Crime Use it in a Sentence (special counsel thread v. 25)

Status
Not open for further replies.
grizzard2bid said:
Goes back to my earlier statement that Russia can't do anything right. At least couple of chicks in this group had some sex appeal.
Click to expand...

Shit for a bunch of old Washington and NRA guys I can see the Butina appeal. Young, redhead, Russian accent, nice tits and cleans up with make up. She’s practically a 8 to them.
 
Ophydian said:
Shit for a bunch of old Washington and NRA guys I can see the Butina appeal. Young, redhead, Russian accent, nice tits and cleans up with make up. She’s practically a 8 to them.
Click to expand...

She has a gun fetish too.
 
cincymma79 said:
He should serve as much time as john Edwards and Clinton did for the same thing, with the second one being down while he was in office. That would show trump we mean business. We don’t tolerate infidelity we ask what we can do for our country
Click to expand...

For the record the Edwards and Clinton situations are not the same as the Trump situation.

To explain this one must understand that for instance Clinton was impeached not for having sex with Monica but for lying about it. So if another President does the same underlying act (sleeps with someone) but DOES NOT lie about they would not get the same treatment.

So do not let people point at the underlying act. That is a false narrative.

So what did Trump do that differs? What is his equivalent of the 'lie'? What are the 'DIFFERENCES'?

- Trump admits payments were made to Stormy and Karen, after lying about them prior
- He is trying to dismiss them as 'simple private transactions'
- Business as usual

- The prosecution Filings call the payments "illegal Campaign contributions' (DIFFERENCE)
-Creating a shell company and using a Media Company (Enquirer) to purposely hide payments and bury stories so the voting public would not find out and thus it might impact how they might vote (DIFFERENCE)
- Lying constantly and consistently to the public during the campaign so that they do not have the full information they should before voting (DIFFERENCE)


Those last three points of DIFFERENCE are everything, similar to how Clinton's LIE about Monica was everything. Campaign finance law is specifically created to prevent Politicians from being able to hide key and critical information from voters that could give them info that might change their vote. Accidentally transgressing campaign finance law is a finable offense. Purposely doing so and with clear intent is entirely DIFFERENT and if provable is like Clinton's LIE and why he would be guilty of a crime where the others were not.

So anyone who points at the underlying action and NOT what was done to cover it up is just desperate to create a false narrative.
 
Last edited:
Edison Carasio said:
She has a gun fetish too.
Click to expand...

Who was handling the investigation? FBI?
I still don't like how they put out that BS that she was whoring for access. That's tabloid type shit you don't expect from Feds. But here we are. I don't know why even throw that in when there's plenty of other evidence.
 
Ophydian said:
In a six degrees of Kevin Bacon I’m connected to Alexander Voloshin who is being claimed as connected to Butina and Torshin as the financier of their operations.

I doubt I get a knock on the door any time soon as I never met with him directly but you never know.
Click to expand...
I guess it depends upon how thorough they really are. Gird your loins.
 
hillelslovak87 said:
The difference is that one is a monarchy, and one is a family representing a major political party with 2 or more of it's members in a democratic election. Is this hard for you to understand?
Click to expand...
MikeMcMann said:
For the record the Edwards and Clinton situations are not the same as the Trump situation.

To explain this one must understand that for instance Clinton was impeached not for having sex with Monica but for lying about it. So if another President does the same underlying act (sleeps with someone) but DOES NOT lie about they would not get the same treatment.

So do not let people point at the underlying act. That is a false narrative.

So what did Trump do that differs? What is his equivalent of the 'lie'? What are the 'DIFFERENCES'?

- Trump admits payments were made to Stormy and Karen, after lying about them prior
- He is trying to dismiss them as 'simple private transactions'
- Business as usual

- The prosecution in the Filing call the payments "illegal Campaign contributions' (DIFFERENCE)
-Creating a shell company and using a Media Company (Enquirer) to purposely hide payments and bury stories so the voting public would not find out and thus it might impact how they might vote (DIFFERENCE)
- Lying constantly and consistently to the public during the campaign so that they do not have the full information they should before voting (DIFFERENCE)


Those last three points of DIFFERENCE are everything, similar to how Clinton's LIE about Monica was everything. Campaign finance law is specifically created to prevent Politicians from being able to hide key and critical information from voters that could give them info that might change their vote. Accidentally transgressing campaign finance law is a finable offense. Purposely doing so and with clear intent is entirely DIFFERENT and if provable is like Clinton's LIE and why he would be guilty of a crime where the others were not.

So anyone who points at the underlying action and NOT what was done to cover it up is just desperate to create a false narrative.
Click to expand...
clinton paid off that woman in case you forgot
As did john Edwards
Neither served 1 minute in jail
There’s nothing here
Everyone knows trump had affairs
 
https://amp-cnn-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/07/24/politics/michael-cohen-donald-trump-tape/index.html?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQHCAFYAYABAQ==#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/24/politics/michael-cohen-donald-trump-tape/index.html

So the new line appears to be Cohen is a liar so he cant be trusted. Since it appears the public at large has the memory of a gold fish let's let Trump speak for himself:
"I need to open up a company for the transfer of all of that info regarding our friend David," Cohen said in the recording, likely a reference to American Media head David Pecker.

When financing comes up again later in the conversation, Trump interrupts Cohen asking, "What financing?" according to the recording. When Cohen tells Trump, "We'll have to pay," Trump is heard saying "pay with cash"

He's guilty. The only question now is will the senate uphold the rule of law.
 
DEN said:
https://amp-cnn-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/07/24/politics/michael-cohen-donald-trump-tape/index.html?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQHCAFYAYABAQ==#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/24/politics/michael-cohen-donald-trump-tape/index.html

So the new line appears to be Cohen is a liar so he cant be trusted. Since it appears the public at large has the memory of a gold fish let's let Trump speak for himself:
"I need to open up a company for the transfer of all of that info regarding our friend David," Cohen said in the recording, likely a reference to American Media head David Pecker.

When financing comes up again later in the conversation, Trump interrupts Cohen asking, "What financing?" according to the recording. When Cohen tells Trump, "We'll have to pay," Trump is heard saying "pay with cash"

He's guilty. The only question now is will the senate uphold the rule of law.
Click to expand...
Come on.
If someone "flips", they're just inventing stories, which won't need corroboration. Prosecutors use this tactic all the time to elicit self serving lies from witnesses.

Why won't they just ignore the appearance of criminality and stop this investigation before they find something worth prosec-- oh wait
 
@MC OverPressure
If only we had some kind of smocking gun like an audio recording of trump and Cohen collaborating on the deal.
 
cincymma79 said:
clinton paid off that woman in case you forgot
As did john Edwards
Neither served 1 minute in jail
There’s nothing here
Everyone knows trump had affairs
Click to expand...
More meaningless distraction.

This law is one that is very specific. You have to be able to show the intent was to avoid disclosing to benefit the campaign and without that proof an easy cover is 'i did it to protect my marriage' and it is hard for them to prove otherwise. That doubt almost always leads to settling as it should.

In this case, there is direct evidence that the Trump team (Trump, Cohen, Enquirer dude) all conspired to bury the stories specifically to protection the election. If Cohen says that and the Enquirer guy who is cooperating as well, also says that, then you have corroboration and it is DIFFERENT than what could be proved with the other guys.

Direct discussions of 'this could hurt the campaign... lets bury it' go to the heart of the law and what it is trying to avoid and its a felony to do that. Hard to prove without direct evidence but with such evidence a very BIG deal.
 
DEN said:
https://amp-cnn-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/07/24/politics/michael-cohen-donald-trump-tape/index.html?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQHCAFYAYABAQ==#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/24/politics/michael-cohen-donald-trump-tape/index.html

So the new line appears to be Cohen is a liar so he cant be trusted. Since it appears the public at large has the memory of a gold fish let's let Trump speak for himself:
"I need to open up a company for the transfer of all of that info regarding our friend David," Cohen said in the recording, likely a reference to American Media head David Pecker.

When financing comes up again later in the conversation, Trump interrupts Cohen asking, "What financing?" according to the recording. When Cohen tells Trump, "We'll have to pay," Trump is heard saying "pay with cash"

He's guilty. The only question now is will the senate uphold the rule of law.
Click to expand...

They are trying to create a narrative that 'Only honest people around Trump, who turn and offer evidence can be trusted.'


LOL at honest people around Trump. Good luck with that.

<{outtahere}>

Its interesting how when a crime family is taken down most of the witnesses are criminals.<{MindBrown}>
 
A reminder, for the forgetful:

Mueller mandate-
To determine whether Russia fucked with our election and
"... any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of president Donald Trump..."

Russia definitely fucked with the election, and if they didn't affect the outcome it wasn't for a lack of trying. This is beyond dispute. The only person clinging to Russian innocence is the president.

"... any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation."
SDNY got that shit on lockdown
 
MikeMcMann said:
More meaningless distraction.

This law is one that is very specific. You have to be able to show the intent was to avoid disclosing to benefit the campaign and without that proof an easy cover is 'i did it to protect my marriage' and it is hard for them to prove otherwise. That doubt almost always leads to settling as it should.

In this case, there is direct evidence that the Trump team (Trump, Cohen, Enquirer dude) all conspired to bury the stories specifically to protection the election. If Cohen says that and the Enquirer guy who is cooperating as well, also says that, then you have corroboration and it is DIFFERENT than what could be proved with the other guys.

Direct discussions of 'this could hurt the campaign... lets bury it' go to the heart of the law and what it is trying to avoid and its a felony to do that. Hard to prove without direct evidence but with such evidence a very BIG deal.
Click to expand...
In the end it’s still an affair and I don’t care about it.

Bring me the collusion I was promised
 
cincymma79 said:
In the end it’s still an affair and I don’t care about it.

Bring me the collusion I was promised
Click to expand...
No one cares what 'you' care about. Just as I am sure you don't care what 'I' care about. The SD NY cares about it and is coming for him on it and we will see whether they get him or not.

Fine if you don't care. Just don't lie or mis-characterize it as the 'same thing' others did, as its not.

And yes the Russia collision is coming to. Already a ton of evidence supplied, not because Mueller wants to lay it out yet, but because it was necessary in the filings for all the already guilty and/or indicted. What a shitload we have already seen without not even wanting to play his cards yet.
 
MikeMcMann said:
More meaningless distraction.

This law is one that is very specific. You have to be able to show the intent was to avoid disclosing to benefit the campaign and without that proof an easy cover is 'i did it to protect my marriage' and it is hard for them to prove otherwise. That doubt almost always leads to settling as it should.

In this case, there is direct evidence that the Trump team (Trump, Cohen, Enquirer dude) all conspired to bury the stories specifically to protection the election. If Cohen says that and the Enquirer guy who is cooperating as well, also says that, then you have corroboration and it is DIFFERENT than what could be proved with the other guys.

Direct discussions of 'this could hurt the campaign... lets bury it' go to the heart of the law and what it is trying to avoid and its a felony to do that. Hard to prove without direct evidence but with such evidence a very BIG deal.
Click to expand...

And Trumpleforeskins keep bleating back the Edwards talking point, forgetting that said scandal destroyed his political career despite him being found not guilty of illegal use of campaign funds. The guy is chasing ambulances or something back in North Carolina now. Not exactly the standard Americans should be holding a POTUS to.
 
cincymma79 said:
clinton paid off that woman in case you forgot
As did john Edwards
Neither served 1 minute in jail
There’s nothing here
Everyone knows trump had affairs
Click to expand...

Everyone, in October of 2016, didn't know Trump had those 2 affairs because Trump had just directed his lawyer to pay off the women, in cash, to sign non disclosure agreements. Trump must have thought something was there for him to commit two felonies, that's the point. That was during the "grab em by the pussy" time when the GOP was shunning him like he was a leper with aids, before Comey brought Hillary's emails back into the campaign.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,275,083
Messages
57,967,468
Members
175,884
Latest member
cloudfair

Share this page

Back
Top