But the media has spent the past year and a half demanding that normal political activities are criminal, that it's illegal to know or associate with anyone from Russia, and that somehow the very concept that Trump had support and that people helped to get him elected is some sort of conspiracy against America. Moreover, the media seemingly have convince a whole lot of the mindless that they are right.
The Michael Cohen situation is almost guaranteed to not have anything to do with these contracts and payments with a variety of companies. Rumors that Mueller has interviewed many of these people (but yet passed off the issue to a US Attorney) actually work to suggest that these Trump related payments are not the issue at hand. Certainly nobody should believe that our Federal Government raided the personal attorney of the President because of a possible campaign violation over a payment to a porn star. That would be outrageous.
Unless we are hitting critical stages of deep state corruption, the Federal government has something completely different (than what we are reading about) that they are investigating regarding Michael Cohen. Cohen may very well be in real legal trouble. But we can very likely take at face value reports that Trump is not involved in any of it. I know that would be very upsetting to the media and the Trump haters, but that is where the facts are leading us.
24 comments:
Why did these American companies pay Cohen so much money for "services" that they didn't expect him to provide?
It's called a retainer
Wasn't legal work, wasn't a retainer.
Maybe he said he worked for the clinton foundation
"Wasn't legal work, wasn't a retainer."
Wasn't legal work "yet"
Retainers are as common as lawyers padding billable hours.
WP , with his JD.
So cool.
Russians hired a Lawyer for direct access to the President.
You have ID Trump as your Criminal, only one little problem, it is not a crime.
Bill/Hillary and renowned award winning hard hitting new reporter Chelsea had the Clinton ton Foundation that did amazing "work". With donations from around the globe.
Hillary gave "speeches" unreported private ones for millions of dollars to top fortune 100 companies.
Where they buying access, yes, not a crime.
https://www.clintonfoundation.org/contributors
If you go to the site you can donate up to $25,000,000.
"Wasn't legal work "yet" Retainers are as common as lawyers padding billable hours."
None of these companies wanted Cohen in any legal capacity. AT&T for instance paid him as a "political consultant".
I can't laugh at your mistake though, because "political consultant" can mean a lot of things, and there is more about the other companies. Whatever we know, there is another level beyond, and I'm no fool for snarky "correcting" people when what I "know" can itself be wrong.
But I'm pretty sure that Cohen is in trouble if most of that is true and Trump has already turned on him, denying that he was involved with any of it.
Still don't see a crime here. Unless you are leaning on fraud and misrepresentation.
Which would rather be hard to prove without the cooperation of the "victim".
Hence the question. From what I've seen I tend to think that Cohen was just scamming these companies, promising access and other special treatment that he probably couldn't deliver. If he did provide access to Trump, favorable policy decisions made by Trump, and things of that nature in exchange for those payments, and if Trump benefited from the arrangements, then you could see how conspiracy to commit bribery might arise. The devil is in the details.
then you could see how conspiracy to commit bribery might arise. The devil is in the details.
huh. if that's the case then we have thousands and thousands of lobbyists to arrest, pronto.
If the lobbyists are bribing staff of the senators, judges, etc - and some probably are - then they are committing crimes and probably should be arrested.
That was kind of weird thing to say from a "drain the swamp" type.
define "bribe."
it's not necessarily an envelope full of 100'$.
it could be a steak dinner or a job after leaving the hill.
and calling it out should not be mistaken for condoning it.
I'm not going to define legal terms RRB, and then have people randomly dropping in arguing their misconceptions about it.
You know what a bribe is. You probably have a good idea where it is illegal. You appear to be trying to defend it, by "calling out thousands and thousands" of lobbyists. Whatever your point with that, my point here is that bribery or conspiracy to commit bribery may potentially be a crime that is consistent with Cohen's selling access and other favors. He works for Trump, or did at the time - he was not an intermediary. Depending on the details of his arrangements with Trump.
It is not "illogical" or "liberal logic" or "anything to get Trump" or whatever other straw arguments may be presented. Just pointing out where there actually is a potential crime.
You know what a bribe is. You probably have a good idea where it is illegal. You appear to be trying to defend it, by "calling out thousands and thousands" of lobbyists.
calling it for what it is is hardly defending it. you otoh, appear to be selective in your outrage re: cohen. in the annals of those who would be guilty of bribery as YOU define it, cohen had better take a number since there is a looooong line of the same criminals ahead of him.
It is not "illogical" or "liberal logic" or "anything to get Trump" or whatever other straw arguments may be presented. Just pointing out where there actually is a potential crime.
and one would think that after all this time, money, and resources spent, one would have identified at least a single potential crime.
think of it this way...
i will not have to worry about telling my not yet born grandchildren about this fiasco. they will get to witness it live and in real time since i expect it to be continuing well into their adolescent years.
The 3 or 4 days that Cohen's selling of access has been public, all THAT time is what you mean? Or are you confusing it with the investigation of Trump that's been going on for a year?
Or, more likely, as you do here, anything at all that might possibly impact Trump's guilt or innocence you automatically reject or defend as something someone else has done, or should have been already charged, or is just designed to "get Trump". If you could see how that looks to people outside your circle jerk, you'd be embarrassed about it.
well wp, i suppose circle jerks are in the eye of the beholder. how long has this 'russia, russia, russia' circle jerk been going on? i've lost track. and mueller has mucked things up so badly he's now been reduced to indicting companies that did not even exist...
This week, one of the Russian companies accused by Special Counsel Robert Mueller of funding a conspiracy to meddle in the 2016 U.S. presidential election was revealed in court to not have existed during the time period alleged by Mueller's team of prosecutors, according to a lawyer representing the defendant.
U.S. Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey asked Eric Dubelier, one of two lawyers representing the accused Russian company, Concord Management and Consulting LLC, if he was representing a third company listed in Mueller's indictment.
"What about Concord Catering?" Harvey asked Dubelier. "The government makes an allegation that there's some association. I don't mean for you to – do you represent them, or not, today? And are we arraigning them as well?"
"We're not," Dubelier responded. "And the reason for that, Your Honor, is I think we're dealing with a situation of the government having indicted the proverbial ham sandwich."
"That company didn't exist as a legal entity during the time period alleged by the government," Dubelier continued. "If at some later time they show me that it did exist, we would probably represent them. But for purposes of today, no, we do not."
https://www.dailywire.com/news/30556/disaster-mueller-indicted-russian-company-didnt-ryan-saavedra
this coup attempt is now operating to the theme music of the benny hill show.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQf2TiwBFHo
So Mueller indicted a company that didn't even exist at the time of the alleged crime?
And this clown show is still going on because?
And this clown show is still going on because?
imho, it continues at this point simply to try and salvage what's left of the smoldering ruin that is the FBI's reputation.
According to Cohen's lawyer ... I imagine that if Concord Catering does ever face the court, his argument will be addressed.
Dubelier is not Cohen's lawyer.
Methinks you're a little obsessed.
True but the point us, he isn't representing Concord Management and Concord Management isn't before the court, so he can say whatever he wants to about them. There's no reason, in that courtroom, for the prosecution to respond. I wouldn't put much stock in it.
Concord Catering, that is.
Post a Comment