Who is the "other campaign worker"?

[forkup]

I'm willing to wait to, hope has little to do with it. I'm probably the only person on this board that can prove having a consistent view on support for the DOJ and it's procedures. That doesn't mean you can't make educated guesses. Or in this case, VERY good educated guesses, considering that people are pleading guilty and cooperate in exchange for immunity, not to mention that prosecutors in high profile cases like this tend to be REALLY careful. That doesn't mean I couldn't be wrong, it does mean that it's highly unlikely.

The point is not whether YOU are wrong or not, nor is speculation wrong. It's a fun activity and one that I engage in as well. But, there are people who are stating as FACT things that have not been proven and castigating people for holding viewpoints that are contrary to those facts. I merely point out that until all the facts are in and the investigations and trials (if any are held) are in, there should be no rush to judgement by lay people (such as the people on this board). Trump could very well be guilty of something, but he, like Hillary Clinton and everyone else in this nation, is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. And if proven guilty, I hope he's punished to the full extent of the law.

Let's look at the facts then.
-Fact, Cohen has plead guilty to among other things campaign finance violations.
-Fact, the judge has accepted the plea. Meaning, he agrees that in fact campaign finance violations were committed.
-Fact, in that plea it was asserted that he committed those campaign finance violations on the behest of, and at the direction of someone called individual one.
-Fact, there is a tape in the public realm were you can hear Trump and Cohen discussing those particular payments.
This to me makes it that it stretches credulity that no crimes were committed, or that Trump hasn't been implicated. If you can find any fault in this reasoning, I welcome you to put words to it. Remember it's REASONABLE doubt, not the absence of doubt that is required to be guilty.

Everything you say is true, however, your interpretation of the tape and what is said is NOT a fact. A valid defense would be that Trump believed the payments for the NDA were to protect his family/marriage from the harm that the stories might cause and wasn't related to his campaign...especially of such NDAs had been used by him in the past for similar reasons.

In campaign finance laws, my understanding is that such payments must “campaign-related” – and therefore if the purpose was not "campaign-related" the rules and regulations governing campaign contributions don’t apply.

If the judge acknowledged the plea he has accepted the argument that it is a campaign violation, so it's not MY interpretation. Or do you think it's a campaign violation for Cohen but not for Trump? The law doesn't work that way.

Each is responsible for his own actions. Cohen admitted he committed a crime based on his understanding. Trump claims he did not commit a crime based on what he understand. Both may be right. One may be right and one wrong. It has happened before that 2 people were tried for the same crime and one was found guilty and the other found not guilty. It's up to the courts to decide. You can believe what you want, but you shouldn't state your belief as a fact.

So if someone, says he did something for one reason, and the other person says,"no,no YOU did it for that reason" both have equal standing before the law? The way I see it, Cohen stated the reason the payment that he made, was made. The motivation of a payment is decided by the payee isn't it? And again, it's not even that it's just Cohen. Pecker has asked for immunity in exchange for information. One does NOT ask for immunity if what happened is above board. That's why I used the term "willfully ignorant". The type of mental gymnastics required to find an alternative explanation is so far fetched I got to conclude prudence has little to do with it. Also the only things I stated as facts you couldn't dispute. I'm usually pretty careful to distinguish between what I believe and what I know.

 

[Olde Europe]

Yeah, the hush money payments were all done by Cohen, on his own volition, just to help out a good friend. Ever the temporarily embarrassed multi-billionaire, he had to take out a loan to get it done. And, in order to conceal this (he didn't want to embarrass his friend), he erected a fake corporation to funnel the money, so that his name didn't show up in the transaction.

The Trumpy never bothered to silence his dalliances during the years after they happened, right up to his running for president, so as to protect his marriage.

Only in the context of the campaign and the election immediately ahead... did he somehow become so concerned over the peril to his marriage, he chose to do ... nothing.

Only later, somehow, did he suddenly start to reimburse Cohen.

But then, Cohen suddenly began sending invoice - over sums far in excess of the hush money! So, Trumpy, ever the family man, tried to do right by his dear friend, reimbursed him, and didn't even report the over-charge.

Don't laugh. That's what the Trumpletons would have you believe.

They're defining pretzel up to mean origami.

 

[forkup]

I'm willing to wait to, hope has little to do with it. I'm probably the only person on this board that can prove having a consistent view on support for the DOJ and it's procedures. That doesn't mean you can't make educated guesses. Or in this case, VERY good educated guesses, considering that people are pleading guilty and cooperate in exchange for immunity, not to mention that prosecutors in high profile cases like this tend to be REALLY careful. That doesn't mean I couldn't be wrong, it does mean that it's highly unlikely.

The point is not whether YOU are wrong or not, nor is speculation wrong. It's a fun activity and one that I engage in as well. But, there are people who are stating as FACT things that have not been proven and castigating people for holding viewpoints that are contrary to those facts. I merely point out that until all the facts are in and the investigations and trials (if any are held) are in, there should be no rush to judgement by lay people (such as the people on this board). Trump could very well be guilty of something, but he, like Hillary Clinton and everyone else in this nation, is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. And if proven guilty, I hope he's punished to the full extent of the law.

Let's look at the facts then.
-Fact, Cohen has plead guilty to among other things campaign finance violations.
-Fact, the judge has accepted the plea. Meaning, he agrees that in fact campaign finance violations were committed.
-Fact, in that plea it was asserted that he committed those campaign finance violations on the behest of, and at the direction of someone called individual one.
-Fact, there is a tape in the public realm were you can hear Trump and Cohen discussing those particular payments.
This to me makes it that it stretches credulity that no crimes were committed, or that Trump hasn't been implicated. If you can find any fault in this reasoning, I welcome you to put words to it. Remember it's REASONABLE doubt, not the absence of doubt that is required to be guilty.

Everything you say is true, however, your interpretation of the tape and what is said is NOT a fact. A valid defense would be that Trump believed the payments for the NDA were to protect his family/marriage from the harm that the stories might cause and wasn't related to his campaign...especially of such NDAs had been used by him in the past for similar reasons.

In campaign finance laws, my understanding is that such payments must “campaign-related” – and therefore if the purpose was not "campaign-related" the rules and regulations governing campaign contributions don’t apply.

If the judge acknowledged the plea he has accepted the argument that it is a campaign violation, so it's not MY interpretation. Or do you think it's a campaign violation for Cohen but not for Trump? The law doesn't work that way.

Each is responsible for his own actions. Cohen admitted he committed a crime based on his understanding. Trump claims he did not commit a crime based on what he understand. Both may be right. One may be right and one wrong. It has happened before that 2 people were tried for the same crime and one was found guilty and the other found not guilty. It's up to the courts to decide. You can believe what you want, but you shouldn't state your belief as a fact.

By the way, I want to say, I don't necessarily think it's bad what you are doing. You try to make coherent points and don't fall into hyperbole, which I do respect. That's kind of the problem. You seem to me like a reasonable, intelligent person. But if you are a reasonable, intelligent person then I have to conclude that you really don't make your arguments in good faith and are more playing devil's advocate. If that's the case, kudos, but lets not bullshit one another.

 

[hunarcy]

The point is not whether YOU are wrong or not, nor is speculation wrong. It's a fun activity and one that I engage in as well. But, there are people who are stating as FACT things that have not been proven and castigating people for holding viewpoints that are contrary to those facts. I merely point out that until all the facts are in and the investigations and trials (if any are held) are in, there should be no rush to judgement by lay people (such as the people on this board). Trump could very well be guilty of something, but he, like Hillary Clinton and everyone else in this nation, is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. And if proven guilty, I hope he's punished to the full extent of the law.

Let's look at the facts then.
-Fact, Cohen has plead guilty to among other things campaign finance violations.
-Fact, the judge has accepted the plea. Meaning, he agrees that in fact campaign finance violations were committed.
-Fact, in that plea it was asserted that he committed those campaign finance violations on the behest of, and at the direction of someone called individual one.
-Fact, there is a tape in the public realm were you can hear Trump and Cohen discussing those particular payments.
This to me makes it that it stretches credulity that no crimes were committed, or that Trump hasn't been implicated. If you can find any fault in this reasoning, I welcome you to put words to it. Remember it's REASONABLE doubt, not the absence of doubt that is required to be guilty.

Everything you say is true, however, your interpretation of the tape and what is said is NOT a fact. A valid defense would be that Trump believed the payments for the NDA were to protect his family/marriage from the harm that the stories might cause and wasn't related to his campaign...especially of such NDAs had been used by him in the past for similar reasons.

In campaign finance laws, my understanding is that such payments must “campaign-related” – and therefore if the purpose was not "campaign-related" the rules and regulations governing campaign contributions don’t apply.

If the judge acknowledged the plea he has accepted the argument that it is a campaign violation, so it's not MY interpretation. Or do you think it's a campaign violation for Cohen but not for Trump? The law doesn't work that way.

Each is responsible for his own actions. Cohen admitted he committed a crime based on his understanding. Trump claims he did not commit a crime based on what he understand. Both may be right. One may be right and one wrong. It has happened before that 2 people were tried for the same crime and one was found guilty and the other found not guilty. It's up to the courts to decide. You can believe what you want, but you shouldn't state your belief as a fact.

So if someone, says he did something for one reason, and the other person says,"no,no YOU did it for that reason" both have equal standing before the law? The way I see it, Cohen stated the reason the payment that he made, was made. The motivation of a payment is decided by the payee isn't it? And again, it's not even that it's just Cohen. Pecker has asked for immunity in exchange for information. One does NOT ask for immunity if what happened is above board. That's why I used the term "willfully ignorant". The type of mental gymnastics required to find an alternative explanation is so far fetched I got to conclude prudence has little to do with it. Also the only thing's I stated as facts you couldn't dispute. I'm usually pretty careful to distinguish between what I believe and what I know.

"So if someone, says he did something for one reason, and the other person says,"no,no YOU did it for that reason". Isn't that exactly what happens in most criminal cases? The Prosecution says someone did something for this reason and the Defense says "Our guy didn't do it" or "Our guy didn't do it for the reason you say". And yes, both have equal standing until evidence is produced to sway a judge or jury to believe one side or the other.

Which version of Cohen's story do you believe? The version he is touting now seems to be the one that he felt would get him the most leniency. Before, Cohen said that he paid the women out of his own pocket and then was reimbursed based on his invoices. Was he lying then? Did Trump pay more than the amount of money needed to pay off the women? If so, why? Was Cohen padding the expenses to obtain more of Trump's money? Would that have affected his story? There is still so much we don't know.

Now, Pecker is asking for immunity as well, but until his version is out and verified, you don't even know if Trump is implicated in Pecker's story. I understand that you "know" what's going to be said, but you're truly jumping the gun. It's not about prudence, really...it's about having a fair system of justice where people are not judged until all the facts are in and all sides have been heard and all the evidence is weighed.

 

[hunarcy]

The point is not whether YOU are wrong or not, nor is speculation wrong. It's a fun activity and one that I engage in as well. But, there are people who are stating as FACT things that have not been proven and castigating people for holding viewpoints that are contrary to those facts. I merely point out that until all the facts are in and the investigations and trials (if any are held) are in, there should be no rush to judgement by lay people (such as the people on this board). Trump could very well be guilty of something, but he, like Hillary Clinton and everyone else in this nation, is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. And if proven guilty, I hope he's punished to the full extent of the law.

Let's look at the facts then.
-Fact, Cohen has plead guilty to among other things campaign finance violations.
-Fact, the judge has accepted the plea. Meaning, he agrees that in fact campaign finance violations were committed.
-Fact, in that plea it was asserted that he committed those campaign finance violations on the behest of, and at the direction of someone called individual one.
-Fact, there is a tape in the public realm were you can hear Trump and Cohen discussing those particular payments.
This to me makes it that it stretches credulity that no crimes were committed, or that Trump hasn't been implicated. If you can find any fault in this reasoning, I welcome you to put words to it. Remember it's REASONABLE doubt, not the absence of doubt that is required to be guilty.

Everything you say is true, however, your interpretation of the tape and what is said is NOT a fact. A valid defense would be that Trump believed the payments for the NDA were to protect his family/marriage from the harm that the stories might cause and wasn't related to his campaign...especially of such NDAs had been used by him in the past for similar reasons.

In campaign finance laws, my understanding is that such payments must “campaign-related” – and therefore if the purpose was not "campaign-related" the rules and regulations governing campaign contributions don’t apply.

If the judge acknowledged the plea he has accepted the argument that it is a campaign violation, so it's not MY interpretation. Or do you think it's a campaign violation for Cohen but not for Trump? The law doesn't work that way.

Each is responsible for his own actions. Cohen admitted he committed a crime based on his understanding. Trump claims he did not commit a crime based on what he understand. Both may be right. One may be right and one wrong. It has happened before that 2 people were tried for the same crime and one was found guilty and the other found not guilty. It's up to the courts to decide. You can believe what you want, but you shouldn't state your belief as a fact.

By the way, I want to say, I don't necessarily think it's bad what you are doing. You try to make coherent points and don't fall into hyperbole, which I do respect. That's kind of the problem. You seem to me like a reasonable, intelligent person. But if you are a reasonable, intelligent person then I have to conclude that you really don't make your arguments in good faith and are more playing devil's advocate. If that's the case, kudos, but than lets not bullshit one another.

I'm not trying to bullshit or play devil's advocate. I see myself defending the ideal of justice against the partisan rush to judgement I see from the anti-Trump people. It is the opposite side of the coin from those who advocated for Hillary Clinton's imprisonment before all the facts were in and all sides had a say. Personally, I don't like her and do see her as corrupt (based on her treatment of Bernie in the primaries), but I NEVER said she should be imprisoned based on the things that have come out so far. I do think a more thorough investigation into Clinton should happen just as I think the thorough investigation of Trump should continue. But, I'm not like the partisans who believe that one should be investigated while the other should not, or worse, that we already know that one should be imprisoned and the other above reproach.

 

[forkup]

Let's look at the facts then.
-Fact, Cohen has plead guilty to among other things campaign finance violations.
-Fact, the judge has accepted the plea. Meaning, he agrees that in fact campaign finance violations were committed.
-Fact, in that plea it was asserted that he committed those campaign finance violations on the behest of, and at the direction of someone called individual one.
-Fact, there is a tape in the public realm were you can hear Trump and Cohen discussing those particular payments.
This to me makes it that it stretches credulity that no crimes were committed, or that Trump hasn't been implicated. If you can find any fault in this reasoning, I welcome you to put words to it. Remember it's REASONABLE doubt, not the absence of doubt that is required to be guilty.

Everything you say is true, however, your interpretation of the tape and what is said is NOT a fact. A valid defense would be that Trump believed the payments for the NDA were to protect his family/marriage from the harm that the stories might cause and wasn't related to his campaign...especially of such NDAs had been used by him in the past for similar reasons.

In campaign finance laws, my understanding is that such payments must “campaign-related” – and therefore if the purpose was not "campaign-related" the rules and regulations governing campaign contributions don’t apply.

If the judge acknowledged the plea he has accepted the argument that it is a campaign violation, so it's not MY interpretation. Or do you think it's a campaign violation for Cohen but not for Trump? The law doesn't work that way.

Each is responsible for his own actions. Cohen admitted he committed a crime based on his understanding. Trump claims he did not commit a crime based on what he understand. Both may be right. One may be right and one wrong. It has happened before that 2 people were tried for the same crime and one was found guilty and the other found not guilty. It's up to the courts to decide. You can believe what you want, but you shouldn't state your belief as a fact.

By the way, I want to say, I don't necessarily think it's bad what you are doing. You try to make coherent points and don't fall into hyperbole, which I do respect. That's kind of the problem. You seem to me like a reasonable, intelligent person. But if you are a reasonable, intelligent person then I have to conclude that you really don't make your arguments in good faith and are more playing devil's advocate. If that's the case, kudos, but than lets not bullshit one another.

I'm not trying to bullshit or play devil's advocate. I see myself defending the ideal of justice against the partisan rush to judgement I see from the anti-Trump people. It is the opposite side of the coin from those who advocated for Hillary Clinton's imprisonment before all the facts were in and all sides had a say. Personally, I don't like her and do see her as corrupt (based on her treatment of Bernie in the primaries), but I NEVER said she should be imprisoned based on the things that have come out so far. I do think a more thorough investigation into Clinton should happen just as I think the thorough investigation of Trump should continue. But, I'm not like the partisans who believe that one should be investigated while the other should not, or worse, that we already know that one should be imprisoned and the other above reproach.

I'm not saying to do anything against Trump, until Mueller comes out with his report. What I'm saying that in my opinion based on what is known in the public realm, saying that Trump has committed crimes has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. That is an opinion, but one I'm comfortable with. Having said that, I'm neither a judge nor do I have all the facts, so by all means let the process play out.
As to Hillary. I'm the only person on this board that's left leaning that didn't disagree with Comey reopening the investigation when they found Weiner's laptop. Much for the reason you just stated. The only thing I asked then, to anyone on the right, if they would respect the conclusions. Nobody wanted to concede that. You just stated that you didn't, and wanted more. This seems self serving to me. If you truly believe in the concept of justice. Then you should trust, that when an investigation is concluded the person is innocent. Even when those conclusions don't serve your political leaning.

 

[forkup]

Let's look at the facts then.
-Fact, Cohen has plead guilty to among other things campaign finance violations.
-Fact, the judge has accepted the plea. Meaning, he agrees that in fact campaign finance violations were committed.
-Fact, in that plea it was asserted that he committed those campaign finance violations on the behest of, and at the direction of someone called individual one.
-Fact, there is a tape in the public realm were you can hear Trump and Cohen discussing those particular payments.
This to me makes it that it stretches credulity that no crimes were committed, or that Trump hasn't been implicated. If you can find any fault in this reasoning, I welcome you to put words to it. Remember it's REASONABLE doubt, not the absence of doubt that is required to be guilty.

Everything you say is true, however, your interpretation of the tape and what is said is NOT a fact. A valid defense would be that Trump believed the payments for the NDA were to protect his family/marriage from the harm that the stories might cause and wasn't related to his campaign...especially of such NDAs had been used by him in the past for similar reasons.

In campaign finance laws, my understanding is that such payments must “campaign-related” – and therefore if the purpose was not "campaign-related" the rules and regulations governing campaign contributions don’t apply.

If the judge acknowledged the plea he has accepted the argument that it is a campaign violation, so it's not MY interpretation. Or do you think it's a campaign violation for Cohen but not for Trump? The law doesn't work that way.

Each is responsible for his own actions. Cohen admitted he committed a crime based on his understanding. Trump claims he did not commit a crime based on what he understand. Both may be right. One may be right and one wrong. It has happened before that 2 people were tried for the same crime and one was found guilty and the other found not guilty. It's up to the courts to decide. You can believe what you want, but you shouldn't state your belief as a fact.

So if someone, says he did something for one reason, and the other person says,"no,no YOU did it for that reason" both have equal standing before the law? The way I see it, Cohen stated the reason the payment that he made, was made. The motivation of a payment is decided by the payee isn't it? And again, it's not even that it's just Cohen. Pecker has asked for immunity in exchange for information. One does NOT ask for immunity if what happened is above board. That's why I used the term "willfully ignorant". The type of mental gymnastics required to find an alternative explanation is so far fetched I got to conclude prudence has little to do with it. Also the only thing's I stated as facts you couldn't dispute. I'm usually pretty careful to distinguish between what I believe and what I know.

"So if someone, says he did something for one reason, and the other person says,"no,no YOU did it for that reason". Isn't that exactly what happens in most criminal cases? The Prosecution says someone did something for this reason and the Defense says "Our guy didn't do it" or "Our guy didn't do it for the reason you say". And yes, both have equal standing until evidence is produced to sway a judge or jury to believe one side or the other.

Which version of Cohen's story do you believe? The version he is touting now seems to be the one that he felt would get him the most leniency. Before, Cohen said that he paid the women out of his own pocket and then was reimbursed based on his invoices. Was he lying then? Did Trump pay more than the amount of money needed to pay off the women? If so, why? Was Cohen padding the expenses to obtain more of Trump's money? Would that have affected his story? There is still so much we don't know.

Now, Pecker is asking for immunity as well, but until his version is out and verified, you don't even know if Trump is implicated in Pecker's story. I understand that you "know" what's going to be said, but you're truly jumping the gun. It's not about prudence, really...it's about having a fair system of justice where people are not judged until all the facts are in and all sides have been heard and all the evidence is weighed.

- No, there are plenty of cases were the criminal says he's innocent and the prosecution says he's guilty. This case is saying, "hey I committed a crime" and the other person saying, no YOU didn't commit a crime. That is pretty hard to swallow because most criminals don't want to admit to committing crimes, and look for ways to claim their innocence.
-I believe the one that is consistent with what we know about the people involved, the circumstances of the time in question, and general common sense.
-The simple way it's playing out makes me comfortable to make certain educated guesses.

 

[hunarcy]

Everything you say is true, however, your interpretation of the tape and what is said is NOT a fact. A valid defense would be that Trump believed the payments for the NDA were to protect his family/marriage from the harm that the stories might cause and wasn't related to his campaign...especially of such NDAs had been used by him in the past for similar reasons.

In campaign finance laws, my understanding is that such payments must “campaign-related” – and therefore if the purpose was not "campaign-related" the rules and regulations governing campaign contributions don’t apply.

If the judge acknowledged the plea he has accepted the argument that it is a campaign violation, so it's not MY interpretation. Or do you think it's a campaign violation for Cohen but not for Trump? The law doesn't work that way.

Each is responsible for his own actions. Cohen admitted he committed a crime based on his understanding. Trump claims he did not commit a crime based on what he understand. Both may be right. One may be right and one wrong. It has happened before that 2 people were tried for the same crime and one was found guilty and the other found not guilty. It's up to the courts to decide. You can believe what you want, but you shouldn't state your belief as a fact.

By the way, I want to say, I don't necessarily think it's bad what you are doing. You try to make coherent points and don't fall into hyperbole, which I do respect. That's kind of the problem. You seem to me like a reasonable, intelligent person. But if you are a reasonable, intelligent person then I have to conclude that you really don't make your arguments in good faith and are more playing devil's advocate. If that's the case, kudos, but than lets not bullshit one another.

I'm not trying to bullshit or play devil's advocate. I see myself defending the ideal of justice against the partisan rush to judgement I see from the anti-Trump people. It is the opposite side of the coin from those who advocated for Hillary Clinton's imprisonment before all the facts were in and all sides had a say. Personally, I don't like her and do see her as corrupt (based on her treatment of Bernie in the primaries), but I NEVER said she should be imprisoned based on the things that have come out so far. I do think a more thorough investigation into Clinton should happen just as I think the thorough investigation of Trump should continue. But, I'm not like the partisans who believe that one should be investigated while the other should not, or worse, that we already know that one should be imprisoned and the other above reproach.

I'm not saying to do anything against Trump, until Mueller comes out with his report. What I'm saying that in my opinion based on what is known in the public realm, saying that Trump has committed crimes has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. That is an opinion, but one I'm comfortable with. Having said that, I'm neither a judge nor do I have all the facts, so by all means let the process play out.
As to Hillary. I'm the only person on this board that's left leaning that didn't disagree with Comey reopening the investigation when they found Weiner's laptop. Much for the reason you just stated. The only thing I asked then, to anyone on the right, if they would respect the conclusions. Nobody wanted to concede that. You just stated that you didn't, and wanted more. This seems self serving to me. If you truly believe in the concept of justice. Then you should trust, that when an investigation is concluded the person is innocent. Even when those conclusions don't serve your political leaning.

As long as you admit that is your OPINION and are honest that it's based on your bias, then who can complain?

And, I agree with your views on Clinton, but wanted to admit my bias as well. But, even then, I never called for her to be imprisoned but instead waited for the facts to come out. And that's all I ask of others. Don't state things as fact until the facts are established.

 

[hunarcy]

Everything you say is true, however, your interpretation of the tape and what is said is NOT a fact. A valid defense would be that Trump believed the payments for the NDA were to protect his family/marriage from the harm that the stories might cause and wasn't related to his campaign...especially of such NDAs had been used by him in the past for similar reasons.

In campaign finance laws, my understanding is that such payments must “campaign-related” – and therefore if the purpose was not "campaign-related" the rules and regulations governing campaign contributions don’t apply.

If the judge acknowledged the plea he has accepted the argument that it is a campaign violation, so it's not MY interpretation. Or do you think it's a campaign violation for Cohen but not for Trump? The law doesn't work that way.

Each is responsible for his own actions. Cohen admitted he committed a crime based on his understanding. Trump claims he did not commit a crime based on what he understand. Both may be right. One may be right and one wrong. It has happened before that 2 people were tried for the same crime and one was found guilty and the other found not guilty. It's up to the courts to decide. You can believe what you want, but you shouldn't state your belief as a fact.

So if someone, says he did something for one reason, and the other person says,"no,no YOU did it for that reason" both have equal standing before the law? The way I see it, Cohen stated the reason the payment that he made, was made. The motivation of a payment is decided by the payee isn't it? And again, it's not even that it's just Cohen. Pecker has asked for immunity in exchange for information. One does NOT ask for immunity if what happened is above board. That's why I used the term "willfully ignorant". The type of mental gymnastics required to find an alternative explanation is so far fetched I got to conclude prudence has little to do with it. Also the only thing's I stated as facts you couldn't dispute. I'm usually pretty careful to distinguish between what I believe and what I know.

"So if someone, says he did something for one reason, and the other person says,"no,no YOU did it for that reason". Isn't that exactly what happens in most criminal cases? The Prosecution says someone did something for this reason and the Defense says "Our guy didn't do it" or "Our guy didn't do it for the reason you say". And yes, both have equal standing until evidence is produced to sway a judge or jury to believe one side or the other.

Which version of Cohen's story do you believe? The version he is touting now seems to be the one that he felt would get him the most leniency. Before, Cohen said that he paid the women out of his own pocket and then was reimbursed based on his invoices. Was he lying then? Did Trump pay more than the amount of money needed to pay off the women? If so, why? Was Cohen padding the expenses to obtain more of Trump's money? Would that have affected his story? There is still so much we don't know.

Now, Pecker is asking for immunity as well, but until his version is out and verified, you don't even know if Trump is implicated in Pecker's story. I understand that you "know" what's going to be said, but you're truly jumping the gun. It's not about prudence, really...it's about having a fair system of justice where people are not judged until all the facts are in and all sides have been heard and all the evidence is weighed.

- No, there are plenty of cases were the criminal says he's innocent and the prosecution says he's guilty. This case is saying, "hey I committed a crime" and the other person saying, no YOU didn't commit a crime. That is pretty hard to swallow because most criminals don't want to admit to committing crimes, and look for ways to claim their innocence.
-I believe the one that is consistent with what we know about the people involved, the circumstances of the time in question, and general common sense.
-The simple way it's playing out makes me comfortable to make certain educated guesses.

You are exactly right. And, both sides have equal standing until one or the other is PROVEN.

Nothing wrong with guesses as long as we are identifying what is a guess based on our experience and common sense and not presenting things as accepted fact.

 

[Olde Europe]

- No, there are plenty of cases were the criminal says he's innocent and the prosecution says he's guilty. This case is saying, "hey I committed a crime" and the other person saying, no YOU didn't commit a crime. That is pretty hard to swallow because most criminals don't want to admit to committing crimes, and look for ways to claim their innocence.

While otherwise I pretty much agree with your take, I don't believe that captures what's going on here. Trump, remember, admitted via twitter to having reimbursed Cohen, and with that, at the very latest, he's on the hook for campaign finance violations. As if the tape featuring him and Cohen organizing the payments hadn't made that abundantly clear.

Rather, we have two criminals who have been conspiring to perpetrate a crime, one snitching on the other, and the other, left holding the bag, tries to blame the snitch who, in order to get leniency, tells tall stories. That, I believe, isn't that rare.

In any country governed by laws, not men, Mr. Trump would be under indictment right now for that alone. And that's not taking into account the Russia conspiracy, also not his assaults on women, also not his apparent obstruction of justice while in office, not the laundering of Russian cleptocrats' money, and also not the bribery / fraud going on with his Inauguration Committee. Shall we say, even that list might not be the end of it.

But then, there's nothing to see here. Move along. See, the Trumpletons are just going ahead...

 

[blackhawk]

 

[forkup]

- No, there are plenty of cases were the criminal says he's innocent and the prosecution says he's guilty. This case is saying, "hey I committed a crime" and the other person saying, no YOU didn't commit a crime. That is pretty hard to swallow because most criminals don't want to admit to committing crimes, and look for ways to claim their innocence.

While otherwise I pretty much agree with your take, I don't believe that captures what's going on here. Trump, remember, admitted via twitter to having reimbursed Cohen, and with that, at the very latest, he's on the hook for campaign finance violations. As if the tape featuring him and Cohen organizing the payments hadn't made that abundantly clear.

Rather, we have two criminals who have been conspiring to perpetrate a crime, one snitching on the other, and the other, left holding the bag, tries to blame the snitch who, in order to get leniency, tells tall stories. That, I believe, isn't that rare.

In any country governed by laws, not men, Mr. Trump would be under indictment right now for that alone. And that's not taking into account the Russia conspiracy, also not his assaults on women, also not his apparent obstruction of justice while in office, not the laundering of Russian cleptocrats' money, and also not the bribery / fraud going on with his Inauguration Committee. Shall we say, even that list might not be the end of it.

But then, there's nothing to see here. Move along. See, the Trumpletons are just going ahead...

Hunarcy is trying to make the point that Trump has a credible defense in stating that it wasn't campaign related but rather personal expenses. I was countering that by stating that Cohen already admitted that is was campaign related. That's the context of my post. I do not think that is a credible defense for the record.

 

[Olde Europe]

Hunarcy is trying to make the point that Trump has a credible defense in stating that it wasn't campaign related but rather personal expenses. I was countering that by stating that Cohen already admitted that is was campaign related. That's the context of my post. I do not think that is a credible defense for the record.

Okay.

That's the "Edwards defense", and in that case it actually worked, because Edwards funneled the funds while the affair was ongoing and immediately thereafter to "protect" his dying wife. Abruptly starting to pay six or twelve years later during (the end phase of) a national campaign...

That doesn't even aspire to being a sleazy scoundrel's defense, and one has to be severely impaired in the judgment department to believe otherwise.

 

[hunarcy]

- No, there are plenty of cases were the criminal says he's innocent and the prosecution says he's guilty. This case is saying, "hey I committed a crime" and the other person saying, no YOU didn't commit a crime. That is pretty hard to swallow because most criminals don't want to admit to committing crimes, and look for ways to claim their innocence.

While otherwise I pretty much agree with your take, I don't believe that captures what's going on here. Trump, remember, admitted via twitter to having reimbursed Cohen, and with that, at the very latest, he's on the hook for campaign finance violations. As if the tape featuring him and Cohen organizing the payments hadn't made that abundantly clear.

Rather, we have two criminals who have been conspiring to perpetrate a crime, one snitching on the other, and the other, left holding the bag, tries to blame the snitch who, in order to get leniency, tells tall stories. That, I believe, isn't that rare.

In any country governed by laws, not men, Mr. Trump would be under indictment right now for that alone. And that's not taking into account the Russia conspiracy, also not his assaults on women, also not his apparent obstruction of justice while in office, not the laundering of Russian cleptocrats' money, and also not the bribery / fraud going on with his Inauguration Committee. Shall we say, even that list might not be the end of it.

But then, there's nothing to see here. Move along. See, the Trumpletons are just going ahead...

Hunarcy is trying to make the point that Trump has a credible defense in stating that it wasn't campaign related but rather personal expenses. I was countering that by stating that Cohen already admitted that is was campaign related. That's the context of my post. I do not think that is a credible defense for the record.

And yet it's the defense that John Edwards used to defend himself. Justice Dept. won't retry Edwards

It may not work in Trump's case (obvious differences that'll have to be weighed by judge/jury) but it is a valid defense.