Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

If who wrote it is irrelavent and it was in fact written by the prossecutors then why are you asserting that the court accepts the defendants version of events?

Because he signed it.

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

1 minute ago, Dog said:

Yes, many took Cohen's plea as proof that a crime existed wrt Trump, it does not. The courts accepted of Cohen's version of events only for the purposes of his plea. The court has not decided that Cohen's version of events is accurate.

You're trying the same bullshit, so this still applies.

10 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Nice try, but not what you originally said, Dog. You stated that the matter was not adjudicated (it is) and you stated that we are relying on Cohen to determine the illegality of the actions (we're not). A judge adjudicated the issue and the judge decided that the actions were illegal.

You're wrong, Dog. Man up and move on.

 

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

Yes, many took Cohen's plea as proof that a crime existed wrt Trump, it does not. The courts accepted of Cohen's version of events only for the purposes of his plea. The court has not decided that Cohen's version of events is accurate.

You are not suggesting that Individual 1 has not been implicated in a crime or crimes in the two documents listed above, are you?  It looks like you are suggesting that. You’re not suggesting that are you?  

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

Because he signed it.

Did Cohen write any of the words in the agreement besides his name and the date?

image.png.01f1d32092174f3eac62138333349810.png

If he didn't write any of those words in the agreement other than his name and the date then how is it his version of events rather than the prosecutions?

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

You are not suggesting that Individual 1 has not been implicated in a crime or crimes in the two documents listed above, are you?  It looks like you are suggesting that. You’re not suggesting that are you?  

No he's implicated, but the circumstances have not been determined by the court to be true. They have been accepted by the court only for the purposes of Cohen's case.

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

Did Cohen write any of the words in the agreement besides his name and date?

image.png.01f1d32092174f3eac62138333349810.png

If he didn't write any of those words in the agreement other than his name and date then how is it his version of events rather than the prosecutions?

YCBFS

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

No he's implicated, but the circumstances have not been determined by the court to be true. They have been accepted by the court only for the purposes of Cohen's case.

And those circumstances have been adjudicated by the judge and the judge decided the actions in those circumstances are illegal. Contrary to the premature claims of those that jumped on that talking point a little too early.

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

YCBFS

I'm not sure what that means in canine but let's just say you just got your nose rubbed in it and didn't like it. You need to Dog up. If you'll just sign and date here:

Dog:                      Date:

you can move on.

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

The author does a nice job of nipping the false equivalencies in the bud.  

I wonder if this is the worst of it.  

good article.  thanks

it would get worse if he wrote the re-payments off as business expenses

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

I'm not sure what that means in canine but let's just say you just got your nose rubbed in it and didn't like it. You need to Dog up and move on.

What are the four words over his signature.

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

What are the four words over his signature.

They are four words he didn't write. Those words were written by the prosecutors. His signature represented his agreeing to their version of events.

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

Evidence that he is accepting the prosecution's version of events. Put down the shovel, Dog,.

His signature along with the others attest to an agreement between himself and prosecutors.

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

His signature along with the others attest to an agreement between himself and prosecutors.

Yes, we're making progress. His signature does attest to an agreement between himself and the prosecutors. Now, who wrote that agreement?

I'll give you a hint:

image.png.b8681fe3999a9c600c4946a12c44afdd.png

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

Yes, we're making progress. His signature does attest to an agreement between himself and the prosecutors. Now, who wrote that agreement?

I would imagine it was written by attorneys from both sides. I don't know who might have typed it up.

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

I'm not sure what that means in canine but let's just say you just got your nose rubbed in it and didn't like it. You need to Dog up. If you'll just sign and date here:

Dog:                      Date:

you can move on.

Dog: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSO0E1uZBAZyTPLF3JVMN-                     Date: 24Aug2018

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Dog said:

I would imagine it was written by attorneys from both sides. I don't know who might have typed it up.

So you're saying that even though it was sent from the office of the US Attorney, Southern District of New York on Justice Department letterhead from these liberal scum:

image.png.27884facab4e7478685b29a22f68c846.png

that it was written by attorneys from both sides. If that was the case then why wasn't it sent from attorneys from both sides instead of prosecutors from one side? If you want, you can call them at (212) 637-2200 and ask.

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

And in so doing the court accepts the defendants version of events and that a crime occured. 

No the court accepts the prosecutors charge of the crime and the defendants guilty plea for committing it.  How you must not sleep lately.

@Dog, in this scenario the judge is actually advocating for the defendant, making sure he knows what he is doing and giving him every chance to back away.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but Cheeto will be reincarnated as a dog. Then in a series of unfortunate events, he'll be adopted by a family of Vietnamese restaurateurs. His reincarnation cycle will move along faster than expected.

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

Yes, but Cheeto will be reincarnated as a dog. Then in a series of unfortunate events, he'll be adopted by a family of Vietnamese restaurateurs. The reincarnation cycle will move faster than expected.

Grounddog day.

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

Yes, many took Cohen's plea as proof that a crime existed wrt Trump, it does not.

Who on this forum said that?  It implicates Trump but he will have to stand Trial to see if he is guilty of a crime.  That's why he should resign and stand trial as soon as possible to clear his good name. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

When Trump is serving life in prison, Dog will be on here arguing that Trump is likely to be reincarnated a few times before reaching perfection and thus is not actually serving a life sentence :rolleyes:

Sometimes it's actually worth having Dog here :D

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

I would imagine it was written by attorneys from both sides. I don't know who might have typed it up.

So you're saying that even though it was sent from the office of the US Attorney, Southern District of New York on Justice Department letterhead from these liberal scum:

image.png.27884facab4e7478685b29a22f68c846.png

that it was written by attorneys from both sides. If that was the case then why wasn't it sent from attorneys from both sides instead of prosecutors from one side? If you want, you can call them at (212) 637-2200 and ask.

Sorry for the digression - is anyone else amused, admittedly in a rather juvenile way, at the fact that the Chief of the Public Corruption Unit is named Capone?

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

Sorry for the digression - is anyone else amused, admittedly in a rather juvenile way, at the fact that the Chief of the Public Corruption Unit is named Capone?

"Rustle" Capone at that. His parents had a plan for him.

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

Ignoring immunity for Weisselberg is going to be hard.  A distraction will probably be required.  

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/403443-trump-org-cfo-granted-immunity-in-cohen-investigation-report

so they already know where the repayment funds came from, and whether it was written off as a business expense.

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

so they already know where the repayment funds came from, and whether it was written off as a business expense.

I am guessing they know quite a bit more about things President Trump, his family, and associates would rather they not know.

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

Ignoring immunity for Weisselberg is going to be hard.  A distraction will probably be required.  

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/403443-trump-org-cfo-granted-immunity-in-cohen-investigation-report

I was just going to post that news. Here's the WSJ story.

Source: WSJ

Allen Weisselberg, President Trump’s longtime financial gatekeeper, was granted immunity by federal prosecutors for providing information about Michael Cohen in the criminal investigation into hush-money payments for two women during the 2016 presidential campaign, according to people familiar with the matter. 

Mr. Weisselberg was called to testify before a federal grand jury in the investigation earlier this year, The Wall Street Journal previously reported, citing people familiar with the investigation. 

The decision by prosecutors in the Manhattan U.S. attorney’s office to grant immunity to Mr. Weisselberg escalates the pressure on Mr. Trump, whom Mr. Weisselberg has served for decades as executive vice president and chief financial officer of the Trump Organization. After Mr. Trump was elected, he handed control of his financial assets and business interests to his two adult sons and Mr. Weisselberg. 
Read More 

Mr. Weisselberg didn’t respond to a request for comment. A lawyer for Mr. Trump, who on Thursday said so-called flipping “almost ought to be illegal,” declined to comment.

Read more: https://www.wsj.com/articles/allen-weisselberg-longtime-trump-organization-cfo-is-granted-immunity-by-federal-prosecutors-in-michael-cohen-investigation-1535121992

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who could Weisselberg be?  Could he be the Allen Weisselberg that Michael Cohen discussed with President Individual 1?  The one that Lanny Davis identified as receiving the "retainer" invoices?  Gee, I wonder why they didn't just call them reimbursements.  Those boys up there are awful smart.  There must be a reason. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6092103/Lanny-Davis-identifies-Weiselberg-Trump-exec-signed-Michael-Cohens-Stormy-invoices.html

 

39972401_2345894808769117_95945372780095

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

I was just going to post that news. Here's the WSJ story.

Source: WSJ

Allen Weisselberg, President Trump’s longtime financial gatekeeper, was granted immunity by federal prosecutors for providing information about Michael Cohen in the criminal investigation into hush-money payments for two women during the 2016 presidential campaign, according to people familiar with the matter. 

Mr. Weisselberg was called to testify before a federal grand jury in the investigation earlier this year, The Wall Street Journal previously reported, citing people familiar with the investigation. 

The decision by prosecutors in the Manhattan U.S. attorney’s office to grant immunity to Mr. Weisselberg escalates the pressure on Mr. Trump, whom Mr. Weisselberg has served for decades as executive vice president and chief financial officer of the Trump Organization. After Mr. Trump was elected, he handed control of his financial assets and business interests to his two adult sons and Mr. Weisselberg. 
Read More 

Mr. Weisselberg didn’t respond to a request for comment. A lawyer for Mr. Trump, who on Thursday said so-called flipping “almost ought to be illegal,” declined to comment.

Read more: https://www.wsj.com/articles/allen-weisselberg-longtime-trump-organization-cfo-is-granted-immunity-by-federal-prosecutors-in-michael-cohen-investigation-1535121992

"Granting immunity should be illegal!"

(likely President Trump quote)

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Ha If you guys had a drip drip thread like ours, it would be all over in 25 posts .not 11500.eat your hearts out :D

The vast majority of this thread is filled up with Dog and Simple Jack trying to deflect and distract, and everyone dumping on them for their idiocy.  The neat thing about this thread is that when another drop falls, it is easy to get right back on topic. Best of both worlds.  

Hey look, email!  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Paging Sol...

Explain to me why they would grant immunity to Weisselberg instead of indicting him. Is this a deal Weisselberg worked out with prosecutors? I am not sure I see the motivation here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, bhyde said:

Paging Sol...

Explain to me why they would grant immunity to Weisselberg instead of indicting him. Is this a deal Weisselberg worked out with prosecutors? I am not sure I see the motivation here.

I do. You grant him immunity and he can't plea the 5th.  They can compel him to testify.  They are going high up.  They want to know who ordered the Code Red.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing about the immunity deal is that Mueller wants to get at the meat of the matter and Weisselberg isn't the meat. If you remember the IRS targeting scandal where Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus sent a letter to the IRS requesting something and the IRS did that something and then everything blew up for the longest time? Remember that? Well, remember Lois Lerner? She was a mid-level nobody, a former Reagan appointee.

Anyways, Lerner was a nobody. Being a nobody, why *didn't* the Republicans just grant her immunity and compel her to testify? That's because they *didn't* want to get at the meat of the matter. Weisselberg is a nobody and Mueller isn't interested in a nobody. He's just interested in what a nobody knows.

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

One thing about the immunity deal is that Mueller wants to get at the meat of the matter and Weisselberg isn't the meat. If you remember the IRS targeting scandal where Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus sent a letter to the IRS requesting something and the IRS did that something and then everything blew up for the longest time? Remember that? Well, remember Lois Lerner? She was a mid-level nobody, a former Reagan appointee.

Anyways, Lerner was a nobody. Being a nobody, why *didn't* the Republicans just grant her immunity and compel her to testify? Because they *didn't* want to get at the meat of the matter. Weisselberg is a nobody and Mueller isn't interested in a nobody. He's just interested in what a nobody knows.

This isn't Mueller, its the NYAG.  The entire Stormy election crimes thing is being handled in NYC.  He may well indict Trump where Mueller probably won't.

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

This isn't Mueller, its the NYAG.  The entire Stormy election crimes thing is being handled in NYC.  He may well indict Trump where Mueller probably won't.

My mistake but the logic is basically the same. The AG wants to get at the central issues rather than host a show trial.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cohen has tapes.  He's turned them over.  If it implicates Trump calling for the Code Red and committing campaign crimes, all the AG needs is a corroborating witness.  Enter his CFO and Pecker.  Team Trump has floated that its not a crime for Trump to pay off Stormy.  True.  But he didn't.  Cohen took out a HELOC to pay for it.  And the final payment was funneled through Trumps company via the CFO, not from Trump himself.  Trump is in deep shit right now.  Pardons won't put out this dumpster fire.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Under immunity, can Weisselberg be asked, or give testimony, that is outside the scope of the Stormy issue? Can SDNY ask Weisselberg about other Trump matters and then hand info over to someone, say, investigating Russian interference?

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

Under immunity, can Weisselberg be asked, or give testimony, that is outside the scope of the Stormy issue? Can SDNY ask Weisselberg about other Trump matters and then hand info over to someone, say, investigating Russian interference?

I think it would depend on the scope of the immunity being offered.  Its probably very narrow to only include campaign finance violations to keep Weisselberg out of the gray bar hotel.  Weisselberg would be foolish to spill the beans on unrelated crimes he may know about.

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

My mistake but the logic is basically the same. The AG wants to get at the central issues rather than host a show trial.

It's not the NY AG.  It's the US Attorney office in Manhatten. Feds.  The NY AG is doing the investigation into the Trump Foundation. Yea, I know, it's confusing with all the different investigations going on.

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

Under immunity, can Weisselberg be asked, or give testimony, that is outside the scope of the Stormy issue? Can SDNY ask Weisselberg about other Trump matters and then hand info over to someone, say, investigating Russian interference?

They can ask him anything and he can’t hide behind the fifth. He’s already testified to the grand jury so they can ask him about areas where the story has changed. Anything that could lead to admissible evidence is fair game. 

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

They can ask him anything and he can’t hide behind the fifth. He’s already testified to the grand jury so they can ask him about areas where the story has changed. Anything that could lead to admissible evidence is fair game. 

So the scope is still limited to Stormy stuff, right?

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

So the scope is still limited to Stormy stuff, right?

It does depend on the agreement. He knows about the Foundation too, so he’s gonna be a popular conversation guest. 

 

Executive 1 has been with The Company for a long time. 

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

I think it would depend on the scope of the immunity being offered.  Its probably very narrow to only include campaign finance violations to keep Weisselberg out of the gray bar hotel.  Weisselberg would be foolish to spill the beans on unrelated crimes he may know about.

You are correct, there are different types of immunity. In the CFO's case, a limited immunity only relating to the hooker hush money is of limited value to prosecutors. They already have that info. Of greater value is other payments... Such as the $50,000 payment Cohen made to a 'tech firm', that possibly was to hackers. Mueller would be highly interested in that. My hunch is that the CFO got full immunity, so he will spill the beans on all the finances, not just the hush money.

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

Do you think they might release Trump's tax returns?

Probably as evidence in court. IDK if that makes them a public record that would be released...that would be a ruling by the Judge, no telling what they'd decide.

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

It does depend on the agreement. He knows about the Foundation too, so he’s gonna be a popular conversation guest. 

 

Executive 1 has been with The Company for a long time. 

Here's a thought provoking question.  Granting immunity to the CFO is seems like a big deal and would only be done to get to somebody above the CEO. 

Now, who is above the CFO?

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

Here's a thought provoking question.  Granting immunity to the CFO is seems like a big deal and would only be done to get to somebody above the CEO. 

Now, who is above the CFO?

I agree. Immunity is to get testimony against bigger fish. It's how Mueller brought down the Gambino Family. The CEO and Board of Directors are bigger. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My main wish now is that a cheeseburger and 10 diet cokes a day diet doesn't kill the dude before he can fully comprehend that he will go down in history as the worst, most corrupt and venal president in the history of the country. 

But it may be too late for that. His brain may have firmly shifted into his own private reality.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting comment from a former senior editor at the National Enquirer:

Do you think AMI readers will care about something like this?

I think you can fool the public for just so long. I think that for years the editorial board of American Media has been talking down to its readership and certainly it included the Trump base as part of their readership, but it’s becoming more and more obvious how corrupt this administration is and I think ultimately the readers are going to turn on them.

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

They can ask him anything and he can’t hide behind the fifth. He’s already testified to the grand jury so they can ask him about areas where the story has changed. Anything that could lead to admissible evidence is fair game. 

how do you know that the immunity agreements weren't used to get both pecker and weisselberg to testify to the cohen grand jury

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

My main wish now is that a cheeseburger and 10 diet cokes a day diet doesn't kill the dude before he can fully comprehend that he will go down in history as the worst, most corrupt and venal president in the history of the country. 

But it may be too late for that. His brain may have firmly shifted into his own private reality.  

He's a narcissist. I'm sure he thinks he's the best and most successful president, evah. Any evidence to the contrary is 'fake news'. And when he's frog-marched out of the WH and left only with the smoldering ruins of his financial empire, he'll blame Hillary and 17 angry Democrats. I honestly think he'll end up in exile, probably Russia.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RKoch said:

You are correct, there are different types of immunity. In the CFO's case, a limited immunity only relating to the hooker hush money is of limited value to prosecutors. They already have that info. Of greater value is other payments... Such as the $50,000 payment Cohen made to a 'tech firm', that possibly was to hackers. Mueller would be highly interested in that. My hunch is that the CFO got full immunity, so he will spill the beans on all the finances, not just the hush money.

Reports indicate  full immunity.

 
Fernand R. Amandi
Holy moly. I just learned that Weisselberg wasn’t just granted “use immunity” but rather “complete immunity from prosecution” - which my legal pal will surely confirm only happens when you’ve got ALL the goods
 
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hermetic said:

how do you know that the immunity agreements weren't used to get both pecker and weisselberg to testify to the cohen grand jury

Although their testimony undoubtedly helped,  NYSD already had enough evidence to convict Cohen, and Weisselberg was given full immunity, not use immunity. It's to go after  bigger fish and bigger crimes than hooker hush money. 

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

Although their testimony undoubtedly helped,  NYSD already had enough evidence to convict Cohen, and Weisselberg was given full immunity, not use immunity. It's to go after  bigger fish and bigger crimes than hooker hush money. 

That's my speculation. Mueller would have quit by now if it was just payoffs to women. And Trump would have just confessed. It would have blown over. It's laundering Russian money, or worse, that is getting all the investigative attention. Stay tuned.

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

Although their testimony undoubtedly helped,  NYSD already had enough evidence to convict Cohen, and Weisselberg was given full immunity, not use immunity. It's to go after  bigger fish and bigger crimes than hooker hush money. 

Weisselberg has been with Trump forever. He started with Fred Trump back in the ‘70’s. He knows where all the bodies are buried. I believe he is also A board member of the Trump Foundation, although he claimed he wasn’t aware of that fact “for the last 10 or 15 years”.

Link to post
Share on other sites