Do you believe Cohen or Trump?

[cnm]

Not a damned thing illegal about it.

You should let the prosecutors and AMI know about that.

 

[Claudette]

Not a damned thing illegal about it.

You should let the prosecutors and AMI know about that.

Oh they already know.

Nothing illegal about paying off someone who says that they had an affair with you years ago.

 

[JoeB131]

Cohen says he's oh so deeply sorry he got involved in Trump's most darkest of worlds. And the proof of that world of darkness? Ah shucks, the depths of Hell was hush money paid to a porn star.............Oh my, how fucking dark, Trump is Satan himself.

Again, you guys were the ones who insisted on impeaching Clinton over a blow job.

For those with a fucking brain, it's clear Cohen's statement was was part of a plea agreement for political causes. It's that or he figure he'd say it on his own expecting leniency, but I'll assume the former. Either way it supports what should be very clear to everyone, which is this investigation stinks and Cohen is creep. But I don't suspect many progressives can follow the logic.

Most cases are made on the basis of co-conspirator testimony... The point is, as awful as a person as Cohen is, he's someone who Trump entrusted to do his dirty work for years.

 

[JoeB131]

Oh it'll go somewhere, just too bad that none of it involves Trump, except Cohen's claim that Trump knew about something that at worst is a slap on the wrist.

So was Clinton lying about a blow job... but you guys insisted on impeaching him anyway.

 

[cnm]

Oh they already know.

Nothing illegal about paying off someone who says that they had an affair with you years ago.

As long as it is not done to influence an election by a campaign contribution exceeding the limit and unreported. Not a thing.

But I wonder why AMI admitted to illegally contributing money. It's a mystery.

edit...Oh, deplorable denial. Mystery solved.

 

[Claudette]

Oh they already know.

Nothing illegal about paying off someone who says that they had an affair with you years ago.

As long as it is not done to influence an election by a campaign contribution exceeding the limit and unreported. Not a thing.

But I wonder why AMI admitted to illegally contributing money. It's a mystery.

edit...Oh, deplorable denial. Mystery solved.

The FEC will decide in 2020 whether it was a campaign contribution, which it wasn't. He used his own money to pay Cohen back when Cohen made the pay off to Daniels.

Nothing illegal about it.

 

[sealybobo]

Both have told different stories to different people. Neither are trustworthy imo.
Cohen imo is not a credible witness.

And trump is? Oh wait, he won’t even testify.

Gramps you are so obvious

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Both have told different stories to different people. Neither are trustworthy imo.
Cohen imo is not a credible witness.

Agreed- both Cohen and Trump are documented liars- Trump clearly is not a credible witness to anything.

But you don't have to believe just one or the other- remember the National Enquirer's parent company has also admitted that the payments were for poltiical purposes.

And given the timing of the payments- just before the election- and that Trump didn't engineer payments years earlier when the stories first came out- it is pretty clear that the payments were very specifically to keep these stories out of the news to help Trump get elected.

And that's illegal how ??? As long as campaign funds weren't used to deal with clearing up lose ends in order to stop anyone from thinking that they can extort or blackmail the President of the United States while in office, then how is that illegal ?? If anything it's being responsible in protecting the office about to be occupied for the next 4 to 8 years by a person who will aquire that office through the voters wishes for him to do so.

Sorry...but there is evidence and testimony that shows the funds were
A. Not paid by Trump, so were way over the limit
B. Not reported (and in fact intentionally hidden)
C. Made for the purpose of furthering the election chances of one Donald J Trump (also known as the Orange Blotus)

Wrong !!!!! They were made to keep possible blackmailing extortionist from attacking the office of our Presidency if Trump a billionaire business man were to win the office legitimately in which he did. No crime was committed, in fact an act in securing that office from head hunters was the act being committed. No crime there, and in fact after all that has come to light, Donald J. Trump was absolutely right in doing what he did in that NDA in order to protect the office if he became the President. That's the way I look at it all.

That's some serious spinning.
It's not a bad narrative. It just comes far too late to be effective.
It's difficult to argue that the actions taken with the payments are legal after one of the main actors has already been charged, has pleaded guilty, is convicted and has been sentenced for those actions. It's actually pretty dumb to make that argument at this time.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Wrong again. It's been explained to you multiple times why your theory is wrong. If an expenditure can have any conceivable private purpose, then it's not a campaign expenditure.

"Any conceivable private purpose" is not the standard

A. John Edwards was indicted and prosecuted. That shows that it is a crime. The fact that his lawyer was able to convince a jury that his actions were personal does not mean it wasn't a potential crime. I guess Trump needs to get in front of that Jury

B.Unlike John Edwards...there are records and evidence and witnesses that show it WAS for political purposes

What was for political purposes ??? Anyone cleaning up to serve the office is somehow now a crime ??? So just go on and except the office knowing that it might be blackmailed while one is President because he or she refused to responsibly take care of loose ends that might be a problem for that office if won ??

He shouldn't have been running if he was that flawed of a candidate. You certainly should not have voted for a man that could be blackmailed. LOL.

 

[bripat9643]

I will leave Brip to continue kissing Trump's ass.

There are two testimonies on record describing Trump's collusion to violate campaign laws. Whether or not Trump is ever prosecuted for those violations of the law will be up to prosecutors after Trump is out of office.

But certainly the evidence is there to support filing the charges.

They aren't "testimonies," dumbass. They are plea bargains, and they are inadmissible as evidence. No matter how many times you deny it, those are the facts.

 

[bripat9643]

...Obama administration officials began illegaly searching through the NSA database for any communications by the Trump campaign.

Good thing they did, too, otherwise, we would not know what a self-serving, disloyal, traitorous sleaze-ball that The Creature truly is.

As to 'legality' in this context, that's a matter of interpretation, and, so far, your boy hasn't found the grounds to do anything about it.

Things are falling apart for your boy, and the pace is accelerating - thank God.

He can't even find himself a decent Chief of Staff anymore; nobody wants the job; not even a former bootlicker like Mister New Jersey.

With his lies, divisiveness, clumsiness and disloyal behaviors, your boy is single-handedly driving what's left of the GOP into the ground.

In another two years, a Republican won't be able to get him(her)self elected as Dogcatcher, never mind anything responsible.

You've backed the wrong horse; you're defending a Robber Baron who is grotesquely incompetent and unfit, outside of his business universe.

It was illegal, you Stalinist piece of shit. I love the way you snowflakes are so blatant about wiping your ass with the Constitution. You support whatever advances the party. That's all you care about.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Its actually a moot point since there really wasn't any crime committed regarding the hush money payments to the bimbos.

There is absolutely nothing wrong out side of moral character, with paying off bimbos under normal situations.

HOWEVER, if the primary reason these ladies of the night were being paid off, was because he did not want them spilling the beans to the public, because of the Access Hollywood video or the 12 women that said he sexually harassed them during his campaign for presidency, then it would be breaking the law....

-it would have to be the primary reason or sole reason, due to the election campaign....for it to be illegal

here are some of the facts and reasons:

It is illegal for a Corporation to donate money or in kind services, to any campaign.

The payoff to Karen McDougall to silence her, for Donald Trump, by the National Enquirer/AMI Corp. was specifically done to silence her during Trump's campaign. She had approached the National Enquirer a couple of months earlier than her August payoff, to tell her "story" is my understanding and they hymned and hawed over it... until Candidate Trump had won his primary, I believe they were trying to catch and kill her story of the two of them, for less money....but once Trump had won, it actually cost them a pretty penny.

Both David Pecker, (the National Enquirer guy) and Michael Cohen and Donald Trump met in 2015 to discuss HOW the National Enquirer could help him in his campaign for the Presidency.... To Catch and Kill any of the women coming forward that he slept with, AND to run negative ads on Hillary during the campaign.... of which the National Enquirer did BOTH.

The discussion was NOT to hide it from Melania... ( I think they probably have a sexualy open marriage or she would have left him long ago....) There are two people, Cohen and Pecker, that have said this happened.... vs. the Don. Not just Cohen.

So, this means a Corporation was donating to the Trump Campaign, with gifts that would help him in the election.... so the National Enquirer/AMI broke the law... but Donald was aware and okay and even asked them to do what they did, and I believe Trump's Company paid them back.... in a back handed and fraudulent way, by paying Cohen for legal services that he never performed, then he paid AMI Corp, so to hide the whole thing....

all of this was dirty, and for the purpose of the election and hiding from we the people, of what was being done.... normally as said, this might have been ok, but Campaign Finance laws have the sole purpose of giving sunshine to we the people, so we can make educated choices and to know where the money came from that donates directly to these campaigns...

Oh darn, the dinner bell for the oven is going off so I will have to come back and finish this and get in to the Stormy pay off....

Wrong again. It's been explained to you multiple times why your theory is wrong. If an expenditure can have any conceivable private purpose, then it's not a campaign expenditure.

I've never seen such a huge pile of obviously wrong snowflake myths in my life

LOL- you idiot snowflakes keep thinking if you keep repeating your 'theories' over and over it is 'explaining'

Both Cohen and AMI have both admitted to the illegal campaign contributions.

Can't get around that.

A plea bargain can't be used as evidence, dumbass, so it doesn't matter what they supposedly "admitted." Cohen doesn't get to determine whether Trump committed a campaign expenditure, and neither does Manafort. A judge does that, and Mueller obviously knows that no judge is going to rule in his favor.

A judge does that, and Mueller obviously knows that no judge is going to rule in his favor.

A judge already has. Cohen is already convicted and sentenced for it, dope.

 

[bripat9643]

...They aren't campaign donations, douchebag. ...

Calm yourself, Princess...

...The evidence has been produced time and time again...

Apparently, the US Justice Department, and the Southern District of New York, disagree with you.

...Shit like this is why debating leftists is a complete waste of time...

How would you know? You don't understand the concept of 'debate' anyway.

...They never acknowledge that they've been beaten...

Especially when they have not been.

...They just keep repeating the same idiocies over and over and over.

You have them confused with TrumpBots in this instance.

Your post amounted to little more than saying "nuh uhn!" Refuting it would be a waste of time and bandwidth.

You tell 'em, tiger...

My "substance" here is that the Justice Dept and the SDNY both disagree with your assessment...

It's not my opinion that matters in this context...

It's not even your opinion that matters in this context...

It's the opinion of the appointed prosecutors in both jurisdictions that matters in this context...

And their opinion differs from yours...

< mic drop >

By "Justice Dept" you mean Mueller. You now seem to believe he runs the DOJ, and that wouldn't be far from the truth.

 

[bripat9643]

Its actually a moot point since there really wasn't any crime committed regarding the hush money payments to the bimbos.

There is absolutely nothing wrong out side of moral character, with paying off bimbos under normal situations.

HOWEVER, if the primary reason these ladies of the night were being paid off, was because he did not want them spilling the beans to the public, because of the Access Hollywood video or the 12 women that said he sexually harassed them during his campaign for presidency, then it would be breaking the law....

-it would have to be the primary reason or sole reason, due to the election campaign....for it to be illegal

here are some of the facts and reasons:

It is illegal for a Corporation to donate money or in kind services, to any campaign.

The payoff to Karen McDougall to silence her, for Donald Trump, by the National Enquirer/AMI Corp. was specifically done to silence her during Trump's campaign. She had approached the National Enquirer a couple of months earlier than her August payoff, to tell her "story" is my understanding and they hymned and hawed over it... until Candidate Trump had won his primary, I believe they were trying to catch and kill her story of the two of them, for less money....but once Trump had won, it actually cost them a pretty penny.

Both David Pecker, (the National Enquirer guy) and Michael Cohen and Donald Trump met in 2015 to discuss HOW the National Enquirer could help him in his campaign for the Presidency.... To Catch and Kill any of the women coming forward that he slept with, AND to run negative ads on Hillary during the campaign.... of which the National Enquirer did BOTH.

The discussion was NOT to hide it from Melania... ( I think they probably have a sexualy open marriage or she would have left him long ago....) There are two people, Cohen and Pecker, that have said this happened.... vs. the Don. Not just Cohen.

So, this means a Corporation was donating to the Trump Campaign, with gifts that would help him in the election.... so the National Enquirer/AMI broke the law... but Donald was aware and okay and even asked them to do what they did, and I believe Trump's Company paid them back.... in a back handed and fraudulent way, by paying Cohen for legal services that he never performed, then he paid AMI Corp, so to hide the whole thing....

all of this was dirty, and for the purpose of the election and hiding from we the people, of what was being done.... normally as said, this might have been ok, but Campaign Finance laws have the sole purpose of giving sunshine to we the people, so we can make educated choices and to know where the money came from that donates directly to these campaigns...

Oh darn, the dinner bell for the oven is going off so I will have to come back and finish this and get in to the Stormy pay off....

Wrong again. It's been explained to you multiple times why your theory is wrong. If an expenditure can have any conceivable private purpose, then it's not a campaign expenditure.

I've never seen such a huge pile of obviously wrong snowflake myths in my life

LOL- you idiot snowflakes keep thinking if you keep repeating your 'theories' over and over it is 'explaining'

Both Cohen and AMI have both admitted to the illegal campaign contributions.

Can't get around that.

A plea bargain can't be used as evidence, dumbass, so it doesn't matter what they supposedly "admitted." Cohen doesn't get to determine whether Trump committed a campaign expenditure, and neither does Manafort. A judge does that, and Mueller obviously knows that no judge is going to rule in his favor.

A judge does that, and Mueller obviously knows that no judge is going to rule in his favor.

A judge already has. Cohen is already convicted and sentenced for it, dope.

You're a fucking imbecile. No judge has ruled that his plea bargain can be used as evidence.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Its actually a moot point since there really wasn't any crime committed regarding the hush money payments to the bimbos.

There is absolutely nothing wrong out side of moral character, with paying off bimbos under normal situations.

HOWEVER, if the primary reason these ladies of the night were being paid off, was because he did not want them spilling the beans to the public, because of the Access Hollywood video or the 12 women that said he sexually harassed them during his campaign for presidency, then it would be breaking the law....

-it would have to be the primary reason or sole reason, due to the election campaign....for it to be illegal

here are some of the facts and reasons:

It is illegal for a Corporation to donate money or in kind services, to any campaign.

The payoff to Karen McDougall to silence her, for Donald Trump, by the National Enquirer/AMI Corp. was specifically done to silence her during Trump's campaign. She had approached the National Enquirer a couple of months earlier than her August payoff, to tell her "story" is my understanding and they hymned and hawed over it... until Candidate Trump had won his primary, I believe they were trying to catch and kill her story of the two of them, for less money....but once Trump had won, it actually cost them a pretty penny.

Both David Pecker, (the National Enquirer guy) and Michael Cohen and Donald Trump met in 2015 to discuss HOW the National Enquirer could help him in his campaign for the Presidency.... To Catch and Kill any of the women coming forward that he slept with, AND to run negative ads on Hillary during the campaign.... of which the National Enquirer did BOTH.

The discussion was NOT to hide it from Melania... ( I think they probably have a sexualy open marriage or she would have left him long ago....) There are two people, Cohen and Pecker, that have said this happened.... vs. the Don. Not just Cohen.

So, this means a Corporation was donating to the Trump Campaign, with gifts that would help him in the election.... so the National Enquirer/AMI broke the law... but Donald was aware and okay and even asked them to do what they did, and I believe Trump's Company paid them back.... in a back handed and fraudulent way, by paying Cohen for legal services that he never performed, then he paid AMI Corp, so to hide the whole thing....

all of this was dirty, and for the purpose of the election and hiding from we the people, of what was being done.... normally as said, this might have been ok, but Campaign Finance laws have the sole purpose of giving sunshine to we the people, so we can make educated choices and to know where the money came from that donates directly to these campaigns...

Oh darn, the dinner bell for the oven is going off so I will have to come back and finish this and get in to the Stormy pay off....

Wrong again. It's been explained to you multiple times why your theory is wrong. If an expenditure can have any conceivable private purpose, then it's not a campaign expenditure.

I've never seen such a huge pile of obviously wrong snowflake myths in my life

NOPE.....

The reason Edwards got off, is because they did not believe the campaign was the primary reason... he was married, but was having an affair with her and she and he had a child together, and the payments went over a long period of time and even when he had already knew he was pulling out of the primary.... so even though he was no longer going to be in the primary race, she and their child, was still getting paid....

This is why he got off.... the primary purpose was to take care of his mistress, and to take care of her while she was with child, and to take care of her and their child , after the child was born, and to hide this all from his wife who was dying, and it also helped his campaign.... the campaign came in 3rd place.

The discussion with Trump, Cohen and Pecker did not mention Melania and hiding it from her.... she already knew she married a whore.... and certainly saw all the pictures of him with these other two women... it was ONLY ABOUT his campaign.... the whole discussion of the 3 was about the Campaign... And these were past affairs, near ten years past, not an affair he was presently having...

So it is a better shot that he would be guilty than Edwards, of covering it up for the main purpose of the campaign, thus making it an illegal campaign donation from a corporation.... and Trump's company paying Pecker back is also an illegal donation....

If Trump had made all the payments out of his own money and not his company's, and didn't go through contortions the best mob boss could imagine to cover it all up financially, he probably would not be in trouble at all for it...

but honestly, to me...this all is a side show to deflect from his Russian collusion....

That's rationalization, not logic. You aren't able to commit logic. If the payment conceivably had a private purpose, then it's not a campaign expenditure, period.

It's more likely that a ten year old affair was covered up just weeks before the election for the purpose protecting the campaign and the candidate.

The DOJ agrees.

 

[bripat9643]

A plea deal isn't admissible evidence, dumbass, so it doesn't matter what they "admitted."

The "plea deal" is based on what Michael Cohen and the parent company gave to the authorities. In this world, you do not get something for nothing and while the plea itself may not be admissible, the information they gave would certainly be admissible.

It doesn't matter what it's "based on," you fucking moron. It's not freely given uncoerced testimony that can be cross examined, and Cohen doesn't have the qualifications do determine what the law means.

By the "information" you mean the contents of the plea deal. That's exactly what isn't admissible.

I see you're now retreating to the hair-splitting exercise.

The plea deal is predicated on testimony that will be presented. You do not get the deal unless you're willing to testify.

Once he's sentenced, Mueller has no leverage over the defendant. He can't revoke any deals at that point.

You obviously don't understand the first thing about how plea deals operate.

Ok; go with that. Meanwhile back in reality, the prosecutor can add charges and lengthen a sentence if the cooperation that was promised does not materialize. If, of course, there are charges to add.

No, he can't add charges, moron. Nor can he lengthen a sentence. You seem to believe that a prosecutor has the arbitrary power of a totalitarian dictator. That's not surprising since that's the form of government you support. The "cooperation" has to occur before his sentencing because afterwards the charges are final.

 

[bripat9643]

Its actually a moot point since there really wasn't any crime committed regarding the hush money payments to the bimbos.

There is absolutely nothing wrong out side of moral character, with paying off bimbos under normal situations.

HOWEVER, if the primary reason these ladies of the night were being paid off, was because he did not want them spilling the beans to the public, because of the Access Hollywood video or the 12 women that said he sexually harassed them during his campaign for presidency, then it would be breaking the law....

-it would have to be the primary reason or sole reason, due to the election campaign....for it to be illegal

here are some of the facts and reasons:

It is illegal for a Corporation to donate money or in kind services, to any campaign.

The payoff to Karen McDougall to silence her, for Donald Trump, by the National Enquirer/AMI Corp. was specifically done to silence her during Trump's campaign. She had approached the National Enquirer a couple of months earlier than her August payoff, to tell her "story" is my understanding and they hymned and hawed over it... until Candidate Trump had won his primary, I believe they were trying to catch and kill her story of the two of them, for less money....but once Trump had won, it actually cost them a pretty penny.

Both David Pecker, (the National Enquirer guy) and Michael Cohen and Donald Trump met in 2015 to discuss HOW the National Enquirer could help him in his campaign for the Presidency.... To Catch and Kill any of the women coming forward that he slept with, AND to run negative ads on Hillary during the campaign.... of which the National Enquirer did BOTH.

The discussion was NOT to hide it from Melania... ( I think they probably have a sexualy open marriage or she would have left him long ago....) There are two people, Cohen and Pecker, that have said this happened.... vs. the Don. Not just Cohen.

So, this means a Corporation was donating to the Trump Campaign, with gifts that would help him in the election.... so the National Enquirer/AMI broke the law... but Donald was aware and okay and even asked them to do what they did, and I believe Trump's Company paid them back.... in a back handed and fraudulent way, by paying Cohen for legal services that he never performed, then he paid AMI Corp, so to hide the whole thing....

all of this was dirty, and for the purpose of the election and hiding from we the people, of what was being done.... normally as said, this might have been ok, but Campaign Finance laws have the sole purpose of giving sunshine to we the people, so we can make educated choices and to know where the money came from that donates directly to these campaigns...

Oh darn, the dinner bell for the oven is going off so I will have to come back and finish this and get in to the Stormy pay off....

Wrong again. It's been explained to you multiple times why your theory is wrong. If an expenditure can have any conceivable private purpose, then it's not a campaign expenditure.

I've never seen such a huge pile of obviously wrong snowflake myths in my life

NOPE.....

The reason Edwards got off, is because they did not believe the campaign was the primary reason... he was married, but was having an affair with her and she and he had a child together, and the payments went over a long period of time and even when he had already knew he was pulling out of the primary.... so even though he was no longer going to be in the primary race, she and their child, was still getting paid....

This is why he got off.... the primary purpose was to take care of his mistress, and to take care of her while she was with child, and to take care of her and their child , after the child was born, and to hide this all from his wife who was dying, and it also helped his campaign.... the campaign came in 3rd place.

The discussion with Trump, Cohen and Pecker did not mention Melania and hiding it from her.... she already knew she married a whore.... and certainly saw all the pictures of him with these other two women... it was ONLY ABOUT his campaign.... the whole discussion of the 3 was about the Campaign... And these were past affairs, near ten years past, not an affair he was presently having...

So it is a better shot that he would be guilty than Edwards, of covering it up for the main purpose of the campaign, thus making it an illegal campaign donation from a corporation.... and Trump's company paying Pecker back is also an illegal donation....

If Trump had made all the payments out of his own money and not his company's, and didn't go through contortions the best mob boss could imagine to cover it all up financially, he probably would not be in trouble at all for it...

but honestly, to me...this all is a side show to deflect from his Russian collusion....

That's rationalization, not logic. You aren't able to commit logic. If the payment conceivably had a private purpose, then it's not a campaign expenditure, period.

It's more likely that a ten year old affair was covered up just weeks before the election for the purpose protecting the campaign and the candidate.

The DOJ agrees.

It's more likely that you are suffering from brain damage as you so consistently fail to get the point and keep repeating theories that have already been discredited.

 

[bripat9643]

Not a damned thing illegal about it.

You should let the prosecutors and AMI know about that.

Who the fuck is AMI?

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong again. It's been explained to you multiple times why your theory is wrong. If an expenditure can have any conceivable private purpose, then it's not a campaign expenditure.

"Any conceivable private purpose" is not the standard

A. John Edwards was indicted and prosecuted. That shows that it is a crime. The fact that his lawyer was able to convince a jury that his actions were personal does not mean it wasn't a potential crime. I guess Trump needs to get in front of that Jury

B.Unlike John Edwards...there are records and evidence and witnesses that show it WAS for political purposes

What was for political purposes ??? Anyone cleaning up to serve the office is somehow now a crime ??? So just go on and except the office knowing that it might be blackmailed while one is President because he or she refused to responsibly take care of loose ends that might be a problem for that office if won ??

He shouldn't have been running if he was that flawed of a candidate. You certainly should not have voted for a man that could be blackmailed. LOL.

Look at the moron who voted for Hillary spinning about "flawed candidates."

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Oh they already know.

Nothing illegal about paying off someone who says that they had an affair with you years ago.

As long as it is not done to influence an election by a campaign contribution exceeding the limit and unreported. Not a thing.

But I wonder why AMI admitted to illegally contributing money. It's a mystery.

edit...Oh, deplorable denial. Mystery solved.

The FEC will decide in 2020 whether it was a campaign contribution, which it wasn't. He used his own money to pay Cohen back when Cohen made the pay off to Daniels.

Nothing illegal about it.

By reimbursing Cohen, Trump confirmed that he was aware of and a participant in the illegal scheme.