yep, i meant “way worse” as in the case against edwards was way weaker than the case against trump, but wrote it like an idiotQuote:
Originally Posted by MumblesBadly
FYPQuote:
Originally Posted by blake
Printable View
yep, i meant “way worse” as in the case against edwards was way weaker than the case against trump, but wrote it like an idiotQuote:
Originally Posted by MumblesBadlyFYPQuote:
Originally Posted by blake
In other news:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...ndicted-790861
A federal grand jury on Tuesday indicted Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) and his wife on charges of using campaign funds to pay for personal expenses, including vacations and dental work.
He is also accused of filing false campaign records.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blakeyep, i meant “way worse” as in the case against edwards was way weaker than the case against trump, but wrote it like an idiotQuote:
Originally Posted by MumblesBadly
you really did write it like an idiot, blake.
I have said this before, but If the most this counsel can come up with is him illegally paying off a mistress during his campaign (which I am sure happened and no one cares) this whole ordeal is going to be an absolute Disaster for the country and most likely will be way worse for all of us then just letting things run their course.
not sure, we've been through this with bill clinton and it didn't turn into a disaster for the countryQuote:
Originally Posted by verminaard
i don't think he'll be impeached btw
god help him if a democrat wins the next election though cause i do think he may end up indicted.
Clinton was impeached because the special coUnser determined he was guilty of the actual crime being investigated (sexual harassment) and he perjured himself lying about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by blakenot sure, we've been through this with bill clinton and it didn't turn into a disaster for the countryQuote:
Originally Posted by verminaard
i don't think he'll be impeached btw
If an alleged Russian collusion investigation comes me up with nothing but Trump paying off a mistress then the right wing media is going to have a field day and it is really going to damage the reputation of the DoJ and FBI in the eyes of a lot of Americans.
I am not even saying this is justified or not, I am just speculating how i think it will play out.
except this isn't true. clinton was investigated over the whitewater scandal. it had nothing to do with monica lewinsky. i don't think that was even known about when the investigation started.Quote:
Originally Posted by verminaardClinton was impeached because the special coUnser determined he was guilty of the actual crime being investigated (sexual harassment) and he perjured himself lying about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by blake
If an alleged Russian collusion investigation comes me up with nothing but Trump paying off a mistress then the right wing media is going to have a field day and it is really going to damage the reputation of the DoJ and FBI in the eyes of a lot of Americans.
I am not even saying this is justified or not, I am just speculating how i think it will play out.
so the clinton impeachment is 100% comparable and it had zero effect on the country.
Fair enough. My bad. Guess I need to refresh myself on 1990s American history.Quote:
Originally Posted by blakeexcept this isn't true. clinton was investigated over the whitewater scandal. it had nothing to do with monica lewinsky. i don't think that was even known about when the investigation started.Quote:
Originally Posted by verminaard
so the clinton impeachment is 100% comparable and it had zero effect on the country.
Well, it seems like the impeachment circus is what really go the right wing media going. I was young at the time so maybe I am just wrong and it was already a big thing and I just didn’t know about it, but it seemed like that was what made rush limbaugh and Fox News a thing. but I know that isn’t what you meant.Quote:
Originally Posted by blakeexcept this isn't true. clinton was investigated over the whitewater scandal. it had nothing to do with monica lewinsky. i don't think that was even known about when the investigation started.Quote:
Originally Posted by verminaard
so the clinton impeachment is 100% comparable and it had zero effect on the country.
i probably agree with your overall sentiment to an extent. i think impeaching trump would have a worse effect on the country, at least in the short term, than the clinton impeachment had. things like fox news, right wing radio -- and most importantly -- the internet, weren't big then (i don't think). things seem differentQuote:
Originally Posted by verminaardWell, it seems like the impeachment circus is what really go the right wing media going. I was young at the time so maybe I am just wrong and it was already a big thing and I just didn’t know about it, but it seemed like that was what made rush limbaugh and Fox News a thing. but I know that isn’t what you meant.Quote:
Originally Posted by blake
also if the dems don't already know they have the votes in the senate, they would be catastrophically idiotic to try to impeach him. like clinton, it would probably only make it more likely that he gets re-elected.
but can someone explain to me how anyone in congress just shrugs this off with a straight face? what are the republicans going to say?
this didn't have anything to do with the russian investigation. it wasn't even mueller that was prosecuting him. cohen just swore in a federal court that trump's a felon and there isn't a person on earth that thinks he's lying. more specifically, cohen just swore that trump directed him to commit crimes for the purpose of helping him win the election.
how is that glossed over?
Is this what Cohen meant when he said he might take an extended vacation on Stormy Daniels' dime?Quote:
Well, Cohen obviously has credibility and character issues. If it is just his word I think it would be pretty easy to brush it off. If there are really tapes that is another issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by blake
Pretty sure it's a matter of fact that he made the payments that went to Stormy and the Playboy Girl.Quote:
Originally Posted by verminaardWell, Cohen obviously has credibility and character issues. If it is just his word I think it would be pretty easy to brush it off. If there are really tapes that is another issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by blake
What exactly is there to 'brush off'? Like just ignore the whole thing? Or think he's lying about the reason he made the payments? I don't see any reasonable conclusion other than what he claimed in court under oath today "I paid them off to keep quiet and Trump signed off on it"
I thought you were a lawyer? It is a gray area whether or not he violated any law by using his own money to protect his reputation and prevent himself from possible financial harm. It would be 100% legal if he weren’t running for office. Another key aspect that is being overlooked is though Trump was clearly pulling the strings, Cohen did these things while representing him. Trump’s team would have a very strong defense just by saying that Cohen advised him that none of this was illegal, and that he in good faith would assume that his attorney hadn’t violated any laws. Also, what proof is there that he hadn’t asked Trump to reimburse him after the fact? None of this excuses breaking the law, but it can make arguing criminal intent impossible. I ask anyone reading this to list the laws that Trump broke? Not just call it a scheme like certain newspapers. I mean what statutes? The only two in question are a failure to disclose and conspiracy, and to reach that point, one has to overcome the above. Conspiracy given what is known is a major stretch.Quote:
Originally Posted by blake
The language in Cohen’s plea seems to be 100% political. It was designed exactly to attack the above defenses and to create talking points. I don’t think he should have plead guilty to the campaign finance charges. It seems like they pressured him just to get that out. Win or lose, and I think even Trump didn’t expect to win at that point, Cohen could have easily argued it was to protect Trump and his brand and had nothing to do with the election. Coupling that with the Manafort verdict coming down on the same day is really fucked. It’s lol at seeing half of social media jumping for joy that we live in this kind of country. It’s even more lol seeing the talking points spread like a virus by the useful idiots who let their own emotions and biases overcome the use of logic for a situation too complicated for them to understand in the first place.
Sometimes investigations come up with nothing. That doesn't mean it wasn't worth investigating. When something shady happens and there's a lot at stake it's worth investigating.Quote:
Originally Posted by verminaardClinton was impeached because the special coUnser determined he was guilty of the actual crime being investigated (sexual harassment) and he perjured himself lying about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by blake
If an alleged Russian collusion investigation comes me up with nothing but Trump paying off a mistress then the right wing media is going to have a field day and it is really going to damage the reputation of the DoJ and FBI in the eyes of a lot of Americans.
I am not even saying this is justified or not, I am just speculating how i think it will play out.
In this case, it is already known that many serious crimes were committed. What's not known is who committed which ones and what else is under the stones that are being turned over.
so when do we discuss the 5 asian sex crimes that hongkongers dad has covered up
I recommend the 'Slow Burn' podcast (by Slate)
Season 1 is an extremely detailed account of Watergate, with lots of details that are overlooked by people who didn't live through it.
Season 2 just started recently, it's on Clinton Scandal
No one sees a problem with Davis, former Clinton lawyer for years now Cohen’s lawyer, tweeting this after the plea:
And then going on the Rachel Maddow show earlier to say that Cohen will tell Mueller whatever he needs?
This wasn’t completely orchestrated right?
some of these arguments are just bad, where i kind of agree with one.Quote:
Originally Posted by VaughnPI thought you were a lawyer? It is a gray area whether or not he violated any law by using his own money to protect his reputation and prevent himself from possible financial harm. It would be 100% legal if he weren’t running for office. Another key aspect that is being overlooked is though Trump was clearly pulling the strings, Cohen did these things while representing him. Trump’s team would have a very strong defense just by saying that Cohen advised him that none of this was illegal, and that he in good faith would assume that his attorney hadn’t violated any laws. Also, what proof is there that he hadn’t asked Trump to reimburse him after the fact? None of this excuses breaking the law, but it can make arguing criminal intent impossible. I ask anyone reading this to list the laws that Trump broke? Not just call it a scheme like certain newspapers. I mean what statutes? The only two in question are a failure to disclose and conspiracy, and to reach that point, one has to overcome the above. Conspiracy given what is known is a major stretch.Quote:
Originally Posted by blake
as for the argument: "Trump’s team would have a very strong defense just by saying that Cohen advised him that none of this was illegal, and that he in good faith would assume that his attorney hadn’t violated any laws"
no, lack of knowledge that your conduct constitutes a crime is virtually never a defense in criminal settings. using your attorney to do it doesn't help. if that is the defense as to "no criminal intent," it is dead on arrival.
"Conspiracy given what is known is a major stretch."
ordering cohen to do this, in and of itself, could constitute conspiracy.
the only point i agree with you on (or at least where i think you were going) is that the campaign finance disclosure law is, itself, kind of hard to enforce and terrible.
it's tough for a jury to decide beyond a reasonable doubt if a donation made to the campaign was for the purposes of helping the campaign or for personal issues. you could obviously argue it both ways here. probably why these are never enforced.
this is a weird argument. "orchestrated how?" we all knew cohen and trump broke the law when the stormy daniels stuff came out. you're complaining that he is only now pleading guilty?Quote:
Originally Posted by VaughnP
Quote:
Originally Posted by verminaardWell, Cohen obviously has credibility and character issues. If it is just his word I think it would be pretty easy to brush it off. If there are really tapes that is another issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by blake
:thisQuote:
Originally Posted by duped_samaritanPretty sure it's a matter of fact that he made the payments that went to Stormy and the Playboy Girl.Quote:
Originally Posted by verminaard
What exactly is there to 'brush off'? Like just ignore the whole thing? Or think he's lying about the reason he made the payments? I don't see any reasonable conclusion other than what he claimed in court under oath today "I paid them off to keep quiet and Trump signed off on it"
can someone explain what exactly there is to brush off.
verm, if i go back in this thread, weren't you one of the people who acknowledged that stormy daniels was the thing that could sink trump's presidency?
edit: my life is sad for remembering what you all said in this thread.
Also, you have to remember Cohen flat out changed his story for the plea, and there would be a lot of evidence to the contrary I believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by blakesome of these arguments are just bad, where i kind of agree with one.Quote:
Originally Posted by VaughnP
as for the argument: "Trump’s team would have a very strong defense just by saying that Cohen advised him that none of this was illegal, and that he in good faith would assume that his attorney hadn’t violated any laws"
no, lack of knowledge that your conduct constitutes a crime is virtually never a defense in criminal settings. using your attorney to do it doesn't help. if that is the defense as to "no criminal intent," it is dead on arrival.
"Conspiracy given what is known is a major stretch."
ordering cohen to do this, in and of itself, could constitute conspiracy.
the only point i agree with you on (or at least where i think you were going) is that the campaign finance disclosure law is, itself, kind of hard to enforce and terrible.
it's tough for a jury to decide beyond a reasonable doubt if a donation made to the campaign was for the purposes of helping the campaign or for personal issues. you could obviously argue it both ways here. probably why these are never enforced.
His original story was, "I was Trump's lawyer, he paid me to take care of this kind of stuff without talking to him about it." (This is just as believable as, "Trump told me to do it.")
My guess is Trump has been sued enough times in his life to know not to put any shady shit in writing anywhere.
So it becomes a game of pointing fingers at best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by abrown83
really? michael cohen: "yeah i paid trump out of my own pocket without consulting trump cause we're cool like that" is just as believable as trump told me to do it?
really?
REALLY?
i feel like I'm living in the upside down.
what will be really interesting is when michael cohen now says "oh, i was in prague talking to the russians. i was lying before when i denied it." thus, corroborating the dossier.
at that point, you will start to hear team trump flip the fuck out.
He was his personal attorney, Trump did shady shit for years.Quote:
Originally Posted by blakeQuote:
Originally Posted by abrown83
really? michael cohen: "yeah i paid trump out of my own pocket without consulting trump cause we're cool like that" is just as believable as trump told me to do it?
really?
REALLY?
i feel like I'm living in the upside down.
What's so hard to understand about Trump saying, "take care of my shit and I will pay you for it"?
I am sure there was the payment to Cohen and the shady shit fund that they used.
If I was protecting my client, I might pay these ladies off personally too, to create a layer of separation between my client and the payee.
Quote:
Originally Posted by abrown83He was his personal attorney, Trump did shady shit for years.Quote:
Originally Posted by blake
What's so hard to understand about Trump saying, "take care of my shit and I will pay you for it"?
I am sure there was the payment to Cohen and the shady shit fund that they used.
If I was protecting my client, I might pay these ladies off personally too, to create a layer of separation between my client and the payee.
i'm not sure where to go with this.
are you saying that trump may not have known about the stormy daniels payment? sure trump can say that. and sure that's absurd. but you indicated that was "just as believable" as trump knowing about it and directing cohen to pay it.Quote:
What's so hard to understand about Trump saying, "take care of my shit and I will pay you for it"?
respectfully, no it's not. i know we live in a partisan world, but this opinion is just fucking nuts.
rofl, you might? you would be the highest rated lawyer (by clients) in america. you missed your calling.Quote:
If I was protecting my client, I might pay these ladies off personally too, to create a layer of separation between my client and the payee.
Am I the only one here who doesn't give a shit or think any of this should be criminal? Seriously, people pay people all the time to shut the fuck up about shit. The fact that a politician did it doesn't make it any different in my opinion and certainly isn't so important as to justify the enormous waste of resources and distraction to the Nation. And before someone else says it, Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, not fucking an intern. And as far as the Russians (or any other nation for that matter) trying to offer information on a candidate, who doubts that this has always gone on - at least through various channels and buffers? Hell, foreign nations hire lobbyists to influence Congress and the American people on the daily and that shit is somehow legal.
in general, i think having to disclose who you take money from is probably a good thing. but honestly, him paying off stormy daniels to STFU does not interest me. i don't think this kind of payment was the reason those laws were created.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellafriend
i care about the collusion, if true, somewhat cause there's a blackmail angle. there would be an implied threat that trump would have to be overly friendly to putin instead of making decisions he thinks are correct
Quote:
Originally Posted by blake
Yeah, I see that, I'm not trying say it doesn't matter at all; I guess I just don't see it as being any different than what I am confident goes on regularly between countries and business, etc., always trying to do favors which includes giving information to one side or the other to curry favor. I mean, really, if France hated Trump and wanted to tell Clinton hey you know Trump has a fondness for pissing on women you might want to talk with this or that whore, would that be illegal? If not, then what really is the difference here? And if the information is true, and it helped Clinton, then so what? And yes, she'd probably owe them one - which happens all the time.
My point is that there is no way to prove criminal intent given what is known. If the one tape wasn’t all there is, I’m sure the Washington Post and CNN would know by now. In past campaign finance cases that involved lawyers funneling money, juries could find no criminal intent or conspiracy for the reasons I said and there being no proof that the actions done by all were to purposefully hide what they were doing in relation to those laws. Trump’s situation has no chance of seeing an indictment because it would be impossible to prove he didn’t do this to protect himself, his family and business. Even if he admitted to doing it for the campaign too, it’s reasonable to assume he did it for his personal interests. Conspiracy is a major stretch in a legal gray area. How can there be criminal intent if it’s reasonable to assume that one isn’t breaking the law? How can any actions be considered conspiracy if one didn’t know that they were breaking law? Conspiracy would hinge on concrete proof of doing A to hide B and acknowledging the reason why one did so was to break the law directly. This is the exact opinion that came out the John Edwards situation which despite what you said, was actually 100x worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by blakesome of these arguments are just bad, where i kind of agree with one.Quote:
Originally Posted by VaughnP
as for the argument: "Trump’s team would have a very strong defense just by saying that Cohen advised him that none of this was illegal, and that he in good faith would assume that his attorney hadn’t violated any laws"
no, lack of knowledge that your conduct constitutes a crime is virtually never a defense in criminal settings. using your attorney to do it doesn't help. if that is the defense as to "no criminal intent," it is dead on arrival.
"Conspiracy given what is known is a major stretch."
ordering cohen to do this, in and of itself, could constitute conspiracy.
the only point i agree with you on (or at least where i think you were going) is that the campaign finance disclosure law is, itself, kind of hard to enforce and terrible.
it's tough for a jury to decide beyond a reasonable doubt if a donation made to the campaign was for the purposes of helping the campaign or for personal issues. you could obviously argue it both ways here. probably why these are never enforced.
It wouldn’t be illegal if he wasn’t running for office. The reason why there is no real argument for being illegal even though he was, is because one doesn’t forfeit the right to protect his family and business just because they are doing so. Cohen pleading guilty to charges that he likely could have beaten to avoid harsher sentences on others that he likely could not and then having his plea scripted for political theater is tricking the public into thinking Trump is slam dunk guilty of a crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellafriend
How can you completely gloss over that?Quote:
Originally Posted by blakethis is a weird argument. "orchestrated how?" we all knew cohen and trump broke the law when the stormy daniels stuff came out. you're complaining that he is only now pleading guilty?Quote:
Originally Posted by VaughnP
You don’t find it a bit bizarre that out of the hundreds of thousands of lawyers that Cohen ended up with one that ranks in the top 3 with connection to the Clintons, and that less than an hour after his client enters his plea, he is tweeting out that this implicates Trump? It’s not weird that he also goes on the Rachel Maddow show to talk about how this implicates Trump and how his client will cooperate with Mueller? It’s also not weird that this was scheduled the same day that the Manafort verdict was expected to come down?
but your take on what the prosecution will have to prove re: criminal intent is wrong, particularly your bolded statement. you don't have to know what you're doing is a crime to be on the hook for it. please stop insisting itQuote:
Originally Posted by VaughnPMy point is that there is no way to prove criminal intent given what is known. If the one tape wasn’t all there is, I’m sure the Washington Post and CNN would know by now. In past campaign finance cases that involved lawyers funneling money, juries could find no criminal intent or conspiracy for the reasons I said and there being no proof that the actions done by all were to purposefully hide what they were doing in relation to those laws. Trump’s situation has no chance of seeing an indictment because it would be impossible to prove he didn’t do this to protect himself, his family and business. Even if he admitted to doing it for the campaign too, it’s reasonable to assume he did it for his personal interests. Conspiracy is a major stretch in a legal gray area. How can there be criminal intent if it’s reasonable to assume that one isn’t breaking the law? How can any actions be considered conspiracy if one didn’t know that they were breaking law? Conspiracy would hinge on concrete proof of doing A to hide B and acknowledging the reason why one did so was to break the law directly. This is the exact opinion that came out the John Edwards situation which despite what you said, was actually 100x worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by blake
this is no different than any other crime. i don't have to know tax fraud is wrong to be liable for it. you don't have to "intend to break the law" to be liable for it. if that was true, half of our laws couldn't be enforced.
the only real question is whether trump intended the payment to be something personal to him or to help the campaign. this is tough to prove. the reason the edwards case was not as strong as this, i believe, is because the payment there happened years before the campaign. so it was harder to tie it as a campaign contribution.
the stormy payment happened weeks before the election on the heels of access hollywood. there's a much stronger argument that it was relating to the campaign here, than with edwards.
Jesus Christ. I know that ignorance isn’t an excuse, but in a situation like this where it normally wouldn’t be illegal, the only way to prove that it is, is to establish concrete proof of criminal intent. There is no way to do so unless there are conversations where Trump specifically mentions doing this to get around having to disclose it or to avoid a record of such for campaign purposes.Quote:
Originally Posted by blakebut your take on what the prosecution will have to prove re: criminal intent is wrong, particularly your bolded statement. you don't have to know what you're doing is a crime to be on the hook for it. please stop insisting itQuote:
Originally Posted by VaughnP
this is no different than any other crime. i don't have to know tax fraud is wrong to be liable for it. you don't have to "intend to break the law" to be liable for it. if that was true, half of our laws couldn't be enforced.
the only real question is whether trump intended the payment to be something personal to him or to help the campaign. this is tough to prove. the reason the edwards case was not as strong as this, i believe, is because the payment there happened years before the campaign. so it was harder to tie it as a campaign contribution.
the stormy payment happened weeks before the election on the heels of access hollywood. there's a much stronger argument that it was relating to the campaign here, than with edwards.
guys, he 100% didn’t know that ignorance of the law wasn’t an excuse. for 10 years the skatz website has been catastrophically fucked up but he can’t fix itQuote:
Originally Posted by VaughnPJesus Christ. I know that ignorance isn’t an excuse, but in a situation like this where it normally wouldn’t be illegal, the only way to prove that it is, is to establish concrete proof of criminal intent. There is no way to do so unless there are conversations where Trump specifically mentions doing this to get around having to disclose it or to avoid a record of such for campaign purposes.Quote:
Originally Posted by blake
keep this in mind when reading his opinions