Whadda you know? Donald Trump was right...

[Mycroft]

Posing a question is lying? How dumb. Lets see if you are capable of actually engaging in an intelligent back and forth. Ive got 5 bucks says you cant. Ready?

You are claiming Trump violated campaign finance law by instructing his lawyer to do a perfectly legal act--preparing NDA's. Explain why what Trump did is criminal.

The problem we have here is that NOBODY...no court, no jury...nobody has determined that what Trump did...or, what Cohen did, for that matter...is illegal.

What we have is a prosecutor and a defendant making a deal and saying something illegal was done and the judge saying, "Oh...okay...if you say so."

But to this date, there has been no legal examination as to whether anything illegal was done.

But, you know...Trump won't be making any deals like Cohen did...and I don't think ANYONE wants to actually test the notion that he committed a crime. They don't need to. This was all about influencing public opinion.

 

[jnug]

The problem we have here is that NOBODY...no court, no jury...nobody has determined that what Trump did...or, what Cohen did, for that matter...is illegal.

What we have is a prosecutor and a defendant making a deal and saying something illegal was done and the judge saying, "Oh...okay...if you say so."

But to this date, there has been no legal examination as to whether anything illegal was done.

But, you know...Trump won't be making any deals like Cohen did...and I don't think ANYONE wants to actually test the notion that he committed a crime. They don't need to. This was all about influencing public opinion.

There is such a mountain of evidence building for multiple crimes unless Trump pleads out of the Presidency in trade he will be in court for the rest of his life once he leaves office. The Right's "hero" will either be drummed out of the Presidency or will find himself in court and behind bars for the rest of his natural life. Frankly I care not about opinions to the contrary. Blind allegiance has never made for much of a counter argument.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

There is such a mountain of evidence building for multiple crimes unless Trump pleads out of the Presidency in trade he will be in court for the rest of his life once he leaves office. The Right's "hero" will either be drummed out of the Presidency or will find himself in court and behind bars for the rest of his natural life. Frankly I care not about opinions to the contrary. Blind allegiance has never made for much of a counter argument.

I don’t think trump’s business organization will survive the weight of being investigated.

 

[Xelor]

So what is it then? There have been numerous people, including the former head of the FEC that have said the payments were a violation. Plus if you listen to the tape that Cohen made, it isnt of Trump 'directing' Cohen to do anything but of Cohen explaining to Trump how he, Cohen, is going to handle things. Remember, Cohen is the lawyer. If he did things that violate election laws which, by the way, I am certain neither man knew anything about, then it is Cohens problem, not Trumps

I was about to respond substantively to the "red" passage, and then I read on and encountered the "blue" one....

And the problem is....? I am trying to have a conversation with you but it is like pulling ****ing teeth.

Pink:
The "problem" is that the "blue" passage completely disregards multiple key contextual elements of the matter you want to discuss:

• the fundamental nature of the attorney-client relationship and the fact that such a relationship was extant between Trump and Cohen when the two of them coordinated the "Stormy" NDA,
  • That relationship is such that an attorney isn't going to do anything as goes providing his/her professional services to a client if that "anything" isn't clearly understood by the client and the attorney to be undertaken tacitly or expressly at the client's behest;
• the nature of our legal system whereby one must, for the purpose of legal consideration, accept sworn testimony as true, unless one has "smoking gun" evidence or a jury's verdict showing the information is, respectively, untrue or ingermane;
  • Michael Cohen allocuted in court that Trump bid him to execute the NDA between Trump and "Stormy."
  • US Attorneys allowed him to so state and noted same, along with testifying they had documentary and other evidence to show so, in their sworn testimony.

Tan:
It is "like pulling...teeth" for a reason: I don't care to engage in a conversation with someone whose "opening salvo" includes assertions (premises) that completely disregard germane factors of the matter s/he aims to discuss. Maybe you're truly unaware of the above noted items/qualities, or maybe you are aware of them and willfully disregarded them...It really doesn't matter to me which be so for an individual of either constitution isn't someone with whom I care to discuss the matter about which you want to chat with me -- I'm not here to "educate" you or anyone else and I'm not of a mind to engage with some who's not well informed.

 

[Deuce]

The problem we have here is that NOBODY...no court, no jury...nobody has determined that what Trump did...or, what Cohen did, for that matter...is illegal.

What we have is a prosecutor and a defendant making a deal and saying something illegal was done and the judge saying, "Oh...okay...if you say so."

But to this date, there has been no legal examination as to whether anything illegal was done.

But, you know...Trump won't be making any deals like Cohen did...and I don't think ANYONE wants to actually test the notion that he committed a crime. They don't need to. This was all about influencing public opinion.

Nobody has been found guilty until they're found guilty. News at 11.

 

[Mycroft]

Nobody has been found guilty until they're found guilty. News at 11.

And yet...a whole lot of people have already determined that Trump is guilty. It's even gone so far as Congressmen being willing to put their political careers on the line by trying to impeach Trump.

 

[Mycroft]

There is such a mountain of evidence building for multiple crimes unless Trump pleads out of the Presidency in trade he will be in court for the rest of his life once he leaves office. The Right's "hero" will either be drummed out of the Presidency or will find himself in court and behind bars for the rest of his natural life. Frankly I care not about opinions to the contrary. Blind allegiance has never made for much of a counter argument.

Wrong.

There is no evidence of any crime. Heck, in some cases, there isn't even a crime.

 

[jnug]

Wrong.

There is no evidence of any crime. Heck, in some cases, there isn't even a crime.

There is a crime and there is ample evidence of a crime.

 

[Xelor]

Using campaign funds to pay off two women is 'perfectly legal'?

Well, actually, if that's how a campaign wants to use its money, yes, there is a legal way to do so. What's illegal is not timely disclosing the nature, timing and extent of a federal election campaign' disbursements and receipts.

• Elements of a transactions' nature:
  • Who:
    • Recipient of disbursements -- contribution recipients are required to reject/return contributions provided by disallowed parties.
    • Provider of a contribution -- certain parties are prohibited from providing contributions to federal election campaigns.
  • What:
    • What did the disbursement purchase -- Most of the time, what is purchased is self-evident due to the "who" element
    • What was contributed -- Most of the time, what one contributes is money; however, some contributions are in-kind.
  • Why:
    • Purpose for the disbursement -- in most instances this can be inferred from the "who" and what elements. When the "why" can't be accurately inferred, interested parties need only ask and the campaign is obliged to provide an honest and accurate answer.
    • Purpose for the contribution -- fortunately, campaign contributions have only one, at most two, purposes:
      • to help the candidate win election, and/or
      • to curry the candidate's favor
  • Where: where is the disbursement/receipt occurred. This element is often irrelevant, however under the right circumstances it is relevant.
    • Disbursements: Campaigns can make payments, for the most part, to anyone they want, provided it's lawful for a US citizen/organization to disburse money to the recipient.
    • Receipts: Contributions to federal election campaigns received outside the US generally aren't lawful; however, there are circumstances in which they can be. For example, it is lawful for a US expat in XYZ country to provide a contribution to a candidate who visits the country in which the expat finds himself.
• A transaction's extent -- This is merely the value of the contribution. For pecuniary contributions, the value is self-evident. For in-kind contributions, the value must be estimated using a reasonable methodology.
• A transactions timing is a date:
  • Disbursements --> the date the campaign makes a payment
  • Receipts --> the date the campaign receives a contribution

With foregoing understood and given the FEC's stipulations, it becomes clear that there was a legal way for Trump to pay-off Mmes. Daniels and McDougal:

• The legal way relies on the fact that there is no restriction on what a candidate can contribute to his/her own election.
  • Trump engages an attorney (or acts as his own attorney) to draw-up the NDA agreement (Daniels) or purchase the story (McDougal).
  • Trump pays the women and the attorney from his personal (not company because Trump Org. is a distinct entity and its making the payment would trigger the contribution limit constraint) funds.
  • Disclose the three payments among his contributions to his campaign. He must do this because the timing of the payments makes highly implausible that they were for any reason other than to abet his campaigning goal.

The approach above prohibits the women from telling their stories and it puts Trump in control of the messaging about them should interested parties ask about the payments' nature can say whatever he wants for the women are, by the NDA, squelched. Obviously, if he lies, he is immediately compromised by anyone who knows the truth and can reasonably demonstrate it. Be that as it may, the goal of legally silencing the women is achieved, even if silencing other parties isn't.

 

[Fletch]

Pink:
The "problem" is that the "blue" passage completely disregards multiple key contextual elements of the matter you want to discuss:

• the fundamental nature of the attorney-client relationship and the fact that such a relationship was extant between Trump and Cohen when the two of them coordinated the "Stormy" NDA,
  • That relationship is such that an attorney isn't going to do anything as goes providing his/her professional services to a client if that "anything" isn't clearly understood by the client and the attorney to be undertaken tacitly or expressly at the client's behest;
• the nature of our legal system whereby one must, for the purpose of legal consideration, accept sworn testimony as true, unless one has "smoking gun" evidence or a jury's verdict showing the information is, respectively, untrue or ingermane;
  • Michael Cohen allocuted in court that Trump bid him to execute the NDA between Trump and "Stormy."
  • US Attorneys allowed him to so state and noted same, along with testifying they had documentary and other evidence to show so, in their sworn testimony.

I wasnt arguing that Trump didnt know or didnt hire Cohen to handle the NDA's. The point I was making was that if Cohen did them in a way that broke the law then why should Trump be held accountable

Tan:
It is "like pulling...teeth" for a reason: I don't care to engage in a conversation with someone whose "opening salvo" includes assertions (premises) that completely disregard germane factors of the matter s/he aims to discuss. Maybe you're truly unaware of the above noted items/qualities, or maybe you are aware of them and willfully disregarded them...It really doesn't matter to me which be so for an individual of either constitution isn't someone with whom I care to discuss the matter about which you want to chat with me -- I'm not here to "educate" you or anyone else and I'm not of a mind to engage with some who's not well informed.

Then why are you here? Just to put a pompous and verbose spin on left wing drivel?

 

[Xelor]

I wasnt arguing that Trump didnt know or didnt hire Cohen to handle the NDA's. The point I was making was that if Cohen did them in a way that broke the law then why should Trump be held accountable

Then why are you here? Just to put a pompous and verbose spin on left wing drivel?

Red:
That was quite clear to me. That it was clear is why I wrote what I did in post 79's "pink" section.


Blue:
To obtain information.


Tan:
No.

 

[Fletch]

Red:
That was quite clear to me. That it was clear is why I wrote what I did in post 79's "pink" section.


Blue:
To obtain information.


Tan:
No.

Right. But you just wrote in post #84 that the payments could have been done legally. If they werent. that would be Cohens fault. Not Trumps since Cohen is the lawyer, not Trump.

 

[Grand Mal]

Right. But you just wrote in post #84 that the payments could have been done legally. If they werent. that would be Cohens fault. Not Trumps since Cohen is the lawyer, not Trump.

You're assuming Trump didn't know it was illegal. If Trump tells Cohen to do something and Cohen protests that it's illegal, Trump is certainly guilty if he insists and Cohen goes ahead.
It's the same as if Trump told Flynn to do something illegal, i.e. call the Russian ambassador and assure him the sanctions that Obama announced the same day woud disappear when Trump took office and further told Flynn to keep it secret, resulting in Flynn lying to Pence. Same as that.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

:doh

This is the kind of thread I've come to expect from those who went to bed thinking Hillary was a shoe-in, and woke up to find she had lost to Trump back in 2016.

The witch hunt that followed was designed to find something, ANYTHING to prove Trump did not win the election fair and square.

The Russian "conspiracy/collusion" was the FBI "insurance policy," but the goal was to find whatever possible to bring him down and make everything right again.

Psychic shock turned into a search for "what went wrong!?!"

I bet the same people who defended Clinton when the Republican's were seeking to impeach him and only found perjury via "I did not have sex with that woman" are now using the "Trump paid off that woman so she wouldn't lose him the election" same way of thinking leading to impeachment back then.

(BTW, that's why I ended up voting for Clinton when he ran for a second term, my disgust for this kind of partisan witch-hunting back then.)

In this case no evidence of actual Russian/Trump conspiracy, but that doesn't matter if the witch-hunt was successful finding something else. :roll:

Well, I personally don't believe there were any "felonious actions" in paying off either woman via the NDA's. No more than cutting one's hair and buying a new suit to present the best picture for an election.

But this is what you are crowing about? Really?

IMO the hate is strong in those who follow this path, and you don't even realize it for what it is. :coffeepap:

You certainly are aware of what an ad hominem argument is, right? Instead of arguing the facts you’re impugning the motives and character of the accusers.

Now let’s look at the actual facts. Trump didn’t enter into an agreement with McDougal. He had his buddy buy her story under false pretenses.

If you are running for office and I buy a story to kill it for you then I have contributed to your campaign. I can blackmail you once you’re in office. That’s why we demand transparency about all donations to political candidates.

Finally, who decides what’s illegal? You? Cohen pleaded guilty to something you claim is not illegal. The judge could have thrown out the charges if he agreed with you.

All you have is an ad hominem argument and your personal interpretation of the law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[OscarLevant]

It is almost 2019, whatever works.....who cares.....

Uh, a majority of Americans.

 

[OscarLevant]

In this case, there was a conspiracy to do something that is perfectly legal.

It's the kind of stuff law abiding citizens do every day.

So, Cohen was put in jail for doing what abiding citizens do every day?


That's a fairly bizarre concept of civic-mindedness you have there.

 

[Xelor]

Right. But you just wrote in post #84 that the payments could have been done legally. If they werent. that would be Cohens fault. Not Trumps since Cohen is the lawyer, not Trump.

You're assuming Trump didn't know it was illegal. If Trump tells Cohen to do something and Cohen protests that it's illegal, Trump is certainly guilty if he insists and Cohen goes ahead.
It's the same as if Trump told Flynn to do something illegal, i.e. call the Russian ambassador and assure him the sanctions that Obama announced the same day woud disappear when Trump took office and further told Flynn to keep it secret, resulting in Flynn lying to Pence. Same as that.

Red:
As I wrote in post 79:

I don't care to engage in a conversation with someone whose "opening salvo" includes assertions (premises) that completely disregard germane factors of the matter s/he aims to discuss. Maybe you're truly unaware of the above noted items/qualities, or maybe you are aware of them and willfully disregarded them...It really doesn't matter to me which be so for an individual of either constitution isn't someone with whom I care to discuss the matter about which you want to chat with me -- I'm not here to "educate" you or anyone else and I'm not of a mind to engage with some who's not well informed.

Your "red" comment above completely disregards the nature of the crime of conspiracy. You're not alone in not understanding it (post 48), but that you aren't is of no matter to me.

(Note that you quote-responded to post 49, and surely you noticed post 48 and are aware of your naivete regarding conspiracy law, yet you've apparently bothered not to read the content in either of the first two linked documents in post 48....Had you read the content in those two documents, you wouldn't be so under informed about the nature of conspiracy crimes.)

 

[Hawkeye10]

Uh, a majority of Americans.

I dont know that the majority of Americans give a **** about the important things, in fact given how they act I tend to doubt it.

 

[Parrish]

You're assuming Trump didn't know it was illegal. If Trump tells Cohen to do something and Cohen protests that it's illegal, Trump is certainly guilty if he insists and Cohen goes ahead.
It's the same as if Trump told Flynn to do something illegal, i.e. call the Russian ambassador and assure him the sanctions that Obama announced the same day woud disappear when Trump took office and further told Flynn to keep it secret, resulting in Flynn lying to Pence. Same as that.

Honest people don't employ a personal attorney to "fix" their messes, deeds and crimes, or those of 2 of their friends. A lawyer with 3 clients is, what do call it? Suspect?

 

[OscarLevant]

:lamo

If a client asks a LAWYER to do something that the lawyer KNOWS or BELIEVES to be illegal...it is incumbent on THE LAWYER as...you know...the LEGAL expert...to advise and refuse.

That's what a lawyer is supposed to do, .....

Unless he doesn't act like a lawyer, and acts like a criminal, then criminal law kicks in, as Judge Neopolitano so correctly described.

So, what happened with Cohen, the metaphor applies 100% on point. Two criminals conspiring on a single crime.

Both share equally in culpability.

 

[OscarLevant]

I dont know that the majority of Americans give a **** about the important things, in fact given how they act I tend to doubt it.

Weak rebuttal.

 

[jnug]

That's what a lawyer is supposed to do, .....

Unless he doesn't act like a lawyer, and acts like a criminal, then criminal law kicks in, as Judge Neopolitano so correctly described.

So, what happened with Cohen, the metaphor applies 100% on point. Two criminals conspiring on a single crime.

Both share equally in culpability.

Well said.

As has been explained a million times in a million threads, one element of the case is that Cohen did not fulfill the role of an attorney. Trump can yell at the top of his lungs that Cohen was "his lawyer". Cohen did not function as an attorney would function. That point was successfully made early in the SDNY case and the Trump/Cohen legal team never had a response to it. They crumbled before it like a house of cards because the Prosecutors had nailed them to the wall or to the floor. Take your pick.

In fact, the combined Trump/Cohen team crumbled so fast and fell so hard that you have to conclude that they knew full well that Cohen was not functioning as an attorney would function for a client. Just because a guy has a law degree does not mean he is functioning as a working attorney.

 

[Xelor]

Honest people don't employ a personal attorney to "fix" their messes, deeds and crimes, or those of 2 of their friends. A lawyer with 3 clients is, what do call it? Suspect?

Red:
Hell, the only messes created by Americans I know are those found in their kitchens after preparing a meal. LOL The only help they get fixing those messes comes from their dinner guests and/or their maid. LOL

I may be mistaken, but I suspect such is pretty much the nature of the messes most folks create and overcome.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Weak rebuttal.

Maybe you did not understand my post, I dont know you, but I do know me.

 

[Fletch]

Red:
As I wrote in post 79:


Your "red" comment above completely disregards the nature of the crime of conspiracy. You're not alone in not understanding it (post 48), but that you aren't is of no matter to me.

(Note that you quote-responded to post 49, and surely you noticed post 48 and are aware of your naivete regarding conspiracy law, yet you've apparently bothered not to read the content in either of the first two linked documents in post 48....Had you read the content in those two documents, you wouldn't be so under informed about the nature of conspiracy crimes.)

So they conspired to do something completely legal but chose to do it illegally when a legal path to do the same thing was open to them. Right.