The president is a criminal

[mikeymikec]

You are delusional. Nowhere did I suggest torture.

Of course not. Just the second bit of text I put in bold from your quote combined with the context of likening Mueller to a mob boss. I'll go back and underline it as well because with the new theme (at least from my end) bold doesn't show up particularly obviously.

Come on dude, you've repeatedly used such evocative language for a reason, you know it, everyone here knows it, just be honest about your intentions in using such language.

 

[cytg111]

I do have opinions just like everyone here, and I do voice them. I have stated what will convince me in this very thread. I'm sorry that it doesn't meet your exacting standards. No, let me rephrase that. I don't care what You think.

I have never said that I don't have an opinion about this subject. Witness' lying about Trump? Would you trust Cohen? I know I wouldn't.

Mueller getting forced confessions. No not forced, but why do you think he raided and confiscated everything from Cohen and his office? He made Cohen an offer that he couldn't refuse in my opinion just as they did with Flynn and his son. Think what you want but many in this forum have expressed the exact same thoughts as I on this matter. Squeeze until you get the answers you want.

Trump being in the Presidents seat takes a bit more than it would Bannon, Cohen or Flynn. He has to be impeached first and that is a higher bar on purpose.

Making such great progress for yourself and then allow your self to get sucked right back into that FOX hole. Too bad. Turn it off(Fox) and come back to reality. If these fuckers is not criminal swamp creatures Mueller wouldnt have anything to hang over them. Simple As That.

Question : What is a forced confession?
Is it forcing a TRUTHFUL confession out of a lying piece of shit by dangling evidence of his/her own shitty nature and own shitty criminal acts over his/her head?
Thats how it works is it not?
- Give me someone more criminal than you and I may give you a deal.. Muellers job is to trade up the collective amount of criminal as high as possible. And thank god for that. What you have right now is someone draining the swamp... And that gives you pause? BACK TO REALITY PLZ.

 

[pcgeek11]

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.

I've been reading up on this yesterday and here is where I am.

That Cohens claim alone is not enough for me, but it seems that the others involved have also claimed that he was knowledgeable about the payments and what they were for ( a cover for his campaign ). If true that they have three or more people that have stated under oath that Trump indeed did know about the payments. That in my opinion would raise the impeachment flag for me. The more I read about this the more I am inclined to sway towards impeachment proceedings. It seems that is where we are possibly if the articles I have read the last few days are indeed factual and backed by Mueller’s Investigation then he needs to be impeached for campaign law violations. As I understand it these violations (monetary fines) are not criminal (Jail Time) unless the prosecutors have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted knowingly and willfully, and knew that his action was against the law, but violated it anyway. That may be a bit sticky and hard to prove in court.

So to sum it up if Mueller’s investigation shows that the above is true he should be impeached ( criminal or just a violation ) and if they can prove he knowingly and willfully disregarded the law it should be escalated to a criminal violation and jail time.

 

[pcgeek11]

Of course not. Just the second bit of text I put in bold from your quote combined with the context of likening Mueller to a mob boss. I'll go back and underline it as well because with the new theme (at least from my end) bold doesn't show up particularly obviously.

Come on dude, you've repeatedly used such evocative language for a reason, you know it, everyone here knows it, just be honest about your intentions in using such language.

How are either of those statements considered "torture".

I think he did make Cohen an offer that he couldn't refuse. With Flynn who at first didn't play he kept squeezing until he did play. Squeezing is a figurative statement in case to don't get it.

How are those akin to torture?

 

[mikeymikec]

How are either of those statements considered "torture".

I think he did make Cohen an offer that he couldn't refuse. With Flynn who at first didn't play he kept squeezing until he did play. Squeezing is a figurative statement in case to don't get it.

How are those akin to torture?

The epitome of "who, me?" right here. They're just two figures of speech, right, picked utterly at random with no intent whatsoever? No need to make any kind of obvious-as-hell link between the underhand and violent behaviour of mob bosses (that you implied Mueller to be) to get whatever they want and squeezing until they get the answers they want (that you implied Mueller to be doing).

 

[brycejones]

I have supported waterboarding in the past and I still do.

In the context of this thread no.

So you support torture, how cute.

 

[pcgeek11]

The epitome of "who, me?" right here. They're just two figures of speech, right, picked utterly at random with no intent whatsoever? No need to make any kind of obvious-as-hell link between the underhand and violent behaviour of mob bosses (that you implied Mueller to be) to get whatever they want and squeezing until they get the answers they want (that you implied Mueller to be doing).

Torture indeed. You don't have a clue.

 

[pcgeek11]

So you support torture, how cute.

If you define waterboarding as torture then I guess I do.

 

[fskimospy]

I've been reading up on this yesterday and here is where I am.

That Cohens claim alone is not enough for me, but it seems that the others involved have also claimed that he was knowledgeable about the payments and what they were for ( a cover for his campaign ). If true that they have three or more people that have stated under oath that Trump indeed did know about the payments. That in my opinion would raise the impeachment flag for me. The more I read about this the more I am inclined to sway towards impeachment proceedings. It seems that is where we are possibly if the articles I have read the last few days are indeed factual and backed by Mueller’s Investigation then he needs to be impeached for campaign law violations. As I understand it these violations (monetary fines) are not criminal (Jail Time) unless the prosecutors have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted knowingly and willfully, and knew that his action was against the law, but violated it anyway. That may be a bit sticky and hard to prove in court.

So to sum it up if Mueller’s investigation shows that the above is true he should be impeached ( criminal or just a violation ) and if they can prove he knowingly and willfully disregarded the law it should be escalated to a criminal violation and jail time.

If you’re willing to accept what everyone else said, that it was done for the purpose of influencing the election, then it’s hard to escape the fact that this avoidance was willful as Trump is on tape talking about how to conceal the payments.

Seriously, like I said to start off, the president is a criminal and he should be in prison. This is a national emergency.

 

[momeNt]

It’s generally considered open and shut because all of the people involved in the payment said it was for the purpose of influencing the election.

So you have a bunch of people willing to come forward with hearsay testimony over Trump's intentions? That is open and shut?

 

[fskimospy]

So you have a bunch of people willing to come forward with hearsay testimony over Trump's intentions? That is open and shut?

You're claiming that the people directly involved in the transaction giving their understanding of events they participated in is hearsay?

....what?

 

[soulcougher73]

You're claiming that the people directly involved in the transaction giving their understanding of events they participated in is hearsay?

....what?

His response is right up there with campaign ads where the person running says "and i support this message" at the end. I'd F'ing hope you support the words that just came out of your mouth lol

 

[Jhhnn]

If you define waterboarding as torture then I guess I do.

I'm pretty sure the people who experience waterboarding would define it as torture.

 

[soundforbjt]

I'm pretty sure the people who experience waterboarding would define it as torture.

I remember Hannity chickening out on trying it.

 

[zinfamous]

If you define waterboarding as torture then I guess I do.

Ah, so you do support torture. Every organization in the world, including the US Military, calls it torture.

So, you support torture.

 

[zinfamous]

You're claiming that the people directly involved in the transaction giving their understanding of events they participated in is hearsay?

....what?

It's interesting how the long-accepted standards of testimonial evidence suddenly seem to...vaporize and/or became confusing when conservatives start to scratch their heads about something that might end up upsetting them.

It's been a truly bizarre thing to witness these last few years.

 

[momeNt]

You're claiming that the people directly involved in the transaction giving their understanding of events they participated in is hearsay?

....what?

Them speaking to "Trump's Intentions", which is what is required in order to make him a criminal, is the exact definition of hearsay evidence.

Unless Trump personally made the payment and made a statement of his intentions for making the payment (like in the memo of the check), or they have other evidence which proves the intention of the payment, he would not be guilty.

 

[fskimospy]

Them speaking to "Trump's Intentions", which is what is required in order to make him a criminal, is the exact definition of hearsay evidence.

That is not at all the definition of hearsay evidence. Hearsay evidence is a statement not made in court that would be used as evidence. For example, if prosecutors said 'I heard Michael Cohen say outside the courtroom that Trump made this payment to influence the election' that would be hearsay.

What we have here is by definition the literal opposite of hearsay - Michael Cohen's statement in court and under oath that Trump directed him to make that payment for the purpose of influencing the election.

Unless Trump personally made the payment and made a statement of his intentions for making the payment (like in the memo of the check), or they have other evidence which proves the intention of the payment, he would not be guilty.

This is comically false.

1) Trump would not need to personally make the payment, it was made with his funds and at his direction. Open and shut.

2) Intent is a component of nearly every criminal offense that exists and so intent always needs to be established. As people almost never make a statement of their intentions for committing whatever act they took juries and judges rely on other evidence like say, the eyewitness testimony of other people involved in the events like we have in this case. In this case we have literally every other party to the transaction saying the intent was clear, including the person who conspired with Trump to make the illegal contribution.

What you seem to be arguing here is that Michael Cohen can't know Trump's true intentions and without some sort of confession by Trump we can't establish the requisite intent. That's not how criminal law works, at all.

 

[momeNt]

That is not at all the definition of hearsay evidence. Hearsay evidence is a statement not made in court that would be used as evidence. For example, if prosecutors said 'I heard Michael Cohen say outside the courtroom that Trump made this payment to influence the election' that would be hearsay.

What we have here is by definition the literal opposite of hearsay - Michael Cohen's statement in court and under oath that Trump directed him to make that payment for the purpose of influencing the election.



This is comically false.

1) Trump would not need to personally make the payment, it was made with his funds and at his direction. Open and shut.

2) Intent is a component of nearly every criminal offense that exists and so intent always needs to be established. As people almost never make a statement of their intentions for committing whatever act they took juries and judges rely on other evidence like say, the eyewitness testimony of other people involved in the events like we have in this case. In this case we have literally every other party to the transaction saying the intent was clear, including the person who conspired with Trump to make the illegal contribution.

What you seem to be arguing here is that Michael Cohen can't know Trump's true intentions and without some sort of confession by Trump we can't establish the requisite intent. That's not how criminal law works, at all.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/what-michael-cohens-guilty-plea-doesnt-tell-us-about-trump

Like I said, if this is open and shut, he'd be gone already. Don't take it from me, take it from a Harvard Law Professor.

 

[fskimospy]

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/what-michael-cohens-guilty-plea-doesnt-tell-us-about-trump

Like I said, if this is open and shut, he'd be gone already. Don't take it from me, take it from a Harvard Law Professor.

Oh give me a break. Trump could hold a press conference tomorrow and admit to each element of the crime in turn and he would not be gone tomorrow.

As for the article, it’s simply saying that Trump could have had a different understanding of the purpose of the payoff than Cohen did. This is undermined by later reporting by the Wall Street Journal that said Trump explicitly discussed catching and killing exactly these type of stories with the National Enquirer in order to help his presidential campaign. That was in fact the impetus for this thread. (read the linked article in my OP)

So now we have the president saying he wants to pay people off to cover up affairs to help his campaign. Then his personal lawyer does just that at his direction and says it was to help the campaign. That’s kind of the end of it, no?

 

[Moonbeam]

That is not at all the definition of hearsay evidence. Hearsay evidence is a statement not made in court that would be used as evidence. For example, if prosecutors said 'I heard Michael Cohen say outside the courtroom that Trump made this payment to influence the election' that would be hearsay.

What we have here is by definition the literal opposite of hearsay - Michael Cohen's statement in court and under oath that Trump directed him to make that payment for the purpose of influencing the election.



This is comically false.

1) Trump would not need to personally make the payment, it was made with his funds and at his direction. Open and shut.

2) Intent is a component of nearly every criminal offense that exists and so intent always needs to be established. As people almost never make a statement of their intentions for committing whatever act they took juries and judges rely on other evidence like say, the eyewitness testimony of other people involved in the events like we have in this case. In this case we have literally every other party to the transaction saying the intent was clear, including the person who conspired with Trump to make the illegal contribution.

What you seem to be arguing here is that Michael Cohen can't know Trump's true intentions and without some sort of confession by Trump we can't establish the requisite intent. That's not how criminal law works, at all.

We come right back to this:

"It's interesting how the long-accepted standards of testimonial evidence suddenly seem to...vaporize and/or became confusing when conservatives start to scratch their heads about something that might end up upsetting them.

It's been a truly bizarre thing to witness these last few years." zinfamous

Conservatives rationalize because they wish to protect their egos from pain. They identify as Republicans or conservatives and acquire from that identification a sense of self worth based on being propagandized from childhood that the good and conservative values are one and the same thing, and all the forces of fear and violence that were directed toward evil in the impregnation of that propaganda bull shit would be felt in the form of self criticism facing the fact of the criminal assumptions their rationalization will cause them to think. We are dealing with moral cowards who do not have the courage to face the fact they were turned into supporters of a tribe regardless of what evil their tribe commits.

 

[fskimospy]

We come right back to this:

"It's interesting how the long-accepted standards of testimonial evidence suddenly seem to...vaporize and/or became confusing when conservatives start to scratch their heads about something that might end up upsetting them.

It's been a truly bizarre thing to witness these last few years." zinfamous

Conservatives rationalize because they wish to protect their egos from pain. They identify as Republicans or conservatives and acquire from that identification a sense of self worth based on being propagandized from childhood that the good and conservative values are one and the same thing, and all the forces of fear and violence that were directed toward evil in the impregnation of that propaganda bull shit would be felt in the form of self criticism facing the fact of the criminal assumptions their rationalization will cause them to think. We are dealing with moral cowards who do not have the courage to face the fact they were turned into supporters of a tribe regardless of what evil their tribe commits.

It is truly baffling, I agree. I mean look at the facts:

1) Trump has been plenty public about his infidelities in the past when he wasn't running for office, showing at best a minimal regard for concealing them from his wives.
2) Before the election Trump talked to the head of the National Enquirer about paying women he had affairs with for their silence in order to aid his campaign.
3) Trump then paid a woman he had an affair with for her silence and the person most intimately (har) involved with this payment besides the principals said it was to influence the election.
4) We are now supposed to believe there's no way to really know Trump's intent.
5) Come the fuck on.

I also agree, sadly, that whatever moral center American conservatism had is completely gone at this point. I firmly believe in some part of their hearts and brains they know Trump is a criminal but they view their tribe being in power as more important than preventing criminals from attaining power. This preference for tribe over country is the sickness at the heart of America's political problems.

 

[momeNt]

It is truly baffling, I agree. I mean look at the facts:

1) Trump has been plenty public about his infidelities in the past when he wasn't running for office, showing at best a minimal regard for concealing them from his wives.
2) Before the election Trump talked to the head of the National Enquirer about paying women he had affairs with for their silence in order to aid his campaign.
3) Trump then paid a woman he had an affair with for her silence and the person most intimately (har) involved with this payment besides the principals said it was to influence the election.
4) We are now supposed to believe there's no way to really know Trump's intent.
5) Come the fuck on.

I also agree, sadly, that whatever moral center American conservatism had is completely gone at this point. I firmly believe in some part of their hearts and brains they know Trump is a criminal but they view their tribe being in power as more important than preventing criminals from attaining power. This preference for tribe over country is the sickness at the heart of America's political problems.

I have said in the past it would be better to censure Trump and Move On to more pressing matters of state.

Liberals want to erase the 2016 election, this "Resist" movement is getting old.

OJ Simpson was an open and shut case too.

 

[fskimospy]

I have said in the past it would be better to censure Trump and Move On to more pressing matters of state.

Liberals want to erase the 2016 election, this "Resist" movement is getting old.

It seems like a bad precedent to accept that people can commit felonies in order to win the presidency. Remember that Trump's entire margin of victory was ~70,000 votes across 3 states. It's certainly reasonable that it going public how he paid off a porn star to conceal his affair with her could have affected that many votes in those states. One of the biggest bright lines we should ever have is that criminal conduct to win an office should not be excused if you succeed. If you do that then you create massive incentives for further criminal conduct. What's getting really old to me is conservatives ignoring clearly criminal and/or corrupt behavior by saying liberals are mad about losing an election. Maybe instead conservatives should be mad about criminal and corrupt activity, no?

It appears highly likely Trump committed one or more felonies in order to win the presidency and so he should pay the price the same as anyone else would. If you think this conduct shouldn't be punished then change the law to make secret contributions to your campaign legal. Otherwise, Trump isn't special.

Also, trying to equate this to Bill Clinton's conduct seems wrong because his conduct had nothing to do with his gaining the office or official conduct in it.

OJ Simpson was an open and shut case too.

It seems bad to equate this to a case where the person was clearly guilty. If the idea is maybe a jury will end up acquitting Trump in the future well, that's life. Doesn't mean we shouldn't prosecute though.

 

[Maxima1]

It seems like a bad precedent to accept that people can commit felonies in order to win the presidency.

It seems? It is. Even worse, there are no clear remedies in order to correct someone corruptly gaining office and executing their agenda albeit closest and practical to a solution would be court packing.

What's getting really old to me is conservatives ignoring clearly criminal and/or corrupt behavior by saying liberals are mad about losing an election. Maybe instead conservatives should be mad about criminal and corrupt activity, no?

A lot of this crap stems from conservatives feeling strongly about a few issues. As long as things like abortion aren't enshrined, many of them would never consider voting Democrat.