attrayant Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 19 hours ago, riclag said: The news with cohen is old and hasn't been corroborated, besides his truth lies in the cesspool with beggar's that plead for forgiveness! Do you really think SDNY would directly implicate Trump based solely on hearsay? You think a DA or prosecutor doesn't corroborate the evidence supporting their indictments?? 19 hours ago, riclag said: Mueller and the dem's will try to impeach, based on a perpetual evolving report of highly suspicious activity that lacks evidence! How do you know what evidence the special counsel & prosecutors have? Do you have unredacted versions of all those recently released papers? 19 hours ago, riclag said: Controlling Public Opinion will win the day! In other words, propaganda. The very thing you riled against in your post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GroveHillWanderer Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 On 12/10/2018 at 11:48 AM, pedro01 said: It's been explained hundreds of times here why it wasn't a campaign finance violation. Stormy is one of many women that have been paid off. Most of them before the campaign. Trump can show a clear pattern of paying off tarts and so it's a regular expenditure to him. Hence, it's just his normal pattern of spending and not something done especially for the campaign. He can also argue the case that he did it to protect his family. I'm amazed this is even a topic of conversation any more. Any arguments there might have been that paying these women was not a campaign finance violation is fairly conclusively disproved by the recent sentencing memo filed before a judge by attorneys from the Department of Justice in the Southern District of New York. This court filing states, and therefore establishes as true from a legal standpoint, that Michael Cohen is guilty of: Quote intentionally violating portions of the following federal election laws on behalf of Donald Trump: 52 U.S. Code § 30116 52 U.S. Code § 30118 The fact that Cohen's guilty plea was accepted by the courts and only the length of his sentence remains to be determined, shows that there was indeed a crime here. The courts do not accept guilty pleas without sufficient evidence having been supplied to a judge, to prove a crime has been committed. So far of course, only Cohen's guilt is legally established by this filing and Trump's involvement is not yet proven but the fact that the DoJ's own lawyers have named Donald Trump in their filing and used language that shows they believe these crimes were committed "in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1" (Trump), at least according to some legal analysts, makes Trump in effect, an unindicted co-conspirator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thakkar Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 On 12/10/2018 at 10:58 AM, helpisgood said: it was a few influential Congressional Republicans that convinced Nixon to resign rather than go through the ignominy of a final floor vote for impeachment and a Senate trial. Of course, in Nixon's case, they had the "smoking gun" tape. You see, there’s NIxon’s problem. If all they had was a smocking gun tape, he woulda been ok and coulda told the Special Prosecutor, “Oops-a-daisy, no Collusion. Put THAT in your pipe and smock it!” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riclag Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 2 hours ago, attrayant said: Do you really think SDNY would directly implicate Trump based solely on hearsay? You think a DA or prosecutor doesn't corroborate the evidence supporting their indictments?? How do you know what evidence the special counsel & prosecutors have? Do you have unredacted versions of all those recently released papers? In other words, propaganda. The very thing you riled against in your post. How do I know there isn't evidence because it hasn't been presented! But the TDS'ers sure think that PT is guilty with no evidence and no trial! In my country when you have corroborative evidence of a crime you indite and have a trial between two opposing parties, while all along your presumed innocent until proven guilty! Right now it's the Left(NY,MSM,Mueller,dems) side doin all the propaganda! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riclag Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 2 hours ago, attrayant said: Do you really think SDNY would directly implicate Trump based solely on hearsay? You think a DA or prosecutor doesn't corroborate the evidence supporting their indictments?? How do you know what evidence the special counsel & prosecutors have? Do you have unredacted versions of all those recently released papers? In other words, propaganda. The very thing you riled against in your post. How do I know there isn't evidence because it hasn't been presented! But the TDS'ers sure think that PT is guilty with no evidence and no trial! In my country when you have corroborative evidence of a crime you indite and have a trial between two opposing parties, while all along your presumed innocent until proven guilty! Right now it's the Left(NY,MSM,Mueller,dems) side doin all the propaganda! Take the impeachment road it's coming right after the NY office recommendations of the POTUS being negligent for Campaign funds violations . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 4 minutes ago, riclag said: How do I know there isn't evidence because it hasn't been presented! But the TDS'ers sure think that PT is guilty with no evidence and no trial! In my country when you have corroborative evidence of a crime you indite and have a trial between two opposing parties, while all along your presumed innocent until proven guilty! Right now it's the Left(NY,MSM,Mueller,dems) side doin all the propaganda! You are repeating yourself. A word of advice, repetition does improve your hogwash arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riclag Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said: You are repeating yourself. A word of advice, repetition does improve your hogwash arguments. Your offering advice while I was offering a response to someone else! Sorry for the hogwash! I don't look at like that ! Innocent until proven guilty isn't hogwash. I'm still stuck with 6 more years of conspiracy's. I want the impeachment bring it on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
attrayant Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 56 minutes ago, riclag said: How do I know there isn't evidence because it hasn't been presented! Do you also think the planet Saturn doesn't exist because it hasn't been presented to you? What about germs? Ever seen those? District Attorney does not file indictments if they have no evidence. You're just making yourself looks silly sillier now. 56 minutes ago, riclag said: In my country[...] This isn't happening in your country, wherever that is. Can we just start yapping about whatever happens in any country we like now? 56 minutes ago, riclag said: Left (NY, MSM, Mueller, dems) side doin all the propaganda! How do you figure Mueller and the state of New York are "left"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolboy Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 47 minutes ago, riclag said: Your offering advice while I was offering a response to someone else! Sorry for the hogwash! I don't look at like that ! Innocent until proven guilty isn't hogwash. I'm still stuck with 6 more years of conspiracy's. I want the impeachment bring it on So if I were to say, Lock him up! Lock him up! Lock him up!, that would be wrong? And if a person running for President were to say that, what sort of leader would that make him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riclag Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 1 hour ago, bristolboy said: So if I were to say, Lock him up! Lock him up! Lock him up!, that would be wrong? And if a person running for President were to say that, what sort of leader would that make him? My President Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolboy Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 1 hour ago, riclag said: My President So what would you say to the person who wrote this? "Innocent until proven guilty isn't hogwash." That innocent until proven guilty is hogwash? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 On 12/10/2018 at 12:11 PM, webfact said: U.S. President Donald Trump could face impeachment and jail time if hush money payments reported by his former lawyer are proven to be campaign finance violations, Democratic lawmakers said on Sunday. They've been saying such ever since DT became president. This too shall pass, and they'll be on to the next "big thing". Seems that all the Dems have is anti Trumpism, as they certainly don't have a vision for the country to attract the voters, or even some decent policies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 On 12/12/2018 at 2:14 AM, attrayant said: District Attorney does not file indictments if they have no evidence. You're just making yourself looks silly sillier now. 55555555555555555555 Have you forgotten the Fatty Arbuckle case? It goes on all the time in the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GroveHillWanderer Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 So for those who were saying that there was no corroboration of Cohen's admission that the 'hush money' payments were intended to influence the election, we now have at least one other source confirming it. As reported in various news outlets: Quote New York prosecutors announced Wednesday that they had struck a non-prosecution agreement with AMI, the company that produces the National Enquirer tabloid, for its role in squelching stories of women who said they had relationships with Trump. AMI paid $150,000 to one of the women before the 2016 election. As part of the agreement, AMI admitted it made the payment principally “in concert” with Trump’s campaign to “suppress the woman’s story so as to prevent it from influencing the election,” according to a statement from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. We still don't know what other sources prosecutors may have to further corroborate the reason behind the payments and probably won't know until or unless other court filings are made, but with each new plea agreement, sentencing memo or prosecutorial statement, things seem to be getting closer and closer to Trump. I for one, would be extremely interested to know what Allen Weisselberg, the Trump Organization's longtime chief financial officer, who manages the company's books and has been described as "the one guy who knows everything," has been telling prosecutors in the (apparently) many hours of testimony he has given since being granted immunity by attorneys for the SDNY in August 2018. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyezhov Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 John Edwards and Barack Obama. the last two examples of what happens in "criminal" campaign finance cases. One tried and aquitted, so the next just pays a fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolboy Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said: They've been saying such ever since DT became president. This too shall pass, and they'll be on to the next "big thing". Seems that all the Dems have is anti Trumpism, as they certainly don't have a vision for the country to attract the voters, or even some decent policies. Really? Do you have any knowledge at all of what the Democrats propose? For instance, they ran in this last election on health care. Who do you think the American voters favor on that one? Republicans tried to run on their tax cuts and gave it up because quite rightly most Americans know it was weighted in favor of the wealthy. On most issues Americans favor the democrats over the republicans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolboy Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 45 minutes ago, Nyezhov said: John Edwards and Barack Obama. the last two examples of what happens in "criminal" campaign finance cases. One tried and aquitted, so the next just pays a fine. False as usual. "Obama’s civil FEC infractions, while they resulted in a large fine, are legally distinct from what Cohen pled guilty to, which is the intentional commission of felonies intended to affect the outcome of a federal election." https://www.snopes.com/news/2018/08/22/election-law-violations-compared-obama-2008-vs-trump-2016/ And Edwards was prosecuted and tried on criminal charges. The jury failed to reach a verdict to convict on any of the charges and most of the jurors voted to acquit. https://www.politico.com/story/2012/06/how-the-edwards-prosecution-stumbled-076942 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyezhov Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 21 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said: They've been saying such ever since DT became president. This too shall pass, and they'll be on to the next "big thing". The "next big thing" looks to be coming in the Flynn case. Judge Sullivan is not happy with the Government. He has seen political misconduct before. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal-judge-seeks-documents-related-to-michael-flynns-january-2017-interview-with-fbi-agents/2018/12/12/24cdb7de-fe75-11e8-83c0-b06139e540e5_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b3702313fd58 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted December 14, 2018 Share Posted December 14, 2018 Yes. Individual-1 is in deep legal jeopardy and he knows it. His awareness of guilt is off the charts. If he makes it to the 2020 election, it really might be a matter of do you want this mess of a "man" to continue to be president or do you want to see him in an orange jumpsuit. Quote Trump has been walking a tightrope of lies There was plenty of awful legal news for President Trump this week, but the worst may have come from an official who hasn’t yet been sworn in. Letitia James, who will become the New York state attorney general next month, told NBC she plans to “use every area of the law to investigate President Trump and his business transactions and that of his family as well.” James also said she hopes to pursue state charges against Trump associates whom the president might pardon for federal crimes. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-has-been-walking-a-tightrope-of-lies/2018/12/13/73cb441a-ff19-11e8-862a-b6a6f3ce8199_story.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtls2005 Posted December 14, 2018 Share Posted December 14, 2018 27 minutes ago, Jingthing said: Individual-1 is in deep legal jeopardy and he knows it. His awareness of guilt is off the charts. Yes, Individual-1 came across as part Capt. Queeg with several Perry Mason moments in his interview with Harris Faulkner. Ouch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted December 14, 2018 Share Posted December 14, 2018 His baseline is lying. He's number one in that trait. Individual-1 actually. This is great again? Quote Trump’s falsehoods on hush-money payments are ‘coming home to roost’ For months, President Trump’s spokesmen, his lawyer and his lawyer’s lawyer denied that Trump knew about payments during his 2016 campaign to buy the silence of women who alleged sexual encounters with him. The president himself claimed the same. But after mounting evidence and fresh courthouse revelations of wrongdoing this week exposed those denials as falsehoods, Trump is shifting his tune. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-lies-and-falsehoods-on-hush-money-payments-are-coming-home-to-roost/2018/12/13/01928f9c-ff10-11e8-862a-b6a6f3ce8199_story.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heybruce Posted December 14, 2018 Share Posted December 14, 2018 On 12/10/2018 at 8:50 AM, riclag said: Totally agree! Propaganda!The news with cohen is old and hasn't been corroborated,besides his truth lies in the cesspool with beggar's that plead for forgiveness ! Mueller and the dem's will try to impeach, based on a perpetual evolving report of highly suspicious activity that lacks evidence! Between running the country ,lame duck congress and protecting his presidency from even more darker domestic hostile threats might at times seem impossible to overcome but I don't see PT giving up! The dem house , GOP senate committee and MSM machine's will be on spin cycle for 2 years! Through the spirit of nationalism, his administrations accomplishments and new senate revelations that expose the conspiracy to unseat a elected POTUS, will sway public opinion and ultimately the 2020 vote. Controlling Public Opinion will win the day! I have faith that Making America Great Again wasn't just a Donald Trump slogan but a people's agenda, a movement that doesn't die or fall or be subjected to impeachment ,it is a awakening! What lacks evidence is your post. Cohen was convicted and sentenced for his part in the pay-offs, among other crimes. That doesn't happen without evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heybruce Posted December 14, 2018 Share Posted December 14, 2018 On 12/11/2018 at 3:38 AM, Srinivas said: So in summary Trump paid his own hush money for consensual sex. Consensual. Congress paid with public funds, $17 million of hush money for non consensual sexual harrasment or worse in 268 settlements. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-congress-sexual-harassment-hush-money-20171128-story.html https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/11/27/sexual-harassment-fund-exposes-congress-editorials-debates/898008001/ For those that claim this is to influence election I say it is same for congress critters and even worse they used public funds and are hiding the list. The fund was set up by the Congressional Accountability Act, the 1995 law that created the Office of Compliance. https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/16/politics/settlements-congress-sexual-harassment/index.html "may" face impeachment, hedging? Yet another poster who feels better qualified than the US judicial system in determining what is illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
candide Posted December 14, 2018 Share Posted December 14, 2018 Cohen unleashed! ???? Mr Trump "was very concerned about how this would affect the election", Cohen said. The purpose of the payments had been to "help [Trump] and his campaign", he added https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46563979 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Srinivas Posted December 15, 2018 Share Posted December 15, 2018 8 hours ago, heybruce said: Yet another poster who feels better qualified than the US judicial system in determining what is illegal. Point out the hypocrisy of using public funds for paying off congress critters sexual harrasment charges is irritating? I want to know everyones name on this list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patriot1066 Posted December 15, 2018 Share Posted December 15, 2018 4 hours ago, Srinivas said: Point out the hypocrisy of using public funds for paying off congress critters sexual harrasment charges is irritating? I want to know everyones name on this list. I really don’t get this Elected President Trump then a candidate was effectively subject to two blackmail threats just before the election. If it was the other way around it would have been treated as a criminal offence. Now the victim President Trump is under fire for trying to protect his good reputation from two blackmailers go figure? At least this one will be financially ruined! https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-46532156 Changing world with what seems a very left leaning lmjudicial system that seemed to love testing Electrd Presidents Trumps rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
candide Posted December 15, 2018 Share Posted December 15, 2018 24 minutes ago, Patriot1066 said: I really don’t get this Elected President Trump then a candidate was effectively subject to two blackmail threats just before the election. If it was the other way around it would have been treated as a criminal offence. Now the victim President Trump is under fire for trying to protect his good reputation from two blackmailers go figure? At least this one will be financially ruined! https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-46532156 Changing world with what seems a very left leaning lmjudicial system that seemed to love testing Electrd Presidents Trumps rights. They are not accused of blackmail because technically, it was not blackmail. It's Trump and his lawyers who initiated the deal. They did not even need to threaten him as it was very easy for them to get money from selling their stories to media. Actually that's what happened in the second case. The problem is that the tabloid bought the story in order to protect Trump by not publishing it, in order to influence elections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtls2005 Posted December 15, 2018 Share Posted December 15, 2018 Back in the day, today's leading Republicans were singing a different tune... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heybruce Posted December 15, 2018 Share Posted December 15, 2018 4 hours ago, Patriot1066 said: I really don’t get this Elected President Trump then a candidate was effectively subject to two blackmail threats just before the election. If it was the other way around it would have been treated as a criminal offence. Now the victim President Trump is under fire for trying to protect his good reputation from two blackmailers go figure? At least this one will be financially ruined! https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-46532156 Changing world with what seems a very left leaning lmjudicial system that seemed to love testing Electrd Presidents Trumps rights. It was only blackmail if the women threatened to go public unless Trump paid up. Karen McDougal definitely did not; she thought she was being paid for a story that would be published. I don't know who first suggested payment in the Stormy Daniels matter. The suggestion that Trump had a "good reputation" to protect shows you don't know much about him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spidermike007 Posted December 16, 2018 Share Posted December 16, 2018 I tend to doubt he will be impeached. However, there is a significantly growing chance he will be offered a deal, to either be impeached and tried for various felonies, or resign, walk away, and stop embarrassing the US, and destroying the nation. Being the coward he is, he would choose to walk away. That is just who he is. He never faces peril with courage, dignity, or manhood. Just think of the five deferments. Just think of the five bankruptcies. He has no problem walking away from danger, debt, or service to his nation, and expressing his extreme lack of patriotism, and cowardice in the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.