (if he runs, Im not sure he will) that he will be begging his gatherings to reelect him so that they can't indict him?
Trumps secret service code name should be "dumpster fire".
We should fix the justice system, but almost no one ever has any interest in doing that....I have been talking about this for decades.
We should fix the justice system, but almost no one ever has any interest in doing that....I have been talking about this for decades.
Oh well in the mean time I guess we shouldn't enforce the laws
We should fix the justice system, but almost no one ever has any interest in doing that....I have been talking about this for decades.
This effectively causes the last of Trump's narrative in defense of himself to evaporate. Since both David Pecker and Michael Cohen, along with the corroborating evidence the SDNY already has, support criminal intent on the part of Trump to engage in criminal conspiracy to commit campaign finance fraud, we should see trump's defense changing soon to "this crime isn't enough for impeachment."
Assuming the current rate of revelations remains consistent, Trump's narrative will turn to "You can't indict me; I'm the President" in under a month.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/ju...nbc-news-confirms-n947536?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma
we should fix the justice system, but almost no one ever has any interest in doing that....i have been talking about this for decades.
This effectively causes the last of Trump's narrative in defense of himself to evaporate. Since both David Pecker and Michael Cohen, along with the corroborating evidence the SDNY already has, support criminal intent on the part of Trump to engage in criminal conspiracy to commit campaign finance fraud, we should see trump's defense changing soon to "this crime isn't enough for impeachment."
Assuming the current rate of revelations remains consistent, Trump's narrative will turn to "You can't indict me; I'm the President" in under a month.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/ju...nbc-news-confirms-n947536?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma
His argument is "If you try to overturn an election on this sort of phony bologna BS the people will riot".
What kind of fixes to the justice system do you want?
"lock her up!"
His argument is "If you try to overturn an election on this sort of phony bologna BS the people will riot".
Sure, that's why the judge called it a serious crime, it's a felony, and is exactly NOT an error, but instead a sophisticated scheme perpetrated by 3 or more people to commit a felony.Iwhat almost certainly did happen is an extremely minor error, it is not worthy of the charging of a crime .
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?