• 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!

Trump's response to Michael Cohen's plea deal, dissected

All anyone really needs to know is that Trump can pay anyone for anything -- legally -- if it benefits his own campaign, and he need not report it, since he's using his own funds.

This is just a sideshow created by the prosecution to try and cast aspersions -- but -- it's a non-story.

Then again, the amount of "aspersions" that are being cast are so overwhelming that where there is smoke there in generally a fire.

How anyone can ignore the fact that almost every single day Trump is facing some "misunderstanding, accusation of wrong doing, lie, error, or mistake of incompetency" is beyond me. One would normally think that 1 or perhaps 2 could be a coincidence or simply a mistake, but Trump has been in office for over 500 days and there must be at least 200-300 of these "aspersions" means there is a problem............one would think.

I think amount of excuses for his conduct are now reaching the amount of his lies (over 4300 at last count) would suggest that Trump is guilty of something, if nothing else of plain stupidity.
 
Entirely false...entirely. My God!!!

The liberal Dershowitz on MSNBC. How can you be so wrong -- so very often?

MSNBC HOST: Can I ask about a couple things, Alan? .. You said last night, 'All Cohen has to do is say the president directed me to do it. That's the kind of embellishment people put on a story when they want to avoid dying in prison.' Are you suggesting Cohen lied under oath?

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Well, we don't know. All we know is what Judge Ellis said.

Judge Ellis said is when you put pressure on somebody like Cohen, there is an incentive to embellish the story and make it better because he's now facing 4 years. So if he comes up with strong evidence against the president that will be reduced to 2 years, 3 years, or 1 year. ...

I have no idea whether Cohen is telling the truth or not, but the interesting thing is, if Cohen is telling the truth it's a catch-22 for the prosecution. Let me lay this out for 60 seconds...

Here's the issue: The president is entitled to pay hush money to anyone he wants during a campaign. There are no restrictions on what a candidate can contribute to his own campaign. So if, in fact, the president directed Cohen to do it as his lawyer and was going to compensate him for it, the president committed no crime. if Cohen did it on his own --

MSNBC HOST: That seems awfully convoluted, Alan.

DERSHOWITZ: -- then Cohen commits the crime.

It's convoluted. The law is convoluted.

MSNBC HOST: Prosecutors have said Michael Cohen broke the law and Michael Cohen says, the president told me to do it. You said last night, as well that you every president breaks the law during an election. Really? Does that make it okay?

DERSHOWITZ: No. I said --

MSNBC HOST: Your quote is every candidate violates election laws when they run for president.

DERSHOWITZ: Let me tell you what I said.

MSNBC HOST: I just told you.

DERSHOWITZ: Candidates violate election laws all the time, go back to any campaign's campaign violations.

MSNBC HOST: But does that make it okay?

DERSHOWITZ: No, it doesn't, but let be very clear.

MSNBC HOST: Isn't that moving the goalposts?

DERSHOWITZ: You're not letting me make my point.

MSNBC HOST: All yours.

DERSHOWITZ: The president doesn't break the law if, as a candidate, he contributes to his own campaign. So if he gave $1 million to two women as hush money, there would be in crime. If he directed his lawyer to do it, and he would compensate the lawyer, he's committed no crime.

The only crime is if a third-party, namely, Cohen, on his own, contributed to a campaign, that would be a campaign contribution. So it is a catch-22 for the prosecution. iI they claim that the president authorized him to do it or directed him to do it, it is not a crime for anybody. If Cohen did it on his own, then it is a crime for Cohen but not the president.

This is going to be a very difficult case for the prosecution to make, precisely because the laws on election are so convoluted.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...y_hush_money_committed_no_election_crime.html
 
Then again, the amount of "aspersions" that are being cast are so overwhelming that where there is smoke there in generally a fire.

How anyone can ignore the fact that almost every single day Trump is facing some "misunderstanding, accusation of wrong doing, lie, error, or mistake of incompetency" is beyond me. One would normally think that 1 or perhaps 2 could be a coincidence or simply a mistake, but Trump has been in office for over 500 days and there must be at least 200-300 of these "aspersions" means there is a problem............one would think.

I think amount of excuses for his conduct are now reaching the amount of his lies (over 4300 at last count) would suggest that Trump is guilty of something, if nothing else of plain stupidity.

No one's missing that -- but before you jump on a bandwagon, you really ought to know where you're going. Read post #27 for an explanation.
 
At this point Dersh has the credibility of a fence post, meaning he has no credibility.

All sour grapes today, I see.

Sorry, but your most current Trump "gotcha" just like all your other ones is a non-issue. If you don't believe me -- just keep watching the news. :mrgreen:
 
That doesn't mean Jack squat. Scroll up to read by last post.

I cant understand why you continue to defend trump. he means nothing to you, he has done nothing for you, he would throw you under the bus to save himself. He is truly despicable, yet you dont say a word when he lies constantly about everything.
Dershowitz has not seen a single piece of evidence in this case, his opinion is meaningless.
 
No one's missing that -- but before you jump on a bandwagon, you really ought to know where you're going. Read post #27 for an explanation.

I read post #27 but I did not get the "explanation".

What I do know, is that "explanations" have been given for Trump over and over and over and over again. In my entire life (and I am 73 years old), I have never seen anyone been given the "benefit of the doubt" as much as Trump. Like I have said many times before, if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, it must be a duck..............and not a swan as Trump supporters want us to believe.

This thing about "show me proof" is getting tiresome. No one has to show so much proof over and over again without being guilty of something. People just don't get accused or into trouble as often as Trump has been accused or gotten into trouble without there being a big and bad problem underlying it.
 
All sour grapes today, I see.

Sorry, but your most current Trump "gotcha" just like all your other ones is a non-issue. If you don't believe me -- just keep watching the news. :mrgreen:

Oh OK. not to mention that he's wrong or irrelevant depending on which end of that Dersh diatribe you are on about.
 
Oh OK. not to mention that he's wrong.

Please show me the law that does not permit a candidate to contribute to his own campaign expenditures without reporting them.

Let me help you out -- it doesn't exist.

LOL
 
I cant understand why you continue to defend trump. he means nothing to you, he has done nothing for you, he would throw you under the bus to save himself. He is truly despicable, yet you dont say a word when he lies constantly about everything.
Dershowitz has not seen a single piece of evidence in this case, his opinion is meaningless.

I'm not defending Trump -- I'm just stating the law as it's written.

No matter how much you dislike Trump, accusing him of crimes that are not crimes is a practice of laboring over dunghills.
 
I read post #27 but I did not get the "explanation".

What I do know, is that "explanations" have been given for Trump over and over and over and over again. In my entire life (and I am 73 years old), I have never seen anyone been given the "benefit of the doubt" as much as Trump. Like I have said many times before, if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, it must be a duck..............and not a swan as Trump supporters want us to believe.

This thing about "show me proof" is getting tiresome. No one has to show so much proof over and over again without being guilty of something. People just don't get accused or into trouble as often as Trump has been accused or gotten into trouble without there being a big and bad problem underlying it.

Okay, if you don't get it -- you don't get it.

IN that case, I would say -- just keep watching the news.
 
Which has absolutely nothing to do with your statement that "Cohen doesn't agree with me."

It also has nothing to do with whether Trump would be guilty, since a candidate can spend his own money to further his campaign at any time -- and not record it.

haha it's ludicrous to suggest that paying a pornstar helps further his campaign (w/o at least admitting that he did it in order to squash the story) and that it shouldn't have been reported, but OK. Have fun being brainwashed by Fox News.
 
No one's missing that -- but before you jump on a bandwagon, you really ought to know where you're going. Read post #27 for an explanation.

and by the way, in the last day Trump has made a statement that shows him to be exactly what he is.

He tweeted:

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

I feel very badly for Paul Manafort and his wonderful family. “Justice” took a 12 year old tax case, among other things, applied tremendous pressure on him and, unlike Michael Cohen, he refused to “break” - make up stories in order to get a “deal.” Such respect for a brave man!

6:21 AM - 22 Aug 2018

Isn't Trump supposed to be the #1 representative of the U.S. regarding support for the laws? As such, why is he lauding someone that broke the law but didn't blab and dissing something that broke the law and blabbed. He should have abased both of them for breaking the law but been more supportive of Cohen for admitting his mistake. He should not have been lauding Manafort for keeping quiet. Trump represents the Constitution and the laws of the U.S. Didn't he give an oath to do that when he took office?

This has nothing to do with "aspersions on him" but on the fact that he is acting like a Mafia Boss instead of the representative of the Constitution.

This speaks loudly as to what kind of person Trump is, without actually being convicted of breaking any laws.
 
Last edited:
and by the way, in the last day Trump has made a statement that shows him to be exactly what he is.

He tweeted:

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

I feel very badly for Paul Manafort and his wonderful family. “Justice” took a 12 year old tax case, among other things, applied tremendous pressure on him and, unlike Michael Cohen, he refused to “break” - make up stories in order to get a “deal.” Such respect for a brave man!

6:21 AM - 22 Aug 2018

Isn't Trump supposed to be the #1 representative of the U.S. regarding support for the laws? As such, why is he lauding someone that broken the law but didn't blab and dissing something that broke the law and blabbed. He should have abased both of them for breaking the law but been more supportive of Cohen for admitting his mistake. He should not have been lauding Manafort for keeping quiet. Trump represents the Constitution and the laws of the U.S. Didn't he give an oath to do that when he took office?

This has nothing to do with "aspersions on him" but on the fact that he is acting like a Mafia Boss instead of the representative of the Constitution.

This speaks loudly as to what kind of person Trump is, without actually being convicted of breaking any laws.

This (your post) also has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
 
haha it's ludicrous to suggest that paying a pornstar helps further his campaign (w/o at least admitting that he did it in order to squash the story) and that it shouldn't have been reported, but OK. Have fun being brainwashed by Fox News.

That was on MSNBC -- not FOX News.

LOL
 
These women should be charged for extortion. They clearly took the money. If they had moral principles they wouldn't have accepted the money.

Trump is a cheap man. He is just not giving away money for nothing. I am not sure why Stormy Daniels is not being charged with a cirme.

Accepting hush money is not extortion. It happens all the time. Perfectly legal.
 
That was on MSNBC -- not FOX News.

LOL

:lamo :lamo Alan Dershowitz has been a staple on Fox News for years, the fact that he sometimes goes on other networks is meaningless and proves you have no point. :lamo :lamo
 
I'm not defending Trump -- I'm just stating the law as it's written.

No matter how much you dislike Trump, accusing him of crimes that are not crimes is a practice of laboring over dunghills.

You are not an attorney, nor do you have any legal experience. Its totally disingenuous for you to even think you know what you are talking about. Is there anything you wont do or say to defend this crook?
 
This (your post) also has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Sure it does. The subject of this thread is that Trump is a lying con man and you are supporting the he has not done anything illegal, vis a vis Hershowitz.

I am stating that Trump is a lying con man and his most recent tweet supports that. He took an oath to support the Constitution and he is not doing that. Simple as that.
 
Please show me the law that does not permit a candidate to contribute to his own campaign expenditures without reporting them.

Let me help you out -- it doesn't exist.

LOL

This is from the FEC web site.

"When candidates use their personal funds for campaign purposes, they are making contributions to their campaigns. Unlike other contributions, candidate contributions are not subject to any limits. They must, however, be reported.

Note: Receipts that are intended as contributions (rather than loans) from the candidate may not later be converted into loans. Receipts intended as loans are disclosed on Line 13(a) or 13(b) of Form 3."

Again before you want to make some whacked out argument about criminal liability as I have repeated several times now, Cohen has already admitted to CRIMINAL INTENT, has admitted that he was directed by Trump to make the payments and that they both understood the criminal intent of their actions.

But don't let the facts stand in your way. You haven't so far.

That said, your argument is entirely irrelevant anyway. You are welcome to do your own research and find out why.
 
This is from the FEC web site.

"When candidates use their personal funds for campaign purposes, they are making contributions to their campaigns. Unlike other contributions, candidate contributions are not subject to any limits. They must, however, be reported.

Note: Receipts that are intended as contributions (rather than loans) from the candidate may not later be converted into loans. Receipts intended as loans are disclosed on Line 13(a) or 13(b) of Form 3."

Again before you want to make some whacked out argument about criminal liability as I have repeated several times now, Cohen has already admitted to CRIMINAL INTENT, has admitted that he was directed by Trump to make the payments and that they both understood the criminal intent of their actions.

But don't let the facts stand in your way. You haven't so far.

That said, your argument is entirely irrelevant anyway. You are welcome to do your own research and find out why.

Paying hush money is not a campaign expenditure -- it doesn't further the campaign in any way. It only protects the reputation of the candidate.

My argument is the same as it's been since Cohen pled -- and now, thankfully, one of MSNBC's top legal advisors explains why it's not an "issue."

But - keep hope alive.
 
:lamo :lamo Alan Dershowitz has been a staple on Fox News for years, the fact that he sometimes goes on other networks is meaningless and proves you have no point. :lamo :lamo

Dershowitz is a liberal legal commentator. He was on MSNBC when he made that statement.
 
You are not an attorney, nor do you have any legal experience. Its totally disingenuous for you to even think you know what you are talking about. Is there anything you wont do or say to defend this crook?

You're right -- I'm not an attorney, which is why I'm listening to REAL attorneys -- in this case, MSNBC's Dershowitz.

Why are you pretending to know the law?
 
Sure it does. The subject of this thread is that Trump is a lying con man and you are supporting the he has not done anything illegal, vis a vis Hershowitz.

I am stating that Trump is a lying con man and his most recent tweet supports that. He took an oath to support the Constitution and he is not doing that. Simple as that.

LOL

The subject of this thread is Trump's response to Cohen.

By the way, it's "Dershowitz" not "Hershowitz."

Your ending blurb about Trump not supporting the Constitution is just more deflective crybaby stuff from you. Not on topic still.
 
Back
Top Bottom