Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Dog said:

That's rich...Are you of the opinion that it is wrong to tie the Cohen plea deal to Trump? If so you have a lot of work to do here.

That would not be accurate.  The Cohen plea deal is tied to President Individual 1.  The Information does not identify Trump as the co-conspirator, only an Individual 1 who began his campaign for President on June 16, 2015.  People need to be accurate in their knowledge of who participated in the conspiracy with Mr. Cohen. 

I wonder which candidate announced on 6/16/2015.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/watch-donald-trumps-grand-escalator-entrance-presidential-announcement-31802261

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 21.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It's 7:00am, maybe, it could be 8:00am. It's hard to tell. The electricity has been off for, well, a very long time. The sun is starting to rise over the horizon with the red mist slowly lifting to li

Jack, I think you actually believe this. That's kind of scary, because it shows just how effective propaganda can be.  The dossier has not been disproven, administration and campaign officials ha

Posted Images

7 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

If it isn't, and it likely isn't, then NY has a roadmap for prosecuting him. So he gets Rikers Island rather than Club Fed. Look at the bright side. It'll be closer for family visits.

riker's being shuttered, think sing sing

that's assuming manafort was a ny resident during his ukraine job

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bhyde said:

No, I'm of the opinion that you don't know what adjudicate means or what a plea deal involves (Hint: it's a guilty plea to an actual crime), so you conveniently decided to change the subject. Remember this post?

This is where you tripped on you doggy dick and BS, BD, and Sol smacked you on the nose with a newspaper. Your only mistake was everything you wrote.

Sol is simply wrong. The judge does not know what the outcome would be if the charge was contested. A judge may well accept a plea deal from a defendant he suspects might be innocent.

But thanks for acknowledging my existence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

I'm of the opinion he was tried in federal court.

For failing to declare income and foreign accounts on federal taxes. He can still be prosecuted in New York  for failing to declare income and foreign accounts on State taxes. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Olsonist said:
9 minutes ago, hermetic said:

riker's being shuttered, think sing sing

that's assuming manafort was a ny resident during his ukraine job

Then there's always Red Onion.

yeah, I have no idea where he lived back then - it seems he bought all the ny property (nyc and the hamptons) with the unreported income.  some state will figure it out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Dog said:

Sol is simply wrong. The judge does not know what the outcome would be if the charge was contested. A judge may well accept a plea deal from a defendant he suspects might be innocent.

But thanks for acknowledging my existence.

The Judge knows what the outcome is by the plea agreement and has to enter the Judgment.  That's why judges spend so much time determining whether people who plead guilty are competent, are cognizant of the ramifications of their decision and have received effective counsel.  Judges don't play "gosh, what could the result have been had this gone to trial" in an effort to Doggy Style a bullshit scenario.  The judge does not have to accept a plea agreement.  

For those who live in the world of objective reality, there is a decent discussion of the process here:

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-the-judge-reject-plea-deal.html

 

For Dog, here, have a treat: https://www.cafepress.com/+democrats-suck+gifts

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Dog said:

I'm of the opinion he was tried in federal court.

Well, your "opinion" of what is a demonstrable fact is duly noted.

Are you also of the opinion he was found guilty of 8 felonies?  Of course you are.  Even Fox News has reported it.

But, back to the pardon you mentioned.  Are you of the opinion it represents a way out of this mess for Mr. Manafort?  While I would agree the President has the power to pardon him, that pardon extends only to Federal crimes.  Hence my question about whether or not Mr. Manafort paid state taxes.  If he did not, I would assume the AG in whichever state he is alleged to have broken the law would be interested in taking him to court.  Unfortunately for him, and you, the President cannot offer him a pardon if that comes to be.

Are you of the same opinion?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

The Judge knows what the outcome is by the plea agreement and has to enter the Judgment.  That's why judges spend so much time determining whether people who plead guilty are competent, are cognizant of the ramifications of their decision and have received effective counsel.  Judges don't play "gosh, what could the result have been had this gone to trial" in an effort to Doggy Style a bullshit scenario.  The judge does not have to accept a plea agreement.  

For those who live in the world of objective reality, there is a decent discussion of the process here:

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-the-judge-reject-plea-deal.html

 

For Dog, here, have a treat: https://www.cafepress.com/+democrats-suck+gifts

Is it a co-inky-dink the scenario in the first paragraph is named "Donnie Defendant?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

The Judge knows what the outcome is by the plea agreement and has to enter the Judgment.  That's why judges spend so much time determining whether people who plead guilty are competent, are cognizant of the ramifications of their decision and have received effective counsel.  Judges don't play "gosh, what could the result have been had this gone to trial" in an effort to Doggy Style a bullshit scenario.  The judge does not have to accept a plea agreement.  

For those who live in the world of objective reality, there is a decent discussion of the process here:

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-the-judge-reject-plea-deal.html

 

For Dog, here, have a treat: https://www.cafepress.com/+democrats-suck+gifts

But Dog's opinion carries more weight than your law degree and experience in practicing, don't ya know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

The Judge knows what the outcome is by the plea agreement and has to enter the Judgment.  That's why judges spend so much time determining whether people who plead guilty are competent, are cognizant of the ramifications of their decision and have received effective counsel.  Judges don't play "gosh, what could the result have been had this gone to trial" in an effort to Doggy Style a bullshit scenario.  The judge does not have to accept a plea agreement.  

For those who live in the world of objective reality, there is a decent discussion of the process here:

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-the-judge-reject-plea-deal.html

 

For Dog, here, have a treat: https://www.cafepress.com/+democrats-suck+gifts

Just amazing @Dog's take on this.  He so wants to believe that Cohen didn't do the crime but copped to the deal anyways.  The Trump cannot be criminal!  Even though he conspired with a convicted felon to commit federal campaign finance laws to help him get elected.  The election should be nullified and a re-vote performed.  WE HAVE AN ILLEGITIMATE POTUS!

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

The Judge knows what the outcome is by the plea agreement and has to enter the Judgment.  That's why judges spend so much time determining whether people who plead guilty are competent, are cognizant of the ramifications of their decision and have received effective counsel.  Judges don't play "gosh, what could the result have been had this gone to trial" in an effort to Doggy Style a bullshit scenario.  The judge does not have to accept a plea agreement.  

For those who live in the world of objective reality, there is a decent discussion of the process here:

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-the-judge-reject-plea-deal.html

 

For Dog, here, have a treat: https://www.cafepress.com/+democrats-suck+gifts

"The Judge knows what the outcome is by the plea agreement"....Ding! 

Which may differ for his own beliefs wrt whether a crime has been committed and certainly does not establish that a crime has been committed for any other possible defendant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

"The Judge knows what the outcome is by the plea agreement"....Ding! 

Which may differ for his own beliefs wrt whether a crime has been committed and certainly does not establish that a crime has been committed for any other possible defendant.

I wonder if lanny mentioned edwards to kimba

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

"The Judge knows what the outcome is by the plea agreement"....Ding! 

Which may differ for his own beliefs wrt whether a crime has been committed and certainly does not establish that a crime has been committed for any other possible defendant.

Why would a judge accept a plea if no crime was committed?  

Judge: You are accused of committing a crime.

You: I know your honor.

Judge: How do you plea?

You: Guilty

Judge: do you understand what that means?

You: yes.

Judge: Guilty as charged.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dog said:

"The Judge knows what the outcome is by the plea agreement"....Ding! 

Which may differ for his own beliefs wrt whether a crime has been committed and certainly does not establish that a crime has been committed for any other possible defendant.

You should pick another avenue of distraction, because you are flailing here.  Anyone who posts here sees the second word in your conclusion there, and knows that you are bullshitting.  

Try something with Millenials.  Or Abortion.  Or Millenials AND Abortion.  You don't know shit about this particular topic, not even enough to not make up silly crap.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Well, your "opinion" of what is a demonstrable fact is duly noted.

Are you also of the opinion he was found guilty of 8 felonies?  Of course you are.  Even Fox News has reported it.

But, back to the pardon you mentioned.  Are you of the opinion it represents a way out of this mess for Mr. Manafort?  While I would agree the President has the power to pardon him, that pardon extends only to Federal crimes.  Hence my question about whether or not Mr. Manafort paid state taxes.  If he did not, I would assume the AG in whichever state he is alleged to have broken the law would be interested in taking him to court.  Unfortunately for him, and you, the President cannot offer him a pardon if that comes to be.

Are you of the same opinion?

I think Trump in his tweet was thinly veiled reminder to Manifort that he holds a pardon which if I'm right is disgraceful.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

You should pick another avenue of distraction, because you are flailing here.  Anyone who posts here sees the second word in your conclusion there, and knows that you are bullshitting.  

Try something with Millenials.  Or Abortion.  Or Millenials AND Abortion.  You don't know shit about this particular topic, not even enough to not make up silly crap.

Try California. Again.

image.png.df40154331b75160525447cf3784cbf5.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

I think Trump in his tweet was thinly veiled reminder to Manifort that he holds a pardon which if I'm right is disgraceful.

Not so thinly veiled.  What Trump doesn't realize is that politically it would be suicide for him to do so.  But it also doesn't mean Dirty Manny still wouldn't turn on him.  Trump just aint worth saving for these felons.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

You should pick another avenue of distraction, because you are flailing here.  Anyone who posts here sees the second word in your conclusion there, and knows that you are bullshitting.  

Try something with Millenials.  Or Abortion.  Or Millenials AND Abortion.  You don't know shit about this particular topic, not even enough to not make up silly crap.

Speaking of bullshit.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point @Dog is making, and with which I agree, is that Cohen’s guilty plea is not, in itself, sufficient evidence with which to convict Trump of the crime of campaign finance violation. 

Once you stipulate that point, you are left with the substance of Dogs earlier post, which was that the conviction of Manafort and the guilty pleas by Cohen, with evidence implicating DJT in orchestrating illegal campaign donations constituted a very bad day for his legal efforts. 

Put another way, August 21st May later be seen as the turning point in Trumps presidential tenure. From this point on, his legal challenges may simply grow in proportion to his political power from this point forward, resulting in a severe diminution of his effectiveness as chief executive.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dog said:
16 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Well, your "opinion" of what is a demonstrable fact is duly noted.

Are you also of the opinion he was found guilty of 8 felonies?  Of course you are.  Even Fox News has reported it.

But, back to the pardon you mentioned.  Are you of the opinion it represents a way out of this mess for Mr. Manafort?  While I would agree the President has the power to pardon him, that pardon extends only to Federal crimes.  Hence my question about whether or not Mr. Manafort paid state taxes.  If he did not, I would assume the AG in whichever state he is alleged to have broken the law would be interested in taking him to court.  Unfortunately for him, and you, the President cannot offer him a pardon if that comes to be.

Are you of the same opinion?

I think Trump in his tweet was thinly veiled reminder to Manifort that he holds a pardon which if I'm right is disgraceful.

It is remarkable how you have morphed from a reasonable poster, with whom I had political disagreements, keeping in mind you seemed to have principles, into a party bot.

Do you have opinion about the part which I previously asked and have bolded for your ease of finding?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

Not so thinly veiled.  What Trump doesn't realize is that politically it would be suicide for him to do so.  But it also doesn't mean Dirty Manny still wouldn't turn on him.  Trump just aint worth saving for these felons.

I disagree.

With every post @Dog and the rest of the Trump Defense Squad makes, it is clear nothing will shake them from their absolute loyalty to President Trump.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, phillysailor said:

I think the point @Dog is making, and with which I agree, is that his guilty plea is not, in itself, sufficient evidence with which to convict Trump of the crime of campaign finance violation. 

Once you stipulate that point, you are left with the substance of Dogs earlier post, which was that the conviction of Manafort and the guilty pleas by Cohen, with evidence implicating DJT in orchestrating illegal campaign donations constituted a very bad day for his legal efforts. 

Put another way, August 21st May later be seen as the turning point in Trumps presidential tenure. From this point on, his legal challenges may simply grow in proportion to his political power from this point forward, resulting in a severe diminution of his effectiveness as chief executive.

Cohen's guilty plea does not establish that a campaign finance crime has even been committed for the purposes of any other prosecution.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

It is remarkable how you have morphed from a reasonable poster, with whom I had political disagreements, keeping in mind you seemed to have principles, into a party bot.

Do you have opinion about the part which I previously asked and have bolded for your ease of finding?

Yes, I agree. Manifort could very well be found guilty of state violations for which Trump cannot pardon him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

Cohen's guilty plea does not establish that a campaign finance crime has even been committed for the purposes of any other prosecution.

How about testimony, under oath, about such an activity?  Is that admissible as evidence?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dog said:

Cohen's guilty plea does not establish that a campaign finance crime has even been committed for the purposes of any other prosecution.

It does not establish a crime but it implicates Trump in a crime. That's why he should stand trial to clear his good name

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bus Driver said:

How about testimony, under oath, about such an activity?  Is that admissible as evidence?

Sure, along with supporting documents and the testimony of others can be sufficient to prove that a crime was committed at the behest of DJT. What is significant is that a party with full knowledge of Trumps motives and actions regarding the negotiations is talking with the prosecutor. So the prosecutors have access to a willing co-conspirator, documents, possibly tape recordings and the women and lawyers with whom they negotiated. 

The _only_ blanks to fill in are Trump’s side of the story. You’ve got two sides of a triangle, from which you can calculate the third. Compare that to statements Trump makes under oath and you have grounds for prosecution. 

As Dog said, this was a bad day for Trump.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Dog said:

Cohen's guilty plea does not establish that a campaign finance crime has even been committed for the purposes of any other prosecution.

Are you saying that when Trump brought before the bench, that Cohen's guilty plea is inadmissible as evidence?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Evidence, substantiated by at least one audio tape that we know about, and any number of tapes that we have not yet heard.  

 

and to counter that?

 

I was in Bedminster and Sean Hannity has 500,000 witnesses who will swear to that.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Spatial Ed said:

Are you saying that when Trump brought before the bench, that Cohen's guilty plea is inadmissible as evidence?

It may very well be inadmissible in and of itself, without the ability to cross examine on it.  

 

39925381_2341607975864467_19937303901031

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

The intended audiance for that tweet is Manifort.

Read, Hey Paul, remember the presidential pardon.

That would be “obstruction”

Link to post
Share on other sites

A pardon cannot be conditional, like an NDA.  You get or you don't.  They can't take it away from you once you get it.  So say Mango pardons Dirty Manny, Manny says thanks then turns to Mueller and spills the beans because he's pissed he got dragged through all this bullshit.  President Fuckwits is left holding his nut sack.  I sense not many willing to fall on the sword for this dictator.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

A pardon cannot be conditional, like an NDA.  You get or you don't.  They can't take it away from you once you get it.  So say Mango pardons Dirty Manny, Manny says thanks then turns to Mueller and spills the beans because he's pissed he got dragged through all this bullshit.  President Fuckwits is left holding his nut sack.  I sense not many willing to fall on the sword for this dictator.

too early to talk realistically about pardons, manafort still has the dc court to deal with.  plus, there won't be any pardons until mueller's report, and any hearings, are finished with.  doesn't help with any state investigations anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Kirwan said:

Actually, I think the bulk of Trump support are people like Austin's farmer neighbors.... Normal people, struggling through hard times (factories closing, etc), so they 'took a flyer' on Trump and his pretty lies, only to be sold down the river with his trade wars, immigration shutdown, isolationism and the fact that he was never going to help them, only himself and a few rich buddies. 

Nah. They vote the letter, regardless. They're certainly not talking politics at the moment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Manafort still can be prosecuted because he violated the terms of his parole. 

Can the crime of tampering with a witness in a federal case be prosecuted in a state court? If so, good tactic to render powerless the Gropenführer’s pardon powers. 

I cannot believe how corrupt this fucker is, that I have to ask this question, 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

I doubt Manafort would turn on Cheeto after a pardon. He hasn't so far.

If Manny gets a pardon, he can no longer use the 5th to avoid testifying. So he can be supoenaed to testify, if he refuses he's vulnerable to contempt charges. If he lies, then he's vulnerable to perjury charges.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

I doubt Manafort would turn on Cheeto after a pardon. He hasn't so far.

If Cheeto pardons Manny, what can Cheeto offer Manny to keep quiet?  Money?  A one way ticket to Moscow?  Really, why would Manny defend Cheeto after a pardon?  I don't think Manny is loyal to anyone but Manny.

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:
45 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

I doubt Manafort would turn on Cheeto after a pardon. He hasn't so far.

If Cheeto pardons Manny, what can Cheeto offer Manny to keep quiet?  Money?  A one way ticket to Moscow?  Really, why would Manny defend Cheeto after a pardon?  I don't think Manny is loyal to anyone but Manny.

the get out of federal prison card maybe?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

Speaking of bullshit.

That's the beautiful thing about a courtroom.  Your games don't work there.  There's no opinion of truth.  There's no may-be-the-case.  There's the truth, and there is no hiding from the truth.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

That's the beautiful thing about a courtroom.  Your games don't work there.  There's no opinion of truth.  There's no may-be-the-case.  There's the truth, and there is no hiding from the truth.  

It is interesting that there was not enough evidence to support a conspiracy charge...

Also interesting that the chairman of the FEC made a statement yesterday clarifying the definition of illegal use of campaign money...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Movable Ballast said:

It is interesting that there was not enough evidence to support a conspiracy charge...

Also interesting that the chairman of the FEC made a statement yesterday clarifying the definition of illegal use of campaign money...

 

Conspiracy charge?  Against who?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:
13 minutes ago, hermetic said:

the get out of federal prison card maybe?

And once he's out, what keeps him from flipping on Trump?  Loyalty?  Please.

the memory that he no longer has to use soap-on-a-rope in the shower

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Conspiracy charge?  Against who?  

Cohen. The charges he copped to were to him. A conspiracy charge for CFL infraction would be directly linked to Trump. It would appear that there is not enough there, there to get it. A conspiracy to commit fraud would have cooked Trumps goose and good! As it stands he is more looking at a moderate fine according to most lawyers I spoke to / heard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Movable Ballast said:

Cohen. The charges he copped to were to him. A conspiracy charge for CFL infraction would be directly linked to Trump. It would appear that there is not enough there, there to get it. A conspiracy to commit fraud would have cooked Trumps goose and good! As it stands he is more looking at a moderate fine according to most lawyers I spoke to / heard.

The charges hung around Cohen's neck are not representative of all of the charges they could have hung on his neck.  That's what gets him to take a deal.  There could be more, or not.  He did say in his sworn statement that the candidate directed him to make the payments.  So he implicated Individual 1 in two crimes.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

Cohen. The charges he copped to were to him. A conspiracy charge for CFL infraction would be directly linked to Trump. It would appear that there is not enough there, there to get it. A conspiracy to commit fraud would have cooked Trumps goose and good! As it stands he is more looking at a moderate fine according to most lawyers I spoke to / heard.

Sol beat me to the punch. 

The feds may have enough for that charge, but it isn’t covered by this plea deal. There are real political ramifications which might be quite detrimental to the overall investigation to make that charge at this time. 

If there are more co-conspirators to interview, charge and prosecute/negotiate a deal with, then you’ve got that much more firepower when you storm the castle keep. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, austin1972 said:

Nah. They vote the letter, regardless. They're certainly not talking politics at the moment.

Well, that's a problem.  It's not so much 'uninformed electorate' as it is 'fully programmed electorate'.  The Faux News Kool-Aid is working. 

 

Meanwhile, my representative to congress[R]  (and his wife) have just been indicted for illegal use of campaign funds.  And he's still on the ballot. 

YCMTSU.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:
27 minutes ago, hermetic said:

the memory that he no longer has to use soap-on-a-rope in the shower

Trump caused this problem in the first place.  I doubt he's going to be all that loyal.  I got my pardon, now fuck off.

nah, manafort made his own bed.  should have kept the money overseas, not spend it here like an idiot.  i hope he rots in prison.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

As long as Trump keeps rubber stamping the desires of the Republican establishment his effectiveness won't change an iota. they don't care about this shit, they want to gut the EPA, sell off the land, and generally do the shitty things they do and Trumps more than happy to enable that.

Of course they do. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump's campaign finance lawyer McGahn expects to be questioned by feds in NY about those payments





JUST IN: Trump didn't consult his campaign finance lawyer about his hush-money payments, according to a source familiar with the matter 

Trump's campaign finance lawyer Don McGahn expects to be questioned by federal prosecutors in New York about his knowledge of the payments, the source said https://bloom.bg/2OXrKmJ 
 
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

The charges hung around Cohen's neck are not representative of all of the charges they could have hung on his neck.  That's what gets him to take a deal.  There could be more, or not.  He did say in his sworn statement that the candidate directed him to make the payments.  So he implicated Individual 1 in two crimes.  

A bank was robbed.  A suspect was found and pleaded guilty to robbing the bank.  He also said Individual 1 ordered him to rob the bank.  Does that mean Individual 1 is guilty?  No, but he should face charges.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

A bank was robbed.  A suspect was found and pleaded guilty to robbing the bank.  He also said Individual 1 ordered him to rob the bank.  Does that mean Individual 1 is guilty?  No, but he should face charges.

It depends on the supporting evidence.  We've heard one tape with President Individual 1 discussing the payoffs with Mr. Cohen.  There are probably more, and they would have to make up the evidentiary burden to show probable cause that President Individual 1 broke the law and/or conspired to break the law.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

It depends on the supporting evidence.  We've heard one tape with President Individual 1 discussing the payoffs with Mr. Cohen.  There are probably more, and they would have to make up the evidentiary burden to show probable cause that President Individual 1 broke the law and/or conspired to break the law.  

A sitting president cannot be tried for crimes.  So all of this is just wishful thinking.  Of course, all of this could be used for impeachment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

my bad.

Republicans in Congress aren't leaving in droves, the administration isn't trying to cram every shitty change a lobbyist wants, and everyones committed to the rule of law instead of the rule of man. The body of Benghazi committees has shown the same enthusiasm to critique, much less investigate, possible malfeasance of the Trump administration.

Every single fucking one of Kavanaugh's statements about Clinton, his pure outrage in prosecuting abuses about blowjobgate, applies to Trump - the man Kavanaugh sycophantically praised. It's pure partisanship and saying "you guys change first while we're cramming this shit as fast as we can" ain't going to change shit.

Of course. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

New York state subpoenas Cohen in Trump Foundation probe

Source: AP

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — Investigators in New York state have issued a subpoena to Michael Cohen as part of their criminal probe into the Trump Foundation. 

A spokesman for Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s tax department confirmed the subpoena to The Associated Press on Wednesday. 

The subpoena was issued after Cohen’s attorney said the longtime lawyer for President Donald Trump has information that would be of interest to prosecutors at both the state and federal level. 

As a close Trump confidant, Cohen could potentially be a significant source of information for state investigators looking into whether Trump or his charity broke state law or lied about their tax liability. 

Anyone charged with a state crime could not be pardoned by the president. 

Messages left with attorneys for Cohen and Trump were not immediately returned Wednesday.

Read more: https://apnews.com/72c5c19195f84abfaa42eaffe78d806a?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP&__twitter_impression=true 
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

A sitting president cannot be tried for crimes.  So all of this is just wishful thinking.  Of course, all of this could be used for impeachment.

Unless he ends up being President for life, he will not avoid the law forever.  Nobody in this country is above the law.  If he broke it, he will answer for it, though the maxim "justice delayed is justice denied" comes to mind.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

As long as Trump keeps rubber stamping the desires of the Republican establishment his effectiveness won't change an iota. they don't care about this shit, they want to gut the EPA, sell off the land, and generally do the shitty things they do and Trumps more than happy to enable that.

+1

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RKoch said:

 

New York state subpoenas Cohen in Trump Foundation probe

Source: AP

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — Investigators in New York state have issued a subpoena to Michael Cohen as part of their criminal probe into the Trump Foundation. 

A spokesman for Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s tax department confirmed the subpoena to The Associated Press on Wednesday. 

The subpoena was issued after Cohen’s attorney said the longtime lawyer for President Donald Trump has information that would be of interest to prosecutors at both the state and federal level. 

As a close Trump confidant, Cohen could potentially be a significant source of information for state investigators looking into whether Trump or his charity broke state law or lied about their tax liability. 

Anyone charged with a state crime could not be pardoned by the president. 

Messages left with attorneys for Cohen and Trump were not immediately returned Wednesday.

Read more: https://apnews.com/72c5c19195f84abfaa42eaffe78d806a?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP&__twitter_impression=true 

7f5d9b32a92f741b7ee0e7ef70bb49f5.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

A sitting president cannot be tried for crimes.  So all of this is just wishful thinking.  Of course, all of this could be used for impeachment.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but my understanding is that the DOJ policy is that they don't indict sitting presidents. It's just a policy. He could be tried with a change in DOJ policy without changing any law.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

A sitting president cannot be tried for crimes.  So all of this is just wishful thinking.  Of course, all of this could be used for impeachment.

I don't think that's been settled. Obviously, a civil suit against President Clinton was allowed to proceed, which led to his impeachment. And Judge Weber charged him with a civil contempt of court for perjury before he left office. My own thought is that if a civil case can be persued against a sitting president, then it's not unreasonable to conclude a criminal case could. However, a criminal case probably can't remove him (her) from office, only an impeachment and vote to remove from office can do that.

Using my logic above, it's feasible that Trump can be charged and convicted of several criminal charges, perhaps even be sent to prison, but he would still be technically president until an impeachment was successful...as a Judge does not have the power to remove him from office.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

The actions they've take w/r/t the EPA are intended to reign in an agency that has over-stepped the boundaries of their authority.   You can call it "gutting" if you want, but, I disagree with that.  

bullshit, that's a tired fallback argument based on idiocy. a sane society doesn't shit the nest for profit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Olsonist said:

justice delayed is justice denied

It seems that Cheeto on down to Dog are playing that endgame, buying time. And what do we get after Cheeto? Pence.

Trump will serve out his term, since the GOP has zero will to impeach and the DOJ has zero balls to prosecute. Once Trump is out of office, the rest of his hopefully short life will be spent fighting legal battles for the continued entertainment of the American people. Pence will fade into political purgatory once Warren has assumed the presidency on a platform of draining the swamp for real.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Watergate prosecutor: We need to question legitimacy of Trump's presidency

Source: Raw Story

BOB BRIGHAM 22 AUG 2018 AT 12:18 ET 

Former Watergate prosecutor Nick Ackerman explained to MSNBC’s Ali Velshi on Wednesday how the guilty pleas by longtime Donald Trump attorney and fixer Michael Cohen has brought into question the legitimacy of the current president. 

Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson pointed out that Cohen’s guilty pleas beg the age-old question, “What did the president know and when did he know it?” 


“Because Michael Cohen has said, ‘No, I didn’t do this on my own, this was not a rogue mission, this was President Trump telling me, yes, let’s try and pay these people off to influence the election,’ that’s the moment where we have liability for the president,” Levinson noted. 

“That is the moment in which the legitimacy of this presidency comes into question,” Velshi noted. “Some crime that may have resulted in the president gaining this presidency, that speaks to the legitimacy of this presidency, the legitimacy of this presidency came under great pressure last night.” 

“Of course,” Ackerman replied. “This is what its all about.”

“You’ve got him now involved as a co-conspirator with Michael Cohen, this is not some simple campaign violation,” he concluded.

Read more: https://www.rawstory.com/2018/08/ex-watergate-prosecutor-need-question-legitimacy-trumps-presidency/
Link to post
Share on other sites

amoral clown, I always considered you relatively slippery, but you've failed to put up a rational argument regarding a toothless 'EPA' here, which is hardly surprising. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, 3to1 said:

clown, I always considered you relatively slippery, but you've failed to put up a rational argument regarding a toothless 'EPA' here, which is hardly surprising. 

"Rational argument"?  "Slippery"?  Do tell.

Tootheless EPA?  Hmm - I thought I was suggesting the opposite.  Just re-read it, yeah, I was. 

Did you ask a question, or merely revert to the childish approach of immediately dismissing everything that you don't already agree with as bullshit? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kirwan said:

Well, that's a problem.  It's not so much 'uninformed electorate' as it is 'fully programmed electorate'.  The Faux News Kool-Aid is working. 

 

Meanwhile, my representative to congress[R]  (and his wife) have just been indicted for illegal use of campaign funds.  And he's still on the ballot. 

YCMTSU.

 

 

yeah incredible huh. Duncan let it go to his head... For a guy who ran on being the little guy in your corner, he forgot about the little guy pretty quick.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

That's the beautiful thing about a courtroom.  Your games don't work there.  There's no opinion of truth.  There's no may-be-the-case.  There's the truth, and there is no hiding from the truth.  

Please..."There's no opinion of truth" in a court room, absolute bullshit. Truth is often the first causality when your profession is involved....professional liars and  doggiestylers you are.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites