• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Acting ethics chief flags Trump financial disclosure form for Rod Rosenstein

Lutherf said:
Good luck with that. If Cohen paid off Daniels in 2016 and didn't tell Trump about it at all or didn't tell him until 2017 then when should the repayment have been reported?
Click to expand...

Then Trump better be good at acting out plausible deniability because if you expect anyone to believe he didn’t know about the payment you’re nucking futs.

He’s lied about every single aspect of this entire thing, why in the world should anyone believe he “didn’t know about it back then”.
 
Lutherf said:
Good luck with that. If Cohen paid off Daniels in 2016 and didn't tell Trump about it at all or didn't tell him until 2017 then when should the repayment have been reported?
Click to expand...

In that case there better not be any correspondence in the confiscated Cohen materials that shows Trump knew about it.
 
It is possible that the only human being who will believe that trump didn't "knowingly and willfully" omit the reimbursement from the first financial disclosure is a lonely trump supporter in the middle of the woods with no access to electricity, television, the internet or newspaper deliveries. This is due to the fact that trump admitted to making those payments to Cohen, so any plausible deniability is toast:

"Mr. Cohen, an attorney, received a monthly retainer, not from the campaign and having nothing to do with the campaign, from which he entered into, through reimbursement, a private contract between two parties, known as a non-disclosure agreement, or NDA. These agreements are very common among celebrities and people of wealth. In this case it is in full force and effect and will be used in Arbitration for damages against Ms. Clifford (Daniels). The agreement was used to stop the false and extortionist accusations made by her about an affair, despite already having signed a detailed letter admitting that there was no affair. Prior to its violation by Ms. Clifford and her attorney, this was a private agreement. Money from the campaign, or campaign contributions, played no roll in this transaction."

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/991994433750142976
 
Cardinal said:
Trump should have reported the reimbursement to Cohen in the first financial disclosure.
Click to expand...

Jetboogieman said:
Then Trump better be good at acting out plausible deniability because if you expect anyone to believe he didn’t know about the payment you’re nucking futs.

He’s lied about every single aspect of this entire thing, why in the world should anyone believe he “didn’t know about it back then”.
Click to expand...

Khayembii Communique said:
In that case there better not be any correspondence in the confiscated Cohen materials that shows Trump knew about it.
Click to expand...

From a practical standpoint, the reason OGE reported this to Rosenstein isn't because of potential criminal activity. It's because this item was going to end up in the news no matter what and the referral is 100% covering his or her ass, as is appropriate under the circumstances.
 
Lutherf said:
From a practical standpoint, the reason OGE reported this to Rosenstein isn't because of potential criminal activity.
Click to expand...

Right.

......
 
Lutherf said:
From a practical standpoint, the reason OGE reported this to Rosenstein isn't because of potential criminal activity. It's because this item was going to end up in the news no matter what and the referral is 100% covering his or her ass, as is appropriate under the circumstances.
Click to expand...

Kushner wasn't referred to DOJ for possible criminal investigation despite his revisions.
 
Cardinal said:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trumps...-form-released-by-ethics-office-live-updates/

Just to clear up any possible ambiguity, the ethics office has sent the matter "to Rosenstein for potential criminal prosecution," per Renato Mariotti:

"Huge news—the Ethics Office concluded that Trump made a false statement on his prior ethics disclosure, which is a crime if it is done knowingly and willfully, and referred the matter to Rosenstein for potential criminal prosecution."

https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/status/996806545122955264
Click to expand...

Lock him up. Lock him up.
 
You have to be a fool if you're a Trump supporter and you aren't scared as hell over this. This is NOT good for Trump. At all.
 
Cardinal said:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trumps...-form-released-by-ethics-office-live-updates/

Just to clear up any possible ambiguity, the ethics office has sent the matter "to Rosenstein for potential criminal prosecution," per Renato Mariotti:

"Huge news—the Ethics Office concluded that Trump made a false statement on his prior ethics disclosure, which is a crime if it is done knowingly and willfully, and referred the matter to Rosenstein for potential criminal prosecution."

https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/status/996806545122955264
Click to expand...
This imo is fair game and should be investigated. If he did it inknowingly, so be it but it needs to be investigated. If he or whoever does his books is guility of something, it should be prosecuted.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
This imo is fair game and should be investigated. If he did it inknowingly, so be it but it needs to be investigated. If he or whoever does his books is guility of something, it should be prosecuted.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

See post 28. He did so knowingly.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Kushner wasn't referred to DOJ for possible criminal investigation despite his revisions.
Click to expand...

Think they will keep actively approaching Kushner and any other Trump family members till near the last stages of the investigation. No need to stir up that potential hornets nest till you have to.
 
While Trump was screaming "Hoax!" and "Fake News!" on twitter about Stormy, he was omitting the hush-money reimbursement payment to Cohen on his 2017 Annual Financial Disclosure report.

No one should wonder anymore why Donald J. Trump refuses to release his tax documents.
 
Slyfox696 said:
So Trump reported something on his 2018 statement he should have reported on his 2017 statement and if he knowingly and willfully omitted it on his 2017 statement, it would be illegal?

Genuine question.
Click to expand...

If he " knowingly and willfully omitted " then it would indeed be illegal. It would be filing a false document. This would be crime of intent.
 
Cardinal said:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trumps...-form-released-by-ethics-office-live-updates/

Just to clear up any possible ambiguity, the ethics office has sent the matter "to Rosenstein for potential criminal prosecution," per Renato Mariotti:

"Huge news—the Ethics Office concluded that Trump made a false statement on his prior ethics disclosure, which is a crime if it is done knowingly and willfully, and referred the matter to Rosenstein for potential criminal prosecution."

https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/status/996806545122955264
Click to expand...

Nothing will come of this.

Sorry, Trump haters...no cigar today.
 
Mycroft said:
Nothing will come of this.

Sorry, Trump haters...no cigar today.
Click to expand...

Yeah ho hum. Another day another Trump investigation. Another court case. No worries though.
 
Atomic Kid said:
Yeah ho hum. Another day another Trump investigation. Another court case. No worries though.
Click to expand...

Another Trump lie. Another Trump deceit. His devoted flock trying desperately to ignore it. In other words, a day that ends in "y" in Trump Fan Nation.
 
Atomic Kid said:
Yeah ho hum. Another day another Trump investigation. Another court case. No worries though.
Click to expand...

What investigation? What court case?

Are you dreaming again?
 
Cardinal said:
Wrong thread. This is about a false financial disclosure, not income tax fraud (though I have little doubt that will be a thing in the future).
Click to expand...

You're speaking of a possible false financial disclosure, an IRS form even tho it serves other purposes. Still can be modified after submission. You should take a good look at both JFK's and Carter's. Modified each, many times. CPA's and tertiary attorneys make mistakes often, failing to use all the data their clients gave them.

Your doubts don't carry much weight.
 
Cardinal said:
Right.

......
Click to expand...

You didn't learn anything from Bill Clinton. No man wants it getting back to his wife, no matter the quality of the relationship, that he's been dipping the wick where it doesn't belong. "I did not have sex with that girl." Today he'd be skewered for calling her a girl. Not everything is political, at least until some mockey tries to make it so. Remember Newt Gingrich, "He's being impeached because he lied." As Newt abandoned his cancer suffering wife for the latest bit of arm candy.

Beef eaters unanimous. Calling the energizer, calling the energizer......
 
trouble13 said:
This imo is fair game and should be investigated. If he did it inknowingly, so be it but it needs to be investigated. If he or whoever does his books is guility of something, it should be prosecuted.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Maybe it is time to forego investigations, and let government govern. We hired, voted for these guys to do a job, and investigations wasn't in the job description. Congress is still less popular the executive office.
 
.... before he was elected president, Trump repeatedly blasted 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton for the investigation into her use of a private e-mail server while Secretary of State. In fact, Trump said having a sitting president under criminal investigation would result in a “constitutional crisis.”

“She’s likely to be under investigation for criminality for a very, very long time to come,” Trump said during a Oct. 31, 2016 speech in Warren, Mich.

“We’re going to be tied up in court for the rest of our lives with this deal,” he added, referring to if Clinton were elected. “She’s not going to win the election, but I’m just saying. If Hillary is elected, she will be under protracted criminal investigation likely followed by the trial of a sitting president. This is just what we need.”
Click to expand...


Here's What Donald Trump Said on the Campaign Trail About a President Being Under Investigation
 
Mycroft said:
Nothing will come of this.

Sorry, Trump haters...no cigar today.
Click to expand...

Oh but they are so hoping for it to turn into something .....anything! They are so desperate for any little thing to hang onto in hopes of Trump being impeached. Yes impeached. That is the only way a sitting president can be removed from office. Even if the House goes Democrat in November and Pelosi starts impeachment proceedings it's not likely they will be successful in the Senate.

But you know Mycroft, I don't see any blue wave happening in November. Nada. What was telling in the primaries in PA yesterday is three of the Democratic winners are backed by the Democratic Socialists of America. That may be just a little too far left for some Democrats and Independents. And as far as the right side of the aisle, regardless what some may think of Trump, they sure as heck don't want to see Pelosi in charge of the gavel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom