• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

First Charges Filed in Mueller Investigation

Lectro said:
Manafort’s “crimes” are not Trumps. Just more flying turd from the unhinged..

Mark Levin breaks down Cohen and Clinton leg-humper,Lanny Davis:

“LEVIN: All right. I want to address Michael Cohen. How did we get to that? I want to help the law professors, the constitutional experts, the criminal defense lawyers, the former prosecutors and of course, the professors. I want to help them understand what the law is.

Lanny Davis, he had his client plead two counts of criminality that don’t exist. These campaign finance violations that is all over TV, they are saying implicates the president of the United States directly.

First, let’s back up. It is a guilty plea. It is a plea bargain between a prosecutor and a criminal. A criminal who doesn’t want to spend the rest of his life in prison. That is not precedent. That applies only to that specific case. Nobody cites plea bargains for precedent. That’s number one.

Number two, just because a prosecutor says that somebody violated a campaign law doesn’t make it so. He is not the judge. He is not the jury. We didn’t adjudicate anything. It never went to court. That’s number two.

Yet according to the prosecution of the Southern District of New York it’s paid at the direction of the candidate to influence the election. Yes, Mr. Prosecutor, how stupid is your point? It’s not a crime.

More, let’s say that this candidate settles a lawsuit that was initiated before he becomes a candidate. And he says to his personal lawyer, I want you to pay, settle that lawsuit. You can use my corporate funds, my private funds, whatever it is. That is perfectly legal, too.

The prosecutor would say, but that influenced the election. So what? There are certain things you do that influence an election that are legal and certain things you do to influence an election that are illegal.



Let’s say a candidate gets a non-disclosure agreement from a disgruntled employee, and he wants to quiet that disgruntled employee as he goes into the election. He pays the funds out of his pocket or through his corporation. Perfectly legal.

Nothing here was spent out of the campaign. Nothing was done with the campaign or to the campaign. This is exactly what the federal law is.

And Mr. Lanny Davis had his client plead guilty to two offenses that aren’t offenses that the prosecutor insisted were offenses. That’s why he is no good. That is Michael Cohen against Donald Trump.

Donald Trump is in the clear. Let’s say Donald Trump even directed Michael Cohen to make payments in non-disclosure agreements. So what? He is allowed to do that.

Now, here’s my question. Has the Southern District of New York ever paid money in a non-disclosure agreement with any of its employees? How about any U.S. attorney’s office in the United States? How about the Department of Justice? How about any business?





**A campaign expenditure under our federal campaign laws is an expenditure 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 the campaign, it is not a campaign expenditure.

Let me give a few examples to help people understand this, especially the American people. Let’s say, I wrote these down. Let’s say a candidate had said we owe vendors a whole lot of money. We’ve had disputes with them. But I want you to go ahead and pay them. I’m a candidate, I don’t want all this negative publicity.

So he says to his private lawyer, you pay them, I’ll reimburse you, get it done. Is that illegal? It’s perfectly legal.
Click to expand...

you can tell how panicked trumpshills get by the length of bullshit they post
 
I've always thought financial crimes related to Trump's dealings in Russia would be uncovered - not exactly going out on a limb - but never really believed collusion/election interference was going to even be alleged at the end, much less proven. But yesterday my opinion changed, and I think it's more likely than not that Mueller concludes he colluded with Russia. And Cohen is the guy who is going to sink him.
 
Yes. Trump went to a rally in WV yesterday and his supporters chanted “Lock her up” and “Drain the swamp” without a hint of irony.

Republicans won’t get on board with impeachment and won’t force Trump to resign. There’s no political advantage for Democrats to impeach Trump unless he resigns. The House Dems would be better served focusing on investigating the hell out of GOP corruption.

Why do you think Trump will be impeached? I’m not sure why you think my opinion has changed. Yesterday went better for Trump than it could have.
 
what swamp draining has been accomplished by Trump thus far, other than kicking Pruitt out (even though he was added to the swamp by POTUS)
 
PhDeac said:
Yes. Trump went to a rally in WV yesterday and his supporters chanted “Lock her up” and “Drain the swamp” without a hint of irony.

Republicans won’t get on board with impeachment and won’t force Trump to resign. There’s no political advantage for Democrats to impeach Trump unless he resigns. The House Dems would be better served focusing on investigating the hell out of GOP corruption.

Why do you think Trump will be impeached? I’m not sure why you think my opinion has changed. Yesterday went better for Trump than it could have.
Click to expand...

I realize getting into a conversation with you is completely pointless. But what the heck are you talking about? Manafort was convicted with a second trial coming up. Whether the jury couldn't agree on 10 charges (also related to bank fraud) is immaterial. He's a convicted felon of bank fraud. Trump's former attorney just explicitly implicated him on the record in open court for campaign violations. And now Cohen is promising to tell Mueller everything he knows.
 
manafort could have been convicted on all charges. that would have been worse.
 
WFcatamount22 said:
Does any of the Manafort convictions have Russian collusion implications, or are they saving that for the next trial?
Click to expand...

His second trial will address money laundering and foreign lobbying charges brought during his initial indictment. Mueller also filed a motion accusing him of witness tampering, but I'm not sure/don't remember if that's considered an additional count which he will face during the next trial, or if it only impacted his bail status.
 
 
While there are some exceptions, being convicted of any criminal counts when a defendant is charged with multiple crimes is generally considered a win for the prosecution. In the Manafort case, a conviction on 8 criminal counts is a loss for Manafort and win for the prosecution (this was essentially confirmed by Manafort's counsel after the trial when he expressed his disappointment over the verdict; there was no "well, at least the jury couldn't decide whether my client committed even more crimes"). The jury found that Manafort committed 8 different crimes, and the jury couldn't decide on whether he committed 9 other crimes. In any scenario, that is a bad day for the defense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top