DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Michael Cohen to testify before House & Senate

Because Cohen used his own money to make the payoff, and because the payoff was only made to protect the campaign by keeping her silent, that makes the payment an illegal campaign contribution. Repaying him later does not change that. That's how I understand it anyway.

Coming to a full conclusions when we aren't attorneys tends to lead us to the conclusion we want to believe.

Well, what else does a NDA mean? Someone pays someone else to shut up. In politics (as your congress has done), or in general, in life. My understanding is NDA's are not illegal, because if so, you'd have your dream come true of Trump being in trouble.

And Avennati, and actually Stephanie Clifford (Clifton? I don't remember her name), and however many people Bill paid off, and congress people, etc.


Look, I don't have the answers. And so far, after 2 1/2 years, no one else has the answers I guess.

Precisely.

I know it took less than a year for our podunk sheriff's office and the FBI to not only arrest, but charge, and find guilty, a man of murder. That's with limited money - but a lot of proof. (and I might be mistaken on the amount of time. Perhaps it was a bit over a year)

I've been party many NDAs. The ones I've seen have always protected ideas being disclosed for development, trade secrets, unique business systems, or preventing some other business relation/action/inquiry from being publicly disclosed.

NDAs for hush money is something the crooked billionaire elite do.

Is it illegal?

The crooked billionaire has something to protect. If you had sex with a porn star and she blabbed about it, no one would care.

I think in this case it "could be illegal, and sounds like it was". That's why they are looking at it so hard. But it could also be perfectly legal, depending on the particulars. Problem is, instead of just getting to the bottom of it and coming clean, Trump's side and the GOP act like they need to cover it up and make it go away, you know, "Protect Trump". This makes it even more suspicious.

That's all I can really say on it. Confusing stuff to me.

True, but I'm not running for President or the sitting President, neither are almost all other billionaires who might use it this way legally.

If the hush money was used to hush information during an election. Election finance violation is a felony. 2 counts so far. Enjoy.

Well, then, how about we let the Mueller report come out before we decide? You know, much UNLIKE you're done over the past 2 1/2 years? That'd be neat, wouldn't it?

You, sir, are on record of claiming Trump wouldn't make it 1 year before impeachment. On record as saying would start a nuke war with N. Korea, as saying he was guilty of this, that, and every other thing you could think of (or were told my your msnbc ant tyt talking heads), impeachment is imminent (about 50 times or so), Avennati has 'got him', Stormy has got him - hey, how'd that work out? Oh, it cost stormy money? Hmmm.


I know you're chomping at the bit for ANYTHING negative. Dude, your 'dislike' of trump is not dislike. It's hatred. I pray for you. In the mean time, I'll wait for the report. If it comes.

So, it's legal for congress men?

odd cause this describes your views on hillary 100%. you act just like you claim OCD does.

how about you slow your roll.

AWESOMENESS! Now I get to use the left's buzzword: whataboutism.

What are you talking about Hillary for?

Nope

more talking about your blatant hypocrisy. you dont have the credibility to whine about how others view trump.

Then, why has it happened?

Oh. My bad. It's only the leftists that can complain about 'whataboutism'.

However the act wasn't illegal, so how could it be illegal for him to pay to keep the knowledge between he and her?

you can complain about whatever you want. im just here to point out your double standard.

do whatever floats your boat, bro.

Double standard? LOL. You and ocd, and rocket, are notorious for claiming "whataboutism", yet here, you did it, and won't admit it.

Carry on.

admit what? youre whining to OCD about the same thing you did? lol weak

Yet another, ANOTHER, 'whataboutism'?

Well all of this - well all of the actual discussion (not the troll like posting from some) - is opinion and "Joe Public" offering opinion based on what limited information is known publicly. So - nothing is proven. There is no indisputable, controvertible, golden piece of evidence (that we know of) that would be the equivalent of a 'drop the mike' end game.

That said - there is a lot to discuss and anyone with a little brain power and an open mind can come to some reasonable conclusions ... and if you don't want to go to a conclusion you can go to a reasonable area of deep concern.

- Cohen lied "to protect the President". Was found guilty of this and other financial issues - and now has a plea deal in place. So while he is a known / proven liar ... going under oath again voluntarily back to Congress means: He has nothing to gain (he doesn't get a better deal) and everything to lose (Manafort is a perfect, recent example of what happens if you have a plea deal and then you lie under oath and break the terms of your plea deal) .... if anyone wants to suggest Cohen wasn't credible and dismiss his testimony because "he's a liar" ... they are not thinking. --- Disturbingly this seems to be the ONLY play in the GOP playbook. Besmirch Cohen - undermine ANYTHING and EVERYTHING he says with the exception of Cohen stating he did not see evidence of collusion.

- In a court of Law - relying solely on anything Cohen says without any corroborating/supporting evidence would be suicide. Regardless of how contrite, believable and sincere Cohen may have appeared yesterday he is still an easy witness to discount based on anything that is simply 'his word'.... but much of the allegations and issues that came to light have corroborating witnesses or evidence (like the check). A valid question might be 'whats unusual about a client paying his lawyer?' .... but when the checks come to the same amount as the known, proven, accepted payoff to Stormy, AND (presumably) the usual method of payment for Cohen's legal services is probably by electronic transfer and probably traceable by a Cohen invoice or statement .... and these 11 checks are an outlier.... then (imo) you have to start to give weight to the claim .... and that's not even looking at the timing, and the statements by Giuliani that are public record that admitted Trump paid off Stormy through Cohen .... so if these checks aren't the pay off .... where IS the payoff trail? If Trump can't provide proof of an alternate paper trail of exactly the correct payoff amount through a different means is ANYONE going to believe that the checks in question are not the Stormy payoff?? . . . . I'll let sharper minds give you all the laws broken if it's proven that these checks are the payoff.

There are a lot of similar examples - and as I said earlier Allen Weisselberg will no doubt be the most critical individual when it is all said and done ... and at some point it will all come out. And at that time I am certain that Trump and his faithful will still deny and deflect.

How's about we let it come to that?

So we shouldn't talk about anything that is speculation?

No draft talk.

No team predictions for next year?

We can only ever discuss the Known Knowns?

Or do we only talk about certainties when it comes to Trump? Is that to protect him? To avoid the uncomfortable dearth of morally and criminal issues that would warrant examination and discussion otherwise?

No thanks.

What are you talking about congressmen for? When you open the door of whataboutism people will follow you through it.

Wow, did you hurt yourself on that leap?

Perhaps you haven't followed along in the political forum.

There are certain leftists that, when confronted by facts from a past liberal, say "oh, whataboutism". I find it ironic that they now accept whataboutisms. You don't?

Because people are wanting to hold the current president to one standard, while ignoring the tax payer funded standard for congress. It's weird, isn't it? 2 standards

What whataboutism relates to Cohen and his testimony and discussing what we know about Trump and connecting some of the dots???

I have not been interested in or reading the other whataboutism stuff you were going back and forth on with others. That doesn't seem to merit anyone else chiming in. My post and explanation was given because I took at face value your interest on what evidence there might be of illegal activity by the sitting POTUS.... Sorry if I misread your interest, if you just want to troll certain left wing posters go ahead.

I don't know. There are campaign finance laws. I'm not an expert on the law. But it was you who opened the door to whataboutism here.

As far as I'm concerned anyone and everyone who broke any campaign finance laws should be held to the same standard. I don't care what party they belong to.

So, why did you?

from swish:

I didn't ...

And I didn't take you for a troll. But noted.

But what about !!!!! Dude , really?

i'm seeing a whole lot of "but swish" and "swish said" throughout the threads.

didn't know i had this much clout around here lmao

You don't.

Speaking of hyporcrisy, before the election Arch bashed trump too. Once he became the Republican nominee all of a sudden he said " bahhhhhhhhhhh" and fell in line with the rest of the sheep.

not according to how many times my name has been in your mouth.

guess you paid that 72 mill

Pit = donald trump