Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Dog said:

And you would be wrong. We have accepted that a crime was committed. We have taken Michael Cohen's word (whatever that's worth) for it. 

Have you considered contacting the judge to let him know his errors in handling the case? 

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

It's pretty fucking simple people.

Trump and Cohen paid hush money to a porn star to influence the election. Regardless of the source of the money, that is a violation of CFL.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dog said:
8 minutes ago, hermetic said:

"please pay from the trust"

uh oh

Perhaps....But better than pay from campaign funds.

trumps in the clear for the fec problem.

but if by "trust" he meant foundation - that's a whole nother problem

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

If you were representing Trump would you accept Michael Cohens plea deal as proof that the crime your client was implicated in actually occured?

I would accept that someone guilty of a crime had implicated my client in a conspiracy to commit campaign finance violations done in an attempt to influence an election.  No more, no less.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Surely the judge gets given a brief about the plea deal?

I'm certain the Judge was given a brief. And as a courtesy, the brief may have been translated into pictures and forwarded to Trump.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

The list of other evidence in the plea deal - documents, conversations - that corroborates Cohen's story should give Dog pause with his confidence, but it won't.

Going full retard requires ignoring facts and evidence. Dog's ignorant opinion decides the case. 

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

Going full retard requires ignoring facts and evidence. Dog's ignorant opinion decides the case. 

the key word game that is being played in the talking points is to ignore the part about "in an attempt to influence an election" so that it becomes just a case of a guy paying off some woman he was banging when his wife's vagina was recovering from bearing his child, to keep her from talking about offering up her vagina as a willing alternative, while his wife recovered. Paying to silence women you screw while your wife's vagina heals from childbirth: legal.  Doing it to influence an election?  Better report it, and it better not exceed any limits.  

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

In your view does Michael Cohen's plea deal, in which he is striking a bargain for lenient treatment, establish that a crime exists in which Trump is a co-conspirator?

If so you have no business questioning my commitment to truth.

Dog, I will answer your question, even though my post made it clear. 

Whether he was found guilty by plea or by trial, Cohen’s guilty plea establishes Cohen’s guilt. 

Trump was not on trial nor the subject of Cohen’s plea deal. 

Trump has been implicated in a crime by Michael Cohen, and apparently Mueller now has documents which might support that claim. He may yet be charged and prosecuted for this crime, but certainly the President of the United States is under suspicion for breaking campaign finance law, and conspiring to do so with MC on the basis of substantial evidence.

Trump is also under suspicion for lying to the American people, repeatedly, on all aspects of this topic. I will broadly label this as maladministration, for he decreases the public trust in our governing institutions. I guess sedition fits, but I think I’d apply that if this had more to do with Russian meddling. 

Do you give a shit? Or do these revelations simply define the parameters of your next line of defense?

I think the latter, because your partisanship outweighs your patriotism. You will parse my words, and those of the next poster, and the next, rather than consider the broader implications for our country of having such an untrustworthy chief executive at the helm.

He does not deserve your abject loyalty.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, phillysailor said:

Dog, I will answer your question, even though my post made it clear. 

Whether he was found guilty by plea or by trial, Cohen’s guilty plea establishes Cohen’s guilt. 

Trump was not on trial nor the subject of Cohen’s plea deal. 

Trump has been implicated in a crime by Michael Cohen, and apparently Mueller now has documents which might support that claim. He may yet be charged and prosecuted for this crime, but certainly the President of the United States is under suspicion for breaking campaign finance law, and conspiring to do so with MC on the basis of substantial evidence.

Trump is also under suspicion for lying to the American people, repeatedly, on all aspects of this topic. I will broadly label this as maladministration, for he decreases the public trust in our governing institutions. I guess sedition fits, but I think I’d apply that if this had more to do with Russian meddling. 

Do you give a shit? Or do these revelations simply define the parameters of your next line of defense?

I think the latter, because your partisanship outweighs your patriotism. You will parse my words, and those of the next poster, and the next, rather than consider the broader implications for our country of having such an untrustworthy chief executive at the helm.

He does not deserve your abject loyalty.

A cogent post.  But you are talking to a steaming pile of Dog shit

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

the key word game that is being played in the talking points is to ignore the part about "in an attempt to influence an election" so that it becomes just a case of a guy paying off some woman he was banging when his wife's vagina was recovering from bearing his child, to keep her from talking about offering up her vagina instead, while his wife recovered. Paying to silence women you screw while your wife's vagina heals from childbirth: legal.  Doing it to influence an election?  Better report it, and it better not exceed any limits.  

No question it was done to influence the election, Cohen testified so. But I don't think 'bimbo hush money' is a legitimate campaign expense, no matter the source of the money. It was either going to be an illegal campaign expenditure, or an illegal campaign donation. 

Lets suppose Trump spent the money buying a shot of whiskey for everyone who voted for him.  Ordinarily, buying a round is perfectly legal. In the context of a campaign, it would not be a permissible expense. Nor could a third party pay for the drinks in exchange for votes, as that would be an illegal campaign donation. 

Had Trump paid the hush money to his hookers prior to declaring his candidacy, he'd be in the clear.

 

 

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

The plea agreement and Information posted and ignored above establish that Mr. Cohen committed a crime and that President Individual 1 is implicated as a co-conspirator. 

So, we have established that Mr. Cohen committed a crime, and has implicated Individual 1, a candidate for federal office.  In Dog's mind, that means there exists no crime for which his Messiah can be said to have participated, much less be charged.  That may not be the case, if Mr. Cohen has anything in the way of evidence to verify his testimony.  

Perhaps this is why the President has stated he thinks "flipping...almost ought to be illegal".

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

Of course - the people who are tired of enforcement over-reach want to pollute the water and posion the air, yup - you've got it all figured out Flash - Man I'm glad we had this little chat. 

Do they WANT to pollute as an end goal? Of course not. Will they pollute more as standards are “relaxed”? Of course.

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

So, we have established that Mr. Cohen committed a crime, and has implicated Individual 1, a candidate for federal office.  In Dog's mind, that means there exists no crime for which his Messiah can be said to have participated, much less be charged.  That may not be the case, if Mr. Cohen has anything in the way of evidence to verify his testimony.  

Perhaps this is why the President has stated he thinks "flipping...almost ought to be illegal".

Close...There could well be a crime for which Trump could be charged but Cohen's plea deal does not establish one. The terms of his deal and the admissions he made in it apply only to him.

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

Close...There could well be a crime for which Trump could be charged but Cohen's plea deal does not establish one. The terms of his deal and the admissions he made in it apply only to him.

Thank you captain obvious.

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

One would think.

I guess you’ve made progress. As you now agree that Cohen committed a crime. Do you also agree he named a co-conspirator in said confession?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

I guess you’ve made progress. As you now agree that Cohen committed a crime. Do you also agree he named a co-conspirator in said confession?

And, he is said to have provided evidence to corroborate his testimony.  Might that evidence indicate Individual 1 was a participant in the crime?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

I guess you’ve made progress. As you now agree that Cohen committed a crime. Do you also agree he named a co-conspirator in said confession?

I never said otherwise, but I would add that Cohen can say anything he wants. What he says is suspect even when not part of his deal he's making to save his own skin.

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

I never said otherwise, but I would add that Cohen can say anything he wants. What he says is suspect even when not part of his deal he's making to save his own skin.

 

It’s always good when dealing with bad dogs to start with the facts:

Prosecutors charged Cohen for a crime(s)

Cohen plead guilty to the crime(s)

the judge accepted that a crime was committed and Cohen was guilty.

 

Trump paid a porn star off to keep her quiet.  Just thought I’d throw that in there for the party of family values team...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

 

It’s always good when dealing with bad dogs to start with the facts:

Prosecutors charged Cohen for a crime(s)

Cohen plead guilty to the crime(s)

the judge accepted that a crime was committed and Cohen was guilty.

 

Trump paid a porn star off to keep her quiet.  Just thought I’d throw that in there for the party of family values team...

Agreed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want one that is a piece of shit gaslighting Doggy Styler, try this guy, who would be disbarred if he ever had the balls to go in a courtroom and spew his bullshit to a judge.

stop-putting-rudy-giuliani-on-tv-trump-g

Still more honest and forthright than The Man's Best Friend.  

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

I never said otherwise, but I would add that Cohen can say anything he wants. What he says is suspect even when not part of his deal he's making to save his own skin.

Prosecutors already have the evidence, which is why Cohen pled guilty and stated under oath there was a co-conspirator. Your opinions and doggy-lies carry no weight whatsoever....they're just the fantasy constructions of a hyper-partisan going full retard....iow, screeching chimp flinging feces. 

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

Prosecutors already have the evidence, which is why Cohen pled guilty and stated under oath there was a co-conspirator. Your opinions and doggy-lies carry no weight whatsoever....they're just the fantasy constructions of a hyper-partisan going full retard....iow, screeching chimp flinging feces. 

What evidence do they have.

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

Prosecutors already have the evidence, which is why Cohen pled guilty and stated under oath there was a co-conspirator. Your opinions and doggy-lies carry no weight whatsoever....they're just the fantasy constructions of a hyper-partisan going full retard....iow, screeching chimp flinging feces. 

Is that the stuff that was found in the search of Cohen's office/house/hotel, that they claimed was privileged, but a magistrate reviewed and found that for all but a few crumbs, was not shielded by privilege, because the atty client privilege doesn't attach to criminal behavior?  Would THAT stuff be evidence of a crime?  Gosh, that's outrageous.  

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

That would be her, and I don't know of any errors.

Apologies, I got the judge gender wrong.

Apart from that, it seems you’re convinced that this case has been handled incorrectly. You’re points and arguments with others here definitely point in that direction. 

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

Apologies, I got the judge gender wrong.

Apart from that, it seems you’re convinced that this case has been handled incorrectly. You’re points and arguments with others here definitely point in that direction. 

No they don't. I have zero issues with the Cohen case.

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

What evidence do they have.

Home, office, and condo full of evidence. A few hundred thousand emails. Recorded phone conversations. And a confession of guilt. All of which a magistrate ruled as not attorney-client privileged. 

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

If Dog read the documents in question, Dog wouldn't be Dog. Much safer to rely on Foxnews to summarize things for Dog.

Dog may not be an attorney, but he did stay at a crack house last night. Therefore, the legal opinions he flings at the wall override all established case law.

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

I never said otherwise, but I would add that Cohen can say anything he wants. What he says is suspect even when not part of his deal he's making to save his own skin.

You could substitute the name Trump for Cohen and your post would read the same.

Sad thing is one of those two guys is a slimeball attorney and the other is the President of the United States, and is doing his damndest to cash in on the office.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Dogis correct.  The judge does not decide if a crime has been committed.  Prosecutors do.  They then bring the case before the judge and the judge confronts the defendant for a plea.  The judge has not determined if a crime has been committed at this time.  The defendant enters a plea.  

Guilty.  Crime committed.  The judge has not decided but has accepted that the defendant is competent and admitted to a crime for which his is charged has been committed.

Not Guilty, we go to trial to determine if the defendant committed the crime.  

In most criminal trials, the judge never decides if a crime has been committed, a jury does.  The judge simply makes sure the rules are followed.

Cohen pleaded guilty.  That means he committed the crimes he was accused of and he implicated Trump that he too committed the crime.  He also cannot appeal the case.

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

Well, he did until now.

National Enquirer boss David Pecker gets federal immunity in Michael Cohen case

Source: CNBC

National Enquirer boss David Pecker gets federal immunity in Michael Cohen case 

The chairman of the company that publishes the National Enquirer was granted immunity by federal prosecutors as part of an investigation into President Donald Trump's former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, NBC News reported Thursday. 

The immunity deal was earlier reported by The Wall Street Journal and Vanity Fair. 

The Journal had reported earlier Thursday that American Media Inc. Chairman David Pecker gave prosecutors details about the president's knowledge of payments Cohen made to women alleging affairs with Trump.

Read more: https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/08/23/national-enquirer-david-pecker-told-prosecutors-trump-knew-of-cohen-payments-report.html?__twitter_impression=true 
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

the key word game that is being played in the talking points is to ignore the part about "in an attempt to influence an election" so that it becomes just a case of a guy paying off some woman he was banging when his wife's vagina was recovering from bearing his child, to keep her from talking about offering up her vagina as a willing alternative, while his wife recovered. Paying to silence women you screw while your wife's vagina heals from childbirth: legal.  Doing it to influence an election?  Better report it, and it better not exceed any limits.  

trump has no limit on how much he can contribute, assuming he paid back the enquirer, his campaign is guilty of underreporting $280K.

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



The Journal had reported earlier Thursday that American Media Inc. Chairman David Pecker gave prosecutors details about the president's knowledge of payments Cohen made to women alleging affairs with Trump.

Read more: https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/08/23/national-enquirer-david-pecker-told-prosecutors-trump-knew-of-cohen-payments-report.html?__twitter_impression=true 

If the Republicans had any spine or moral compass whatsoever they wouldn't be supporting this cock-splat fuckhead.

Evidence is coming in.  Dominoes are lining up and falling. 

Drip. . .drip. . .drip

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

trump has no limit on how much he can contribute, assuming he paid back the enquirer, his campaign is guilty of underreporting $280K.

Initial hush payments were not paid by Trump.  That's the issue.  The fact he may of reimbursed them at a later time does not erase the crime.

That would be like stealing a candy bar, then a few weeks later going back and paying for it.

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

Initial hush payments were not paid by Trump.  That's the issue.  The fact he may of reimbursed them at a later time does not erase the crime.

That would be like stealing a candy bar, then a few weeks later going back and paying for it.

Or it could be getting the candy bar on credit that was paid a few weeks later

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dog said:

In America laws are made by the legislature not by plea deal. As much as Lanny Davis would like us to believe it, Cohen's copping to campaign finance violations as part of a plea deal does not establish that the hush payments were illegal campaign contributions.

Let's assume Dershowitz is correct and it is no violation for a candidate to pay hush money with his own money.  If Trump infused his campaign with more that the amount paid to these women there was no crime other than possibly a reporting fine. (Obama holds the record for such fines from 2008) Note: Trump gave his campaign around 12 million. 

If Trump's personal retainer or other payments to Cohen were somewhat more than the hush payout he is similarly off the hook. 

As Dershowitz say they may be a political liability but not a criminal one. 

So if the above is correct then is looks very much like Cohen copped to campaign violations just to create the appearance of a crime by Trump. If the Mueller team was aware no actual crime existed and colluded with Cohen to create fake crimes in exchange for a plea deal, I wonder if the Mueller team is itself guilty of a crime. Conspiring with a defendant to suborn perjury against a third party would be such a crime. 

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

Let's assume Dershowitz is correct and it is no violation for a candidate to pay hush money with his own money.  If Trump infused his campaign with more that the amount paid to these women there was no crime other than possibly a reporting fine. (Obama holds the record for such fines from 2008) Note: Trump gave his campaign around 12 million. 

If Trump's personal retainer or other payments to Cohen were somewhat more than the hush payout he is similarly off the hook. 

As Dershowitz say they may be a political liability but not a criminal one. 

So if the above is correct then is looks very much like Cohen copped to campaign violations just to create the appearance of a crime by Trump. If the Mueller team was aware no actual crime existed and colluded with Cohen to create fake crimes in exchange for a plea deal, I wonder if the Mueller team is itself guilty of a crime. Conspiring with a defendant to suborn perjury against a third party would be such a crime. 

Cheating on his wife with porn stars right after she gave birth. You must be so proud of your guy. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Clove Hitch said:

If the Republicans had any spine or moral compass whatsoever they wouldn't be supporting this cock-splat fuckhead.

Evidence is coming in.  Dominoes are lining up and falling. 

Drip. . .drip. . .drip

Boy are you setting yourself up for a hard landing. Calm down or risk a Myocardial Infarction.

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

Well, he did until now.

National Enquirer boss David Pecker gets federal immunity in Michael Cohen case

Source: CNBC

National Enquirer boss David Pecker gets federal immunity in Michael Cohen case 

The chairman of the company that publishes the National Enquirer was granted immunity by federal prosecutors as part of an investigation into President Donald Trump's former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, NBC News reported Thursday. 

The immunity deal was earlier reported by The Wall Street Journal and Vanity Fair. 

The Journal had reported earlier Thursday that American Media Inc. Chairman David Pecker gave prosecutors details about the president's knowledge of payments Cohen made to women alleging affairs with Trump.

Read more: https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/08/23/national-enquirer-david-pecker-told-prosecutors-trump-knew-of-cohen-payments-report.html?__twitter_impression=true 

Looking for a legal interpretation (not from you, @Dog) - Can this Pecker be compelled to testify, as a condition of the immunity deal?

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

trump has no limit on how much he can contribute, assuming he paid back the enquirer, his campaign is guilty of underreporting $280K.

Initial hush payments were not paid by Trump.  That's the issue.  The fact he may of reimbursed them at a later time does not erase the crime.

where in the fec code (52 USC) is this reimbursement stated as a crime?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

 

So if the above is correct then is looks very much like Cohen copped to campaign violations just to create the appearance of a crime by Trump. 

Yeah that makes sense.  Put himself in legal jeopardy just so that he can dump on the guy he said that he'd take a bullet for.  Happens every day. Innocent people are pleading guilty to all kinds of stuff when they have no criminal exposure.  

 

Do you people read this shit before you post it?  At least Dershowitz is getting paid to say stupid shit.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:
4 minutes ago, hermetic said:

where in the fec code (52 USC) is this reimbursement stated as a crime?

The part that Cohen violated.

here's the fec list cohen copped to:

52 USC  30118(a), 30109 (d)(1)A), 30116 (a)(1)(A), 30116 (a)(7)

which one did the reimbursement break

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

Yeah that makes sense.  Put himself in legal jeopardy just so that he can dump on the guy he said that he'd take a bullet for.  Happens every day. Innocent people are pleading guilty to all kinds of stuff when they have no criminal exposure.  

 

Do you people read this shit before you post it?  At least Dershowitz is getting paid to say stupid shit.  

Dog and Jack have gone full retard, it's clear that they're in a shit-flinging panic.

 

image.jpeg

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

here's the fec list cohen copped to:

52 USC  30118(a), 30109 (d)(1)A), 30116 (a)(1)(A), 30116 (a)(7)

which one did the reimbursement break

Where is hooker hush money listed as a legal campaign expense?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pastor asks church to pray for Trump, against witchcraft attacking him



"An Alabama pastor asked his congregation on Sunday to pray against the witchcraft that he said is attacking President Donald Trump, and the sermon is getting a lot of attention on social media. 

"It's time to pray for the president," said Pastor John A. Kilpatrick, who founded the Church of His Presence in Daphne in 2006. 

Kilpatrick quoted 2 Kings 9:22, which attributes witchcraft to Jezebel. "When Elijah faced Jezebel, he was facing witchcraft," Kilpatrick said. 

"What's happening right now in America, is witchcraft's trying to take this country over," he said. "It's witchcraft that's trying to take America back over." 

A video of the sermon that highlights the mention of witchcraft against Trump has more than 100,000 views on social media. The entire sermon can be viewed on the church's web site." 

?t=182 

https://www.al.com/living/index.ssf/2018/08/alabama_pastor_asks_church_to.html
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, hermetic said:

where in the fec code (52 USC) is this reimbursement stated as a crime?

If the initial payment violated the law, why would you believe a reimbursement for the illegal payment to be okay?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Clove Hitch said:

Cheating on his wife with porn stars right after she gave birth. You must be so proud of your guy. 

Of course not. But I still like most of his policy goals. 

Did your vote go to a perfect Man/Woman/flexgender?  

In the absence of saintly candidates the decision is always a balance between their human failings and their governing potential.  Trump beat Hillary and Bernie on my scorecard. 

Does not mean I am not just as disgusted as you with his imperfections.  

Even so I think on the celebrity disgust scale he is on the lower end. Even among presidents he is nowhere near the worst, Bill and or JFK get that nod. Did you like or vote for Billy Boy? Would you have voted for JFK? 

I think I've made my point. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

Of course not. But I still like most of his policy goals. 

Did your vote go to a perfect Man/Woman/flexgender?  

In the absence of saintly candidates the decision is always a balance between their human failings and their governing potential.  Trump beat Hillary and Bernie on my scorecard. 

Does not mean I am not just as disgusted as you with his imperfections.  

Even so I think on the celebrity disgust scale he is on the lower end. Even among presidents he is nowhere near the worst, Bill and or JFK get that nod. Did you like or vote for Billy Boy?

Nope, I didn't.

Would you have voted for JFK? 

I think I've made my point. 

Yes, you're a partisan shill and a hypocrite.  

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:
18 minutes ago, hermetic said:

where in the fec code (52 USC) is this reimbursement stated as a crime?

If the initial payment violated the law, why would you believe a reimbursement for the illegal payment to be okay?

the reimbursement negates the contribution that exceeds the legal limit

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

the reimbursement negates the contribution that exceeds the legal limit

And paying hooker hush money still isn't a legal campaign expense. That's why they tried to disguise it, and why it wasn't declared on expense filings with FEC. Anyone could pay off Trump's hookers before he declared himself a candidate. Once he declared, it's illegal.

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

Looking for a legal interpretation (not from you, @Dog) - Can this Pecker be compelled to testify, as a condition of the immunity deal?

Tell me what crime Trump committed? It is not a crime to pay hush money. If Peck made an illegal campaign donation then he committed a crime. Trump knowingt abot is is not a crime I'm aware of. 

 

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

If the initial payment violated the law, why would you believe a reimbursement for the illegal payment to be okay?

Baby steps here:

Shutting down a highly inflammatory news story days before the election was done to aid the campaign

The shutting down was done at the request of the candidate

The money used to shut the story down was a campaign contribution

The amount of money paid was in excess of the legal limit for an individual and just plain illegal for a corporation

Those are felonies

Cohen used personal money for one payment and LLC money for one payment

The personal reimbursement by Trump to Cohen was done to aid and abet the Cohen payments

That aids and abets a felony.

A felony that was done with the knowledge of the candidate (Trump)

Done and dusted.

 

Meanwhile, the publisher of the Enquirer wants out, as he/they are now in the position of conspiring to aid and abet a felony as well.  Oooops!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

Baby steps here:

Shutting down a highly inflammatory news story days before the election was done to aid the campaign

The shutting down was done at the request of the candidate

The money used to shut the story down was a campaign contribution

The amount of money paid was in excess of the legal limit for an individual and just plain illegal for a corporation

Those are felonies

Cohen used personal money for one payment and LLC money for one payment

The personal reimbursement by Trump to Cohen was done to aid and abet the Cohen payments

That aids and abets a felony.

A felony that was done with the knowledge of the candidate (Trump)

Done and dusted.

 

Meanwhile, the publisher of the Enquirer wants out, as he/they are now in the position of conspiring to aid and abet a felony as well.  Oooops!

When you're a prosecutor, you can do anything.  They let you do it.  You can grab them by the Pecker.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

So does this guy.  President Individual 1's lawyer.

michael-cohen-gty-mt-180822_hpMain_12x5_

 

The US Marshall looks like Don Rickles' brother....

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

Have you ever tasted one of those???? 

Not the kind you get from McDonalds.  The kind that the Most Faithful Husband in the GOP was paying to keep silent?  Oh yeah (but certainly not the ones his cronies paid).  I cannot imagine a world without it, or perhaps I just don't want to. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

Tell me what crime Trump committed? It is not a crime to pay hush money. If Peck made an illegal campaign donation then he committed a crime. Trump knowingt abot is is not a crime I'm aware of. 

 

If Trump asked Pecker to pay hush money, then Trump committed a crime.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just sorting out thoughts on Pecker immunity. Why? Cohen has already pled guilty. So, Pecker's testimony is needed to prosecute another individual. Probably a serious crime, if they're willing to give Pecker immunity. Hmmmm....

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites