• 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!

Proof of Guilt!

Of*course if it is shown he did not collude then there will be no shortage of low info people who will ignore it and believe he did anyway. Just as there is no shortage of low info people who honestly believe Russia actually rigged votes.
 
Of*course if it is shown he did not collude then there will be no shortage of low info people who will ignore it and believe he did anyway. Just as there is no shortage of low info people who honestly believe Russia actually rigged votes.

There’s no shortage of people who still think Donald Trump surrounds himself with the best people
 
Unsubstantiated claims made somehow in a guilty plea are not proof.

I'm not trying to "defend Trump", I'm trying to be realistic. Trump will claim he ordered the payments but not in an illegal manner, or he didn't know his request was in an illegal manner and no one told him. That is what "proof" is up against, and it's gonna need more than a scumbag lawyer's word.

I didn't say you trying to "defend Trump." I'm taking issue with the no proof claim.

You're making a credibility judgment, but that doesn't mean that Cohen's word - and potential eventual testimony - does not count as evidence aka "proof". In a hypothetical trials, other jurors might find him credible. Then it would be probative evidence to them. And as I said, a single witness's testimony can be not just evidence but proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Maybe it seems like a fine distinction, but it's an important one. People around here are constantly declaring that what people say they saw/heard isn't proof or isn't evidence when it is.
 
I didn't say you trying to "defend Trump." I'm taking issue with the no proof claim.

You're making a credibility judgment, but that doesn't mean that Cohen's word - and potential eventual testimony - does not count as evidence aka "proof". In a hypothetical trials, other jurors might find him credible. Then it would be probative evidence to them. And as I said, a single witness's testimony can be not just evidence but proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Maybe it seems like a fine distinction, but it's an important one. People around here are constantly declaring that what people say they saw/heard isn't proof or isn't evidence when it is.

I'm responding to the claim of the thread title. For me at least, and I would bet in court, the tapes we've already seen and Cohen's word does not constitute proof.

If that's all there is, Cohen's claims (somehow appearing in a guilty plea) are a nothing burger legally.
 
I'm responding to the claim of the thread title. For me at least, and I would bet in court, the tapes we've already seen and Cohen's word does not constitute proof.

If that's all there is, Cohen's claims (somehow appearing in a guilty plea) are a nothing burger legally.

Your credibility judgment of Cohen doesn't represent all possible (or even likely) credibility judgments of Cohen.

:shrug:
 
Your credibility judgment of Cohen doesn't represent all possible (or even likely) credibility judgments of Cohen.

:shrug:

It's my opinion that a convicted, slimeball, self serving, ass saving lawyer pointing the finger at others does not constitute anything.

How his claims appeared in a guilty plea is beyond me.
 
I'm responding to the claim of the thread title. For me at least, and I would bet in court, the tapes we've already seen and Cohen's word does not constitute proof.

If that's all there is, Cohen's claims (somehow appearing in a guilty plea) are a nothing burger legally.

Again, it's not about proof. You just need to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. No reasonable person would believe that Cohen acted on his own. If Cohen says Trump directed him then any reasonable person would believe him.

After Cohen took out a $130k home equity loan to pay off Stormy, the Trump organization paid Cohen $400k as compensation. Trump paid Cohen to commit a crime so his hands wouldn't get dirty.
 
Again, it's not about proof. You just need to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. No reasonable person would believe that Cohen acted on his own. If Cohen says Trump directed him then any reasonable person would believe him.

After Cohen took out a $130k home equity loan to pay off Stormy, the Trump organization paid Cohen $400k as compensation. Trump paid Cohen to commit a crime so his hands wouldn't get dirty.

Your burden of proof is flawed. We don't merely need to know that Trump ordered payment. We need to know that Trump ordered payment in an illegal way and knew it was in an illegal way.
 
Two charges, 7 & 8. Right now we have only Cohen's word, which is worthless.

Prosecutors accepted his guilty plea after he made his statements under oath. Not exactly worthless.
 
Prosecutors accepted his guilty plea after he made his statements under oath. Not exactly worthless.

Not proof for me. There needs to be something behind the claims.
 
Not proof for me. There needs to be something behind the claims.

No offense, but if it was good enough for prosecutors, then that carries more weight than what is good enough for you.
 
No offense, but if it was good enough for prosecutors, then that carries more weight than what is good enough for you.

Prosecutors didn't convict Trump.
 
Prosecutors didn't convict Trump.

Do you personally believe that Trump is innocent? Do you think a jury would believe Cohen acted on his own?
 
Do you personally believe that Trump is innocent? Do you think a jury would believe Cohen acted on his own?

Personally, I think Trump could have told him "get it done". Did Trump engineer the financial logistics? I dunno. Cohen appears to claim to have proof. We'll see.
 
Prosecutors didn't convict Trump.

I get your point, but it's important to take things one step at a time. And each step is definitely important.
 
I get your point, but it's important to take things one step at a time. And each step is definitely important.

I think people are way over-expecting the significance of this step. Cohen's word and the tapes we've seen are not proof. Trump will claim, "nah uh". Then what?
 
It's my opinion that a convicted, slimeball, self serving, ass saving lawyer pointing the finger at others does not constitute anything.

How his claims appeared in a guilty plea is beyond me.

I was just taking issue with the no proof angle. Saying there is "no proof" is objectively incorrect. It's also subjectively incorrect if what you mean to say is that you personally won't be convinced of Trump's guilt until you see some future amount of evidence from other sources.





He may not be the best witness, you could say. But, I'd note:

1. He does pick up new perjury charges if he lies under oath.

2. This was a non-cooperation agreement (I think), so he's not actually getting a better deal for having said that.

3. Mueller's team said they don't need up.

4. But on the other hand, Mueller might request a sentence reduction for voluntary assistance.

Bear in mind that quite a few convictions rely on rats turning on each other, so much so that prosecutors have developed various catch phrases for argument ('if you try a case in hell, you won't have angels for witnesses' or some such).




I'm at least starting to become a little more optimistic about the whole thing, at least for the sake of the historical record. I have little doubt that if Trump admitted every worst Russia theory yet conceived of, the response would be to talk about Russia funding Pizzagate or somesuch.
 
I think people are way over-expecting the significance of this step. Cohen's word and the tapes we've seen are not proof. Trump will claim, "nah uh". Then what?

We've been over this time and time again. An allegation comes out, it's doubted and later it's accepted into the mainstream. Cohen has pleaded guilty to eight counts of various crimes and stated under oath to prosecutors what he knows. Everybody knows the hell he would be inviting onto himself for lying. The weight of what he's saying as well as the circumstances he said them under are not irrelevant.

Trump allies' main defense has switched to "The President can't be indicted." They know he's guilty.
 
I'm not a Trump supporter. Your idiocy is cute.
You're still making excuses for him. And good luck with the insults.


Cohen's word is not proof. The tapes we've access to are not proof. The thread title is "proof".
Cohen, who is still a lawyer and knows the consequences, said under oath that Trump directed him to make the payoff, in order to influence the election.

This is not like bragging to your buddies or telling CNN that "truth is not truth." If he is caught in a lie, he could be looking at perjury charges, another trial and another 5 years in jail. He could face a defamation suit too, given that Trump sues at the drop of a hat.

Cohen has absolutely nothing to gain with this confession. The plea does not include any cooperation with prosecutors. He's wrecking any chance he has for a pardon with this statement. If the prosecutors haven't already found evidence to back up what Cohen is saying, it's only a matter of time.

The timing fits. The payment fits. Claiming that "Cohen is now lying" doesn't fit.

There is little doubt that Trump violated campaign finance laws and lied about it. If you need more proof, just be patient. It won't be long.
 
Snowflakes shouldn't throw stones. How's that one, cutie?
That's a total failure to respond to my points. Very impressive.
 
Thread title.

Doing it doesn't mean he said to do it illegally or knew that a way he proposed was illegal.

Trump has clearly stated all his life that he knows all the ways to take advantage of a situation and that he has done them all. He even has often boasted about it. Truth is of no importance to Trump, it is all about what he can "get away" with. This is why, he should not be President. The President of the United States should be all about preserving the rule of law. Preserving the Constitution and supporting it.
 
Last edited:
You're still making excuses for him. And good luck with the insults.



Cohen, who is still a lawyer and knows the consequences, said under oath that Trump directed him to make the payoff, in order to influence the election.

This is not like bragging to your buddies or telling CNN that "truth is not truth." If he is caught in a lie, he could be looking at perjury charges, another trial and another 5 years in jail. He could face a defamation suit too, given that Trump sues at the drop of a hat.

Cohen has absolutely nothing to gain with this confession. The plea does not include any cooperation with prosecutors. He's wrecking any chance he has for a pardon with this statement. If the prosecutors haven't already found evidence to back up what Cohen is saying, it's only a matter of time.

The timing fits. The payment fits. Claiming that "Cohen is now lying" doesn't fit.

There is little doubt that Trump violated campaign finance laws and lied about it. If you need more proof, just be patient. It won't be long.

For the record, eco is totally not a trump supporter.
 
I think people are way over-expecting the significance of this step. Cohen's word and the tapes we've seen are not proof. Trump will claim, "nah uh". Then what?

Ones word against another right?

I can assure you that Cohen has proof, probably in the form of another tape. Cohen has to prove his allegation or he would not have made the allegation. Simple as that.

Then again, is this a surprise to anyone? Trump is a proven liar so trying to convince yourself he is telling the truth on something such as this is ridiculous.
 
I can assure you that Cohen has proof, probably in the form of another tape. Cohen has to prove his allegation or he would not have made the allegation. Simple as that.

Then we agree; the proof is yet to come.
 
Back
Top Bottom