America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 5 years ago by dstieger. 77 replies replies.
2 Pages12>
Bye Cohen...Now Trump has a Pecker Problem
delta1 Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
SDNY is preparing to prosecute Trump and his family, with David Pecker and his company, AMI/National Enquirer, and Trump family CFO Allen Weisselberg providing evidence and testimony...

the prosecution will be for Trump's part in Cohen's crimes of campaign finance violations, and possible other crimes that arose from Trump's and Cohen's long association with Pecker and AMI...seems they buried plenty of bodies for Trump over the years...
DrafterX Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,508
Trump threw the double bullchit' flag on this... Mellow
dstieger Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
What is it that you think Pecker has....and what he has offered to give up?

"Some government body with investigative authority is going to talk to somebody who knows Trump" isn't quite news yet...Trump is a sleaze ball, but he's pretty well steered clear of the thousands of 'allegations' so far. I don't have a reason to think that's going to change any time soon. But, you all need something to keep your hopes up, I guess. Good luck
delta1 Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
He and his company were integral in the $150,000 payment to one of Trump's mistresses, and he's acknowledged the payment as intended to influence the election by keeping damaging info out of the public.
dstieger Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
I get that...but, if that's all there is, then you may end up disappointed, I'm afraid. Because, even if you and I both believe in our hearts of hearts that the payments constitute some sort of election fraud, I think it will be quite easy for a Trump lawyer to make a convincing case that even if he weren't a candidate, he'd have made the payments for silence due to his high profile and marital status.
delta1 Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
I've read that his defense would be similar to Edwards', but I heard a legal expert, a Republican who was a former head of the US Federal Elections Commission say there are many key factors that distinguish the two cases.

The Edwards case is distinguishable because the payments were ostensibly for child-support, since there was a baby that resulted from the affair. Then, when he dropped out of the race, Edwards kept making the payments.

He offered several key factors that point to a guilty verdict for Trump. First is the existence of recordings that implicate Trump and Cohen. There are hints in the SDNY's court docs in the Cohen case and public announcements from the SDNY regarding immunity and non-prosecution agreements with Pecker, AMI/Natl Enquirer and Weisselberg that they can provide corroborating evidence(documents, tapes, phone records and financial records) that these payments were made knowingly to influence the election. Second is Cohen's testimony under oath about the purpose of the payments. Third is the timing of the payments, which happened years after the affairs and within a few weeks of the elections.

I'm no lawyer, but I sense that there is more peril for Trump than just the campaign finance felonies. The SDNY docs hint at criminal business dealings that involved Trump, his family, his CFO Weisselberg and Pecker, President of AMI. Those two have been cooperating with the SDNY for many months now.
delta1 Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
harkens to Lloyd Bridges' character McCroskey the air traffic controller in Airplane..."damm...I picked a bad week to give up_____"
Mr. Jones Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 06-12-2005
Posts: 19,359
All trump has to do is...

CALL AND INSTIGATE A CONGRESSINAL HEARING LIKE FRANK CHURCH'S COINTELPRO 1970's hearing...
By totally investigating the FBI AND THE FBI-SSG DIVISIONS ANTICS SINCE SEPT 11, 2000...
CALL ME AS THE MAIN WITNESS AND COMEY, MUELLER AND GARY O'CONNOR WILL GO DOWN...BIG TIME for first degree premeditated M.U.R.D.E.R....
GAAAAARRRR-RUUUNNNNN-TEEEEEEDDDDD
deadeyedick Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 03-13-2003
Posts: 16,957
You don't really need to find out
What's going on
You don't really want to know
Just how far it's gone
Just leave well enough alone
Eat your dirty laundry Whistle
Abrignac Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,217
delta1 wrote:
I've read that his defense would be similar to Edwards', but I heard a legal expert, a Republican who was a former head of the US Federal Elections Commission say there are many key factors that distinguish the two cases.

The Edwards case is distinguishable because the payments were ostensibly for child-support, since there was a baby that resulted from the affair. Then, when he dropped out of the race, Edwards kept making the payments.

He offered several key factors that point to a guilty verdict for Trump. First is the existence of recordings that implicate Trump and Cohen. There are hints in the SDNY's court docs in the Cohen case and public announcements from the SDNY regarding immunity and non-prosecution agreements with Pecker, AMI/Natl Enquirer and Weisselberg that they can provide corroborating evidence(documents, tapes, phone records and financial records) that these payments were made knowingly to influence the election. Second is Cohen's testimony under oath about the purpose of the payments. Third is the timing of the payments, which happened years after the affairs and within a few weeks of the elections.

I'm no lawyer, but I sense that there is more peril for Trump than just the campaign finance felonies. The SDNY docs hint at criminal business dealings that involved Trump, his family, his CFO Weisselberg and Pecker, President of AMI. Those two have been cooperating with the SDNY for many months now.



I’d hope you would be as zealous about members of congress who, unlike Trump used his own money to pay off women, used public money for hush payments.
ZRX1200 Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,476
If they’re republicans maybe....
ZRX1200 Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,476
I read the prosecutor statement and thank goodness they sound so unbiased with the whole looking for crimes to prove and everything.....
DrafterX Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,508
And this has what to do with the Russians..?? Huh
delta1 Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
we are witnessing an historic example of criminal malfeasance by the occupant in the highest office of the land and his circle of family and associates, but some are deluded from seeing it because of the toxic nature of partisanship in our politics, some of for which he is responsible...as his past denials of improper behavior by him and his associates have been proven to be lies, he musters more lies that are also disproved...yet his followers do not accept the facts and continue to believe his lies...

I reluctantly pull the "butt Hillary" card here to make that case. If Hillary had won and any of the facts discovered about Trump's wrongdoing was attributed to her, all the cons with blinders on now would be screaming for her head...

we are a civilized society based on the rule of law...a law that applies to all, and despite one's party, wealth or heritage, no one is above the law, not even a "popular" POTUS,

There was quite a bit of over the top zealous Obama bashing which I saw here during his last 4 years in office, and he was NEVER accused of any crime, yet he was mercilessly criticized as if he was the worst person in the world...I submit, Trump leads Obama in that race by a long shot...

RMAN4443 Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
It all depends on what the meaning of "IS" is Not talking
Abrignac Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,217
delta1 wrote:
we are witnessing an historic example of criminal malfeasance by the occupant in the highest office of the land and his circle of family and associates, but some are deluded from seeing it because of the toxic nature of partisanship in our politics, some of for which he is responsible...as his past denials of improper behavior by him and his associates have been proven to be lies, he musters more lies that are also disproved...yet his followers do not accept the facts and continue to believe his lies...

I reluctantly pull the "butt Hillary" card here to make that case. If Hillary had won and any of the facts discovered about Trump's wrongdoing was attributed to her, all the cons with blinders on now would be screaming for her head...

we are a civilized society based on the rule of law...a law that applies to all, and despite one's party, wealth or heritage, no one is above the law, not even a "popular" POTUS,

There was quite a bit of over the top zealous Obama bashing which I saw here during his last 4 years in office, and he was NEVER accused of any crime, yet he was mercilessly criticized as if he was the worst person in the world...I submit, Trump leads Obama in that race by a long shot...



No blinders here. I’m embarrassed by him. Yet, I think that those on the left want to hold him to a different standard to which they hold their own. It sickens me to see the level at which the left has sought to destroy him in the name of power. Imagine the fury Republicans will surely launch on the next Democratic President and so on and so forth. Maybe as well burn the Constitution and revolt. We sure as hell can’t govern effectively any more.

Is this what we really want?
ZRX1200 Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,476
Never accused of a crime????

He never paid a $375k fine for campaign fraud?
ZRX1200 Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,476
Damn blinders
delta1 Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
two different animals (animus?)

https://www.snopes.com/news/2018/08/22/election-law-violations-compared-obama-2008-vs-trump-2016/


one is ruled a civil violation and the other a criminal one... compare the fact patterns in both cases and you'll see the difference...
ZRX1200 Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,476
Snopes?????

Both have been ruled on? Really
DrafterX Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,508
Didn't this all happen before he was elected..?? Think
DrafterX Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,508
Where's the abuse of power..?? Think
delta1 Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
if you don't want to even look at the snopes comparison, then what neutral source of facts do you recommend?

then explain why you believe Cohen is going to jail for the felony of campaign finance law violations, the same facts that he said he did at the direction of and in coordination with the President, which puts Trump in legal jeopardy of being charged with the same offense...

and explain why you believe Obama's case was determined to be a civil violation...
DrafterX Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,508
Trump woulda paid whether he was a candidate or not.. he was still a public figure trying to protect his reputation... Or so I heard from one of those legal experts you've mentioned... Mellow
delta1 Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
Ten years after the affair?

a few weeks before the election? after the Access Hollywood tape?

coincidence?

and why the constant stream of lies from Trump about this from day one if he did not engage in criminal behavior. Why not just say: here's what I did and why I did it and that isn't a crime?

why get a friend (who has helped Trump for years to "catch and kill" harmful stories that were supposedly going to run in the National Enquirer) to use his company to make a campaign contribution and have his attorney draft up a NDA with phony names and create a phony LLC to receive the money....a lot of ball hiding tending to indicate a consciousness of guilt and a scheme of criminal evasion...
DrafterX Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,508
Is it a crime..?? Huh

DrafterX Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,508
And to share my perspective.. I do think this has been a witch hunt.. but if they find Trump is actually guilty of somethin so be it... let it play out... At least Hillary isn't our President... Mellow
Abrignac Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,217
delta1 wrote:
Ten years after the affair?

a few weeks before the election? after the Access Hollywood tape?

coincidence?

and why the constant stream of lies from Trump about this from day one if he did not engage in criminal behavior. Why not just say: here's what I did and why I did it and that isn't a crime?

why get a friend (who has helped Trump for years to "catch and kill" harmful stories that were supposedly going to run in the National Enquirer) to use his company to make a campaign contribution and have his attorney draft up a NDA with phony names and create a phony LLC to receive the money....a lot of ball hiding tending to indicate a consciousness of guilt and a scheme of criminal evasion...



Or an attempt to keep private his affair. To assume subterfuge one must look at an incident through the eyes of the accused to understand that person’s motivation.

Back to the original question: a person was paid private money to keep quiet about a perfectly legal tryst. What’s the BFD? It seems that anyone who would view this as anything other the a pimple on their ass is grasping for the smallest of transgressions from which to score a political point. Again, it this the level of desperation with which we want to govern?

tamapatom Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 03-19-2015
Posts: 7,381
Stormy says it looks like a mushroom.
Abrignac Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,217
tamapatom wrote:
Stormy says it looks like a mushroom.


Would Trump use waffle when describing hers?
dstieger Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
Wonder if she's got a GI Joe kung fu grip
Abrignac Offline
#32 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,217
dstieger wrote:
Wonder if she's got a GI Joe kung fu grip

Well played
delta1 Offline
#33 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
he was running for President...getting hammered in the press about sexually assaultive behavior, then the "Grab their Puzzies" tape was revealed....protect my wife or protect me and my chances for POTUS?

btw: Pecker supports Cohen's statement: Trump was in the meeting when they discussed how to arrange the payments with the intent to influence the election...


OK, if you see one and I see the other...fine...let's see how this all plays out..
frankj1 Offline
#34 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
I just got a subscription to the National Enquirer.

am I too late?
frankj1 Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
I just got a subscription to the National Enquirer.

am I too late?
frankj1 Offline
#36 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
or too often?
Abrignac Offline
#37 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,217
delta1 wrote:
he was running for President...getting hammered in the press about sexually assaultive behavior, then the "Grab their Puzzies" tape was revealed....protect my wife or protect me and my chances for POTUS?

btw: Pecker supports Cohen's statement: Trump was in the meeting when they discussed how to arrange the payments with the intent to influence the election...


OK, if you see one and I see the other...fine...let's see how this all plays out..



"Reasonable people can disagree about whether it's wrong to pay hush money to somebody to stop them from disclosing alleged improprieties sexually. Reasonable people can say that's wrong or that's right. It's not illegal," Dershowitz said.

He explained that a presidential candidate could give cash to an individual and explicitly state not only that the payment is to buy their silence about alleged improprieties, but also that it is specifically designed to help their campaign, and that still would not be a crime.

"Whether you think it's wrong or right, I don't understand the case for how it's illegal," Dershowitz said. "If you look at the very, very complicated campaign laws, the one thing that comes out simply is that a candidate may himself or herself contribute as much as they want to a campaign."

He warned against "criminalizing political sins," arguing that blurring the line between "wrong" and "crime" endangers the rule of law.
frankj1 Offline
#38 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
would the source of the money matter?
Abrignac Offline
#39 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,217
Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team on Friday released key documents relating to the FBI’s questioning of former national security adviser Michael Flynn, confirming agents did not believe at the time Flynn intentionally lied to them -- though he was later charged with making false statements in that interview.
victor809 Offline
#40 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
It does matter.
Dershowitz's assertions are based on the assumption that trump makes the payment from his OWN money, AND that he report it as a campaign contribution.

If my memory serves me, Cohen made the payment, and when it first came out he claimed he made it from his own money... Which was odd and no one really believed it. But that claim makes it difficult for trump to now claim he paid her... Especially since I doubt he documented repayment. Additionally, I doubt he filed a campaign contribution regarding it.
delta1 Offline
#41 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
I think Dershowitz is a respected and tenured legal expert. But several other respected legal experts have disagreed with him...

maybe we should let the practicing professionals of SDNY decide whether or not Trump has violated the campaign finance laws. They won't bring a case unless they believe they have proof beyond a reasonable doubt...

However, the campaign finance violations are "peanuts" (his word) compared to several other trains rolling down the political/civil/criminal tracks towards Trump, his family, his businesses and his foundation...
victor809 Offline
#42 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Yeah... Who knows what's going to unfold ultimately.

But dershowitz might be right... If trump personally paid her money, and documented that he did so properly, then I can't say he did anything illegal (in that aspect of the investigation).

But it's not very likely that that is the case.

Hell... I'm not even that bothered by him not documenting it. Just as I didn't expect Clinton to tell the truth when asked if he was cheating on his wife, I don't really expect trump to have a line item in his finances "paying off porn star I screwed".... Despite what people think, I am consistent.

But using other people's money... Thats likely not going to be legal...
tailgater Offline
#43 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Not comparing the reasons, but Obama was fined $375,000 for election fund violations.

He broke the rules.
And then paid the fine from election funds, plus what the DNC kicked in.

Nobody talked about impeaching him for it.

Not even the so-called racists who dared to criticize him.

So I'm curious how election fund violations are suddenly an impeachable offense.

victor809 Offline
#44 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
I read a good analysis of this somewhere... Can't remember where.

Comes down to intent.

If you don't record the funding from certain locations properly because you have a national organization whipped together over the past 2 years with a ton of volunteers and others who aren't primarily focused on it... You get a fine.

If you have a meeting with your lawyer regarding the best way to pay off your hooker without it being noticed by anyone and using money from your campaign fund... Then to government is a bit more interested.

The first case apparently happens with just about every presidential campaign. Not so much the second.
frankj1 Offline
#45 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
tailgater wrote:
Not comparing the reasons, but Obama was fined $375,000 for election fund violations.

He broke the rules.
And then paid the fine from election funds, plus what the DNC kicked in.

Nobody talked about impeaching him for it.

Not even the so-called racists who dared to criticize him.

So I'm curious how election fund violations are suddenly an impeachable offense.


well, you are comparing it. so...

There are zillions of campaign finance offenses due to an insane amount of complicated requirements.
98.2% fall under the stuff Dersch and Rand Paul have addressed...failure to fill in line 14c, etc.

Let's wait on lumping in Trump's situation. It's not related to Joe Tailgater sending in $25 and it was reported incorrectly.
It may come out in the wash, but no one has quite enough info yet to decide. We have the exchange of two documented liars (Cohen and Trump) and the rest is in the real documenting and filing.

I'll wait for the truth.
frankj1 Offline
#46 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
and this does not qualify for any weird Trumpian related illness.
delta1 Offline
#47 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
There was another person involved...Mr. Pecker... and his AMI corp. was involved in the scheme, according to docs filed by SDNY...

both Pecker and Cohen have said Trump met with them to discuss how to pay to keep the stories about the mistresses out of the news in effort to influence the election...that's what separates this from other cases of campaign finance violations...

They told the prosecutors at SDNY they all came up with a scheme to create an LLC to launder the money for AMI, who would pay the girl, create an NDA with alias/monikers, pay the LLC/ Cohen back for paying one of the girls using campaign funds...not sure if I got this right, but I'm sure the SDNY has a pretty good idea of the full picture, since they have Cohen and Pecker and the check-writer, Trump's CFO Weisselberg, cooperating...

The interesting part is whether the DOJ opinion about not indicting a sitting President will be observed here...
frankj1 Offline
#48 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
delta1 wrote:
There was another person involved...Mr. Pecker... and his AMI corp. was involved in the scheme, according to docs filed by SDNY...

both Pecker and Cohen have said Trump met with them to discuss how to pay to keep the stories about the mistresses out of the news in effort to influence the election...that's what separates this from other cases of campaign finance violations...

They told the prosecutors at SDNY they all came up with a scheme to create an LLC to launder the money for AMI, who would pay the girl, create an NDA with alias/monikers, pay the LLC/ Cohen back for paying one of the girls using campaign funds...not sure if I got this right, but I'm sure the SDNY has a pretty good idea of the full picture, since they have Cohen and Pecker and the check-writer, Trump's CFO Weisselberg, cooperating...

The interesting part is whether the DOJ opinion about not indicting a sitting President will be observed here...

I have seen the same, just waiting for confirmation of facts and if said facts amount to more than Joe's Obama example...legally.
Speyside Offline
#49 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Man, I thought this would be about other porn stars he put his pocket in.
delta1 Offline
#50 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
I was trying to be funny to call attention to another day in the saga of Trump...but only infuriated the cons who say I'm being zealous...

I'm just reporting the news on Trump, and have let a bunch of stuff go without comment...
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>