• We will be taking the server down at approximately 3:30 AM ET on Wednesday, 10/8/25. We have a hard drive that is in the early stages of failure and this is necessary to prevent data loss. We hope to be back up and running quickly, however this process could take some time.
  • 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?

hanger4 said:
Reality is you, as usual, rufuted nothing. The DNC/Clinton Campaign legally purchased information from foreign nationals.
Click to expand...

NO - they purchased services from an American Company - Fusion GPS. That is reality.

from the wiki page

In October 2015, private investigative firm Fusion GPS was contracted by conservative political website The Washington Free Beacon to provide political opposition research against Trump. In April 2016, attorney Marc Elias separately hired Fusion GPS to investigate Trump on behalf of Hillary Clinton's campaign and the DNC.
Click to expand...
 
haymarket said:
NO - they purchased services from an American Company - Fusion GPS. That is reality.

from the wiki page
Click to expand...

I know all that haymarket, but it doesn't change my statement. The legality of aquiring the information relies on the purchase, not a transfer via third party.
 
hanger4 said:
I know all that haymarket, but it doesn't change my statement. The legality of aquiring the information relies on the purchase, not a transfer via third party.
Click to expand...

Do you think for a minute that it is not clear why you are taking this stance here pretending to defend the Dossier and the Clinton campaign while the entire time laying groundwork to then excuse the Trump Tower meeting?

Its not working as they are two very very different things.
 
haymarket said:
Nobody has used the excuse you seem to think is applicable. I would read this if I were you

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat

and this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat

I would point out to you that Mr. Manafort, an attorney, was in that room and has experience in campaigns and should absolutely had know better and informed his supposed ignorant co-conspirators of the law. And Manafort was in the loop getting the email exchange.

from the Manafort wikipedia page



In addition, Trump has lawyers and the RNC has lawyers.

So this is not some country bumpkin who just fell off the turnip truck.
Click to expand...


The federal election law that has been cited for a couple of years now, require that the accused know that the law was being violated when it was violated. The 'ignorance of the law' links is a theoretical one which has no bearing on that law.

That Manafort should have known the law is irrelevent when it comes to Trump jr. Moreover, since Mueller has chosen not to prosecute Manafort for his presence, or required any sort of confession from him with regards to it, suggests there is no there there.
 
haymarket said:
Do you think for a minute that it is not clear why you are taking this stance here pretending to defend the Dossier and the Clinton campaign while the entire time laying groundwork to then excuse the Trump Tower meeting?

Its not working as they are two very very different things.
Click to expand...

I'm not defending the dossier, I'm defending the DNC/Clinton Campaign's purchase of information from foreign nationals.

Meetings with foreign nationals in conjunction with campaigns is not illegal.

Yes they are different, in one information from foreign nationals was purchased and in the other information was never produced or accepted.
 
haymarket said:
The email exchange seeing up the meeting is enough all by itself to provide evidence the law was broken. An illegal offer from a foreign source was offered and accepted by the Trump campaign. The law was broken.

Here is the offer



Here is the acceptance


Those components satisfy the language in the law.
Click to expand...

That is only IF you consider information to be a campaign 'contribution' which has never been the case.
 
hanger4 said:
To solicit: to seek to influence or incite to action.

The Russian lawyer sought to influence (offer of incriminating evidence) and incite to action (a meeting).
Click to expand...

Yes, the russians did solicit Trump

Now, can you explain how that refutes the claim that trump solicited the russians? Or do you believe it is impossible for one party to solicit another while being solicited?
 
Athanasius68 said:
The federal election law that has been cited for a couple of years now, require that the accused know that the law was being violated when it was violated. The 'ignorance of the law' links is a theoretical one which has no bearing on that law.

That Manafort should have known the law is irrelevent when it comes to Trump jr. Moreover, since Mueller has chosen not to prosecute Manafort for his presence, or required any sort of confession from him with regards to it, suggests there is no there there.
Click to expand...

All it suggests is that you have little patience to wait for all to unfold.... and it most certainly will.
 
hanger4 said:
I'm not defending the dossier, I'm defending the DNC/Clinton Campaign's purchase of information from foreign nationals.

Meetings with foreign nationals in conjunction with campaigns is not illegal.

Yes they are different, in one information from foreign nationals was purchased and in the other information was never produced or accepted.
Click to expand...

Still not fooling anybody with your argument.
 
hanger4 said:
Saying you have incriminating evidence and producing incriminating evidence are two different things haymarket.

And you have no idea if this so called incriminating evidence (which wasn't produced) was illegal or illegally obtained.
Click to expand...

Offering illegal support is illegal

And we know it was illegal because any support from the Russians is illegal
 
hanger4 said:
So, I've read them several times. The Trump Campaign was solicited by the Russian lawyer with the prospect of "incriminating evidence", the campaign reps went to a meeting and nothing was produced.
Click to expand...

The trump campaign went to the meeting to solicit info from the russians. Even trump and jr admitted that
 
Fletch said:
That is only IF you consider information to be a campaign 'contribution' which has never been the case.
Click to expand...

Spoken like somebody who has no practical experience running a campaign for public office where information is a very very valuable commodity that candidates pay for dearly.
 
haymarket said:
All it suggests is that you have little patience to wait for all to unfold.... and it most certainly will.
Click to expand...

Why do you suppose the SDNY had Cohen and Pecker agree that the mistresses were paid off at the direction of Individual 1?
Because SDNY is trying to establish a prosecution against Individual 1k, and it needs the testimony of those two guys, and they need them to confess to it in their own proceedings. Maked them more credible as a witness, which would seem to be important especially when it comes to Cohen.

So why didnt Mueller require Manafort to explain his role in the tower meeting as part of his plea deal? Indeed, why hasnt he demanded a PapaD or Flynn plea to their role and the role of the higher ups in collusion with Russia? Because Mueller ISNT going to prosecute for collusion with Russia or whatever term one wishes to use. There is no there there to prosecute.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Why do you suppose the SDNY had Cohen and Pecker agree that the mistresses were paid off at the direction of Individual 1?
Because SDNY is trying to establish a prosecution against Individual 1k, and it needs the testimony of those two guys, and they need them to confess to it in their own proceedings. Maked them more credible as a witness, which would seem to be important especially when it comes to Cohen.

So why didnt Mueller require Manafort to explain his role in the tower meeting as part of his plea deal? Indeed, why hasnt he demanded a PapaD or Flynn plea to their role and the role of the higher ups in collusion with Russia? Because Mueller ISNT going to prosecute for collusion with Russia or whatever term one wishes to use. There is no there there to prosecute.
Click to expand...

Show some patience and it will be rewarded.
 
haymarket said:
Show some patience and it will be rewarded.
Click to expand...

Sounds like the kid on Christmas morning happily shoveling the pile of manure he received-- there has to be a pony under it somewhere, he reasons.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Sounds like the kid on Christmas morning happily shoveling the pile of manure he received-- there has to be a pony under it somewhere, he reasons.
Click to expand...

Time will tell.

As it almost always does.
 
haymarket said:
Spoken like somebody who has no practical experience running a campaign for public office where information is a very very valuable commodity that candidates pay for dearly.
Click to expand...

Way to dodge the point. Of course information is valuable, but it is not REPORTABLE as a campaign contribution. But you would know that if you had any practical experience running a campaign for public office.
 
Fletch said:
Way to dodge the point. Of course information is valuable, but it is not REPORTABLE as a campaign contribution. But you would know that if you had any practical experience running a campaign for public office.
Click to expand...

Way to move the goal posts. The law says NOTHING about something being reportable being the standard.

btw- I have run several campaigns for public office - successfully so I know this area from experience.
 
haymarket said:
Way to move the goal posts. The law says NOTHING about something being reportable being the standard.

btw- I have run several campaigns for public office - successfully so I know this area from experience.
Click to expand...

Great. And how many times did you report information as a campaign contribution?
 
SIAP. Stockholm syndrome. Cohen is lovin' his captors (the Mueller investigation).
 
sangha said:
Yes, the russians did solicit Trump

Now, can you explain how that refutes the claim that trump solicited the russians? Or do you believe it is impossible for one party to solicit another while being solicited?
Click to expand...

What did the Trump Campaign solicit the Russian lawyer with ??
 
sangha said:
Offering illegal support is illegal

And we know it was illegal because any support from the Russians is illegal
Click to expand...

Was purchasing the support from Ruskie informants illegal ??
 
sangha said:
The trump campaign went to the meeting to solicit info from the russians. Even trump and jr admitted that
Click to expand...

The Russian lawyer solicited, the Trump Campaign meet to a meeting, they did not solicit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom