RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Michael Cohen to plead guilty
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 3129
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/21/18 1:45 pm    ::: Michael Cohen to plead guilty Reply Reply with quote

News reports indicate that Michael Cohen will plead guilty to various crimes at 4pm ET today. While it does not appear there is a specific cooperation agreement in place as of now, it certainly seems the heat is being turned up on the President.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7082
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/21/18 4:20 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

And Manafort was found guilty on 8 counts.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
Randy



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 8656



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/21/18 5:49 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hHUbLv4ThOo" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6852



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/22/18 9:00 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The hush money to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal are said to be campaign contributions in violation of the $2,700 (or $5,400) limit. I assume they are saying Cohen made the payments to stop them going to the press and hurting the Trump campaign, which then makes them a “campaign contribution”. Seems key that he turned, else they could’ve said to be payments to protect Trump’s reputation and protect his wife and son from public humiliation. Trump’s lack of loyalty, while demanding it from others, caught up with him in this case.


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 11238
Location: Oklahoma (in my heart), whilst on my way to Oregon!


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/22/18 9:44 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
The hush money to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal are said to be campaign contributions in violation of the $2,700 (or $5,400) limit. I assume they are saying Cohen made the payments to stop them going to the press and hurting the Trump campaign, which then makes them a “campaign contribution”. Seems key that he turned, else they could’ve said to be payments to protect Trump’s reputation and protect his wife and son from public humiliation. Trump’s lack of loyalty, while demanding it from others, caught up with him in this case.


My understanding is Cohen has admitted that, while he initially SAID he covered the $$ himself, he's now explained that he submitted phony billing to cover the money, i.e., Trump paid it with full knowledge plain and simple.

I saw his lawyer today proclaiming that, not only does Cohen not expect Trump to pardon him, but that Cohen would refuse such a pardon, were it offered. Razz

"Lock her up". Oh, how delicious this will be. Cool



_________________
Oklahoma: Go Sooners! Oregon: Go Ducks!
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6852



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/22/18 11:10 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Cohen would go to a white collar prison as Martha Stewart did, but I doubt he would refuse a pardon if he got a substantial sentence.


calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 3129
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/22/18 11:13 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Now Cohen is speaking to state authorities about the Trump Foundation. This investigation could lead to criminal indictments for Don Jr, Ivanka and the prez, and since they would be state crimes, no chance of a pardon.

I still don't see anything that would rise to the standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the minds of most Republicans, but it seems more and more likely we will get there by this time next year.


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6852



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/23/18 2:16 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:

My understanding is Cohen has admitted that, while he initially SAID he covered the $$ himself, he's now explained that he submitted phony billing to cover the money, i.e., Trump paid it with full knowledge plain and simple.


Alan Dershowitz said in an interview that in order for it to be considered a campaign contribution (or maybe that was “campaign contribution amount violation”) Cohen has to be the one making the payment (but his lawyer says there is proof The Trump Organization wired money to Stormy Daniels’ bank). According to this Slate article, if it is shown Cohen did it at Trmp’s request, Trump is guilty of conspiring with someone to make an excessive campaign contribution and also of accepting an excessive campaign contribution. But it seems that it has to be demonstrated that it was done “for the campaign” and not just to protect his reputation and marriage. That would be difficult if Cohen hadn’t recorded conversations...

But Dershowitz said in another interview that if Trump directed Cohen to make the payment and said he would reimburse him for it, then it isn’t a violation (but in a third interview he said it is probably not a crime). He didn’t address the scenario where Cohen is reimbursed by The Trump Organization.


calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 3129
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/23/18 7:57 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
Howee wrote:

My understanding is Cohen has admitted that, while he initially SAID he covered the $$ himself, he's now explained that he submitted phony billing to cover the money, i.e., Trump paid it with full knowledge plain and simple.


Alan Dershowitz said in an interview that in order for it to be considered a campaign contribution (or maybe that was “campaign contribution amount violation”) Cohen has to be the one making the payment (but his lawyer says there is proof The Trump Organization wired money to Stormy Daniels’ bank). According to this Slate article, if it is shown Cohen did it at Trmp’s request, Trump is guilty of conspiring with someone to make an excessive campaign contribution and also of accepting an excessive campaign contribution. But it seems that it has to be demonstrated that it was done “for the campaign” and not just to protect his reputation and marriage. That would be difficult if Cohen hadn’t recorded conversations...

But Dershowitz said in another interview that if Trump directed Cohen to make the payment and said he would reimburse him for it, then it isn’t a violation (but in a third interview he said it is probably not a crime). He didn’t address the scenario where Cohen is reimbursed by The Trump Organization.


That very confusion is why this issue, in and of itself, is not enough for impeachment and conviction. Rather it must be viewed within the broader context of all of the Trump issues. Dealings with Russia, paying off women, running his foundation as a slush fund and other general corruption are all major problems. There is a lot of information that has come out on each of these areas and each one is deserving of immediate attention. But Trump and his supporters have tried to obstruct these investigations in various ways.

As someone who was a Republican most of my life and still consider myself fiscally conservative, I am disgusted by the actions of Republicans in Congress in not taking executive oversight seriously. This is a central responsibility of the Legislative Branch. Mitch McConnell refuses to answer questions. Kevin McCarthy, the likely Speaker if the Republicans hold the House, dismiss the Cohen issue because Cohen is a liar, "In my point of view the whole investigation was about Russia collusion. This has nothing to do with it. So the President, I see nothing wrong in the extent of where he is going right now."

The Republican House has completely subverted the concept of oversight, and for that alone they deserve to be thrown out of office.


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 11238
Location: Oklahoma (in my heart), whilst on my way to Oregon!


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/23/18 8:40 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
Alan Dershowitz said in an interview....


Let me just stop you right there: Dershowitz is, imo, the quintessential Sheister Lawyer, who routinely does the double-speak thing, and is known for making the guilty appear innocent. [See: OJ] He will give you 7 different versions of a fuck, and convince a jury it never happened.

calbearman76 wrote:
I am disgusted by the actions of Republicans in Congress in not taking executive oversight seriously. This is a central responsibility of the Legislative Branch. Mitch McConnell refuses to answer questions. Kevin McCarthy, the likely Speaker if the Republicans hold the House, dismiss the Cohen issue because Cohen is a liar, "In my point of view the whole investigation was about Russia collusion. This has nothing to do with it. So the President, I see nothing wrong in the extent of where he is going right now."

The Republican House has completely subverted the concept of oversight, and for that alone they deserve to be thrown out of office.


This. x1000. Evil or Very Mad



_________________
Oklahoma: Go Sooners! Oregon: Go Ducks!
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 10955
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump isn't potus. If u were in my safe space, you'd have to be f'd up


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/23/18 1:01 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
tfan wrote:
Alan Dershowitz said in an interview....


Let me just stop you right there: Dershowitz is, imo, the quintessential Sheister Lawyer, who routinely does the double-speak thing, and is known for making the guilty appear innocent. [See: OJ] He will give you 7 different versions of a fuck, and convince a jury it never happened.

calbearman76 wrote:
I am disgusted by the actions of Republicans in Congress in not taking executive oversight seriously. This is a central responsibility of the Legislative Branch. Mitch McConnell refuses to answer questions. Kevin McCarthy, the likely Speaker if the Republicans hold the House, dismiss the Cohen issue because Cohen is a liar, "In my point of view the whole investigation was about Russia collusion. This has nothing to do with it. So the President, I see nothing wrong in the extent of where he is going right now."

The Republican House has completely subverted the concept of oversight, and for that alone they deserve to be thrown out of office.


This. x1000. Evil or Very Mad



#IMPEACHtheGOP


How much Russian $$$ you suppose they've received? We're at the tip of the proverbial iceberg, with so much more to come.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 5102
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/23/18 6:24 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

There is so much misinformation and shoddy reporting on this Cohen issue, just as there is for just about everything related to Trump.

First, Cohen was never indicted. Only a grand jury can indict. Cohen's charges were levied, not by a grand jury, but ex parte by the NY US Attorney via a document called an Information. The difference is not legally important; I mention it just to show reportorial sloppiness from the very beginning.

There have been statements all over the media that Trump is an "unindicted co-conspirator". No, he isn't. First, because there was no indictment; and, second, because the two campaign charges against Cohen in the Information and in the Plea Agreement don't include charges of conspiracy against Cohen or anyone else.

The Information alleges two counts of hush money conduct by Cohen, which the prosecutors claim were campaign law violations, but which have never been judicially determined to be violations by a judge or jury. Cohen did plead guilty to these two allegations, along with six other far more serious counts relating to tax and bank fraud. However, it is very controversial -- indeed, unlikely -- that sexual hush money can ever be a campaign contribution violation under the circumstances alleged. And just because a defendant pleads guilty to such charges, in return for getting a complex plea agreement deal to reduce jail time, doesn't make the prosecutorial claims of illegality true. Only a judge or jury can decide illegality, and there was no trial.

John Edwards went to trial on these same kinds of hush money campaign contribution allegations, and won, because the prosecution couldn't prove that the payments were made solely to influence an election. In other words, if the money might have been paid in the absence of an election -- e.g., to protect a person's reputation or to spare his wife's emotions -- there is no "campaign contribution".

In more detail, Count 7 alleges that Cohen "caused" a corporation (the National Enquirer) to make a prohibited campaign contribution. The Enquirer had bought the exclusive rights to a playboy model's (Karen McDougal) story about an affair with Trump. Cohen discussed buying these rights with the CEO of the Enquirer and with Trump (on tape), but the purchase never happened. Hence, no money ever flowed from Cohen or Trump to McDougal. Therefore, the only thing Cohen could be charged with was "causing" a corporation to make an unlawful "campaign contribution" -- two very difficult things to prove, both factually and (as discussed above) legally.

Count 8 alleges that Cohen "made" a campaign contribution in excess of allowed amounts. This was the Stormy Daniels matter. Cohen used $130,000 of money from a home equity line of credit to pay Daniels. (He plead guilty to obtaining this line of credit via bank fraud, completely unrelated to Trump.) Cohen then submitted monthly bills for a year to the Trump Organization for payment, which bills were styled as reimbursements for legal work. Trump has said on Twitter and in an interview yesterday that he, not his campaign, paid these monthly bills to Cohen.

Again, there is grave doubt that any of this is actually a campaign law violation, and in any event, it is Cohen not Trump who paid Daniels. The only fact in controversy is whether Trump knew about Cohen's $130,000 payment beforehand or only after he started receiving bills from Cohen, which doesn't really affect the issue of whether the transaction was an illegal campaign contribution by Cohen.

Consider an almost identical Trump financial transaction that happened during the election, but which no one has has alleged to be an illegal campaign contribution. During the election there was a highly publicized lawsuit against Trump University for fraud, in front of the "Mexican judge". Trump said in one Republican debate, under hostile questioning from Fox's Megyn Kelly, that the allegations were frivolous and that he would never settle the suit. Nevertheless, once he had secured the nomination, Trump told his lawyer to pay a lot of money to the plaintiff to hush up and settle the suit, surely in part to help his campaign. How is this any different from hushing up a person like Stormy Daniels who is not yet a plaintiff but who is threatening to be one?

The Cohen charges and plea present no legal jeopardy to Trump, but could be amalgamated with all the other legal nothingburgers (so far) -- like collusion and obstruction -- to comprise some lean meat for impeachment.
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 10955
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump isn't potus. If u were in my safe space, you'd have to be f'd up


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/23/18 8:29 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Always good to hear from Malcolm Nance's 23%.

In addition to all those who will bury Crooked Trump, his National Enquirer publisher pal David Pecker is a cooperating witness for the Mueller investigation.

We've only seen just the tip of the iceberg, as they say.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 10955
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump isn't potus. If u were in my safe space, you'd have to be f'd up


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/23/18 8:33 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
And Manafort was found guilty on 8 counts.


According to a jury member speaking on FAKE NEWS re: the other 10 counts, 11 jurists voted guilty on each.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 5102
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/23/18 10:07 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

cthskzfn wrote:
his National Enquirer publisher pal David Pecker is a cooperating witness for the Mueller investigation.


I don't think that's right. Pecker was apparently given immunity by the NY US Attorney in the investigation of Cohen, not by Mueller for his investigation. Pecker's company is the one that allegedly would have violated the law against corporations making campaign contributions -- in this case, the money paid by National Enquirer to Karen McDougal for her story. In return for immunizing him, Pecker apparently gave corroborating info about Cohen's role in the payments.

I've seen no reporting that Pecker is cooperating in the Mueller investigation. Anyway, why would Pecker have any information related to Mueller's limited jurisdiction, which supposedly is Russian interference in the election and obstruction of the Russia investigation? Seems unlikely.


Last edited by GlennMacGrady on 08/24/18 12:56 am; edited 2 times in total
calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 3129
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/23/18 11:46 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
cthskzfn wrote:
his National Enquirer publisher pal David Pecker is a cooperating witness for the Mueller investigation.


I don't think that's right. Pecker was apparently given immunity by the NY US Attorney in the investigation of Cohen, not by Mueller for his investigation. Cohen's company is the one who allegedly would have violated the law against corporations making campaign contributions -- in this case, the money paid by National Enquirer to Karen McDougal for her story. In return for immunizing him, Pecker apparently gave corroborating info about Cohen's role in the payments.

I've seen no reporting that Pecker is cooperating in the Mueller investigation. Anyway, why would Pecker have any information related to Mueller's limited jurisdiction, which supposedly is Russian interference in the election and obstruction of the Russia investigation? Seems unlikely.


So your point is that the term "unindicted coconspirator" is not specifically accurate, and we should instead say "individual who was implicated in a felony under oath as part of an allocution." That would almost be a point if anyone had used the term in this thread.

Your second point questions whether this is even illegal, which could be germane. But once again I don't believe anyone on this thread said this is the smoking gun.

The important parts of these stories, which you seem to gloss over, is that
1) We now have credible claims of specific violations of federal law intended to influence a very close election, and
2) Pecker and Cohen are clearly cooperating with authorities. In an immunity deal the terms almost always require cooperation with all investigations. Cohen is already singing to the state about the Trump Foundation. The potential for crimes against Trump's family, company and maybe even himself (that are outside of potential federal pardons) is serious. Pecker presumably has a trove of information going back years from people bought off who had dirt on Trump. And as for Mueller, realize there are now at least 3 separate significant federal investigations, one being run out of the national security division of the AG, another being run out of the Southern District of New York, and the third being the Mueller investigation itself. Those are in addition to the criminal investigations by both the State and City of New York.


Indeed we are to the point where the number of cases against Trump has nearly outstripped the ability of news organizations to even cover them all. And yet in this time the Legislative Branch, the primary part of government charged with overseeing the Executive Branch, continues to run away from its responsibility. Some (like McConnell and Ryan) stay silent. Others argue in a two pronged way:

1) He hasn't been charged with anything so there is nothing we can do, and
2) He can't be indicted while he is in office.


Go ahead Republicans. Continue to play ostrich. Play word games. Babble on endlessly about nothing. Investigate Clinton's emails again (there is another hearing in a few hours) and simultaneously argue that the Mueller investigation has gone on too long.


The next few weeks will be exciting.


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6852



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/24/18 4:42 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:

John Edwards went to trial on these same kinds of hush money campaign contribution allegations, and won, because the prosecution couldn't prove that the payments were made solely to influence an election. In other words, if the money might have been paid in the absence of an election -- e.g., to protect a person's reputation or to spare his wife's emotions -- there is no "campaign contribution".


I saw a Slate writer completely dismiss the idea of it not being due to the campaign, but because of his reputation and damage to marriage, because "it wasn't a current affair and it happened 10 years earlier". I don't think many men would expect "OK, I had a sexual encounter with a porn star and an affair with a Playboy playmate, but it was a long time ago - 10 years" to go over well. Particularly when that was "right after our marriage".



Quote:
Again, there is grave doubt that any of this is actually a campaign law violation, and in any event, it is Cohen not Trump who paid Daniels. The only fact in controversy is whether Trump knew about Cohen's $130,000 payment beforehand or only after he started receiving bills from Cohen, which doesn't really affect the issue of whether the transaction was an illegal campaign contribution by Cohen.


It seems that the charge of "excessive campaign contribution" is strongest if Trump told Cohen to make the payment with his own money, and there would be no reimbursement. But no one believes that. If the charge is Trump told Cohen to make the payment and that he would pay him back, that seems like a tougher case to make - that Cohen violated campaign finance law with an excessive contribution. At least it could be open to the feelings of whoever is deciding. Cohen probably has evidence, like tapes, to prove the second situation is the truth. But those tapes may not see the light of day now.

Quote:
The Cohen charges and plea present no legal jeopardy to Trump, but could be amalgamated with all the other legal nothingburgers (so far) -- like collusion and obstruction -- to comprise some lean meat for impeachment.


I think a Democratic House would be ready to impeach Trump even without the Cohen charges. They will face angry mobs back home if they don't. They say the "president cannot be indicted while in office" idea has never been tested and there are so many people that would love to test it and now they seem to have something that could be pursued. I think the Democrats dislike Trump more than Republicans disliked Clinton (or Obama).


GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 5102
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/24/18 12:51 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

It is written DOJ policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted or prosecuted. That policy is based on DOJ legal opinions construing the Constitution written during the Nixon administration and later reaffirmed in 2000 during the Clinton administration. Mueller has said that he will abide by this DOJ rule. But it doesn't really matter what he says, because he and his boss, Rod Rosenstein, both must abide by the DOJ Special Counsel regulations, which specify that a "Special Counsel shall comply with the rules, regulations, procedures, practices and policies of the Department of Justice."

Hence, if we can take anything as a fact, it is that Mueller will never indict or prosecute Trump for anything. The most he can do is write a report about his findings.

***

Assuming the payment to Stormy Daniels can be judicially determined to be a "campaign contribution" -- which is huge, doubtful stretch of words -- it is either a payment by Cohen or (constructively) by Trump. If it was a payment by Cohen, then only Cohen has violated the rule against excessive contributions. If the payment is construed to have been made by Trump, then there was no excessive campaign contribution at all, because a candidate can contribute as much as he wants to his own campaign. The only issue is whether the contribution was properly reported by the Trump campaign. Trump contributed something like $60 million to his campaign, so who knows if the $130,000 payment to Daniels is buried in the paperwork somewhere.

As far as I can tell, excessive campaign contributions are almost always dealt with by the FEC as civil matters, not criminal, and punished by civil fines. For example, two treasurers of the 2008 Obama campaign took $1.3 million in excessive contributions and the Obama campaign had to pay $375,000 in fines. The Bob Dole campaign in 1996 was also fined for excess contributions. I'm sure no one even contemplated criminal prosecution in these matters.
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 11238
Location: Oklahoma (in my heart), whilst on my way to Oregon!


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/24/18 3:42 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
It is written DOJ policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted or prosecuted. That policy is based on DOJ legal opinions construing the Constitution written during the Nixon administration....
[ <Parse-Invoke-Blah-Construe-Demonstrate-Conjecture-BlahBlah-therefore-supposition-defer-BlahBlahBlah-infer-hypothesize-yaddayadda-speculate-contemplate-blahblahblahblahblah> ]....
I'm sure no one even contemplated criminal prosecution in these matters.


And nine other attorneys will offer 17 more perspectives. Glenn, with all due respect to your legal background (and I'm genuine in that), can you PLEASE offer your PERSONAL opinion on whether or not Trump is a profligate liar, womanizer, and scam artist?

Put aside whether or not it can be "proven in a court of law"....(we KNOW OJ was "acquitted" of all murder charges, too)....how does anyone with the minimum of a functioning brain stem NOT conclude that the myriad of charges all around him implicate him?



_________________
Oklahoma: Go Sooners! Oregon: Go Ducks!
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6852



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/24/18 11:27 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
Assuming the payment to Stormy Daniels can be judicially determined to be a "campaign contribution" -- which is huge, doubtful stretch of words -- it is either a payment by Cohen or (constructively) by Trump. If it was a payment by Cohen, then only Cohen has violated the rule against excessive contributions.


What I have read is that if Cohen paid for it all by himself (which nobody actually believes, but they will now be willing to accept it as fact), without reimbursement from Trump - but due to discussion with Trump about it - then Trump is guilty of "excess campaign fraud conspiracy (or some such term)" and "knowingly receiving excess campaign contributions".


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6852



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/24/18 11:36 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:


And nine other attorneys will offer 17 more perspectives. Glenn, with all due respect to your legal background (and I'm genuine in that), can you PLEASE offer your PERSONAL opinion on whether or not Trump is a profligate liar, womanizer, and scam artist?


Womanizer was proven to not be a deal breaker for presidents by Bill Clinton. And it was done by Democratic voters. You and yours.


Quote:
Put aside whether or not it can be "proven in a court of law"....(we KNOW OJ was "acquitted" of all murder charges, too)....how does anyone with the minimum of a functioning brain stem NOT conclude that the myriad of charges all around him implicate him?


Can you list the myriad charges for which he obviously should be implicated?


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 11238
Location: Oklahoma (in my heart), whilst on my way to Oregon!


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/25/18 12:00 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
Howee wrote:


And nine other attorneys will offer 17 more perspectives. Glenn, with all due respect to your legal background (and I'm genuine in that), can you PLEASE offer your PERSONAL opinion on whether or not Trump is a profligate liar, womanizer, and scam artist?


Womanizer was proven to not be a deal breaker for presidents by Bill Clinton. And it was done by Democratic voters. You and yours.


A. "Womanizing" is a broad spectrum of behaviors. Comparing Clinton to Trump is like comparing Micky Rooney to Cassanova. Trump is blantantly braggadocio about it, touting it as one of his inherent charms and promising women grand outcomes for their favors. THEN he illicitely pays huge sums of money to make sure it didn't "happen". Clinton just couldn't keep his dick in his pants.
B. I didn't ask for an opinion on Bill Clinton, but on The Man of The Hour, Donald Trump. Finding someone who you think is as bad/worse doesn't excuse the man in the spotlight.

Quote:
Put aside whether or not it can be "proven in a court of law"....(we KNOW OJ was "acquitted" of all murder charges, too)....how does anyone with the minimum of a functioning brain stem NOT conclude that the myriad of charges all around him implicate him?


tfan wrote:
Can you list the myriad charges for which he obviously should be implicated?


Yes, I can.



_________________
Oklahoma: Go Sooners! Oregon: Go Ducks!
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6852



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/26/18 3:42 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
tfan wrote:
Howee wrote:


And nine other attorneys will offer 17 more perspectives. Glenn, with all due respect to your legal background (and I'm genuine in that), can you PLEASE offer your PERSONAL opinion on whether or not Trump is a profligate liar, womanizer, and scam artist?


Womanizer was proven to not be a deal breaker for presidents by Bill Clinton. And it was done by Democratic voters. You and yours.


A. "Womanizing" is a broad spectrum of behaviors. Comparing Clinton to Trump is like comparing Micky Rooney to Cassanova. Trump is blatantly braggadocio about it, touting it as one of his inherent charms and promising women grand outcomes for their favors.


If Trump was "blatantly braggadocio about it" shouldn’t we be talking about him bragging about dating a Playboy Playmate and screwing a porn star instead of him paying hush money to the two women we are aware of him "being unfaithful" with?

Quote:
THEN he illicitly pays huge sums of money to make sure it didn't "happen". Clinton just couldn't keep his dick in his pants.


At the time, I don’t think Clinton had the money for a payoff. He went on 60 Minutes and denied, but was hurt by her having tapes.

Trump is only in potential legal jeopardy because he involved someone else - a lawyer that worked for him - and he was running for office. I would bet that lawyer Cohen didn't realize that he could not make a payment to Daniels without violating campaign finance laws. And if he didn't, I wouldn't expect Trump too. Although it is possible that both thought it wouldn't be uncovered since Daniels was signing a nondisclosure agreement.

Quote:
B. I didn't ask for an opinion on Bill Clinton, but on The Man of The Hour, Donald Trump. Finding someone who you think is as bad/worse doesn't excuse the man in the spotlight.


It doesn’t seem fair to excuse Bill Clinton for having an affair with Gennifer Flowers for 12 years (which was done - he was elected and re-elected), but not excuse Trump for having one encounter with Daniels and a 9 month affair with McDougal.


mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 18375



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/26/18 8:27 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Clinton didn’t use campaign funds to pay for Flowers.

Bill was a shit husband in some ways. That isn’t our business. And trump cheating on Melania isn’t our business either.

Trump using his campaign funds illegally is our business.



_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 11238
Location: Oklahoma (in my heart), whilst on my way to Oregon!


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/26/18 12:46 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

mercfan3 wrote:
Clinton didn’t use campaign funds to pay for Flowers.

Bill was a shit husband in some ways. That isn’t our business. And trump cheating on Melania isn’t our business either.

Trump using his campaign funds illegally is our business.


Bingo.

Quote:
It doesn’t seem fair to excuse Bill Clinton for having an affair with Gennifer Flowers for 12 years (which was done - he was elected and re-elected), but not excuse Trump for having one encounter with Daniels and a 9 month affair with McDougal.


And I'd counter with how it ISN'T fair to lump the 2 together as equals: Both reprehensible actors/actions, but ONE of them constantly--to this minute--flouting truth, casting aspersions on others, demeaning others, and just plain lyinglyinglying about everything, *pretending* he isn't doing anything wrong NOR HAS EVER DONE ANYTHING WRONG. It's a matter of degree, then....and Donald's thermometer is through the stratosphere. Razz



_________________
Oklahoma: Go Sooners! Oregon: Go Ducks!
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin