Crime Cohen pleads guilty, says he lied

hillelslovak87 said:
Does the Mueller team, given their record with this investigation, strike you as the types of investigators to release the word of a liar without corroborating evidence to back it, as was said?

Donald Trump has changed his story 40 times, and is using the "It's a victimless crime, like heroin!!" defense. Nobody but the guilty acts like this.
Click to expand...

Well, this goes back to our original discussion of this being a type of crime that will be fought out in court of public opinion. I do think Mueller is testing the sentiment, he's got a controversial case to say the least. Much like Comey decided not to charge Clinton when public knew a lot of details of her crime, Mueller might decide not to move forward with charging Trump because it would be a weak prosecutorial case, BUT he might issue a strong rebuke in his report.
 
grizzard2bid said:
Well, this goes back to our original discussion of this being a type of crime that will be fought out in court of public opinion. I do think Mueller is testing the sentiment, he's got a controversial case to say the least. Much like Comey decided not to charge Clinton when public knew a lot of details of her crime, Mueller might decide not to move forward with charging Trump because it would be a weak prosecutorial case, BUT he might issue a strong rebuke in his report.
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with public sentiment. The president committed two felonies. There is no controversy to campaign finance felonies, which this is as clear a case to see. James Comey and Hilary have nothing to do with this.
 
hillelslovak87 said:
This has nothing to do with public sentiment. The president committed two felonies. There is no controversy to campaign finance felonies, which this is as clear a case to see. James Comey and Hilary have nothing to do with this.
Click to expand...

See Edwards vs. USA.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...r-trump/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6f4cd5dfc3bf

As to Hillary and Comey situation, it relates in that a potential President elect would had to have been indicted for a technical crime, causing all kinds of uncertainty. Clinton broke the law by having classified information in her house(a bad judgement call) and it could have been prosecuted, but given the situation it wasn't and rightly so. Comey got a lot of shite for it, but he did what most prosecutors would do in that situation.
 
https://www-vox-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2018/12/14/18140744/paul-manafort-trump-russia-mueller-investigation?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.vox.com/2018/12/14/18140744/paul-manafort-trump-russia-mueller-investigation

"Paul Manafort, who served as the manager for Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, provided advice to the president and senior White House officials on the FBI’s Russia investigation during the earliest days of the Trump administration. He gave guidance on how to undermine and discredit the FBI’s inquiry into whether the president, his campaign aides, and family members conspired with the Russian Federation and its intelligence services to covertly defeat Hillary Clinton during the 2016 campaign, according to government records and interviews with individuals familiar with the matter. "
Pretty clear cut obstruction.
 
grizzard2bid said:
See Edwards vs. USA.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...r-trump/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6f4cd5dfc3bf

As to Hillary and Comey situation, it relates in that a potential President elect would had to have been indicted for a technical crime, causing all kinds of uncertainty. Clinton broke the law by having classified information in her house(a bad judgement call) and it could have been prosecuted, but given the situation it wasn't and rightly so. Comey got a lot of shite for it, but he did what most prosecutors would do in that situation.
Click to expand...

The investigators in the edwards case could not prove intent. Intent seems all but obvious here, along with two confessions and apparently corroborating evidence as well. John Edwards did commit a felony, and should have been prosecuted for doing so.
 
andnowweknow said:
it's "My anagram mind and I"...

Also, you'll have to keep updating the anamgram as that list is certainly not complete. I predict the following final anagram. BITCHTATTLEFACTION...could evolve from this as well.
Click to expand...
Ah, I stand corrected, I thought that rule only applied when referring to other people, not when referring to objects, as it is in Dutch.

And yes, I expect so.
 
hillelslovak87 said:
The investigators in the edwards case could not prove intent. Intent seems all but obvious here, along with two confessions and apparently corroborating evidence as well. John Edwards did commit a felony, and should have been prosecuted for doing so.
Click to expand...

12 Jurors unanimously disagreed.
Also, the intent is always difficult to prove. It's probably the single biggest challenge in good deal of criminal cases, because intent is so key to make crimes prosecutable and the degree of punishment to which they will carry.
 
grizzard2bid said:
12 Jurors unanimously disagreed.
Also, the intent is always difficult to prove. It's probably the single biggest challenge in good deal of criminal cases, because intent is so key to make crimes prosecutable and the degree of punishment to which they will carry.
Click to expand...

If John Edwards lied over and over about the alleged issue, changed his story half a dozen times, his lawyer admitted to covering it up for the election, and the man whose company paid the hush money admits it was for the election, and the prosecution has corroborating evidence in all certainty, I would say he goes down.

Trump is at 2 felonies and counting. It's only going to increase.
 
hillelslovak87 said:
If John Edwards lied over and over about the alleged issue, changed his story half a dozen times, his lawyer admitted to covering it up for the election, and the man whose company paid the hush money admits it was for the election, and the prosecution has corroborating evidence in all certainty, I would say he goes down.
Click to expand...

John Edwards was an ex-VP candidate. Trump is POTUS. You and I know there's a double standard.
You're putting a rosy spin on Cohen's testimony. It comes down to his credibility and he has very little. He also was threatened with myriad of charges that would put him 10-20 years, so in his cooperation he was able to get it down to 2-3 years, so he had an incentive to lie.

With zero emotional investment into my prediction, I'll say it still is a weak-ish case to bring. Maybe against a low-level state senator/congressman, but a not a sitting President.
 
Gomi1977 said:
Ah, I stand corrected, I thought that rule only applied when referring to other people, not when referring to objects, as it is in Dutch.

And yes, I expect so.
Click to expand...
I'll be honest, English is my first language, you might well know more about it than I do, even being Dutch. I lived in Michigan for a while and they had an expression in a town called "Holland"..."IF YOU AIN'T DUTCH, YOU AIN'T MUCH".
 
I'm looking forward to Mueller explaining that even though everyone around Trump was crooked, somehow Trump himself was uninvolved and clueless.

If he's innocent, he's uninvolved and clueless and he shouldn't be president.
 
grizzard2bid said:
John Edwards was an ex-VP candidate. Trump is POTUS. You and I know there's a double standard.
You're putting a rosy spin on Cohen's testimony. It comes down to his credibility and he has very little. He also was threatened with myriad of charges that would put him 10-20 years, so in his cooperation he was able to get it down to 2-3 years, so he had an incentive to lie.

With zero emotional investment into my prediction, I'll say it still is a weak-ish case to bring. Maybe against a low-level state senator/congressman, but a not a sitting President.
Click to expand...

It's not just Cohen's testimony. It's Cohen's testimony, at least one tape, David Pecker's testimony, a supposed safe that contained information on catch and kill deals, along with any evidence the OSC has. Sprinkle Trump's behavior pertaining to this issue, and it seems about as obvious a case can be.
 
hillelslovak87 said:
It's not just Cohen's testimony. It's Cohen's testimony, at least one tape, David Pecker's testimony, a supposed safe that contained information on catch and kill deals, along with any evidence the OSC has. Sprinkle Trump's behavior pertaining to this issue, and it seems about as obvious a case can be.
Click to expand...

That would be a good opening statement by prosecution. But there will be one by the defense and you can guess how that goes.

It's a type of case that leads to hung juries. Menendez, a NJ slimeball that he is, was able to get hung jury when his pal was sentenced to 17 years for defrauding medicaid. Goes to show how easy it is to confuse regular people with jury duty. That case was also about the intent.
 
andnowweknow said:
I'll be honest, English is my first language, you might well know more about it than I do, even being Dutch. I lived in Michigan for a while and they had an expression in a town called "Holland"..."IF YOU AIN'T DUTCH, YOU AIN'T MUCH".
Click to expand...
Well, there's always another possibility; my HS English teacher was British taught, so with the whole neighbour vs. neighbor stuff, it could well be this is another difference between British English and American English. And Dutch and British English have influenced each other way more and way longer, obviously, than American English and Dutch. Though I love coming across Dutch words in the American lingo and place names. NY burroughs being the most obvious; Brooklyn was named after Breukelen, and Harlem of course after Haarlem. Yankee is from Dutch as well, from the name Jan-Kees.

And that's an expression I can get behind! LOL

Right, that's enough derailing. ;)
 
grizzard2bid said:
That would be a good opening statement by prosecution. But there will be one by the defense and you can guess how that goes.

It's a type of case that leads to hung juries. Menendez, a NJ slimeball that he is, was able to get hung jury when his pal was sentenced to 17 years for defrauding medicaid. Goes to show how easy it is to confuse regular people with jury duty. That case was also about the intent.
Click to expand...

This defense will not hold up when more cases start coming out. This case is part of a much larger pattern. Also, this is not the same as the Menendez or Edwards cases. This is way more blatant, way more amateur, and supposedly caught on tape. They have Trump in the meetings themselves.
 
Joe said:
While kellyanne conway is on cnn saying trump didnt lie about the payments her husband is on twitter saying trump lied about the payments

Click to expand...


This must be a fetish for them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,880
Messages
55,451,083
Members
174,783
Latest member
notnormal

Share this page

Back
Top