|
Post by okirishfan on Aug 22, 2018 7:57:10 GMT -6
Oil, those who dislike the current administration are only looking & hoping for anything that will remove him from office. So far, the only things they have are things not related to Russian collusion &/or collaboration with the Trump campaign. I mean, the biggest thing they have found so far is that Trump May have had extramarital affairs & paid them off,(common practice with politicians, celebrities, etc). Think about, 19 months,(or over 2 years with the FBI), & that’s all they have,(also factoring in spying on his campaign, tapping his phones, etc). All that is being revealed so far is that Mueller’s investigation has turned into another Ken Starr investigation,(I.e. another politically motivated investigation designed to find anything possible to take down an active President who the losers despise). With the midterms around the corner & the Democrats only message being “Get Trump” it will be interesting to see how it goes,(so far in Special Elections under Trump the Democrats are 1-8, kind of telling). You're really comparing Starr to Mueller? Mueller has served multiple administrations, was a decorated Marine and seems to have good character. Starr found a Clinton blowjob and covered up scandals at Baylor (no character). Like it or not character counts, and at some point the lack of it will catch up with you. Trump has displayed his lack of character and integrity almost daily with baby fits and useless attacks on Twitter. Add in serial liar, multiple times cheating on a wife, straight up illegal and shady business dealings. Character counts. If trump were smart he'd make a deal and resign before donnie jr and jared get ensnared for perjury. Take the name off and most of these guys would tell their children, "you see that person....don't trust a person like that. He has no character and the lack of character he possesses will (as you stated) catch up with him one day, i.e. habitually low character generally leads to doing shady stuff, hence the reason why we attempt to teach our children the right way to live. But, I guess if you want to president some day, just tell your kids none of that stuff matters I guess.
And I have to laugh at this collusion stuff, "but that's not what the investigation was about!!!". Some of these people I guess think that if I was investigating bank fraud and found that the person was involved drug trafficking as a result of the evidence I found looking for bank fraud I should just go, "meh...that's not why I'm here."
5th avenue man. 5th avenue. They are fulfilling Trump's prophecy as we speak.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 22, 2018 7:57:18 GMT -6
Video at link: dailycaller.com/2018/08/22/michael-cohen-plea-deal-dershowitz/Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz said Michael Cohen’s plea deal is “not nearly as deadly” to President Donald Trump as it seems to be, on “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” “Remember as Judge Ellis said it, when they squeeze people like Manafort or Cohen, they squeeze them not only to sing but sometimes to compose and it’s very easy to embellish a story,” Dershowitz said Tuesday. (RELATED: Alan Dershowitz Defends Trump After CNN Drops Michael Cohen Tape) “All he has to do then is say, ‘And the president directed me to do it.’ That’s the kind of embellishment that people put on a story when they want to avoid dying in prison. When the prosecutor says to them, ‘You have two choices. You’ll die in prison, or you can give me a story that I can use to go and get the president.'” Dershowitz claimed nearly every candidate who runs for president violates election laws in one way or another and said it shouldn’t be considered an impeachable offense. “If somebody else pays the money in order to influence the outcome of the election, it is technically perhaps a violation of the election laws,” he continued. “Every administration violates the election laws. Every candidate violates the election laws when they run for president. Usually, they pay a fine or something like that happens.” “Here they’re trying to elevate this into an impeachable offense or a felony against the president,” Dershowitz concluded. “This is the beginning of a story that will unravel over time, but it’s not nearly as deadly lethal as some have portrayed it as being.”
|
|
|
Post by sooner98 on Aug 22, 2018 7:59:38 GMT -6
Aug 22, 2018 7:36:03 GMT -5 soonernvolved said: As for the keyboard warrior comment, coming from one who is throwing things in the vain attempt something finally sticks, it’s cute. Sorry, my sarcasm was directed elsewhere, not at you.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 22, 2018 8:05:03 GMT -6
Aug 22, 2018 7:36:03 GMT -5 soonernvolved said: As for the keyboard warrior comment, coming from one who is throwing things in the vain attempt something finally sticks, it’s cute. Sorry, my sarcasm was directed elsewhere, not at you. Lol Oh ok. My apologies then.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 22, 2018 8:06:50 GMT -6
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realdonaldtrump Michael Cohen plead guilty to two counts of campaign finance violations that are not a crime. President Obama had a big campaign finance violation and it was easily settled! 9:37 AM - Aug 22, 2018 17.8K 18K people are talking about this ....... Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 ✔ @jackposobiec Did You Know: Barack Obama took nearly $2 Million in illegal campaign donations in 2008 He was fined one of the largest fees for campaign finance violations ever levied against a presidential campaign And no one went to jail or even discussed impeachment 7:07 PM - Aug 21, 2018 26.6K 18.2K people are talking about this ...... www.politico.com/story/2013/01/obama-2008-campaign-fined-375000-085784Obama 2008 campaign fined $375,000 By MAGGIE HABERMAN 01/04/2013 03:48 PM EST Share on Facebook Share on Twitter President Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign was fined $375,000 by the Federal Election Commission for campaign reporting violations — one of the largest fees ever levied against a presidential campaign, POLITICO has learned. The fine — laid out in detail in FEC documents that have yet to be made public — arose from an audit of the campaign, which was published in April. POLITICO obtained a copy of the conciliation agreement detailing the fine, which was sent to Sean Cairncross, the chief lawyer for the Republican National Committee, one of the groups that filed complaints about the campaign’s FEC reporting from 2008. ( Also on POLITICO: It's official: Obama wins presidency) “$375,000 is a huge fine,” said Republican election lawyer Jason Torchinsky. “It may one of their top five- or 10-largest fines.” But he added, “They’re also the first billion-dollar presidential campaign. Proportionally, it’s not out of line.” FEC officials declined to comment on the fee or the existence of the agreement. But for context, failed Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole set a record for FEC fines on his 1996 campaign when he paid $100,000 two years later. “At the time, the 2008 campaign was record breaking, with over 3 million grass-roots donors,” Obama campaign spokewoman Katie Hogan said. “The very few outstanding questions about the $750 million that was raised have now all been resolved.”
|
|
|
Post by okirishfan on Aug 22, 2018 8:12:03 GMT -6
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realdonaldtrump Michael Cohen plead guilty to two counts of campaign finance violations that are not a crime. President Obama had a big campaign finance violation and it was easily settled! 9:37 AM - Aug 22, 2018 17.8K 18K people are talking about this ....... Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 ✔ @jackposobiec Did You Know: Barack Obama took nearly $2 Million in illegal campaign donations in 2008 He was fined one of the largest fees for campaign finance violations ever levied against a presidential campaign And no one went to jail or even discussed impeachment 7:07 PM - Aug 21, 2018 26.6K 18.2K people are talking about this ...... www.politico.com/story/2013/01/obama-2008-campaign-fined-375000-085784Oh good...more "whataboutisms".
And this is from the same guy, who just said, in the same tweet, "plead guilty to two violations that are not a crime". Yes, Donald, you poor little thing, the U.S. government charged a man with violations that are not against the law and the man pleaded guilty to those "non-crime" violations and the judge accepted the plea to those "non-crime" violations.
Maybe Trump can school the attorneys and judges on what the law states in criminal matters. lol.
|
|
|
Post by sooner98 on Aug 22, 2018 8:16:59 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by sheepdog on Aug 22, 2018 8:24:54 GMT -6
Today, the stock market is speaking loud and clearly and telling you exactly the implications of yesterday's events for those with the ability to listen.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 22, 2018 8:27:46 GMT -6
Oil, those who dislike the current administration are only looking & hoping for anything that will remove him from office. So far, the only things they have are things not related to Russian collusion &/or collaboration with the Trump campaign. I mean, the biggest thing they have found so far is that Trump May have had extramarital affairs & paid them off,(common practice with politicians, celebrities, etc). Think about, 19 months,(or over 2 years with the FBI), & that’s all they have,(also factoring in spying on his campaign, tapping his phones, etc). All that is being revealed so far is that Mueller’s investigation has turned into another Ken Starr investigation,(I.e. another politically motivated investigation designed to find anything possible to take down an active President who the losers despise). With the midterms around the corner & the Democrats only message being “Get Trump” it will be interesting to see how it goes,(so far in Special Elections under Trump the Democrats are 1-8, kind of telling). You're really comparing Starr to Mueller? Mueller has served multiple administrations, was a decorated Marine and seems to have good character. Starr found a Clinton blowjob and covered up scandals at Baylor (no character). Like it or not character counts, and at some point the lack of it will catch up with you. Trump has displayed his lack of character and integrity almost daily with baby fits and useless attacks on Twitter. Add in serial liar, multiple times cheating on a wife, straight up illegal and shady business dealings. Character counts. If trump were smart he'd make a deal and resign before donnie jr and jared get ensnared for perjury. Don Jr already testified for nine hours to the Senate back in December of 2017, no perjury, etc charges came out of it as of yet. Also factor in Burr,(known to be no Trump supporter), openly stated in a recent interview that he has yet,(after 19 months of investigating), has seen any factual evidence of collusion &/or collaboration between Russia & Trump. Same goes for Mueller & the FBI as no Americans have been charged with colluding with Russia. As for character, if it mattered, then Robert Mueller would be replaced as he has his fair share of skeletons in his closet. Examples: thefederalist.com/2018/04/19/revealed-robert-muellers-fbi-repeatedly-abused-prosecutorial-discretion/The Anthrax Bungling Shortly after the terrorist attacks in 2001, letters containing anthrax were mailed to media outlets and the offices of Sens. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., killing five people and infecting 17 others. The FBI quickly focused on an innocent man named Steven Hatfill, relentlessly pursuing him for years while the real killer walked free. As Carl Cannon wrote about the botched case, ridiculous and aggressive methods were used to go after the wrong man: So what evidence did the FBI have against Hatfill? There was none, so the agency did a Hail Mary, importing two bloodhounds from California whose handlers claimed could sniff the scent of the killer on the anthrax-tainted letters. These dogs were shown to Hatfill, who promptly petted them. When the dogs responded favorably, their handlers told the FBI that they’d ‘alerted’ on Hatfill and that he must be the killer. Mueller and his deputy James Comey were certain they had the right guy. They didn’t, and taxpayers had to pay Hatfill $5.82 million for the error. When that settlement was announced, Cannon noted: Mueller could not be bothered to walk across the street to attend the press conference announcing the case’s resolution. When reporters did ask him about it, Mueller was graceless. ‘I do not apologize for any aspect of the investigation,’ he said, adding that it would be erroneous ‘to say there were mistakes.’ .... More at link provided. Let’s also not forget when he lied to Congress about the non existent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq: There are tons more examples, but one gets the jest. Character & Robert Mueller in the same sentence is a joke. As for the comparison to the Starr investigation, if the shoe fits as the saying goes. Both began under possible legal reasons, however, when both failed to justify their founding,(Whitewater, Russian collusion/collaboration), they went with whatever they could to try & validate their investigations). With Starr it was lying under oath, with Trump, it’s now maybe, possibly, perhaps paying off a couple of women he had alleged affairs with. For the American people, with both it was a collective shrug of the shoulders and a “Seriously, that’s it?” Moment.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 22, 2018 8:30:42 GMT -6
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realdonaldtrump Michael Cohen plead guilty to two counts of campaign finance violations that are not a crime. President Obama had a big campaign finance violation and it was easily settled! 9:37 AM - Aug 22, 2018 17.8K 18K people are talking about this ....... Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 ✔ @jackposobiec Did You Know: Barack Obama took nearly $2 Million in illegal campaign donations in 2008 He was fined one of the largest fees for campaign finance violations ever levied against a presidential campaign And no one went to jail or even discussed impeachment 7:07 PM - Aug 21, 2018 26.6K 18.2K people are talking about this ...... www.politico.com/story/2013/01/obama-2008-campaign-fined-375000-085784Oh good...more "whataboutisms".
And this is from the same guy, who just said, in the same tweet, "plead guilty to two violations that are not a crime". Yes, Donald, you poor little thing, the U.S. government charged a man with violations that are not against the law and the man pleaded guilty to those "non-crime" violations and the judge accepted the plea to those "non-crime" violations.
Maybe Trump can school the attorneys and judges on what the law states in criminal matters. lol.
Some say it is, others say it’s not,(former head of the FEC). Either way, it’s another nothingburger that may result in a fine,(see Obama, Edwards, etc). As for whataboutisms, just catching up with the prior administration and their frequent use of using the former administration to them for difficulties they were having,(seven years of it).
|
|
|
Post by okirishfan on Aug 22, 2018 8:34:20 GMT -6
You're really comparing Starr to Mueller? Mueller has served multiple administrations, was a decorated Marine and seems to have good character. Starr found a Clinton blowjob and covered up scandals at Baylor (no character). Like it or not character counts, and at some point the lack of it will catch up with you. Trump has displayed his lack of character and integrity almost daily with baby fits and useless attacks on Twitter. Add in serial liar, multiple times cheating on a wife, straight up illegal and shady business dealings. Character counts. If trump were smart he'd make a deal and resign before donnie jr and jared get ensnared for perjury. Don Jr already testified for nine hours to the Senate back in December of 2017, no perjury, etc charges came out of it as of yet. Also factor in Burr,(known to be no Trump supporter), openly stated in a recent interview that he has yet,(after 19 months of investigating), has seen any factual evidence of collusion &/or collaboration between Russia & Trump. Same goes for Mueller & the FBI as no Americans have been charged with colluding with Russia. As for character, if it mattered, then Robert Mueller would be replaced as he has his fair share of skeletons in his closet. Examples: thefederalist.com/2018/04/19/revealed-robert-muellers-fbi-repeatedly-abused-prosecutorial-discretion/The Anthrax Bungling Shortly after the terrorist attacks in 2001, letters containing anthrax were mailed to media outlets and the offices of Sens. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., killing five people and infecting 17 others. The FBI quickly focused on an innocent man named Steven Hatfill, relentlessly pursuing him for years while the real killer walked free. As Carl Cannon wrote about the botched case, ridiculous and aggressive methods were used to go after the wrong man: So what evidence did the FBI have against Hatfill? There was none, so the agency did a Hail Mary, importing two bloodhounds from California whose handlers claimed could sniff the scent of the killer on the anthrax-tainted letters. These dogs were shown to Hatfill, who promptly petted them. When the dogs responded favorably, their handlers told the FBI that they’d ‘alerted’ on Hatfill and that he must be the killer. Mueller and his deputy James Comey were certain they had the right guy. They didn’t, and taxpayers had to pay Hatfill $5.82 million for the error. When that settlement was announced, Cannon noted: Mueller could not be bothered to walk across the street to attend the press conference announcing the case’s resolution. When reporters did ask him about it, Mueller was graceless. ‘I do not apologize for any aspect of the investigation,’ he said, adding that it would be erroneous ‘to say there were mistakes.’ .... More at link provided. Let’s also not forget when he lied to Congress about the non existent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq: There are tons more examples, but one gets the jest. Character & Robert Mueller in the same sentence is a joke. As for the comparison to the Starr investigation, if the shoe fits as the saying goes. Both began under possible legal reasons, however, when both failed to justify their founding,(Whitewater, Russian collusion/collaboration), they went with whatever they could to try & validate their investigations). With Starr it was lying under oath, with Trump, it’s now maybe, possibly, perhaps paying off a couple of women he had alleged affairs with. For the American people, with both it was a collective shrug of the shoulders and a “Seriously, that’s it?” Moment. Did I miss something in the news this morning? Is the investigation over? Because it sounds like you're saying that it is as you are clearly comparing it to an investigation that is clearly over as it happened 20 years ago.
Or are you just doing the same ole song and dance, "but...but...Burr said.....", "but....but...no indictments yet", "but....but....if Mueller had evidence it would have been leaked by now". All worthy defenses as to the conclusion of an investigation that is not yet completed......in Trumpian world I guess.
|
|
|
Post by okirishfan on Aug 22, 2018 8:37:25 GMT -6
Oh good...more "whataboutisms".
And this is from the same guy, who just said, in the same tweet, "plead guilty to two violations that are not a crime". Yes, Donald, you poor little thing, the U.S. government charged a man with violations that are not against the law and the man pleaded guilty to those "non-crime" violations and the judge accepted the plea to those "non-crime" violations.
Maybe Trump can school the attorneys and judges on what the law states in criminal matters. lol.
Some say it is, others say it’s not,(former head of the FEC). Either way, it’s another nothingburger that may result in a fine,(see Obama, Edwards, etc). As for whataboutisms, just catching up with the prior administration and their frequent use of using the former administration to them for difficulties they were having,(seven years of it). Okay. Yeah, Cohen, his attorney and the judge is allowing Cohen to go to prison for a "crime that is not a crime". Sounding like crazy Guilliani now.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 22, 2018 8:44:33 GMT -6
Don Jr already testified for nine hours to the Senate back in December of 2017, no perjury, etc charges came out of it as of yet. Also factor in Burr,(known to be no Trump supporter), openly stated in a recent interview that he has yet,(after 19 months of investigating), has seen any factual evidence of collusion &/or collaboration between Russia & Trump. Same goes for Mueller & the FBI as no Americans have been charged with colluding with Russia. As for character, if it mattered, then Robert Mueller would be replaced as he has his fair share of skeletons in his closet. Examples: thefederalist.com/2018/04/19/revealed-robert-muellers-fbi-repeatedly-abused-prosecutorial-discretion/The Anthrax Bungling Shortly after the terrorist attacks in 2001, letters containing anthrax were mailed to media outlets and the offices of Sens. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., killing five people and infecting 17 others. The FBI quickly focused on an innocent man named Steven Hatfill, relentlessly pursuing him for years while the real killer walked free. As Carl Cannon wrote about the botched case, ridiculous and aggressive methods were used to go after the wrong man: So what evidence did the FBI have against Hatfill? There was none, so the agency did a Hail Mary, importing two bloodhounds from California whose handlers claimed could sniff the scent of the killer on the anthrax-tainted letters. These dogs were shown to Hatfill, who promptly petted them. When the dogs responded favorably, their handlers told the FBI that they’d ‘alerted’ on Hatfill and that he must be the killer. Mueller and his deputy James Comey were certain they had the right guy. They didn’t, and taxpayers had to pay Hatfill $5.82 million for the error. When that settlement was announced, Cannon noted: Mueller could not be bothered to walk across the street to attend the press conference announcing the case’s resolution. When reporters did ask him about it, Mueller was graceless. ‘I do not apologize for any aspect of the investigation,’ he said, adding that it would be erroneous ‘to say there were mistakes.’ .... More at link provided. Let’s also not forget when he lied to Congress about the non existent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq: There are tons more examples, but one gets the jest. Character & Robert Mueller in the same sentence is a joke. As for the comparison to the Starr investigation, if the shoe fits as the saying goes. Both began under possible legal reasons, however, when both failed to justify their founding,(Whitewater, Russian collusion/collaboration), they went with whatever they could to try & validate their investigations). With Starr it was lying under oath, with Trump, it’s now maybe, possibly, perhaps paying off a couple of women he had alleged affairs with. For the American people, with both it was a collective shrug of the shoulders and a “Seriously, that’s it?” Moment. Did I miss something in the news this morning? Is the investigation over? Because it sounds like you're saying that it is as you are clearly comparing it to an investigation that is clearly over as it happened 20 years ago.
Or are you just doing the same ole song and dance, "but...but...Burr said.....", "but....but...no indictments yet", "but....but....if Mueller had evidence it would have been leaked by now". All worthy defenses as to the conclusion of an investigation that is not yet completed......in Trumpian world I guess.
No, just loving the hypocrisy of one,(&their like minded thinkers), condemning lying, etc with an administration that they openly detest for personal reasons & their champion is a known liar who has a history of abusing FBI/DOJ ethics,(to the tune that the American taxpayers end up giving the victims a fat check). It’s a fascinating study in how people can alter their moral compass and justify it however they wish. As for the rest, apologies for pointing out that to date four investigations have resulted in no proof of Russian collusion &/or collaboration. Maybe once Mueller and his team stop delaying the Concorde case,(who was indicted as a Russian troll farm& have been pushing to start the trial,(where the judge had to force Mueller to give the victims access to the evidence), we can see some of the dots. Otherwise, as it stands currently, one investigation is done and the final report says no collusion &/or collaboration. A second one,(due to your own admission), is leaning that way. Not a good sign if both houses of Congress,(& half the investigations total), come out and say collusion &/or collaboration did not exist. But tax fraud from a decade ago and alleged infidelities from a decade ago & all that.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 22, 2018 8:45:47 GMT -6
Some say it is, others say it’s not,(former head of the FEC). Either way, it’s another nothingburger that may result in a fine,(see Obama, Edwards, etc). As for whataboutisms, just catching up with the prior administration and their frequent use of using the former administration to them for difficulties they were having,(seven years of it). Okay. Yeah, Cohen, his attorney and the judge is allowing Cohen to go to prison for a "crime that is not a crime". Sounding like crazy Guilliani now.
Or maybe the judge doesn’t know campaign law? Again, just saying some saying it is a crime others saying it’s not a crime.
|
|
|
Post by 1tc on Aug 22, 2018 8:47:17 GMT -6
Lierish, if you want to tell us that you were not posting on LT when Meuller was on CSPAN, I'll believe you.
The power plays going on in DC are pretty impressive to watch from the cheap seats.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 22, 2018 8:49:38 GMT -6
www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-22/wapo-despite-talk-trump-impeachment-after-cohen-betrayal-charges-unlikelyWaPo: Despite Talk Of Trump Impeachment After Cohen Betrayal, Charges Unlikely Profile picture for user Tyler Durden by Tyler Durden Wed, 08/22/2018 - 10:20 28 SHARES TwitterFacebookRedditEmailPrint The Washington Post writes on Wednesday that former Trump attorney Michael Cohen's claim that he broke campaign finance laws at the direction of then-candidate Trump may spark calls to impeach, however even if true it "probably will not have any legal consequences for the president while he is in office," according to legal analysts. www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cohens-claim-about-trump-may-spark-calls-for-impeachment-but-is-unlikely-to-lead-to-charges/2018/08/21/4e432aec-a167-11e8-93e3-24d1703d2a7a_story.html?utm_term=.0f289c0abdcfThe 51-year-old Cohen, Trump's lawyer for a decade, pleaded guilty on Tuesday to campaign finance violations and other charges, including bank fraud totaling "well over $20 million." The alleged campaign finance violations in connection with paying hush money to two women claiming to have had affairs with Trump, however, are at the heart of what many think could be the start of impeachment talks (since that whole Russia thing hasn't panned out so far). But even if campaign finance laws were broken, WaPo says it may not matter: Such an explosive assertion against anyone but the president would suggest that a criminal case could be in the offing, but under long-standing legal interpretations by the Justice Department, the president cannot be charged with a crime. The department produced legal analyses in 1973 and 2000 concluding that the Constitution does not allow for the criminal indictment of a sitting president. -WaPo Supporting this notion, special counsel Robert Mueller admitted in May that he will follow DOJ guidance and not indict President Trump as part of the Russia investigation. "All they get to do is write a report," said Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani, himself a former federal prosecutor and mayor of New York City, also told Fox that Mueller's investigators have not responded to five information requests from the president's team. That has forced Trump's legal team to push off making a decision about whether the president will sit for an interview with the special counsel -- a decision they had hoped to reach by Thursday. -Fox News And as far as campaign finance violations go, the Post notes that "[Mueller] determined months ago that allegations of campaign finance violations involving payments to women before the presidential election were outside the scope of his mandate to investigate whether the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia’s operation to influence the vote." Meanwhile, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein also admitted in May that Trump can't be indicted: "The Department of Justice has in the past, when the issue arose, has opined that a sitting President cannot be indicted," Rosenstein said. "There's been a lot of speculation in the media about this, I just don't have anything more to say about it." In a series of memorandums, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel concluded that indicting a sitting president would violate the Constitution by undermining his ability to do his job. Those memos, too, though, said the answer was a matter of structure and inference. The Justice Department’s regulations require Mr. Mueller, the special counsel, to follow the department’s “rules, regulations, procedures, practices and policies.” If the memos bind Mr. Mueller, it would seem he could not indict Mr. Trump, no matter what he uncovered.-NYT www.nytimes.com/2017/05/29/us/politics/a-constitutional-puzzle-can-the-president-be-indicted.html
|
|
|
Post by okirishfan on Aug 22, 2018 8:52:04 GMT -6
Okay. Yeah, Cohen, his attorney and the judge is allowing Cohen to go to prison for a "crime that is not a crime". Sounding like crazy Guilliani now.
Or maybe the judge doesn’t know campaign law? Again, just saying some saying it is a crime others saying it’s not a crime. Or maybe you're just defending the idiocy of Donald Trump that a judge and two attorney's allowed someone to plead guilty to something that wasn't a crime. lol.
5th avenue.
|
|
|
Post by 1tc on Aug 22, 2018 8:55:26 GMT -6
Or maybe the judge doesn’t know campaign law? Again, just saying some saying it is a crime others saying it’s not a crime. Or maybe you're just defending the idiocy of Donald Trump that a judge and two attorney's allowed someone to plead guilty to something that wasn't a crime. lol.
5th avenue.
I'd guess Cohen is going to prison for bank fraud, not campaign finance violations.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 22, 2018 8:59:49 GMT -6
Or maybe the judge doesn’t know campaign law? Again, just saying some saying it is a crime others saying it’s not a crime. Or maybe you're just defending the idiocy of Donald Trump that a judge and two attorney's allowed someone to plead guilty to something that wasn't a crime. lol.
5th avenue.
Not my fault some experts on campaign law say it’s not a crime. Nice try at attempting to spin it. However, given Cohen’s Attorney has ties to the Clintons, almost anything is in play,( with the truth being the exception).
|
|
|
Post by okirishfan on Aug 22, 2018 9:06:50 GMT -6
Or maybe you're just defending the idiocy of Donald Trump that a judge and two attorney's allowed someone to plead guilty to something that wasn't a crime. lol.
5th avenue.
Not my fault some experts on campaign law say it’s not a crime. Nice try at attempting to spin it. However, given Cohen’s Attorney has ties to the Clintons, almost anything is in play,( with the truth being the exception). Who are these experts saying that the violations that Cohen pleaded guilty to are not crimes?
I know you love you some links so I'll just wait here patiently for something that says the violations he pleaded guilty to are not crimes.
Edit: And don't come back with something about "discretion". A prosecutor can use his discretion, much like a cop deciding not to give a ticket, as to whether a person is charged criminally or civil concerning campaign violation laws. But make no mistake about it, speeding is against the law, it's a violation. Whether or not the police officer "charges" you does not change the fact it is still a violation.
|
|
|
Post by reddeadredemption on Aug 22, 2018 9:10:36 GMT -6
The internet is a beautiful place.... You can argue with an actual trained lawyer and come away feeling like you got the best of him. Because feelings. Holy fuck, wake up. Your bias is killing this country. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk He has no interest in actual discussion of any issues. I pointed him to the Edwards case - which is about as on point a case as you will find. What he doesn't want to see is that politicians benefit from the vague law. They passed the law and know it is nearly impossible to enforce and it was done so to provide them the leeway to play fast and loose. They wrote it to pacify the voters who are engaged. Rule of law is illusionary bullshit placed in the mind of the poor by the powerful to make them think the the world is fair. The naive fuckers of this world *cough - cough* allow themselves to be pitted against 50% of the American public by being on the right side of justice and never really recognize the whole shitty system is rigged. "Woke" indeed You keep referencing the Edwards case. Yes, it's similar, but it's not an exact parallel. This Harvard Law Review piece does a good job of breaking down the similarities and differences, and how this would be a complicated case. Ultimately though, this section makes the most sense, especially given the timing of the payments (right before the election; as opposed to the payments in the Edwards case, which were all over the board and the defense team used that to their advantage) and the fact that one could argue that Trump essentially paid for this out of personal funds as opposed to campaign funds: For reference, www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2014-title52/pdf/USCODE-2014-title52-subtitleIII-chap301-subchapI-sec30101.pdf : As for politicians using the law to their advantage - sure. But it works both ways.
|
|
|
Post by sooner98 on Aug 22, 2018 9:43:45 GMT -6
Today, the stock market is speaking loud and clearly and telling you exactly the implications of yesterday's events for those with the ability to listen. Probably a sneak preview for what's going to happen if and when the Dems take the House, and impeach Trump for made-up "crimes". But that's okay, let's destroy all this economic prosperity we have, because #resist.
|
|
|
Post by sheepdog on Aug 22, 2018 9:51:49 GMT -6
Today, the stock market is speaking loud and clearly and telling you exactly the implications of yesterday's events for those with the ability to listen. Probably a sneak preview for what's going to happen if and when the Dems take the House, and impeach Trump for made-up "crimes". But that's okay, let's destroy all this economic prosperity we have, because #resist. If it's a "sneak preview" then yesterday's events are a "nothing burger" and the market will continue to focus on real newsworthy events as it should.
|
|
|
Post by sooner98 on Aug 22, 2018 10:30:11 GMT -6
Michael Cohen has set up a Go Fund Me account (goal: $500,000). Everybody, do your sacred #Resistance duty and donate part of your life savings to help out this downtrodden Manhattan millionaire in order to own the Drumpf! Here's the link: Michael Cohen's Go Fund Me
|
|
|
Post by Pablo on Aug 22, 2018 10:50:48 GMT -6
How long before Manafort receives his pardon?
|
|
|
Post by sheepdog on Aug 22, 2018 10:56:38 GMT -6
How long before Manafort receives his pardon? How long before people realize his role in life is completely irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by politicalmexininja on Aug 22, 2018 10:58:51 GMT -6
How long before Manafort receives his pardon? In about 6 and a half years, as Trump is moving out of the WH....
|
|
|
Post by okirishfan on Aug 22, 2018 11:10:35 GMT -6
Cohen's lawyer saying Cohen is willing to testify before congress without immunity about things concerning the Russia probe (Trump had prior knowledge of DNC email hack).
Also said Cohen would not take a pardon from Trump if offered.
We'll see.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 22, 2018 11:36:22 GMT -6
Not my fault some experts on campaign law say it’s not a crime. Nice try at attempting to spin it. However, given Cohen’s Attorney has ties to the Clintons, almost anything is in play,( with the truth being the exception). Who are these experts saying that the violations that Cohen pleaded guilty to are not crimes?
I know you love you some links so I'll just wait here patiently for something that says the violations he pleaded guilty to are not crimes.
Edit: And don't come back with something about "discretion". A prosecutor can use his discretion, much like a cop deciding not to give a ticket, as to whether a person is charged criminally or civil concerning campaign violation laws. But make no mistake about it, speeding is against the law, it's a violation. Whether or not the police officer "charges" you does not change the fact it is still a violation.
I’d say the former head of the FEC would qualify & I already linked to an interview where he mentioned,(audio at site linked), as well as, his Op-Ed in the WSJ earlier this year. They were posted in a single post earlier in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Aug 22, 2018 11:36:45 GMT -6
Lanny Davis has one allegiance and one duty in life - to the Clintons and keeping them out of jail.
|
|