"Co-conspirator" Trump in deep trouble as Cohen pleads guilty

[Pookie]

Since Cohen didn't specifically say "Donald Trump" I'm surprised the Trump apologists aren't trying to claim the payments were done at the behest of Hillary Clinton.
It would make as much sense.


On another note, I see that Cohen has said outright that he would refuse a pardon from Trump.
Maybe he's had a Come-to-Jesus moment, saying he doesn't want any further association with someone so corrupting of the oval office.

Cohen is pissed at Trump. He's cut a deal and is out to publicly hurt Trump any way he can. Even if Trump avoids indictment, impeachment, etc., its becoming clear his longtime personal lawyer/fixer is out for vengeance.

This is gonna be ... interesting.

 

[KeithD]

Cohen is pissed at Trump. He's cut a deal and is out to publicly hurt Trump any way he can. Even if Trump avoids indictment, impeachment, etc., its becoming clear his longtime personal lawyer/fixer is out for vengeance.

This is gonna be ... interesting.

What this highlights is how piss poor Trump is in handling people he has had to become vulnerable to get dirty work done he won't do himself.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Since Cohen didn't specifically say "Donald Trump" I'm surprised the Trump apologists aren't trying to claim the payments were done at the behest of Hillary Clinton.
It would make as much sense.


On another note, I see that Cohen has said outright that he would refuse a pardon from Trump.
Maybe he's had a Come-to-Jesus moment, saying he doesn't want any further association with someone so corrupting of the oval office.

FOX had a law prof on who said "unless this unidentified candidate is Bernie Sanders, it's going to be bad news" for Team Trump. And then he went on to say Tricky is absolutely an "unindicted co-conspirator".

It was pretty fucking funny

 

[Rightguide]

Not reporting the expenditures was illegal.
Conspiring to violate the law is illegal.

But not formally asserted or charged by any prosecutor in a court of competent jurisdiction.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

But not formally asserted or charged by any prosecutor in a court of competent jurisdiction.

not yet.

 

[Rightguide]

Well, I disagree with you that Cohen's plea is meaningless beyond the bounds of a plea bargain agreement. It will go down as a criminal conviction that has further potential impact for a future criminal prosecution against the President under the same federal criminal code, 18 USC.

Yeah, he can fight it and win, but the Cohen plea serves to legitimize, in not an insignificant way, a prosecution against the President that, heretofore, was merely speculative and poorly founded.

No longer speculative and not quite as poorly founded.

Okay, but what exactly would that particular statute be? As far as I can see he admitted to something that isn't illegal. The former commissioner at the Federal Election Commission, Hans von Spakovsky stated, “This is not a violation because this was not a campaign-related offense,” Spakovsky told Fox News on Wednesday. “Yes, Cohen pleaded guilty to it, yeah Cohen paid it, but then Cohen was reimbursed by Trump," "...a candidate can spend as much of their own money as they want to—even if it was a campaign-related expense.”

"Alan Dershowitz made a similar argument, “You have to show that it’s a crime,” It's “not a crime” for Trump to contribute to his own campaign, and probably not even a crime to direct his attorney someone else to contribute if he plans to pay that back."

“The only evidence that the president did anything that might be unlawful … comes from a man who’s admitted to be a liar.”

“There are a lot of barriers,” he said, “We’re far away from [an] impeachable offense or a criminal offense on the part of the president.”

 

[Aglaopheme]

Okay, but what exactly would that particular statute be? As far as I can see he admitted to something that isn't illegal. The former commissioner at the Federal Election Commission, Hans von Spakovsky stated, “This is not a violation because this was not a campaign-related offense,” Spakovsky told Fox News on Wednesday. “Yes, Cohen pleaded guilty to it, yeah Cohen paid it, but then Cohen was reimbursed by Trump," "...a candidate can spend as much of their own money as they want to—even if it was a campaign-related expense.”

"Alan Dershowitz made a similar argument, “You have to show that it’s a crime,” It's “not a crime” for Trump to contribute to his own campaign, and probably not even a crime to direct his attorney someone else to contribute if he plans to pay that back."

“The only evidence that the president did anything that might be unlawful … comes from a man who’s admitted to be a liar.”

“There are a lot of barriers,” he said, “We’re far away from [an] impeachable offense or a criminal offense on the part of the president.”

We are not talking about personal contributions from Trump himself and that is clearly spelled out in the violations that Cohen pleaded to. We’re taking about the Trump Organization and AMI.

 

[schism666]

We are not talking about personal contributions from Trump himself and that is clearly spelled out in the violations that Cohen pleaded to. We’re taking about the Trump Organization and AMI.

ssshhhh. let's just watch him squirm some more. he's busier than a one legged man in an ass kicking contest trying to defend trump.

 

[coati]

ssshhhh. let's just watch him squirm some more. he's busier than a one legged man in an ass kicking contest trying to defend trump.

It definitely is fun to watch Rightguide frantically dance. How far will he go to defend the most transparently corrupt "president" in our lifetimes?

Rightguide is a true lifetime deplorable. Where he stops, nobody knows...

 

[Aglaopheme]

ssshhhh. let's just watch him squirm some more. he's busier than a one legged man in an ass kicking contest trying to defend trump.

It definitely is fun to watch Rightguide frantically dance. How far will he go to defend the most transparently corrupt "president" in our lifetimes?

Rightguide is a true lifetime deplorable. Where he stops, nobody knows...

Did I break it?

 

[jaF0]

I see w(R)ongTurd is more verbose than usual today.

 

[von_Bismarck]

I see w(R)ongTurd is more verbose than usual today.

As a Trump apologist, he has his work cut out for him.

 

[Stain_mAnn]

Must .... defend... the...Fuhrer...

 

[von_Bismarck]

Must .... defend... the...Fuhrer...

Reichguide is accustomed to walking goose step.

 

[jomar]

Mark Levin blows Lanny Davis and the Cohen plea out of the water:

https://video.foxnews.com/v/5825126132001/?#sp=show-clips

Levin sure schooled them! They must be getting ready to drop charges with an apology any moment now.

Or, that Cohen took the deal...tip of the iceberg?

 

[someoneyouknow]

As if stating he was ordered to commit a crime by the con artist, Cohen has now been subpoenaed by the New York AG's office to testify about the illegal goings on from the con artist's "foundation".

Lanny Davis is right. Cohen has a lot to tell about the corrupt con artist.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/403083-new-york-investigators-subpoena-cohen-in-trump-foundation-probe

 

[schism666]

Did I break it?

we can only hope.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Okay, but what exactly would that particular statute be? As far as I can see he admitted to something that isn't illegal. The former commissioner at the Federal Election Commission, Hans von Spakovsky stated, “This is not a violation because this was not a campaign-related offense,” Spakovsky told Fox News on Wednesday. “Yes, Cohen pleaded guilty to it, yeah Cohen paid it, but then Cohen was reimbursed by Trump," "...a candidate can spend as much of their own money as they want to—even if it was a campaign-related expense.”

"Alan Dershowitz made a similar argument, “You have to show that it’s a crime,” It's “not a crime” for Trump to contribute to his own campaign, and probably not even a crime to direct his attorney someone else to contribute if he plans to pay that back."

“The only evidence that the president did anything that might be unlawful … comes from a man who’s admitted to be a liar.”

“There are a lot of barriers,” he said, “We’re far away from [an] impeachable offense or a criminal offense on the part of the president.”

Whether Spakovsky and Dershowitz are fundamentally right about the substance of the law (and I tend to believe they are), what we have here now is a procedural problem. Cohen has, for whatever reason, pleaded guilty to a properly submitted criminal charge before an open court. The only way I can see out of that is on appeal.

Trump's entire legal liability, as best as I can tell, rests within 18 USC §2(a) by virtue of Cohen's guilty plea to 18 USC §2(b). Read it and tell me I am wrong. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2. The fact that the liability ultimately referenced in 18 USC §2(a) derives from separate campaign finance guilty pleas that Cohen may have inadvisably made and might well be thrown out on a simple motion is relevant only to whatever attorney may make such a motion or appeal in the future. And that quite obviously is not going to be Cohen or his lawyer.

So who's up next? Get it? Trump has no standing to do a damn thing until someone now comes after him as a result of what Cohen has done.

It sure as hell isn't enough on its face to send Trump to jail, but it is more than enough to initiate eventual legal proceedings against him when he leaves office or to fan impeachment flames, Obama's campaign finance violations notwithstanding.

The guy who bragged about taking a bullet has folded like a cheap card table and it cannot, unlike Manafort whose crimes stick solely to him, help but cause tangible legal problems for the President for no other reason than Cohen has chosen to directly implicate him, no matter how feeble that implication may seem to you or me over the long term.

 

[someoneyouknow]

Whether Spakovsky and Dershowitz are fundamentally right about the substance of the law (and I tend to believe they are), what we have here now is a procedural problem. Cohen has, for whatever reason, pleaded guilty to a properly submitted criminal charge before an open court. The only way I can see out of that is on appeal.

No, S&D are not correct. As Lindsey Graham himself has stated:

“You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job (as president) in this constitutional republic if this body determines your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role,” Graham says of Clinton in the nearly 20-year-old clip.

“Because impeachment is not about punishment,” he said. “Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”​

https://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/article217126395.html

This jibes well with Article 2, Section 4:

The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

The bolded words are pertinent since having two affairs and paying to have them covered up before an election could most certainly be considered misdemeanors, especially in light of Graham's statement about restoring honor and integrity to the office. His comments were made during the Clinton witch hunt so if Clinton getting a blowjob from an intern and lying about it was enough to impeach him, having multiple affairs, lying about them, AND paying the women to keep quiet so as not to upset the vote along with colluding with Russia to rig an election is definitely makes the con artist liable for impeachment.

Trump's entire legal liability, as best as I can tell, rests within 18 USC §2(a) by virtue of Cohen's guilty plea to 18 USC §2(b). Read it and tell me I am wrong. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2. The fact that the liability ultimately referenced in 18 USC §2(a) derives from separate campaign finance guilty pleas that Cohen may have inadvisably made and might well be thrown out on a simple motion is relevant only to whatever attorney may make such a motion or appeal in the future. And that quite obviously is not going to be Cohen or his lawyer.

You are correct. He ordered Cohen to commit a crime. Cohen has now admitted to the crime, thus bringing the con artist into the sphere of criminal liability based on the U.S. Code.

In addition to what we know, Cohen's attorney has said his client has more to tell Mueller, including about the meeting with the Russians which the con artist first denied knowing about, then wrote the press release about it, then said he had heard about it, and which his own son's emails show he knew about before it took place.

So again, Article 2, Section 4 comes into play according to Graham. Restoring the honor and integrity to the office.

 

[070276]

Alas, even the top Democrat in the House - the only place where impeachment proceedings can possibly begin - instantly quashes such partisan progressive dreaming:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Wednesday said impeaching President Trump is "not a priority," despite Michael Cohen's guilty plea to campaign finance violations that implicated the president.

"Impeachment has to spring from something else," Pelosi, who has long downplayed the possibility of impeachment, told The Associated Press.

Cohen, who was Trump's longtime lawyer and fixer, pleaded guilty on Tuesday to a number of tax and bank fraud charges as well as a campaign finance violation. He said in court that Trump had directed him to arrange payments to two women during his 2016 presidential campaign in exchange for their silence about alleged affairs with Trump.
ADVERTISEMENT

"If and when the information emerges about that, we’ll see," Pelosi said. "It’s not a priority on the agenda going forward unless something else comes forward.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/403024-pelosi-says-impeachment-not-a-priority

 

[someoneyouknow]

Alas, even the top Democrat in the House - the only place where impeachment proceedings can possibly begin - instantly quashes such partisan progressive dreaming:

They don't want to bring it up because that will help Republicans during the mid-term elections. By not mentioning the word Republicans have nothing to run on other than being with the con artist.

 

[jaF0]

Belosi's a worthless toad, just like most other long timers, no matter which side of the aisle they crawl.

But I believe ......

The biggest reason they haven't tried to boot Donnie is twofold.

They want Mikey even less and there may be no way to boot him too.
They want to leave the trash in the foyer for everybody to see until after November hoping the voters will tire of the stench and clean house by voting for goo(D) instead of voting w(R)ong again.

 

[coati]

They don't want to bring it up because that will help Republicans during the mid-term elections. By not mentioning the word Republicans have nothing to run on other than being with the con artist.

Trump represents the new Repugnican brand. As he stated, his base will support him even if he shoots somebody, and the rest of the party will follow his base like a legion of trained circus elephants. Pelosi doesn't have the votes for impeachment, and she knows it, so let the Repugnicans wallow in their swamp of corruption for a while.

 

[070276]

They don't want to bring it up because that will help Republicans during the mid-term elections. By not mentioning the word Republicans have nothing to run on other than being with the con artist.

Yep, just like their despicably statist Republican brethren, equally repugnant Democratic are far, far more interested in playing petty partisan politics than actually standing up for any "principles" they so disingenuously pimp for public propaganda purposes.

Like I've previously posted in this thread: I cannot wait to see you pathetic bozos retake the House this November, as Pelosi will do an immediate flip-flop on the issue without anything else being revealed, and thus show the nation more how naturally two-faced both statist Parties repugnantly are.

Transparency is ALWAYS good.

Fap. Fap. Fap. Fap.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

No, S&D are not correct. As Lindsey Graham himself has stated:

“You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job (as president) in this constitutional republic if this body determines your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role,” Graham says of Clinton in the nearly 20-year-old clip.

“Because impeachment is not about punishment,” he said. “Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”​

https://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/article217126395.html

This jibes well with Article 2, Section 4:

The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

The bolded words are pertinent since having two affairs and paying to have them covered up before an election could most certainly be considered misdemeanors, especially in light of Graham's statement about restoring honor and integrity to the office. His comments were made during the Clinton witch hunt so if Clinton getting a blowjob from an intern and lying about it was enough to impeach him, having multiple affairs, lying about them, AND paying the women to keep quiet so as not to upset the vote along with colluding with Russia to rig an election is definitely makes the con artist liable for impeachment.



You are correct. He ordered Cohen to commit a crime. Cohen has now admitted to the crime, thus bringing the con artist into the sphere of criminal liability based on the U.S. Code.

In addition to what we know, Cohen's attorney has said his client has more to tell Mueller, including about the meeting with the Russians which the con artist first denied knowing about, then wrote the press release about it, then said he had heard about it, and which his own son's emails show he knew about before it took place.

So again, Article 2, Section 4 comes into play according to Graham. Restoring the honor and integrity to the office.

Sparkovsky and Dershowitz ARE correct, because they were not talking about impeachment law. They were talking about specific alleged statutory violations of the United States Criminal code. Impeachment law IS what Graham was talking about and the grounds for an impeachable offense are pretty much whatever the House and Senate would agree they are. The phrase "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" has been the subject of much debate throughout our history, but if you think for one minute that "misdemeanors" has the legal definition in that context that we currently give it for minor crimes, you are out of your mind. The phrase itself would make no sense in that context: "The President may be impeached for HIGH CRIMES AND PARKING TICKETS."

Clinton wasn't impeached for getting a blow job from an intern and lying about it. He was impeached for lying about it UNDER OATH.

You are correct, however, that "misdemeanors" does cover a pattern of behavior repugnant to the office and the performance of its duties that may fall short of outright illegal behavior. And I truly understand the sentiment of Trump opponents who feel he has crossed that line. I don't agree, but I understand.

But in general the effect of impeachment in overthrowing the will of the electorate is of such magnitude that it really ought to be reserved for willful violations of the law, a la Nixon, imho.

It is not at all clear that Trump knew or had the intention of committing an illegal act at the time he consulted with or even directed Cohen to pay Daniels and McDougal anything. Until such time as Cohen confessed to what is a highly speculative "crime" the fact that a crime existed at all was reasonably disputed.

In my view, that's all changed NOW, but only now. And it is not at all a given that Trump WON'T be legally vindicated -- either in the Senate if impeached or even in a criminal action if charges are ever brought.