• 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!

In case someone wants the evidence of Trump's criminality re: the Cohen testimony

Mach said:
That's false.
Cohen testified that it was done for election purposes.
The phone transcript shows both he and Pecker did it for election purposes.

That ship sailed Fletch, why are you spreading misinformation?


https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/21/politics/michael-cohen-plea-deal-talks/index.html
Click to expand...

Its not misinformation. What Cohen testified to in order to get a lighter sentence is not proof of his claims. Cohen isnt credible. He needs evidence that that was Trumps intent. And your little clip shows nothing other than that the woman was going to go public unless paid. That would be a problem for Trump were he not running for office and likley would have been handled in exactly the same way.
 
Rexedgar said:
I think the timing is very important. The payment/s were for past indiscretions. I can’t think of another situation where depending on the time of the action makes one a crime and the other just transactional in nature.
Click to expand...

It is not a crime for a man to pay a woman hush money to keep an affair from his spouse. The affairs with these two women took place while he was married to his current wife and in one case, while she was pregnant. Do you see no reason other than the election that Trump might want to pay to keep them quiet? THAT will be his defense and his ticket out of any legal trouble.
 
Fletch said:
Its not misinformation. What Cohen testified to in order to get a lighter sentence is not proof of his claims. Cohen isnt credible. He needs evidence that that was Trumps intent. And your little clip shows nothing other than that the woman was going to go public unless paid. That would be a problem for Trump were he not running for office and likley would have been handled in exactly the same way.
Click to expand...

Michael Cohen has hours upon hours of audio tapes which should be very interesting.
 
Fletch said:
It is not a crime for a man to pay a woman hush money to keep an affair from his spouse. The affairs with these two women took place while he was married to his current wife and in one case, while she was pregnant. Do you see no reason other than the election that Trump might want to pay to keep them quiet? THAT will be his defense and his ticket out of any legal trouble.
Click to expand...

No lawyer here and I don’t have all the facts. Since the affairs were more than a few years in the past, the timing of quashing one story and paying the other participant directly leads to questions. IMO, this is not what Mueller wants to hang his investigation on. This falls into sideshow area.....
 
Fletch said:
Its not misinformation. What Cohen testified to in order to get a lighter sentence is not proof of his claims.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that makes sense, Cohen is lying in his pleading to get a lighter sentence. Prosecutors and the courts just love that sort of thing, they get a big laugh out of it....and Cohen, a lawyer, has no idea how the court handles such falsehoods.

What does it take to make yourself believe such nonsense, what integrity is left?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Yeah, that makes sense, Cohen is lying in his pleading to get a lighter sentence. Prosecutors and the courts just love that sort of thing, they get a big laugh out of it....and Cohen, a lawyer, has no idea how the court handles such falsehoods.

What does it take to make yourself believe such nonsense, what integrity is left?
Click to expand...

What proof has he brought that back up his claims?
 
Fletch said:
What proof has he brought that back up his claims?
Click to expand...

Are you saying you believe Cohen acted on his own?

It seems like you and every rational person knows Trump is lying but you're just arguing that there is no proof. You're creating an impossible standard of proof in order to defend someone you know is guilty. That's a dishonest argument.

The standard is what a jury would believe. I can't imagine a jury believing that Cohen acted on his own.
 
Fletch said:
What proof has he brought that back up his claims?
Click to expand...
As if we are totally privy to all.

"I get to argue there is no proof because not all info is at our disposal"

Perhaps you think fed courts operate.....like a public forum.
 
Rexedgar said:
No lawyer here and I don’t have all the facts. Since the affairs were more than a few years in the past, the timing of quashing one story and paying the other participant directly leads to questions. IMO, this is not what Mueller wants to hang his investigation on. This falls into sideshow area.....
Click to expand...

I agree with that. Yes the affairs were old, but the threats of them becoming public were recent. Had these women come forward and threatened to spill their stories before Trump announced for the presidency, do you think he would have paid them off to keep quiet? Or let them blab and have his wife find out?
 
beancounter said:
I'd say there is a difference between hiding information vs. dressing up information. In other words, you can't verify information you don't know, but you can verify/look at alternative sources for information you do know.
Click to expand...

That doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is, was it something of value.
 
Fletch said:
I agree with that. Yes the affairs were old, but the threats of them becoming public were recent. Had these women come forward and threatened to spill their stories before Trump announced for the presidency, do you think he would have paid them off to keep quiet? Or let them blab and have his wife find out?
Click to expand...

You sell Melania way short...........
 
Gimmesometruth said:
As if we are totally privy to all.

"I get to argue there is no proof because not all info is at our disposal"

Perhaps you think fed courts operate.....like a public forum.
Click to expand...

No, I dont think that, but so far we have seen no evidence to back up his claim. Right now it is Cohens claim V Trumps denial.
 
Fletch said:
I agree with that. Yes the affairs were old, but the threats of them becoming public were recent. Had these women come forward and threatened to spill their stories before Trump announced for the presidency, do you think he would have paid them off to keep quiet? Or let them blab and have his wife find out?
Click to expand...
LOL..."Trump is worried about Bebest finding out". Assumes she doesn't know he screws around.
 
Fletch said:
No, I dont think that, but so far we have seen no evidence to back up his claim. Right now it is Cohens claim V Trumps denial.
Click to expand...
Yer still hanging on to the idea that Cohen would lie in his deal with the prosecutors. Let me know how that works out.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Yer still hanging on to the idea that Cohen would lie in his deal with the prosecutors. Let me know how that works out.
Click to expand...

We will both know when we see what evidence he brings to back up his claim. But it is good to see you have such faith that Cohen wouldnt lie at this point. I guess you think he has turned over a new leaf now. From here on he is going to tell the truth.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Does this naivety play well in real life?
Click to expand...

How is it naive on my part to point out that you have no idea what you are talking about. Its obvious. You have no clue as to what Melania knew about anything. So how about you gimmesometruth and stop making **** up.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
Are you saying you believe Cohen acted on his own?

It seems like you and every rational person knows Trump is lying but you're just arguing that there is no proof. You're creating an impossible standard of proof in order to defend someone you know is guilty. That's a dishonest argument.

The standard is what a jury would believe. I can't imagine a jury believing that Cohen acted on his own.
Click to expand...

Of course Cohen was acting on Trumps behalf with Trumps full knowledge. The question is was that criminal. Cohen arranged the entire thing, if he broke the law while doing so, he cant turn now and blame his client.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom