• 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

Fletch said:
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.
Click to expand...
Again, for the hard of reading, a lawyer of all people knows how the court treats folks who lie in a plea agreement. He has already turned over enough evidence to please the prosecutors (if they did n't get it under subpoena), they would not agree to the deal unless they are satisfied.

Yer "arguments" are infantile.
 
Fletch said:
How is it naive on my part to point out that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Click to expand...
Oh no, I think your argument is naive because it seems to assume that Bebest is totally ignorant of Agent Oranges dalliances....or should I assume you are giving him a pass on his past?
Its obvious. You have no clue as to what Melania knew about anything. So how about you gimmesometruth and stop making **** up.
Click to expand...
Uh, that rubs both ways, yer assuming she doesn't know....which I think is the height of naivety.
 
Fletch said:
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.
Click to expand...
Next up, Agent Orange did not say "pay with cash".
 
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...

What is this...goalpost 3 or 4? I've lost count.

This too appears to be false based on the evidence Fletch. They knew about this for years, but only decided to pay attention in 2015.
And you appear to believe that because it could have also been done when he was not running a campaign, that it therefore makes when it was done during the campaign to keep it out of the press, it magically makes it not a crime that he's already plead guilt to. Madness.

"In or about August 2015, the Chairman and Chief Executive of Corporation-1 ("Chairman-1"), in coordination with MICHAEL COHEN, the defendant, and one or more members of the campaign, offered to help deal with negative stories about Individual-l's relationships with women by, among other things, assisting the campaign in identifying such stories so they could be purchased and their publication avoided," the criminal information says. "Chairman-1 agreed to keep COHEN apprised of any such negative stories."

The court filings also link AMI to Clifford, saying that in October 2016, an agent for an adult film actress contacted the company and said she was willing to go public with her allegations of an affair with Trump. Pecker then contacted Cohen, and Cohen negotiated with the woman's attorney to "purchase [her] silence" for $130,000.

After Cohen failed to either execute the agreement immediately or pay the woman, she threatened, in late October -- 14 days before the election -- to Pecker to take her story to another publication. Pecker then informed Cohen, in part by calling him on an encrypted phone app. He told Cohen that the deal needed to be completed "or it could look awfully bad for everyone," according to court filings. Cohen then agreed to make the payment and finalize the deal.
Click to expand...
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/21/politics/michael-cohen-plea-deal-talks/index.html
 
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...

Another ridiculous argument. What Trump would or would not have done under other circumstances (non-campaign circumstances is not relevant to anything). Does it take you very long to concoct these absurd arguments?

Both Trump and Cohen thought the revelations would have a negative effect on the campaign...PERIOD....THE END! But of course it won't be the end because you will likely keep going around in your own circular argument.
 
Mach said:
What is this...goalpost 3 or 4? I've lost count.
Click to expand...
No. I havent changed my argument in the slightest.

This too appears to be false based on the evidence Fletch. They knew about this for years, but only decided to pay attention in 2015.
Click to expand...
No. They started paying attention when the women who had slept with Trump started threatening to come forward.
 
jnug said:
Another ridiculous argument. What Trump would or would not have done under other circumstances (non-campaign circumstances is not relevant to anything). Does it take you very long to concoct these absurd arguments?

Both Trump and Cohen thought the revelations would have a negative effect on the campaign...PERIOD....THE END! But of course it won't be the end because you will likely keep going around in your own circular argument.
Click to expand...

No, Trump thought the revelations would have a negative impact on his marriage. Cohen is claiming the election was the cause. He needs to prove that, which he has not. This isnt that complicated, yet you struggle so. Just so you know, Trump will be allowed to put on a defense. I am giving you an insight into what that defense will be. You just want him convicted on the word of Cohen. Justice doesnt work that way. Fortunately.
 
Fletch said:
No. I havent changed my argument in the slightest.No. They started paying attention when the women who had slept with Trump started threatening to come forward.
Click to expand...
They came forward, because of his election campaign. No doubt they can, if it goes to trial or impeachment, argue anything. He can claim he wore a tinfoil hat and the mother ship ordered him to. He could say god told him to...who knows.

What we know is Cohen has provided testimony under oath that Trump directed him to commit those crimes.
The Trump story has been one of denial and cover up on this, as recorded in the public record, since the scandal first broke.
Cohen was reimbursed by the Trump organization, not only for his services and the amount paid, but apparently with a nice fat bonus..oddly coinciding with his agreement to engage in felonies on behalf of the president.
The payoff occurred right before the election.
Things we don't know are what other evidence they have (recordings, notes, phone calls), and whether Pecker is also cooperating.
It fits the narrative of someone running for President, wanting to bury negative stories to improve their chances in the election....the same narrative that helped lead to such laws in the first place.

I would not bet on Trump on this, just based on the above, that's beyond a reasonable doubt even from the 10K foot elevation we're all at.
 
Lutherf said:
In your opinion, does coordination with media outlets by campaign officials and/or candidates to promote certain stories, time the release of certain stories or amend pending stories to reflect favorably on that candidate for the purpose of influencing the electorate also constitute an "in kind" contribution?
Click to expand...
If it's normal media coverage, nope.

There are some media outlets that have paid editorials. If a media company provided that service to a campaign free of charge, that would likely be a criminal violation of election laws (excess contributions).
 
Lutherf said:
I'd agree with that but, hypothetically, if your campaign received word that a certain story was going to come out in newspaper A in two days and you wrote a counter story then contacted newspaper B with a "news release" contradicting or "correcting" what was in the other story and newspaper B ran with the story, thus benefiting your campaign messaging, did you receive an "in kind" contribution?
Click to expand...
Nope.

Candidates pay for ads, not media coverage. Media can certainly tip someone off early if they want.


Likewise, if newspaper A has a story in the works and you happen to know the story is coming out but ask them to hold it for a few days so you can coordinate your messaging did you receive an in kind contribution?
Click to expand...
Nope.

Campaign contributions refer to things that actually cost or involve money.
 
Fletch said:
Of course Cohen was acting on Trumps behalf with Trumps full knowledge. The question is was that criminal.
Click to expand...
Cohen admitted that it was a criminal act. That pretty much means... it was a criminal act.


Cohen arranged the entire thing, if he broke the law while doing so, he cant turn now and blame his client.
Click to expand...
Cohen claims, under oath and penalty of perjury, that Trump was involved in the decisions. There is no evidence to the contrary yet.

It is also wholly unconvincing to claim that these hush payments had nothing to do with the election. That ship has sailed.
 
Visbek said:
He says he paid out of pocket, and was reimbursed by "the candidate."
Click to expand...

Okay.

So, where did the "candidate" get the money? Did the candidate pay it out of pocket?
 
Mycroft said:
Okay.
So, where did the "candidate" get the money? Did the candidate pay it out of pocket?
Click to expand...
It's irrelevant to the charges Cohen plead guilty to. So why do you ask?
 
Mycroft said:
Okay.

So, where did the "candidate" get the money? Did the candidate pay it out of pocket?
Click to expand...
As far as I know, Trump paid for it out of his own assets.

That doesn't really matter, though. The crime here is that Cohen paid for it out of his own pocket, the campaign did not declare it, and they knowingly did so to influence the election (that's what makes it a campaign contribution). They did so to avoid public disclosure and public accountability.

It doesn't matter if the reimbursement came from Trump or the campaign, either way it's illegal.
 
Mach said:
It's irrelevant to the charges Cohen plead guilty to. So why do you ask?
Click to expand...
I assume he's looking for some excuse to justify the illegal campaign contribution.
 
Mach said:
They came forward, because of his election campaign. No doubt they can, if it goes to trial or impeachment, argue anything. He can claim he wore a tinfoil hat and the mother ship ordered him to. He could say god told him to...who knows.

What we know is Cohen has provided testimony under oath that Trump directed him to commit those crimes.
The Trump story has been one of denial and cover up on this, as recorded in the public record, since the scandal first broke.
Cohen was reimbursed by the Trump organization, not only for his services and the amount paid, but apparently with a nice fat bonus..oddly coinciding with his agreement to engage in felonies on behalf of the president.
The payoff occurred right before the election.
Things we don't know are what other evidence they have (recordings, notes, phone calls), and whether Pecker is also cooperating.
It fits the narrative of someone running for President, wanting to bury negative stories to improve their chances in the election....the same narrative that helped lead to such laws in the first place.

I would not bet on Trump on this, just based on the above, that's beyond a reasonable doubt even from the 10K foot elevation we're all at.
Click to expand...

Its not beyond a reasonable doubt because you have not seen Cohens 'evidence' You just assume it must be there. There is no reason to believe that Trump was all that intimately involved in the decisions Cohen was making or that Trump had any knowledge whatsoever of campaign finance laws. Cohen was the one who decided to commit crimes on Trumps behalf. Now, in order to secure a lighter sentence for other crimes, he is blaming Trump. If he can produce some recording or document with Trump authorizing or demanding Cohens illegal behavior then you might have something. Right now it is Cohen V Trump. There is no way you can argue that one is more credible than the other.
 
Visbek said:
Cohen admitted that it was a criminal act. That pretty much means... it was a criminal act.
Click to expand...
It was an accusation that he didnt contest. Trump is free to contest the criminality of the entire thing. And likely will.



Cohen claims, under oath and penalty of perjury, that Trump was involved in the decisions. There is no evidence to the contrary yet.
Click to expand...
I suspect that trump was involved in some of the decisions, but we dont know which ones.

It is also wholly unconvincing to claim that these hush payments had nothing to do with the election. That ship has sailed.
Click to expand...
No it hasnt. Cohen has made that claim in order to get a lighter sentence. Trump can easily and convincingly claim that it was done to keep his wife from finding out. You guys are all making the same mistake: you are listening to prosecutors on TV make the case against Trump. You need to listen to some defense attorneys. Like it or not, Trump has a defense and will be allowed to make it. You guys are all acting like this is an open and shut case and trump might as well start packing his things. That is not how this is going to play out
 
Fletch said:
Its not beyond a reasonable doubt because you have not seen Cohens 'evidence' You just assume it must be there.
Click to expand...
I assume nothing, I'm telling you that based on the public record already, I personally have no doubt. It would take a mountain of evidence not only to the contrary, but also to dispute the evidence ewe do have, for me to believe something else occurred.

There is no way you can argue that one is more credible than the other.
Click to expand...
Of course I can. It's public record Fletch.
It's not just Cohen Vs Trump, Trump already admitted to much of this.

Trump acknowledges the reimbursement:
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,……
Click to expand...

There is also the audio recording of Trump and Cohen discussing one of the payments, and the argument from Giulianni at the time was that Trump said to pay with check and not cash...not that it wasn't about the payoff lol.

https://www.vox.com/2018/7/24/17610...payoff-playboy-model-karen-mcdougal-recording

Then we have Trump admitting it in his financial disclosure:
A footnote in Mr. Trump’s 2017 financial disclosure released Wednesday documented a reimbursement of between $100,001 and $250,000 for expenses in 2016 to his attorney for payment to Stephanie Clifford, known professionally as Stormy Daniels. The payment wasn’t listed in his previous financial disclosure, released last year. Disclosure rules require liabilities to be listed.
Click to expand...
 
Visbek said:
As far as I know, Trump paid for it out of his own assets.

That doesn't really matter, though. The crime here is that Cohen paid for it out of his own pocket, the campaign did not declare it, and they knowingly did so to influence the election (that's what makes it a campaign contribution). They did so to avoid public disclosure and public accountability.

It doesn't matter if the reimbursement came from Trump or the campaign, either way it's illegal.
Click to expand...

I wonder what proof anyone has that this money was paid to influence the campaign? I mean, Cohen said that and the prosecutors say that, but that's not proof. Maybe Cohen has a tape?
 
Fletch said:
It was an accusation that he didnt contest. Trump is free to contest the criminality of the entire thing. And likely will.
Click to expand...

But Trump's lawyers sent a letter to the Mueller where they admitted that Trump reimbursed Cohen for the payment. And we have the tapes of Cohen and Trump talking about the payments. What are you disputing?

in April, Giuliani said on Fox News a month later that Mr. Trump had reimbursed Cohen for a $130,000 payment he made to Stormy Daniels from personal funds as part of a non-disclosure agreement.
Click to expand...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/michae...e-indicted-and-jailed-if-he-werent-president/
 
Mycroft said:
I wonder what proof anyone has that this money was paid to influence the campaign? I mean, Cohen said that and the prosecutors say that, but that's not proof. Maybe Cohen has a tape?
Click to expand...

The evidence is that Trump didn't sign the checks himself. He did his best to cover it up.

Moreover, would a reasonable person doubt that a presidential candidate paying hush money to mistresses is doing it to influence the election? You're promoting doubts that no rational person would accept as plausible. Do YOU honestly believe that Trump didn't make the payments to prevent a scandal from hurting is candidacy?
 
Here is an interesting observation...

For those wondering why the dirt on Trump wasn’t worth more, and why Cohen couldn’t have used it as leverage to get himself a better deal, I’d say 1) we don’t know what kind of sentence prosecutors will recommend (even though that’s ultimately up to the judge) and 2) as juicy as it is, in reality it isn’t worth a whole lot to prosecutors. Yes, swearing in open court that the president directed someone to commit crimes is no joke, but Justice Department guidelines say a sitting president cannot be indicted, and these crimes were committed before Trump took office, which means they’re not grounds for impeachment. The idea that Trump instructed Cohen to arrange for illegal payments makes good headlines, but that’s about it.

https://lawandcrime.com/opinion/here-could-be-the-real-reason-why-cohen-agreed-to-cop-a-plea/
Click to expand...

Not grounds for impeachment. I didn't know that. That's going to chap some asses, I'm sure.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
The evidence is that Trump didn't sign the checks himself. He did his best to cover it up.

Moreover, would a reasonable person doubt that a presidential candidate paying hush money to mistresses is doing it to influence the election? You're promoting doubts that no rational person would accept as plausible. Do YOU honestly believe that Trump didn't make the payments to prevent a scandal from hurting is candidacy?
Click to expand...

I'm thinking there's no way to know for sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom