• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What's Up With Cohen?

sangha said:
There are two witnesses saying that Trump directed the payments in order to benefit his campaign.In addition, there is corroborating evidence.
Click to expand...

We are talking about the lawyer who should have known better. Like I said, why does one pay lawyers the big bucks?
 
Lovebug said:
Ok, so what you are saying is that, when I ask for legal advise, I am the expert and he does what I tell him to do? What the hell am I paying him/her?
Click to expand...

What I am saying is that Trump and Cohen had a very long relationship that was fundamentally very very different that what you or I would have when we consult an attorney for legal advice. And what made that fundamentally different is that both were part of a criminal enterprise with both acting illegally to further the goals of the principal person in the criminal enterprise - Donald Trump.
 
haymarket said:
To fully cooperate with the Southern District of NY, one must tell everything they know about all the crimes they know about going back to day one and that includes everyone they know about. That is what full cooperation means.
Click to expand...

Precisely. If Cohen left some things out, like an illegal role his wife played in his shady taxicab business, then such an omission negates the plea deal.

When it comes to the SDNY, either you're ALL IN or don't even bother.
 
Lovebug said:
We are talking about the lawyer who should have known better. Like I said, why does one pay lawyers the big bucks?
Click to expand...

He was not working as his lawyer in these transactions. He was acting as his "fixer". Don't think you'd find a schedule of fees for covering up sexual encounters.
 
RAMOSS said:
Giving information is a thing of value, and is consider a contribution. So, you are incorrect.
Click to expand...

If you really truly believe that - and I highly doubt you do as you are otherwise a person of at least average intelligence - I know you have no practical experience in a political campaign. I do. And I can tell your practical experience that information is extremely valuable and is highly prized and is often paid for dearly. Information is very much a thing of value.
 
Lovebug said:
We are talking about the lawyer who should have known better. Like I said, why does one pay lawyers the big bucks?
Click to expand...

Which is why Cohen is guilty of a crime

And the fact that Trump directed others to commit crimes is why Trump is criminally guilty
 
Rogue Valley said:
Precisely. If Cohen left some things out, like an illegal role his wife played in his shady taxicab business, then such an omission negates the plea deal.

When it comes to the SDNY, either you're ALL IN or don't even bother.
Click to expand...

There is no plea deal.

Cohen plead guilty but he has no plea deal. Not with Mueller, nor with the SDNY

If he did, he would have to voluntarily testify his knowledge of any and all criminal activities he had knowledge of, something he refused to do.
 
tosca1 said:
The prosecutors aren't that happy with him!


Cohen - according to prosecutors - "did not fully cooperate."
I guess that means they didn't hear what they wanna hear from him.

But the question is:

What's keeping him from fully cooperating? He's already burned his bridges with Trump - so why didn't he fully cooperate?


Could it be.....he has nothing more to give?


If he's supposed to be making a plea bargain to avoid any prison sentence or at least, to minimize it - why would he not lay it all out BEFORE any conviction and sentencing is done........ if he's got something prosecutors are dying to know?

Cohen surely knows what the prosecutors want to know, and who they really wanna get.
They want to hear about collusion!

That the prosecutors are complaining, and now accusing him of not fully cooperating, beats the purpose of the plea deal! Why make the prosecutors unhappy and angry with you?

I think, he's given everything. This well is now dry. :lol:
Click to expand...

Respectfully, you are conflating the issues.

The special counsel investigators have expressly said that he fully cooperated and has provided important information regarding (directly from Mueller's filing) “useful information concerning certain discrete Russia-related matters core to its investigation that he obtained by virtue of his regular contact with Company executives during the campaign.” The special counsel’s office also said that Cohen “provided relevant and useful information concerning his contacts with persons connected to the White House during the 2017–2018 time period.”

The people that aren't completely happy with Cohen is the US Attorney's office in Manhattan. Apparently for them to be happy with a plea deal they would require him to spill his guts on any and all crimes by him and any family, friends or associates that he is aware of from birth til present. I have read reports that he isn't fully cooperating with ancillary investigations regarding family and friends and would like to focus his information on Trump and associates. So the US Attorney's office is only really unhappy that he is only giving info on Trump and Trump Co and not everyone else.

So this idea that he isn't giving up everything that he has on Trump and that prosecutors haven't learned alot from him is DOA. Of course we won't know everything til reports are out, but they are seemingly exceedingly happy at the info that has been provided regarding Russia and other Trump investigations, but unhappy that he won't help on other investigations.
 
haymarket said:
If you really truly believe that - and I highly doubt you do as you are otherwise a person of at least average intelligence - I know you have no practical experience in a political campaign. I do. And I can tell your practical experience that information is extremely valuable and is highly prized and is often paid for dearly. Information is very much a thing of value.
Click to expand...

Well, let me back up my claim https://www.vox.com/world/2017/7/10/15950590/donald-trump-jr-new-york-times-illegal
 
Rogue Valley said:
Precisely. If Cohen left some things out, like an illegal role his wife played in his shady taxicab business, then such an omission negates the plea deal.

When it comes to the SDNY, either you're ALL IN or don't even bother.
Click to expand...

Right. And we will find out if Cohen decides to jump back in that pool and this time go all the way to the bottom hoping to rise up again.

I really think that you hit on something here - the liability his wife may face. But that would put him in the same boat as General Flynn and his son. He apparently negotiated deal where his son would NOT be prosecuted. If Cohen and his wife are worried, maybe he can work that same deal covering her legal liability?

I also think that if Cohen tells all - he probably has to rat on some very dangerous people who might not take it so nicely that he dropped a dime on them.

And I just cannot see the street wise New Yorker doing the Steve Martin role in MY BLUE HEAVEN in witness protection in some white bread suburb out west.
 
RAMOSS said:
Well, let me back up my claim https://www.vox.com/world/2017/7/10/15950590/donald-trump-jr-new-york-times-illegal
Click to expand...


I read that article. It supports everything I have said. This is from your article

The key word from Trump Jr., according to University of California Irvine election law expert Rick Hasen, is “solicit,” which has a very specific meaning in this context. To quote the relevant statute:

A solicitation is an oral or written communication that, construed as reasonably understood in the context in which it is made, contains a clear message asking, requesting, or recommending that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value.
Trump Jr. was clearly soliciting information that he knew was coming from a foreign source. Given that political campaigns regularly pay thousands of dollars to opposition researchers to dig up dirt, it seems like damaging information on Clinton would constitute something “of value” to the Trump campaign.

The solicitation bit is why it doesn’t matter if Trump Jr. actually got useful information. The part that’s illegal, according to the experts I spoke to, is trying to acquire dirt on Clinton from a foreign source, not successfully acquiring it. And his statement more or less admits that he did, in fact, solicit this information.
Click to expand...
If anyone wants to pretend that information in a political campaign is not valuable - it would not take the worlds best lawyer to make a horses ass out of them on the witness stand simply by bringing is a few experienced campaign directors who can tell the court just how valuable information is.
 
haymarket said:
I read that article. It supports everything I have said.

If anyone wants to pretend that information in a political campaign is not valuable - it would not take the worlds best lawyer to make a horses ass out of them on the witness stand simply by bringing is a few experienced campaign directors who can tell the court just how valuable information is.
Click to expand...

I think you misread what I said then.. because seem to be taking the fact my claim that information is a valuable resource is the exact opposite of what I said.
 
RAMOSS said:
I think you misread what I said then.. because seem to be taking the fact my claim that information is a valuable resource is the exact opposite of what I said.
Click to expand...

I apologize to you. Yes, I confused what you wrote with somebody else and misread it. These old eyes are not what they once were.

I am sorry and regret any inconvenience I caused you.

And i enjoyed that supportive article. :peace
 
Lovebug said:
So again, let me remind everyone that Cohen was and is the lawyer. He was to advise.
Click to expand...

yes, and the lawyer's client may want to know the legal obstacles so that they can avoid detection by law enforcement, instead of to know how to comply with the law
 
Lovebug said:
HE is the lawyer. He is to know the law. He is to lead and advise. That is what he or any other lawyer is hired to do.
Click to expand...

but the client has no obligation to follow the law after being advised what the legal obstacles may be
 
Lovebug said:
Ok, so what you are saying is that, when I ask for legal advise, I am the expert and he does what I tell him to do? What the hell am I paying him/her?
Click to expand...

to learn how to avoid detection by law enforcement when fulfilling the objective while skirting the law
 
Lovebug said:
We are talking about the lawyer who should have known better. Like I said, why does one pay lawyers the big bucks?
Click to expand...

why is there no imposition of obligation for tRump to know better
 
Lovebug said:
HE is the lawyer. He is to know the law. He is to lead and advise. That is what he or any other lawyer is hired to do.
Click to expand...

Lovebug, this line of argumentation has no relevance.
If Trump had been smart enough to hand it off to Cohen and had no further input, he could probably argue that he was not part of the conspiracy, because he had no idea what was going on.
But this has *nothing* to do with one being an attorney, or any "lead and advise". Neither of those have any relevance legally.
It also wasn't just Cohen, it was a number of other people who are also testifying to exactly what Cohen said occurred.

Wait, did you really just say that you felt Trump follows people, and follows the advice of people? Really? After two years of uncontrollable Trump, let Trump be Trump....you're gonna even suggest that? Dear me that's crazy.
 
haymarket said:
The offer came in the emails and so did the acceptance.
Click to expand...

Yes, the acceptance of a meeting, no acceptance of "dirt" and meetings aren't illegal.
 
RAMOSS said:
Giving information is a thing of value, and is consider a contribution. So, you are incorrect.
Click to expand...

Information isn't necessarily illegal, if it was why isn't the information the DNC/Clinton Campaign received from foreign nationals illegal ??
 
Cardinal said:
He said "collusion." He didn't say crimes were committed, and he specifically addressed the fact that any conspiracy (criminal conspiracy, to be exact) has still yet to be established.
Click to expand...

If it has still yet to be established one can't claim some sort of illegality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom