Asked whether his client would seek a pardon from the president, Cohen's attorney Lanny Davis said... "His answer would be no, I do not want a pardon from this man.... Under no circumstances, since he came to the judgment after Mr. Trump's election to the presidency of the United States that his suitability is a serious risk to our country. And certainly after Helsinki, creates serious questions about his loyalty to our country."...There's a little slippage between the quote and the headline. Davis said Cohen would not seek a pardon, not that he wouldn't accept a pardon. But obviously, Cohen, working with Davis, does not have a strategy of pleasing Trump.
"Michael Cohen knows information that would be of interest to the special counsel, in my opinion, regarding both knowledge about a conspiracy to corrupt American democracy by the Russians and the failure to report that knowledge to the FBI," Davis said. "Donald Trump violated criminal law. He may not be able to be indicted. That's an unclear question, but there's no dispute here. He directed Michael Cohen to do something that was criminal. Michael did it and admitted to it."
August 22, 2018
"President Donald Trump's former lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen will 'under no circumstances' accept a pardon from his former boss, Cohen's attorney Lanny Davis said Wednesday."
Politico reports:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
395 comments:
1 – 200 of 395 Newer› Newest»Why does anybody think a pardon can be rejected?
Where was that written in the Constitution, after the plenary power to pardon was given to the Office of the President?
And isn't there a SCOTUS decision on this point?
I believe there is.
Lanny Davis representing Cohen.....this whole thing kinda stinks
Davis hitting the talk shows must be part of the plea deal I reckon...
He'll have to pay rent to the prison if he refuses the pardon. They're not keeping him there free.
Cohen has turned on Trump and is playing Clinton, Inc.'s game. He is not getting a pardon.
Manafort probably will, but not until it is politically safe to give it.
So much for attorney client privilege. Paying hush money is an act of collusion with the whore who takes it and signs away her blackmail material. Now if only the whores were Russians.
If a client (boss??) tells their lawyer to do something the lawyer knows is illegal, isn't it the duty of the lawyer to tell their client it is illegal and then to refuse to do it?
What is the proper culpability of the client in a case where the lawyer mishandles this situation?
Althouse missed Lannie Davis' more important point - a question that begs a logical answer:
"Today he stood up and testified under oath that Donald Trump directed him to commit a crime by making payments to two women for the principal purpose of influencing an election. If those payments were a crime for Michael Cohen, then why wouldn't they be a crime for Donald Trump?"
(eaglebeak)
Cohen's sudden conversion is rendered entirely absurd when examined against the crimes that he had to plead to committing all by himself, with no nudging from some "federal candidate."
For this guy suddenly to see the light and declare Trump unsuitable and perhaps disloyal to the country is -- what's the word? -- risible.
Michael "take a bullet for Trump" Cohen appears to be speaking thoughts that come from Lanny Davis' brain. Lanny Davis belongs entirely to Clinton, and I would say he is not representing his client well, or at all.
Trump had a crappy lawyer, but -- such is poetic justice -- now Cohen has one too.
Michael Cohen knows information that would be of interest to the special counsel, in my opinion, regarding both knowledge about a conspiracy to corrupt American democracy by the Russians and the failure to report that knowledge to the FBI," Davis said.
If he has information that is anything like what Davis is implying, it is of interest not just to the special counsel, but also to the American public, and it would be in the best interest of the country for him to share it. And he is free to share it. So the fact that he has not shared it tells us that either he does not have it, or he is not motivated by what is in the best interest of the country.
One distincted possibility is that already Trump let them know that he definitely wasn't going to pardon Cohen, since Trump doesn't believe he has anything truly damning on him. Of course that doesn't preclude Cohen just making up a bunch of stuff I guess. Based on his record, Cohen seems like the sort who would sell his own grandma down the river.
But who the hell knows at this point?
There are moments that I am so sick of this shit, that I just wish the Democrats would go ahead start a shooting civil war and we get it the fuck over with.
Thanks for the clarification; because I'm trying to figure out how a person goes about not-accepting a Presidential pardon? Do they demand free government housing and meals at a highly secure facility as some sort of right?
gadfly,
That is too easy. Of course Cohen would admit to anything that would satisfy Mueller - even things that are not criminal - if it would reduce his sentence.
Perhaps Cohen is not singing, but rather composing.
POSSIBLE CONVERSATION:
Cohen - I am guilty of tax evasion.
Mueller - Plead guilty to tax evasion and you serve the max.
Cohen - What can I do to avoid that fate?
Mueller - Confess to this campaign finance "crime" and you serve 6 months.
Cohen - I am guilty of the "crime" as you suggest.
(eaglebeak)
Gadfy: "Today he stood up and testified under oath that Donald Trump directed him to commit a crime by making payments to two women for the principal purpose of influencing an election. If those payments were a crime for Michael Cohen, then why wouldn't they be a crime for Donald Trump?"
That's the whole point--it's not at all clear that that is a crime, or that it is a campaign violation. Cohen "pleaded" to it because the Feds and Lanny Davis made him do it to get his deal--but that doesn't mean there's any crime involved.
Trump paid people to shut up. Cohen made the payments and got reimbursed by Trump. So far, no foul. To "influence the election"? Is every expenditure made to influence the election a crime?
This isn't a campaign contribution, that's for sure.
The fact that Lanny D told Cohen to plead to this is one of the reasons I said Cohen's lawyer stinks.
Michael Cohen secretly bought Facebook ads on Donald Trump's behalf, and now he's going to tell all the details to Robert "The FBI Whitewasher" Mueller.
"Today he stood up and testified under oath that Donald Trump directed him to commit a crime by making payments to two women for the principal purpose of influencing an election. If those payments were a crime for Michael Cohen, then why wouldn't they be a crime for Donald Trump?"
Cohen also testified that he knew of the Trump Jr. meeting ahead of time; except Cohen also testified to Congress that he didn't know of the Trump Jr. meeting ahead of time. It seems Cohen has entered into his own perjury trap, from which other logical conclusions can be drawn.
Remember that time Hillary Clinton paid lawfirm Perkins Coie for legal services and they re-routed the money to Christopher Steele to do opposition research in coordination with the CIA, FBI, State Department, and DOJ?
Neither does gadfly.
It’s marvelous how Clinton fixer Lanny Davis got himself hired as the lawyer for Trump fixer Michael Cohen.
Davis was on FNC, I caught a bit of it on my way to get some coffee. He was pleading poverty on behalf of Cohen and stated that their was a gofundme page for him so that people that wanted "the truth" about Trump could pay him to do so.
I still don't understand how paying off a black-mailer is somehow against campaign finance laws. The wording seems to be that the payoff was meant to "influence the election." Well so what? Does that mean that anything done to influence the election that costs money has to be reported? If so, what would be the normal consequence? A fine? Jail time? And what if Trump simply asserted that he did it because he didn't want his wife and kids to know about it.
By the way, sleeping with a porn star and playboy centerfold was a stupid move. No way they aren't going to look to "monetize" that as all the hep cats now say.
The goal is to ignore all Clinton corruption and make sure everyone surrounding Trump is hounded and litigated into full submission.
Welcome to Leftocrat America.
Dickin'Bimbos@Home
This is the Sarah Palin strategy, but targeting everybody around Trump instead of Trump himself.
A strategy that works and that the people on your side enjoy, to paraphrase Alinsky.
There was a Facebook ad that showed Satan arm-wrestling with Jesus. The caption:
Satan: If I win, Hillary Wins!
Jesus: Not if I can help it!
Press LIKE to help Jesus win!
Michael Cohen will reveal that Vladimir Putin paid only half the cost of posting that ad on Facebook.
The other half was paid by Donald Trump!!!
Ann, this is from a NPR interview this morning, which may clear up some confusion:
Less than a day after Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to eight federal counts — ranging from tax evasion to campaign finance violations — Trump's longtime attorney and fixer is downplaying the possibility of a pardon. In fact, Cohen's own lawyer, Lanny Davis, says his client would outright reject one if it were granted.
"I know that Mr. Cohen would never accept a pardon from a man that he considers to be both corrupt and a dangerous person in the oval office," Davis tells NPR's Morning Edition, referring to the president later in the interview as a "criminal."
"And [Cohen] has flatly authorized me to say under no circumstances would he accept a pardon from Mr. Trump," Davis added, "who uses the pardon power in a way that no president in American history has ever used a pardon — to relieve people of guilt who committed crimes, who are political cronies of his."
Too bad about Cohen, and really, too bad about Manafort, somehow the judge didn't catch on quick enough to toss the case. Still, it's about time they let Mike Flynn go. Ann and some her tribe, stand tall for the civil rights of Mike Flynn and Carter Page!
We are coming up on the end of August - the summer doldrums and lots of slow news days.
That is why Mickey Cohen's ridiculous shenanigans are all over the news ...
... and because the faltering coup d'etat needs more oxygen. It is currently on life support.
I wonder what historians will write about this absurd chapter of American history.
Michael Fredo Cohen.
It is odd to me that "John Pickering" would admit he does not stand for civil rights of every American.
Fascism is a bad look, "John Pickering".
I can't say I'm surprised. Mueller has to get Trump on something. Turning the lawyer is classic FBI strategy. After all, he is the one that knows the things. Or can be convinced to say the things. But, its not going to separate Trump from his base. The base all figured out that he paid hush money and don't care. This is all in hopes of suppressing turnout and delivering the House to the Democrats. Then there will be impeachment and obstruction. If the House stays Republican then this all goes no where. My guess is that the House will stay Republican and the Republicans may even pick up a few seats.
Ask Lanny Davis about the Marc Rich pardon.
Standing by.......
Crickets
Birkel said...
Remember that time Hillary Clinton paid lawfirm Perkins Coie for legal services and they re-routed the money to Christopher Steele to do opposition research in coordination with the CIA, FBI, State Department, and DOJ?
Yeah, and Steele shunted some of that money to actual Russians for dirt on Trump, real or fabricated. That's why Mueller isn't interested with his mandate to root out Russian interference.
Banana republic shit like this makes America look sophisticated to the rest of the world. Democrats will do anything to shit on America. It should be in their logo.
This is getting farcical. But 4 people get killed in Benghazi and the previous administration says YouTube video and no one in the media digs around that. Impeach Trump. Fine. But things aren't going to turn out the way you expect elites.
Bribing someone into accusing someone else of a crime sounds like an even worse crime. It being done a law enforcement officer makes it a far worse crime, or it should in America.
Using such a confession as evidence against someone should be at least as illegal as an illegal search.
"in my opinion"
Ok Lanny you're right up there with Adam Shifty. The only difference between in your opinion and mine, is the microphone in front of you. You are, and always will be, a Clinton fixer. Butt hurt that your sorry candidate lost. An election that was yours to win, a Supreme Court to pack for the long term, lots of backs to pat.
Loser
Ugh...Lanny Davis.
Really? The Dems think that having a Clinton apologist front & center will go over well with moderate and working class voters who are concerned with immigration and the economy, not election Kabuki.
Dems know this is a problem as Fauxahontas is out weeping over "mammas and babies" while Mollie Tibbets murderer is revealed to be an illegal alien. I saw several reports trying to shift blame onto a prominent Republican who employed the perp, but if you read beyond the lede, he was vetted through the government's E-Verify system...so he must have obtained a SS#.
It's way past time to reissue and/or revamp the SS# number scheme, as HHS just did with Medicare cards.
I'm trying to figure out why the payments are supposedly illegal.
"His lawyers wrote the special counsel and said that he directed Michael Cohen to make these payments. So the answer is, yes, he committed a crime,"
This doesn't say why payments are illegal.
At WAPO I found:
Cohen told a judge that he directed the payments “for the principal purpose of influencing the election” and “in coordination with and at the direction of a candidate for federal office” — a reference to Trump.
This seems an implicit admission the funds did not come from the campaign, surely that fact would be admitted for the record were it true. Nor do I see it mentioned in the commentary which is why I am suspicious. Those with an agenda seems to be skipping over the details by asserting "it's illegal" without noting what the illegal act is.
So the claim seems to be that funding an agreement not to talk about legal behavior is a crime. This is yet another case where if this turns out to be the law people generally will conclude the law is wrong and ignore it.
Here's how Freidersdorf put it:
He specifically admitted that he had committed a felony to prevent voters from hearing information that would damage Trump’s chances of becoming president.
If it's illegal to prevent knowledge of an act if such knowledge would damage your chances of becoming President wouldn't Obama's asking Jeremiah Wright to not speak of their relationship count? Doesn't this show how illegitimate such a rule is / would be?
daskol said...
Michael Fredo Cohen.
That's a thread winner right there.
The democrats could have at least tried to make it look real.
I wonder what they have up their sleave for next week when Mueller is going to be humiliated in court.
There is an old case that says that a convicted felon may refuse a pardon. Not sure how that would work, if Cohen were pardoned and he refused it.
I cannot see how it would help Trump in any event. A pardon would be for the stuff that Cohen just pleaded out. If it somehow meant that Cohen could not be charged with other crimes, then that effective immunity would make it such that Cohen could not plead the Fifth, and he'd be forced to testify.
But Presidents don't grant immunity. They hand out pardons, after convictions.
Somebody else beat me to the observation that Lanny Davis explicitly answered Althouse's question as to whether a pardon would be "accepted" by Cohen, on NPR's Morning Edition.
Is Cohen a mind-reader that he can assert with such confidence what was the “principal purpose” of the payoff? It was at least as likely that Trump did it to avoid domestic strife or general humiliation. As others have said, if becoming a candidate for federal office will render every expenditure for everything vulnerable to attack as a violation of Federsl election law, nobody could ever run for anything. “Influencing the election” is impossibly vague as a standard for criminal law.
I also question these open threats and calumnies by Cohen and Davis. What is their motive beyond cheap drama and malice? If they have something to say, say it and be damned. But unless these disclosures are compulsory, any breach of client confidence will expose Cohen to civil action by Trump. It would be making the rubble bounce but perhaps still worth it to remind people how far Cohen has strayed from what is legal and ethical.
I remember Lanny Davis representing a rapist and all of the democrats supporting the rapist.
This obviously contrived effort is going to backfire.
It is hilarious they used Lanny Davis for this. If they used Gloria Alred it would have had a better chance.
Any other lawyer anywhere would have been less obvious.
Trump is fortunate that his enemies are stupid.
Why would Cohen seek a pardon from Trump when he can effectively get one from the prosecutor?
Cohen has nothing on the Russian Collusion story- if really did, he would have used it already to escape prison time. There is a reason Mueller turned Cohen over to the NY district- Cohen had nothing Mueller could use.
The sequence of events is telling if you paid attention to it- Lanny Davis was hired after Cohen's problems became public knowledge, and his case had been shuffled out of Mueller's hands. It should be obvious that Cohen had been trying behind the scenes to get out of his legal problems by selling out Trump, but Mueller realized that Cohen was full shit and could only hurt the Special Counsel's case. When the case got sent to NY, Cohen hires Davis goes public with the rumors in an attempt to get Mueller back into the room for a deal with no jail time- that ploy failed.
If you have been paying attention to Mueller's investigation, it gave up any pretense it was about Russian/Trump Collusion over a year ago. Mueller is entirely focused on the obstruction angle with regards to Michael Flynn. Unless Cohen has something to offer in that regard, Cohen is up shit creek without a paddle. Remember- Cohen isn't the only person in the room with President Trump for a long, long time- any testimony he offers to give has to be weighed against the testimony of probably dozens of other people.
stever said...
"in my opinion"
Ok Lanny you're right up there with Adam Shifty. The only difference between in your opinion and mine, is the microphone in front of you. You are, and always will be, a Clinton fixer. Butt hurt that your sorry candidate lost. An election that was yours to win, a Supreme Court to pack for the long term, lots of backs to pat.
If you listened to the entire NPR interview, you'd know that Davis was going way out of his way to pick each word very carefully because he is in possession of privileged information from his client, and because his client is now awaiting sentencing after a guilty plea to multiple felonies.
Hence, "in my opinion..."
He specifically admitted that he had committed a felony to prevent voters from hearing information that would damage Trump’s chances of becoming president.
Wait...what? Cohen has been charged with and pled guilty to tax and bank fraud stemming from his failing taxi businesses, the felonies have nothing to do with Trump.
A candidate paying off bimbos with his own money via an attorney isn't illegal. That's what tripped up John Edwards, he had campaign donors support his mistress and child.
All candidates keep negative info from the voters, it's called campaigning. Just as Obama didn't want his college transcripts released to be used by the opposition. That was just as dishonest by your standards.
Careful for what you wish...you are setting up a standard Dems can't meet either.
So, Politico can’t get their facts straight?
OK, Lanny, let's see. Trump pardons Cohen and Cohen refuses to leave prison. LOL. Right.
Lanny Davis? Something is rotten in Denmark.
Just bouncing this off the wall, but why would Cohen replace his lawyers with a known Clinton shill? Maybe he was offered a deal he couldn't refuse to do so? And now Cohen is silent while Davis becomes his spokesman. It looks like another layer of desperate obfuscation to me.
We pretty well know how deep all of this goes. Clinton and Obama and a host of underlings. But I'm having a hard time reconciling how wide it is. Is the Clinton machine really that large and powerful? Crazy will only get you so far.
The alternative is that President Trump is guilty as hell of everything they can throw at him plus some, and he represents an existential threat to the country. Facts indicating otherwise be damned.
As I commented on another thread, Lanny Davis is, and has always been, a crap weasel.
Achilles said...
Trump is fortunate that his enemies are stupid.
This.
Again, I will point out- Cohen's case was handed off by Mueller months ago to the district in NY. Mueller assessed the usefulness of Cohen a long time ago and deemed it worthless. We know this because Cohen is going to prison on the other charges to which he plead guilty. If Cohen had anything useful on Trump, does anyone really think he would be facing 3-5 years in prison this morning? The plea on the finance bit was all Cohen had, and it would surprise me to find that Lanny Davis offered it directly the ADA himself, not the other way around.
So far, we don't have an answer as to whether Cohen was in Prague during the campaign, do we? I keep waiting for Mueller's answer on that. And that part is not what was referred to the SDNY.
I think that we are just scratching the surface on Cohen. And I sort of suspect that Mueller will hold onto everything that he possibly can on the collusion case, if one exists, until it can all be rolled out in a gigantic indictment so that Trump can't play each news cycle the way he wants it, in attacking the Special Counsel's office.
"If you listened to the entire NPR interview, you'd know that Davis was going way out of his way to pick each word very carefully because he is in possession of privileged information from his client, and because his client is now awaiting sentencing after a guilty plea to multiple felonies."
Our resident LLR turns out to be an ongoing fan of NPR, Lanny Davis, Dick Durbin, Richard Blumenthal, the honesty of Detroit elections, etc.
Unexpectedly!
"Today he stood up and testified under oath that Donald Trump directed him to commit a crime by making payments to two women for the principal purpose of influencing an election. If those payments were a crime for Michael Cohen, then why wouldn't they be a crime for Donald Trump?"
-- They weren't a crime when Edwards or Bill Clinton did it, so then why is it a crime now? It wasn't a crime when Hillary Clinton paid foreigners to influence the election, or when foreign governments gave Obama photo shoots, or when any number of payments happen.
This is the weakest of weak teas.
To all who are griping that Cohen's lawyer Lanny Davis is a longtime Clinton insider, fixer and even sinecure...
Jared Kushner's lawyers are also Clinton insiders, fixers and sinecures; Jamie Gorelick and Abbe Lowell.
Candidate grocery bills improper campaign expenditure as keeping the candidate from starving and collapsing may influence the election.
"It seems Cohen has entered into his own perjury trap, from which other logical conclusions can be drawn."
-- He's on team left now, so he won't face any perjury charges -- just as Abedin and others haven't.
He was pleading poverty on behalf of Cohen and stated that their was a gofundme page for him so that people that wanted "the truth" about Trump could pay him to do so.
Lanny knows the chance Cohen might be pardoned gives people pause who might otherwise donate to the Make it Rain for Lanny Davis Project.
OTOH those upset Trump may have paid off a blackmailer won't think twice about paying someone who's demanding money if they want to hear what he knows about Trump.
Fransisco D: Thanks for carrying Drago's water for him while he is taking clients golfing at the club.
Chuck wrote:
I think that we are just scratching the surface on Cohen. And I sort of suspect that Mueller will hold onto everything that he possibly can on the collusion case, if one exists, until it can all be rolled out in a gigantic indictment so that Trump can't play each news cycle the way he wants it, in attacking the Special Counsel's office.
In 2016, Chuck voted for Donald J. Trump.
" And what if Trump simply asserted that he did it because he didn't want his wife and kids to know about it."
-- Worked for Edwards. Clinton never even went to trial for giving women money to go away.
Blogger Chuck said...
To all who are griping that Cohen's lawyer Lanny Davis is a longtime Clinton insider, fixer and even sinecure...
Jared Kushner's lawyers are also Clinton insiders, fixers and sinecures; Jamie Gorelick and Abbe Lowell.
If your in a deep state pickle, who better than a Clinton Fixer when Rudolph Guiliani already has a full-time gig?
"So far, we don't have an answer as to whether Cohen was in Prague during the campaign, do we? I keep waiting for Mueller's answer on that. And that part is not what was referred to the SDNY."
We actually do know with a high degree of certainty that Cohen wasn't in Prague. This is the sort of thing that Mueller wouldn't need Cohen's statement to prove. Indeed, Cohen more or less proved to every press outlet except for McClatchey that he had never been to Prague at all, or to Europe any point during the time mentioned in the Steele Dossier. Even worse for the story, it was shown that the Michael Cohen in Prague was someone else entirely. So, in short, we really do have an answer, but it is one you don't like.
By the way, if you want your $100 send me the address for the check to twixella@aol.com
chuck just goes the extra mile, I guess bush sr. took the sr 71 to paris, as well, back in that era, they had real loons like Richard brenneke and ari ben menashe making accusations,, I don't know about the first, but the last most recently latched on to general hafter's effort in Libya,
To all who are griping that Cohen's lawyer Lanny Davis is a longtime Clinton insider, fixer and even sinecure...
Those people are right to complain. What good is Lanny doing for his client today? How is his going on TV, stating that Muller needs to find out what he knows, and saying he won't accept a pardon helping his client?
It seems the moment the deal was signed Davis has been trying to stick it to Trump, which helps his client not a bit.
The "I helped Cohen so we could stick it to Trump" story certainly keeps Lanny Davis in good standing with the resistance crowd, however.
"Fransisco D: Thanks for carrying Drago's water for him while he is taking clients golfing at the club."
You are welcome, Howard.
I am letting the uninitiated know what an incredible phony and liar that Chuckles is. Drago seems to be otherwise occupied. I don't mind filling In.
more to the point, davis was counsel for a real life Russian businessman,
http://dailycaller.com/2018/08/22/lanny-davis-cohen-trump-reports-garbled/
I bet he would accept a pardon.
I also bet some rich Dem is paying Lanny Davis' legal fees.
Kevin: “OTOH those upset Trump may have paid off a blackmailer won't think twice about paying someone who's demanding money if they want to hear what he knows about Trump.” Very nicely put.
Chuck @11:55: “...Jamie Gorelick...”. Thanks for the reminder. She should be given credit for the “wall” memo that prevented FBI and CIA from coordinating clues on the 9/11 hijackers. She then went on to make serious s money running FNMA into the ground and precipitating the Great Recession. Quite a talented lady. Team Clinton!
but I think her job, was relegated to another partner, you can't help poaching from the swamp, otherwise you end up with lawyers paid in fish, look at the complications that tensing and degenova, had to undergo,
so you know who didn't get poached the first time, steve schmidts old firm, mercury partners, who lobbies for Erdogan, but more to the point, for Russian businessman like deripasha, now david Vitter, miss daniels acquaintance now takes up the charge, replacing vin weber,
Trump should pardon Cohen on just the campaign finance violation. That would be hilarious. Cohen’s sentence will be the same anyway. I think Avenatti should worry about his tax problems with the government. He’ll be sharing a cell with Cohen soon. Stormy can send them so cheesecakepics to hang on their wall.
and lanny davis better check the balance on that gofund me page,
Memo to the party elite:
Here's how things should go.
1. We win the House and Senate.
2. We can appoint anyone we want as speaker of the House (It doesn't have to be a member of that body.)
3. We impeach Trump and remove from office; Pence becomes POTUS.
4. Nearly simultaneously (or after the Senate has refused to approve a nominee for VP), we impeach Pence and remove from office.
5. Our speaker becomes POTUS.
This could be done by April of 2019, if we act expeditiously.
Chuck would be better off staring over with a new nick name. Even garage knew, at some point, he was a joke.
http://dailycaller.com/2018/08/21/imran-awan-no-jail-time-hospital/
Meantime, the Democrat computers and compromised server were never examined by law enforcement to see if security was compromised by Pakistani "computer experts" wirth known connections to Pakistani intelligence.
Total coverage of the Awan case in my local newspaper top date- zero.
I would think Manafort's case and Cohen's case were actually connected to Trump if I had nothing but the MSM to rely on. And wouldn't know that Awan exists, since in the MSM universe he doesn't.
Fixer Cohen got his wife off the hook and allowed him to avoid RICO charges, at least for now, but the question is hereby raised as to whether the RICO statute can be used against a sitting president.
Should Southern New York prosecutors or Special Counselor Mueller approach the actions of the Trump campaign, the Trump Organization and the Donald J. Trump Foundation, naming individually, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Jr., Ivanka Trump, and Eric Trump. this group would be tried as a criminal conspiracy, under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO). Using the New York RICO law would likely prevent Trump from employing his pardon powers and this law also stands the best chance of getting around the real or imagined special privilege argument since the president is being charged as part of a criminal enterprise.
A "criminal enterprise" is "a group of persons sharing a common purpose of engaging in criminal conduct, associated in an ascertainable structure distinct from a pattern of criminal activity, and with a continuity of existence, structure and criminal purpose beyond the scope of individual criminal incidents."
Molly @12:31: Your plan reminds of the ones where “Step 3” is “Profit!” but Step 2 is “?”
Why would Pence be subject to impeachment? For his abject failure to molest women?
Chuck said...
So far, we don't have an answer as to whether Cohen was in Prague during the campaign, do we? I keep waiting for Mueller's answer on that. And that part is not what was referred to the SDNY.
We know with 100% certainty he was not in Prague.
We also know the FBI/NSA/CIA broke numerous laws spying on the wrong people.
I think that we are just scratching the surface on Cohen. And I sort of suspect that Mueller will hold onto everything that he possibly can on the collusion case, if one exists, until it can all be rolled out in a gigantic indictment so that Trump can't play each news cycle the way he wants it, in attacking the Special Counsel's office.
We are just scratching the surface on Mueller.
The 2nd special counsel is going to be awesome. I bet Chuck and all his democrat friends suddenly learn all about the limits the law places on the special counsel.
Brennan and all of his co-conspirators are going to jail. They could have gotten off but they kept pushing.
It is hilarious that you idiots think the American people are going to choose your side. Trump paid off some women to shut up with a classic NDA. Thousands of these go out daily. They are routine. Nobody cares.
You are disgusting people and everyone sees it.
Nobody is going to cut you any slack now.
gadfly said...
Althouse missed Lannie Davis' more important point - a question that begs a logical answer:
"Today he stood up and testified under oath that Donald Trump directed him to commit a crime by making payments to two women for the principal purpose of influencing an election. If those payments were a crime for Michael Cohen, then why wouldn't they be a crime for Donald Trump?"
More important point I've seen in many spots is- He admitted to committing a crime that isn't a crime. Which begs the question- Why?
"he came to the judgment after Mr. Trump's election to the presidency of the United States that his suitability is a serious risk to our country. And certainly after Helsinki, creates serious questions about his loyalty to our country."
Ah, still the sleazy Dem fixer, I see. But I thought that talking point had expired about a month ago?
"Michael Cohen knows information that would be of interest to the special counsel, in my opinion, regarding both knowledge about a conspiracy to corrupt American democracy by the Russians"
Conspiracy to do what?
"and the failure to report that knowledge to the FBI,"
The actual problem is the other way around: the FBI and the CIA claimed to have info on Russian meddling via Trump hangers-on but failed to report that knowledge to the candidate so that he could take preventive action. In fact, that is the tell on the swamp attack: if the goal had been to expose and stop Russian "meddling," they would have worked with Trump. But in fact, the CIA and FBI were eager to find of fabricate anything to get Trump.
"Donald Trump violated criminal law. He may not be able to be indicted. That's an unclear question, but there's no dispute here. He directed Michael Cohen to do something that was criminal. Michael did it and admitted to it."
OK, I see how it works for sleazeballs like Davis to use Cohen to smear Trump. But is he meeting his fiduciary duty to his supposed client?
Molly said...
Memo to the party elite:
Here's how things should go.
1. We win the House and Senate.
2. We can appoint anyone we want as speaker of the House (It doesn't have to be a member of that body.)
3. We impeach Trump and remove from office; Pence becomes POTUS.
4. Nearly simultaneously (or after the Senate has refused to approve a nominee for VP), we impeach Pence and remove from office.
5. Our speaker becomes POTUS.
This could be done by April of 2019, if we act expeditiously.
Yeah.
At point 4 another thing happens nearly simultaneously.
DC would be surrounded by several million people.
Does Davis bother to explain how someone can violate criminal law and not be able to be indicted? Asking for a friend.
-sw
Why all the blather about a hypothetical pardon?
I can see Trump taking a huge political hit to pardon a loyal guy who has been railroaded. A turncoat? No pardon, no way.
OK, I get that Cohen pleaded on tax issues. I get that the prosecutors and Davis were eager to get a campaign violation in there. But it is still odd.
As former FEC chair Bradley Smith said in the WSJ a while ago,
"But let’s remember a basic principle of such laws: Not everything that might benefit a candidate is a campaign expense.
Campaign-finance law aims to prevent corruption. For this reason, the FEC has a longstanding ban on “personal use” of campaign funds. Such use would give campaign contributions a material value beyond helping to elect the candidate—the essence of a bribe.
FEC regulations explain that the campaign cannot pay expenses that would exist “irrespective” of the campaign, even if it might help win election. At the same time, obligations that would not exist “but for” the campaign must be paid from campaign funds.
If paying hush money is a campaign expense, a candidate would be required to make that payment with campaign funds. How ironic, given that using campaign funds as hush money was one of the articles of impeachment in the Watergate scandal, which gave rise to modern campaign-finance law."
Chuck said...
...But Presidents don't grant immunity. They hand out pardons, after convictions.
Preemptive pardons can and have been issued. See Ford-Nixon for the premier example.
gadfly said...
Should Southern New York prosecutors or Special Counselor Mueller approach the actions of the Trump campaign, the Trump Organization and the Donald J. Trump Foundation, naming individually, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Jr., Ivanka Trump, and Eric Trump. this group would be tried as a criminal conspiracy, under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO). Using the New York RICO law would likely prevent Trump from employing his pardon powers and this law also stands the best chance of getting around the real or imagined special privilege argument since the president is being charged as part of a criminal enterprise.
Absolutely.
Do it.
Please.
If we are all lucky you idiots will succeed in undermining a lawful election and the large majority of people who just want things to go smoothly will turn on you.
Rick said, "I'm trying to figure out why the payments are supposedly illegal."
I think that's a great question.
"...This seems an implicit admission the funds did not come from the campaign..."
I don't think that's the issue. There's a Huffington Post piece here which might shed a little light.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/michael-cohen-plea-deal_us_5ad20bd8e4b0edca2cba4685
"Yet the money trail behind the payment to Daniels may not be entirely legal. Campaign finance law forbids corporations from donating directly to political candidates, and bans individuals from contributing more than $2,700. Whether the $130,000 payment to Daniels constitutes a breach is currently in question."
The theory here is that paying the two women off was a campaign contribution. It was a campaign contribution because it was “for the principal purpose of influencing the election”.
My guess is the plea bargain explicitly required Cohen to state the payments were for the purpose of influencing the election. This way prosecutors can claim it was a campaign contribution in violation of the legal limits. The bonus is they get to drag Trump into it as part of "conspiracy" and for "making false statements".
I am certainly no attorney nor expert at this sort of thing. But it reminds me of the creative legal thinking Federal prosecutors use to indict and convict someone they're out to destroy. I certainly read enough of this stuff in Three Felonies a Day.
Achilles said: At point 4 another thing happens nearly simultaneously. DC would be surrounded by several million people.
This is why gun control is so important to our agenda.
We need to play a little defense now, and take a few minor blows. Can't win every skirmish. And that's ok.
The Manafort verdict doesn't bother me at all. Old tax evasion charges have not a thing to do with the 2016 election.
Cohen does bother me, because he is messy. Hard to predict what dirt he will drag up. The good news is that Cohen had nothing substantial to do with campaign.
But this is all just Kabuki theater for the Dems to gin up enough anxiety and enthusiasm to win back the House. They can't win the Senate, but they want that House.
Time to start donating to House candidates, friends. Nobody wants creepy, nerdy Adam Schiff with subpoena power.
And, I offer the usual disclaimer -- not a GOP butt-boy, they have a ton of spineless idiots within their ranks. But, on a curve, the Dems are essentially socialists and much worse.
Oso Negro said...
I just wish the Democrats would go ahead start another shooting civil war
fixed it for you!
This is why gun control is so important to our agenda.
So you can kill people who disagree with you with impunity?
He admitted to committing a crime that isn't a crime.
He specifically admitted to paying off both Daniels and McDougal (the latter through the Enquirer) at the direction of "a candidate for Federal Office" (aka Donald Trump) to aid the campaign. That is an illegal campaign contribution in kind.
You might not believe him, but what he admitted to is a crime.
If he had claimed that the payment was to avoid embarrassing Melania, he would at least have a potential defense.
Blogger rehajm said...
Davis hitting the talk shows must be part of the plea deal I reckon...8/22/18, 10:41 AM!
Yeah, on NBC, when Davis begged for money for his client - Cohen, the whole audience broke out in laughter. Then the brain Davis, admonished the TV audience, and the audience booed him! Sorry Lanny Davis, even your "public Halo" comes with a perishability time stamp.
Given that so many lawyers read AA's blog, I'm surprised no one has mentioned that Trump funding his own campaign,even through snitch Cohen, is not breaking the law? Moreover,Trump has no limits on how much of his own money or if he raises his own money, he can spend.
Any takers on this? Would like to know.
"SteveR said...
Chuck would be better off staring over with a new nick name. Even garage knew, at some point, he was a joke."
Inga tried this. It doesn't work. Like her he would be outed immediately.
Sebastian makes a point.
If you think someone/something is attempting to spy or infiltrate on someone or someone's campaign, and you're worried about it- you go the person being spied on and say -"We'd like to insert someone into your campaign to root out the bad guys."
FBI/CIA didn't do this. All evidence to date points to them being the ones spying on and inserting agents of influence into Trump's campaign. Every single Russian contact, however tenuous with Trump's campaign, was initiated at the suggestion of someone known to have worked with the FBI of CIA in the past. Every single on of them. Including the infamous meeting at Trump Tower.
I still think Admiral Rogers is going to end up being written into history books as the savior of the American republic.
Exactly how did the alleged payments "influence the election"?
Were vote tallies changed?
Were voters disenfranchised?
-----------------------------
How is this different from the ill-defined "collusion"?
What federal statutes were violated?
What is the specific evidence of damage? Who are the persons impacted?
When I attempt to convince my friend to vote for Trump am I "influencing an election"?
when Davis begged for money for his client - Cohen, the whole audience broke out in laughter.
They didn't have an audience on the FNC show I saw him on, but the hosts looked pretty incredulous when he brought up the gofundme page.
Clearly, Lanny Davis is no less a piece of work than Michael Cohen, and vice versa. Two absolutely detestable people.
That is an illegal campaign contribution in kind.
So I take it your side has given up on that whole "emollients" thing?
It seems more like a ploy so the Resistance will donate to the GoFundMe page. They do not trust Cohen since he was Trump's boy, so this is just an effort to get the suckers to believe he is on their side now, ready to make the sacrifice for the cause. I am not sure how well it will work. He's pretty much alienated everyone and those that are not alienated probably think he is gross.
On the plus side, it does have the pseudo-bipartisan slime bag lawyer duo going for it. You don't see that everyday.
The central complaint is that the Russians helped steal the 2016 election for Trump.
Let's not lose sight of that.
So far, Mueller and the anti-Trump zealots have nothing on that issue.
They have, Trump slept with Stormy Daniels 10 years ago, she tried to squeeze him for a few shekels during the campaign, either he or his fixer Cohen paid her in exchange for her NDA, and BIG FUCKING DEAL to all that.
I saw all this in Hamilton. It doesn’t end up well for the blackmailed statesman, but for different reasons. He ends up destroying himself in a duel. I can’t see Trump fighting a duel.
He’ll probably just keep catcalling from the Oval Office.
Ron Winkelheimer said....1:03pm ".....They didn't have an audience on the FNC show I saw him on...."
Here you go!
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2018/08/22/megyn-kellys-audience-bursts-out-laughing-when-lanny-davis-begs-for-donations-to-michael-cohen-truth-fund-666678
I would like to see a Hamilton-esque duel between Cohen and Avennati. Or Omarosa and Stormy.
“He specifically admitted to paying off both Daniels and McDougal (the latter through the Enquirer) at the direction of "a candidate for Federal Office" (aka Donald Trump) to aid the campaign. That is an illegal campaign contribution in kind.
You might not believe him, but what he admitted to is a crime.
If he had claimed that the payment was to avoid embarrassing Melania, he would at least have a potential defense.”
Is the argument that Trump can’t spend personal money to affect an election? That isn’t going to fly, thanks to that pesky 1st Amdt. Maybe that an alter ego like his attorney can’t do so? But that can’t be right either - attorneys are treated, under the law as stepping into the shoes of their clients.
So, yes, what Cohen admitted was technically maybe a crime - but that doesn’t make what was done a crime, but rather that he just had to stipulate to it to get the deal offered him by the SDNY USAs. One thing that has to be remembered here is that the courts have held that campaign finance limits don’t apply to candidates under 1st Amdt grounds. The statute may still read as if contribution limits, for example, still applied to candidates, but binding precedents says it doesn’t. So, Cohen pleading to what is superficially a crime doesn’t make it one, it just means that he had to plead like it was one to get the deal he got. No one is asking what other crimes that he could have been tried for he traded in that deal for this campaign finance violation, or how much prison time he isn’t going to have to serve to buy this deal.
"He specifically admitted to paying off both Daniels and McDougal (the latter through the Enquirer) at the direction of "a candidate for Federal Office" (aka Donald Trump) to aid the campaign. That is an illegal campaign contribution in kind."
-- If that's a crime, then every benefit concert or spot by a celebrity is also an illegal "campaign contribution in kind."
I mean, if THAT'S the road we want to go down -- fine. But given Edwards got off free and Clinton never went to trial for giving women to not talk while he was running for office, you've got a high bar to clear.
“Given that so many lawyers read AA's blog, I'm surprised no one has mentioned that Trump funding his own campaign,even through snitch Cohen, is not breaking the law? Moreover,Trump has no limits on how much of his own money or if he raises his own money, he can spend.”
Keep that in mind - the Supreme Court has said that personal campaign contributions by candidates are unlimited, despite the statute that attempted to limit them. The statute may not exempt candidates from those limits, but the 1st Amdt does.
"My client is guilty as Hell and I advised him to plead guilty to the crimes the scumbag committed as well as a few things which probably aren't even crimes. In addition, if he has a chance to get out of prison we'll reject it and see to it he spends the rest of his natural life locked away. We've requested either solitary confinement or a shared cell with Big Sweet Bubba and assignment to the road detail. Preferably in Southern Arizona."
- Lanny Davis, Esquire
I wonder what Lanny's billing rate is? That kind of legal expertise doesn't come cheap.
And even if somehow this ends up being a campaign contribution and therefore a crime, what's the penalty? Isn't it like a fine or something? Didn't even the Sainted Obama have to pay a few hundred thoushand dollars for a similar violation back in 2013?
Keep that in mind - the Supreme Court has said that personal campaign contributions by candidates are unlimited, despite the statute that attempted to limit them.
Unfortunately for Trump, he is a cheapskate. If he had paid out of his own pocket then it wouldn't be a violation (although not reporting the campaign expenditure would be a civil violation). He had Cohen pay out of his own pocket and then Cohen was reimbursed by one of Trump's corporate entities.
Dumbassery caused by cheapness.
The fine to the Obama campaign was for accepting illegal or questionable funds; Trump is being allegedly investigated for spending his own money.
Very different crimes.
"If he had paid out of his own pocket then it wouldn't be a violation (although not reporting the campaign expenditure would be a civil violation). He had Cohen pay out of his own pocket and then Cohen was reimbursed by one of Trump's corporate entities."
-- As far as I was aware, Trump DID pay out of his own pocket. Or are we alleging that Cohen lied under oath about that too when he said that the first time?
All maneuvers in a cold civil war.
In the end these things are simply tactics.
What you really have are two (at least two) powerful countries with entirely divergent interests living, overlapped, on the same land. These two nations have almost nothing in common, less so certainly than Britain and Germany did in 1914. The British and the Germans didn't hate each other then, as much as Americans of the two factions do today.
More important point I've seen in many spots is- He admitted to committing a crime that isn't a crime. Which begs the question- Why?
Easy. To save his family from being prosecuted for OTHER crimes, i.e. the taxi medallion story that's been talked about before. Just like Flynn pled guilty to a non-crime to save his son from having to defend himself from real crimes.
And Kevin has it right, the Lanny Davis tour is all about drumming up money. Cohen wants in on the McCabe/Strozk gofundme strategy. The #resistance doesn't give money to are talking about accepting pardons from evil Trump.
Note also, that it's possible the plea agreement says as much as "you seek a pardon, and the deal's off and we'll charge you and your family with other crimes".
To those that think this will actually lead to removal from office for Trump, re-check your math. While Trump could be impeached if the house flips this fall, there is no way 34 Republican senators don't vote to acquit on a campaign finance charge. "A payoff with non-campaign money doesn't rise to high crimes and misdemeanors."
Trump carried 30 states! Any republican that voted for removal might as well switch parties. It's near impossible to overturn a presidential veto! It's not, by design, easy to remove a president. If they aren't going to get to less than 34, why would a senator vote to convict? On a campaign finance charge? I'll bet most of them are paranoid enough about campaign finance compliance.
Anything you remove Trump on would have to be so egregious that two thirds of the country would go along with it.
The impeachment/removal battle for presidents has been over since Clinton. For those of you around, think back to the night the Lewinsky story broke. Clinton defenders looked liked it was over. But come morning, when it was obvious that Bill wasn't resigning, they stuck in, and it was over. Bill cracked the code. He counted the votes, and realized that this wasn't enough. Not for a sex charge.
And sorry, 70 year old Trump is not going to resign. Jeff Flake and Bob Corker can walk up to the White house with a letter from Saint John McCain himself, and it won't matter. He'll just laugh, the market will continue to go up, and the vast majority of people who don't follow politics will go back to watching Celebrity Big Brother. And does Trump come out of it weaker for almost losing? Did Bill? His frickin wife ran for president. TWICE. And now maybe his daughter. Trump will wear an impeachment as a badge of honor. Only he defeated the deep state! Bill set the new rules, now we have to live with it.
Sometimes I fantasize about a reality where the democrats realized that Trump could be their biggest ally. That he was in fact a NY democrat (with NY values), who likes the traditional blue collar democratic base, and reached out to him to make a deal. Ivanka and Chelsea were friends, for gosh sake!
Tax cuts for a Merrick Garland for example. A public option in exchange for regulatory reform. Gun control in exchange for tariffs on China. Family leave for.. well. family leave!
But the #resistance couldn't let that happen.
You want a civil war? Remove Trump for something "trumped" up. And sorry, there's no possible way to remove both Trump and Pence, that truly is fantasyland. In this country elections matter. If you lose, re-evaluate, and try again in 4 years.
Man if the "instructed to do illegal thing and it was done" standard was fairly applied, how many of Clinton's people would have had to go to jail for removing classification markings and mailing things to unsecure locations, or you know, destroying evidence?
If we're going to have a rule -- apply it consistently.
I don't like Trump, but right now the star witness against Trump is a guy who backed him, got bankrupted by the prosecution, and who the left bragged about "breaking" until he switched his story. That's... that's not the foundation for a trustworthy witness.
https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/who-can-and-cant-contribute/
“When candidates use or loan their personal funds for campaign purposes, they are making contributions to their campaigns. Unlike other contributions, these candidate contributions are not subject to any limits.”
Much of Trump’s primary campaign was self-funded, and he was apparently spending $2m a month of his own money in the last months of the election, with a total of maybe $66m of his own money spent for the election. All perfectly legal.
Even Democrats ought to be able to see what a crock this is. Clinton crony lawyer represents Cohen. Cohen pleads guilty to bogus campaign finance law violations - paying off Stormy, a campaign expenditure? Seriously? Clinton crony lawyer says Cohen wouldn't accept a pardon "from this man." Oh, right. Who wouldn't rather have a felony record than a pardon? (Sarc. alert.)
What kind of lawyer says such a thing about his client?
The disgrace here is amoral Democrats think this is fine, just as the corrupting of DOJ/FBI is fine, Antifa is fine, soiling the legal process is fine, corrupting FISA is fine, etc. Anything that forwards overturning the results of the presidential election.
Unbelievable! This is really beyond the pale! If this stuff doesn't work for Democrats, what's next, terrorism?
"Sometimes I fantasize about a reality where the democrats realized that Trump could be their biggest ally."
-- One of Republicans biggest concerns was that Trump would go squish because, well, he was a Democrat for so long. The pure hate directed at him has done more to keep him from working with Democrats than anything else.
He was willing to hand them victories on multiple occasions, but they couldn't swallow their pride and ACCEPT VICTORY if it was not TOTAL VICTORY.
Why Cohen chose Lanny Davis - an old Clinton crony who would do anything to get at Trump - for his defense counsel is beyond me. Either Cohen is stupid (yes) corrupted by the Clintons ( wouldn’t be the first) or has a death wish! I think Cohen got really shitty advice from his lawyer and am very suspicious why he took it.
Ron Winkleheimer said...
That is an illegal campaign contribution in kind.
So I take it your side has given up on that whole "emollients" thing?
And collusion.
And pretense.
I think some folks in this thread are trying to go somewhere that you can’t get to from here. The Donald Trump we see is exactly the one I voted for—a sleezy, hucksterish, self-promoter who would take any chance he could to get laid. I didn’t care about that— he wasn’t Hillary and that was enough. He has done so much better than I ever dreamed he would that it is tempting to forget his essential and long-standing status as an opportunist of the first order. I have been impressed with his service as president, but this kind of screwup is part of the package.
Trump in 2020!
@Tim Maguire
Your point is well taken. Shouldn't Cohen advised Trump that there was a problem re FEC (if in fact there was one)? Wasn't that his job?
Its not a matter of victory on policy desiderata through Trump.
This is an extremely superficial view. These things are incidental.
Trump is not the problem, he is mostly just a symbol for both sides, and one of those historical accidents, which is what "great men" are, whereby the weaker side, temporarily, derails the march of the other.
What really is going on is a war of peoples. A cultural war.
And it us a war of aggression.
Is Lanny serving Cohen's interests or his own political objectives? Looks like the latter to me.
A pardon for what?? What crime did Cohen commit??? What is he guilty of?????
Well, if you can't believe a hyper-partisan, piece of shit like Lanny Davis, who can you believe?
There are moments that I am so sick of this shit, that I just wish the Democrats would go ahead start a shooting civil war and we get it the fuck over with.
I'm to the point where I don't give a damn who starts it.
Trump analogy -
Enrique Gorostieta, a professional soldier, a mercenary, a liberal, a freemason and atheist, that was hired by the Cristero faction in Mexico to serve as their commander in chief. The Cristeros were a reaction against the fanatically anticlerical Federal Government that was waging an intense culture-war against Catholics. Gorostieta, in the course of the conflict, seems to have repented of his amoral worldliness, and sincerely adopted the ideology of the men he commanded.
Go see the Andy Garcia movie, "For Greater Glory". It is reasonably accurate as far as I can tell.
Gorostieta caused so much trouble to the Mexican government that eventually it negotiated a face-saving end to the culture war. Gorostieta did not survive this of course. All such revolts are by their nature suicidal.
I am with Amadeus on Trump. We knew what we were getting on a personal level, we have been pleasantly surprised by what has been accomplished so far. Even my wife has begun to spit bullets over the "special counsel" and she is as apolitical as one can be.
Amadeus 48 said...
Pretty much what I think, and virtually what everyone who voted for Trump is thinking.
It's all baked in. And all Mueller is doing is showing that Republicans will get prosecuted for crimes Democrats are given immunity for.
6 witnesses were given immunity to nail Manafort. Six people walked free to nail him because he worked for Trump.
Why is immunity handed out? In order to gather evidence to indict someone. Everyone in the Hillary email investigation was granted immunity. Everyone. When they were done handing out immunity there was no one left to charge. Except Hillary. But her crimes were deemed so trivial that no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute. Except that every single one of us with a security clearance knows of people doing hard time for less.
And I'm still curious as to what's on Anthony Weiner's laptop. And BTW- Huma's immunity deal? She never mentioned the existence of Hillary's emails on HIS laptop. Not covered by the immunity deal. You know, a real crime, and a security breach.
And the coup continues . . . .
Instapundit has a link to a Mark Levin commentary on this, and he refers to Davis as a "Clinton crime family mob lawyer."
"Not covered by the immunity deal."
-- If lying to the FBI doesn't invalidate your immunity, what does?
That is an illegal campaign contribution in kind.
Big. Fucking. Whoop.
Shouldn’t there be a media headline of “Dems pounce”?
Does anyone have any idea what Cohen's plan is? He sure isn't going to be able to be a lawyer anymore; no one in his right mind would trust him. Seems like he's going to jail. Why wouldn't a rational person have backed Trump and hoped for a pardon? What does he think is going to happen to him?
He's so upset about Helsinki that he can't stand it? Doesn't seem right to me.
“There are moments that I am so sick of this shit, that I just wish the Democrats would go ahead start a shooting civil war and we get it the fuck over with.”
“I'm to the point where I don't give a damn who starts it.”
Of course it’s the idiots who always bring up a civil war when things aren’t going well for their side. So predictable.
Here's my problem.
The implication here, which isn't even near the truth, is that Trump committed a crime (like raping or assaulting these women) and was paying them money to keep it quiet. When in reality, there is no accusation of a crime here.
I think our media purposefully blurs this line to make us think Trump is like Clinton, who paid off Paula Jones almost a million dollars.
"Of course it’s the idiots who always bring up a civil war when things aren’t going well for their side."
-- That's both sides. There's actually a pretty vocal group that is promoting violent #Resistance to the current sitting president. Complete with masked vandals attacking non-#Resistance members.
There's a lot of talk about, "But there is no Russian collusion!" As if proof of Trump personally colluding would change anyone's mind.
buwaya said...
Its not a matter of victory on policy desiderata through Trump.
This is an extremely superficial view. These things are incidental.
Trump is not the problem, he is mostly just a symbol for both sides, and one of those historical accidents, which is what "great men" are, whereby the weaker side, temporarily, derails the march of the other.
What really is going on is a war of peoples. A cultural war.
And it us a war of aggression.
All true.
The only thing you need to add is who the two sides are.
One is the American people who want to remain free citizens.
The other are the globalists that want their serfs back and the people who want to be serfs.
“You want a civil war? Remove Trump for something "trumped" up.”
More idiocy.
There's actually a pretty vocal group that is promoting violent #Resistance to the current sitting president.
How is that any different that John Boehner & Co's plan to do everything in their power to resist Obama? What is resisting suddenly a problem for you?
Ah then we have Achilles who keeps saying everything is going as he predicted and he was right all along.
LOL.
The Donald Trump we see is exactly the one I voted for—a sleezy, hucksterish, self-promoter who would take any chance he could to get laid. I didn’t care about that— he wasn’t Hillary and that was enough.
I too concur with this. And once again I will state that the Democrat party still hasn't come to terms with the fact that voters had a choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, and selected Trump. Some of my liberal friends bought into the Russian Collusion nonsense early and hard because they refuse to believe how corrupt Hillary, and by extension the Democrat party, has become.
Of course it’s the idiots who always bring up a civil war when things aren’t going well for their side. So predictable.
Of course it’s the idiots who always bring up impeachment when things aren’t going well for their side. So predictable.
John said...
There's a lot of talk about, "But there is no Russian collusion!" As if proof of Trump personally colluding would change anyone's mind.
We do have proof of Hillary, Obama, and the DNC colluding with Russia multiple times.
You are right.
Hillary took $145 million dollars from Russia.
It changes nobodies mind.
We know you are enemies of freedom and you support political violence.
Everyone sees right through you.
It is time we settled this.
Two thoughts:
1.) So every insurance company that pays a settlement on behalf of a candidate for public office attempting to clear the matter up is illegally attempting to "influence the outcome of an election"?
2.) I wouldn't be surprised if in the end Cohen sues Davis for malpractice and receives a pardon from Trump.
We do have proof of Hillary, Obama, and the DNC colluding with Russia multiple times.
Which doesn't matter to you because you've just admitted if Trump did it you don't care. So it was never about people doing bad things. It was always, for you at least, just blind partisanship.
“That's both sides. There's actually a pretty vocal group that is promoting violent #Resistance to the current sitting president. Complete with masked vandals attacking non-#Resistance members.”
Such nonsense. Are all those millions of pussy hatted women who hit the streets on the day after Inauguration Day giving you nightmares? What group is advocating “violent resistance”? “Non resistance members”, do you mean Nazi’s? Still it’s wrong to attack anyone physically, don’t do it.
“Which doesn't matter to you because you've just admitted if Trump did it you don't care. So it was never about people doing bad things. It was always, for you at least, just blind partisanship.”
I call it the Cult of Trump.
Inga...Allie Oop said...
Ah then we have Achilles who keeps saying everything is going as he predicted and he was right all along.
LOL.
It is.
August 28th your side will peak out in rage.
Mueller will be humiliated in court and the media will bury it with stupid Cohen/Manafort garbage.
Then the budget battle starts and Trump will have a fight with the House over funding the border wall.
The government will shut down. Open borders globalists on one side.
Trump and a strong majority of US voters on the other.
Have fun crying in November when the republicans do more than retain control of the House and end up with 60+ senators.
“It is time we settled this.”
Oooooo more tough talk from Captain America. Go for it, let’s see how far you get.
"Are all those millions of pussy hatted women who hit the streets on the day after Inauguration Day giving you nightmares? What group is advocating “violent resistance”? “Non resistance members”, do you mean Nazi’s?"
Let's break down your questions.
A. No one said that. This non-sequitur is dismissed as the nonsense it is.
B. I'd go with anti-fa. You know, the group that was so violent they've gotten non-political parades canceled and put people in the hospital.
C. They've also protested non-Nazis. If you want to focus on Nazis -- who the Supreme Court and ACLU both agree have the right to be dicks in public -- sure. But, maybe instead, you should worry about when antifa is using violence against peaceful protestors.
“August 28th your side will peak out in rage.”
Ah the King of Conspiracy has made a prediction, lol.
John said...
We do have proof of Hillary, Obama, and the DNC colluding with Russia multiple times.
Which doesn't matter to you because you've just admitted if Trump did it you don't care. So it was never about people doing bad things. It was always, for you at least, just blind partisanship.
You pretend history started yesterday.
Obama and the Clintons have been lawless for decades.
We kept notes.
Now you want to get Trump for something they have been doing for decades.
But you don't even have any evidence Trump colluded with Russia. All you have is paying off women to keep their mouths shut.
One set of rules fuckhead.
Nobody cares Trump paid women to shut up about consensual sex. At least he didn't pay women he raped like Bill did.
We see right through you.
Inga...Allie Oop said...
“August 28th your side will peak out in rage.”
Ah the King of Conspiracy has made a prediction, lol.
How is the Steele Dossier holding up?
Oh it was a complete sham?
Conspiracy theorist indeed.
You are just a really stupid person. You don't even know how stupid you look.
“You are just a really stupid person. You don't even know how stupid you look.”
You are really unselfaware.
Actually the Steele Dossier has held up pretty damn well, but your conspiracy theory sites won’t tell you that, lol.
But you don't even have any evidence Trump colluded with Russia.
It wouldn't matter to you if I did.
Now you want to get Trump for something they have been doing for decades.
You don't think it's wrong though. Or do you only think it's wrong if the other team does it?
Lanny Davis: "Donald Trump violated criminal law."
Lavrentiy Beria: “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.”
"Davis was an attorney for President Bill Clinton during the height of the Monica Lewinsky scandal and for the subsequent impeachment proceedings."
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/22/michael-cohen-trump-lanny-davis-helsinki-791359
What to Make of the Cohen Plea and Manafort Convictions
Andrew McCarthy, NRO, 10:28 AM:
"...Let’s split some legal hairs. The media narrative suggests that these payments violate federal law because they were made to influence the outcome of the election. That is not quite accurate. It was not illegal to pay hush money to the two women — Karen McDougal and Stephanie Clifford (a.k.a. “Stormy Daniels”). It was illegal for Michael Cohen to make in-kind contributions (which is what these pay-offs were) in excess of the legal limit.
Specifically, it was illegal for Michael Cohen to make contributions exceeding $2,700 per election to a presidential candidate (including contributions coordinated with the candidate); and illegal for the candidate to accept contributions in excess of that amount. It was also illegal for corporations to contribute to candidates (including expenditures coordinated with the candidate), and for the candidate to accept such contributions. The latter illegality is relevant because Cohen formed corporations to transfer the hush money.
The law does not impose a dollar limit on the candidate himself. Donald Trump could lawfully have made contributions and expenditures in excess of $2,700 per election. Because of that, and because — unlike Cohen — Trump is a non-lawyer who may not have fully appreciated the campaign-finance implications, it would be tough to prove that the president had criminal intent. Nevertheless, that may not get the president off the hook. As noted above, it is illegal for a candidate to accept excessive contributions. It is also illegal to fail to report contributions and expenditures, and to conspire in or aid and abet another person’s excessive contributions. Moreover, we are talking here about hush-money expenditures, so drawing a distinction between the payment and the failure to report is pointless since the intention not to report is implicit in this kind of payment."
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/what-to-make-of-the-cohen-plea-and-manafort-convictions/
But McCarthy doesn't mention that since Cohen reportedly received his money back from a Trump entity, he seems not to have been the donor but only the donor's conduit.
Tieing up the loose ends of tax law: Did the recipients of the hush money ever declare this income on their original tax returns?
I doubt it.
Inga...Allie Oop said...
“That's both sides. There's actually a pretty vocal group that is promoting violent #Resistance to the current sitting president. Complete with masked vandals attacking non-#Resistance members.”
Such nonsense. Are all those millions of pussy hatted women who hit the streets on the day after Inauguration Day giving you nightmares? What group is advocating “violent resistance”? “Non resistance members”, do you mean Nazi’s? Still it’s wrong to attack anyone physically, don’t do it.
Inga has cheered inwardly at the dozens of violent attacks the left has committed the last 2 years.
She still thinks Scalise deserved to get shot because he is an NRA member.
She still refuses to acknowledge her Antifa friends assaulted the media on multiple occasions.
She still refuses to admit the DNC was caught on video admitting to funding the violence.
The second special counsel is going to be awesome.
"Actually the Steele Dossier has held up pretty damn well, but your conspiracy theory sites won’t tell you that, lol."
-- Has it? Of the few verifiable facts we know, several are outright wrong (people not in certain places; people denying facts that have no other method of being verified; the golden showers claim that most people agree is unlikely to true.)
What single fact (not claim, not accusation -- fact) is verified?
I have a question.
Is it possible that Cohen said that Trump directed him to spend the money to "influence the campaign" (or whatever the language was), not because the SDNY office required it for the deal, but instead because Lanny Davis told him to say it?
Lanny Davis: "Donald Trump violated criminal law."
Lavrentiy Beria: “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.”
"Davis was an attorney for President Bill Clinton during the height of the Monica Lewinsky scandal and for the subsequent impeachment proceedings."
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/22/michael-cohen-trump-lanny-davis-helsinki-791359
What to Make of the Cohen Plea and Manafort Convictions
Andrew McCarthy, NRO, 10:28 AM:
"...Let’s split some legal hairs. The media narrative suggests that these payments violate federal law because they were made to influence the outcome of the election. That is not quite accurate. It was not illegal to pay hush money to the two women — Karen McDougal and Stephanie Clifford (a.k.a. “Stormy Daniels”). It was illegal for Michael Cohen to make in-kind contributions (which is what these pay-offs were) in excess of the legal limit.
Specifically, it was illegal for Michael Cohen to make contributions exceeding $2,700 per election to a presidential candidate (including contributions coordinated with the candidate); and illegal for the candidate to accept contributions in excess of that amount. It was also illegal for corporations to contribute to candidates (including expenditures coordinated with the candidate), and for the candidate to accept such contributions. The latter illegality is relevant because Cohen formed corporations to transfer the hush money.
The law does not impose a dollar limit on the candidate himself. Donald Trump could lawfully have made contributions and expenditures in excess of $2,700 per election. Because of that, and because — unlike Cohen — Trump is a non-lawyer who may not have fully appreciated the campaign-finance implications, it would be tough to prove that the president had criminal intent. Nevertheless, that may not get the president off the hook. As noted above, it is illegal for a candidate to accept excessive contributions. It is also illegal to fail to report contributions and expenditures, and to conspire in or aid and abet another person’s excessive contributions. Moreover, we are talking here about hush-money expenditures, so drawing a distinction between the payment and the failure to report is pointless since the intention not to report is implicit in this kind of payment."
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/what-to-make-of-the-cohen-plea-and-manafort-convictions/
But McCarthy doesn't mention that since Cohen reportedly received his money back from a Trump entity, he seems not to have been the donor but only the donor's conduit.
Tieing up the loose ends of tax law: Did the recipients of the hush money ever declare this income on their original tax returns?
I doubt it.
“Or do you only think it's wrong if the other team does it
Oh the outrage when Clinton lied about having “sex with that woman”, yet they don’t seem to mind that Trump did the exact same thing, lied about the two women he paid off (right before the election) to keep quiet about their sexual encounter. When Trump lies, it’s a yawn, when Clinton lied he was impeached and still is brought up daily by you folks.
What is wrong with you people? Runaway hypocrisy...and worse.
Sorry for the double post. WordPress gave me an error message suggesting that the first one didn't go through.
"Is it possible that Cohen said that Trump directed him to spend the money to "influence the campaign" (or whatever the language was), not because the SDNY office required it for the deal, but instead because Lanny Davis told him to say it?"
-- Both are possible, and we'll probably never know the truth. Most likely though, the prosecution just boxed him in and offered him a better deal than roll the dice like Manafort.
Sidenote: When we learned Cohen hired Lanny Davis, there was really no other way for this to play out. Davis would not have accepted the job if he thought he might have to legitimately defend Cohen and, by scoring a win, harm the attack on Trump.
"Oh the outrage when Clinton lied about having “sex with that woman”, yet they don’t seem to mind that Trump did the exact same thing, lied about the two women he paid off (right before the election) to keep quiet about their sexual encounter."
-- I've consistently said I don't believe Trump and believe he did have the affairs.
I also said that: Eh, Clinton got away with rape, and we were told it was just sex. So, even though *I personally* don't approve of Trump's behavior, I've been told what the rules are for presidents, and his behavior falls firmly in the rules of the game set out before me.
Sorry. Blame the people who drew up the rules; I don't like Trump. He's a cad and a bad person. But, cads and bad people are allowed to be president.
John said...
But you don't even have any evidence Trump colluded with Russia.
It wouldn't matter to you if I did.
Now you want to get Trump for something they have been doing for decades.
You don't think it's wrong though. Or do you only think it's wrong if the other team does it?
Are you really this stupid?
Hillary Clinton literally sold the United States out to Russia for $145 million dollars.
Hillary Clinton selling North American Uranimum to Russia was the definition of conspiracy/collusion.
And you want to impeach Trump on an evidence free assertion that he "colluded" with Russia despite:
1. He has opened up gas/oil drilling which Russia has a vested interest in limiting and reversed energy policies explicitly supported by people who took huge monetary amounts from Russia.
2. He has directly confronted Russia in Syria to the point of killing hundreds of Russian irregulars.
3. He has imposed the strongest sanctions on Russia in decades.
4. He is shipping arms and support to Ukraine directly contravening Obama's policy.
We know exactly what is going on.
We are informed and we are making conscious decisions that involve critical thinking and active deduction.
You want to take away the moral clarity because you know it makes your side look like the despicable amoral scum you are.
Trump should just laugh at Cohen, but he should pardon Manafort, who would never have been prosecuted but for Mueller's search for the great white whale.
Pretty simple: Clinton lied under oath. That's was his crime. If he wasn't under oath, there is no crime, he wouldn't have been impeached, and he wouldn't have lost his Law license.
Uh, Inga, your comparison is ridiculous.
1) Clinton had the sex in the Oval Office instead of discharging (heh) his duties as President. Trump's were ages before he even considered running, and he still denies it, we're all just pretending we know he actually did on the mistaken assumption that payoff to someone threatening to make a claim means guilt.
2) Clinton's lies were under oath in the Paula Jones case. Trump... actually didn't lie about anything that's been proven, he just paid some people to not talk about it, and all we have for even that much is Cohen's word.
Inga...Allie Oop said...
“Or do you only think it's wrong if the other team does it
Oh the outrage when Clinton lied about having “sex with that woman”, yet they don’t seem to mind that Trump did the exact same thing, lied about the two women he paid off (right before the election) to keep quiet about their sexual encounter. When Trump lies, it’s a yawn, when Clinton lied he was impeached and still is brought up daily by you folks.
What is wrong with you people? Runaway hypocrisy...and worse.
Poor stupid Inga.
Trump had consensual sex with women while he was married.
He paid them to shut up with a standard NDA.
We knew all that.
Completely different than Bill Clinton.
You knew Clinton Raped and abused women. You voted for him. You are a piece of shit.
You should put some ice on that.
You know you have to wonder why Michael Cohen would choose Lanny Davis, Clinton Corporation Hack and Schlockmeister Supreme as his lawyer. Lanny's loyalty is to House Clinton as he has shown over and over again. I'm beginning to think that Cohen is not too bright.
But go ahead Cohen--keep on relying on Lanny Davis's advice. We're talking stuck on stupid here.
Qwinn: I'm not assuming he had the affair just because people have claimed he did. I'm basing it on Trump's known character.
Comanche: That's why I said this was the only way this was ending once Davis was chosen.
Clinton had sex with an intern in the oval office, and lied about it. Clinton lied about all sorts of sexual indiscretions during his long life in politics. and actually raped Juanita Broderick - not that the media are curious about it and want to sit down with her and ask pinpoint questions. Nah.
Inga...Allie Oop said...
Actually the Steele Dossier has held up pretty damn well, but your conspiracy theory sites won’t tell you that, lol.
It is shorter to just admit you are really stupid.
Trump had a crappy lawyer, but -- such is poetic justice -- now Cohen has one too.
Enjoyed the above comment.
I think that we are just scratching the surface on Cohen. And I sort of suspect that Mueller will hold onto everything that he possibly can on the collusion case, if one exists, until it can all be rolled out in a gigantic indictment so that Trump can't play each news cycle the way he wants it, in attacking the Special Counsel's office.
My own suspicion: Any concrete grounds for indictment would have been leaked long ago. Trump has been wrecking the Mueller narrative from the beginning and they would have done anything to stop it.
I think it more likely that Mueller in the end will offer up a “report” that finds no actual violation of law but will be full of anti-Trump bullshit in hopes that it will be enough for impeachment. Impeachment does not require a violation of law.
As for Cohen, I think he has served his purpose and will become a footnote in the history of the Trump presidency.
Aside from its fake news value Cohen’s plea agreement gives nothing substantial and proves nothing, except that Cohen is apparently an idiot. Mueller can put in any wording he wants in a plea agreement. I think that is all Mueller has, the wording in the plea agreement and I doubt that Cohen will be useful for anything else.
A "criminal enterprise" is "a group of persons sharing a common purpose of engaging in criminal conduct, associated in an ascertainable structure distinct from a pattern of criminal activity, and with a continuity of existence, structure and criminal purpose beyond the scope of individual criminal incidents."
The best description of the Clinton Foundation I’ve ever run across.
BTw, I look forward to hearing Inga claim that the payoff DOES prove guilt. Cause, y'know, if Stormy was literally making up every single word of it, Inga wouldn't believe every single fabrication as if it had been indisputably proven in court even in the absence of any payment, and as if Trump couldn't legitimately evaluate that it'd be cheaper to pay the pron star to not lie than to defend against her false charges.
A better moral analogy is John Edwards adultery & paying his mistress campaign funds. Non-hypocrites were not ok with both, or were ok with both. Someone who is happy with one but not the other guy you think is on your "team"...
btw- the legal question for the jury was "is he hiding it from his wife or using the funds to influence the election." It's a question for the jury after looking at the evidence.
Edwards did not get convicted because the jury thought Edwards used the $$ to hide the baby and mistress from his wife. The law says the jury should convict if they thought it was to influence the election.
Oh the outrage when Clinton lied about having “sex with that woman”, yet they don’t seem to mind that Trump did the exact same thing...
The predicate behind Clinton's allegations involved unlawful conduct in the workplace while in high office - Governor and President -and lying under oath about it. Not the fact of him paying a settlement.
In no way the "same thing".
Matthew Sabian:
Ok, so since his "known character" apparently proves guilt despite a lack of evidence, exactly how do you guard against being conned by a porn star lying about it? Cause her character is so well established?
If Trump had been routinely paying women off for years, even before running, how would anyone reasonably conclude that this payoff was about influencing the election instead of the years long history of paying for silence?
Qwinn: It doesn't prove guilt in a court of law. But, I can believe a lot of things we can't prove in court.
“Completely different than Bill Clinton.”
Lordie, what a dummy you are. Clinton didn’t rape Monica Lewinsky, he took advantage of her youth, but the sex was consensual. Clinton had allegations of rape, no convictions. Guess what? Trump also had allegations of rape made against him, one by a girl who was 13 years old at the time. Why are allegations of rape OK for Trump, but not Clinton? Both men are despicable, but you people seem to forgive or disbelieve such allegations only when it comes to Trump.
I’d say that is Cultism. Seriously what is wrong with you people? Some of you are intelligent enough to remove yourselves from this deluded behavior. No?
Did Trump have consensual sex in the WHITE HOUSE with an intern? You know - on the job as president?
“BTW, I look forward to hearing Inga claim that the payoff DOES prove guilt.”
Quinn, still holding on to the belief that Trump is innocent of adultery, never mind his known history with his wives.
Just gotta shake my head here.
Matthew: Even outside of court. You may think Trump is a dog, but why is Stormy Daniels, of all people, any more credible? If you were weighing your distrust of Trump against someone whose credibility wasn't a joke, I could maybe see it, but I can't think of who could possibly be LESS credible. You're effectively stating that you'll believe anything anyone says Trump did. You have completely disabled your bullshit detector in only a single direction. That doesn't concern you?
how would anyone reasonably conclude that this payoff was about influencing the election instead of the years long history of paying for silence?
I have not seen all the evidence, but paying 2 women a few weeks before the election might not look good to a jury. I would not want to roll the dice to see how the jurors vote.
In the end, it's up to the jurors to decide these questions.
Qwinn said...
Matthew Sabian:
Ok, so since his "known character" apparently proves guilt despite a lack of evidence, exactly how do you guard against being conned by a porn star lying about it? Cause her character is so well established?
Going to jump in here.
If some porn star has a somewhat/mostly plausible story about a consensual encounter with Trump it will generally be believed.
If something comes out about something forcible/non-consensual? Nothings points to that. He makes passes and by all accounts takes no for an answer.
Numerous stories to this affect. Unlike Bill Clinton whom democrats love and is a known rapist of multiple women.
Juanita Broderick is far more credible than Stormy Daniels.
For starters, Juanita Broderick started out on team Clinton. Broderick was a Clinton campaign volunteer.
If Stormy's account of sex with Trump is true, it was consensual... and many years ago., Trump wasn't even in politics.
Post a Comment