- 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: WSJ: David Pecker gave evidence of Trump's knowledge of payoffs
Posted on 8/23/18 at 7:37 am to RollTide1987
Posted on 8/23/18 at 7:37 am to RollTide1987
quote:
Exactly. What COHEN did. I don't see Trump's name anywhere in the quoted text. And while Cohen may have thought what he was doing was influencing the election, Trump may have just seen it as granting another one of his side pieces a payout.
Individual-1 is President Trump. Cohen's plea says that Individual-1 Directed Cohen to coordinate these crimes.
1
Posted on 8/23/18 at 7:37 am to the808bass
Cohen had to literally admit, "I did this to influence the election and I knew it was against the law" in order to charge him criminally. That was the only way. This portion of his plea deal was purely political.
Posted on 8/23/18 at 7:38 am to John McClane
quote:
He can know about payments and he can direct payments. What he can’t do is direct payments that he knew were illegal. Evidence of that knowledge will be very hard to prove. And that’s based on the underlying premise that the money is considered a campaign contribution... good luck
Ignorance of the law is not a defense for violating the law.
Posted on 8/23/18 at 7:39 am to tigerinDC09
quote:
COHEN caused and made the payments described herein in order to influence the 2016 presidential election. In so doing, he coordinated with one or more members of the campaign, including through meetings and phone calls, about the fact, nature, and timing of the payments. As a result of the payments solicited and made by COHEN, neither Woman-1 nor Woman-2 spoke to the press prior to the election.
I still fail to see how that's a crime.
What exact statute is violated here?
And if that is a crime it is an obnoxiously stupid one. A campaign paying money to influence an election? That is literally the entire purpose of a campaign. Paying money to run ads and make speeches and attack opponents all purposefully in the name of influencing the election
This post was edited on 8/23/18 at 7:41 am
Posted on 8/23/18 at 7:39 am to tigerinDC09
quote:
I agree, we should all see the documents to make a full decision, but the documents convinced a judge in a court of law that the crimes were committed. We're a nation of laws, so that means something, right?
That’s not how this works. That’s not how any of this works.
Pleading to a prosecutor’s untested theory of criminality does not mean the prosecution carried its burden of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt). It just means Cohen is guilty. Him and him alone. It doesn’t mean this is a criminal act for any other person.
Posted on 8/23/18 at 7:40 am to GRTiger
quote:
Cohen had to literally admit, "I did this to influence the election and I knew it was against the law" in order to charge him criminally. That was the only way. This portion of his plea deal was purely political.
Why would he admit to this if the Prosecution didn't have evidence of this?
Posted on 8/23/18 at 7:40 am to tigerinDC09
I guess when professional federal prosecutors fail to convict Trump of these crimes, you can comfort yourself on how much better a legal scholar and prosecutor you would have been.
Posted on 8/23/18 at 7:40 am to tigerinDC09
quote:
Ignorance of the law is not a defense for violating the law.
The statute at hand requires knowing and willfull violations. Try again.
Posted on 8/23/18 at 7:40 am to tigerinDC09
quote:
Why would he admit to this if the Prosecution didn't have evidence of this?
To get the plea deal?
To get Lanny Davis to represent him?
There’s any number of reasons it could’ve happened.
Posted on 8/23/18 at 7:41 am to tigerinDC09
quote:
Ignorance of the law is not a defense for violating the law.
Ironically, intent is key in this case, unlike in Clinton's server scandal.
We are literally rewriting criminal code to save one politician and destroy another. Nation of laws? GTFO
Posted on 8/23/18 at 7:41 am to Nguyener
quote:
I still fail to see how that's a crime. What exact statute is violated here?
quote:
The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, Title 52, United States Code, Section 30101, et seq., (the “Election Act”), regulates the influence of money on politics. At all relevant times, the Election Act set certain limitations and prohibitions, among them: (a) individual contributions to any presidential candidate, including expenditures coordinated with a candidate or his political committee, were limited to $2,700 per election, and presidential candidates and their committees were prohibited from accepting contributions from individuals in excess of this limit; and (b) Corporations were prohibited from making contributions directly to presidential candidates, including expenditures coordinated with candidates or their committees, and candidates were prohibited from accepting corporate contributions.
Posted on 8/23/18 at 7:41 am to tigerinDC09
quote:
Ignorance of the law is not a defense for violating the law.
Posted on 8/23/18 at 7:42 am to tigerinDC09
Copy pastaing that into every thread doesn’t make what Trump did a crime.
Posted on 8/23/18 at 7:43 am to tigerinDC09
quote:
Cohen's plea says that Individual-1 Directed Cohen to coordinate these crimes.
Please show me the portion in the 22 page plea agreement where it says that,specifically. I read it three times yesterday and couldn't find it.
Posted on 8/23/18 at 7:43 am to tigerinDC09
You might want to read Alan Dershowitz's perspective in his op-ed column at The Hill. This is a massive nothingberger.
LINK
quote:
Failure to report all campaign contributions is fairly common in political campaigns. Moreover, the offense is committed not by the candidate but, rather, by the campaign and is generally subject to a fine. Though it is wrong, it certainly is not the kind of high crime and misdemeanor that could serve as the basis for a constitutionally authorized impeachment and removal of a duly elected president.
LINK
Posted on 8/23/18 at 7:44 am to John McClane
quote:
The statute at hand requires knowing and willfull violations. Try again.
You are assuming that the Prosecution doesn't have texts or emails which say something like, "Well we can't have this come out during the election". that's checkmate
Posted on 8/23/18 at 7:44 am to tigerinDC09
quote:
Why would he admit to this if the Prosecution didn't have evidence of this?
Are you aware of the other, infinitely more serious crimes he was charged with?
Posted on 8/23/18 at 7:45 am to RollTide1987
Even if we accept the fact that it was a campaign contribution (it wasn’t), the liability is for the Trump campaign. Not Trump.
$10,000 fine and call it a day.
$10,000 fine and call it a day.
Posted on 8/23/18 at 7:46 am to tigerinDC09
quote:of course Trump knew about the payments. They were coming out of his own pocket
ncluding Mr. Trump’s knowledge of the deals.
Once again, not a crime. If anything, Trump was blackmailed and extorted
Posted on 8/23/18 at 7:47 am to tigerinDC09
That text wouldn’t be evidence that Trump knew such a payment for such a purpose was violative of the campaign finance laws.
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News