Who is the "other campaign worker"?

[Dana7360]

ooo - trump in trouble. been a few minutes.

YOU read it wrong if that is what YOU got out of my post.

seriously?

you said:
Trump will be in trouble for the way he paid Cohen back, with his company and foundation, giving false pretense in what Cohen was being reimbursed for and what Pecker was being paid for.... and for setting up a corporation for business illegally in North Carolina as a slush fund and not a business, he broke laws on that too....

to reiterate - you said:
Trump will be in trouble for the way he paid Cohen back, with his company and foundation, giving false pretense in what Cohen was being reimbursed for and what Pecker was being paid for.... and for setting up a corporation for business illegally in North Carolina as a slush fund and not a business, he broke laws on that too....

but i misread you.

no more calls, we have a winner.

As I understood it, Cohen submitted an invoice for legal services that included the payments and it was paid. Do you have information that shows another version of events?

they hid and disguised on their books, what they were paying Cohen for... and the $130k Cohen was being reimbursed for, ended up being $420,000 being reimbursed to him.... no one knows what the other money was for.... maybe other women he paid hush money to??? Maybe other dirty deeds he covered up....

they broke tax laws as well, by faking the invoices.

"they"? Cohen did, obviously, but you're assuming Trump's participation with no evidence.

Unfortunately for you the facts aren't on your side in this.

Trump was in the room during hush money discussions with tabloid publisher

 

[Dana7360]

seriously?

you said:
Trump will be in trouble for the way he paid Cohen back, with his company and foundation, giving false pretense in what Cohen was being reimbursed for and what Pecker was being paid for.... and for setting up a corporation for business illegally in North Carolina as a slush fund and not a business, he broke laws on that too....

to reiterate - you said:
Trump will be in trouble for the way he paid Cohen back, with his company and foundation, giving false pretense in what Cohen was being reimbursed for and what Pecker was being paid for.... and for setting up a corporation for business illegally in North Carolina as a slush fund and not a business, he broke laws on that too....

but i misread you.

no more calls, we have a winner.

As I understood it, Cohen submitted an invoice for legal services that included the payments and it was paid. Do you have information that shows another version of events?

they hid and disguised on their books, what they were paying Cohen for... and the $130k Cohen was being reimbursed for, ended up being $420,000 being reimbursed to him.... no one knows what the other money was for.... maybe other women he paid hush money to??? Maybe other dirty deeds he covered up....

they broke tax laws as well, by faking the invoices.

"they"? Cohen did, obviously, but you're assuming Trump's participation with no evidence.

Trump is on tape discussing the payments with Cohen and talk of Trump's accountant handling it...

Trump's accountant got immunity, so he'd talk. his name is Allen Weisselberg....

And you've heard the tape, or is this just another "gotcha" rumor?

Wow you seriously need to get out of that far right wing propaganda bubble you've been in for way too long.

This has been in the news since last July. The audio was all over the legitimate news outlets all over this nation.

Here's a video that includes the recording. The recording comes close to the end of the video.

audio tape of trump and cohen talking payment to stormy daniels and karen mcdougal - Bing video

 

[Olde Europe]

Unfortunately for you the facts aren't on your side in this.

Trump was in the room during hush money discussions with tabloid publisher

That's based on just one single, anonymous source. I wouldn't bet the house on it, yet.

On another note, if it were Trump in the room, would they in court documents call him a "member of the campaign"? In a way he was, but...

 

[Care4all]

they hid and disguised on their books, what they were paying Cohen for... and the $130k Cohen was being reimbursed for, ended up being $420,000 being reimbursed to him.... no one knows what the other money was for.... maybe other women he paid hush money to??? Maybe other dirty deeds he covered up....

they broke tax laws as well, by faking the invoices.

"they"? Cohen did, obviously, but you're assuming Trump's participation with no evidence.

Trump is on tape discussing the payments with Cohen and talk of Trump's accountant handling it...

Trump's accountant got immunity, so he'd talk. his name is Allen Weisselberg....

And you've heard the tape, or is this just another "gotcha" rumor?

about 100 times on different news channels when Cohen first released it to the public a few months back....

SEARCH- Trump and Cohen Tape on David Pecker....

Ok, I heard it a few months back as well. I had trouble understanding everything that was said but, I heard nothing of arranging fake invoices and intentional violations of tax law.

Oh, that came out after the audio in the news, when they gave the accountant Allen Weisselberg immunity....

They paid Cohen back and a whole lot more money... for what he had fronted for Stormy Daniels.... like it was only $130k for Stormy but they paid him $420k and they did it in a fishy way... like saying it was legal help of some sort for the company and some physical things he had purchased for the company or maybe it was the campaign.... all of which the Trump Corporation/Foundation could illegally (my understanding at the time) use as a tax write off.... this was a little while back.... and the Lord knows the news cycles nowadays... last about a day before the next new scandal and there are so many "oh my Gods" that it's hard to keep it all straight, it really is chaos.

I think or at least I thought at the time, that $280k out of the $420 they paid Cohen, could have been McDougall (David Pecker payment) $150k plus Stormy $130k could have accounted for some of the over payment to him, with $140k for someone else that we don't know about, or perhaps Cohen's cut for the dirty deed of the coverup?

If you want, I can try to find the news articles on it... let me know.

 

[Olde Europe]

I think or at least I thought at the time, that $280k out of the $420 they paid Cohen, could have been McDougall (David Pecker payment) $150k plus Stormy $130k could have accounted for some of the over payment to him, with $140k for someone else that we don't know about, or perhaps Cohen's cut for the dirty deed of the coverup?

I think that were $470k. And, of course, since that was income (for "legal") on Cohen's side, the Trumpy added a lump sum for the taxes Cohen had to pay, plus a profit. It's all been in the papers.

 

[Care4all]

I think or at least I thought at the time, that $280k out of the $420 they paid Cohen, could have been McDougall (David Pecker payment) $150k plus Stormy $130k could have accounted for some of the over payment to him, with $140k for someone else that we don't know about, or perhaps Cohen's cut for the dirty deed of the coverup?

I think that were $470k. And, of course, since that was income (for "legal") on Cohen's side, the Trumpy added a lump sum for the taxes Cohen had to pay, plus a profit. It's all been in the papers.

Thanks... $470k not $420...

and I forgot about the taxes or fees Cohen had to pay for getting a loan...

it all seems like a fraud scheme more so than the campaign finance violation... on the Stormy/McDougall payoffs....

And with Pecker meeting with Trump and one other campaign person in 2015 asking for his help, with the national enquirer running one ridiculous negative story on their front page after another the whole campaign period on Clinton, along with the Ted Cruise affair front page story and ted cruise's father involved in JFK murder crapola they ran... seems like Pecker gave a heck of a lot more to his campaign at the bequest of candidate Trump, illegally, than was known at the time...?

 

[Olde Europe]

Thanks... $470k not $420...

and I forgot about the taxes or fees Cohen had to pay for getting a loan...

it all seems like a fraud scheme more so than the campaign finance violation... on the Stormy/McDougall payoffs....

And with Pecker meeting with Trump and one other campaign person in 2015 asking for his help, with the national enquirer running one ridiculous negative story on their front page after another the whole campaign period on Clinton, along with the Ted Cruise affair front page story and ted cruise's father involved in JFK murder crapola they ran... seems like Pecker gave a heck of a lot more to his campaign at the bequest of candidate Trump, illegally, than was known at the time...?

You're welcome. It's fraud, sleaze, and criminality all the way, right down to the sleazebag lawyer skimming off an usurious amount of the hush money, and in both cases. And yes, I would like very much for Pecker to share the prison cell with the Trumpy. But, for whatever reason, that sleazebag got immunity, while the whole thing should have been documented to everyone's satisfaction in both Cohen's and the Trumpy's files. Can't win them all...

 

[joaquinmiller]

Unfortunately for you the facts aren't on your side in this.

Trump was in the room during hush money discussions with tabloid publisher

That's based on just one single, anonymous source. I wouldn't bet the house on it, yet.

On another note, if it were Trump in the room, would they in court documents call him a "member of the campaign"? In a way he was, but...

It's an odd way to have put it.

 

[hunarcy]

LMAO! So, you can't prove anything and are trying to hide it by your "aggressive" post. Facts are pesky things. At this point, all you have are allegations from Prosecutors of what they THINK was done based on what Cohen admitted to doing based on what he needed to say to get mercy from the courts. NO amount of slurs and name calling will change that. I've not asked anyone to do research for me. I am pointing out that there's been several stories and none have been proven yet. So, go pound sand.

Yeah, your ignorance still isn't an argument, and your hiding behind "several stories" is just ludicrous. After all these months, you still know nothing, and you aren't even embarrassed. Really, go "discuss" knitting. Perhaps they find Know-Nothings acceptable.

My "ignorance" isn't an issue. Your inability to provide an argument with support is. I'm laughing at you and the best thing is that you, in your self righteousness, want to ignore everything that's been said because you have found the version of the story you like. Unfortunately for you, intelligent people know that when there are several versions of a story given by a person, that means the person giving the story isn't honest and without proof, can't be believed.

Thanks for wasting time.

 

[hunarcy]

Ok, I heard it a few months back as well. I had trouble understanding everything that was said but, I heard nothing of arranging fake invoices and intentional violations of tax law.

Yeah, but your ignorance, lack of intellectual curiosity and laziness, combined, still don't spell "lack of evidence". Your failure to do your homework just means you have no business getting involved in this thread among folks better informed than you. Your efforts to make others do the research you should have done months ago are just infantile. Not to mention self-debasing, and ridiculous on top of that.

LMAO! So, you can't prove anything and are trying to hide it by your "aggressive" post. Facts are pesky things. At this point, all you have are allegations from Prosecutors of what they THINK was done based on what Cohen admitted to doing based on what he needed to say to get mercy from the courts. NO amount of slurs and name calling will change that. I've not asked anyone to do research for me. I am pointing out that there's been several stories and none have been proven yet. So, go pound sand.

I see. So you think prosecutors who know that their professional reputation is on the line, would file an allegation that will be scrutinized to the umpteenth degree by every lawyer the GOP can muster? Not to mention the house and the senate if this would lead to impeachment? You think the only thing they have is Cohen's testimony? Even while other people are cutting deals left and right? I'm sorry to tell you, and I sure don't want you to call me "aggressive". But that seems just being willfully ignorant.

I think Prosecutors sometimes think things are crimes and end up being mistaken. John Edwards' prosecution comes to mind as an example of this. I am willing to wait until the investigations are over and things have been proven. What I'm not sure about is why, when so many versions of the story have been told, people are rushing to judgement based on what they HOPE is the correct version. It's not willfully ignorant. It's being prudent.

 

[hunarcy]

"they"? Cohen did, obviously, but you're assuming Trump's participation with no evidence.

Trump is on tape discussing the payments with Cohen and talk of Trump's accountant handling it...

Trump's accountant got immunity, so he'd talk. his name is Allen Weisselberg....

And you've heard the tape, or is this just another "gotcha" rumor?

about 100 times on different news channels when Cohen first released it to the public a few months back....

SEARCH- Trump and Cohen Tape on David Pecker....

Ok, I heard it a few months back as well. I had trouble understanding everything that was said but, I heard nothing of arranging fake invoices and intentional violations of tax law.

Oh, that came out after the audio in the news, when they gave the accountant Allen Weisselberg immunity....

They paid Cohen back and a whole lot more money... for what he had fronted for Stormy Daniels.... like it was only $130k for Stormy but they paid him $420k and they did it in a fishy way... like saying it was legal help of some sort for the company and some physical things he had purchased for the company or maybe it was the campaign.... all of which the Trump Corporation/Foundation could illegally (my understanding at the time) use as a tax write off.... this was a little while back.... and the Lord knows the news cycles nowadays... last about a day before the next new scandal and there are so many "oh my Gods" that it's hard to keep it all straight, it really is chaos.

I think or at least I thought at the time, that $280k out of the $420 they paid Cohen, could have been McDougall (David Pecker payment) $150k plus Stormy $130k could have accounted for some of the over payment to him, with $140k for someone else that we don't know about, or perhaps Cohen's cut for the dirty deed of the coverup?

If you want, I can try to find the news articles on it... let me know.

I know the tapes discussed how the money was to be circulated, but no amounts discussed. I know the payments were based on Cohen's invoices. I know Cohen created the invoices and submitted them for payment and was paid. Those are facts. After that, it's all speculation. It could be speculated that Cohen padded the invoices to fraudulently obtain more money for himself. At this point, we just don't know. Of course, the most partisan "know" it's all wicked, but until it's proven one way or another, we just have to wait.

 

[forkup]

Ok, I heard it a few months back as well. I had trouble understanding everything that was said but, I heard nothing of arranging fake invoices and intentional violations of tax law.

Yeah, but your ignorance, lack of intellectual curiosity and laziness, combined, still don't spell "lack of evidence". Your failure to do your homework just means you have no business getting involved in this thread among folks better informed than you. Your efforts to make others do the research you should have done months ago are just infantile. Not to mention self-debasing, and ridiculous on top of that.

LMAO! So, you can't prove anything and are trying to hide it by your "aggressive" post. Facts are pesky things. At this point, all you have are allegations from Prosecutors of what they THINK was done based on what Cohen admitted to doing based on what he needed to say to get mercy from the courts. NO amount of slurs and name calling will change that. I've not asked anyone to do research for me. I am pointing out that there's been several stories and none have been proven yet. So, go pound sand.

I see. So you think prosecutors who know that their professional reputation is on the line, would file an allegation that will be scrutinized to the umpteenth degree by every lawyer the GOP can muster? Not to mention the house and the senate if this would lead to impeachment? You think the only thing they have is Cohen's testimony? Even while other people are cutting deals left and right? I'm sorry to tell you, and I sure don't want you to call me "aggressive". But that seems just being willfully ignorant.

I think Prosecutors sometimes think things are crimes and end up being mistaken. John Edwards' prosecution comes to mind as an example of this. I am willing to wait until the investigations are over and things have been proven. What I'm not sure about is why, when so many versions of the story have been told, people are rushing to judgement based on what they HOPE is the correct version. It's not willfully ignorant. It's being prudent.

I'm willing to wait to, hope has little to do with it. I'm probably the only person on this board that can prove having a consistent view on support for the DOJ and it's procedures. That doesn't mean you can't make educated guesses. Or in this case, VERY good educated guesses, considering that people are pleading guilty and cooperate in exchange for immunity, not to mention that prosecutors in high profile cases like this tend to be REALLY careful. That doesn't mean I couldn't be wrong, it does mean that it's highly unlikely.

 

[hunarcy]

Ok, I heard it a few months back as well. I had trouble understanding everything that was said but, I heard nothing of arranging fake invoices and intentional violations of tax law.

Yeah, but your ignorance, lack of intellectual curiosity and laziness, combined, still don't spell "lack of evidence". Your failure to do your homework just means you have no business getting involved in this thread among folks better informed than you. Your efforts to make others do the research you should have done months ago are just infantile. Not to mention self-debasing, and ridiculous on top of that.

LMAO! So, you can't prove anything and are trying to hide it by your "aggressive" post. Facts are pesky things. At this point, all you have are allegations from Prosecutors of what they THINK was done based on what Cohen admitted to doing based on what he needed to say to get mercy from the courts. NO amount of slurs and name calling will change that. I've not asked anyone to do research for me. I am pointing out that there's been several stories and none have been proven yet. So, go pound sand.

I see. So you think prosecutors who know that their professional reputation is on the line, would file an allegation that will be scrutinized to the umpteenth degree by every lawyer the GOP can muster? Not to mention the house and the senate if this would lead to impeachment? You think the only thing they have is Cohen's testimony? Even while other people are cutting deals left and right? I'm sorry to tell you, and I sure don't want you to call me "aggressive". But that seems just being willfully ignorant.

I think Prosecutors sometimes think things are crimes and end up being mistaken. John Edwards' prosecution comes to mind as an example of this. I am willing to wait until the investigations are over and things have been proven. What I'm not sure about is why, when so many versions of the story have been told, people are rushing to judgement based on what they HOPE is the correct version. It's not willfully ignorant. It's being prudent.

I'm willing to wait to, hope has little to do with it. I'm probably the only person on this board that can prove having a consistent view on support for the DOJ and it's procedures. That doesn't mean you can't make educated guesses. Or in this case, VERY good educated guesses, considering that people are pleading guilty and cooperate in exchange for immunity, not to mention that prosecutors in high profile cases like this tend to be REALLY careful. That doesn't mean I couldn't be wrong, it does mean that it's highly unlikely.

The point is not whether YOU are wrong or not, nor is speculation wrong. It's a fun activity and one that I engage in as well. But, there are people who are stating as FACT things that have not been proven and castigating people for holding viewpoints that are contrary to those facts. I merely point out that until all the facts are in and the investigations and trials (if any are held) are in, there should be no rush to judgement by lay people (such as the people on this board). Trump could very well be guilty of something, but he, like Hillary Clinton and everyone else in this nation, is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. And if proven guilty, I hope he's punished to the full extent of the law.

 

[Olde Europe]

I'm willing to wait to, hope has little to do with it. I'm probably the only person on this board that can prove having a consistent view on support for the DOJ and it's procedures. That doesn't mean you can't make educated guesses. Or in this case, VERY good educated guesses, considering that people are pleading guilty and cooperate in exchange for immunity, not to mention that prosecutors in high profile cases like this tend to be REALLY careful. That doesn't mean I couldn't be wrong, it does mean that it's highly unlikely.

Yep, but then you aren't lying your ass off, and betraying or feigning ignorance, while trying to appear reasonable in subservience to the Dear Leader.

Trump's donation to his own campaign to the tune of $280k is well established as fact (Trump himself admitted it while ludicrously angling for the Edwards defense), far exceeding spending limits, as is the structured reimbursement to conceal the donation and possibly to commit tax fraud, as is setting up a shell company and using the Enquirer as conduits for the purpose of that campaign donation. Add the failed reporting requirement on top of that, along with conspiracy to get it all done, and it amounts to felonious campaign finance fraud.

All that is clear as day. It takes either willful ignorance in conjunction with shameless mendacity or living in a hermetically sealed Faux-Breitbart-bubble not to have noticed any of that.

 

[forkup]

Yeah, but your ignorance, lack of intellectual curiosity and laziness, combined, still don't spell "lack of evidence". Your failure to do your homework just means you have no business getting involved in this thread among folks better informed than you. Your efforts to make others do the research you should have done months ago are just infantile. Not to mention self-debasing, and ridiculous on top of that.

LMAO! So, you can't prove anything and are trying to hide it by your "aggressive" post. Facts are pesky things. At this point, all you have are allegations from Prosecutors of what they THINK was done based on what Cohen admitted to doing based on what he needed to say to get mercy from the courts. NO amount of slurs and name calling will change that. I've not asked anyone to do research for me. I am pointing out that there's been several stories and none have been proven yet. So, go pound sand.

I see. So you think prosecutors who know that their professional reputation is on the line, would file an allegation that will be scrutinized to the umpteenth degree by every lawyer the GOP can muster? Not to mention the house and the senate if this would lead to impeachment? You think the only thing they have is Cohen's testimony? Even while other people are cutting deals left and right? I'm sorry to tell you, and I sure don't want you to call me "aggressive". But that seems just being willfully ignorant.

I think Prosecutors sometimes think things are crimes and end up being mistaken. John Edwards' prosecution comes to mind as an example of this. I am willing to wait until the investigations are over and things have been proven. What I'm not sure about is why, when so many versions of the story have been told, people are rushing to judgement based on what they HOPE is the correct version. It's not willfully ignorant. It's being prudent.

I'm willing to wait to, hope has little to do with it. I'm probably the only person on this board that can prove having a consistent view on support for the DOJ and it's procedures. That doesn't mean you can't make educated guesses. Or in this case, VERY good educated guesses, considering that people are pleading guilty and cooperate in exchange for immunity, not to mention that prosecutors in high profile cases like this tend to be REALLY careful. That doesn't mean I couldn't be wrong, it does mean that it's highly unlikely.

The point is not whether YOU are wrong or not, nor is speculation wrong. It's a fun activity and one that I engage in as well. But, there are people who are stating as FACT things that have not been proven and castigating people for holding viewpoints that are contrary to those facts. I merely point out that until all the facts are in and the investigations and trials (if any are held) are in, there should be no rush to judgement by lay people (such as the people on this board). Trump could very well be guilty of something, but he, like Hillary Clinton and everyone else in this nation, is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. And if proven guilty, I hope he's punished to the full extent of the law.

Let's look at the facts then.
-Fact, Cohen has plead guilty to among other things campaign finance violations.
-Fact, the judge has accepted the plea. Meaning, he agrees that in fact campaign finance violations were committed.
-Fact, in that plea it was asserted that he committed those campaign finance violations on the behest of, and at the direction of someone called individual one.
-Fact, there is a tape in the public realm were you can hear Trump and Cohen discussing those particular payments.
This to me makes it that it stretches credulity that no crimes were committed, or that Trump hasn't been implicated. If you can find any fault in this reasoning, I welcome you to put words to it. Remember it's REASONABLE doubt, not the absence of doubt that is required to be guilty.

 

[hunarcy]

LMAO! So, you can't prove anything and are trying to hide it by your "aggressive" post. Facts are pesky things. At this point, all you have are allegations from Prosecutors of what they THINK was done based on what Cohen admitted to doing based on what he needed to say to get mercy from the courts. NO amount of slurs and name calling will change that. I've not asked anyone to do research for me. I am pointing out that there's been several stories and none have been proven yet. So, go pound sand.

I see. So you think prosecutors who know that their professional reputation is on the line, would file an allegation that will be scrutinized to the umpteenth degree by every lawyer the GOP can muster? Not to mention the house and the senate if this would lead to impeachment? You think the only thing they have is Cohen's testimony? Even while other people are cutting deals left and right? I'm sorry to tell you, and I sure don't want you to call me "aggressive". But that seems just being willfully ignorant.

I think Prosecutors sometimes think things are crimes and end up being mistaken. John Edwards' prosecution comes to mind as an example of this. I am willing to wait until the investigations are over and things have been proven. What I'm not sure about is why, when so many versions of the story have been told, people are rushing to judgement based on what they HOPE is the correct version. It's not willfully ignorant. It's being prudent.

I'm willing to wait to, hope has little to do with it. I'm probably the only person on this board that can prove having a consistent view on support for the DOJ and it's procedures. That doesn't mean you can't make educated guesses. Or in this case, VERY good educated guesses, considering that people are pleading guilty and cooperate in exchange for immunity, not to mention that prosecutors in high profile cases like this tend to be REALLY careful. That doesn't mean I couldn't be wrong, it does mean that it's highly unlikely.

The point is not whether YOU are wrong or not, nor is speculation wrong. It's a fun activity and one that I engage in as well. But, there are people who are stating as FACT things that have not been proven and castigating people for holding viewpoints that are contrary to those facts. I merely point out that until all the facts are in and the investigations and trials (if any are held) are in, there should be no rush to judgement by lay people (such as the people on this board). Trump could very well be guilty of something, but he, like Hillary Clinton and everyone else in this nation, is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. And if proven guilty, I hope he's punished to the full extent of the law.

Let's look at the facts then.
-Fact, Cohen has plead guilty to among other things campaign finance violations.
-Fact, the judge has accepted the plea. Meaning, he agrees that in fact campaign finance violations were committed.
-Fact, in that plea it was asserted that he committed those campaign finance violations on the behest of, and at the direction of someone called individual one.
-Fact, there is a tape in the public realm were you can hear Trump and Cohen discussing those particular payments.
This to me makes it that it stretches credulity that no crimes were committed, or that Trump hasn't been implicated. If you can find any fault in this reasoning, I welcome you to put words to it. Remember it's REASONABLE doubt, not the absence of doubt that is required to be guilty.

Everything you say is true, however, your interpretation of the tape and what is said is NOT a fact. A valid defense would be that Trump believed the payments for the NDA were to protect his family/marriage from the harm that the stories might cause and wasn't related to his campaign...especially of such NDAs had been used by him in the past for similar reasons.

In campaign finance laws, my understanding is that such payments must “campaign-related” – and therefore if the purpose was not "campaign-related" the rules and regulations governing campaign contributions don’t apply.

 

[forkup]

I see. So you think prosecutors who know that their professional reputation is on the line, would file an allegation that will be scrutinized to the umpteenth degree by every lawyer the GOP can muster? Not to mention the house and the senate if this would lead to impeachment? You think the only thing they have is Cohen's testimony? Even while other people are cutting deals left and right? I'm sorry to tell you, and I sure don't want you to call me "aggressive". But that seems just being willfully ignorant.

I think Prosecutors sometimes think things are crimes and end up being mistaken. John Edwards' prosecution comes to mind as an example of this. I am willing to wait until the investigations are over and things have been proven. What I'm not sure about is why, when so many versions of the story have been told, people are rushing to judgement based on what they HOPE is the correct version. It's not willfully ignorant. It's being prudent.

I'm willing to wait to, hope has little to do with it. I'm probably the only person on this board that can prove having a consistent view on support for the DOJ and it's procedures. That doesn't mean you can't make educated guesses. Or in this case, VERY good educated guesses, considering that people are pleading guilty and cooperate in exchange for immunity, not to mention that prosecutors in high profile cases like this tend to be REALLY careful. That doesn't mean I couldn't be wrong, it does mean that it's highly unlikely.

The point is not whether YOU are wrong or not, nor is speculation wrong. It's a fun activity and one that I engage in as well. But, there are people who are stating as FACT things that have not been proven and castigating people for holding viewpoints that are contrary to those facts. I merely point out that until all the facts are in and the investigations and trials (if any are held) are in, there should be no rush to judgement by lay people (such as the people on this board). Trump could very well be guilty of something, but he, like Hillary Clinton and everyone else in this nation, is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. And if proven guilty, I hope he's punished to the full extent of the law.

Let's look at the facts then.
-Fact, Cohen has plead guilty to among other things campaign finance violations.
-Fact, the judge has accepted the plea. Meaning, he agrees that in fact campaign finance violations were committed.
-Fact, in that plea it was asserted that he committed those campaign finance violations on the behest of, and at the direction of someone called individual one.
-Fact, there is a tape in the public realm were you can hear Trump and Cohen discussing those particular payments.
This to me makes it that it stretches credulity that no crimes were committed, or that Trump hasn't been implicated. If you can find any fault in this reasoning, I welcome you to put words to it. Remember it's REASONABLE doubt, not the absence of doubt that is required to be guilty.

Everything you say is true, however, your interpretation of the tape and what is said is NOT a fact. A valid defense would be that Trump believed the payments for the NDA were to protect his family/marriage from the harm that the stories might cause and wasn't related to his campaign...especially of such NDAs had been used by him in the past for similar reasons.

In campaign finance laws, my understanding is that such payments must “campaign-related” – and therefore if the purpose was not "campaign-related" the rules and regulations governing campaign contributions don’t apply.

If the judge acknowledged the plea he has accepted the argument that it is a campaign violation, so it's not MY interpretation. Or do you think it's a campaign violation for Cohen but not for Trump? The law doesn't work that way.

 

[Siete]

I see. So you think prosecutors who know that their professional reputation is on the line, would file an allegation that will be scrutinized to the umpteenth degree by every lawyer the GOP can muster? Not to mention the house and the senate if this would lead to impeachment? You think the only thing they have is Cohen's testimony? Even while other people are cutting deals left and right? I'm sorry to tell you, and I sure don't want you to call me "aggressive". But that seems just being willfully ignorant.

I think Prosecutors sometimes think things are crimes and end up being mistaken. John Edwards' prosecution comes to mind as an example of this. I am willing to wait until the investigations are over and things have been proven. What I'm not sure about is why, when so many versions of the story have been told, people are rushing to judgement based on what they HOPE is the correct version. It's not willfully ignorant. It's being prudent.

I'm willing to wait to, hope has little to do with it. I'm probably the only person on this board that can prove having a consistent view on support for the DOJ and it's procedures. That doesn't mean you can't make educated guesses. Or in this case, VERY good educated guesses, considering that people are pleading guilty and cooperate in exchange for immunity, not to mention that prosecutors in high profile cases like this tend to be REALLY careful. That doesn't mean I couldn't be wrong, it does mean that it's highly unlikely.

The point is not whether YOU are wrong or not, nor is speculation wrong. It's a fun activity and one that I engage in as well. But, there are people who are stating as FACT things that have not been proven and castigating people for holding viewpoints that are contrary to those facts. I merely point out that until all the facts are in and the investigations and trials (if any are held) are in, there should be no rush to judgement by lay people (such as the people on this board). Trump could very well be guilty of something, but he, like Hillary Clinton and everyone else in this nation, is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. And if proven guilty, I hope he's punished to the full extent of the law.

Let's look at the facts then.
-Fact, Cohen has plead guilty to among other things campaign finance violations.
-Fact, the judge has accepted the plea. Meaning, he agrees that in fact campaign finance violations were committed.
-Fact, in that plea it was asserted that he committed those campaign finance violations on the behest of, and at the direction of someone called individual one.
-Fact, there is a tape in the public realm were you can hear Trump and Cohen discussing those particular payments.
This to me makes it that it stretches credulity that no crimes were committed, or that Trump hasn't been implicated. If you can find any fault in this reasoning, I welcome you to put words to it. Remember it's REASONABLE doubt, not the absence of doubt that is required to be guilty.

Everything you say is true, however, your interpretation of the tape and what is said is NOT a fact. A valid defense would be that Trump believed the payments for the NDA were to protect his family/marriage from the harm that the stories might cause and wasn't related to his campaign...especially of such NDAs had been used by him in the past for similar reasons.

In campaign finance laws, my understanding is that such payments must “campaign-related” – and therefore if the purpose was not "campaign-related" the rules and regulations governing campaign contributions don’t apply.

doesnt count that Trump was in the room when said tape was being made does it - of course not.

yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

 

[jc456]

People, realize, the mere fact Trump exists, is a crime.

 

[hunarcy]

I think Prosecutors sometimes think things are crimes and end up being mistaken. John Edwards' prosecution comes to mind as an example of this. I am willing to wait until the investigations are over and things have been proven. What I'm not sure about is why, when so many versions of the story have been told, people are rushing to judgement based on what they HOPE is the correct version. It's not willfully ignorant. It's being prudent.

I'm willing to wait to, hope has little to do with it. I'm probably the only person on this board that can prove having a consistent view on support for the DOJ and it's procedures. That doesn't mean you can't make educated guesses. Or in this case, VERY good educated guesses, considering that people are pleading guilty and cooperate in exchange for immunity, not to mention that prosecutors in high profile cases like this tend to be REALLY careful. That doesn't mean I couldn't be wrong, it does mean that it's highly unlikely.

The point is not whether YOU are wrong or not, nor is speculation wrong. It's a fun activity and one that I engage in as well. But, there are people who are stating as FACT things that have not been proven and castigating people for holding viewpoints that are contrary to those facts. I merely point out that until all the facts are in and the investigations and trials (if any are held) are in, there should be no rush to judgement by lay people (such as the people on this board). Trump could very well be guilty of something, but he, like Hillary Clinton and everyone else in this nation, is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. And if proven guilty, I hope he's punished to the full extent of the law.

Let's look at the facts then.
-Fact, Cohen has plead guilty to among other things campaign finance violations.
-Fact, the judge has accepted the plea. Meaning, he agrees that in fact campaign finance violations were committed.
-Fact, in that plea it was asserted that he committed those campaign finance violations on the behest of, and at the direction of someone called individual one.
-Fact, there is a tape in the public realm were you can hear Trump and Cohen discussing those particular payments.
This to me makes it that it stretches credulity that no crimes were committed, or that Trump hasn't been implicated. If you can find any fault in this reasoning, I welcome you to put words to it. Remember it's REASONABLE doubt, not the absence of doubt that is required to be guilty.

Everything you say is true, however, your interpretation of the tape and what is said is NOT a fact. A valid defense would be that Trump believed the payments for the NDA were to protect his family/marriage from the harm that the stories might cause and wasn't related to his campaign...especially of such NDAs had been used by him in the past for similar reasons.

In campaign finance laws, my understanding is that such payments must “campaign-related” – and therefore if the purpose was not "campaign-related" the rules and regulations governing campaign contributions don’t apply.

If the judge acknowledged the plea he has accepted the argument that it is a campaign violation, so it's not MY interpretation. Or do you think it's a campaign violation for Cohen but not for Trump? The law doesn't work that way.

Each is responsible for his own actions. Cohen admitted he committed a crime based on his understanding. Trump claims he did not commit a crime based on what he understand. Both may be right. One may be right and one wrong. It has happened before that 2 people were tried for the same crime and one was found guilty and the other found not guilty. It's up to the courts to decide. You can believe what you want, but you shouldn't state your belief as a fact.