Trump's response to Michael Cohen's plea deal, dissected

[NeverTrump]

Just his response alone should tell you all you need to know that Swampy is a lying con-man. Overall though, I am impressed at how well thought out this response is. His claim against impeachment stems from an economic standpoint and says if he's impeached the economy will be ruined. It is a pretty good argument despite how wrong it is, people will believe.

1.

Trump says he knew about the payments -- $130,000 to porn star Stormy Daniels, $150,000 from American Media Inc. to ex-Playboy model Karen McDougal -- "later on."

That is a lie. He previously said he didn't know about any payments and denied the allegations flat-out.

2.

Trump is trying to draw some sort of distinction between paying the hush money out of campaign funds and paying them out of his own pocket. But, either way, it's illegal.

Hey Cult members, here that? He even admits to doing it.

3.

The comparison to Obama's fine by the FEC is a total and complete straw man.

Obama did not knowingly and willfully break the law. Swampy did-- numerous times.

4.

legal practice of flipping should almost 'be outlawed'

Yes only because his people are doing the flipping... Who he claimed never would :lamo

5.

I Get ‘Good Information by Watching a Number of Shows’

He previously claimed he didn't watch much TV because he was reading documents now he says he watches a number of shows. Yes, we all know Fox News is where he gets his primary information and as I've documented these same talking points were from Hannity the other night.

Trump's response to Michael Cohen's plea deal, dissected

Trump says longstanding legal practice of flipping should almost 'be outlawed'

Trump on Legal Issues: I Get ‘Good Information by Watching a Number of Shows’

 

[Bucky]

Just his response alone should tell you all you need to know that Swampy is a lying con-man.

1. That is a lie. He previously said he didn't know about any payments and denied the allegations flat-out.

2. Hey Cult members, here that? He even admits to doing it.

3. Obama did not knowingly and willfully break the law. Swampy did-- numerous times.

4. Yes only because his people are doing the flipping... Who he claimed never would :lamo

5. He previously claimed he didn't watch much TV because he was reading documents now he says he watches a number of shows. Yes, we all know Fox News is where he gets his primary information and as I've documented these same talking points were from Hannity the other night.

Trump's response to Michael Cohen's plea deal, dissected

Trump says longstanding legal practice of flipping should almost 'be outlawed'

Trump on Legal Issues: I Get ‘Good Information by Watching a Number of Shows’

Good work NeverTrumpGOP! Where would DP be without you?

 

[Xelor]

Is that from that "infomercial" of an interview Trump did with that blond lady?

Riddle me this....As serious and important as being implicated in criminal conspiracy is, why did Trump not chose to do his interview with one of Fox's "top shelf" journalists -- Chris Wallace (anchor), Shepard Smith (anchor), Brett Baier (anchor), Kevin Corke (WH correspondent) or John Roberts (he's Fox's chief WH correspondent)?

 

[NeverTrump]

Good work NeverTrumpGOP! Where would DP be without you?

Glad to be of service pointing out lies, hypocrisy, and government corruption like every good Republican should. :mrgreen:

 

[NeverTrump]

Is that from that "infomercial" of an interview Trump did with that blond lady?

Riddle me this....As serious and important as being implicated in criminal conspiracy is, why did Trump not chose to do his interview with one of Fox's "top shelf" journalists -- Chris Wallace (anchor), Shepard Smith (anchor), Brett Baier (anchor), Kevin Corke (WH correspondent) or John Roberts (he's Fox's chief WH correspondent)?

Yup. They tend not to agree with swampy on everything.

 

[What if...?]

Is that from that "infomercial" of an interview Trump did with that blond lady?

Riddle me this....As serious and important as being implicated in criminal conspiracy is, why did Trump not chose to do his interview with one of Fox's "top shelf" journalists -- Chris Wallace (anchor), Shepard Smith (anchor), Brett Baier (anchor), Kevin Corke (WH correspondent) or John Roberts (he's Fox's chief WH correspondent)?

They aren't hot blondes?

 

[Threegoofs]

Is that from that "infomercial" of an interview Trump did with that blond lady?

Riddle me this....As serious and important as being implicated in criminal conspiracy is, why did Trump not chose to do his interview with one of Fox's "top shelf" journalists -- Chris Wallace (anchor), Shepard Smith (anchor), Brett Baier (anchor), Kevin Corke (WH correspondent) or John Roberts (he's Fox's chief WH correspondent)?

Because he only wanted softball questions.

And even then, he screwed up and admitted to a crime.

Imagine if he got interviewed by a real journalist!

 

[NeverTrump]

Because he only wanted softball questions.

And even then, he screwed up and admitted to a crime.

Imagine if he got interviewed by a real journalist!

I think Don Lemon's head would explode if he got the chance.

 

[notquiteright]

Because he only wanted softball questions. And even then, he screwed up and admitted to a crime. Imagine if he got interviewed by a real journalist!

Well to be 'fair' he has publicly claimed he could murder someone in the street and get away with it.... what's a little fraud and felonies among (Fox and) friends???? eace

 

[Xelor]

The comparison to Obama's fine by the FEC is a total and complete straw man.

3. Obama did not knowingly and willfully break the law. Swampy did-- numerous times.

The Obama campaign's violations are precisely the same ones of which Trump was also fine for in his campaign.

• FEC hits Trump on 1,100 errors, totaling roughly $1.3M

they were of the same nature that all campaigns make, actus rei that occur absent mens rea, and that campaign treasurers simply correct -- return the contribution, submit an updated reporting of contributions/purchases, etc. -- by fully "owning" the mistake and the nature, timing and extent of the contribution and related unlawful act.

FWIW, rigorous analysts will bother to look will find that the violations of a similar nature the Obama campaign had were proportionally less frequent per dollar contributed and with regard to the total quantity of donations received. The pertained to one type of violation: not reporting within the required time period the receipt of donations of $1000 or more. The violations occurred in the 2008 campaign season.

$375,000 is a huge fine. It may one of their top five- or 10-largest fines. They’re also the first billion-dollar presidential campaign. Proportionally, it’s not out of line.
-- Jason Torchinsky, Republican election lawyer

Once again, one sees that Trump has relied on the general public's (and particularly his supporters') likely ignorance of the details of both his and Obama's "routine-grade" campaign finance administrative violations and their general reticence (if not flat-out refusal) to perform any measure of "halfway" rigorous due diligence of their own.

 

[NeverTrump]

The Obama campaign's violations are precisely the same ones of which Trump was also fine for in his campaign.

• FEC hits Trump on 1,100 errors, totaling roughly $1.3M

they were of the same nature that all campaigns make, actus rei that occur absent mens rea, and that campaign treasurers simply correct -- return the contribution, submit an updated reporting of contributions/purchases, etc. -- by fully "owning" the mistake and the nature, timing and extent of the contribution and related unlawful act.

FWIW, rigorous analysts will bother to look will find that the violations of a similar nature the Obama campaign had were proportionally less frequent per dollar contributed and with regard to the total quantity of donations received. The pertained to one type of violation: not reporting within the required time period the receipt of donations of $1000 or more. The violations occurred in the 2008 campaign season.



Once again, one sees that Trump has relied on the general public's (and particularly his supporters') likely ignorance of the details of both his and Obama's "routine-grade" campaign finance administrative violations and their general reticence (if not flat-out refusal) to perform any measure of "halfway" rigorous due diligence of their own.

I think the difference here is that Obamas team was inexperienced and didn't know. Even Hillary hired a bunch of young adults to run her 2016 campaign. Swampy likely didn't know and didn't care.

 

[Xelor]

Yup. They tend not to agree with swampy on everything.

Well, truth be told, they don't really agree with anyone. They just ask questions. Declarative sentences don't have question marks at the end.

 

[HowardBThiname]

Just his response alone should tell you all you need to know that Swampy is a lying con-man. Overall though, I am impressed at how well thought out this response is. His claim against impeachment stems from an economic standpoint and says if he's impeached the economy will be ruined. It is a pretty good argument despite how wrong it is, people will believe.

All anyone really needs to know is that Trump can pay anyone for anything -- legally -- if it benefits his own campaign, and he need not report it, since he's using his own funds.

This is just a sideshow created by the prosecution to try and cast aspersions -- but -- it's a non-story.

 

[NeverTrump]

All anyone really needs to know is that Trump can pay anyone for anything -- legally -- if it benefits his own campaign, and he need not report it, since he's using his own funds.

This is just a sideshow created by the prosecution to try and cast aspersions -- but -- it's a non-story.

I don't think Cohen will agree with you.

 

[Bucky]

All anyone really needs to know is that Trump can pay anyone for anything -- legally -- if it benefits his own campaign, and he need not report it, since he's using his own funds.

This is just a sideshow created by the prosecution to try and cast aspersions -- but -- it's a non-story.

We don't even know the entire truth yet. Why is Trump's lawyer paying Stormy Daniels? Shouldn't Stormy be charged for extortion?

 

[Xelor]

I think the difference here is that Obamas team was inexperienced and didn't know. Even Hillary hired a bunch of young adults to run her 2016 campaign. Swampy likely didn't know and didn't care.

Red:
I don't think it was that, but it could be. The violations were administrative. Many campaigns have that sort of breach, most often because the people on them have more work to do than they have time to do it; thus certain deadlines get missed. FEC deadlines such as those pertaining to reporting contributions between $1000 and the maximum donation limit -- IIRC, that rule requires all such donations be reported within some few days or by Nov. 20th or something -- get missed (often by a few days), especially near the end of a campaign when it's pretty much "all hands on the street" knocking on doors, prep for rallies and speeches, and other such things that require staffers to get out and rally supporters to go vote.

What sorts of campaigns don't have such administrative problems? The ones that don't have a lot of supporters sending in money. Workers on those teams aren't quite as busy, and they may have months rather than the mere days the two main candidates have to meet the final deadline.

Think about it. You're the campaign treasurer and you have tens of millions of available cash and the campaign needs all the "boots on the ground" it can get at any given point. Do you insist a volunteer sit in the office recording donations? Or do you send them out and reconcile yourself to paying some fines that you can afford to pay? You do the latter because time in front of voters and getting voters inspired to vote for your candidate is a fixed commodity of which you have not nearly enough, but you have plenty of money. The fines thus become merely a "cost of doing business."

 

[FreeWits]

We know the money was paid. We agree on that fact. We don't agree it was illegal. You are no lawyer I assume, I am no lawyer, but many who are lawyers are saying that it was not illegal. To call us cult members for agreeing with lawyers about campaign finance laws is a bit ridiculous. I have more thoughts on this as well:

You know who else isn't a lawyer? Donald Trump. If high-end lawyer told client Donald Trump that he could make this payment legally and it actually wasn't legal, how is client Donald Trump supposed to know that? I've been a client of a lawyer before and I can tell you that one basically just believes most of what they tell you. That's why one pays an expert. Furthermore, two payments in the $100,000 range, if technically illegal, is a pretty small deal. What is Trump going to get, a small fine? To expect this to take down Trump or to argue that this is a big deal, when according to many top-end lawyers this is completely legal, is so partisan and ridiculous it's not even funny.

 

[HowardBThiname]

I don't think Cohen will agree with you.

Cohen doesn't have to.

Only the Law has to.

 

[HowardBThiname]

We don't even know the entire truth yet. Why is Trump's lawyer paying Stormy Daniels? Shouldn't Stormy be charged for extortion?

That's an interesting point. Was she blackmailing?

 

[Bucky]

We know the money was paid. We agree on that fact. We don't agree it was illegal. You are no lawyer I assume, I am no lawyer, but many who are lawyers are saying that it was not illegal. To call us cult members for agreeing with lawyers about campaign finance laws is a bit ridiculous. I have more thoughts on this as well:

You know who else isn't a lawyer? Donald Trump. If high-end lawyer told client Donald Trump that he could make this payment legally and it actually wasn't legal, how is client Donald Trump supposed to know that? I've been a client of a lawyer before and I can tell you that one basically just believes most of what they tell you. That's why one pays an expert. Furthermore, two payments in the $100,000 range, if technically illegal, is a pretty small deal. What is Trump going to get, a small fine? To expect this to take down Trump or to argue that this is a big deal, when according to many top-end lawyers this is completely legal, is so partisan and ridiculous it's not even funny.

These women should be charged for extortion. They clearly took the money. If they had moral principles they wouldn't have accepted the money.

Trump is a cheap man. He is just not giving away money for nothing. I am not sure why Stormy Daniels is not being charged with a cirme.

 

[NeverTrump]

Cohen doesn't have to.

Only the Law has to.

Buddy. The law says Cohen's guilty. Where ya been?

 

[HowardBThiname]

Buddy. The law says Cohen's guilty. Where ya been?

Which has absolutely nothing to do with your statement that "Cohen doesn't agree with me."

It also has nothing to do with whether Trump would be guilty, since a candidate can spend his own money to further his campaign at any time -- and not record it.

 

[jnug]

All anyone really needs to know is that Trump can pay anyone for anything -- legally -- if it benefits his own campaign, and he need not report it, since he's using his own funds.

This is just a sideshow created by the prosecution to try and cast aspersions -- but -- it's a non-story.

Entirely false...entirely. My God!!!

 

[Luckyone]

Because he only wanted softball questions.

And even then, he screwed up and admitted to a crime.

Imagine if he got interviewed by a real journalist!

No, imagine if he got interviewed by Mueller. He would be up a creek.

 

[Floridafan]

Which has absolutely nothing to do with your statement that "Cohen doesn't agree with me."

It also has nothing to do with whether Trump would be guilty, since a candidate can spend his own money to further his campaign at any time -- and not record it.

Sorry, but Cohen implicated Trump in his plea deal. Where have you been hiding???????