Why Alvin and not the Feds? Or, why Cohen and not Individual 1?

[ThisIsMe]

Because after all.......

Trump makes a desperate attempt to downplay illegal payments to women

President Donald Trump began his week by trying to downplay illegal hush payments to women made late in the 2016 presidential campaign — ones that federal prosecutors now say he directed and coordinated — as a mere “simple private transaction.”
Trump makes a desperate attempt to downplay illegal payments to women

However............

Inside Barr’s Effort to Undermine Prosecutors in N.Y.

Shortly after he became attorney general last year, William P. Barr set out to challenge a signature criminal case that touched President Trump’s inner circle directly, and even the president’s own actions: the prosecution of Michael D. Cohen, Mr. Trump’s longtime fixer.

The debate between Mr. Barr and the federal prosecutors who brought the case against Mr. Cohen was one of the first signs of a tense relationship that culminated last weekend in the abrupt ouster of Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States attorney in Manhattan. It also foreshadowed Mr. Barr’s intervention in the prosecutions of other associates of Mr. Trump.

By the time Mr. Barr was sworn into office in February, Mr. Cohen, who had paid hush money to an adult film star who said she had an affair with Mr. Trump, had already pleaded guilty and was set to begin a three-year prison sentence, all of which embarrassed and angered the president.

But Mr. Barr spent weeks in the spring of 2019 questioning the prosecutors over their decision to charge Mr. Cohen with violating campaign finance laws, according to people briefed on the matter.
Inside Barr’s Effort to Undermine Prosecutors in N.Y. (Published 2020)

Eventually, Billy the Bagman pushed to have the charges against Cohen dropped. From Berman's book..........."While Cohen had pleaded guilty, our office continued to pursue investigations related to other possible campaign finance violations. When Barr took over in Feb. of 2019, he not only tried to kill the ongoing investigations but...incredibly...suggested that Cohen's conviction on campaign finance charges be reversed."

Why?

Because Individual 1 was implicated in the same illegal campaign finance violations Cohen had plead guilty to.

Book: The DOJ almost implicated Trump more directly in a crime

It was a shocking enough document as it was. Donald Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, had pleaded guilty to illegally concealing hush money paid to two women who were accusing Trump of extramarital affairs. The 2018 charging document implicated Trump, named as “Individual-1,” notably by saying he attended a meeting about how he might quash any negative stories about his relationships.

And it might have implicated Trump even further, then-U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman now says — were it not for the kind of politically tinged meddling that he says was endemic in the Trump Justice Department.

The New York Times last week briefly noted that Berman’s new book alleges that a Justice Department official tried to get references to Trump removed from the Cohen charging document. And now that the book is out, we have Berman’s fuller account of the events.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...-almost-implicated-trump-more-directly-crime/

Much has been made by people like me about how ugly things could get with respect to the DoJ should Trump be re-elected. In part based on what kind of retribution he has promised against those involved in trying to bring him to justice. But also because of his track record of using the DoJ, one could say weaponizing it, for his own benefit or against his perceived enemies. Like this...........

‘Really shocking': Trump’s meddling in Stone case stuns Washington

President Donald Trump’s post-impeachment acquittal behavior is casting a chill in Washington, with Attorney General William Barr emerging as a key ally in the president’s quest for vengeance against the law enforcement and national security establishment that initiated the Russia and Ukraine investigations.

In perhaps the most tumultuous day yet for the Justice Department under Trump, four top prosecutors withdrew on Tuesday from a case involving the president’s longtime friend Roger Stone after senior department officials overrode their sentencing recommendation—a backpedaling that DOJ veterans and legal experts suspect was influenced by Trump’s own displeasure with the prosecutors’ judgment.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/12/trump-roger-stone-justice-department-114684

Past, as they say, is prologue.

NDAs aren’t illegal

 

[ThisIsMe]

Trump is not being charged with paying hush money....he's charged with the illegal cover up.

He's charged with business fraud... And with breaking campaign finance laws....

There is no business fraud. The entry in the books is a misdemeanor book keeping error.

NDAs are perfectly legal, they are used all the time

 

[elektra]

you two should probably settle your differences before replying to me.
Though indictments do in fact assert guilt. Those assertions still having to be proven in a court of law does not change that fact.

hahahahaha, like I am conflicted within myself, you are a riot. The second part is even better.

Indictments assert guilt. hahahahahha, and I always thought that was what EVIDENCE was for, in a court of law. Why even have a trial, you have already proven guilt by charging someone.

Now that you have established guilt with an indictment, how about a simple cut/paste of where in that indictment it becomes clear, and that guilt is clearly asserted.

Of course the irony is, how all you dumbass democrats almost alway, contradict yourself and then project that onto others. You claim that the indictment proves the guilt, which is what asserting is, and then you contradict yourself by saying it must be proven? Hence the projection, look in the mirror, and "settle your differences before replying to me".

To a T, predictable, always, projecting.

idiot

 

[elektra]

That kinda goes back to you reading the indictment.

You post the link, you quote from the link, links do not make you right, and in this case I did read the right, and that is not in the indictment, you are wrong, you think otherwise, go back and quote me and quote where it shows I am wrong in the indictment, you wont do that though, it proves you are wrong.

 

[AntonToo]

hahahahaha, like I am conflicted within myself, you are a riot. The second part is even better.

Indictments assert guilt. hahahahahha, and I always thought that was what EVIDENCE was for, in a court of law. Why even have a trial, you have already proven guilt by charging someone.

Now that you have established guilt with an indictment, how about a simple cut/paste of where in that indictment it becomes clear, and that guilt is clearly asserted.

Of course the irony is, how all you dumbass democrats almost alway, contradict yourself and then project that onto others. You claim that the indictment proves the guilt, which is what asserting is, and then you contradict yourself by saying it must be proven? Hence the projection, look in the mirror, and "settle your differences before replying to me".

To a T, predictable, always, projecting.

idiot

….I’ve clearly said assertion of guilt in indictments still has to be proven at trial.

Are you on meds? If not, maybe you should be, your posting is incoherent.

 

[22lcidw]

….I clearly said assertion of guilt is not proof of guilt.

Are you on meds? If not, maybe you should be, your posting is incoherent.

People need to not associate with other people who have such divergent vires on politics and living. So, remove the racist highways and build newer one's miles away to go around any areas of concern. Win/win.

 

[elektra]

….I’ve clearly said assertion of guilt in indictments still has to be proven at trial.

Are you on meds? If not, maybe you should be, your posting is incoherent.

I know what you said, and it is still wrong, even though you are now walking your statement backwards.

Here is the statement you made. Regardless of anything else you add, your statement is 100% wrong.

Though indictments do in fact assert guilt.

 

[berg80]

There is no business fraud. The entry in the books is a misdemeanor book keeping error.

NDAs are perfectly legal, they are used all the time

Like many Trumpleton's you appear to be confused about the nature of the crimes His Orangeness has been indicted for.

 

[AntonToo]

I know what you said, and it is still wrong, even though you are now walking your statement backwards.

Here is the statement you made. Regardless of anything else you add, your statement is 100% wrong.

Yes AND?

Asserting guilt is not proving guilt.

You are not coherently explaining what you think is wrong or why.

 

[elektra]

Yes AND?
Asserting guilt is not proving guilt.
You are not coherently explaining what you think is wrong or why.

You made a claim about an indictment, go quote where in the indictment guilt is asserted.

Anton, I shall indict you, you committed murder. You are now guilty. See how that works. Anton, you claimed Trump is guilty because he was indicted.

AntonToo said:
Though indictments do in fact assert guilt.

 

[elektra]

Yes AND?
Asserting guilt is not proving guilt.
You are not coherently explaining what you think is wrong or why.

You claimed that the indictment shows the opposite of innocence, that is guilt. The indictment claims that Trump violated other laws, laws in which no court has indicted Trump for. Your response was to argue that Trump is guilty based on simply being indicted.

If you think I am incoherent, quoting you, that shows that your political ideology overrides your intellect, if you have any.

Though indictments do in fact assert guilt.

No moron, indictments do not say the accused is innocent, they claim the opposite.

 

[AntonToo]

You claimed that the indictment shows the opposite of innocence,

no dumbass, I said that indictment asserts guilt in response to your idiotic claim that it says Trump is innocent.

Nowhere did I use the word “shows” or “proves”

Take your silly save-face bullshit and get lost already.

 

[Dragonlady]

This is nothing more than, what is good for congress is not good for the public.

Congress had it's own hush money fund to pay off the lovers of all the congressman. Now, suddenly, when it comes to Trump, what Congress did for decades is no longer legal?

More politics, weaponizing the Courts, Law, against political enemies. Read it for yourself, here is one example of Congress using money to keep sexual harassment and their mistresses, quiet.

$18.2 Million Congressional Slush Fund for #MeToo Claims

Since 1997, the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights has paid out $18.2 million to settle 291 cases of workplace disputes for Congress, the Capitol Police, the Architect of the Capitol, and the Li

www.realclearpolicy.com

TRUMP TRIED TO CLAIM THE PAYMENTS AS A BUSINESS EXPENSE!!!!

That's why he's on trial. Not because he paid her, but because he illegally claimed a tax deduction.

 

[Billiejeens]

Stormy's tax compliance is irrelavant to case againt Trump.

May be the only correct answer that you have ever posted.

 

[SeaMajor7]

no dumbass, I said that indictment asserts guilt in response to your claim that indictment says Trump is innocent.

An indictment is an ACCUSATION of "guilt", not an assertation.
Words mean things!!!!!

 

[AntonToo]

An indictment is an ACCUSATION of "guilt”

You hear that elektra?

Guilt, not innocence.

 

[Billiejeens]

the case is “obviously political” and an “abomination,” noting that charges were brought years later in the case.

 

[Billiejeens]

You hear that elektra?

Guilt, not innocence.

Accusation, only- you moron.

 

[Billiejeens]

“It’s obviously political, seven years after he pays hush money to try and come up with this case,

 

[Billiejeens]

“The real threat to liberty, the real threat to our system, are the excesses of the progressive left. They are perverting the system of justice and that’s where the danger lies. The corruption and subversion of our institutions by the left