Cool
President Trump
- Thread starter wkmac
- Start date
Cool
floridays
Well-Known Member
Ok, you seem to be attacking a different angle now. Everything you have written before seemed to be aimed at a Cohen violation of law. I may have just misread. I learned this long ago, if the prosecution is leaking their facts, or case it isn't a strong one. The leak would be for the reason to guide public opinion, the public that would be agreeable with their side. As far as I know, there is no statute that has been broken. I'll just say it, none was broken. The clowns need to bring a distinct violation in the US Code. If there is an allegation, name it or list it with the appropriate violation of code. Until then it doesn't exist.
like this happens when legal proceedings are offered to the public. This is how I deal, you have a charge, charge it. Until then it is all BS. Period. No charge everything else is BS, you charge... we deal with it.You know that part comes at the end of an investigation, right?
That's just it, if he was selling "access" to the President he was violating the law. In no way am I saying Trump was involved and if Mueller thought he was he would've never turned this over to another prosecutor.Ok, you seem to be attacking a different angle now. Everything you have written before seemed to be aimed at a Cohen violation of law. I may have just misread. I learned this long ago, if the prosecution is leaking their facts, or case it isn't a strong one. The leak would be for the reason to guide public opinion, the public that would be agreeable with their side. As far as I know, there is no statute that has been broken. I'll just say it, none was broken. The clowns need to bring a distinct violation in the US Code. If there is an allegation, name it or list it with the appropriate violation of code. Until then it doesn't exist.
You
floridays
Well-Known Member
He's not part of Mueller's investigaton currently. Wink, Wink, Nod, Nod. I know a lot more than you, Not talking down to you either, just stating fact.
floridays
Well-Known Member
Where in the hell do you come up with "selling access." And when did that become a criminal act? You will lose that argument.
He approached various corporations and told them he could help them get what they wanted because of his relationship to the President. They paid him serious money. That's selling access. It's illegal. He's in trouble.
P.S. Hillary and Bill worked out deals for huge donations to their foundation as well as big speaking fees. Hillary met personally in her office with many of these people. That's selling access. But she kept a server off site and deleted 33,000 emails. That's why she's free, and little fish like Cohen get caught. She's better at playing the game, is too well connected, and too rich.
floridays
Well-Known Member
You're going down the wrong hole now. Cohen ain't Hillary. If there is a dinner, 10,000 dollars a ticket and Fred is there, is that selling access? Be careful before you answer.
That's a perfectly legal way to donate. Telling someone you've got the President's ear and can make sure their drug gets approved, regulation removed, etc is selling access. Whether it's a little fish wheeling and dealing, or a big fish operating on a huge scale, it's illegal, and a much bigger deal than scaring someone with a perjury charge. You're being partisan here. Sorry, I've said from the get go that if they can prove Trump broke the law then by all means impeach him. That applies to those hangers on who see their knowing Trump as an opportunity. Graft isn't just the province of Democrats. If wrongdoing is truly uncovered then nail Cohen. And a sure fire indicator that something is amiss is Sean Hannity is totally mum about it. He's never shy about excoriating the Media for false claims. But not a word.
floridays
Well-Known Member
No Van, You have run to all of these elaborate wrong doings on nothing more than "news" reporting. You are absolutely correct on one thing, I am partisan, I believe in the presumptive innocence of any prospective defendant, or current defendant until facts and a jury prove otherwise at trial. I am definitely partisan. They are attempting to hold a trial in the court of public opinion currently with one objective, to tie Trump to it. It doesn't wash. You're an early tent folder in this case.
Got to disagree. I keep using the word "if." Can presume innocence, should presume innocence until proven guilty, but if financial records turn up showing millions in payments, and companies are saying he approached them saying no lobbyist can do what he could for them, then it doesn't look good for Cohen. Most companies tend to be pro-Trump. They love the tax breaks. I don't think companies like AT&T are colluding with Mueller to get Trump. I agree wholeheartedly that Mueller is out to get Trump. But this doesn't appear to be part of that effort.
Old Man Jingles
Rat out of a cage
That is logical and healthy thinking if one takes Current Events seriously.
Honestly, the honest people admit they come here because they just like to argue.
oldngray
nowhere special
Substitute troll for like to argue?
How is it a brilliant attorney like you ended up on a UPS discussion forum?
oldngray
nowhere special
If Cohen took that money its sleazy but probably not illegal. He had clients other than Trump and he promised access he couldn't deliver. Its those companies paying him that were foolish and throwing money away. No direct Russian connection. An American citizen having relatives in Russia is legal. Just another smear campaign in the press by Avenatti.
Old Man Jingles
Rat out of a cage
Agreed.
When asked about my postings in Current Events, I say, "Trolling like everyone else in there!"
There are a couple that verb probably doesn't apply to.
Old Man Jingles
Rat out of a cage
Pretty much my reading as well.
It appears he offered 'backdoor' access like a lobbyist and insider information.
Turdferguson
Just a turd
Thanks
