Here are five felonies Trump committed — if Cohen is telling the truth

[Shad]

A claim that you cannot even begin to support. But go ahead, once you do I will explain why it is not.

Has Trump been charged? Nope. Next! Amusing that you never supported your own claims.

Once again you have no clue.

Assertion. Yawn

If it is an opinion then it is almost worthless. I can support my claims.

Do so then.

Why do you break up posts excessively? That is often done when a person cannot argue honestly.

If you can not argue in a point format that is your problem.

Try again.

Yawn. Try to be original son.

Not just him. Those were subpoenaed and seized. You clearly do not understand why Cohen's claims are not garbage.

Seized does not mean evidence of. Try again. Cohen has claims but not evidence has been present. Try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Has it be solved in your mind?

Edwards had several excuses that Trump does not have. His mistress was pregnant. He was going to have to pay her anyway.

Can Trump make a similar claim?

 

[Curious George]

Has it be solved in your mind?

Yes. It seems that you were using the term colloquially to suggest that we would likely see a similar result. Though why this would be precedent to dismiss the case still doesn't make sense.

Either way, what you are saying seems to be that if a jury didn't find Edwards guilty with his set of facts, then there is no way trump will be found guilty with the facts as they currently exist.

 

[Shad]

Edwards had several excuses that Trump does not have. His mistress was pregnant. He was going to have to pay her anyway.

Still broke the law. He paid her the wrong way. Try again.

Can Trump make a similar claim?

Yup. He could argue, like Edwards, it was made to protect his wife, family, blah blah, BS excuse like Edwards.

 

[sooda]

Still broke the law. He paid her the wrong way. Try again.



Yup. He could argue, like Edwards, it was made to protect his wife, family, blah blah, BS excuse like Edwards.

Is it OK to steal money to protect your wife from your adultery?

How could Cohen be guilty and Trump not be guilty?

 

[Shad]

Yes. It seems that you were using the term colloquially to suggest that we would likely see a similar result. Though why this would be precedent to dismiss the case still doesn't make sense.

As per "Personal Matters" from Edwards testimony and lack of a knowledge demonstration. So far there is nothing but he said/he said regarding what Trump knows or not.

Either way, what you are saying seems to be that if a jury didn't find Edwards guilty with his set of facts, then there is no way trump will be found guilty with the facts as they currently exist.

Edward was not found guilty as there was no demonstration of knowledge of payments in the 3rd charge. Trump, like Edwards, can blame their attorney/campaign head.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Has Trump been charged? Nope. Next! Amusing that you never supported your own claims.

I see that logic still escapes you. The man on top is the last one charged. Are you familiar with the Nixon investigation. It is so sad when you fail immediately.

Assertion. Yawn

When you do not understand ask questions politely.

Do so then.

When you ask politely and properly. I do not respond well to rude behavior.

If you can not argue in a point format that is your problem.

Projection.

Yawn. Try to be original son.

Wrong again. I do know how to use that phrase properly.

Seized does not mean evidence of. Try again. Cohen has claims but not evidence has been present. Try again.

Trump excreting bricks when it occurred was confirmation.

 

[sooda]

In theory, or in actuality?

@Nous had a decent thread on this topic.

We can speculate on just about anything. Any case will turn on the facts. We can be sure that we do not have all the facts.

Thanks….

 

[Subduction Zone]

As per "Personal Matters" from Edwards testimony and lack of a knowledge demonstration. So far there is nothing but he said/he said regarding what Trump knows or not.



Edward was not found guilty as there was no demonstration of knowledge of payments in the 3rd charge. Trump, like Edwards, can blame their attorney/campaign head.

We have the checks that Trump wrote. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept of evidence. Edwards did not get off for the reasons that you cited.

 

[Shad]

Is it OK to steal money to protect your wife from your adultery?

Nope. However you have no evidence of that yet.

how could Cohen be guilty and Trump not be guilty?

Evidence linking Trump as an act with the crimes or in this case the lack of.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Still broke the law. He paid her the wrong way. Try again.

And you are still using "Try again" incorrectly. So did Trump.

Yup. He could argue, like Edwards, it was made to protect his wife, family, blah blah, BS excuse like Edwards.

No, his excuse was because she had cancer. He really cannot use the same excuse.

Let's go over the facts. Edwards mistress was pregnant. He would have had to pay her anyway. Yes or no?

 

[Shad]

We have the checks that Trump wrote.

Personal checks to Cohen which can easily and have been claim for normal legal aid and other services.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept of evidence. Edwards did not get off for the reasons that you cited.

Sorry I conflating the not guilty with a mistrial statement over knowledge of a payment. Still applicable.

 

[Shad]

And you are still using "Try again" incorrectly. So did Trump.

Nope.

No, his excuse was because she had cancer. He really cannot use the same excuse.

So? Trump can merely "insert health concern here" or family, etc.

Let's go over the facts. Edwards mistress was pregnant. He would have had to pay her anyway. Yes or no?

Yes but he paid her using the wrong bank account..... Also as he was doing it to cover up something which he has admitted to. Now the charges are dropped.... While Trump used his own bank account. See the difference?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope.



So? Trump can merely "insert health concern here" or family, etc.



Yes but he paid her using the wrong bank account..... Also as he was doing it to cover up something which he has admitted to. Now the charges are dropped.... While Trump used his own bank account. See the difference?

No, Trump will fail if he does so. And using the "Wrong bank account" has to be one of the lamer excuses. That will not save Trump. Here is an article that goes into depth why Trump would lose it be tried that:

https://www.justsecurity.org/60415/...john-edwards-campaign-finance-law-violations/

 

[Shad]

No, Trump will fail if he does so. And using the "Wrong bank account" has to be one of the lamer excuses.

Wrong as the account Edwards used is why he was in a court.

That will not save Trump. Here is an article that goes into depth why Trump would lose it be tried that:

https://www.justsecurity.org/60415/...john-edwards-campaign-finance-law-violations/

Speculation and opinion based on he said/he said. More so some of that was refuted by Cohen today such as the cheque. Giuliani already changed his statements but your article wouldn't know that as it is from August. Also Trump can deny it and call Giuliani a liar or point to Giuliani "clarified" statements.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Personal checks to Cohen which can easily and have been claim for normal legal aid and other services.

A good forensic accountant could quickly refute that claim

Sorry I conflating the not guilty with a mistrial statement over knowledge of a payment. Still applicable.

Wrong again. Trump is only "not guilty" because he has yet to be tried. He may not face trial until he leaves office. There are going to be several problems over Trump's defence. Rudy, more than once, all but admitted Trump's guilt. If he wants to use a defence similar to Edwards he puts the burden of proof upon himself. When a defendant admits to doing a crime but claims to have an excuse he takes the burden of proof off of the shoulders of the prosecutor.. Do you seriously think that Trump can do the same?

Read the article that I linked.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wrong as the account Edwards used is why he was in a court.



Speculation and opinion based on he said/he said. More so some of that was refuted by Cohen today such as the cheque. Giuliani already changed his statements but your article wouldn't know that as it is from August

Your misunderstanding of how Edwards got off won't help Trump.

 

[Shad]

A good forensic accountant could quickly refute that claim

Assertion and speculation of evidence not presented.

Wrong again. Trump is only "not guilty" because he has yet to be tried. He may not face trial until he leaves office.

I was talking about Edwards.

There are going to be several problems over Trump's defence. Rudy, more than once, all but admitted Trump's guilt.

And backtrack with "clarification" statements multiple times.

If he wants to use a defence similar to Edwards he puts the burden of proof upon himself.

Nope. All he need to say "I didn't know" Now they have to prove he did. When a defendant admits to doing a crime but claims to have an excuse he takes the burden of proof off of the shoulders of the prosecutor.. Do you seriously think that Trump can do the same? [/quote]

I bet his lawyers could.

Read the article that I linked.

I did. It repeats the same speculation which is being toss around today. It is called a talking point. You can easily Google views arguing the opposite from lawyer X not involved in the case at all. Just like your lawyer. Yawn.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Assertion and speculation of evidence not presented.



I was talking about Edwards.



And backtrack with "clarification" statements multiple times.



Nope. All he need to say "I didn't know" Now they have to prove he did. When a defendant admits to doing a crime but claims to have an excuse he takes the burden of proof off of the shoulders of the prosecutor.. Do you seriously think that Trump can do the same?

I bet his lawyers could.



I did. It repeats the same speculation which is being toss around today.

I see that you still can't reply properly.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Here are five felonies Trump committed — if Cohen is telling the truth..

Trump is seething at this point.. You may really want to read the whole thing. This is just a small part of the pile up on the information highway.

Trump was left seething and tweeting in Hanoi as his former consigliere upstaged him. At the best of times, Trump has the attention span of a hyperactive 8-year-old. Distracted by Cohen’s testimony, Trump was likely to be even less prepared than usual and even more likely to grant concessions to Kim Jong Un simply to draw attention back to himself.

Excerpt:

1. Conspiracy to defraud the United States. Cohen testified that he was present in July 2016 when Trump took a call on the speakerphone from Roger Stone, who said “that he had just gotten off the phone with Julian Assange and that Mr. Assange told Stone that, within a couple of days, there would be a massive dump of emails that would damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign.” According to Cohen, Trump replied, “Wouldn’t that be great.” (Stone has denied that account, in possible violation of a judge’s gag order.) Trump cannot claim that he did not know where the leaked emails ultimately came from: It had been public knowledge since mid-June 2016 that Russian hackers had penetrated the Democratic National Committee.

2. Lying to the FBI and the Justice Department. According to CNN, Trump, in his written testimony to special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, claimed “that Roger Stone did not tell him about WikiLeaks, nor was he told about the 2016 Trump Tower meeting between his son, campaign officials and a Russian lawyer promising dirt on Hillary Clinton.” Cohen contradicted those assertions.

3. Suborning perjury. Cohen testified that Trump encouraged him to lie to Congress about his attempts in 2016 to build a Trump Tower in Moscow and that his personal lawyers reviewed the mendacious testimony.

4. Violating campaign finance laws. Cohen testified that Trump told him to pay off a porn star and reimbursed him for doing so. Cohen even produced a check Trump signed while he was president and another one that was signed by Donald Trump Jr., implicating the president’s son in this felony, as well.

To these four offenses, one may add: 5. Bank, wire and tax fraud. Cohen testified that Trump inflated his assets to win bank loans and deflated them to reduce his taxes — precisely the kind of scheme for which Trump’s former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, is now facing lengthy prison time. And Cohen added that he knew of other offenses that federal prosecutors are still investigating.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...g-truth/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.27a294e7e45e

I love the Democrats newest credible witness. Matches their character.

Talk about desperation.