- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Our President tweets about Muh Cohen!
Posted on 12/13/18 at 8:32 am to GumboPot
Posted on 12/13/18 at 8:32 am to GumboPot
quote:
Dude, Edward actually got campaign donors to pay off his lover to keep quiet and was found not guilty.
The BIG Difference is that his campaign donors didn't admit that it was for the purpose of helping his campaign.
All parties, except Trump have now admitted to the principal thing that makes it a crime. That's a huge distinction between this and the Edwards case.
2
Posted on 12/13/18 at 8:34 am to GumboPot
quote:
Haha. Your star witness is a proven liar by the same prosecution team.
Nope your star witness is now AMI and the Trump Org's CFO. They were both given immunity.
Posted on 12/13/18 at 8:36 am to TOKEN
quote:
Yea, Cohen was probably looking down the barrel of a gun and chose a knife cut instead. You can’t really blame him for not wanting to spend 20 plus years in the can.
You can't use this same excuse for AMI. They were granted immunity without 20 years behind held over them. How do you want to try to explain that away?
Posted on 12/13/18 at 8:37 am to Strannix
quote:
He let a Clinton fixer represent him and he plead guilty to imaginary crimes, how fricking stupid can you be.
you have a lot of unidentified pronouns in that sentence. how fricking stupid can who be?
Posted on 12/13/18 at 8:39 am to 007tiger
quote:
Your lawyer-fixer tells you he will create a shell company to pay off a sex partner from 2007, during your election in 2016, & submits false invoices to your company to hide the loan he has made to you to pay her. Good luck with that argument.
“shell company”. What do you think that means? Do you think it is something nefarious? What is your legal expertise? What basis do you have to claim what Trump said is not 100 percent true?
Posted on 12/13/18 at 8:40 am to 9th life
He's blaming Cohen for being stupid for having Lanny Davis represent him (though Davis did nothing but speak for Cohen in the media and didn't represent him with regard to his charges - that was Guy Petrillo, a former SDNY guy who's now a high-priced NY defense attorney).
Posted on 12/13/18 at 8:40 am to GumboPot
quote:
Dude, Edward actually got campaign donors to pay off his lover to keep quiet and was found not guilty.
Judge Nap thinks the Edwards case defense hurts Trump:
LINK /
Napolitano then broke down why exactly Trump’s actions constitute a crime:
quote:
“Unfortunately, the president wasn’t in the courtroom, and the people who were, the federal prosecutors, who had a statement from David Pecker, the guy that owns the — National Enquirer said it was for the campaign, the prosecutors said it was for the campaign, Michael Cohen said it was for the campaign. The president wasn’t there. Maybe he should have had lawyers there. So, if you make an honest mistake in failing to report something, or if you take $100,000 and you’re only supposed to take $2,500, you can correct that by returning the money, paying a fine and correcting the report. If you do this as part of a scheme to hide it, then it’s not a civil wrong, then it’s a crime. That’s what the judge found yesterday.”
Posted on 12/13/18 at 8:41 am to TigerDoc
quote:
Cohen is gonna be pissed when he realizes he pleaded guilty to a non-crime.
Oh Doc.
Even someone with zero legal experience should know this statement is silly. Go to any courtroom with a criminal docket in the country this morning. You will learn so much. 
Posted on 12/13/18 at 8:42 am to 007tiger
quote:
You can't use this same excuse for AMI
Sorry, whose AMI?
Posted on 12/13/18 at 8:42 am to 007tiger
Again, Edwards had never entered into an NDA in the past prior to the one with his child's mother. The idea that the money was for anything else other than to help his campaign is ludicrous.
In Trump's case, the guy has a brand. He was a famous billionaire before he became President. And Cohen himself has admitted that these aren't the only NDA's he's drafted for Trump. In fact, most of these NDA's were drafted before he was President. Read 52 U.S.C. 30114(b)(2), which states that campaign-related expenses do not include funds "used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign."
You have to be an irrational fool to think Trump couldn't prove he would have paid them off regardless of whether or not he was running for office.
In Trump's case, the guy has a brand. He was a famous billionaire before he became President. And Cohen himself has admitted that these aren't the only NDA's he's drafted for Trump. In fact, most of these NDA's were drafted before he was President. Read 52 U.S.C. 30114(b)(2), which states that campaign-related expenses do not include funds "used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign."
You have to be an irrational fool to think Trump couldn't prove he would have paid them off regardless of whether or not he was running for office.
Posted on 12/13/18 at 8:43 am to 007tiger
quote:
BIG Difference is that his campaign donors didn't admit that it was for the purpose of helping his campaign
are you aware of the elements of he crime and the defenses? Dude...we knownorange man is bad...but you clearly have zero clue what you are talking about. Posted on 12/13/18 at 8:43 am to BBONDS25
quote:
What is your legal expertise? What basis do you have to claim what Trump said is not 100 percent true?
I'm going with the legal experts Judge Nap AND Andrew McCarthy of FOX NEWS.
LINK
Andrew C. McCarthy: Why Trump is likely to be indicted by Manhattan US Attorney
Posted on 12/13/18 at 8:43 am to TigerDoc
quote:
He's blaming Cohen for being stupid for having Lanny Davis represent him (though Davis did nothing but speak for Cohen in the media and didn't represent him with regard to his charges - that was Guy Petrillo, a former SDNY guy who's now a high-priced NY defense attorney).
got it
Posted on 12/13/18 at 8:45 am to SCLibertarian
It was a private transaction used with money that never touched the campaign. I also think you’re right about Trump being able to prove extortion and payoffs have happened before ever ran for Prez. Dertz has stated many times this is a fine at worst.
This post was edited on 12/13/18 at 8:47 am
Posted on 12/13/18 at 8:46 am to TOKEN
quote:
Sorry, whose AMI?
they are the parent company of the National Enquirer.
From SDNY:
Corporation-1 is AMI and Magazine-1 is the National Enquirer and Chairman-1 is David pecker.
quote:
At all times relevant to this Information,
Corporation-1 was a media company that owns, among other things,
a popular tabloid magazine ("Magazine-1").
27. In or about August 2015, the Chairman and Chief
Executive of Corporation-1 ( "Chairman-1"), in coordination with
MICHAEL COHEN, the defendant, and one or more members of the
campaign, offered to help deal with negative stories about
Individual-l's relationships with women by, among other things,
assisting the campaign in identifying such stories so they could
be purchased and their publication avoided. Chairman-1 agreed to
keep COHEN apprised of any such negative stories.
Posted on 12/13/18 at 8:47 am to 007tiger
quote:
007tiger
60 posts but joined in 2007
Comes out on fire about muh Cohen
Judge Nap is a moron and so is McCarthy
Posted on 12/13/18 at 8:48 am to More&Les
“...guilty even on a civil basis.” Is wrong
Posted on 12/13/18 at 8:49 am to SCLibertarian
quote:
You have to be an irrational fool to think Trump couldn't prove he would have paid them off regardless of whether or not he was running for office.
That's hard when they met in 2015 and discussed ways the AMI/National Enquirer could help his CAMPAIGN thru catch and kill. Then they do the catch and kill in 2016.
Posted on 12/13/18 at 8:49 am to 007tiger
quote:
I'm going with the legal experts Judge Nap AND Andrew McCarthy of FOX NEWS.
Appeal to authority? You can’t formilate an argument in your own? You do realize very good lawyers meet in court every single day and argue for complete opposite results, right? You thinking what one commentator on fox says is determinative shows how poor your legal acumen is. So far you have used trite talking points about things you have no idea. You have engaged in a logical fallacy of appealing to authority, and you have yet to make any actual argument.
Things aren’t illegal simply because you want them to be and because orange man bad.
Are you not aware of the audio tape Cohen surreptitiously took when Trump specifically states that if there is any payment it must be “on the up and up”? Are you aware intent is an element of the alleged crime? Are you aware that if trump entered into similar NDAs prior to becoming a candidate that would be a defense to the allleged crime? Are you aware the alleged violation is that Cohen made a contribution above the limit. That “contribution” was
Reimbursed, yet the SDNY relies on that reimbursement as evidence of wrongdoing? It’s circular and a bootstrap.
You take a statement made by someone the investigators claimed lied to them at every step as truth and satisfaction of required elements by someone else despite all of the evidence to the contrary? That is silly.
Posted on 12/13/18 at 8:50 am to SDVTiger
I remember when Judge Nap was the only person on Fox to defend Ron Paul and the libertarian position on most issues. Now he sounds more like a foaming-at-the-mouth neocon when it comes to cheerleading rogue prosecutors and their win-at-all-costs mentality. Do they have pics of Nap diddling a kid or something?
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News