By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Trump's Personal Lawyer And Campaign Manager Both Going To Prison

Immersiveunreality on 22 August 2018
Soundwave said:

 

Paul Manafort, the former campaign manager of Trump's campaign was found guilty of 8 counts of financial crime today. Michael Cohen Trump's personal attorney pleaded guilty to eight criminal counts and implicated Trump as the one who directed him to pay off a porn star and nude model to cover up Trump's affairs which violates campaign finance laws. He is looking at several years in jail. 

That draining the swamp sure is going great. 

Can you provide us a link to the article please?



Around the Network
Ljink96 on 22 August 2018

I can't believe this is still going on. If it were Obama instead of Trump he'd be impeached yesterday. These crooks are putting party over country and its really sad. We have to have some freaking standards here.



TheLegendaryWolf on 22 August 2018

It'll be interesting to see where things go from here that's for sure.



Locknuts on 22 August 2018
Soundwave said:
Locknuts said:
So they might finally have something on Trump (weak as it is). Well if Clinton can lose the Presidency for copping a bj from his secretary and lying about it, then Trump could potentially go too.

That would be 2 good presidents undone for ridiculous reasons, while Bush and Obama managed to run the USA almost into the ground between them and hardly anybody questioned them. Not to mention they were both trigger happy with the war machine.

Which war did Obama go into again? *crickets* The whole freaking economic recovery that Trump is riding on started under Obama. 

I don't remember the USA ever not being in some kind of war under Obama. Obama was also keen on the use of drone strikes. Almost immediately after becoming president (3 days in I believe) he ordered strikes in Pakistan that killed hundred of civilians. Yes Bush started the big wars, but Obama failed to finish them and has blood on his hands too. 

Also, presidents can not be held responsible for economic failures or recovery for the most part. It's too complex. What I do believe though is that Obama's policies dented confidence in the economy and Trumps' salesman like talk is boosting confidence in the economy.

When I write that they ran the USA almost into the ground I mean by creating division among the populace, going into endless wars and simultaneously making poor policy decisions. It's not just economics.



super_etecoon on 22 August 2018
Locknuts said:
Soundwave said:

Which war did Obama go into again? *crickets* The whole freaking economic recovery that Trump is riding on started under Obama. 

I don't remember the USA ever not being in some kind of war under Obama. Obama was also keen on the use of drone strikes. Almost immediately after becoming president (3 days in I believe) he ordered strikes in Pakistan that killed hundred of civilians. Yes Bush started the big wars, but Obama failed to finish them and has blood on his hands too. 

Also, presidents can not be held responsible for economic failures or recovery for the most part. It's too complex. What I do believe though is that Obama's policies dented confidence in the economy and Trumps' salesman like talk is boosting confidence in the economy.

When I write that they ran the USA almost into the ground I mean by creating division among the populace, going into endless wars and simultaneously making poor policy decisions. It's not just economics.

I'm sorry.  I don't know how old you are, but 2008 (George W. Bush's time in office) was when the economic system collapsed.  This is much documented if you weren't there to experience it.  Obama's policies, including continuing the TARP funds started by Bush that supported the automobile and banking industry (rightly or wrongly) as well as many programs intended to get people working on road projects, bridge projects, as well as renewable energy infrrastructure helped keep the economy stay strong enough to survive long enough for American companies and workers to get the economy back into great shape.  Trump inherited this.  Please, please, do research on this.  You declare in your quote that you "believe."  Go beyond belief and do great research on the subject and return with support.  I don't want a salesman telling me that the lemon I'm going to buy runs like a champ when he knows full and well that it'll break down in 6 months.  



Around the Network
bowserthedog on 22 August 2018
Hiku said:
bowserthedog said:

Based on everything ive researched it doesn't look like the excessive donations is the serious part of his plea. Rosie O'Donnel had done this recently as well as thousands of others. Typically nothing is done about it. At most money is paid back to the donor or in the worst cases there is a fine to pay. Nothing indictable based on what ive been reading.  This was a big issue for Bernie Sanders too but nothing came of it.

By "excessive donations", are you referring to the hush money Cohen paid to the women?
Well in this case we have a criminal conviction for just that, while his co-conspirator, and the person who instructed him to do it, was named under oath.
I believe the Sander's case you're referring to was in regards to some Australian's who offered to volunteer for his campaign? The difference there was that it seemingly was an honest mistake, and it involved something of relatively low value in comparison, so they simply paid a fine for it. Not to mention that Sanders himself probably wasn't aware of every volunteer working for him. In this case we not only have Trump and Cohen on tape discussing the matter (and there's supposedly more info to come), but according to Cohen's lawyer just now, Trump's lawyers wrote to the special council and told them that Trump "directed Cohen to make that payment."
So there seems to be no question or dispute of Trump's involvement. But his legal team would probably try to make the case that it didn't break campaign finance laws, if he were to stand trial.
And since Cohen was convicted on this specific charge, it certainly raises the possibility that the named co-constrictor of this criminal charge stands trial as well, if possible. 

As I said in an earlier post. Clinton was impeached for lying about having sex in his office. In comparison, this seems like a bigger deal.

It may "seem" that way. But its not.  There's nothing illegal about paying hush money. 



https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0JquK6FGR6O-0O-6L-VAuw

JWeinCom on 23 August 2018
bowserthedog said:
Hiku said:

By "excessive donations", are you referring to the hush money Cohen paid to the women?
Well in this case we have a criminal conviction for just that, while his co-conspirator, and the person who instructed him to do it, was named under oath.
I believe the Sander's case you're referring to was in regards to some Australian's who offered to volunteer for his campaign? The difference there was that it seemingly was an honest mistake, and it involved something of relatively low value in comparison, so they simply paid a fine for it. Not to mention that Sanders himself probably wasn't aware of every volunteer working for him. In this case we not only have Trump and Cohen on tape discussing the matter (and there's supposedly more info to come), but according to Cohen's lawyer just now, Trump's lawyers wrote to the special council and told them that Trump "directed Cohen to make that payment."
So there seems to be no question or dispute of Trump's involvement. But his legal team would probably try to make the case that it didn't break campaign finance laws, if he were to stand trial.
And since Cohen was convicted on this specific charge, it certainly raises the possibility that the named co-constrictor of this criminal charge stands trial as well, if possible. 

As I said in an earlier post. Clinton was impeached for lying about having sex in his office. In comparison, this seems like a bigger deal.

It may "seem" that way. But its not.  There's nothing illegal about paying hush money. 

I guess it's too bad that Cohen didn't consult you before he pleaded guilty.  Your expertise on finance law could have saved him a world of trouble.



Wiibaron on 23 August 2018

Paying someone to be quiet about an affair is not a crime. Using your own money to pay is not a crime. Running a campaign for 17 months as Trump did means you need people to help including a Manager. Manifort was Manager for less than 4 months of that 17 months. Every charge against Manifort was from 5-10 years ago. Before he even knew Trump. I guess Trump could have asked he was hiding any decade old crimes before hiring the guy.[?] Cohen needs to save his skin so badly he plea dealed for something that isn't a crime[paying your own money to get silence by Trump]. He purposely picked a Clintons friend as a lawyer, Lanny Davis. And not one iota of any of this is related to Russian anything. That dossier says 14 times that Cohen went to Prague to meet with Russians. Lanny Davis says those are 14 lies. Davis HATES Trump. So all-in-all Trump is feeling sad that two of his employees are probably going to jail because of the fake witch hunt into Russian collusion which caught up these two men for something else they might have done. Can't wait to see what goes down when the Congress finally gets to look into the Hillary Collusion net she made. Then maybe some justice will get to see the light of day...



Zucas on 23 August 2018
Hiku said:

That Cohen said that Trump instructed him and co-conspired with him to commit federal crimes is huge.
If Trump had not won the election, he would likely have been indicted. (You can't indict a sitting president.)

I'm also interested in the second trial for Manafort coming up. He's 69 years old, and will likely spend the rest of his life in prison just on the 8 convictions he got from the first trial. If he has something incriminating on Trump, now would be the time to make a deal with the special council. 
If he doesn't and Trump doesn't pardon him, then at least one crook is off the streets.

NightlyPoe said: 
Manafort doesn't amount to much. His run at the top of the Trump campaign for like five minutes before getting fired because Trump's inner circle didn't trust him. And his convictions don't have anything to do with Trump.

Cohen, on the other hand, by implicating Trump in the pay off, is a real thing and the first time that Trump is facing any real exposure.

There will be a second trial for Manafort in a few weeks, and that one is where the more serious charges come in.
It will be very interesting to see how that plays out, because if he has something incriminating on Trump to hand over to the special council, this is the time he would do it.
Manafort was present during the infamous Trump tower meeting where they went to get dirt on Hillary Clinton from a Russian official, so he may have something in regards to that.

If Trump all of a sudden pardons Manafort before the second trial is over, then we can be 100% sure that he has something valuable to offer the special council in a plea deal.

Xxain said: 
Gawd damn. What does mean for trump himself?

Because he is the president, he is exempt from being indicted for crimes. But the house can move to impeach him on these grounds. However, the Republicans control the house and will undoubtedly not do it. But if enough people vote democrat in the midterms this year, he could very well be impeached for this and stand trial.

AS to the part about a sitting president cant be indicted, that is not entirely true. Actually Clinton tried to make this defense in the Paula Jones case and the Supreme Court explicitly stated that not even the President is above the law and could still be dragged into court. Instead, what is going on here, is the Justice Department has a policy that they will not indict a sitting president as to not have the President distracted from his duties to defend himself in court.

But this policy has never been tested, tbh. It brings about an interesting legal question, and a constitutional crisis likened to that in the Nixon administration. However, it is important to note this is a prosecutorial discretion moment, not a constitutional one. As far as the Constitution and the Supreme Court is concerned, a US president is not above the law and can be indicted by a federal prosecutor and brought before a court.



Zucas on 23 August 2018
Hiku said:
Zucas said:

AS to the part about a sitting president cant be indicted, that is not entirely true. Actually Clinton tried to make this defense in the Paula Jones case and the Supreme Court explicitly stated that not even the President is above the law and could still be dragged into court. Instead, what is going on here, is the Justice Department has a policy that they will not indict a sitting president as to not have the President distracted from his duties to defend himself in court.

But this policy has never been tested, tbh. It brings about an interesting legal question, and a constitutional crisis likened to that in the Nixon administration. However, it is important to note this is a prosecutorial discretion moment, not a constitutional one. As far as the Constitution and the Supreme Court is concerned, a US president is not above the law and can be indicted by a federal prosecutor and brought before a court.

That is interesting. I didn't know the origin of that claim, but I saw it mentioned in many places.
I guess it's more like, it's unlikely for the Justice Department to indict a sitting president. But then I guess it would come down to the severity of the charges?

And who would be the one to make this decision? Jeff Sessions? But he recused himself from matters involving the Russia investigation, and I'm not sure if this case counts.

I mean for the most part it is accurate and I think it is highly unlikely the Justice Department would ever want to indict a president. But again, this hasn't been tested because usually the president isn't in this situation. That's why I think it comes down to the severity of the crime. As to who makes the decision, I'm not even sure the Justice Department knows that answer. If I was an attorney with the Justice Department right now, I wouldn't want to make that call. As of right now, the federal prosecutor at the Southern District of New York can make that call as it was their case with Cohen. But again, this will come down to a lot more internal discussion than just this person's decision.

I would love to write some law and policy about this matter to help guide the Justice Department haha. But they will likely take the safer route and see if impeachment proceedings occur. The political process is there for a reason I suppose.