Cohen: Trump Was a Co-conspirator in Crimes

T-T-T-Trump is a crook who shhhhhould bbbbe imppppppeached...says former President Obama....

 

Yes. So, far Mueller and his ilk have been firing one dud after another at Trump. Mueller, the FBI, and the DOJ have been turned into political assets for Trump - astonishing foolishness.

 

Err, perhaps you could explain this post. It seems facially absurd.

 

Is that what he says.....and here he claimed he was a Constitutional Attorney. Tell him he should check with Dershowitz and the Lefts Practicing Constitutional Attorney Jonathon Turley.

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/michael-cohens-plea-deal-explained

 

Trump's approval numbers rise every time his opposition launches another frivolous attack that is easily deflected.
When even prominent Democrats feel compelled to defend Trump from Deep State attacks Trump's base of support expands.

 

Just cite the criminal statute - if you can.

 

WAPO said Mueller was a complete major victory for Mueller. Now he comes with 8 convictions on fraud charges dating back from decades ago.


Of course, WAPO didn't want to focus on the 10 counts of mistrial for the tax evasion charges.


Nor that Cohen wont be uhm assisting the Feds anymore.

 

You must have missed Cohen's lawyer standing there and saying he had some information for Mueller.
The story I saw said there had not been enough time for the FBI to vet his claims yet.

 

And Manafort was clearly denied a fair trial.

 

And Rudy Guiliani who clearly stated just a couple days ago......Truth is not Truth.....Between those three guys Trump is sure to walk even without F Lee Baily and Johnny Cochran....There is still hope for The Mudville 9, Keep the faith, my brother. It is always darkest right before you get arrested in a predawn raid. Remember that!

 

Standing before Judge William H. Pauley III, Cohen admitted guilt on two criminal counts: willfully causing an unlawful corporate contribution and making an excessive campaign contribution.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...n-may-implicate-trump/?utm_term=.72e16ec4d89d

 

No I didn't miss the Clintonista, Lanny Davis has been trying to get Mueller to take another look at Cohen. Of course Mueller knows about Lanny's bias for all things Clinton.



Mueller has been throwing the book at Manafort, presumably in hopes he’d spill the beans on Russia collusion. Facing decades in prison, he has not been able to provide Mueller anything supporting the claim. Cohen’s attorney Lanny Davis has talked a big game about help he can provide Mueller, but even Mueller didn’t seem to think the Cohen case was worth hanging on to. And he kept Manafort, so that’s saying something.

When federal prosecutors induced Cohen to plead out, the most they got from him was to claim that non-disclosure agreements he arranged with two women were actually campaign contributions. He didn’t cop to anything in the dossier that has undergirded the Russia investigation — not an alleged visit to Prague to arrange treasonous collusion, not any involvement with the hacking of Democratic emails.


Still, Andrew McCarthy suggests the entire reason Mueller held onto the Manafort case was so he could squeeze him on Trump-Russia collusion. That remains the optimistic vision for the Resistance.



As Byron York notes, “The importance of the financial crimes case against Manafort was never the financial crimes themselves. It was the prosecutors’ hope that, by charging the hell out of the offenses alleged, by playing hardball with the defendant with a guns-drawn-at-dawn search-warrant raid, by jailing him over a debatable obstruction of justice charge that Manafort could be pressured into spilling what prosecutors apparently thought were a lot of beans about the Trump campaign and Russia in the 2016 election.”


He notes that as of this date, there is still no support for the theory from Manafort, national security adviser Michael Flynn, or deputy campaign manager and Manafort aide Rick Gates, all of whom have been investigated and charged with crimes, and that none of those crimes included a Trump-Russia conspiracy. “Could such a conspiracy exist, and Flynn and Gates be totally out of it?”


Nothing in Manafort’s legal troubles implicates Trump......snip~


http://thefederalist.com/2018/08/22/...ns-legal-woes/

 

It will be easier for them to get Manafort on the remaining charges in the next trail for them.
Of course they may not need to retry on those once they add up the years from the next trial.
Maybe save us some money. Right?

 

Well there was 30 hrs of McGhan testifying, a WH Counsel. Oh and don't forget Trumps other attorney, Jay Sekulow…..the one that said Trump wont be testifying or talking to Mueller.

So it looks like all that Joy joy by the leftness will have to cling to that BO the Peep Hope, and change he left in their pockets.

 

Will it be easier with tax evasion and Gates' testimony on how Manafort didn't know about the Money Gates was stealing from him? Or will Jurors be inclined to think its overkill for political reasons?

 

5. Campaign Finance Violations Might Implicate Trump, But Might Not

The big excitement in the Resistance over Cohen’s guilty plea is that Cohen says he made illegal campaign contributions by paying two women for non-disclosure agreements. These payments were later reimbursed by Trump. Reimbursements for illegal campaign contributions would be a problem for Trump since he didn’t report them on his Federal Election Commission reports.


There are a few things to consider. One is whether non-disclosure agreements even are campaign contributions, a not-insignificant hurdle to overcome. If that burden is met, the question would also be how to handle the violation, including by fine or trial — the latter being a not-insignificant difficulty when the candidate is now the president.


The most recent historical analog to this situation is the John Edwards case. The 2008 vice presidential nominee for the Democratic Party was charged with taking and conspiring to take illegal contributions in excess of what the law allowed, and lying about it by not including the contributions on forms filed with the Federal Election Commission. The contributions went to his mistress Rielle Hunter, with whom he had a daughter.


The government claimed the payments were campaign contributions since he was in the middle of a campaign and trying to conceal his affair. Edwards, however, said the hush money was to conceal the affair from his wife. That case resulted in zero convictions — one acquittal and a deadlock on five other counts. The Justice Department never tried the five counts again. The Trump situation is different, dealing with reimbursed payments for non-disclosure agreements. If they were considered campaign contributions, it would be covered here.


A few months ago, Cohen said the payments had nothing to do with the campaign, claiming “people are mistaking this for a thing about the campaign. What I did defensively for my personal client, and my friend, is what attorneys do for their high-profile clients. I would have done it in 2006. I would have done it in 2011. I truly care about him and the family — more than just as an employee and an attorney.”


Now he claims he made these payments in concert with Trump for the “principal purpose of influencing an election,” as his attorney Lanny Davis put it. Perhaps he has evidence to support this claim, and can convince others that Trump wasn’t far more interested in the purposes of protecting his marriage, his reputation, his children, or his businesses — just the campaign.


Federal Election Commission experts disagree whether such reimbursed payments would meet the standard for a campaign law violation, for what it’s worth. And there are conflicting precedents in FEC law about whether contributions such as Cohen’s are part of a pattern that pre-date the campaign. This could mean that if Trump ever paid for a non-disclosure agreement prior to the campaign, it would help his case. But as McCarthy noted months ago, the non-disclosure agreements — and not any silliness about Russia or obstruction — were Trump’s real legal threat.


There is also some disagreement about how an undisclosed non-disclosure agreement, even if held to be a campaign contribution, compares next to other campaign finance violations. The Obama campaign, for example, had to pay a $375,000 fine for concealing major donors’ contributions in the weeks before the 2008 election, among other reporting irregularities.....snip~


http://thefederalist.com/2018/08/22/...ns-legal-woes/


Dershowitz already gave his analysis and with Campaign Financing Laws. Seems it runs along with what Molly is saying.

 

Sekulow is a clown. He was on Hannity's radio show with Rudy making an ass of himself a couple weeks ago proving that he is another TV doofus attorney. Good luck with him. Before it's over that idiot might be disbarred and jailed...lol

 

Gates skates because he jumped on the bus early. That's how it always works in our legal system.

 

Some clown that got Trump to see the light and the Perjury trap that Mueller and the leftness wanted so so bad. That it was like a wet dream for them.

It wasn't luck it was Constitutional Law. Maybe the leftness can try and get Trump to testify to something after his re-election.

 

Why hasn't that worked for Flynn? Could it be the Clinton Attorneys just aren't all that good when it comes to prosecuting others and are only good at defending Clintons?

 

Perjury traps only work for lying scumbags like Trump and Clinton. People that tell the truth don't worry about testifying under oath. What does that tell you????

 

Flynn will do very little, if any jail time. He just got mixed up with the wrong crowd, then saw the light and started telling the truth. I wish him and his family all the best.

 

Seems it works for the political class.

I know a lot of bruthas in Prison keep saying the same thing.

 

So Flynn is the Exception.....to the All included rule, huh?