Trump says he doesn't think Cohen will "flip'
- PrettyPantherposted 6 years ago
0"President Donald Trump said Saturday that he doesn’t expect Michael Cohen, his longtime personal lawyer and fixer, to “flip” as the government investigates Cohen’s business dealings.
Trump, in a series of tweets, accused The New York Times and one of its reporters of “going out of their way to destroy Michael Cohen and his relationship with me in the hope that he will ‘flip'” — a term that can mean cooperating with the government in exchange for leniency.
“Most people will flip if the Government lets them out of trouble,” even if “it means lying or making up stories,” Trump said, before adding: “Sorry, I don’t see Michael doing that despite the horrible Witch Hunt and the dishonest media!”
By speculating that Cohen won't "flip," is Trump tacitly admitting there are criminal activities that could be exposed by Cohen, his personal attorney? Why even speculate, if there is no basis for Cohen to "flip"?
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/t … -will-flipSo far the only criminal activities I've seen are activities that had little to nothing to do with the election or the stated purpose of the investigation. Given that, and given that "flip" includes "even if “it means lying or making up stories" the answer should be obvious.
I'm pretty sure any info provided by Cohen for the purpose of receiving a reduced sentence would have to be verified for truth and accuracy. I'm pretty sure even Cohen, who doesn't appear to be the brightest or most competent lawyer, is aware that "lying or making up stories" would not only be fruitless but detrimental to his future.
Why? There is not, as far as we know, anything found by that investigation to date, but it certainly hasn't stopped the claims of Trump/Russia collaboration. It hasn't even dented it.
Personally I'm not a fan of playing games with the legal system by promising immunity for ratting bigger game (like the President of the United States) out, but even setting that aside it is no better when the purpose is political embarrassment rather than finding criminals. Nobody is going to jail, or even get a fine, for collaboration - it's long past time to quit changing the focus in order to get political points from something.
We've seen govt. agencies grossly abused in the past (J Edgar) and heard rumors of others (Clinton and the IRS). We're now seeing it happen all over, and for no more reason than political games. IMO.I continue to be amused and fascinated by those who make unequivocal pronouncements about what the investigation has not found. Given that the investigation has not concluded, one cannot possibly know what has not been found. One can only know what has been revealed so far.
"There is not, as far as we know, anything found by that investigation to date..."
That's what you call "unequivocal"? We must have very different definitions of that term. Or, given the statement that "One can only know what has been revealed so far.", perhaps you didn't see it.Fair enough. I think it was this statement that felt unequivocal. "Nobody is going to jail, or even get a fine, for collaboration - it's long past time to quit changing the focus in order to get political points from something. "
Admittedly that one is opinion, and admittedly Trump doesn't have Bill to cover for him or have the hooks into hundreds of politicians like Hillary did. Nevertheless, that is my prediction; that Trump is not going to jail or get any fine. Some of the lesser people in the administration might...but not for what the investigation was supposed to be looking for.
It's like giving the cops an open search warrant for anything the might find by tearing an apartment house apart board by board as well as putting 24 hour surveillance on all the residents. They WILL find something that someone in the building could be indicted for, and that's exactly what we're seeing."They WILL find something that someone in the building could be indicted for, and that's exactly what we're seeing."
They will find something ONLY. if those being investigated are criminals. If they're not, then they have nothing to worry about. Trump does not act like an innocent man with nothing to hide.
And remember, all search warrants have been properly and legally obtained, which means sufficient evidence of criminal activity already exists..Look over 50 people and you will find a "criminal" in them. Ever speed? Run a red light? Make an error on the 1040? Jaywalk? "Steal" a pen from the bank? Have an affair? Smoke a joint? Take someone else's pain pill? Spit on the sidewalk?
It's gotten to the point in this country that there are enough laws to convict every person in it of something.
Yes, I know the search warrants were proper. But that isn't the point; the point I was trying to make is that the investigation was to find evidence showing Trump collaborated with the Russian government to fix the election. Since then it's gone through at least a halv dozen expansions because they didn't find that dirt. So we have people indicted for things done years before the election, people that had zero connection to Trump at the time. If that's how an investigation into Trump's collaboration with Russia works, then an open warrant for an entire apartment complex would be the equivalent.Are you suggesting Mueller hasn't found anything linking Spanky to Putie, or we simply don't know yet? A big difference between the two, doncha think? The continual use of Clinton and Obama as justifications for Spanky's transgressions are getting rather stale at this point, Dan. So why do you think Spanky is so easy on Putin re the sanctions?
I'll quote myself again: "There is not, as far as we know, anything found by that investigation to date..."
I have no idea why President Trump (if that's the person you refer to) is easy or hard on Putin. Not being a mind reader, and never hearing the President give a reason, I can't know any more than you can.
And not knowing, I won't make up a reason whose sole claim to fame is that it happens to fit what I would like to hear, for if nothing else I am absolutely positive that I am not in possession of all the information about Russia that the President is. Will you?No, not claiming one way or the other, Dan.
Sorry I didn't get to talk with you much in BC, Dan. I was in agony from a back injury most of the time. It's a long harrowing tale.....like most of mine usually are.
Really? I took the comment "So why do you think Spanky is so easy on Putin re the sanctions?" as a very strong indication you are using it as "proof" of collusion. Still think so, too - it came out of nowhere, has nothing to do with the topic.
I missed the BC connection, too - was looking forward to some time with you. Sure sorry you had such a rough time then as I did find the whole thing useful.
Are you suggesting that if, in the course of investigating one crime, another crime is indicated, the investigator should ignore it?
If that is the case, then Hillary's improper use of a personal email server would never have been investigated, since it was discovered during the Benghazi investigation.
This notion that everyone has committed a crime that the FBI would care about is ridiculous. Jack said the same thing to me. Yes, I have exceeded the speed limit and taken someone else's pain pill, but the FBI doesn't give a rat's patootie about that. I am 100% confident that they could look through my entire life and not charge me with a crime, and I believe most people could say the same thing.
Most people are not FBI-caliber criminals. If Donnie isn't, then he'll be just fine.
The warrants relate to a criminal investigation into allegations that Cohen may have committed bank fraud, wire fraud, and campaign-finance violations stemming from a hush payment to Stormy Daniels.
"I've been an FBI special agent for 20 years and have only seen a handful of searches executed on attorneys. All of those attorneys went to prison.” - Josh Campbell
Big bags, frightened appearance, probably no sleep: He looks broken and terrified just like Donald and from what we've seen and heard so far from the media, it's absolutely justified:
He'll flip faster than a dolphin at sea world once charges are filed and it looks like he faces decades of imprisonment without his wife and children at his side and given his and Donny's dubious past in New York, we can only imagine what his files will reveal after that rare raid on his properties:
While he's still free, he should take a stroll through sing sing state correctional facility in New York just to get a little taste of the lovely surroundings and quality of human companionship he'll be privileged to mingle with if he chooses to go to prison for a megalomaniac who could care less about him:
Apparently, the stunning Cohen raid was not related to the Mueller criminal investigation of Trump which has already yielded 19 indictments and several co-operating witnesses, that's why is was referred to a New York division of the FBI and appurtenant federal prosecutors: You know, the same FBI which Donny has been unrelentingly undermining and degrading for about 2 years now while praising his lover pal Vladimir Putin:
Spanky is cooked one way or another, his time in the oval office is winding down thank God and yes, sloppy Michael Cohen will absolutely flip when facing 30+ years in a federal prison which is essentially a life term for a soft, weak, unintelligent person like him: The question is, how many Cohen / Trump crimes are tucked between all those computer hard drives, discs and cell phone records:
- ahorsebackposted 6 years ago0
Personally , I don't understand why the news media in the U.S. thinks its readership is so stupid as to believe they can indoctrinate the american voter towards the destructive agenda of liberal media . It seems all about the direction of the youth voter , granted the Obama election phenomenon worked once , how many times do they think they can control an election outcome.
Without harnessing that youthful , uninformed idealism the boringness of all elections and politics in general returns to its former self. That Obama , Kennedy , Sanders fads can only happen in the right generational atmosphere , without P.C. its all business as usual. Thankfully.Of course it is ! Without the left bias of media and especially the corruption of our federal offices , there would be NO Cohen investigation . Flip Cohen ," ....you mean like flipping a burger or something ......[Clinton ]" , likely Cohen is where he is simply because he knows Trump , because an obstructionist atty. , a liberal activist judge and the media allow such travesties to legally move forwards.
We all know that , one more cast of the fishing pole .The topic is whether or not Trump is implying there are illegal activities that Cohen could divulge in order to "flip."
Do you have any comment on that?There absolutely must be illegal activities tucked away in Cohen's secret files and everyone knows it: Why else would Spanky be acting so guilty, sending 'pardon' signals to his criminal friends and associates, appeasing Vladimir Putin and spending all our time in an angry unhinged rage on twitter in between golfing and cheeseburgers binges instead of trying to pull the USA out of the collapsing financial and immoral mess he caused before he's removed?
Your speculation seems quite reasonable to me. Trump, from the beginning, has not acted like an innocent man. If he is innocent, then he must be the stupidest man on the planet, to make so many statements and so many moves that only serve to make himself appear guilty.
- ahorsebackposted 6 years ago0
All of the Russia -collusion failures , The Clinton excuse tours , the Special Councils , all the high powered attorneys , the Muellers , McCabes , Lynches , Comey , All the Stormy's in the world and Mueller can't even give Trump a speeding ticket ? To quote one of the far left here ,
" .....somebody's getting all Butt Hurt over this ......"
Well yea , the entire left-stream media is in full melt down phaze !
Oh and more than a few here .
Do you have any comment on whether Trump is implying there are illegal activities that Cohen could divulge in order to "flip"?
Whether Cohen flips or not about something , invented or real , is entirely separate from the fact that "justice " all too often is but an ideologically agendaed fishing expedition , that alone is what this is . How hard is it to find attorneys willing to take a paycheck ? A activist judge to sign on and open an investigation ? The media to jump at the meal like the very piranhas that they are ?
And the sheeples to jump into the fray ?Are you saying that even if Cohen flips on something "real" you will still believe the investigation is nothing but a fishing expedition?
Yes , look at how many people have been gouged by the left ,who's mission is simply the Alinskyism obstruction subject of the day.
You're not making any sense. Again. Are you okay?
I'm simply pointing out the Cohen inquest of nothing- for nothing -created by nothing . What do you have to date , from the beginning of Russia -Trump collusion you've shown a big fat nothing burger but there's something wrong with me ? Really ?
Time to get a grip on the Trump deranged segment of your party I think .
Oh yea I forgot the party crashing Stormy .Eh. You say 19 indictments/guilty pleas is nothing. And since the
investigation is not over, to say there will be nothing is rather presumptuous
That other post still doesn't make sense, though.Pretty Panther ,Not real tough to figure out "fishing expedition " is it ?
So Trumps been arrested 19 times now AND plead guilty?
See my point ?I think Jake might be rubbing off on you PrettyPanther. "... 19 indictments/guilty pleas ..."
Considering the context is the Mueller Trump-Russian Collusion investigation. Do you really think that statement is applicable as indications of Mueller's success?
Granted, they are indictments/pleas of crimes, (or suspected crimes), but so far, (and I emphasize "so far"), none are indictments or pleas relating to the collusion charges that were the impetus for the investigation - yet that impressive "19" number is proclaimed as proof of Mueller's success. I don't see it that way. And I think your continued use of that magic 19 as validation for the Mueller investigation is a bit of a "tell" - as in falling under the "Jake" spell.
Here is a Vox link that details that magic "19" number: (which you have probably already seen in your research of those 19 indictments to be sure they validated your point)
All of Robert Mueller’s indictments and plea deals in the Russia investigation so far
Here are a couple blurbs interspersed with the list of charges explanations:
"None of the charges against Americans or Trump advisers so far have directly alleged that they worked with Russia to interfere with the campaign."
"Paul Manafort and Rick Gates were hit with tax, money laundering and other charges that relate to their work for the government of Ukraine and a Russia-affiliated Ukrainian political party." *My note: these was pre-Trump non-collusion-related activities.
"Other reported focuses of Mueller’s investigation — such as the hacking and leaking of prominent Democrats’ emails and potential obstruction of justice by the Trump administration — have not resulted in any indictments yet."
"So far, no Trump associates have been specifically charged with any crimes relating to helping Russia interfere with the 2016 election."
"... But we haven’t seen the fruits of their cooperation just yet."
"No Americans have been charged with being witting participants in this Russian election interference effort. "
So, if the Vox information has any credence - and it is corroborated by other articles concerning the "19" indictments, then what you have are indictments of crimes that were either pre-Trump and unrelated to Trump, or crimes of lying - with no information yet what that lying is hiding.
Do you really feel use the of that Magic 19 "fact" bolsters your argument?
GAActually GA, the Mueller investigation revolves around the Russian espionage and conspiracy and potential crimes which arise from said investigation:
Public evidence alone will convict Spanky if we are still a land of laws: The Lester Holt interview with Trump where he confesses and Comey's memos are just two exhibits which will convict him of Obstruction of Justice, Abuse of Power plus other related crimes:
He should be convicted of violating the emoluments clause of the constitution which he willfully and blatantly violates daily, it's just insane how he gets away with this every single day: The Trump Castle meeting between Russian spies, Donny Jr, Manifort et al is just one piece of evidence which should convict him of conspiracy against the United States and the damning evidence goes on and on:Hi Jake,
You are responding to a comment about the proclaimed "19 indictments/pleas" charge as proof of Pres. Trump's guilt being proven by Mueller's collusion investigation. Do you have a comment germane to that point?
Also, your description of the purpose of the Mueller investigation would be more accurate if you dropped the "potential" adjective, (or at least replaced it with "related")."
I am confident your research found that Mueller wasn't given a new investigation mandate, but rather to takeover the FBI investigation. Which Director Comey testified to be;
"Part of our mission, beyond the oversight we continue to provide to the intelligence community and its activities, is to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections."
He further added that "... the investigation was examining whether "there was any coordination" between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government." and " ... to determine if any crimes had been committed." *the context of that was directly related to the stated purpose of the investigation.
Perhaps your inaccuracy took root in the DOJ's description of Mueller's mandate: "... any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and (iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a). (which is just a jurisdiction explanation). But the point of context is that the purpose of the investigation was not stated as "potential" crimes of "any" sort - as your description, and comment implied.
GAActually 'matters' is more general than 'potential crimes', so Mueller has much more latitude and scope according to your assessment and it was granted to him because anyone who is serious about digging up all the crimes committed by the Trump Campaign understand the long intertwined tentacles involved:
My previous comment was in response to the topic of 'tipping point': We will soon find out if Mr. Trump and his corrupt family and friends get away with it which would be the ultimate shocker in our history:
In my previous example of what can only be described as obstruction of justice, on national television in the Lester Holt interview to the best of my recollection, Donald said he was going to fire FBI director James Comey in charge of the investigation regardless of Rosenstein's recommendation, and Russia was on his mind when he did it: So there's your first exhibit of corrupt intent:
According ot his own words, he obviously did it to interrupt and or impede the Russia investigation and apparently his megalomaniacal delusional mind was fixated on that regardless of Rosenstein's input:
The only possible way this evidence is even more damning and more of a tipping point is if Donald told Lester Holt he fired James Comey to obstruct justice which even if a tape of this surfaced, the last few remaining cult members of Donald would still deny he said it:Hello again Jake, Your point about "matters" vs. "potential" might just be a perception of semantics. In my view, and in my understanding of the context of its use, I don't see "matters" as being more general, but I certainly understand that others could see it as such. Regardless of word choice, I still believe it is the context of that choice that determines its intended meaning. And I think the FBI's and DOJ's context demands that "relative, or related" be an inferred adjective. I think your "potential crimes" statement lacked that.
GAGA: I think we agree that it really doesn't matter what Mueller's mandate indicates, if he or his team find evidence of a crime regardless of the connection direct or otherwise to their investigation or lack thereof, they have the obligation and duty to either pursue the crime if they believe it falls within their jurisdiction, or refer it to another office, branch or entity which would have jurisdiction as they apparently did with the Michael Cohen case, and a whopper of a damning case it is:
Jake, I can almost agree with your thoughts on this. But I think jurisdictional parameters are extremely important. For instance; An aspect of the investigation that might have a ten year time frame of applicable actions would, in my mind, be exceeding its jurisdiction if it extended that investigation to a twenty year time frame.
Likewise, I think a jurisdictional focus is also as important. If the investigation was of an issue that could have no possible financial implications or connections, then a forensic financial focus may also exceed the investigation's jurisdiction.
Beyond those points - we are mostly in agreement.
For illustration, If Cohen is the "Mr. Fix-it" for Trump that he is portrayed to be, then I think he does fall within the investigation's jurisdiction. (but certainly not for the Stormy Danials issue).Conversely, if Manafort's or Gates' issues were pre-2012, then I think the investigation exceeded its jurisdiction.
GA
GA, I do not view 19 indictments/guilty pleas as "success." I view them as a sad result of the investigation so far. Sad, because Trump obviously surrounds himself with people of questionable character and shady ethics.
I have repeatedly stated that I don't know if Trump will be found to have colluded with Russia. No one does. However, to state the investigation is a nothing burger is plain wrong, unless you believe, as some people seem to, that criminal activities uncovered that are not directly related to collusion with Russia should be ignored or discounted. Odd, considering that these same people claim Hillary's email scandal as evidence of her unfitness for office, even though that investigation was concluded without charges, and even though those accusations arose during an unrelated investigation.
The only reason I ever bring up that magic number 19 is when people claim the investigation has yielded nothing. It has yielded plenty and it's still ongoing. I've never used those 19 indictments/guilty pleas as evidence that Trump is guilty of something, only that it is wrong to say the investigation is fruitless.
As for Jake rubbing off on me, I'd like you to explain that, please, as I don't have a clue what you mean. I like Jake's posts. They are entertaining and make me laugh. Do you not enjoy them?
I don't see how he is rubbing off on me, but perhaps you can enlighten me.Hi PrettyPanther, I can enlighten you on at least one point ... I agree with your first paragraph. But ... relative to the stated purpose of the investigation, even though I don't advocate ignoring discovered "tangential" crimes, I think that in context, the investigation is a "nothing burger," so far.
As for the real explanation and enlightenment you wanted ... I can't do that, it would be bad form. Although you might consider your concern about the meaning of my comment to be a clue.
GAI agree, the collusion accusation has been a nothing burger so far, as it relates directly to Trump.
As for the rest, I don't have a problem with Jake's posts so I didn't consider your suggestion he was rubbing off on me to be derogatory, although I figured it could be, given your almost obsessive need to avoid offending anyone. Now that I know it is meant to be a dig, I suggest that if you're not going to spit it out then perhaps you shouldn't have mentioned it at all. How very unfair of you. If you're going to take a dig at me, at least be willing to explain it. That would be the polite thing to do. Keep in mind, I am insulted several times a day here on the forums by horse and others. I can take it.
Please don't throw a stink bomb at me then suddenly decide you're too proper to explain what stinks.Oh my, "obsessive need," cowardly, ("not going to spit it out"), "unfair," impolite, ("the polite thing to do"), "too proper," stink bomb thrower ...
But PrettyPanther, you left out the most serious one - selfish.
Selfish because I don't think openly offending or insulting someone on purpose reflects well on the one doing the offending or insulting - so I selfishly try to avoid doing it. I don't see that as cowardly. Concerning the restraint I exercise regarding some posts we see on these forums, (and as much as I search for opportunities to join conversations), I think it's damn near heroic.
So it is not an obsessive need, it's a selfish one. There is also the selfish perspective that I don't like being wrong, so if there is a chance I am mistaken about something, or, misunderstood something ... in short, I prefer to look before I leap. That also has nothing to do with a need to not offend someone.
Then there is even the more basic point that I believe in that old saying that nothing is ever gained by stating the obvious, so why do it. Your defensive response here seems to prove that adage. Which implies your request for an explanation was just a conversational ploy to get me to tip my hand. Which seems to have been quite unnecessary.
I think you're just pissed because I wouldn't hand you a club to beat me with.
Well, that's about the most offensiveness I can muster ... But we're still buds right?
GAOf course we're still buds. I prefer plain speaking over all this silly tip toeing. I honestly do not know what you mean and do think that since you threw it out there, you should man up and explain it. I promise not to use it as a club. You are completely misreading me on this one. Now I'm just damned curious to know what obvious point I'm missing. If you're too, ahem, "polite" to explain it then maybe someone else reading this will chime in and tell me about this obvious point I'm missing. Randy? Jake? Wilderness?
"Man-up?" Attacking my "manhood?" Now that's a sneaky trick. If I were a Metroman, I could just smile and shrug, but you know I am a real he-man, so I am genetically unable to resist replying. :-)
But ... How about a little tap-dancing in lieu of that "tip-toeing"
Although rhetoric has an innocuous definition, in common usage in political discussions it is usually intended to infer something that is far from innocuous. I have never viewed your contributions to be 'just' rhetoric, but that is not something I can say for too many of the posts in these forums.
More to the point, in these type discussions rhetoric is usually of the type that describes an assault as if it were a murder, a pimple as a leper's lesion, a small vanity like a comb-over as a tragic character flaw, and in the context of adjectives, a stream of hyperbolic descriptors that carry no value beyond the negative inferences they are purposely intended to portray. Now, judging from what I know of your perspective, you might think I am talking about Pres. Trump, but you know how much I value context, and you know the context of our discussion.
I know, I still didn't name names, but I think my answer is "plain-speak," and I think I did answer, re; the rhetoric vehicle, your question about what I meant regarding you.
Cheers.
GALol, I get it now.
Just one comment. I would never attack your "manhood," as that is irrelevant . My "man up" comment was a response to your own specific behavior: making a comparison, implying it is a negative comparison, then refusing to explain it. If you're going to point out my faults, be direct. I actually consider your perspective and think about what you say.
I just thought you were saying I was becoming a more humorous writer, because I love the humor in Jake's posts. ;-)I don't understand why you are being so mean to me. First it was "... "obsessive need," cowardly, ("not going to spit it out"), "unfair," impolite, ("the polite thing to do"), "too proper," stink bomb thrower ..", and now my manhood is irrelevant.
I am just going to grab my clown costume, (and my manhood), and go sit in a dark closet until it's safe to come back out again.
(ps. surely I don't have to state the obvious ... again ... do I?)
GAI certainly do not intend to be mean, so I apologize. I tend to think and speak in a direct manner. We are all imperfect, GA, some of us more imperfect than others. ;-)
And I didn't say you were cowardly. That is way too strong. Since you mentioned it twice I felt the need to correct that. The rest seems pretty darn mild to me...
I hope we're still forum friends. Wilderness and I have gotten into way more testy skirmishes and I still consider him a forum friend. :-)Oh my gawddd, and double damn! I do have to state the obvious!
It was a joke PrettyPanther. To be clear; I did not take your remarks personally, or as mean. But ... you have to admit the opportunity was there if I had wanted to. So I walked through that open door and made a joke.
This was intended to be jokingly stated: (although I admit it was a dry humor)
"Oh my, "obsessive need," cowardly, ("not going to spit it out"), "unfair," impolite, ("the polite thing to do"), "too proper," stink bomb thrower ..."
And on this one I even included the smiley ":-)" to emphasize it's lack of seriousness:
"Man-up?" Attacking my "manhood?" Now that's a sneaky trick. If I were a Metroman, I could just smile and shrug, but you know I am a real he-man, so I am genetically unable to resist replying. :-)"
But ... maybe you are partially right. Maybe I am too damn polite and "proper" in these forums. By that I mean, if that final crack about grabbing a clown suit and my manhood, and sitting in a dark closet wasn't taken as intended, (humorously), then one of us is either dense or has no sense of humor.
So hold on to your apology until we figure out that last one.
Since Jake was tangentially involved in this whole mess, it's probably his fault, so I will take a page from his playbook; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9wwTxTG1JI
As for still being forum friends ... well, okay, but you're on probation. (That was a joke! A J-O-K-E!)
GAI took it as both, GA. That you were offended, but that you were"okay" with it and lightheartedly moving on. I do that all the time.
Just goes to show how dense I can be at times. :-)
Sandy
And,yes, I'll take it. It's Jaaake's fault! LOLWhew! Since I wasn't offended either, I am glad we got all that out of the way. Looks like you can put that apology back in your purse too.
GA
GA, can't you see PP is in love with me? And the only 'manhood' in question and under the microscope around here belongs to Spanky, and from the looks of his stubby little mitts and considering Stormy's first hand prima facie account stating her intimate encounter with Mr. tiny digits was nothing more than 'generic', certainly suggests that a microscope is an essential element regarding an intimate encounter with him:
Although the jury is still out, probably the same is true ofhis sloppy attorney Michael Cohen since they both get along so well together and if he doesn't 'flip' on Donald, prison isn't especially kind to womanly men:
"...even though I don't advocate ignoring discovered "tangential" crimes..."
In my state (and I think most others) if you are stopped for a traffic violate you may be searched...for possible weapons. This is to protect the cop, not to find incriminating evidence, for without a warrant specifying what is looked for any and all evidence of wrongdoing must be ignored by the cop and may not be used to convict of anything. If you are stopped for speeding and searched (without probable cause) and cocaine is found in your pocket it must be left right where it is (it is obviously not a gun or knife) and may not be used to charge you with possession.
Are you sure you want cops looking through your private information for Russian collusion and finding something completely different to be able to use that information to convict you of a crime very different than the one the warrant was for?It seems I may want to have my cake and eat it too, Wilderness. I almost completely agree with the point you are making. But ... would you apply the same thought if instead of cocaine in your pocket, it was a body found in the trunk?
This is a gray area for me. I can't find a place to draw the line, but it falls somewhere between the dead body in the trunk and an open-ended forensic financial investigation. Which means I think that the Manafort and Gates charges crossed the line, but that the Flynn and Pappadoupolus(sp?), charges did not.
GA
- ahorsebackposted 6 years ago0
The point you're all missing is this , So what if Cohen "flips "....... , Comey "flipped" , McCabe "flipped , Strok "flipped " , in fact CNN has flipped , ABC" flipped ", just how pertinent to the reality of Trumps fairly incredible political progress is" flipping" , I mean even Sal Alinsky is flipping at this point ?
Yes, you've all flipped , truth of the matter is all of the resistance to Trump is obviously immature , phony gender outrage , race baiters where there is no racism , legal ignorance by the masses of obstruction , where does the "flipping" end and the mature discussion about what REAL progress is begin .
So far I've seen nothing here that resembles a political dialog , simply a bunch of touchy feely, rather sophomoric brainflushes . While Trump changes the political course study daily , resisters here flip a rather superficial emoting understanding of HOW politics really works anyway ,
Question should have been , How does it feel to follow the bouncing Trump ball ? Evgeny Freidman, a long-time business partner of President Donald Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen, has agreed to cooperate with federal and state prosecutors
Freidman was arrested last June on charges that he and another business partner stole more than $5 million in state surcharges that are imposed on taxi rides in New York City.
But the amount of taxes he pleaded guilty to evading was much less than that, just $50,000.
Both the timing and the circumstances are key. Freidman faced allegations that he failed to pay $5 million in taxes, including four counts of tax fraud and one of grand larceny. As part of the deal, he will serve no jail time. That suggests that he has been able to provide information of some value when it comes to Cohen, who is widely seen as a target for prosecutors to, in turn, flip against Trump.
(Maybe that's why Trumpo is so unhinged these days?)Nothing less than another huge enormously detrimental development for Mr. Trump's personal attorney Michael Cohen:and perhaps Donny himself: I guess this is just one of many stunning reports that have Mr. Trump in unhinged twitter meltdown mode, cying, whining and moaning all day long in an angry stupor on the twit box while 'Batty ' Rudy undercuts him on national television: UNREAL
We can only imagine the extent of damning evidence Mr. Freidman is prepared to divulge to prosecutors for such favorable treatment: A fine reduction of 5 million to 50K and zero prison time down from 100 years in exchange for testimony against we presume Cohen and perhaps Donny:
Startling development and they just keep on coming:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/22/nyre … ation.html
Cohen says his loyalty is first to family and country
"I don't agree with those who demonize or vilify the FBI. I respect the FBI as an institution, as well as their agents," Cohen said. "When they searched my hotel room and my home, it was obviously upsetting to me and my family. Nonetheless, the agents were respectful, courteous and professional. I thanked them for their service and as they left, we shook hands."
Cohen also pushed back at the President's recent tweet repeating Russian President Vladimir Putin's claim that Russia did not interfere in the 2016 election, as well.
"Simply accepting the denial of Mr. Putin is unsustainable," he said.
Trump's longtime lawyer previously said he acted on his own volition in paying Daniels and that he did not plan on repayment from Trump. But in his new interview with ABC News, he held back.
"I want to answer. One day I will answer," he told Stephanopoulos. "But for now, I can't comment further on advice of my counsel."
Asked about how he would respond to Trump's legal defense attempting to discredit his work, Cohen said that he wouldn't be "a punching bag."
"I am not a villain of this story, and I will not allow others to try to depict me that way," he added.Cohen seems to be playing both sides against the middle in the interview. Hoping Trump will pardon him versus playing well with the investigators. He seems to be in a no-win situation.
- ahorsebackposted 6 years ago0
Anyone ever arrested , indicted , threatened or otherwise "legally "
used as a pawn for the obstruction of one political party BY another political party , including by the ideological opposition within the FBI and /or DOJ , is going to eventually give in to the pressures .
-Does that make these acts "right "?
-Doe it make it legal ?
-Does it make these obstructions legitimate ?
No, It makes them political.
Related Discussions
- 34
Trump: Either I Win the Election or I DeLegitimize the Election
by Allen Donald 4 years ago
What Trump is saying about not accepting the results of the upcoming election based on false allegations about cheating and voter fraud is the biggest, single threat to our country since it was founded. It is an unprecedented attack on our institutions. It is probably the single, worst, most...
- 582
Why Many Might Not Vote for Trump
by J Conn 5 days ago
1.) Corruption a.) Trump just offered to sell policy to the oil industry for $1 billion b.) Tried to blackmail a foreign country to get a fake investigation c.) Tried to steal a presidential election with blatant lies d.) ...
- 6159
Did Trump Really Try To Implement a Coup?
by Scott Belford 2 days ago
All of the available evidence seems to say so.Here is a workable definition of a coups d'état as an "organized effort to effect sudden and irregular (e.g., illegal or extra-legal) removal of the incumbent executive authority of a national government, or to displace the authority of the highest...
- 18
Will Michael Cohen be compared to John Dean or Benedict Arnold?
by G. Diane Nelson Trotter 5 years ago
Will his family be safe while he is in jail or will they be put under witness production? Is Mitch McConnell trying to get Donald Trump to resign?
- 63
Trump fires Comey, the man responsible for investigating Trump
by promisem 7 years ago
It was allegedly because of the Clinton email investigation, which Trump had previously let go. We'll see if it ends the FBI investigation into Flynn and other Trump campaign connections with Russia.http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/09/politics/ … index.htmlFrom CNN:CNN's Senior Legal Analyst...
- 225
Presidential Debate. What do you think will happen?
by Readmikenow 2 weeks ago
I think harris lacks a lot in debate skills. She avoids questions from the press. Interviews she has done are very few. With the one national press interview done by her she was accompanied by her VP. It was taped. harris will have a difficult time answering questions...