• 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!

Here's the proof

late

late

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
4,583
Reaction score
1,261
Location
Southern Maine
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Been hearing 'Where's the proof', hundreds of times, knowing full well that would have to come out of a guilty verdict.

We got one yesterday. Cohen implicated Trump in a crime he pled guilty to. Which means Trump, like Nixon before him, is an unindicted co-conspirator.

Remember that Trumps own lawyers have admitted that Trump directed Cohen to pay hush money to Stormy.

By itself, this does not rise to the level of impeachment, unless you're a Republican.

But there's a LOT more coming.

See you in court.
 
late said:
By itself, this does not rise to the level of impeachment...

But there's a LOT more coming.
Click to expand...

Are you Rachel Maddow?
 
Your bait thread got flushed by the moderators so you decide to make an exact copy?

Are you familiar with the definition of insanity?
 
late said:
Been hearing 'Where's the proof', hundreds of times, knowing full well that would have to come out of a guilty verdict.

We got one yesterday. Cohen implicated Trump in a crime he pled guilty to. Which means Trump, like Nixon before him, is an unindicted co-conspirator.

Remember that Trumps own lawyers have admitted that Trump directed Cohen to pay hush money to Stormy.

By itself, this does not rise to the level of impeachment, unless you're a Republican.

But there's a LOT more coming.

See you in court.
Click to expand...

Sorry its not against the law.
 
Spartacus FPV said:
Your bait thread got flushed by the moderators so you decide to make an exact copy?

Are you familiar with the definition of insanity?
Click to expand...
(Political)Insanity a way of life with most progressives. :lamo
 
late said:
Been hearing 'Where's the proof', hundreds of times, knowing full well that would have to come out of a guilty verdict.

We got one yesterday. Cohen implicated Trump in a crime he pled guilty to. Which means Trump, like Nixon before him, is an unindicted co-conspirator.

Remember that Trumps own lawyers have admitted that Trump directed Cohen to pay hush money to Stormy.

By itself, this does not rise to the level of impeachment, unless you're a Republican.

But there's a LOT more coming.

See you in court.
Click to expand...

Here's a copy of the charging statement -

https://www.scribd.com/document/386777678/Michael-Cohen-plea-deal-court-document-August-21-2018

Here's a copy of the plea agreement - https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/21/politics/read-michael-cohen-plea-deal/index.html

Maybe I missed it but I didn't see anywhere in either statement that Cohen did any of this stuff at the express direction of Trump. I don't see that accusation in the charging statement or in the plea agreement. If it's there then please point it out to me because I hate being misinformed.
 
late said:
Been hearing 'Where's the proof', hundreds of times, knowing full well that would have to come out of a guilty verdict.

We got one yesterday. Cohen implicated Trump in a crime he pled guilty to. Which means Trump, like Nixon before him, is an unindicted co-conspirator.

Remember that Trumps own lawyers have admitted that Trump directed Cohen to pay hush money to Stormy.

By itself, this does not rise to the level of impeachment, unless you're a Republican.

But there's a LOT more coming.

See you in court.
Click to expand...

Where's the proof?
 
late said:
Been hearing 'Where's the proof', hundreds of times, knowing full well that would have to come out of a guilty verdict.

We got one yesterday. Cohen implicated Trump in a crime he pled guilty to. Which means Trump, like Nixon before him, is an unindicted co-conspirator.

Remember that Trumps own lawyers have admitted that Trump directed Cohen to pay hush money to Stormy.

By itself, this does not rise to the level of impeachment, unless you're a Republican.

But there's a LOT more coming.

See you in court.
Click to expand...

Where in his statement did he state "Trump."
 
Lutherf said:
Maybe I missed it but I didn't see anywhere in either statement that Cohen did any of this stuff at the express direction of Trump.
Click to expand...

" During his plea entry, Cohen said he had made the illegal campaign and corporate contributions "at the direction of the candidate" and with the "purpose of influencing the election."

He did not identify said candidate by name, but the criminal complaint, which refers to said candidate as "individual 1," said that person became President of the United States in January 2017--meaning it can be only be President Donald Trump."

https://www.businessinsider.com/michael-cohen-plea-deal-prosecutors-trump-2018-8
 
late said:
" During his plea entry, Cohen said he had made the illegal campaign and corporate contributions "at the direction of the candidate" and with the "purpose of influencing the election."

He did not identify said candidate by name, but the criminal complaint, which refers to said candidate as "individual 1," said that person became President of the United States in January 2017--meaning it can be only be President Donald Trump."

https://www.businessinsider.com/michael-cohen-plea-deal-prosecutors-trump-2018-8
Click to expand...

So it was verbal? One would think that such an important fact would be included in the paperwork somewhere. I mean, is it really not in the charging statement? They just skipped over that part? I mean, to my reading the statement more or less refutes Cohen's claim.

Then again, this could all just be political theater organized by Lanny Davis.
 
late said:
He pled guilty over the Stormy Daniels hush money, and said he was doing what Trump asked him to do.
Click to expand...

His word and a dollar won't buy you a cup of coffee.
 
Mycroft said:
His word and a dollar won't buy you a cup of coffee.
Click to expand...

Trumps own lawyers have provided partial corroboration. Mueller has a lot more cards to play, but the relevant question (in my mind) is... is it plausible. Oh hell yes.
 
late said:
Trumps own lawyers have provided partial corroboration. Mueller has a lot more cards to play, but the relevant question (in my mind) is... is it plausible. Oh hell yes.
Click to expand...

"plausible" won't convict someone.
 
Lutherf said:
Here's a copy of the charging statement -

https://www.scribd.com/document/386777678/Michael-Cohen-plea-deal-court-document-August-21-2018

Here's a copy of the plea agreement - https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/21/politics/read-michael-cohen-plea-deal/index.html

Maybe I missed it but I didn't see anywhere in either statement that Cohen did any of this stuff at the express direction of Trump. I don't see that accusation in the charging statement or in the plea agreement. If it's there then please point it out to me because I hate being misinformed.
Click to expand...

You did miss it. Cohen made oral statements in open court. I haven't found a copy of a transcript. I did find quotes attributed to Cohen. The quotes do not explicitly use the word Trump. It doesn't take much to infer who Cohen implicated, particularly when factoring in Cohen's attorney, Lanny Davis, current media blitz.
He told a judge in United States District Court in Manhattan that the payments to the women were made “in coordination with and at the direction of a candidate for federal office,” implicating the president in a federal crime.

“I participated in this conduct, which on my part took place in Manhattan, for the principal purpose of influencing the election” for president in 2016, Mr. Cohen said.
Click to expand...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/nyregion/michael-cohen-plea-deal-trump.html
 
Trippy Trekker said:
You did miss it. Cohen made oral statements in open court. I haven't found a copy of a transcript. I did find quotes attributed to Cohen. The quotes do not explicitly use the word Trump. It doesn't take much to infer who Cohen implicated, particularly when factoring in Cohen's attorney, Lanny Davis, current media blitz.


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/nyregion/michael-cohen-plea-deal-trump.html
Click to expand...

Don't you find it a little strange that Cohen would say what he did in court but there would be no indication of such coordination in any of the legal paperwork? I mean, the charging statement expressly mentions that he took out a HELOC to make one of the payments. Hell, they're charging him with fraud for the loan. Do you really believe Trump told him to do all that to make the payment?
 
Lutherf said:
Don't you find it a little strange that Cohen would say what he did in court but there would be no indication of such coordination in any of the legal paperwork? I mean, the charging statement expressly mentions that he took out a HELOC to make one of the payments. Hell, they're charging him with fraud for the loan. Do you really believe Trump told him to do all that to make the payment?
Click to expand...

No. Cohen made his statements under oath. His attorney, Lanny Davis, has explicitly stated that he and Cohen can provide concrete evidence connecting Trump to the hush money. Trump has changed his story from saying he knows nothing about the payoff to saying he knew about the payoff. Trump has not made his statements under oath. Under the circumstances, out of these two known pathological liars, I give Cohen's latest version of the payoff more credence than Trump's version.

Nixon's famous quote in the months leading up to his resignation "I am not a crook" did not stop his tailspin. Likewise, as the momentum against Trump continues to build, I expect Trump to tailspin and resign. I look forward to the results of the upcoming elections.
 
Lutherf said:
So it was verbal? One would think that such an important fact would be included in the paperwork somewhere. I mean, is it really not in the charging statement? They just skipped over that part? I mean, to my reading the statement more or less refutes Cohen's claim.

Then again, this could all just be political theater organized by Lanny Davis.
Click to expand...

Statements made under oath in front of a judge are not theater. What goes on around them, outside the Courtroom and outside the purview of the Judge often are. SDNY is treading a fine line between political exigency and legal fact. That is all that is happening here. Next, SDNY will go into an extensive period of interview with Cohen.
 
Lutherf said:
So it was verbal? One would think that such an important fact would be included in the paperwork somewhere. I mean, is it really not in the charging statement? They just skipped over that part? I mean, to my reading the statement more or less refutes Cohen's claim.

Then again, this could all just be political theater organized by Lanny Davis.
Click to expand...

Love the smell of desperation in the morning.

I thought about explaining all this, but I don't want to type that much. If you wanted to maximise your legal exposure, you'd do what Trump did.

Yesterday Trump signalled on Fox that he would pardon Mannafort. That is an attempt, with corrupt intent, to influence a witness before a court of law. It's something a mobster would do. But a mobster would know to send the message indirectly.

Capiche? That, in and of itself, is an impeachable offence.

That is quickly turning into a farce, what idiot uses his own charity to bribe his mistrisses?? That was a criminal conspiracy to influence the campaign. If you get a conspiracy conviction, and they will, that lowers threshold for the second one.

This is going to get much, much worse for Trump.
 
late said:
Love the smell of desperation in the morning.

I thought about explaining all this, but I don't want to type that much. If you wanted to maximise your legal exposure, you'd do what Trump did.

Yesterday Trump signalled on Fox that he would pardon Mannafort. That is an attempt, with corrupt intent, to influence a witness before a court of law. It's something a mobster would do. But a mobster would know to send the message indirectly.

Capiche? That, in and of itself, is an impeachable offence.

That is quickly turning into a farce, what idiot uses his own charity to bribe his mistrisses?? That was a criminal conspiracy to influence the campaign. If you get a conspiracy conviction, and they will, that lowers threshold for the second one.

This is going to get much, much worse for Trump.
Click to expand...

"Capiche"?

I love it!! You guys never fail to find ways to make me laugh. Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom