Trump Has Been Credibly Accused Of Criminal Activity, And Therefore He Should Not Be Allowed To Nominate A Supreme Court Justice
Yesterday, Michael Cohen, Trump's personal lawyer, directly implicated President Trump in criminal activity. In court to plead guilty to a series of crimes, Cohen clearly stated that Trump had directed him to pay money to two women, for the purpose of "influencing an election".
In announcing his plea, Cohen said he’d violated campaign-finance laws “in coordination with and at the direction of” then-candidate Trump. The violation of campaign-finance law stems from Cohen’s hush-money payments to multiple women who claimed to have had affairs with the president.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/michael-cohen-reaches-plea-deal/
Trump is implicated not only by Cohen's statement , but also by an audio tape (or tapes) that verify the accuracy of Cohen's allegation about the president.
To say the least, Trump is under clear and substantiated suspicion of impeachable offenses. He should not be allowed to name another Supreme Court justice under these circumstances. There is a good chance he will not be president in six or nine months , which is a similar time period to the one the Republicans used as a rationale for denying Obama the right to name a new SC justice in 2016 (that Obama was leaving office in less than a year). This is an even more compelling case for removing the right for the president to pick a new justice, as we have proof that the president's judgement is corrupted by his own self-interest.
It is time to bring this presidency under rein.
Cohen has more. His lawyer , Lanny Davis, clearly suggested in a tv interview that Cohen has something to say about Trump having knowledge of the Russian theft of DNC and Podesta e-mails PRIOR to their release to the public. That would be criminal conspiracy on Trump's part.
It is time to bring this national travesty known as the Trump presidency to an end, and that should start by demanding the suspension of the Brett Kavanaugh nomination to the Supreme Court.
Tags
Who is online
83 visitors
The American people need to demand that the Kavanaugh nomination be removed from consideration. Contact the US Congress.
*eyeroll*
Nominee for "most insanely ridiculous rationalization of the week."
Why are you quoting yourself as if it were actually a thing? There is enough unintentional comedy from the right here already. No need to add to it.
let them have their fun...
im just curious how long the left will "trust their messengers" after they are told time and again, trump is going down any minute,
( without any follow up. )
for almost 2 yrs they have been kept on the edge of their seats...
waiting, getting excited, and then let down again. (it must be exhausting)
I think at this point it is like an addiction or something.
saved, if only that next high would last forever,
Or....in the totally non-unhinged real world....I'm quoting your nonsense and identifying it as such. Glad you find it amusing.
Did you forget what you typed? Do all of your Trump fixation rants run together at this point?
Well gee, the Trump sycophants STILL chant 'Lock her up!' at every rally even after the GOP spent 10s of MILLIONS on investigating Clinton. At the beginning of all 8 Congressional investigations, Fox et al insisted that 'today is the day'. The right's messengers were especially excited about the Gowdy investigation and were near nirvana when they announced that Clinton would testify. 11 hours of 'perjury trap' interrogation' and Gowdy and friends found NOTHING! Even their hero Gowdy had to admit there was no 'there there'.
Then they investigate her emails and lie to each other to bolster their angst. Trump STILL repeats the lies at his rallies. 'She destroyed 30,000 emails that were subpoenaed!' Total bullshit but the sycophants lapped it up in 2016 and STILL chant 'LOCK HER UP'!
As long as the sycophant magpies remain distracted by the shinny objects dangled by 'their messengers', all is well with the right...
after? you don't believe the clintons are being investigated right now?
see: john huber
Well since the party of fiscal responsibility is in control of the money, I have no doubt that the GOP is wasting MORE taxpayer funds on investigating THE most investigated couple on the planet.
BTW, are you claiming that AG Sessions lied about John Huber's appointment? Have you informed Chairman Goodlatte?
I am thinking he can read about it on his own... LOL
that investigation is like a giant blind spot for the left... it is as if they are pretending it does not exist
I'm sure huber has not missed mueller either.
spoiler alert:
trump vs sessions doing nothinig about this and that in public? just an act
sessions appointing a 2nd special counsel to investigate the left at trumps request would have produced calls of "political witch hunt" from the left.
witch hunt... sound familiar?
when huber stikes? trump finds out about it by watching cnn
Interesting. You post at search engine link which has a link to an article that spells out what Goodlatte believes about John Huber's appointment.
Note that NOWHERE does it mention investigating Hillary Clinton OR Mueller.
BTW, your link also has a link that will take you to a 4 page letter that Sessions wrote to Congress outlining Huber's appointment and neither Hillary Clinton nor Mueller are even mentioned.
So is Sessions lying to Congress AGAIN? /s
That investigation is a 'blind spot' for you since you obviously don't even understand WTF Huber was appointed to do.
It seems that the source of your talking points has failed you miserably.
from here on out do your own research....
at this point im just having fun watching the show.
cheers
one more just for fun.
add this...
to this...
and yer gonna need some more popcorn
Why should I bother when you do so well proving my point. /s
Although you did indeed find an article that mentioned Clinton, it isn't in connection to what Sessions appointed Huber to do. In fact, it clearly states that Huber is working 'in coordination with the Inspector General'. That's the IG of the DOJ who is NOT investigating Clinton. If you had just READ what you posted, you'd know that. Not that it matters, as facts so rarely do with you.
I find you comments sadly uninformed rather than entertaining.
if you knew anything about me you would know, "what other people think about me is not my problem.
but the question remains... if I am so stupid and not entertaining.. why do you persist?
if you wish t keep up?
start here.
and here.
is good stuff
The one that starts out with:
Ya, that's the letter that doesn't mention Clinton or Mueller.
Well gee, you must have been eating a LOT of popcorn. That shit is from Oct. 2017.
I've read here from a plethora of conservatives that after years of investigation, the evidence is OVERWHELMING that the Uranium One deal was all about the corrupt Clinton cabal. So WTF is taking the Grassley so long? He started this shit in 2015. Where is Grassley's referral for prosecution? Hell, for that matter, why doesn't the DOJ have Clinton behind bars by now?
It can't be that Grassley and Sessions found no there there could it?
Good for you.
I didn't say you are stupid, I said you are uninformed. As they say, you can't fix stupid. You can however become informed. Sadly, I doubt your motivation to do so.
Well that's the first time you've asked that question. I persist refute bullshit and post facts. Though you may not garner anything from factual information, others may.
I've read Plato. In fact Republic is in my nightstand 'read again' stack. It will be my 3rd time. I read the Five Dialogues in the 70's.
1984 is the only book I have read more times [6]. It never disappoints.
Now perhaps you can explain WTF Plato has to do with the topic of the thread?
Or did you have the mistaken idea that you would impress me with your bibliography?
You couldn't have chosen a category in which I have a more decided advantage. I am a bibliophile, which I have admitted to here more than once. I own thousands of books on a plethora of subjects and I have read every one of them, including three versions of the bible and one 1 of the Quran. I have donated hundreds more to the prison and the library, after reading them first of course.
So you were saying about keeping up?
Oh if you wish to keep up, might I suggest:
I've only read that once...
BTW, though I have read Plato, it didn't keep me informed about current events, like the topic of this thread.
deleted
If there was a decent Republican left on the planet Trump shouldn't be allowed back into the White House. Trump has openly and brazenly chosen the worst of the worst in both his personal life and in his appointments on the job.
Trump should not be allowed to have the job now that we see the extreme level of blatant corruption he is a party to, and the level of blatant corruption he supports in office.
Whether it was Pruitt and his 43 thousand dollar phone booth, or the dozens of people that have already been fired under various ethics scandals, it's extremely clear that Trump has been laughing at America the entire time for foolishly falling for his con job.
Who cares if Trump is a criminal who gets to nominate federal judges and SCOTUS justices? At least he's a white guy.
Bill Clinton nominated Breyer while under investigation and he was confirmed.
This is just more desperation from the left.
Just stop with the flimsy excuses.
It's all they have to soothe the butt hurt..............sad
True. Except Clinton wasn't having 'dalliances' with Russians.
except of course when she paid russians for the fake dossier...
but that is different... LOL
Steel's information is not fake. MI6 does not operate in that manner.
you have a lot of catching up to do...
tomorrows testimony from bruce ohr should be interesting for you.
note: the firewalls did not hold..
have you caught up yet?
ohr admitted today he knew it was ALL bs.
however, here is the interesting bit, his legal out is, he "said" he never thought the info would used in a court of law.
but it was used 4 times...
people are going to jail for that and none of them will be trump.
the fruit of a poisoned tree is bitter when swallowed.
cheers
Please post a link to the transcript.
they have this thing called google... use it. (I doubt that is public yet)
OHR.... lol
watch
cheers
So you are hanging your hat on words coming out to Issa's mouth?
BTW, it seems that you are the one that needs to catch up. Trump said that google can't be trusted.
Not going to beat any horses, but Steel's info came through MI6 and the contacts the agency cultivated through the years.
Why protect the Russians? Why do that? I do not understand.
nope... he just one of many.
as for me? I still have not heard anything I did not already know except the names of the players involved.
here is a better synopsis you might enjoy.
Issa? No. Just no. Might as well name Nunes or Rohrbacher as a source.
Just one of the many sycophants that rinse and repeat bullshit propaganda. Just like that false quote attributed to McCabe, that Nunes sited in his 'Memo', these Trump's sycophants have no problem coming out and spinning 'behind closed doors' testimony but sure as hell have problems SUPPORTING their proclamations with FACTS or transcripts. Nunes promised to release the McCabe transcript, it NEVER happened. Better to fabricate the content.
Yes, I'm well aware that y'all prefer to seek echo chamber conformations of your pre-existing suppositions.
Trump isn't qualified to name the employee of the month at Hot Dog On A Stick.
.
By the way Stormy says that Trump lasted less than 2 minutes.
STILL ...…. No Russian Collusion.
Only Personal crap that happened years before 2016.
Are you forgetting that both Trump himself and his attorney have admitted to Russian collusion in Trump Tower???
Apparently you are.
Quote ?
I too would like to see a citation to THAT whopper..............................
Did you forget that trump asked russia to find 30k missing emails? And the DNC was attacked later that same day?
Oops
Are you calling Trump a liar? He's the one who said it.
"Did you forget that trump asked russia to find 30k missing emails? And the DNC was attacked later that same day?"
Except he did it in jest? Did you forget that or has your sense of humor been overcome by your grief? Asking for a friend..............As an addition, please note your statement "And the DNC was attacked later that same day?" which had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the 30K e-mails. Those were the ones on her private server and had NOTHING to do with and none of them would be found on the DNC server. Swing and a miss...........but it's okay.
What's even funnier is the server that contained the 30,000 emails had been erased with bleach bit and it was public knowledge that those emails had been destroyed and couldn't be recovered by hacking when he made that joke.
What's EVEN funnier is that the FBI did recover those emails AND confirmed that they were personal in nature.
No they didn't. Comey said they didn't recover all her emails.
and confirmed that they were personal in nature.
Comey also said the exact opposite. He said approximately 2,000 work related emails were recovered.
So what's really funny is you misrepresenting easily accessible facts
Actually, what's funnier is that y'all still seem to think that the government had the right to any of those '30,000 emails'.
Um, even fox news reported that was not true. Try again.
Ok, why should the president, that is under investigation, get to pick a judge that might preside over precedence in the case involving him?
If he refused to testify, it is not settled law. It could very well go to the supreme court.
Then he is basically picking his own judge.
Like everything else though, some will say so what, and turn a partisan eye and let him get away with it.
Bill Clinton did.
Please point me to democrats objecting to his picking a Justice and voting aginst him.. Otherwise, it’s just more partisan game playing by the democrats.
Bill Clinton never refused to testify.
It is sad that all anyone on the right can bring up is one of the Clintons.
trump said... CLINTON
trump did.... CLINTON
trump....CLINTON
trum....CLINTON
tru....CLINTON
tr....CLINTON
t....CLINTON
Pretty sad when every objection conservatives have revolves around them.
Of course he did. He lost the case. Look up Clinton v. Jones.
While under investigation, he nominated a Supreme Court Justice.
It's a perfect precedent. Probably why it upsets you so much.
tty sad when every objection conservatives have revolves around them.
What's really sad is the lack of integrity of Democrats, who just flip flop positions depending on partisan advantage.
Trump is going to be impeached. In 2004, when Clinton nominated Breyer, he was not under threat of impeachment.
It's sad to watch otherwise allegedly conservatives prostitute their credibility and dignity in defense of Donald Trump, possibly the most indefensible national politician in post 19th century America. I'd throw Joe McCarthy and Nixon into a different category even than Trump, who occupies the sub -sewer of American politics at his own subterranean level.
From a quick look, Clinton nominated the justices in his first two years of office. !993,94.
His last one was nominated about 10 days after the suit was filed.
One thing the Clinton vs Jones case did was made it clear that civil suits against a sitting president can proceed.
He was also under investigation by the special counsel when Breyer was nominated and confirmed.
...Which is the reason Trump had his lawyers begin settlement negotiations with 4,000 defrauded Trump University students 2 days before the 2016 Presidential election. The actual settlement of $25 million wasn't finalized until November 18th, but the negotiations quietly began on November 6th in San Diego at the beginning of pre-trial motions for the first Trump University fraud trial. Why November 18th? Because Trump was scheduled to testify on November 20th.
Should have read 1994 , obviously.
The first investigation stated around January. Four months later he was nominated.
The investigations were at their very beginnings. Star was not appointed until after Breyer was seated.
The special counsel in place was Fiske and he had already subpoenaed records from the Clintons.
He was also being sued by Paula Jones
The idea that it's okay for Clinton facing criminal and civil legal issues, to nominate a justice but it's not for Trump is not supportable.
Of course he was under "threat of impeachment." He was at the same stage as Trump, an investigation was ongoing, no report had been issued and neither had been impeached.
It was still the beginning of the investigation.
The jones case was filed only about ten days before Breyer was nominated. It didn't have any effect on the proceedings.
Of course it didn't. Because no one was making the b.s. argument that a justice shouldn't be confirmed because the nominating President was under investigation or being sued.
If Democrats had made that argument, perhaps it'd be taken more seriously now.
Perhaps if the republicans had not blocked a nomination for a year.
Either way, bad precedent being set.
Hillary was UNDER INVESTIGATION and still got to RUN FOR PRESIDENT.
Geez. They don't even attempt to hide the hypocrisy anymore.
hillary was UNDER INVESTIGATION and still got to RUN FOR PRESIDENT.
So true.
Back in the long ago days of 2016, it was un-American to even suggest a politician had committed a crime if they weren't tried and convicted.
Trump was a known conspiracy nut (birtherism, Sandy Hook, 911 trutherism, etc) BEFORE he ran for president and Republicans still voted for him. He was also a known business fraud who had participated in promoting pyramid schemes. We could spend the rest of the night just listing trump's humongous flaws.
??? Trump lost the popular vote.
In keeping with your style: The Trump (a.k.a. "president" Scumbag) campaign was UNDER INVESTIGATION which was KEPT SECRET and STILL GOT TO BE PRESIDENT!!! SCREEECHHHH.
Oh, that felt good.
Trump said anyone under investigation by the FBI should not be president. Guess who is president and under investigation by the FBI? Trump. He should resign.
Yeah, that's not a crime. You can say Trump is a pig, but there's nothing criminal about that. In fact, it's especially not a crime if Cohen was acting at the direction of his client because then he's just a proxy. A candidate is free to spend as much of his own money as he wants on his own campaign and all Cohen did was pay the money with the expectation that Trump would reimburse him. There's no limit to how much money Trump can put into his own campaign. In fact, Trump spent millions of dollars of his own money on the campaign.
If it wasn't reported properly, that's on the campaign, not Trump. And it's such a small amount, I doubt the fine (and that's all there would be) would be very much.
This was really just political showboating by the prosecution. Campaign finance violation is the least of the charges and one Cohen probably could have fought if it had been the only one. But it sure made for fun political press!
If it was legal for Trump to buy the porn stars' silence with his own money, why did he tell Cohen to do it? He took part in a conspiracy to illegally effect an election.
This is not going to be that big of a deal in the long run anyway. This is the calm before the storm. There are going to be credible allegations against Trump from now til he's whiling away toothless in an old folk's home.
People have their lawyers do things for them every day. There's nothing illegal about that.
Are you serious? He was a candidate! Every thing he did or said was to "influence an election." He's trying to win! Again: not a crime.
I guarantee you that if they're credible, they won't involve him spending his own money to try to win an election.
Except when they are illegal. You seem to forget that Cohan plead in court that he committed a crime at Trump's direction. It's actually written down in black and white.
Ummmm......Cohen has confessed to that crime and has been convicted for it. His co-conspirator and the person who ordered the crime has not yet been tried, but the public has already heard the audio recording of the two conspiring about that crime.
.
Actually the amount is substantial. Between the size of the contribution and the clear criminal intent, that's what shifted it from being a civil offense to being a criminal offense.
Yep. I heard a guy last night on fox that was practically yelling and screaming, shooting spittle out of his mouth. Basically saying the same things. There was no crime. Twisting and turning to justify it.
Gotta shake my head. If there was no crime then Cohen would not have plead guilty to it.
He has also indicated that his client, The Scumbag de Mar-a-Lago, was fully aware of what was being done and approved it.
His confession is meaningless and highly political as I detailed above. The only way it's really a crime for Cohen is if he didn't do it on behalf of Trump, and then he's simply made a contribution beyond what ever the legal limit is ($5200 I think or thereabouts). That still doesn't make it a crime for Trump. It's legally impossible for Trump to commit a crime by putting money into his own campaign.
You can't be convicted for conspiring to commit a perfectly legal act.
the clear criminal intent
I invite you to show me the statute that makes it a crime to pay someone to keep quiet about an affair or to put money into your own political campaign.
It wouldn't even be a civil offense.
People plead guilty to things every day that they didn't do. There are many reasons.
But I'll invite you to show us the statute that Trump violated.
Still not a crime.
Be sure to tell that to Cohen.
Sounds like you need to read Cohen's plea bargain as the statutes which Trump and he violated are clearly detailed in counts 7 & 8.
By the way that audio recording Cohen made of their conspiracy is going to prove very awkward for Trump, as will Trump's and Ghouliani's various statements and counter statements which they've made to first deny then explain Trump's involvement in paying that hush money.
That's not what the U.S. Attorney and, Cohens lawyer have said,
Stop right there. That's all you need to know. It's a plea bargain. They'll go easier on him because he pled to this lame charge.
By the way that audio recording Cohen made of their conspiracy is going to prove very awkward for Trump, as will Trump's and Ghouliani's various statements and counter statements which they've made to first deny then explain Trump's involvement in paying that hush money.
None of that is likely to be admissible at trial and Cohen's plea cannot be substantive evidence of Trump's guilt.
Pretzel Logic.
Welp,
they're wrong. Sorry.
Factually, Trump did pay him back. He probably has done it like this before and there's no reason to think that Cohen would be the one personally paying off Trump's mistresses. He probably has a history of doing stuff like that and getting reimbursed later. None of that is criminal, by the way.
Conversely, if did make the payment all on his own with no intent of reimbursement, then he has either given Trump a gift or contributed too much to the campaign. Either way, that's his problem, not Trump's.
But seriously, the notion that Trump needed Cohen to front him a couple hundred grand is comedy on its face. Trump's got that in the cushions of his couch.
Because Cohen is limited in how much money he can contribute to someone else's political campaign. There is no limit on how much of his own money a candidate can contribute. And if Cohen simply contributed too much money to the campaign then the campaign will pay a fine. But again, we know Cohen was reimbursed so this is not a issue.
Thanks for that. Steely Dan is awesome.
There are no side agreements associated with the plea bargain and anything Mueller or NY might do in regard to this information is a separate issue. However the state of NY has already subpoenaed Cohen in regard to Trump's bogus "charity" and the tax fraud Trump committed.
.
The judge made reference in court to "recordings" on that particular issue but just based on that one recording there seems to be ample evidence of Trump's direction of that conspiracy. The recording also proves that Trump subsequently lied repeatedly in his public statements on this issue, thus undermining his credibility if he does get prosecuted. And I'm quite sure that the prosecutors would not have made a rather direct reference to the president unless they had substantial evidence of his direct involvement......no doubt gained from the raid on Cohen's office. Otherwise the court would not have allowed that phrase in the plea bargain.
You guess a lot about things you don't know.
Steely Dan is awesome.
Oh, Yeaaaaahhhhh, smile
I know that what you are referring to is what happened in the Obama administration when Obama's campaign was slow in reporting some campaign funds, however, that is not what we have here. This is apples and, oranges comparisons, this is what the two attorneys are saying and, remember, they were on opposite sides during this court case so, why should they agree on a point in the case.
I'm glad you admit this, it will help you out when the rest of this comes out.
Yes, he probably did but, here's the difference between then and, now, the payments back then were to save what little reputation he had, as a non-politician and, to keep him from ending up in a divorce, this payment was to influence an election. Big difference.
Really? I'm 62, get real.
So that means that Trump did NOT claim the payment Cohen as legal fees on his tax returns nor did the payment come from the Trump org, right?
Because if Trump DID claim the payment as 'legal fees' it sure as hell IS illegal and the IRS should have something to say about it. Oh and since 'Trump org. isn't Trump, if the payment came from the company, Trump did NOT 'pay him back'.
So THAT means that the Trump campaign claimed the contribution on it's FEC filing right?
Ya, we already KNOW that didn't fucking happen, so THAT is Trump's problem.
The question then becomes, what is intentional or a honest mistake. Since Cohen and Pecker are confirming that there was a 'conspiracy' to defraud, the answer to that is simple. Their actions were intentional and conspiratory/corrupt.
So your posit is that this all goes away with the campaign paying a fine?
You should review 18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States, to help you better understand the offense perpetrated by Trump, Cohen and Pecker...
There is NO record of Cohen's payments in the Trump Campaign's filings. Officers of the campaign are now in legal jeopardy as are any 'officials' of the Trump campaign who conspired to defraud the FEC.
Whether Trump paid Cohen back is irrelevant.
The PURPOSE of the payments and HOW Cohen was paid back IS relevant.
Cohen swore in his elocution that the purpose of the payments were to illegally influence to election. It's been reported that Pecker has corroborated Cohen's statement.
Trump JUST said that Cohen wasn't 'repaid' through campaign funds, so if Trump is to be believed [/s] it was either from Trump personally or his company. Trump is too stupid to understand that his legal jeopardy comes from every direction...
So that leaves us with Trump and/or Trump org. conspiring with Pecker and Cohen to illegally influence the 2016 election.
BTW, I posit that your comments illustrates the devolution of standards in the desperate need to defend Trump at all cost.
All Cohen has done is to plead guilty to violating a statute. No one has actually adjudicated whether or not any actions by him actually violated the statute and his plea does not write the law. That means we can't take it as legal precedent that his actions were criminal. I know that sounds like splitting a nuclear hair, but it's a pretty important distinction.
The company is privately owned so I doubt there will be much distinction between the company's money and his money. He owns the company so the company's money is his money. And there's no limit to how much of his own money he can spend on his campaign. And paying off your mistress to shut her up is not illegal.
But you offer no evidence to prove your accusation of bias. Should I also make groundless assumptions about you to discredit your reasoning? Or should I stick to the facts and honest analysis like I have been? Which would you prefer?
Really? WHAT 'important distinction' it that exactly?
There is a YUGE distinction between the companies money and Trump's money. One of those YUGE distinctions it tax status.
False.
You seem to keep forgetting that the Cohen contribution is NOT listed on the campaign's FEC filing.
BTFW, 'contributions' ARE limited, no matter WHO makes them, personal LOANS are not. Do try to get your facts straight.
BTFW, please decide where you stand on where the repayment funds came from because, despite your uninformed claim, per the IRS, there IS a YUGE distinction between the Trump org paying back Cohen and Trump paying back Cohen.
Hint on the talking points: Trump said the money came from him...
Oh and it DOESN"T matter to the FEC if Cohen was paid back, if it was a 'contribution', which Cohen said it was, is was too large AND is had to be declared, which it was NOT.
It sure as fuck is if it is done for the corrupt express purpose of illegally influencing a federal election. Again, READ the fucking fraud statute I cited.
'Groundless assumptions'? Ridiculous.
I take your comments at face value and I recognize your refusal of acknowledging cited facts for the sycophancy that it is.
BTFW, as far as whether you should make groundless assumptions about my reasoning, have at it, you wouldn't be the first by any stretch and I have no doubt that you will be equally unsuccessful.
Trump is an illegitimate president based on what we already know, and this will become more and more clear as Mueller's evidence continues to become known.
Trump is an illegitimate human being
I bet you're the type the got mad when Trump referred to MS 13 as animals. The left always manages to "out Trump" Trump.
Schumer might have a point..... if Trump were nominating HIMSELF to be on the SCOTUS. Unless somebody can point to accusations of wrong doing on Kavanaughs part- and buying baseball tickets doesn't count- then whatever scandal Trump is in doesn't really matter.
Actually, what Cohen is claiming is an absolute nothing burger. He cannot state what the purpose of the payments were intended to do; because he doesn't have any evidence of intent on the part of Trump. Also, Cohen's campaign finance law violation was donating too much money to a candidate. So, once AGAIN, Democrats have an orgasm over rumors and hearsay instead of waiting for actual physical evidence. The Democrats are going to have to have some sort of therapy at this rate, since they are suffering from pre-mature ejaculation whenever someone accuses Trump over something. How about waiting for some REAL evidence...
For gosh sake, turn of the Fox News and peek outside the far RW bubble. There are tapes of Trump conspiring to make illegal payments to Stormy Danials and Karen McDougal. Trump even illegally wrote all these off as business expenses, "Legal Fees". Cohen pled guilty based upon the overwhelming evidence of criminal wrongdoing. The campaign crime he is guilty of committing is already proven to be specifically at Trump' behest...
In that case, shouldn't Bill Clinton be in prison for paying off Paula Jones? Paying someone to stay silent or to compensate them for signing a contract is NOT ILLEGAL. An NDA is a CONTRACT. If it was illegal, then Microsoft, Apple, the DoD, etc. would ALL be using illegal means to protect their secrets. So, again, where is the actual proof that Trump did anything illegal?
For one, it seems Trump illegally wrote off all his bimbo payments on his taxes as "Attorney Fees"...
And, where did you get a look at the tax return?
He obviously can state what the purpose of the payments were, he already did so. And as for "evidence" of intent on the part of Trump, If I gave you $50 and asked to go pick up a prostitute, I'm sure you'd be able to testify as to what I was asking you to do with my $50. Would it require DNA evidence? I doubt it. We already have the audio tape of Trump confirming he knew there would be payments made and why.
No, he cannot state what the purpose of the payments were outside of being in regard to the NDA, as he cannot see into Trump's mind. Any so called intention to manipulate the election in his favor is hearsay and most often inadmissible in court.
It is pathetically humorous to watch people try and defend Donald Trump. It is completely obvious that he does not belong within a thousand miles of the presidency. Never has and never will. But his fans keep flailing away on his behalf. .
It is pathetically humorous to see Trump haters continuously post seeds that are nothing more than accusations, "what ifs", "could be", might happen", etc and have zero proof to back any of it up.
Bu his haters just keep flailing and flailing away.
Okay, then where is the proof? Come on, show us the proof that he is unfit. We have far more proof that Hillary was unfit to be even a Senator, let alone Secretary of State or the President and she served in 2 of those offices.
I have trouble dealing with people who are as delusional or dishonest as we see reflected in some of the comments on this forum.
It is obvious , and I mean OBVIOUS, that Donald trump does not belong in the presidency, and is completely unfit to hold any public office, let alone the highest one. How long is the right going to keep up this charade otherwise? This is , EASILY, the most embarrassing era this country has gone through in any of our lifetimes, thanks to the Trumpsters and the Republicans.
Wow. I bet you didn't complain when Bill Clinton accepted money from the Chinese while running for re-election in 1996 or thought he should have been impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice over Whitewater and Paula Jones' sexual harassment case. But, by God, we need to impeach Trump for paying an extortionist (Stormy Daniels), which is similar to what John Edwards was accused of doing and got cleared of due to the jury admitting that he had more than his Presidential campaign for reasons to pay off his biographer/lover during his campaign in 2008.
There is a saying about glass houses that comes to mind.
It's obvious that this is your opinion. I admit I don't care for him as a president, I dislike him as a human being (for decades, actually), and I did not vote for him. But he IS the president, and I'm a grown-up, so it's time to get on with life.
How long will people continue to work for/with the duly elected President of the United States? Hopefully indefinitely.
Only if you're a teenager.
It sure as hell looks like the SDNY has evidence of intent on the part of Trump because in the charging documents they state that Cohen:
Oh and BTW, Pecker testified to the Grand Jury about the agreement he had with Trump to squelch negative stories AND what the purpose of the payment to Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels. THEN Allen Weisselberg testified to that the Trump org. re-paid Cohen for the payoffs and falsely identified the payments as 'legal fees'. Both Pecker and Weisselberg were given immunity for their testimony. One only qualifies for immunity if one testifies TRUTHFULLY.
You conveniently omit that it is EQUALLY a violation to ACCEPT a donation of too much money. The Trump campaign did it at least TWICE, once from Cohen and once from Pecker [National Enquirer]. BOTH for the corrupt reason of squelch the stories and influence the election.
Once AGAIN, y'all wax eloquently about an issue that you haven't actually researched. You insist that there is no REAL evidence yet you haven't read the court documents from the SDNY that enumerate the charges and evidence against Cohen and as a co-conspirator, Trump.
And, you are forgetting that Obama, both Clintons, and hundreds of other political campaigns have accepted too much money from people before. What was the punishment for those "crimes": Paying the money back and a small fine put ON THE CAMPAIGN not the candidate. Did you not learn Logic 101 at all? Nothing of what you stated actually reflects back to Trump. Remember, it was the Trump Organization and the Campaign that made the violations, not Trump according to what you say are in the court documents. So, again, where is the evidence against Trump?
EDIT: And, research what the jury stated about John Edwards. In order for Trump to make illegal payments to Stormy Daniels; his ONLY concern would be his campaign for President and no other concern can be in play. So, in order for the payments to be illegal, he would not be thinking about his business(es) or his family when he made them and they would have to prove those thoughts. The Edwards jury admitted that they could not rule out any other concerns, which is why he was not found to violate the law.
I'm not 'forgetting' a fucking thing. The TOPIC is Trump and Cohen, NOT Obama or the Clinton's. Your whataboutism is merely a deflection.
BTFW, Obama's FEC violation was NOT about accepting too large a donation. False equivalency.
Please provide a link to the Clinton FEC violations.
That's pretty funny since this week, most of your brethren insist that Trump org. money IS Trump's money...
Cohen elocuted that he did the deed @ Trump's [his client's] direction and that they CONSPIRED in doing so. Oh and you should note that the seventh count against Cohen is about a Corporate contribution which is STRICTLY VERBOTEN.
The Campaign hasn't been charged [yet], Cohen has...
The Trump Org. did NOT make the FEC violation, they repaid the guy that did...
Again, you're flapping your gums without a CLUE about what you are talking about.
BTW, neither donation was included on the Trump Campaign's FEC filings.
Oh and didn't you see Trump say that he paid back the money himself? , that it wasn't the campaign? I know it's hard but DO try to keep up with Trump's lies.
BTW, if you ever bother to READ Cohen's court documents, you may want to take note that the Federal prosecutors left open the possibility of charging Cohen under the RICO statutes.
Again, whataboutism.
BTFW, how many women alleged that Trump had assaulted them by the time of the Stormy Daniels Oct, 27, 2016 payoff? What did Trump say about them and what effect if any did any of that have businesses or his family? Hell, what's one more woman on top of the mountain of women accusing Trump at that point? None of it seemed to make a dent in how many members shelled out for memberships to his golf courses.
It's not like Trump hadn't cultivated the 'I grab them by the pussy' persona most of his life and hadn't committed adultery for all to see, more than once. Yet, if you believe him, he is YUGLY successful. So his business has allegedly flourished despite his philandering. As for his family, they'd have to have lived under a rock for decades not to know about Trump's womanizing. Hell, his three oldest kids KNOW he was cheating on their mother right?
So it seems to me that the Edwards thingy is a false equivalency too...
You should really keep up with what is said in court, under oath,