Who Do YOU Believe? Michael Cohen, Donald Trump, Roger Stone.

Jump to Last Post 1-5 of 5 discussions (115 posts)
  1. My Esoteric profile image90
    My Esotericposted 12 months ago

    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.

    1. JAKE Earthshine profile image77
      JAKE Earthshineposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      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:

    2. MizBejabbers profile image87
      MizBejabbersposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      None of the above. To get a true picture, the evidence will have to be carefully considered.

      1. Live to Learn profile image81
        Live to Learnposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        Don't rain on their parade. Guilty, guilty, guilty. No evidence will change that, for some.

      2. My Esoteric profile image90
        My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        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?

        1. JAKE Earthshine profile image77
          JAKE Earthshineposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          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:

        2. MizBejabbers profile image87
          MizBejabbersposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          The guy with his nuts in the vice.

          1. GA Anderson profile image92
            GA Andersonposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            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

    3. PrettyPanther profile image83
      PrettyPantherposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        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?

        1. PrettyPanther profile image83
          PrettyPantherposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          He is under oath. He would be risking more prison, or did you forget that part?

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            LOl  Do you really think that being "under oath" means anything at all to these people?  What planet was it again?

        2. My Esoteric profile image90
          My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          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?

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            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?

      2. GA Anderson profile image92
        GA Andersonposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        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

        1. PrettyPanther profile image83
          PrettyPantherposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          I agree that he was definitely out to get back at Trump. I doubt that he lied, though. That would be pretty dumb on his part.

    4. Ken Burgess profile image91
      Ken Burgessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. Valeant profile image94
        Valeantposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. Ken Burgess profile image91
          Ken Burgessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. JAKE Earthshine profile image77
            JAKE Earthshineposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            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:

          2. profile image74
            Hxprofposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            "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.

        2. My Esoteric profile image90
          My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. Ken Burgess profile image91
            Ken Burgessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. JAKE Earthshine profile image77
              JAKE Earthshineposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              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.............

    5. JAKE Earthshine profile image77
      JAKE Earthshineposted 12 months ago

      DAMN, I sure hope everyone is watching Michael Cohen's BEYOND Shocking Congressional Testimony LIVE NOW !!!!: WoW, say Goodbye Donny:

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        '“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! 

        lol  Shall we all chant "witch hunt" in unison now?

        https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 … LojUch0UmQ

        1. JAKE Earthshine profile image77
          JAKE Earthshineposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          https://hubstatic.com/14431865_f1024.jpg

          SURE, it's absolutely a "Witch HUNT"

        2. My Esoteric profile image90
          My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          Well 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.

        3. crankalicious profile image91
          crankaliciousposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. Valeant profile image94
            Valeantposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            https://hubstatic.com/14432472.jpg

            1. My Esoteric profile image90
              My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              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.

          2. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            "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.

            1. crankalicious profile image91
              crankaliciousposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              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.

            2. My Esoteric profile image90
              My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              ""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.

      2. profile image74
        Hxprofposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        You may be waiting a while for Donnie's swan song - possibly 6 years.

        1. Valeant profile image94
          Valeantposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          Sounds like the amount of time the Southern District in NY will give Trump for the two felonies they are convinced he committed.

          1. profile image74
            Hxprofposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            Could be.

    6. MizBejabbers profile image87
      MizBejabbersposted 12 months ago

      https://hubstatic.com/14431782.png

    7. Live to Learn profile image81
      Live to Learnposted 12 months ago

      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?

      1. My Esoteric profile image90
        My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          "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.

          1. crankalicious profile image91
            crankaliciousposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            Wilderness, there is a felony there. It's a campaign finance violation.

          2. Don W profile image83
            Don Wposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            "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.html

          3. MizBejabbers profile image87
            MizBejabbersposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            It'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?

            1. Live to Learn profile image81
              Live to Learnposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. My Esoteric profile image90
                My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. My Esoteric profile image90
                    My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

                  2. IslandBites profile image87
                    IslandBitesposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    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. smile

                    1. wilderness profile image95
                      wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                      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.

                2. Live to Learn profile image81
                  Live to Learnposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. My Esoteric profile image90
                    My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    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?

                    1. Live to Learn profile image81
                      Live to Learnposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                      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?

                3. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  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)?

                  1. Don W profile image83
                    Don Wposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    "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) ibid

                    1. wilderness profile image95
                      wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                      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.

                      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.

                4. profile image74
                  Hxprofposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  Doesn't it have to be demonstrated that Trump wanted this done expressly for campaign purposes?

                  1. IslandBites profile image87
                    IslandBitesposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    It was. That's one of the reasons Cohen is going to jail and Individual one is so worried.

                    1. profile image74
                      Hxprofposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                      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.

            2. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              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?

          4. My Esoteric profile image90
            My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            "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?

      2. crankalicious profile image91
        crankaliciousposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. Live to Learn profile image81
          Live to Learnposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. crankalicious profile image91
            crankaliciousposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. My Esoteric profile image90
              My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                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.

    8. ginosblog profile image64
      ginosblogposted 12 months ago

      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.

      1. Live to Learn profile image81
        Live to Learnposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        Shhh. No need to shout.

      2. crankalicious profile image91
        crankaliciousposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        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?

        1. peoplepower73 profile image92
          peoplepower73posted 12 months agoin reply to this

          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-returns

          1. Don W profile image83
            Don Wposted 12 months agoin reply to this
            1. crankalicious profile image91
              crankaliciousposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. Don W profile image83
                Don Wposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                I think the information Ocasio-Cortez gained in less than five minutes was some of the most pertinent and insightful of the entire hearing.

                1. crankalicious profile image91
                  crankaliciousposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  Yes, Don, but she's a socialist and thus, cannot be trusted.

                  1. profile image74
                    Hxprofposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    I know, right):

        2. My Esoteric profile image90
          My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          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

          1. profile image74
            Hxprofposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            Well, if my life counted on trusting either of them, I'd be in trouble, but I get your point. I'm not sure that I'd  vouch for Cohen to make my case about Trump.

      3. My Esoteric profile image90
        My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        How can You vote for a known liar, Gino?  Why do you want a Known liar and mobster as president?

     
    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://maven.io/company/pages/privacy

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
    ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)