Cont: Breaking: Mueller Grand Jury charges filed, arrests as soon as Monday pt 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Foolmewunz said:
Bismarck Tribune - ND Power Plant Welcomes Lower Coal Standards, ND man busted for sex offense, local celebrity says something
Nothing from Washington on page 1.
Click to expand...

Wow, Bismarck Tribune beats the Fargo Forum? I'm kind of surprised because of the population difference between the two.
 
plague311 said:
Wow, Bismarck Tribune beats the Fargo Forum? I'm kind of surprised because of the population difference between the two.
Click to expand...

The Bismarck Tribune states on it's website it is devoted to local news;it probably seldoms covers national or world news.
That is not unusual, a great many newspapers nowdays devote themsleved primarily to local news.leaving national and world news to others.
 
dudalb said:
The Bismarck Tribune states on it's website it is devoted to local news;it probably seldoms covers national or world news.
That is not unusual, a great many newspapers nowdays devote themsleved primarily to local news.leaving national and world news to others.
Click to expand...

In the UK, local newspapers cover local stories, national newspapers cover national and international stories. Regional papers cover both, but tend to have very few national or international stories.

I know other places where local papers cover both.
 
crescent said:
I searched and searched for the post that started that mini-meme a year or two ago, but I couldn't find it.
Click to expand...

Look for applecorpred. I think theprestige has done it a couple of times unironically. Someone else, as well, perhaps, although it's not like I keep track.
 
dudalb said:
The Bismarck Tribune states on it's website it is devoted to local news;it probably seldoms covers national or world news.
That is not unusual, a great many newspapers nowdays devote themsleved primarily to local news.leaving national and world news to others.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that make it useless for the point attempting to be made? I'm not being snarky, but if it's a local paper that only reports local news, then the information from Washington shouldn't, by definition, show up.

ETA: Here's the Fargo Forum's site. If it makes a difference there are only 2 mentions at all about this whole thing. One that says Cohen doesn't want to be dirtied by a presidential pardon, and the other that Trump is coming back to ND. Nothing about the rest of it.
 
Last edited:
One important result from yesterday"Mueller is stronger then ever;his political muscle has greatly increased; I am betting you won't be hearing nearly as many attacks on him from House Republicans as we have been.
 
dudalb said:
It's official: Alan Dershowitz has totally lost it.
Click to expand...

I think you've missed the point, which is that complete compliance with federal election laws is essentially impossible. Hillary certainly didn't pull it off.

In regards to Trump's alleged violation by paying off Stormy, that's a pretty weak theory. In fact, federal election law makes it illegal for Trump to use campaign money to do so even if he declared the expenditure. It would fall under "personal use", since it's an expenditure that Trump would have made even if he hadn't been running for office. The legal theory under which Trump cannot pay Stormy with his own money because it's a campaign expense is in direct conflict with the prohibition on campaign spending for personal use. And the prohibition on personal use spending seems the much stronger case.
 
Ziggurat said:
I think you've missed the point, which is that complete compliance with federal election laws is essentially impossible. Hillary certainly didn't pull it off.

In regards to Trump's alleged violation by paying off Stormy, that's a pretty weak theory. In fact, federal election law makes it illegal for Trump to use campaign money to do so even if he declared the expenditure. It would fall under "personal use", since it's an expenditure that Trump would have made even if he hadn't been running for office. The legal theory under which Trump cannot pay Stormy with his own money because it's a campaign expense is in direct conflict with the prohibition on campaign spending for personal use. And the prohibition on personal use spending seems the much stronger case.
Click to expand...

Well that's a ******* lie if I've ever heard one. If he would have paid it either way, why didn't he think of it for 8 years after it happened?
 
Ziggurat said:
I think you've missed the point, which is that complete compliance with federal election laws is essentially impossible. Hillary certainly didn't pull it off.

In regards to Trump's alleged violation by paying off Stormy, that's a pretty weak theory. In fact, federal election law makes it illegal for Trump to use campaign money to do so even if he declared the expenditure. It would fall under "personal use", since it's an expenditure that Trump would have made even if he hadn't been running for office. The legal theory under which Trump cannot pay Stormy with his own money because it's a campaign expense is in direct conflict with the prohibition on campaign spending for personal use. And the prohibition on personal use spending seems the much stronger case.
Click to expand...

You are deliberately missing the point.
Yes, election law violations aren't uncommon, which is why fines are the usual remedy.
But Trump (with the help of Cohen) was covering up the breach of the law, using illegal means (bank fraud) and consistently lied about it and did everything to undermine the credibility of any investigation.
The cover-up is not only worse than the crime, it is also undeniable.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
You are deliberately missing the point.
Yes, election law violations aren't uncommon, which is why fines are the usual remedy.
But Trump (with the help of Cohen) was covering up the breach of the law, using illegal means (bank fraud) and consistently lied about it and did everything to undermine the credibility of any investigation.
The cover-up is not only worse than the crime, it is also undeniable.
Click to expand...

First, if the payment wasn't a crime (and I don't believe it was, despite Cohen's plea deal), then nobody was covering up a breach of the law. Bank fraud is a crime in its own right, but that may be entirely on Cohen. Lying to the public isn't a crime, and you can be sure politicians will never make it one. I have seen no evidence that Trump lied to federal investigators. Have you? If so, please share with the class.
 
plague311 said:
Well that's a ******* lie if I've ever heard one. If he would have paid it either way, why didn't he think of it for 8 years after it happened?
Click to expand...

Because that's when she started making noise. Same reason he didn't pay her when he launched his campaign. He's paid hush money to other mistresses long before he ever ran for office, so there's clearly precedent.
 
Gee, every legal expert I have heard says the payment from campaign funds to Stormy was a crime.
But keep up the denial, it's amusing.
 
Ziggurat said:
First, if the payment wasn't a crime (and I don't believe it was, despite Cohen's plea deal), then nobody was covering up a breach of the law. Bank fraud is a crime in its own right, but that may be entirely on Cohen. Lying to the public isn't a crime, and you can be sure politicians will never make it one. I have seen no evidence that Trump lied to federal investigators. Have you? If so, please share with the class.
Click to expand...

What did he plead guilty to, then? Jaywalking?
 
The Great Zaganza said:
You are deliberately missing the point.
Yes, election law violations aren't uncommon, which is why fines are the usual remedy.
But Trump (with the help of Cohen) was covering up the breach of the law, using illegal means (bank fraud) and consistently lied about it and did everything to undermine the credibility of any investigation.
The cover-up is not only worse than the crime, it is also undeniable.
Click to expand...

And, it could very well have been the difference between winning and losing, so it was vastly more significant than most violations.
 
Ziggurat said:
First, if the payment wasn't a crime (and I don't believe it was, despite Cohen's plea deal), then nobody was covering up a breach of the law. Bank fraud is a crime in its own right, but that may be entirely on Cohen. Lying to the public isn't a crime, and you can be sure politicians will never make it one. I have seen no evidence that Trump lied to federal investigators. Have you? If so, please share with the class.
Click to expand...

1/ On what basis would you -- in contrast with federal prosecutors, a federal judge, Cohen's lawyers and Cohen himself -- conclude that making six-figure payoffs to influence the outcome of a presidential election and lying about them is not a crime? You think Cohen could have won a trial, or what?

2/ Trump hasn't had a chance to lie to federal investigators because his lawyers won't allow him to talk to them. They themselves insist he will perjure himself.
 
Dr. Keith said:
What did he plead guilty to, then? Jaywalking?
Click to expand...

The question isn't what he pled guilty to, but whether he actually is guilty. Can you honestly not envision why he might plead guilty to something he's not actually guilty of? Because it's really a no-brainer.
 
Ziggurat said:
The question isn't what he pled guilty to, but whether he actually is guilty. Can you honestly not envision why he might plead guilty to something he's not actually guilty of? Because it's really a no-brainer.
Click to expand...

One common reason to plead guilty is to evade prosecution for more -- and more serious -- crimes. That doesn't mean that the defendant didn't commit the crimes he admitted, or that those acts weren't part of larger crimes.
 
Ziggurat said:
Because that's when she started making noise. Same reason he didn't pay her when he launched his campaign. He's paid hush money to other mistresses long before he ever ran for office, so there's clearly precedent.
Click to expand...

And then there is this case showing that he didn't pay it until he started running for President. Why is that less precedent than the case you cite? Because it's convenient for you?

ETA: Do you have a link to something show she started making noise first? It kind of looks like she was approached rather than she was the one doing the approaching.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
The question isn't what he pled guilty to, but whether he actually is guilty. Can you honestly not envision why he might plead guilty to something he's not actually guilty of? Because it's really a no-brainer.
Click to expand...

I expect there will be plenty of corroboration in among those 1 million or so documents seized by the FBI from Cohen's office.
 
Bob001 said:
One common reason to plead guilty is to evade prosecution for more -- and more serious -- crimes. That doesn't mean that the defendant didn't commit the crimes he admitted, or that those acts weren't part of larger crimes.
Click to expand...

A plea deal isn't just about avoiding prosecution, it's also about minimizing the penalty. The penalty for campaign law violation he pled to isn't going to be large. It can be more than made up for by softening the recommended sentence of the other crimes. So the prosecutor could easily offer Cohen a deal where he comes out ahead by pleading to a crime he didn't commit.

Now, this is obviously not proof that it wasn't a campaign law violation. You have to argue on the merits, and I have done so. But this analysis of plea incentives does demonstrate that the existence of a plea cannot constitute proof that he's actually guilty of that crime.
 
Ziggurat said:
First, if the payment wasn't a crime (and I don't believe it was, despite Cohen's plea deal), then nobody was covering up a breach of the law. Bank fraud is a crime in its own right, but that may be entirely on Cohen. Lying to the public isn't a crime, and you can be sure politicians will never make it one. I have seen no evidence that Trump lied to federal investigators. Have you? If so, please share with the class.
Click to expand...

One, it was a crime. Just because his orangeness says it wasn't doesn't make it so. A prosecutor nor a judge is going to allow one to plead guilty to that which isn't.

Two, the candidate Trump directed him to do it which make a Trump as guilty.

Three, there certainly has been other crimes including multiple counts of obstruction of justice, Conspiracy to defraud the United States. And this is almost certainly the tip of the iceberg. When Trump writes his son fallacious statement and Jr. testifies to that before congress he is subborning perjury. Trump's inclination to fight and lie at every junction is not serving him well.

Trump has no ethics. Never has. It's catching up to him. As President, it is impossible to avoid scrutiny.
 
Last edited:
WilliamSeger said:
Best twitter response (paraphrased): "You can't give me a ticket! Everyone speeds!"
Click to expand...

I've not forgotten my father's words about Nixon: "Every President commits crimes." We were in the middle of an argument. Funny how relevant that excuse is to this day.

As for Dershowitz, he had a reasonable reply that when Trump paid Cohen the money for the two payoffs, that was personal money and not campaign money.

Couple problems, no declarations were made about the expenses and I doubt Trump can show that money didn't come out of some campaign related fund. He was right though a good attorney could show Cohen was motivated to lie that the money was campaign related. OTOH, why pay the women off at that time, OTOH, it still would have been legal for Trump to pay them off with his own money.

I'm sure Mueller has a lot more to come.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
And what a coincidence, Trump has a medal of honor to award today. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

are you suggesting that the award ceremony that was announced in July 2018 and scheduled for today to honor Sergeant John Chapman for his actions during the Battle at Takur Ghar was some sort of set up?

huh.
 
Ziggurat said:
I think you've missed the point, which is that complete compliance with federal election laws is essentially impossible. Hillary certainly didn't pull it off....
Click to expand...
Cohen's conviction of a felony contradicts your personal opinion.

And aren't you comparing some questionable donations the Clintons (respectively) had to give back? The analogy fails on over-generalizing kinds of campaign election violations.
 
Last edited:
The Big Dog said:
are you suggesting that the award ceremony that was announced in July 2018 and scheduled for today to honor Sergeant John Chapman for his actions during the Battle at Takur Ghar was some sort of set up?

huh.
Click to expand...

I'd say it's more to point out the hilarity of a man with literally no honor at all handing out a medal for such.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom