Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating
Page 3 of 4 12 3 4
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/index.php)
-   Political Threads (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/forumdisplay.php?f=66)
-   -   "I only hire the best" (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/showthread.php?t=94076)

Pete F. 08-23-2018 10:36 AM
No crime was committed till they tried to hide it.
Trump could have paid her himself or used campaign funds to pay her, either would have been legal.
Cohen could not pay it, nor could some corporate entity.

PaulS 08-23-2018 10:47 AM
Just read this elsewhere

Testifying under oath on Tuesday, Mr. Cohen said he arranged the payment “for the principal purpose of influencing the election,” and told the judge he knew at the time that he was doing so in violation of campaign finance laws.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence 08-23-2018 10:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1149496)
Just read this elsewhere

Testifying under oath on Tuesday, Mr. Cohen said he arranged the payment “for the principal purpose of influencing the election,” and told the judge he knew at the time that he was doing so in violation of campaign finance laws.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
The big open question is if the paper trail shows Trump understood it was a violation as well.

PaulS 08-23-2018 10:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence (Post 1149497)
The big open question is if the paper trail shows Trump understood it was a violation as well.
What difference does it make if he knew it or not? A violation is a violation. Ignorance isn't a defense.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

scottw 08-23-2018 11:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1149499)
What difference does it make if he knew it or not? A violation is a violation. Ignorance isn't a defense.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
this is why the Clinton's have perfected and so frequently used the phrase ....."I don't recall" :D

Jim in CT 08-23-2018 11:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1149495)
No crime was committed till they tried to hide it.
Trump could have paid her himself or used campaign funds to pay her, either would have been legal.
Cohen could not pay it, nor could some corporate entity.
First, I heard it was a crime if the intent was to impact the election. Now it has to do with Cohen's role?

Trump could take campaign contributions, and use it to pay off his mistress, that's not fraud? That's a legit use of campaign contributions?

What does Cohen's role have to do, with determining whether or not it was a crime?

Not easy to follow...

Pete F. 08-23-2018 11:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1149503)
First, I heard it was a crime if the intent was to impact the election. Now it has to do with Cohen's role?

Trump could take campaign contributions, and use it to pay off his mistress, that's not fraud? That's a legit use of campaign contributions?

What does Cohen's role have to do, with determining whether or not it was a crime?

Not easy to follow...
Donald Trump (and only Donald Trump) could legally donate an unlimited amount of money to his campaign, because he was the candidate. Therefore, he would have been in the clear if he had made an in-kind donation to his campaign by paying Daniels directly with his own money. He could also have used money raised by his campaign, including his own contributions, to pay Daniels. (Trump’s campaign took in a total of $333 million, with $66 million of that coming from Trump himself.)

Pete F. 08-23-2018 12:05 PM
I think being a crime or not is the reason Mueller dumped this on the Southern District of NY.
He's not really interested in a "it's not the crime, it's the coverup" issue.

zimmy 08-23-2018 01:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman (Post 1149471)
Spelling and Punctuation are pretty important when you're trying to assert your intellectual Superiority
Pointing out where people's statements on a public forum are wrong is not trying to assert intellectual superiority. It is the point of the forum. If you guys don't like it, stop being wrong so much.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete F. 08-23-2018 02:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy (Post 1149508)
Pointing out where people's statements on a public forum are wrong is not trying to assert intellectual superiority. It is the point of the forum. If you guys don't like it, stop being wrong so much.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
You're wrong, haven't you heard, Truth isn't Truth and A Crime is not Crime.
Therefore no one can be wrong, they just have alternative facts and everyone gets a Neoliberal participation award.

spence 08-23-2018 02:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1149505)
Donald Trump (and only Donald Trump) could legally donate an unlimited amount of money to his campaign, because he was the candidate. Therefore, he would have been in the clear if he had made an in-kind donation to his campaign by paying Daniels directly with his own money.
Even if Trump paid out of his own pocket he would still have to disclose it.

spence 08-23-2018 02:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1149499)
What difference does it make if he knew it or not? A violation is a violation. Ignorance isn't a defense.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
For Trump to be looking at a criminal vs civil complaint I believe he would have had to known what he was doing was illegal. Cohen's council seems to be pretty confident he did...we'll see.

The Dad Fisherman 08-23-2018 02:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy (Post 1149508)
Pointing out where people's statements on a public forum are wrong is not trying to assert intellectual superiority. It is the point of the forum. If you guys don't like it, stop being wrong so much.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
That was sarcasm, I don’t really think you are intellectually superior to me.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

scottw 08-23-2018 03:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy (Post 1149508)

Pointing out where people's statements on a public forum are wrong is not trying to assert intellectual superiority.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
but it sure does make the liberals pissy...:laugha:

Sea Dangles 08-23-2018 07:07 PM
I Zimmerman really still embarrassed about being Stupedd?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sea Dangles 08-23-2018 07:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1149485)
Here is an explanation of what Cohen did and what he should have done, that I think is correct.
Trump is angry at Michael Cohen, of course, because Cohen just pleaded guilty to (among other things) making an illegal contribution to Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign by paying hush money to Stormy Daniels just before the election. Moreover, Cohen told the judge in the case that he did so “in coordination with and at the direction of” Trump.

Cohen’s actions were illegal because individuals may only contribute a limited amount of money or in-kind services to political campaigns. During the 2016 election, the maximum was $5,400. Cohen fraudulently obtained a home equity loan and then wired $130,000 of it to the lawyer representing Daniels on October 27, 2016.

What Trump certainly doesn’t understand, and what makes his tweet extra-wonderful, is that the problem with Cohen isn’t just that he (in Trump’s mind) betrayed Trump. It’s that Cohen is genuinely a terrible lawyer.

J.P. Morgan famously said, “I don’t know as I want a lawyer to tell me what I cannot do. I hire him to tell me how to do what I want to do.” But what Cohen managed to do was fail in both ways. He didn’t tell Trump that Trump couldn’t pay off Daniels using Cohen himself as a conduit — but he also failed to advise Trump that there was a way to do it that would have been totally legal.

Here’s how.

Donald Trump (and only Donald Trump) could legally donate an unlimited amount of money to his campaign, because he was the candidate. Therefore, he would have been in the clear if he had made an in-kind donation to his campaign by paying Daniels directly with his own money. He could also have used money raised by his campaign, including his own contributions, to pay Daniels. (Trump’s campaign took in a total of $333 million, with $66 million of that coming from Trump himself.)

In either case, Trump’s campaign would be required to disclose the expenditure. But according to the Federal Election Commission’s rules, campaign contributions and expenditures made after October 27, 2016 did not have to be disclosed until December 8. So if Trump could have put Daniels off just one more day, there would have been no public paper trail until a month after the election. And even then, the disclosed payment might not by itself expose the wrongdoing.
Why does your opinion matter here?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sea Dangles 08-23-2018 07:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1149506)
I think being a crime or not is the reason Mueller dumped this on the Southern District of NY.
He's not really interested in a "it's not the crime, it's the coverup" issue.
Baby needs new shewz
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

zimmy 08-23-2018 07:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sea Dangles (Post 1149528)
I Zimmerman really still embarrassed about being Stupedd?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Little man, you can hide behind the computer screen in your basement an be a tough guy but I have no more time for your jackasstical behavior.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

zimmy 08-23-2018 08:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman (Post 1149515)
That was sarcasm, I don’t really think you are intellectually superior to me.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
You should look at the post you made. There is nothing in it that implied that you think I am intellectually Superior. You weren't being sarcastic, you were being a sea dangle.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch 08-23-2018 08:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence (Post 1149429)
Doesn’t matter if it was linked to campaign funds or private cash. If the payoffs were intended to influence the election, which Cohen said they were, and they were directed by Trump, which Cohen says they were under oath, then Trump quite likely is looking at a clearly impeachable offense.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
All campaign funds are for the purpose of influencing an election. I don't understand what you are getting at here. If the money was not a campaign finance violation, then what violation exists?

Mark Levin, referring to the federal campaign laws, says that a campaign expenditure is solely for campaign activity. A candidate who spends his own money or even corporate money for an event that occurred not as a result of a campaign is not a campaign expenditure.

The event for which the expenditure was made in this case occurred before the campaign. The expenditure, itself, is not a violation. Neither was the "event." Now if the "event" is construed as being the suppression, the hushing, of the original event, then, regardless of what Cohen said, Trump can reasonably and legitimately say that it was to hide the affair from his wife, or family.

Sea Dangles 08-23-2018 08:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy (Post 1149534)
Little man, you can hide behind the computer screen in your basement an be a tough guy but I have no more time for your jackasstical behavior.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
If you don’t have time then why are you posting?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete F. 08-23-2018 10:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sea Dangles (Post 1149529)
Why does your opinion matter here?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Why does yours
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete F. 08-23-2018 10:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sea Dangles (Post 1149530)
Baby needs new shewz
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Is English your first language
What are you trying to say
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

JohnR 08-24-2018 06:41 AM
Everyone lighten up a little please



Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1149499)
What difference does it make if he knew it or not? A violation is a violation. Ignorance isn't a defense.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe he did not have the *Intent*

PaulS 08-24-2018 10:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnR (Post 1149562)

Maybe he did not have the *Intent*
Good point, if intent is used in determining sentences (which I would think it is???). Conspiracy is used in sentencing and that is why I believe Cohen was charged w/conspiracy.

spence 08-24-2018 10:28 AM
Prosecution is suggesting they have evidence of intent.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Got Stripers 08-24-2018 02:10 PM
For all of us want-a-be attorneys, I think it will eventually be determined by congress and not in front of the courts. You listen to Fox or Trump who just spits out whatever comes out of Fox and it’s not a crime. Of course the other networks seem to believe there was intent and a crime. I can’t see Mueller bringing charges against a sitting president, not without an iron clad case, so the report will go to congress. If the mid terms flip things and the report is daming, then it’s probably a resignation ahead of impeachment.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Got Stripers 08-25-2018 07:35 PM
As if the week wasn’t bad enough for DJT, learning the long time family accountant was given immunity in exchange for testimony, probably means Donald’s golf game is really going to suffer.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence 08-28-2018 12:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Stripers (Post 1149644)
As if the week wasn’t bad enough for DJT, learning the long time family accountant was given immunity in exchange for testimony, probably means Donald’s golf game is really going to suffer.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
No we’ll just see more random conspiracies like regulating Google.

Regulating Google searches hahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahhahahahahhaha
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Dad Fisherman 08-28-2018 02:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence (Post 1149820)
No we’ll just see more random conspiracies like regulating Google.

Regulating Google searches hahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahhahahahahhaha
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
THAT.....is the LAMEST attempt at a troll I've ever seen. You're losing your touch. :laugha::laugha::laugha:

I bet you can GOOGLE up some pointers on how to up your trolling skills. :cputin:

It would take extra credit just to bring the grade on that one up to a D- :smash::smash:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:22 PM.
Page 3 of 4 12 3 4
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com