Who Do YOU Believe? Michael Cohen, Donald Trump, Roger Stone.
This is regarding Cohen's public testimony today. Keep in mind:
1. Cohen pleaded guilty to lying to Congress and is going to jail for it (and he has apologized). What does he have left to lose by lying more?
2. Trump is a KNOWN liar with everything to lose
3. Stone is also a known liar with everything to lose as well as wanting a pardon.It's beyond insane and bizarre, the poor little inbred Russian Republican congress-persons STILL support an illegitimate, ivy league certified mentally ill president who many legal experts say is committing CRIMES against the Emoluments Clause of our constitution as we speak, but this morning these very same inbreds are crying like little babies because they didn't receive Cohen's Testimony which SANK this collapsing administration until last night, poor poor little weasels:
None of the above. To get a true picture, the evidence will have to be carefully considered.
Don't rain on their parade. Guilty, guilty, guilty. No evidence will change that, for some.
Granted, but testimony is also evidence. So, a decision is needed on who to believe.
Take the call Stone allegedly made to Trump with Cohen in the room. Telephone logs can provide evidence that the call was made but only Trump, Stone, and Cohen can testify to what was said. Cohen says one thing and Trump/Stone deny it. So who do you believe?You believe Michael Cohen. he swore to it under oath, the other two have no incentive to tell the truth and at least one is a certified pathological liar:
Considering recent events, it looks like you still have to pick who to believe. There are a lot of guys caught in that vice.
GA
Just back from a bit of an absence and haven't read through the thread, but....
I think it is logical to believe that Cohen would have no reason to lie and every reason NOT to lie. Trump and Stone are still lying.No reason not to lie when spreading dirt about the man that fired him and that he hates with every thread of his being? What planet did you grow up on?
He is under oath. He would be risking more prison, or did you forget that part?
LOl Do you really think that being "under oath" means anything at all to these people? What planet was it again?
She grew up on one where common sense rules, Wilderness. One that says if Cohen lies, he spends more years in jail. So I return the question - What planet did you grow up on?
If he lies...[b]and it is proven in court that he did so[/i]. Did you forget that part, Eso, or just not want to mention it?
I disagree PrettyPanther. I am not saying Cohen lied again, but I have the impression that he may have exaggerated a bit.
My thinking is that he tried to affirm his Bona Fides as an anti-Trump convert. It is just an impression, not much I could support if specifically pointed to, but his lead statement declaring Trump to be a liar, cheat, and conman sort of set the tone for mew.
Those descriptors may be true, but that isn't my point. It is that he led off with them. It was unnecessary to his testimony.
GA
I can happily say I have not wasted one moment of my life paying any attention to the dog and pony show.
Come November 2020 when the alternative to Trump is some lunatic Socialist promising to give everything to everybody for free... as long as the economy is chugging along Trump is going to be re-elected no matter what idiotic charges they bring against him.
Here is some reality:
The Democrats do not control the Senate... therefore they cannot remove Trump, under any circumstances, for any reason, unless the VP and Republicans go along with it.
No way at all... none... he cannot be removed by the Democrats, no matter what charges they conjure up, no matter what crimes have been committed.
And if he wins re-election, that extends out to 2024.
All this talk of impeachment, of him going to jail, is just ignorance of the system and laws in place.Come November 2020 when they've concluded Trump laundered money for the Russian mob, committed obstruction of justice, illegally used charity funds on his campaign, broke the emoluments clause of the constitution, violated campaign finance law, gave security clearances to potentially compromised family members and illegally accepted foreign donations to his inauguration fund, Trump will be in jail.
Considering the economists at Berkeley and MIT say the ideal tax rate on the wealthy that makes the economy function at its highest level is between 50-70%, using that extra money on healthcare or education sounds just fine.
Using taxes to pay police - fine. Using it to pay firefighters - fine. Using it on healthcare of education - whoa, that's socialism. If you can't see the benefits to having a healthy and educated population like they have in the Nordic countries where the quality of living is higher than ours, so be it.
Socialism fails when it centralizes to much political and economic power, because that leads to corruption for those who hold that power. What Trump and the GOP don't realize is that you can the same things with capitalism, and they are well on their way.I'll say the same thing I said two years ago... when all the anti-Trumpers on Hubpages were declaring he wouldn't make it to the 1 year mark...
Time will tell.Given the absolute mountain of evidence, come November 2020 Bozo Trump and his pals Roger Stone, "Squinty" Pence and a good number of his grifter children will be acclimated to sucking prison bars if we are STILL a land of laws and then, the American people will decide if they want Communist Russian Republican Socialism which gives ALL our money to the Greedy Filthy Rich "Elite Few" like weirdo Steve Mnuchin, or Democratic Socialism which provides Health-CARE and a Higher Minimum Wage for ALL Americans:
"Using taxes to pay police - fine. Using it to pay firefighters - fine. Using it on healthcare of education - whoa, that's socialism. If you can't see the benefits to having a healthy and educated population like they have in the Nordic countries where the quality of living is higher than ours, so be it."
Paying police and firefighters - those are powers granted to the states, and the states/local government handle it. When we want the federal government to pay for healthcare and higher education, then we're seeking to grant the feds powers they don't have per our constitution.
Massachusetts has statewide healthcare, and from all I've read people up there like it. Honestly, if the federal government stopped taking so much money in taxes, individual states could collect more taxes and pay for some of these things in state like Massachusetts did.
The Nordic peoples are very used to control coming from the central government, we're not. And many Americans continue to be distrustful of putting too much power in the hands of the central government; as I look at history, I see that the mistrust is earned and understandable.
Everything that a government provides, it can take away. California is being threatened by the feds now - it may lose money allocated to it for rail. Once all of healthcare and education is controlled from Washington (free = control), Americans will find that we lose our freedoms.
You are right, sticking your head in the sand and not paying attention to reality can be comforting.
You are also right, there aren't enough Republican men of principle in the Senate to reach the 2/3 required to convict, but there are enough Republicans who actually care about America to make it a bi-partisan majority.
At this point, I do think Trump wouldn't be convicted (which is a shame for America). BUT, I do think he will be facing jail time shortly after leaving office in 2021. There is no way 90,000 Americans will make the same mistake twice, especially now that we know how the Russian disinformation campaign works and can combat it.I pop in every few months to check up on things... same stories, same accusations, that were being talked about in March of 2017 are being talked about in March 2019.
I wrote an article here: Mueller, Cohen, and Much Ado About Nothing
back in August 2018 ... and its the same thing, just being rehashed in front of a bunch of politicians... right? Nothing new? Same results?
Trump is still President, Cohen is still babbling the same stories, and Mueller is still 'investigating'?
Yeah, thought so.Yeah, same thing with the alt-righters around here, bla bla bla socialism, bla bla bla Hillary, bla bla bla Obama, bla bla bla big beautiful imaginary walls.............
DAMN, I sure hope everyone is watching Michael Cohen's BEYOND Shocking Congressional Testimony LIVE NOW !!!!: WoW, say Goodbye Donny:
'“Questions have been raised about whether I know of direct evidence that Mr. Trump or his campaign colluded with Russia. I do not, and I want to be clear. But I have my suspicions,” Cohen told lawmakers.'
'“As I stated in my earlier testimony, I wouldn’t use the word ‘colluding,’” he said. “Was there something odd about the back-and-forth praise with President Putin? Yes. But I’m not really sure I can answer that question in terms of collusion.” '
Yep! Cohen has "suspicions" but no proof and cannot even say there was collusion, only that he found it "odd" - that's certainly enough to put the President away for life!
Shall we all chant "witch hunt" in unison now?
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 … LojUch0UmQWell at least he told the truth. Cohen could have lied and said he did know for sure. Problem is, it isn't JUST Trump being investigated. It is him, his inner circle, and his campaign. For that, there is a lot of evidence of conspiracy there. Just because Cohen isn't directly aware of it, doesn't make it false.
What Cohen did do is paint Trump as a common white-collar criminal - with evidence.What's interesting about focusing on Cohen's collusion testimony is, you clearly believe it's true, Wilderness. However, if you believe him there, I assume you believe him elsewhere? Unfortunately, he gave testimony that implicates Trump in crimes.
This idea that investigating a potential crime with plenty of evidence is a "witch hunt" is preposterous. That would mean investigating any crime is a witch hunt because proof doesn't exist prior to the investigation beginning. It's just a ridiculous assertion. There's no witch hunt. If Mueller ultimately concludes that Trump himself did not collude with the Russians, then we should all be happy about that. I will be. It will be a relief. But to assert that he shouldn't investigate at all is ridiculous.
The other thing I found interesting was listening to Jim Jordan. He basically dismissed everything Cohen said and everything Andrew McCabe said. That was his line. Both are proven liars and cannot be believed. I mean, I realize politicians from both sides do this, but seriously? Everything both men said are all lies? It's another ridiculous assertion. His interview was probably one of the dumber things I've heard. If lying is your qualification for being a liar, then how does he reconcile Trump's statement? I just wish he would intelligently discuss the situation and what Cohen had to say and just make the argument that none of it was impeachable and there was no evidence of collusion. Instead, he just sounded like he had consumed as much Kool-Aid as a man could consume. His response was insulting.That goes along with Cohen's response to the GOP and Trump followers
""I'm responsible for your [GOP] silliness because I did the same thing that you're doing now for 10 years. I protected Mr. Trump for 10 years,"
Why does GOP and Trump acolytes keep applauding Trump's 8000+ lies, false and misleading statements since he took office. Well over 10,000 if you begin with his racist rant coming down the escalator to announce the doom of America by running for president.
"However, if you believe him there, I assume you believe him elsewhere?"
LOL Then the assumption is that we should believe the opposite of whatever he says?
"This idea that investigating a potential crime with plenty of evidence is a "witch hunt" is preposterous."
Right. Except there isn't a shred of evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia. Only speculation, exaggeration and imagination. "Well, he talked to a Russion; that's proof of collusion to fix the election". "Well, he looked into building a hotel; that's proof of collusion to fix the election". "Well, an associate committed a crime 10 years ago: that's proof of collusion to fix the election".
You're going to have to produce proof, not exaggerated assumptions to show collusion.Wilderness, I consider you a pretty logical guy, but you're just way out on a limb here.
My point about Cohen is you seem to just believe the stuff he says that you like. You believe that Trump didn't collude based on Cohen's testimony. What about the rest of Cohen's testimony?
And your "witch hunt" call is still ridiculous. Let's say you find a dead body in the middle of the street with a knife in his/her back. You have no idea what happened to the person. If you're a law enforcement person, do you just ignore the body and the knife because any investigation you begin on any person will be deemed a "witch hunt" because there is no proof?
The intelligence agencies concluded that Russia helped or tried to help Trump win the election and Trump had ties to Russia. There were meetings between Russian agents and the Trump campaign. An investigation for collusion seems like an obvious step and is not a "witch hunt".
As a result, how many indictments have been handed down? Seems to me like they found a lot, but they have not found evidence of collusion yet, which quite frankly, I'm relieved about, as I hope everyone would be. I hope there was no collusion.
I think Michael Cohen's explanation makes a lot of sense. Trump wanted to build a property in Moscow. He never thought he'd win the election. So he met with the Russians about building the property. Makes total sense. He never thought he would win, so he never thought meeting with them would matter.""However, if you believe him there, I assume you believe him elsewhere?"" - Why would you assume that? If you have kids and catch them in one lie - do you never believe anything they say for the rest of their lives? I think not. In any case, Cohen presented corroborating evidence (which you probably think is fake) to back up most of what he said.
Further, since it is Trump's word against Cohen's, there is no question that Cohen is the one telling the truth since Trump seems to be incapable of telling it in most instances.
You keep telling yourself there isn't evidence that the Trump campaign, and probably with Trump's knowledge and approval, didn't conspire with the Russians. You can keep telling yourself that the earth is flat as well.
You may be waiting a while for Donnie's swan song - possibly 6 years.
I think what those who desperately want the president unseated, for any reason, don't understand is some have grown so disenchanted with the government process, some have seen the lies bandied about for so long in the struggle for power in Washington, some have shaken their heads over a great deal of time at how easily the public is manipulated; that they just want solid evidence.
What we are dealing with are he said she saids. This appears to be a simple case of nasty gossip on both sides. Lies emanate from every mouth. If you prove yourself to be a liar you can't ask for credibility after the fact.
Give me a solid piece of evidence. Not guilt by association. Not feelings or suspicions. If due process cannot give us one piece of solid evidence what have we got other than two lynch mobs fighting over a noose?We don't want #TraitorTrump impeached for ANY reason, only for a GOOD reason, such as committing felonies.
EVIDENCE?
At least one each check for $35,000 to Cohen to reimburse him (this is established and not conjecture) for paying off Trump's mistresses in order to help him win the election.
How about one each voice recording where #TraitorTrump tells Cohen to pay off Trump's mistresses.
We all know Trump committed felons. The difference between you and us is You Don't Care so long as Trump is around to complete the job of destroying America. You Know, the America I went to war for, the Same war #TraitorTrump ran away from."At least one each check for $35,000 to Cohen to reimburse him (this is established and not conjecture) for paying off Trump's mistresses in order to help him win the election."
Except that neither the contract and payment to the mistress, nor the check to Cohen was illegal.
"How about one each voice recording where #TraitorTrump tells Cohen to pay off Trump's mistresses."
Except that instructions to form a perfectly legal contract is not illegal.
No, the difference is that you take completely legal events and pretend that they are felonies.Wilderness, there is a felony there. It's a campaign finance violation.
"Except that neither the contract and payment to the mistress, nor the check to Cohen was illegal."
That is factually incorrect. Making that payment is one of the charges Cohen was convicted of as it violates federal law:
"Individual contributions to any presidential candidate, including expenditures coordinated with a candidate or his political committee, were limited to $2,700 per election, and presidential candidates and their committees were prohibited from accepting contributions from individuals in excess of this limit."(1)
Cohen testified he was directed to make payments in excess of those amounts by Donald Trump, explicitly for the purpose of benefiting his election campaign, and that his reimbursement was personally coordinated with Trump.
"Mr. Trump directed me to use my own personal funds from a Home Equity Line of Credit to avoid any money being traced back to him that could negatively impact his campaign . . .
. . . As Exhibit 5 to my testimony shows, I am providing a copy of a $35,000 check that President Trump personally signed from his personal bank 14 account on August 1, 2017 – when he was President of the United States – pursuant to the cover-up, which was the basis of my guilty plea, to reimburse me – the word used by Mr. Trump’s TV lawyer — for the illegal hush money I paid on his behalf. This $35,000 check was one of 11 check installments that was paid throughout the year – while he was President"(2).
Cohen has already been convicted for his part in that crime. While there is some disagreement as to whether a sitting president can be indicted, there is little doubt that, on the face of it, Trump's actions constitute a felony.
(1) https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/press … 6/download (p.19, Count 8, Excessive Campaign Contribution)
(2) https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/27/us/p … imony.htmlIt's not the paying off the mistresses, it's the lying about it previously. Seems that's what got Bill "I did not have sex with that woman" Clinton in trouble. Why do you think Trump's situation is different?
Whether Trump's behavior is legal or not, you can't compare the two. A married guy, not in public office, paid a prostitute to not share that story. A president used power and position to seduce and have sex with an intern. To compare the two insults Lewinski.
You didn't finish your sentence, LTL. It should properly read "A married guy, running for president, not in public office, paid a prostitute to not share that story in order to help himself get elected. " Those extra truths is what makes it a felony campaign violation. I can't quite understand why you ignore those facts.
Because they are not "facts" at all? Because it was not illegal? Because there is only a huge stretch of imagination, without any "felony campaign violation" at all?
While it may be the goal of the Trump haters to convince a gullible citizenry that making a contract to keep quiet is a felony campaign violation, anyone with a grain of common sense knows better.Exactly how obtuse are you, Wilderness? Are you actually claiming Trump WASN'T running for president when he ordered Cohen to pay the hush money?? Are you actually saying he wasn't a candidate for president in the fall of 2016??
Are you actually saying that wasn't Donald Trump's voice on the recording ordering Cohen to pay the hush money?
If you answer yes, then there is no point in every paying attention to you again because clearly you do not have a grasp on reality.Maybe you forgot. But a while back you were arguing the same thing in another thread. We showed you the law which you didnt bother to read before. Then we had to explained it to you.
You then accepted that based on that law it seems there was indeed a violation of that law.
But, of course, then argued that the law was wrong and must be changed. Ha.
I guess it is easy to forgot.
Sorry, I do not recall ever seeing a law that any contract requiring a person to refrain from going public with information is illegal.
Can you refresh my memory, or was the problem that campaign funds were used rather than private money? But Trump did not, as far as I know, authorize using campaign funds to pay off the stripper.Yes, I get it. We agree: "There is nothing illegal per se in making a non-disclosure agreement; they are quite common."
We can even agree on "The criminal law comes into play only if the non-disclosure payment is deemed a donation for purposes of influencing a political campaign.", with the caveat that Democrats will find anything at all to be a violation if it can hurt President Trump. This particular one is absolutely silly and stupid beyond belief; that paying someone, quite legally, not to disclose information that could harm a reputation is a campaign donation. Only a politician chasing dirt on another politician could or would ever use such a law. IMO.Yes, and this is where we are. This was discovered because of the intent to destroy Trump - thus the "Russian Collusion" investigation was launched, an investigation that actually had no limits, and wasn't labeled as a collusion investigation. It was instead open ended. Dare I say that few politicians would survive an open ended investigation??
After all that, it sure seems that Trump has stepped in alot of poop, and some of it will land him in legal trouble in 2021 if he doesn't win the next election. Thankfully, it looks like the far left whacko wing of the Democratic Party will hand Trump another term.
Here's to another 4 years, 2021-2024, of dodging leftist policies.Our political methodology has morphed from working together with compromise as a primary political tool, to simply destroying any opponent as necessary in order to get what the party line demands. We no longer have 535 politicians on the Hill; we now have just 2 - the Democrat and the Republican (plus a small handful of independents). And any "limb" of the opposing party must be cut off and disposed of if possible in order to make our own politician stronger and more able to push it's own agenda without concern for any other.
And yes, President Trump has stepped right into the center of that cesspool; he will be destroyed by the Democrat if at all possible. Politically destroyed, with prison time if at all possible, but at a minimum politically destroyed.The Republicans tried to politically destroy Obama and it didn't work because there was little substance behind the attacks.
In Trump's case, there is plenty of substance.Thank you. The point is now made twice, once from each side of the spectrum.
Geez, wilderness, pretty much everyone agrees that it would be better if the political parties worked together instead of trying to.obstruct and destroy each other. That does not mean that there is not, sometimes, a good reason to investigate a President and good reason to get him out of office.
And now it will never stop. It has become politics as usual in Washington.
Its more than that... one has to look beyond to bigger scopes and goals.
The media focuses on small things, daily gossip, often false or misleading information. The politicians do as well, the dog and pony shows, the only thing more irrelevant and ridiculous than this thing about Trump (a billionaire) giving a check for $35,000 (or whatever it was) to a lawyer, are all the loons doing mental gymnastics trying to say it matters or means anything.
Those who really want to know what is going on... look at the much larger picture... the work of the last 30+ years of politics.
Go back to the fall of the U.S.S.R. and the end of the Reagan Admin.
Things changed, goals changed, it became about a 'New World Order' according to President Bush Sr. and efforts began in earnest to move toward a 'One World Government'.
NAFTA, CAFTA, China's 'Favored Nation' status, etc.
International Corporations, China, Saudi Arabia, etc. poured millions of dollars into the pockets of politicians in D.C. and they still do.
The military efforts in earnest, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, the efforts to instigate Coups in the Ukraine, Georgia, etc.
Trump has been a speed bump to all this, pulling out of the Paris Accord, out of TPP, renegotiating NAFTA, getting in a trade war with China... and our economy has never been better because of it.
Americans are getting raises, anyone who wants to find a job can find one (if they are willing to relocate), the concentration of wealth to America is moving to America again rather than away from it as it has done for the last 30 years.
You bet the media and the politicians in Washington want you focused on this absurd dog and pony show, or on the idiocy of AOC, or anything else they can focus you on.... because if you ignore their BS... and look around you at how wages are going up, the economy has been getting better all the way around, and only socialist states like CA and NY are suffering due to their overwhelmingly idiotic taxes, corruption, and welfare state systems, you are going to be happy with the job Trump has done, no matter how idiotic his tweets may sometimes be.Ken, does it not bother you that that "insignificant" $35,000 check (among many others) broke the law when issued? I am guessing if that is true, then when you run a red light or speed or cheat on your taxes, that is insignificant as well. Is that where you morals lie?
Actually, Wilderness, I do agree with part of what you said. There was period prior to 1995 where what you said was true. But that ended for the most part with the Gingrich revolution and died entirely with the Bush Congress (not Bush, but the Congress when the far-right took over).
Actually, my only point was that a guy sleeping with a prostitute is not as morally reprehensible as a guy taking advantage of a young woman for sexual gain.
One is a consensual agreement, the other is an abuse of power.
What you believe otherwise is your business. I don't know that paying a prostitute to keep quiet is illegal, nor do I understand why it would be. But I do know that it isn't sexual harassment, nor is it indicative of dangerous predatory behavior.I will agree with you about the simple act of sleeping with a prostitute or anyone else for that matter. But that is not the point here, is it? The point is Donald Trump committed a felony by paying these women to keep quiet IN ORDER TO help him win the presidency.
If he weren't running for president, no harm, no foul. BUT, he was running for president and all evidence points to this was done to help him not lose votes. Don't you believe in following the law or do let that slide for Trump?If the money used for the hush payments was used from illegal sources. That's a problem. Otherwise, I could care less.
So, it is your contention that no politician or aspiring politician has ever been blackmailed and caving into blackmail demands of monetary payment (assuming the information which could be released does not constitute a crime) is illegal?
How far will you take that? Does having a hamburger help get him elected (must maintain health, and not eating will not do that)? The dry cleaner, cleaning his clothes (must look good for the campaign)?
Is every dime spent during the campaign time contribute to his campaign and thus must be reported? How about business decisions (must make money to afford the campaign costs)?"Does having a hamburger help get him elected (must maintain health, and not eating will not do that)?"
No need to speculate on this.
Providing food for the benefit of a campaign is not a campaign contribution, provided the campaign is charged the cost-value of the food, and the cumulative value does not exceed $1,000 in any given election, or $2,000 in any given calendar year.
As per federal election campaign law:
"(B) The term “contribution” does not include—
. . . (iii) the sale of any food or beverage by a vendor for use in any candidate’s campaign or for use by or on behalf of any political committee of a political party at a charge less than the normal comparable charge, if such charge is at least equal to the cost of such food or beverage to the vendor, to the extent that the cumulative value of such activity by such vendor on behalf of any single candidate does not exceed $1,000 with respect to any single election, and on behalf of all political committees of a political party does not exceed $2,000 in any calendar year;"(1)
"The dry cleaner, cleaning his clothes (must look good for the campaign)?"
There is no mention of dry-cleaning in the definition of contributions or any of the fourteen exceptions, but we can see from section 8(A) that if a third party provides "anything of value" for the purpose of influencing the outcome of an election, it would likely constitute a campaign contribution:
"(A) The term “contribution” includes—
(i) any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office; or
(ii) the payment by any person of compensation for the personal services of another person which are rendered to a political committee without charge for any purpose."(2)
Would you like to check any other activity against the definition of "contribution", or is the definition above and the link below enough for you to determine that now?
(1) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30101
(2) ibidNope. From the definition, a payment (from private funds) to Stormy, via a contract to keep her mouth shut, does not fit in anything listed here.
Either that or the dry cleaning, along with a haircut and manicure, the new suit of clothes and new pair of shoes and the car wash all qualify. From your comment I deduce that you don't really find the dry cleaner bill to be a contribution; it follows that the barber, clothing store and car wash don't either. And from that, neither does the contract with stormy.
I concur.You must have a specific mental block against understanding what constitutes a campaign contribution. I have seen it explained to you many times yet you continue to insist that the crime for which Michael Cohen was convicted is not a crime. How strange.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/201 … 287647002/
This article lays out in very simple terms the crime committed by Cohen. It also explains how, if there is evidence that Trump knew about the payments, Trump also committed the same crime.I'm not surprised. Under the reasoning used, the purchase of a suit of clothes (expensive, as expected of Trump) also is a "campaign contribution". Which is what I was trying to say - when the definition is widened to include any expense that might conceivably improve chances of election (such as a suit of clothes or a contract of silence) anything is possible.
Is it "right" (as opposed to legal). Every Democrat in the country will say "Yes"...as long as it had anything to do with Trump's campaign. Doesn't meet the common sense ruler, but they will say it anyway.
Am I wrong when I recall that the funds came directly from the campaign fund? The article doesn't say (or I missed it), and you aren't indicating either, yet it would seem to make a very large difference, at least to me.Your common sense isn't working very well for you, wilderness. If you don't understand by now, I doubt you ever will, but.....in answer to your question about the source of the payments, the article states one of them (McDougal) came from American Media Inc., the corporate parent of the National Enquirer. Mr. Cohen paid off Stormy with funds he obtained from a fraudulent real estate loan (info not in the article, but covered elsewhere).
Then campaign funds were not used. But you want to claim that it should have been reported anyway, and as campaign money, because the assumption is that spending it enhanced Trumps chances at winning.
While it might have (had stormy honored her contract) so would a clean set of clothes. Or a doctor's visit, or very nearly anything spent to keep up appearances. IMO, that's a sad statement then, - that we make laws designed solely to find guilt when we can't prove anything truly relevant. It's not the only instance, though, so I guess it's all right.I ran for local office tecently. I took the time to learn the rules. For example, a local deejay donated his time and equipment to provide music for my campaign rally. I reported it as a campaign contribution as required by law. If I had paid for it, it would have been a personal campaign contribution. This is not rocket science. If I can understand it, a presidential candidate and his campaign staff can certainly understand it. You, of coursre, do your best to make the law seem silly with your examples because that is what you do.
Let's take one of your examples, a clean set of clothes. If the value of providing that clean set of clothes exceeds a certain amount as set by law (I don't know what that minimum value is,but I would guess it's vastly more than the value of cleaning a set of clothes), and the clothes are donated specifically for campaign use, then yes it would be a campaign contribution. If the candidate pays for the clothing, and the value exceeds the amount set by law, it would be a personal campaign contribution.
It's not that hard to figure out.
Just coming out of Snowpocalypse 2019. No power for 5 days.
I am relieved. You seemed upset over our last exchange. I posted an explanatory "apology" response but heard nothing from you. Even a "Contact author" email got no response.
So, to say again, glad to see you back. (but on that "other" thread you were still wrong ;-)
GAUgh. Fun for a day or two, but it gets old really fast, doesn't it.
Yes, we were fortunate to have a woodstove and could at least stay warm.
Uff. I'm glad you're ok. That's not fun.
I couldn't imagine. We were without power (for a long time) but in the heat. I still don't know how I managed. Ha. Now the few times we go without power a couple of hours I get anxious.I can see where you would get anxious. How long were you without power?
Three months. My parents and sisters were without power for almost six months. (Without water it was about a month or two).
That is so hard. I hope you never have to go through that again.
"Nope. From the definition, a payment (from private funds) to Stormy, via a contract to keep her mouth shut, does not fit in anything listed here."
Let's stick with the facts.
Cohen was charged with (among other things) making two payments which prosecutors said violated federal campaign law.
He was convicted of those charges in a court of law.
Both the charges and his conviction are dependent on his payments meeting the definition of campaign contributions.
So to be clear, are you suggesting that Cohen was mischarged and has been falsely convicted? And are you suggesting he is not guilty of the criminal offense which he (a former lawyer) pled guilty to?
Is that your position?My position was, and is, that President Trump has not been found guilty of anything at all for any payments to "Stormy".
As far as Cohen - I thought he was found guilty and sentenced to prison for lying to congress. Was I wrong? Were there additional charges?He was also convicted of campaign finance violations:
"COHEN, 51, of NEW YORK, NEW YORK, pleaded guilty to five counts of willful tax evasion; one count of making false statements to a bank; one count of causing an unlawful campaign contribution; and one count of making an excessive campaign contribution."(my emphasis)(1)
"In a separate prosecution brought by the Special Counsel’s Office (“SCO”), COHEN pled guilty on November 29, 2018 to one count of making false statements to the U.S Congress"(2)
So do you still contend that payments Cohen was involved in do not meet the definition of campaign contributions?
And do you contend that Cohen was therefore mischarged and falsely convicted on those two counts?
(1) https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/mi … iminal-tax
(2) https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/mi … ars-prisonNo. I've not particularly followed Cohen's shenanigans; the stories of a convicted liar out to cause harm to some one they hate is not of particular interest to me. Any more than the same tales from anyone at all operating from the same hate base, convicted liar or not.
I promised myself I wouldn't get into these silly arguments about slinging mud at the president, but sometimes I slip. The comments (and now the charges against Cohen) just get so silly (IMO) that it becomes very, very obvious that they are nothing but political flak being thrown up for purely political purposes.So, you find it perfectly acceptable for a presidential candidate to hide his transgressions by paying off those with knowledge of them for the purpose of increasing his chances of winning an election ?
"The comments (and now the charges against Cohen) just get so silly (IMO)...."I
Really?Be that as it may, if you now accept Cohen's payments meet the definition of campaign contributions, which obviously they do, then the next logical step is to consider what that means in relation to Trump.
On the charge sheet for Cohen, prosecutors indirectly highlighted the legal jeopardy for Trump:
"Individual contributions to any presidential candidate, including expenditures coordinated with a candidate or his political committee, were limited to $2,700 per election, and presidential candidates and their committees were prohibited from accepting contributions from individuals in excess of this limit"(1)(my emphasis).
Cohen testified that the illegal payments were made in cooperation with Donald Trump:
"The President of the United States thus wrote a personal check for the payment of hush money as part of a criminal scheme to violate campaign finance laws"(2).
Therefore, regardless of how "silly" you consider the charges against Cohen, the fact remains Donald Trump is currently directly implicated in the felony for which Cohen has been convicted.
(1) https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/press … 6/download (p.11)
(2) https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/27/us/p … imony.html
Doesn't it have to be demonstrated that Trump wanted this done expressly for campaign purposes?
It was. That's one of the reasons Cohen is going to jail and Individual one is so worried.
I understand. Cohen says he paid the money under direction of Trump - and he's going to jail in part for that. If I remember correctly, Trump claims that what Cohen said isn't true.
One of them is lying, and it may be Trump. But Cohen could have lied to get a lighter sentence for tax violations. I'm not saying I believe Trump on this, but I don't think that it's been proven that Trump ordered Cohen to pay this money.Except for that audio tape of Trump telling Cohen to make the payments. Seems to be pretty damning proof. Perhaps an expansion of information sources might illuminate the crime.
They both have lied.
Trump said he knew nothing about any payment. Then he changed the story and said yeah, the payment was not with campaign money so it's ok. He then changed again (after Rudy talked too much: "They funneled through a law firm, and the President repaid it." ) and said he paid Cohen back but hey Rudy is new and he doesn't know what he's talking about.
So yeah, they are both liars. I guess that's why they have that special relationship for a decade.So where did Cohen lie about this (subject being the hush payment). I know they've both lied, but I'm speaking specifically of this topic.
When he originally said he paid Stormy and Trump didn't paid back. As we all know, that was a lie and they both have admitted so.
Bill lied to Congress, under oath, during a hearing. What were the circumstances where Trump lied about the payment, and just what did he say?
"pretend that they are felonies." - LOL, you mean to tell me Cohen is going to prison for a "pretend felony"??
You do know, and I am starting to doubt it, that one of Cohen's crimes he is going to jail for is, at the direction of Trump, paying hush money to Trump's mistresses - a REAL FELONY, and not a pretend one. That Trump was an unindicted co-conspirator in that crime? Don't you understand the law or do you simply all laws are pretend?
LtoL makes a good point.
The people who voted for Trump knew exactly who they were voting for. They voted for a guy they thought could play the game better than the lying politicians that made them so sick and tired in the first place. In their mind, Trump should not be penalized for being a worse snake than a zoo full of them.Don't get me wrong. If guilty, throw the book at him. But not without solid evidence. Hating someone does not constitute valid reason for punishment.
I dislike him, but the law is the law. Collusion has not been proven. Like I said, Cohen's explanation makes complete sense: Trump thought he was going to lose, so meeting with the Russians wasn't a concern.
But then you haven't a clue as to what Mueller has on him. Keep in mind, all Mueller needs to prove is conspiracy between the Trump campaign (which Trump micromanaged) and the Russians. And, there are already a couple of SOLID pieces of evidence toward that already out in the public forum.
LOL No, Eso, proving that random people in the campaign colluded with Russians (if that was proven, which it is not) does NOT prove Trump instructed them to do so or even knew about it. Not even when you claim (without evidence) that he "micromanaged" the campaign and therefore knew what every person was doing every moment.
HOW CAN CONGRESS CALL A KNOWN LIAR THAT HAS BEEN CONVICTED AND IS GOING TO JAIL FOR LYING TO THEM ALREADY, TO TESTIFY AND BELIEVE A WORD HE SAYS AND CALL IT CREDIBLE. I AGREE WITH YOU.
Is "known liar" the standard for not believing anything somebody says? People lie when it is advantageous for them to do so and tell the truth (sometimes) when it is not advantageous for them to lie. So when has it been advantageous for Cohen to lie and when has it not?
I haven't heard anybody talk about AOC. She was the mouse that roared in the room and acted professionally without any political theater.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics … ax-returnsAgree.
AOC questioning:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zmgQDRU6v4
or for those who prefer to read:
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete … s-michael/Very interesting. I had not seen the transcripts about this nor listened to the question. If true, that exchange would seem to prove that Donald Trump committed tax fraud.
I think the information Ocasio-Cortez gained in less than five minutes was some of the most pertinent and insightful of the entire hearing.
I suppose Gino has never lied. Also, Gino ignores that Cohen brought lots of corroborating evidence to back up his truths.
Gino also ignores that the choice is to believe Trump or believe Cohen. Hands down as to who is the most truthful - and it isn't Trump
How can You vote for a known liar, Gino? Why do you want a Known liar and mobster as president?
Related Discussions
- 28
Will Impeachment Lead to Removal?
by J Conn 4 years ago
The Democrats in the House are beginning official impeachment proceedings. What is the likelihood that the charges leveled against Trump are serious enough to lead to his removal?
- 29
Has President Donald Trump Been Compromised by Russia?
by Allen Donald 5 years ago
How else do you explain his behavior over the past few days and in Helsinki? Why does he refuse to hold Putin and Russia responsible for interfering in our election? Why, whenever he's given the chance, does he describe Putin as a strong leader and criticize America?Here are a couple of links. The...
- 43
Is THIS One of the Examples of Trump Obstruction of Justice"?
by Scott Belford 20 months ago
There can be know doubt that the Trump Jr. meeting with various Russians connected with Putin was collusion. It is not important that the those on the Russian side ended up only talking about influencing Donald Trump to end a set of 2012 sanctions against Russia. What is important is that...
- 314
Trump indicted by grand jury for Jan. 6, effort to overturn election
by Mike Russo 6 months ago
The sweeping indictment, based on the investigation by special counsel Jack Smith, charges Trump with four felony counts: conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against...
- 339
15 People!! close to Trump in contact with Russians. No Conspiracy???
by Scott Belford 5 years ago
Over 15, close or very close associates of Donald Trump or his campaign have had contacts with Russia and Russian spies. How can this not be a conspiracy that Trump didn't know about??- Flynn - National Security Advisor (pleaded guilty)- Sessions - Former Attorney General (fired by Trump for...
- 52
Michael Flynn Calls for President Trump to Declare Martial Law
by Allen Donald 3 years ago
Former National Security Adviser has called for President Trump to suspend the Constitution and call for limited martial law in order to re-run the election that would be overseen by the military due to the massive election fraud.Do you agree with General Flynn?Clearly, President Trump believes...