The president is a criminal

[pcgeek11]

He hasn't been charged because he can't be until he is impeached. If your threshold for impeachment is someone bringing charges against him then he is immune and can do whatever he wants.


And do you think lying to the FBI is a good way to save your hide?

I realize that but an impeachment needs to be more substantive than "I don't like the way he does things" or "I think he may be ..."

The FBI/Mueller doesn't care as long as you are singing their song. Esp in this case Cohen is all they have and there is nobody to dispute it except Trump.

 

[pcgeek11]

He didn't make the payment before he declared. He fucked her before he declared. He made the payment a month before the election.

OK, but the intent is going to be hard to prove. Saying that I know what it "looks" like, but looking like campaign fraud is not proving it actually is campaign fraud. If the House of Reps thinks it is worthy then they should proceed and see what comes out. At this point I'm not convinced.

 

[pcgeek11]

As I read your response, what I take from it is that for you to conclude that the President should be removed for these payments, the only element presently missing is demonstration that Trump's intent in making the payments was to aid the election specifically. Is that an accurate statement?

Proven that he did it specifically for the campaign. That means more than Cohen saying so.

 

[pcgeek11]

He made the payment immediately after the ‘grab em by the pussy’ tape came out.

OK.

 

[UberNeuman]

OK, but the intent is going to be hard to prove. Saying that I know what it "looks" like, but looking like campaign fraud is not proving it actually is campaign fraud. If they House of Reps thinks it is worthy then they should proceed and see what comes out. At this point I'm not convinced.

Guess it doesn't matter how "convinced" you are. Shit is about to go down. lol.

/did you enjoy Trump shitting all over you Vets.

 

[pcgeek11]

Guess it doesn't matter how "convinced" you are. Shit is about to go down. lol.

Then I guess they need to just bring it, so you aren't a windbag as you typically are. LOL

 

[UberNeuman]

Then I guess they need to just bring it, so you aren't a windbag as to typically are. LOL

I mean just the way Trump cracked open his cheeks and plopped a steamer on WW I vets in France and then skips visiting Arlington on Veterans Day...

The little rich boy who skipped out of service in Nam because of a rich da-da.... lol.

 

[mect]

OK, but the intent is going to be hard to prove. Saying that I know what it "looks" like, but looking like campaign fraud is not proving it actually is campaign fraud. If the House of Reps thinks it is worthy then they should proceed and see what comes out. At this point I'm not convinced.

How is intent going to be hard to prove when it has literally already been proven? Cohen plead guilty to felony charges. How could Cohen have committed a felony but not Trump? Maybe some lawyers on here could help, but I can't think of any case where two people coordinated a crime together, one plead guilty, and the other was found innocent.

 

[pcgeek11]

How is intent going to be hard to prove when it has literally already been proven? Cohen plead guilty to felony charges. How could Cohen have committed a felony but not Trump? Maybe some lawyers on here could help, but I can't think of any case where two people coordinated a crime together, one plead guilty, and the other was found innocent.

Just because someone says something doesn't prove it. It could be evidence, but it isn't proof of intent.

Mueller had Cohen by the short hairs and I wouldn't put as much faith in his words as you obviously do. Cohen took a plea to lighten his conviction and may have been convinced to sling anyone under the bus to get it. That is quite a distance from proof of the intent IMO. I admit that it does appear it could be a campaign fund violation, but not as clear as some would like to think.

 

[ivwshane]

Just because someone says something doesn't prove it. It could be evidence, but it isn't proof of intent.

Mueller had Cohen by the short hairs and I wouldn't put as much faith in his words as you obviously do. Cohen took a plea to lighten his conviction and may have been convinced to sling anyone under the bus to get it. That is quite a distance from proof of the intent IMO. I admit that it does appear it could be a campaign fund violation, but not as clear as some would like to think.

Cohens plea deal didn't require him to cooperate with the feds. Oops

 

[mect]

Just because someone says something doesn't prove it. It could be evidence, but it isn't proof of intent.

Mueller had Cohen by the short hairs and I wouldn't put as much faith in his words as you obviously do. Cohen took a plea to lighten his conviction and may have been convinced to sling anyone under the bus to get it. That is quite a distance from proof of the intent IMO. I admit that it does appear it could be a campaign fund violation, but not as clear as some would like to think.

If we were talking about some uneducated individual getting pressured to take a plea deal because there was no way they'd be found innocent, you might have a point. I kind of think Cohen knows how the legal process works, and I'm pretty sure he's able to puzzle out if there was enough evidence of intent to get a conviction if he didn't plead guilty. The fact that he plead guilty to get that deal says quite a bit about what Cohen thought his chances were.

 

[pcgeek11]

Cohens plea deal didn't require him to cooperate with the feds. Oops

Did I say that it did?

Do you think there is no relationship between the plea deal and his cooperation?

 

[pcgeek11]

If we were talking about some uneducated individual getting pressured to take a plea deal because there was no way they'd be found innocent, you might have a point. I kind of think Cohen knows how the legal process works, and I'm pretty sure he's able to puzzle out if there was enough evidence of intent to get a conviction if he didn't plead guilty. The fact that he plead guilty to get that deal says quite a bit about what Cohen thought his chances were.

I am of the opinion that they had Cohen on many things, after all he is a Shyster I mean lawyer.

shy·ster
noun
informal
noun: shyster; plural noun: shysters

1. a person, especially a lawyer, who uses unscrupulous, fraudulent, or deceptive methods in business.

 

[mect]

I am of the opinion that they had Cohen on many things, after all he is a Shyster I mean lawyer.

shy·ster
noun
informal
noun: shyster; plural noun: shysters

1. a person, especially a lawyer, who uses unscrupulous, fraudulent, or deceptive methods in business.

While I wouldn't be surprised if there were other things they had on Cohen, I am surprised that you would accept the idea that they had Cohen on things other than what he plead guilty to, but don't believe that he was actually guilty of what he plead guilty to.

 

[ivwshane]

Did I say that it did?

Do you think there is no relationship between the plea deal and his cooperation?

No there isn't any relationship as that's normally part of a deal and it wasn't part of his plea.

 

[pcgeek11]

No there isn't any relationship as that's normally part of a deal and it wasn't part of his plea.

Just because it wasn't written in the plea doesn't mean there is no relationship between them. It only means there wasn't a documented relationship.

Granted I don't know if there was or not, but I suspect that there was.

 

[UNCjigga]

Just because someone says something doesn't prove it. It could be evidence, but it isn't proof of intent.

Mueller had Cohen by the short hairs and I wouldn't put as much faith in his words as you obviously do. Cohen took a plea to lighten his conviction and may have been convinced to sling anyone under the bus to get it. That is quite a distance from proof of the intent IMO. I admit that it does appear it could be a campaign fund violation, but not as clear as some would like to think.

Don’t forget that the FBI seized all his records including recorded conversations. They also have Pecker and possibly a banker too.

 

[alien42]

Don’t forget that the FBI seized all his records including recorded conversations. They also have Pecker and possibly a banker too.

if by "possibly a banker" you meant Allen Weisselberg, CFO of Trump Org, he has been given immunity as a witness.

 

[pcgeek11]

Don’t forget that the FBI seized all his records including recorded conversations. They also have Pecker and possibly a banker too.

I guess we shall see when they roll out the old Mueller Report. As you say if they have three people that are all telling the same story, he very well would be screwed.

See what I mean about Cohen, he recorded conversations with clients. That is so dirty IMO for a lawyer.

 

[brycejones]

See what I mean about Cohen, he recorded conversations with clients. That is so dirty IMO for a lawyer.

If you worked with someone as dishonest as Trump wouldn't you record the conversations?

 

[mikeymikec]

Then I would have to say that it would have to meet the same requirements as in a court of law as in a preponderance of the evidence. I also do not include rumor or hearsay as evidence. An impeachment should not be taken lightly.

"I'll be convinced when other people are convinced", said the Yes Man.

It's funny how you spend quite a bit of time here posting your political opinions, but when asked for what would convince you personally that your guy is a criminal piece of shit, suddenly you're opinion-free.

I think it is going to be near impossible to "prove" the reasoning behind the hush money. I know Cohen said..., but they kind of have him over a barrel very much like the way they had Flynn ( bankrupt him with legal fees and threaten his son ) I think Cohen will say whatever it takes to save his own ass or keep his penalty to a minimum.

Just wow: I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you went from "I have no opinions" to "I am very opinionated" like a boy racer goes from 0 to 60, but also the implication that any witnesses against Trump will be lying to save their own skins, AND an implication that the Mueller investigation is forcing 'confessions' out of people.

That's just aside from the fact that you're willing to accuse Cohen/Flynn/Mueller of a heck of a lot without requiring any evidence at all, yet for you to be convinced that Trump is up to no good requires a heck of a lot more evidence.

I wish I had any idea how you can actually justify this as a logical and coherent position to yourself. I personally would have thought that the standard "hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil" perspective of conservatives towards Trump's dog whistling behaviour would have served you best in this case, (ie. make no comment about the fact that Cohen, Flynn and other people in Trump's inner circle have been indicted and therefore standards of evidence have already been met about their involvement, and stay out of such topics including Trump's likely criminal activity) as it would also suit your line of "I'd prefer to wait until all the facts come out", but for some reason, just like Trump you can't resist in commenting. I know why Trump is doing it, but unlike Trump AFAIK you have nothing at personal risk to justify your current position.

 

[mikeymikec]

If you worked with someone as dishonest as Trump wouldn't you record the conversations?

I'm not sure I'm convinced of this logic at all. If you choose to work with someone as dishonest as Trump, surely this level of dishonesty is just another standard day at work, nothing out of the ordinary.

On the other hand, one acknowledges that they work with dishonest/dishonourable people and so therefore one records the conversations, surely one would be more careful to avoid getting legal shit on their suit and one would assume that the other parties are also recording such conversations, so being doubly careful to keep shady dealings off the record is important?

On the other hand, I suppose Cohen could be both inept and illogical, then it probably adds up to a plausible situation.

 

[interchange]

Proven that he did it specifically for the campaign. That means more than Cohen saying so.

I do think there will be a lot of evidence beyond Cohen's testimony including Pecker's. But if you allow me to challenge you for a bit based on what is already known, I'd like to see if perhaps mere perspective is enough. First, though, could we establish an evidentiary standard for you? Previously you used "preponderance" which means more likely than not. But that was challenged vs. reasonable doubt. Again, here I'm talking about the standard that you need to inform your beliefs, not that Congress might need.

 

[brycejones]

I'm not sure I'm convinced of this logic at all. If you choose to work with someone as dishonest as Trump, surely this level of dishonesty is just another standard day at work, nothing out of the ordinary.

On the other hand, one acknowledges that they work with dishonest/dishonourable people and so therefore one records the conversations, surely one would be more careful to avoid getting legal shit on their suit and one would assume that the other parties are also recording such conversations, so being doubly careful to keep shady dealings off the record is important?

On the other hand, I suppose Cohen could be both inept and illogical, then it probably adds up to a plausible situation.

I was looking at it from the standpoint of Trump has a long history of breaking agreements and trying to skip out on his financial obligations. I wouldn't be shocked if it started from the standpoint of Cohen not wanting to get hosed.

 

[pcgeek11]

If you worked with someone as dishonest as Trump wouldn't you record the conversations?

No, because if I felt that way about someone I would not do business with them.