Cash
- Thread starter BoyNextDoor
- Start date
KeithD
Virgin
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2012
- Posts
- 29,626
What's doubtful is if you ever will acquire a functioning brain.
Obama, Hillary, Obama, Hillary (no, don't look at that venal slob in the White House) Obama, Hillary, Obama, Hillary.
Colonel Hogan
Madness
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2005
- Posts
- 18,372
Clinton was NOT impeached for lying ABOUT Monica. He was impeached for lying about Monica IN A SWORN LEGAL DEPOSITION.
That's the difference. That IS a crime.
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
Trump said, "Don't pay with cash." He didn't mean getting a loan instead.
Sean
We'll see.
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2005
- Posts
- 96,204
When is Sessions going to be arrested?
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
No idea what that's about. Some guy made billions of transfers?
Colonel Hogan
Madness
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2005
- Posts
- 18,372
Sessions is subject to impeachment under the same article of the Constitution as is the President.
For that matter there is far less reason or legal controversy NOT to prosecute a sitting cabinet member (unlike the President) for clear criminal behavior. I believe Spiro Agnew was the last and most prominent member of the executive branch to fall victim to that fact.
Nothing standing in the way that I can see other than the will of Congress with regard to impeachment and the rule of law with regard to criminal prosecution.
HisArpy
Loose canon extraordinair
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2016
- Posts
- 49,495
There is no clear meaning as to what Trump was saying if you only listen to the words on the tape. As a result, there are 2 possibilities to what he was saying.
You want me to pay with cash. Got it.
Or.
No. I want you to pay with a check and not cash.
The actual words on the tape could have either meaning. Those who are against Trump hear 1 thing, those who support him hear something else. There is nothing on the tape which will tend to swing either interpretation one way over the other.
They are both valid and equal interpretations of the tape.
BUT, what the anti-Trump crowd fails to follow, is that if there is equal possibility between the various versions of the evidence, one which supports the accused and one against, the benefit of the doubt MUST go to the one being accused.
Based on that rule, without more evidence, the tape must be interpreted to mean that Trump want's Cohen to pay with a check and not cash.
You want me to pay with cash. Got it.
Or.
No. I want you to pay with a check and not cash.
The actual words on the tape could have either meaning. Those who are against Trump hear 1 thing, those who support him hear something else. There is nothing on the tape which will tend to swing either interpretation one way over the other.
They are both valid and equal interpretations of the tape.
BUT, what the anti-Trump crowd fails to follow, is that if there is equal possibility between the various versions of the evidence, one which supports the accused and one against, the benefit of the doubt MUST go to the one being accused.
Based on that rule, without more evidence, the tape must be interpreted to mean that Trump want's Cohen to pay with a check and not cash.
Last edited:
KeithD
Virgin
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2012
- Posts
- 29,626
Only by "let's pretend" Trumpettes like you. Deny, deflect, distract all the way to the prison doors.
Fuckette
Laissez le Bone
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2007
- Posts
- 3,770
Thank you
LtCol_Kilgore_Trout
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2017
- Posts
- 243
Good Lord Buddha, it's only Wednesday, but we've already got our, "We've got him now!" thread of the week...
And this is from the same gang that spent day-after-day-after-day defending everything President Obama did as the very embodiment of perfection incarnate. Seems we went from hear no, see no, speak no, to hear it, see it and speak about it on a daily basis.
And this is from the same gang that spent day-after-day-after-day defending everything President Obama did as the very embodiment of perfection incarnate. Seems we went from hear no, see no, speak no, to hear it, see it and speak about it on a daily basis.
Veroe
Maestro/Truthseeker
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2009
- Posts
- 63,401
What I got from it is that Karen McDougal has an excellent case to sue Trump and Cohen for paying the Enquirer to bury her story using that tape that was just made a part of the public record.
Also what I got from it is that this is only the appetizer. There are eleven other tapes and maybe even worse disasters for Giuliani to scramble around TV doing damage control.
Also what I got from it is that this is only the appetizer. There are eleven other tapes and maybe even worse disasters for Giuliani to scramble around TV doing damage control.
LincolnDuncan
Thread hijacker
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2015
- Posts
- 6,648
I don't think that Trump could tell the truth if they have him truth serum by IV.
BoyNextDoor
I hate liars
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2010
- Posts
- 14,159
SpeareChucker
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2017
- Posts
- 24,614
What kind of a lawyer tapes his clients?
BoyNextDoor
I hate liars
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2010
- Posts
- 14,159
The kind that knows he has to protect himself from his client.
SpeareChucker
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2017
- Posts
- 24,614
So, sleazeballs...
For starters, it’s perfectly legal to record conversations in New York and many other jurisdictions.
A recorded conversation gives much better context and detail than any form of written note-taking and is far more efficient.
Liars are always the first people to complain when they find out their exact words, tone and context have been preserved.
Tough titty.
SpeareChucker
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2017
- Posts
- 24,614
Which banned alt are you? A_J?
AJ’s alt license fees and vpn requirements are too complex for me.
HisArpy
Loose canon extraordinair
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2016
- Posts
- 49,495
As opposed to you who believes that an ambiguous statement suddenly becomes a GOTCHA! admission of criminal enterprise?
I believe in our system of law. I support the law. The law is: Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, an ambiguous statement which has more than 1 rational interpretation does not rise to the level of beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt.
Unless your head is so far up your ass you want it to be.
BoyNextDoor
I hate liars
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2010
- Posts
- 14,159
I prefer Tricky Trumpy
Rightguide
Prof Triggernometry
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2017
- Posts
- 74,017
We'll see what happens to his client base in the future if he isn't disbarred.
