Cohen's third client is revealed:

[Subduction Zone]

I’m sure you really, really want all that to be true in your deepest fantasies, but that doesn’t make it so. Trump’s defenses (whatever that means since there is nothing here needing defense against) aren’t “crumbling”. There was not campaign contribution. Repeating that there was over and over doesn’t make it true. There is nothing “obvious” about these things. They aren’t even true much less obvious.

There are acts of desperation here all right. But they aren’t coming from Trump. They are coming from his opponents trying desperately to come up with something (anything!) to stick against him.

This article should help. It explains how John Edwards wriggled out of a conviction and how Rowland was convicted of receiving illegal campaign contributions. One of the reasons that they are going after Cohen's records are specifically to look for the sort of admission that convicted Rowland:

How to Build a Campaign Finance Case Against Donald Trump and Michael Cohen

 

[Phantasman]

I think you're confused and are referring to the Benghazi investigations against Hillary, right?

No. I would like to know what was on the unprotected server. The 33,000 emails that just disappeared after she was told to turn it over. Americans are allowed for their representatives in Congress to see them. They have the highest security clearance for that reason.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. I would like to know what was on the unprotected server. The 33,000 emails that just disappeared after she was told to turn it over. Americans are allowed for their representatives in Congress to see them. They have the highest security clearance for that reason.

Clinton may have been guilty of crimes herself. So what? That is a red herring and has nothing to do with this case. I was not a fan of either candidate. The problem with the e-mails is that they may be gone forever and all we have against Clinton is speculation.

And she was already "punished" for her acts. The email scandal (if you want to call it that) may have been that little bit hat Trump needed to win. Hillary lost, Trump won. Let's forget about Clinton's wrongdoings for now and concentrate on Trump.

 

[Phantasman]

You are making a bit of a strawman. Much of Cohen's material is still covered by attorney-client privilege. That is why the are approaching the information gathered with care by using a "taint team". The taint team will not be able to testify about what they saw. They are separating Cohen's info into three categories, privileged, non-privileged, and wait and see. Right now only the non-privileged can be used.

It is important to note that if collusion is proven with what they can look at that Trump will lose all attorney-client privilege, and that is perfectly constitutional. An attorney cannot maintain privilege and be party to a crime.

And that's fine with me. If Trump is proven to have colluded, that's not enough. He had to have "obstruction of justice" reasons to be impeached. Collusion is not against the law. If he "obstructed justice" then I agree, they need to bring up impeachment charges. But then, the vote has to be two thirds. Until then, he is innocent, and still the President of all America.

Is Collusion a Crime? – National Paralegal College

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

He had to have "obstruction of justice" reasons to be impeached.

... or any other "high crime or misdemeanor," including such things as money laundrying.

 

[Phantasman]

Clinton may have been guilty of crimes herself. So what? That is a red herring and has nothing to do with this case. I was not a fan of either candidate. The problem with the e-mails is that they may be gone forever and all we have against Clinton is speculation.

And she was already "punished" for her acts. The email scandal (if you want to call it that) may have been that little bit hat Trump needed to win. Hillary lost, Trump won. Let's forget about Clinton's wrongdoings for now and concentrate on Trump.

So what? She can be guilty of crimes and it means nothing? Just if it's Trump's that's guilty of crimes?

That's about as double standard bias as one can be.

Let's forget about both of them and concentrate on the FBI (gang of idiots at the top). Talk about collusion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And that's fine with me. If Trump is proven to have colluded, that's not enough. He had to have "obstruction of justice" reasons to be impeached. Collusion is not against the law. If he "obstructed justice" then I agree, they need to bring up impeachment charges. But then, the vote has to be two thirds. Until then, he is innocent, and still the President of all America.

Is Collusion a Crime? – National Paralegal College

We are now talking about two different investigations. This investigation is not currently part of the obstruction of justice investigation. Mueller saw that right away and another branch is pursuing this one. And collusion can be a crime, it is not necessarily a crime on its own. When collusion involves an illegal activity then it becomes part of the illegal act and that is why it can lead to a loss of privilege.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So what? She can be guilty of crimes and it means nothing? Just if it's Trump's that's guilty of crimes?

That's about as double standard bias as one can be.

Let's forget about both of them and concentrate on the FBI (gang of idiots at the top). Talk about collusion.

Not what I said or implied. Hillary's guilt or innocence is a totally unrelated matter. I would like to see her convicted if she is guilty, but your bringing up her is a Tu Quoque fallacy at best.

 

[Phantasman]

We are now talking about two different investigations. This investigation is not currently part of the obstruction of justice investigation. Mueller saw that right away and another branch is pursuing this one. And collusion can be a crime, it is not necessarily a crime on its own. When collusion involves an illegal activity then it becomes part of the illegal act and that is why it can lead to a loss of privilege.

I tend to agree. This Cohan thing is about the porn star. It doesn't matter who is President. One side always battles the other side. Nothing gets accomplished. The people suffer most, which is why Congress gets a 17% approval rating. Expect to see the FBI drop in approval as well.

 

[Phantasman]

Not what I said or implied. Hillary's guilt or innocence is a totally unrelated matter. I would like to see her convicted if she is guilty, but your bringing up her is a Tu Quoque fallacy at best.

I had to look that up. Never heard it. lol.....

I believe half of Congress (or more) are influenced by money votes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I had to look that up. Never heard it. lol.....

I believe half of Congress (or more) are influenced by money votes.

I am sure that they are. So whar? Once again, let's not focus on the guilt of others. That is what the Tu Quoque fallacy involves. Let's focus on Trump for now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I tend to agree. This Cohan thing is about the porn star. It doesn't matter who is President. One side always battles the other side. Nothing gets accomplished. The people suffer most, which is why Congress gets a 17% approval rating. Expect to see the FBI drop in approval as well.

yes and paying the porn star was a "Payment in kind", an illegal campaign contribution.

 

[Shaul]

This article should help. It explains how John Edwards wriggled out of a conviction and how Rowland was convicted of receiving illegal campaign contributions. One of the reasons that they are going after Cohen's records are specifically to look for the sort of admission that convicted Rowland:

How to Build a Campaign Finance Case Against Donald Trump and Michael Cohen

Hopefully that article will finally help you and those that keep believing that this payment was a campaign contribution. Re-read the article yourself. It describes how if a candidate does not know that the money is being spent (on his behalf) there can’t be any intent and it can not possibly be legally considered a campaign contribution. Trump maintains that he did not know about Cohen paying the porn performer. There is no evidence that he did know. I’ll wage there will never be such evidence. There is no case.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hopefully that article will finally help you and those that keep believing that this payment was a campaign contribution. Re-read the article yourself. It describes how if a candidate does not know that the money is being spent (on his behalf) there can’t be any intent and it can not possibly be legally considered a campaign contribution. Trump maintains that he did not know about Cohen paying the porn performer. There is no evidence that he did no. I’ll wage there will never be such evidence. There is no case.

You do not seem to understand. Trump not knowing about it would not keep it from being an illegal campaign contribution. His not knowing would only absolve him of any fault in the matter. That is why a search warrant was executed for that evidence. It could show that Trump knew.

if they can't prove that Trump knew, then he will be considered innocent.

 

[Shaul]

You do not seem to understand. Trump not knowing about it would not keep it from being an illegal campaign contribution. His not knowing would only absolve him of any fault in the matter. That is why a search warrant was executed for that evidence. It could show that Trump knew.

if they can't prove that Trump knew, then he will be considered innocent.

Yes, it would. From your own article “Edwards’ lawyers argued that he hadn’t known about the payments, and a defense witness testified that Edwards had been “surprised” when he ultimately found out. If he didn’t know about the payments, the argument went, he couldn’t have intended to use that money to help his campaign, nor could he have intended to evade the public-reporting requirements.” Similarly for Trump. Nor could Cohen be convicted of illegal campaign contributions.

As I wrote before, there isn’t going to be any evidence produced to show Trump knew about the payment. Beyond that those pursuing this case already probably realize that. They are simply now doing two things: 1) keep the case alive through the election cycle, and 2) try to bluster someone into making a technical mistake in detail.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, it would. From your own article “Edwards’ lawyers argued that he hadn’t known about the payments, and a defense witness testified that Edwards had been “surprised” when he ultimately found out. If he didn’t know about the payments, the argument went, he couldn’t have intended to use that money to help his campaign, nor could he have intended to evade the public-reporting requirements.” Similarly for Trump. Nor could Cohen be convicted of illegal campaign contributions.

As I wrote before, there isn’t going to be any evidence produced to show Trump knew about the payment. Beyond that those pursuing this case already probably realize that. They are simply now doing two things: 1) keep the case alive through the election cycle, and 2) try to bluster someone into making a technical mistake in detail.

Right. Edwards was not guilty because he could credibly claim no knowledge. The contributions were still illegal. He was merely not to blame for them.

And we will see if there is any evidence of not. This will take less than a month to go through.

The lack of knowledge only protects the candidate, not the donor.

 

[Father Heathen]

That's about as double standard bias as one can be.

Said the pot to the kettle.

 

[metis]

If Trump is proven to have colluded, that's not enough.

That would depend on what the collusion might entail, such as there possibly being monetary transactions involved. We've already seen whereas Stormy was paid off by Cohen, so is there any kind of quid-pro-quo also with Putin? I think it's likely Mueller already may know the answer to this, but we don't know what Mueller may know.

 

[metis]

Nor could Cohen be convicted of illegal campaign contributions.

If it was over $5000 and went into Trump's campaign fund it would be a violation, and Trump in 2016 was found guilty and fined for violating the law on campaign expenses as well as his Trump University fiasco.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

Shocking that FoxNews would be on Trumps payroll. Explains Hannity's relentless spreading of fake news and defending of Trump. Especially with all his deep state rhetoric which Trump also uses often, ROFL. That is freaking hilarious.

You did catch Comey's comments about Loretta Lynch, right? Deep state indeed.