Not Just a Cohencidence (Mueller/Investigation Thread v.20)

[HomerThompson]

LOL! So it looks like the next step in the evolution of hack arguments is, "any criminal activity that Trump engaged in that isn't directly tied to Russia is OK." Somehow I suspect, "it's OK for politicians to commit crimes as long as Russia isn't directly involved" is a position that these guys consistently apply.

Is or isn't?

 

[syct23]

So has the WH come up with a new country to visit for a week until this all blows over..

 

[Jack V Savage]

Is or isn't?

Fixed. Thanks.

 

[PolishHeadlock]

It's not a deflection. You should look into the case. It's extremely similar to the Cohen situation and resulted in a not guilty verdict on one count and a hung jury on five others.

Some differences in those cases.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/el...tories-about-women-sound-john-edwards-n894456

If Michael Cohen is prepared to testify that the proposed payment was election-related, the case for campaign fraud would be much stronger than the case against Edwards, said Brett Kappel, a campaign finance expert with Akerman LLP.

The same would be true if Cohen were to say that a $130,000 payment he made to porn star Stormy Daniels was designed to silence her to help Trump's election chances, he said.


"This is a much tighter case, a much better case from a prosecution standpoint than the Edwards case," Kappel said.

The biggest reason for that, he said, is that the people who made the payments totaling more than $1 million to Edwards' mistress, Rielle Hunter, maintained that the payments were not about helping his campaign. Instead, they said the main goal was to hide the affair from his cancer-stricken wife, Elizabeth, who died in 2010. Edwards made the same assertion in his defense.

One of the funders, Fred Baron, died in 2008, before the Edwards case could come to trial. Another, Rachel "Bunny" Mellon, was 101 years old and did not testify. A young former Edwards aide, Andrew Mellon, was the star witness.

The payments to Hunter began in 2006, and continued over the following two years.


By contrast, the payment to Daniels, and the discussion of payment involving Playboy model Karen McDougal, came just months before the 2016 presidential election.

And Edwards was likely guilty

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

So has the WH come up with a new country to visit for a week until this all blows over..

They are saving war with Iran until the other shoe drops.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Lol, Jack is just making up insults now.

For some people in this world, the less attention you give them, the more they desperately desire it.

I live rent free in someone's head.

 

[waiguoren]

Would you consider this thread to be a court of law?

No.

There were real election hacking attempts, too

Yes. It's a normal, day-to-day part of life. I'm sure you're aware of US attempts to influence political outcomes in other countries. That's not an endorsement, but an acknowledgement of reality.

To be clear: is your view that there's no problem with foreign countries illegally hacking private citizens in order to influence election results and extract policy concessions?

No. My view is that it's going to happen and the best response is to secure your systems.

Impeachment, prosecution, etc. Sanctions against the country that attacked us.

Trump already imposed those sanctions, and I never wrote in opposition to them. So please stop the dishonesty.

My view of impeachment is that it requires an actual crime. So far Trump has not been found guilty of a crime. This is a deeper consitutional issue that I don't think you want to delve into.

My understanding of the founding is that the framers intended impeachment/removal to be a stand-in for prosecution. The idea was that the populace (through their representatives) should make that determination and not merely a jury or judge.

For example, directing his personal fixer to violate campaign finance laws.

That might or might not be a crime. It hasn't been tested. The Edwards case suggests it's not something that jurors will be able to agree on.

I don't think the act of paying off a mistress is morally reprehensible. I don't like it when men sleep around on their wives, but that's a different topic.

you're expressing certainty that there was no discussion of exchanging policy concessions for dirt in the meeting (apparently the law and the dirt were just two unrelated items on the agenda?).

Jack, you know full well that the offering of a bet is not an "expression of certainty". It's an expression of confidence. You expressed confidence on the opposite side of the bet, but then you ran. Why is that?

My view is that it's unlikely that Trump directed his inferiors to offer policy concessions to Russia in exchange for the hacked DNC e-mails. I'll spare you the analysis and offer you that bet again: Mueller will not conclude that such an offer was made at Trump's request.

What's strange, too, is that even if you somehow like Trump's actions in office (drastically increasing borrowing to pay for a giveaway to rich people, making it easier for scam universities to rip people off, allowing more pollution, etc.), surely there's a non-corrupt Republican somewhere who would be willing to do all the same things. Pence, for example. Why debase yourself defending Trump?

You know that this framing is absurd, and my response is not a tacit acceptance of the framing.

I like Trump's dedication to strengthening the porous southern border, nominating textualist-originalists to the federal judiciary, and his being wary of sending troops overseas. I don't like Trump on military spending and belligerence toward Russia. I feel Pence would not be as effective on the southern border.

For the final time: there is a difference between defending the law/Constitution/due process and defending a person. If I defend antifa's right to march, does that make me an "antifa defender"?

 

[44nutman]

 

[PolishHeadlock]

LOL! So it looks like the next step in the evolution of hack arguments is, "any criminal activity that Trump engaged in that isn't directly tied to Russia is OK." Somehow I suspect, "it's OK for politicians to commit crimes as long as Russia isn't directly involved" isn't a position that these guys consistently apply.

I guess we also have to point out this is money Manafort earned while working for Ukrainian political party that was beholden to Russia...

Perhaps we'll also have to review how political party faired down the line and what Russia's response to that was....

 

[syct23]

They are saving war with Iran until the other shoe drops.

So they are saving that until next months trial..?

 

[MikeMcMann]

Exactly what I was thinking.

Trump could be in prison, the policies he passed and people he appointed could be ruining the country (and world in the case of environmental protection), but since the "Hillary would have been worse" line can't be unproven, that's the one they'll stick with.

Plus, he's still triggering the libs so it's all completely worth it. Would vote for again.

This in the end is where I think the bulk of Trump's undying support comes from.

it is social media trolling culture moved to gov't.

those on the Right, were, perhaps rightly, frustrated with the left always dismissing them as stupid over their views. It was a very popular refrain from the Left to dismiss them and attack their intelligence.

And now they have Trump who just triggers the left and who trolls the left literally in what was before primarily used only in social media type arguments of nothing is real, only what i say matters and they could care less if he did shoot someone dead on Main Street, they would still support him even more if it angered more Liberals.

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

lol it'll get more inside when Don Jr. gets charged, then the narrative will be "Oh he wasn't even his favorite child, he was a drunk at Wharton that embarrassed his dad constantly!"

"He was really just an adopted coffee boy"

 

[waiguoren]

@waiguoren I can't take the bet you made in the closed thread (I still don't have confidence Trump will be impeached, and zero confidence he'll voluntarily step down). Not sure how you feel about Tuesday's events with Cohen and Manafort, but it felt like you believe it's not a big deal (you mentioned Manafort was only 4 months and Cohen only sometimes). If that's true, it's fairly crazy. 4 months leading your campaign is a huge deal and many people came out and said how much Manafort helped Trump. And Cohen was his long time personal attorney. I'm not sure how you can get anymore inside the "inner circle" than those two positions quite frankly.

I think you're mashing up different conversations. To be clear about where I stand and have stood:

My position has always been that "Trump/Russia collusion" in the 2016 election is most likely a fantasy. Paul Manafort's trial had nothing to do with "Trump/Russia collusion". Trump paying off a couple of mistresses has nothing to do with "Trump/Russia collusion". Many people in this thread have moved the goalposts so many times that they have forgotten about the "collusion" narrative they used to push so vociferously.

The best "evidence" they have for this "collusion" is the Trump Tower meeting. I'm headed to bed soon and can't get into it now, but that meeting is unlikely to bear fruit for Mueller even if Cohen makes up a really good story.

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

"He was really just an adopted coffee boy"

Don Jr is actually Hillary son

 

[Higus]

I have to ask :

Do Libs actually sit in front of their computers for hours, coming up with these absurd new names?

Is it too much to ask a Trump supporter to read books every now and then?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lickspittle

 

[waiguoren]

That appears to fall under "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation"

Yes. Exactly.

 

[Limbo Pete]

More hot air, Jackie. I'm looking for substance here. Don't descend into @Limbo Pete territory.

Tribalism rears its ugly head

 

[waiguoren]

It was a textbook deflection. Try to stay on topic.

Also, you asked for something specific, and I gave it to you. It seems you have no answer other than to deflect. Care to comment on the matters I brought up pertaining to the Mueller investigation?

I'm not sure what your standard is. It's unlikely that a jury would agree with you, given the Edwards precedent. If you don't care about precedent, you're of course free to interpret the laws any way you want. In the court of popular opinion, you're fighting a losing battle. Most non-partisans are not going to be convinced that paying hush money to a mistress is a serious crime.

 

[waiguoren]

By contrast, the payment to Daniels, and the discussion of payment involving Playboy model Karen McDougal, came just months before the 2016 presidential election.

This is the key to your argument. Probing motivations based on timing. If Trump tried the "didn't want Melania to know" defense, what would be your response?

And Edwards was likely guilty

I have to laugh at this. The jury certainly didn't think so. What did they miss?

 

[PolishHeadlock]

Some may call this a Schlapp down