Pecker Problems (Mueller+ Investigation Thread v. 21)

[waiguoren]

if Trump didn't fire a guy "because of the Russia thing" in the middle of an investigation

This is a mischaracterization of Trump's interview with Lester Holt.

In that interview, Trump gave his reasons for firing Comey:

Comey is a "grandstander", a "showboat", is "incompetent", "is the wrong man for that position" and the FBI was "in turmoil" under Comey's watch.

Then he noted that "there was no good time to [fire Comey]" because it would look bad no matter when the firing occurred and that it was okay to fire Comey before the conclusion of the Russia investigation because "this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story. It's an excuse by the Democrats for losing an election that they should have won. "

Holt: Are you angry with Mr. Comey because of his Russia investigation?

Trump: I just want someone who is competent. I am a big fan of the FBI.

Holt: Were you a fan of Comey taking up that investigation?

Trump: Look. As far as I'm concerned, I want that thing to be absolutely done properly. When I [fired Comey], I said "I probably, maybe will confuse people. Maybe I'll expand the length of the investigation. But I have to do the right thing for the American people. He's the wrong man for that position. "

 

[waiguoren]

Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about a blowjob.

In my view, the Republicans were wrong to impeach President Clinton for perjury to conceal sex acts. That was unconsitutional, in my view, and set a terrible precedent.

Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about a blowjob.
Trump has lied about multiple sex acts, then lied about covering it up, and how he covered up, and convinced another individual to commit crimes for him in order to conceal his lies.

Lying is not a crime unless the liar perjures himself, and your allegation that Trump committed a crime by paying Clifford through Cohen would seem to conflict with the jury's failure to convict in the John Edwards case.

Republicans have set a precedent they're unwilling to hold themselves to.

I would guess that most of the representatives and senators who voted to impeach President Clinton are no longer serving.

 

[Limbo Pete]

your allegation that Trump committed a crime by paying Clifford through Cohen would seem to conflict with the jury's failure to convict in the John Edwards case.

*Cohen commits crime
*Cohen pleads guilty to crime
*Cohen plea specifically details the crime as having been at the direction of the President
*Waiguoren uses the John Edwards jury (???) to marvelously tap dance around the President being directly implicated in the crime which Cohen has stated happened at his direction

 

[waiguoren]

*Cohen commits crime
*Cohen pleads guilty to crime
*Cohen plea specifically details the crime as having been at the direction of the President
*Waiguoren uses the John Edwards jury (???) to marvelously tap dance around the President being directly implicated in the crime for which Cohen has admitted happened at his direction

The jury in the John Edwards case could not agree on the issue of whether the payments to Hunter were actual "campaign contributions". The same issue is at work here.

The Edwards case was more blatant though. You had Fred Baron, a wealthy donor, paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to shuttle the mistress around the country to hide her from the media. The other donor, Mellon, concealed her "contributions" as payments for antique furniture. Still, it would be wrong for the court to assume this was done only to benefit the campaign.

Edwards argued that the payments weren't actual campaign contributions because they were intended to hide the affair from his wife. The jury failed to convict on even one count.

 

[Limbo Pete]

The jury in the John Edwards case could not agree on the issue of whether the payments to Hunter were actual "campaign contributions". The same issue is at work here.

Sure it is, Rudy

 

[KaNesDeath]

Put it this way: if candidate Donald Trump had written Stephanie Clifford a $130,000 check, drawn from his own personal checking account, to keep quiet about an alleged affair, no crime would have been committed.

Yes it would be. Any gain(money and or information) provided to a campaign is bound by FEC laws.

 

[SBJJ]

Yes it would be. Any gain(money and or information) provided to a campaign is bound by FEC laws.

A candidate can spend as much of his own money he wants

 

[ChainFlow]

A candidate can spend as much of his own money he wants

But they must disclose it, according to the law. Trump did not.

So either he broke the law by making Cohen contribute or he broke the law by contributing and concealing it.

 

[Strychnine]

But they must disclose it, according to the law. Trump did not.

So either he broke the law by making Cohen contribute or he broke the law by contributing and concealing it.

I don't see why people refuse to agree with this...

It's THE LAW.

 

[vengeful]

The jury in the John Edwards case could not agree on the issue of whether the payments to Hunter were actual "campaign contributions". The same issue is at work here.

The Edwards case was more blatant though. You had Fred Baron, a wealthy donor, paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to shuttle the mistress around the country to hide her from the media. The other donor, Mellon, concealed her "contributions" as payments for antique furniture. Still, it would be wrong for the court to assume this was done only to benefit the campaign.

Edwards argued that the payments weren't actual campaign contributions because they were intended to hide the affair from his wife. The jury failed to convict on even one count.

Jurors don't decide the definition of a crime, they simply decide whether an individual's actions fall within that definition for a crime.

The reason Edwards wasn't convicted is because those who made the payments on his behalf said the money was so his wife didn't find out, not to conceal it from voters to help his Presidential campaign. Cohen has already said the payments were to help the campaign. Stop comparing the two as if they're the same or as if a jury decides the definition of a crime.

 

[waiguoren]

But they must disclose it, according to the law. Trump did not.

So either he broke the law by making Cohen contribute or he broke the law by contributing and concealing it.

Or he didn't break the law at all because the payment to Stephanie Clifford was not an actual campaign contribution. That was John Edwards's defense, and it worked for him.

 

[waiguoren]

Jurors don't decide the definition of a crime, they simply decide whether an individual's actions fall within that definition for a crime.

Correct, and they did not find that the payments to Edwards's mistress qualified as campaign contributions.

The reason Edwards wasn't convicted is because those who made the payments on his behalf said the money was so his wife didn't find out, not to conceal it from voters to help his Presidential campaign.

You don't know that. That is one of the arguments that Edwards used, but you do not know why the jurors failed to convict.

Cohen has already said the payments were to help the campaign. Stop comparing the two as if they're the same or as if a jury decides the definition of a crime.

Cohen also appears to have said he was present when Trump Jr. allegedly notified Trump Sr. of the Trump Tower meeting. Now Cohen's lawyer says that's not accurate. Cohen has no credibility here.

 

[ChainFlow]

Or he didn't break the law at all because the payment to Stephanie Clifford was not an actual campaign contribution. That was John Edwards's defense, and it worked for him.

Edwards didn’t have one of the people making the payments testifying in open court that Edwards told him to do it to influence an election while pleading guilty to the crime of doing so.

Circumstances are very, very different. Your equivocations despite being told this over and over reek of mendacity.

 

[waiguoren]

Edwards didn’t have one of the people making the payments testifying in open court that Edwards told him to do it to influence an election while pleading guilty to the crime of doing so.

Circumstances are very, very different.

After the Lanny Davis/CNN fiasco, Cohen's credibility is not something I'd put much stock into.

 

[Throttlehead]

After the Lanny Davis/CNN fiasco, Cohen's credibility is not something I'd put much stock into.

Against Trump's credibility, anyone's is better.

 

[Rational Poster]

In my view, the Republicans were wrong to impeach President Clinton for perjury to conceal sex acts. That was unconsitutional, in my view, and set a terrible precedent.




Lying is not a crime unless the lie is told under oath, and your allegation that Trump committed a crime by paying Clifford through Cohen would seem to conflict with the jury's failure to convict in the John Edwards case.



I would guess that most of the representatives and senators who voted to impeach President Clinton are no longer serving.

You already tried that line of argument before and it was debunked.

More than 25 of the most senior GOP Congressmen served either in the House or the Senate during Clinton's impeachment proceedings.

The only reason Trump hasn't lied under oath is because his legal council is forbidding him from testifying under oath.

They don't need a perjury trap, just a microphone. Trump can't help himself when it comes to telling lies.

 

[Rational Poster]

A candidate can spend as much of his own money he wants

Except he didn't spend his own money.

 

[Andy Capp]

This is a mischaracterization of Trump's interview with Lester Holt.

In that interview, Trump gave his reasons for firing Comey:

Comey is a "grandstander", a "showboat", is "incompetent", "is the wrong man for that position" and the FBI was "in turmoil" under Comey's watch.

Then he noted that "there was no good time to [fire Comey]" because it would look bad no matter when the firing occurred and that it was okay to fire Comey before the conclusion of the Russia investigation because "this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story. It's an excuse by the Democrats for losing an election that they should have won. "

Holt: Are you angry with Mr. Comey because of his Russia investigation?

Trump: I just want someone who is competent. I am a big fan of the FBI.

Holt: Were you a fan of Comey taking up that investigation?

Trump: Look. As far as I'm concerned, I want that thing to be absolutely done properly. When I [fired Comey], I said "I probably, maybe will confuse people. Maybe I'll expand the length of the investigation. But I have to do the right thing for the American people. He's the wrong man for that position. "

"On May 10, the day after firing Comey, Trump told the Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak and foreign minister Sergey Lavrov that the former FBI Director was “crazy, a real nut job,” and bragged that firing Comey had “taken off” the “great pressure” the Russia investigation created. On May 11, Trump told NBC’s Lester Holt that he had planned to fire Comey regardless of Rosenstein’s conclusion, and that he was considering “this Russia thing” when he decided to do so...."

Is that true or not?

 

[Ophydian]

"On May 10, the day after firing Comey, Trump told the Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak and foreign minister Sergey Lavrov that the former FBI Director was “crazy, a real nut job,” and bragged that firing Comey had “taken off” the “great pressure” the Russia investigation created. On May 11, Trump told NBC’s Lester Holt that he had planned to fire Comey regardless of Rosenstein’s conclusion, and that he was considering “this Russia thing” when he decided to do so...."

Is that true or not?

Incoming video of AD arguing that what Trump says to foreign ambassadors is not illegal and cannot be taken as proof of admitting.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Edwards didn’t have one of the people making the payments testifying in open court that Edwards told him to do it to influence an election while pleading guilty to the crime of doing so.

Circumstances are very, very different. Your equivocations despite being told this over and over reek of mendacity.

I don't understand why people allow the subject to be shifted.

... Anyways, there's a lot of speculation that Mueller's office will be issuing a statement of some sort this week. Rumors.

I'm betting it turns into nada.