(08-28-2018 03:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-28-2018 11:49 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  The difference is Trump personally arranged this illegal payoff.
The infractions from the Obama campaign were admittedly minor and clerical and certainly did not involve the candidate.

What was illegal about it?

Other than Hillary lost the election. I get that part. But that doesn't make anything illegal.

(08-28-2018 09:08 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  It was Cohen’s money. It was 420k and Trump was to repay Cohen.
Tangled web.

That's normally the way lawyers work. They advance funds for things, they bill the client, and the client reimburses. Happens thousands of times a day on all sorts of transactions, from real estate purchases to hiring a stenographer for a deposition.

it's such a customary practice that Cohen had to take out a 2nd mortgage on his home to cover the payoffs to Trump's mistresses.

I don't think this is remotely as cut and dried as many would like it. As mentioned above and in umbluegray's link, it's quite easy to imagine this payment would have been made even if there was no campaign, just to maintain family harmony. There is a colorable argument that this is not a campaign expense. In fact, it's fairly easy to imagine outrage if he HAD paid Stormy Daniels from a campaign expense account.

What I don't understand: With all that, why did Cohen and the prosecutors agree his action was a crime?

(08-28-2018 04:14 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  I don't think this is remotely as cut and dried as many would like it. As mentioned above and in umbluegray's link, it's quite easy to imagine this payment would have been made even if there was no campaign, just to maintain family harmony. There is a colorable argument that this is not a campaign expense. In fact, it's fairly easy to imagine outrage if he HAD paid Stormy Daniels from a campaign expense account.

What I don't understand: With all that, why did Cohen and the prosecutors agree his action was a crime?

Levin explains that, too.

They intimate it's a crime. Cohen cops a plea deal.

That plea deal means a judge will never see it or rule on it.

If it went before a judge then it would be corrected that it was not a crime.


However, using this strategy the MSM gets to "say" it was a crime and the American people thus "think" it's a crime and the courts never get to correct that assumption.

Dems are now hollering for congressional hearings regarding the president's "crime".

(08-28-2018 04:14 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  I don't think this is remotely as cut and dried as many would like it. As mentioned above and in umbluegray's link, it's quite easy to imagine this payment would have been made even if there was no campaign, just to maintain family harmony. There is a colorable argument that this is not a campaign expense. In fact, it's fairly easy to imagine outrage if he HAD paid Stormy Daniels from a campaign expense account.
What I don't understand: With all that, why did Cohen and the prosecutors agree his action was a crime?

Because that's what Cohen had to agree to in order to get the jackals off his back.

So

Russian collusion isn't working we are back on ho.

(08-28-2018 04:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-28-2018 04:14 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  I don't think this is remotely as cut and dried as many would like it. As mentioned above and in umbluegray's link, it's quite easy to imagine this payment would have been made even if there was no campaign, just to maintain family harmony. There is a colorable argument that this is not a campaign expense. In fact, it's fairly easy to imagine outrage if he HAD paid Stormy Daniels from a campaign expense account.
What I don't understand: With all that, why did Cohen and the prosecutors agree his action was a crime?

Because that's what Cohen had to agree to in order to get the jackals off his back.

I get that, but is that something that regularly happens? That a defendant pleads to a crime that MAY NOT HAVE EVEN OCCURRED just to get a better deal on other, presumably legit charges? Doesn't a judge have to sign off on this? I know I sound like a naive moron, but this seems ethically frightening, even for our current environment.

(08-28-2018 04:42 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(08-28-2018 04:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Because that's what Cohen had to agree to in order to get the jackals off his back.

I get that, but is that something that regularly happens? That a defendant pleads to a crime that MAY NOT HAVE EVEN OCCURRED just to get a better deal on other, presumably legit charges? Doesn't a judge have to sign off on this? I know I sound like a naive moron, but this seems ethically frightening, even for our current environment.

In this case, the defendant plead guilty to a crime that isn't a crime. Just so certain people could say there was a "crime." Judges can be bought.

And yes it is ethically frightening.

(08-28-2018 04:14 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  I don't think this is remotely as cut and dried as many would like it. As mentioned above and in umbluegray's link, it's quite easy to imagine this payment would have been made even if there was no campaign, just to maintain family harmony. There is a colorable argument that this is not a campaign expense. In fact, it's fairly easy to imagine outrage if he HAD paid Stormy Daniels from a campaign expense account.

What I don't understand: With all that, why did Cohen and the prosecutors agree his action was a crime?

Hmmm. The Stormy Daniels/ Donald Trump affair took place in 2006. The payoff occurred in October of 2016. If Trump was worried about the affects on his home life, then he would have paid her off 10 years prior.

Similarly, the Karen McDougal affair occurred over a 10 month period from 2006-2007, but the payout to McDougal didn't occur until 2016.

Trump loves publicity... all publicity. He couldn't care less about the impact on his home life because it is the publicity that made him relevant and rebuilt his career after his real estate failings in the 90's.

(08-28-2018 12:34 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(08-28-2018 11:04 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  A sitting president cannot be indicted.

Bill Clinton was.

When did that happen?

(08-28-2018 04:56 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(08-28-2018 04:14 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  I don't think this is remotely as cut and dried as many would like it. As mentioned above and in umbluegray's link, it's quite easy to imagine this payment would have been made even if there was no campaign, just to maintain family harmony. There is a colorable argument that this is not a campaign expense. In fact, it's fairly easy to imagine outrage if he HAD paid Stormy Daniels from a campaign expense account.

What I don't understand: With all that, why did Cohen and the prosecutors agree his action was a crime?

Hmmm. The Stormy Daniels/ Donald Trump affair took place in 2006. The payoff occurred in October of 2016. If Trump was worried about the affects on his home life, then he would have paid her off 10 years prior.

Similarly, the Karen McDougal affair occurred over a 10 month period from 2006-2007, but the payout to McDougal didn't occur until 2016.

Trump loves publicity... all publicity. He couldn't care less about the impact on his home life because it is the publicity that made him relevant and rebuilt his career after his real estate failings in the 90's.

I think you make a perfectly reasonable argument for a message board debate but I don't think it flies in a courtroom. The fact that he did this because of the campaign STILL doesn't (necessarily) make it a campaign expense if he makes the perfectly reasonable argument that he was worried campaign scrutiny would turn these women up and affect his marriage/home life.

(08-28-2018 04:14 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  I don't think this is remotely as cut and dried as many would like it. As mentioned above and in umbluegray's link, it's quite easy to imagine this payment would have been made even if there was no campaign, just to maintain family harmony. There is a colorable argument that this is not a campaign expense. In fact, it's fairly easy to imagine outrage if he HAD paid Stormy Daniels from a campaign expense account.

What I don't understand: With all that, why did Cohen and the prosecutors agree his action was a crime?

That’s the easy question. Simply to smear and bring doubt on the president. Prosecution says you get 20 years but we will recommend 2 if you cop a plea to x. What would you do? Oldest play in the book.

(08-28-2018 05:08 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(08-28-2018 04:56 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(08-28-2018 04:14 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  I don't think this is remotely as cut and dried as many would like it. As mentioned above and in umbluegray's link, it's quite easy to imagine this payment would have been made even if there was no campaign, just to maintain family harmony. There is a colorable argument that this is not a campaign expense. In fact, it's fairly easy to imagine outrage if he HAD paid Stormy Daniels from a campaign expense account.

What I don't understand: With all that, why did Cohen and the prosecutors agree his action was a crime?

Hmmm. The Stormy Daniels/ Donald Trump affair took place in 2006. The payoff occurred in October of 2016. If Trump was worried about the affects on his home life, then he would have paid her off 10 years prior.

Similarly, the Karen McDougal affair occurred over a 10 month period from 2006-2007, but the payout to McDougal didn't occur until 2016.

Trump loves publicity... all publicity. He couldn't care less about the impact on his home life because it is the publicity that made him relevant and rebuilt his career after his real estate failings in the 90's.

I think you make a perfectly reasonable argument for a message board debate but I don't think it flies in a courtroom. The fact that he did this because of the campaign STILL doesn't (necessarily) make it a campaign expense if he makes the perfectly reasonable argument that he was worried campaign scrutiny would turn these women up and affect his marriage/home life.

For an average person, that may be true, but not for a media hound like Trump. His past does not indicate any concern about marital indiscretions and it would seem if he were truly concerned then he would have handled this 10 years prior soon after his wife had given birth to their son.

We are fortunate, in this case however, to have people in his inner circle who are willing to testify under oath to his 2016 motivations.

(08-28-2018 06:17 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  For an average person, that may be true, but not for a media hound like Trump. His past does not indicate any concern about marital indiscretions and it would seem if he were truly concerned then he would have handled this 10 years prior soon after his wife had given birth to their son.

We are fortunate, in this case however, to have people in his inner circle who are willing to testify under oath to his 2016 motivations.

So, since your mind is made up on the crime committed, is it your belief that Trump should be removed from office for this one and that the country deserves the resulting constitutional crisis?

(08-28-2018 06:17 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(08-28-2018 05:08 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(08-28-2018 04:56 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(08-28-2018 04:14 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  I don't think this is remotely as cut and dried as many would like it. As mentioned above and in umbluegray's link, it's quite easy to imagine this payment would have been made even if there was no campaign, just to maintain family harmony. There is a colorable argument that this is not a campaign expense. In fact, it's fairly easy to imagine outrage if he HAD paid Stormy Daniels from a campaign expense account.

What I don't understand: With all that, why did Cohen and the prosecutors agree his action was a crime?

Hmmm. The Stormy Daniels/ Donald Trump affair took place in 2006. The payoff occurred in October of 2016. If Trump was worried about the affects on his home life, then he would have paid her off 10 years prior.

Similarly, the Karen McDougal affair occurred over a 10 month period from 2006-2007, but the payout to McDougal didn't occur until 2016.

Trump loves publicity... all publicity. He couldn't care less about the impact on his home life because it is the publicity that made him relevant and rebuilt his career after his real estate failings in the 90's.

I think you make a perfectly reasonable argument for a message board debate but I don't think it flies in a courtroom. The fact that he did this because of the campaign STILL doesn't (necessarily) make it a campaign expense if he makes the perfectly reasonable argument that he was worried campaign scrutiny would turn these women up and affect his marriage/home life.

For an average person, that may be true, but not for a media hound like Trump. His past does not indicate any concern about marital indiscretions and it would seem if he were truly concerned then he would have handled this 10 years prior soon after his wife had given birth to their son.

We are fortunate, in this case however, to have people in his inner circle who are willing to testify under oath to his 2016 motivations.

The former FEC chair disagrees with your assessment.

Former FEC Chairman To Mark Levin: Stormy Daniels Money Cannot Be In Kind Campaign Contribution

(08-28-2018 07:04 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(08-28-2018 06:17 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(08-28-2018 05:08 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(08-28-2018 04:56 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(08-28-2018 04:14 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  I don't think this is remotely as cut and dried as many would like it. As mentioned above and in umbluegray's link, it's quite easy to imagine this payment would have been made even if there was no campaign, just to maintain family harmony. There is a colorable argument that this is not a campaign expense. In fact, it's fairly easy to imagine outrage if he HAD paid Stormy Daniels from a campaign expense account.

What I don't understand: With all that, why did Cohen and the prosecutors agree his action was a crime?

Hmmm. The Stormy Daniels/ Donald Trump affair took place in 2006. The payoff occurred in October of 2016. If Trump was worried about the affects on his home life, then he would have paid her off 10 years prior.

Similarly, the Karen McDougal affair occurred over a 10 month period from 2006-2007, but the payout to McDougal didn't occur until 2016.

Trump loves publicity... all publicity. He couldn't care less about the impact on his home life because it is the publicity that made him relevant and rebuilt his career after his real estate failings in the 90's.

I think you make a perfectly reasonable argument for a message board debate but I don't think it flies in a courtroom. The fact that he did this because of the campaign STILL doesn't (necessarily) make it a campaign expense if he makes the perfectly reasonable argument that he was worried campaign scrutiny would turn these women up and affect his marriage/home life.

For an average person, that may be true, but not for a media hound like Trump. His past does not indicate any concern about marital indiscretions and it would seem if he were truly concerned then he would have handled this 10 years prior soon after his wife had given birth to their son.

We are fortunate, in this case however, to have people in his inner circle who are willing to testify under oath to his 2016 motivations.

The former FEC chair disagrees with your assessment.

Former FEC Chairman To Mark Levin: Stormy Daniels Money Cannot Be In Kind Campaign Contribution

We'll see how it plays out in court.

Y'all remember when the Democrat party was a masculine party, not full of soy boy sky screamers worrying about payments to ho s.

I member

(08-28-2018 07:08 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Y'all remember when the Democrat party was a masculine party, not full of soy boy sky screamers worrying about payments to ho s.

I member

Y'all remember when you bit_h_s were whining about Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky?

(08-28-2018 07:13 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(08-28-2018 07:08 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Y'all remember when the Democrat party was a masculine party, not full of soy boy sky screamers worrying about payments to ho s.

I member

Y'all remember when you bit_h_s were whining about Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky?

Only the ones Bill raped. Meh to the others.

(08-28-2018 07:17 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(08-28-2018 07:13 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(08-28-2018 07:08 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Y'all remember when the Democrat party was a masculine party, not full of soy boy sky screamers worrying about payments to ho s.

I member

Y'all remember when you bit_h_s were whining about Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky?

Only the ones Bill raped. Meh to the others.

Did he shove his tongue down their throats and grab them by the ....? Pass the tic tacs, please.