Not really. Cohen could have been working on behalf on Trump even if Trump was (purposely perhaps for deniability) kept unaware of the details.Oooh, good point.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Not really. Cohen could have been working on behalf on Trump even if Trump was (purposely perhaps for deniability) kept unaware of the details.Oooh, good point.
"The details". Possibly. For illegal purposes. I will grant that is possible, although I wouldn't go as far as it being plausible.Not really. Cohen could have been working on behalf on Trump even if Trump was (purposely perhaps for deniability) kept unaware of the details.
What added stress? Knowing you probably committed crimes? Trump hasn't thunk clearly his entire life. Did you know who Trump was prior to the election? He's a confidence man. Has been his whole life.
It is both plausible and understandable. Trump was a major client that he knew was facing embarrassment. Fronting $130,000 would be small potatoes, keep his client happy, and be more than made up for in future work from Trump. Keeping Trump out of the loop also served his client’s interests.
I don’t believe that is reasonable. But assuming this is the case, you do understand that would lead to Cohen being disbarred. A lawyer cannot makes deals on behalf of his client without informing his client. Which means under that scenario (which I still don’t believe) Cohen was not only giving 130k of his own money, but also risking his license to practice law.Not really. Cohen could have been working on behalf on Trump even if Trump was (purposely perhaps for deniability) kept unaware of the details.
Indeed, that's a Section 1 Rule of professional conduct.But assuming this is the case, you do understand that would lead to Cohen being disbarred. A lawyer cannot makes deals on behalf of his client without informing his client.
What “illegal purposes”? What law was broken? Where’s the crime? Paying someone to remain quiet isn’t a crime. There’s no evidence of misuse of funds. “Lock him up” for what??"The details". Possibly. For illegal purposes. I will grant that is possible, although I wouldn't go as far as it being plausible.
But if Trump even knew that Cohen needed to make such a deal and was going to do so....
LOCK HIM UP!!!!!
Tom
Campaign finance laws.What “illegal purposes”? What law was broken? Where’s the crime? Paying someone to remain quiet isn’t a crime. There’s no evidence of misuse of funds. “Lock him up” for what??
But he didn’t make such a deal. He negotiated one deal between the woman and Trump and a separate deal between himself and the woman. Since there was no crime all the “evidence” from seized materials are also not admissible anywhere. There’s little to no chance for disbarment. Not going to happen.I don’t believe that is reasonable. But assuming this is the case, you do understand that would lead to Cohen being disbarred. A lawyer cannot makes deals on behalf of his client without informing his client. Which means under that scenario (which I still don’t believe) Cohen was not only giving 130k of his own money, but also risking his license to practice law.
But the money came from the lawyer, not campaign funds.Campaign finance laws.
Lots of things that aren't normally illegal become so during a political campaign.
Tom
52 U.S. Code § 30116(a)(8) - Limitations on contributions and expenditures: 52 U.S. Code § 30116 - Limitations on contributions and expendituresWhat “illegal purposes”? What law was broken?
If Cohen paid the money to further the campaign, then it's an illegal campaign donation.But the money came from the lawyer, not campaign funds.
It can be, such as in the case of "obstruction of justice" or as a form of bribery that may be used to cover-up various forms of illegal activities.Paying someone to remain quiet isn’t a crime.
Except for the possibility of laws dealing with the limits on campaign donations, which Trump already was fined for back in 2016.There’s no evidence of misuse of funds.
Is that like the "Lock her up!" that the Donald and so many of his followers were yelling during the campaign? Did you protest that by chance?“Lock him up” for what??
And the bank that Cohen went through "red-flagged" that transaction and notified authorities.If Cohen paid the money to further the campaign, then it's an illegal campaign donation.
So far, nobody has come up with a more plausible explanation for such an unusual expenditure .
Tom
I think that what's going to take Trump down, eventually, is that he can't get away with lying and cheating then hiding behind lawyers any more. As a private citizen he could. But not any more.But the money came from the lawyer, not campaign funds.
But we really don't know that for sure even though Cohen said he got the money from an extension of his mortgage. If it were all that clear then why did the bank red-flag the transaction?But the money came from the lawyer, not campaign funds.
And if any of the various Trumps knew about it, they're party to the crime.But we really don't know that for sure even though Cohen said he got the money from an extension of his mortgage. If it were all that clear then why did the bank red-flag the transaction?
But even as a private citizen he got caught lying and cheating on many an occasion as he lost a significant number of court cases levied against him.I think that what's going to take Trump down, eventually, is that he can't get away with lying and cheating then hiding behind lawyers any more. As a private citizen he could. But not any more.
Tom
Oh, thank you. I didn't know that.And the bank that Cohen went through "red-flagged" that transaction and notified authorities.
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.But he didn’t make such a deal. He negotiated one deal between the woman and Trump and a separate deal between himself and the woman. Since there was no crime all the “evidence” from seized materials are also not admissible anywhere. There’s little to no chance for disbarment. Not going to happen.