Quantcast
Trump's Personal Lawyer And Campaign Manager Both Going To Prison

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

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.

Obama brought the USA up again after Bush ran it into the ground. What has Trump done that makes him better instead of alienating his country, splitting it, making the laughing stock of the world and making terrible decisions regarding security, world peace and the environment?

Trigger happy with the war machine? Did you forget about Trump‘s record budget, something space force ? Do You even hear yourself?

What happened to your old account btw?



Around the Network
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?



NightlyPoe said:

I said there was no reason to go over the history because I was aware of it already.  You were telling me allegations I was already aware of.

Trump is actually allowed to try to influence people on investigations.  He's the president and the FBI Director's boss.  I'll grant you it's quite inappropriate and ill-advised, but there's nothing illegal about it.

It often happens in forum discussion that one brings something up that the other person is aware of.
In this case I didn't know whether or not you knew these things. And even if you did, I'd rather hear what thoughts you may have on some of these things that would lead you to a different conclusion.
Secondly, other people may read our conversation, who don't know all the details, and would like to understand our thought process.

Anyway, if influencing an investigation leads to obstruction of justice, a president is not allowed to do that. Nixon was charged on obstruction of justice because he tried to use the CIA to interfere with the FBI's investigation. It was his attempts to cover up the crime that got him, rather than the crime itself.

NightlyPoe
Information is not something that would be covered under "thing of value".  Candidates are allowed to gain information from foreign sources.

Information that leads to your opponent losing a presidential race would be worth more than the millions in campaign money you use to run negative adds against them. It would be of incredible value.

NightlyPoe said: 
Yates was fired for a very specific reason of her own making.  Any president would have also fired her.  Beyond that, she would have been gone about a week later anyway since she was only the Acting Attorney General and Sessions was would soon be confirmed.  Her actions were pure political theater on her part as a means to make a big stink on the way out the door.

Every court shot down Trump's travel ban until June this year, after it had been redrafted multiple times. So it doesn't look like she was mistaken in her decision.

NightlyPoe said: 
I assume the other person that was fired you're speaking of is Preet Bharara.  He was fired because he refused to offer his resignation when Trump (through Sessions) asked ALL of the U.S. Attorney's to tender their resignations.  Something that is typical from new presidents.

I don't believe he's the one I was thinking of. I believe it was someone who, like Yates, was investigating Flynn. But my memory is foggy on this person, so you can just disregard him from the list of people I mentioned unless I add the specifics.

NightlyPoe said: 
I'm not sure what the distinction is about the legal theory not actively being contested.  Untested is untested whether the controversy is active or not.

It's that according to the law, Michael Cohen violated campaign finance laws. It was tested by the prosecution. And it was agreed upon by all parties to have been accurate.
A sentence was passed for a crime. And a co-conspirator of that crime is still at large.
It stands to reason that this person also stands trial for the same crime. (Of course, a sitting president can't be indicted, so this is an unusual scenario.)

Whether or not Trump's legal team could successfully contest that this was a crime remains to be seen in that case, but the onus is on them. And the fact that a jury already agreed that this broke campaign finance laws, and a judge passed down a sentence on it, sets a precedence for this case. 
As of right now, legally speaking, it's fair to say that Trump probably broke the same law Cohen was sentenced for.

NightlyPoe said: 
Clinton was impeached for perjury.  The thing was, they pretty much nailed him to the wall on that thanks to taped recordings and *ahem* DNA evidence on a dress.  That is significantly more substantial than what they have on Trump at the moment.  And recall that Clinton never got close to being removed from office.

Clinton was impeached for both perjury and obstruction of justice.

"The impeachment of Bill Clinton was initiated in December 1998 by the House of Representatives and led to a trial in the Senate for the impeachment of Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States, on two charges, one of perjury and one of obstruction of justice.[1]"

And I don't know if I'd say he wasn't close to being removed. In terms of numbers it wasn't far off.
A two-thirds vote (67 senators) was required to remove Clinton from office. 50 senators voted to remove Clinton on the obstruction of justice charge and 45 voted to remove him on the perjury charge. But since no one from his own party voted guilty on either charge, it didn't look like he was close to being in danger.
The same thing could happen again. But this was ultimately all in regards to him having sex in the oval office. Which may be a large reason for why his party decided to keep him.

When it comes to Trump however, it's revolving around a federal laws being broken, (and potentially threats. Stormy Daniels and Michael Michael Avenatti earlier claimed that a man showed up to threaten her in the parking lot. They seem to have been right about everything so far, so this one wouldn't surprise me. If Cohen was really behind that, he may reveal that now to the Special Council, as Cohen's lawyer yesterday said they have some information they believe would be of value to Muller, and are willing to cooperate) and the case regarding potential collusion with Russia continues. At the very least there's the meeting in the Trump Tower that we know of.
There could end up being quite a few charges against Trump if he stands trial.

As for perjury, Trump seems like he would perjure himself within the first 10 seconds even after being coached by his lawyers on what to say. I would definitely be interested to see how he handles himself under oath. 

NightlyPoe said: 
Yes, I know that Cohen said that Trump told him to make the payment.  I said that was the first real problem I can see for Trump since this all began.  As I've said, the Russia stuff seems to be a dud to me.  A lot of smoke, but in the end nothing illegal has come out of any of it.  The payoff has a bit more legs to it.  The only problem, as discussed already, it the dubious legal theory it's based on.

If you mean regarding what is public knowledge, then yeah, there's no clear cut case of how he's broken the law in regards to Russia. Certainly not compared to this payment with Cohen. Though the same could be said for this payment just a couple of months ago. The situation changed drastically recently, as it was being taken to court.
Which is why it'd be interesting to see how these other things would develop. Including the things the special council knows that we still don't.
Either way, all I was saying originally was that Trump is very much acting like a guilty person in regards to the Russia probe. I just don't know of what. But I do hope we find out.

Last edited by Hiku - on 22 August 2018

Hiku said: 

Anyway, if influencing an investigation leads to obstruction of justice, a president is not allowed to do that. Nixon was charged on obstruction of justice because he tried to use the CIA to interfere with the FBI's investigation. It was his attempts to cover up the crime that got him, rather than the crime itself.

Genuine question:  How do you quote individual lines?

Nixon was never actually charged with anything.

And, yes, using one government agency to interfere with another's investigation would indeed be obstruction of justice.  But Trump didn't do that.  His methods were so straightforward that it was perfectly legal.  He's the president.  He's allowed to make his desires known to his subordinates.  It's shady, but perfectly legal.

Information that leads to your opponent losing a presidential race would be worth more than the millions in campaign money you use to run negative adds against them. It would be of incredible value.

I'm sure it would.  But information is strictly free in a legal sense.  Otherwise, anyone that offered a candidate good advise that they take and see an uptick in their polls would be violating campaign finance laws because that advise was worth more than $2,700.

Every court shot down Trump's travel ban until June this year, after it had been redrafted multiple times. So it doesn't look like she was mistaken in her decision.

That is factually incorrect.  The travel restrictions were upheld in several courts.  And those courts that issued injunctions found them overturned by the Supreme Court long before June.  Furthermore, the notion that they had to be redrafted many times is incorrect.  The original travel restrictions were indeed flawed as they could be interpreted to restrict travel for people who already had legal access to the United States, even green card holders.  However, instructions quickly went out stating not to interpret the orders that way.  The travel restrictions then had a single major renovation about a month later which stood in courts and was allowed to remain in effect until it expired on its own.  Once the temporary restrictions expired, Trump then issued the presidential proclamation that is currently in effect.

The notion that the travel restrictions had to be re-written several times is a false narrative.  The truth is that there was only one significant revision, and that was issued barely a month later.

No matter what the case, though, Yellen went into business for herself and was appropriately fired.  Again, every single president would have done the same.  Yellen wished to make herself a martyr by putting herself above elected officials.  Frankly, she and any other public servant who attempts to use their position to undermine the policies of elected officials are of low moral character and have no place of trust to be a member of government.

It's that according to the law, Michael Cohen violated campaign finance laws. It was tested by the prosecution. And it was agreed upon by all parties to have been accurate.

That's not the way precedent works.

And the fact that a jury already agreed that this broke campaign finance laws, and a judge passed down a sentence on it, sets a precedence for this case.

Ah, so that's the disconnect.  There was no jury.  Cohen plead guilty.  That stopped there from being any "actual controversy" for the court to decide.  Hence, no judge ever ruled on it and there is no precedent to be had.

So the onus is still on the prosecution for any future cases to prove that their interpretation of the law is correct.

When it comes to Trump however, it's revolving around a federal laws being broken

I'm not sure how federal laws would make it worse.  Personally, I think that perjury is the bigger crime as it comes to being a president.  If this were firmly law, I might think they were equal, but the stretched interpretation needed to charge Trump seems a lesser crime than the bright line that Clinton crossed.

And, like I said, I haven't seen anything that makes me think the Russia stuff is anything more than a dry well.

As for perjury, Trump seems like he would perjure himself within the first 10 seconds even after being coached by his lawyers on what to say. I would definitely be interested to see how he handles himself under oath. 

Well, Trump hasn't said anything under oath so far, so you're literally projecting a future crime.  Though I don't disagree and I expect that's why Trump will never answer any questions under oath.  The guy is a B.S. artist by birth and can't help himself.

Either way, until he actually is placed under oath he certainly hasn't committed perjury, so it doesn't matter as to this discussion.

Though the same could be said for this payment just a couple of months ago. The situation changed drastically recently, as it was being taken to court.

It's possible.  But the whole thing really feels like a fishing expedition to me.  Since the start I thought that it would follow the typical presidential investigative course and come up empty on the original charge, but morph into catching people on process charges or other completely unrelated items.  See Clinton's investigation starting with Whitewater or the Valarie Plame investigation hitting Scooter Libby, not the leaker, on perjury.

I frankly find the hubbub about Russia itself to be a lot of wishful thinking.



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.



Around the Network

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



Currently Playing: SSB: Ultimate Splatoon 2, LoZ: Breath of the Wild, & Fortnite

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.



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.  



super_etecoon said:
Locknuts said:

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.  

Actually, Bush mostly cleaned up his own mess (though not the lingering recession).  The worst of the economic crisis had passed by October, 3 months before Obama took office.  By the time Obama arrived, we were no longer staring into a potential collapse.  The stimulus Obama passed was advertised as a method for combating the recession, but was mostly a goody bag of policies that liberals had wanted for the past 14 years since they'd enjoyed control of both Congress and the presidency.  It was easier to sell it that way.

In truth, the road projects and renewable energy initiatives did very little to spur the economy.  But they were never meant to really.  Democrats got what they wanted, the programs they'd been advocating for, as well as took the opportunity to claim that Obama had saved us from economic calamity, which again, just isn't true.

Locknuts is basically right in his assessment.  Obama's policies of heavier regulation and government action kept the economy on a simmer for most of his 8 years in office.  We never dipped into recession, but we had a long weak recovery.  Trump, whose biggest contribution to the presidency is actually reducing it for the first time since Ford, has removed some of those barriers and the economy is doing a little better under his watch than Obama's.

I especially agree with his statement about Obama creating divisions within the country.  Trump exploited it, but the rise of tribalism in the United States can be directly blamed on Democrat political strategies during the Obama administration as they relied heavily on identity politics to try and build a coalition where people voted by skin color or gender instead of political beliefs.  Again, Trump exploited it.  Turns out that 8 years of making fun of "old white men" had the effect of creating a tribal effect within the majority group.  And now we live in a time where more people think of their skin color as they enter the voting booth than any time since the 1960s.

Last edited by NightlyPoe - 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.