- 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 8:00 am to tigerinDC09
Posted on 8/23/18 at 8:00 am to tigerinDC09
quote:
If Pecker, Weissleberg (sp?) and others involved plea or are charged, then yes citizen Trump would have exposure.
If he’s not exposed now, he won’t be exposed by more pleas. (He’s not.)
0
Posted on 8/23/18 at 8:02 am to tigerinDC09
So please provide the exact law that Trump violated and how he violated it? Then please give specific examples of how many times it has been used in criminal proceedings as compared to incurring fines.
Just in case you want to double check this happens all the time and is completely legal. Just ask Congress since they have paid $15M in hush money.
Keep trying little guy!
Just in case you want to double check this happens all the time and is completely legal. Just ask Congress since they have paid $15M in hush money.
Keep trying little guy!
This post was edited on 8/23/18 at 8:05 am
Posted on 8/23/18 at 8:04 am to tigerinDC09
Thread anchored! Admins keeping it real! 
Posted on 8/23/18 at 8:05 am to tigerinDC09
quote:
Judge wouldn't let Cohen plea to crimes that they didn't believe were committed.
how does that pertain to this?
quote:
David Pecker, the chairman of American Media Inc., which publishes the National Enquirer, provided prosecutors with details about payments Mr. Cohen arranged with women who alleged sexual encounters with President Trump, including Mr. Trump’s knowledge of the deals.
Posted on 8/23/18 at 8:06 am to tigerinDC09
quote:
Ignorance of the law is not a defense for violating the law.
So the "intent" clause only applies to Clintons, got it...
Posted on 8/23/18 at 8:06 am to tigerinDC09
Actually ignorance is bliss for federal election laws. The violator has to know the law and be wilful.
Wilful and knowingly are noted on page 4 of the John Edwards' jury instructions as burden of proof.
Wilful and knowingly are noted on page 4 of the John Edwards' jury instructions as burden of proof.
This post was edited on 8/23/18 at 9:44 am
Posted on 8/23/18 at 8:08 am to tigerinDC09
quote:
The true test is if Pecker and others on Trump campaign involved in this conspiracy are indicted.
It was an alleged simple campaign finance violation. This was not some grand hidden conspiracy to illegally influence the election of the country like you keep trying to define it.
How does this make Trump unfit for the presidency?
This is the new standard you Progressives want for this country?
A simple campaign finance violation that results in a fine is conduct unbecoming of the president? And every sitting president gets a special council of opposing party origin to investigate every single aspect of their lives for months on end until they find something and then remove him?
This post was edited on 8/23/18 at 8:13 am
Posted on 8/23/18 at 8:09 am to ErikGordan
quote:
Actually ignorance is bliss for federal election laws. The violator has to know the law and be wilful.
Link?
Posted on 8/23/18 at 8:10 am to Nguyener
quote:
A simple campaign finance violation that results in a fine is conduct unbecoming of the president?
Not true:
quote:
The BCRA increases the number of campaign finance violations that may be charged as felonies and boosts maximum penalties to two years of incarceration for even the least serious offenses and five years for more serious offenses.
LINK
Posted on 8/23/18 at 8:11 am to tigerinDC09
David Pecker
Posted on 8/23/18 at 8:14 am to tigerinDC09
quote:
The BCRA increases the number of campaign finance violations that may be charged as felonies
Which ones are those specifically and how did Trump violate them?
Posted on 8/23/18 at 8:15 am to tigerinDC09
"No crime has been committed here. Show me the statute."
-Dershowitz
LINK
Pecker or Dershowitz, who ya got?
-Dershowitz
LINK
Pecker or Dershowitz, who ya got?
Posted on 8/23/18 at 8:19 am to Tigerdev
quote:
For me it's all just fodder for the mid terms and 2020
Be careful what you wish for.
Posted on 8/23/18 at 8:21 am to Nguyener
quote:
Which ones are those specifically and how did Trump violate them?
Just Google Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA)
Posted on 8/23/18 at 8:24 am to tigerinDC09
quote:
Just Google Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCR
No. The burden of proof is on the one making the allegations.
Specifically which part of the statue do you allege that Trump violated and what is your evidence thathe did so.
Posted on 8/23/18 at 8:25 am to TigerTailsSoup
quote:
"No crime has been committed here. Show me the statute." -Dershowitz LINK Pecker or Dershowitz, who ya got?
Unless Dershowitz is involved in the court proceedings, his opinion is as relevant as the other lawyers not involved who say it is a crime.
Posted on 8/23/18 at 9:03 am to tigerinDC09
quote:
David Pecker
What a dick that guy is
Posted on 8/23/18 at 9:23 am to Wolfhound45
And you do have me pegged as far as making the same comments as yesterday. I've spend 5 hours on the Metro this week so I've had a lot of time to post.
Posted on 8/23/18 at 9:52 am to tigerinDC09
quote:
Individual-1 took place in the conspiracy as admitted to by Cohen and accepted by the court. The court therefore accepts as fact that Individual-1 (President Trump) participated in a criminal conspiracy.
Was he deemed an "unindicted co-conspirator" by the court? If the answer to that question is "no," then he is not an "unindicted co-conspirator" no matter how many times you tell yourself he is.
Posted on 8/23/18 at 9:53 am to tigerinDC09
quote:
Individual-1 took place in the conspiracy as admitted to by Cohen and accepted by the court. The court therefore accepts as fact that Individual-1 (President Trump) participated in a criminal conspiracy.
I would put a bit more weight in to what Alan Derschowitz has to say; he's not a blind political hack. So far the only evidence against Trump in this matter is Cohen's word.
Even if writing checks to these women somehow constituted a campaign finance violation (a bit different from a "crime"), what would you do to remedy the situation?
This post was edited on 8/23/18 at 10:06 am
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News