Stormy Daniels Sues the President

Status
Not open for further replies.
Meadmaker said:
...I also can't get worked up about "bank fraud", if the only fraud was not disclosing exactly how he would spend the loan on the application. Besides, it was an equity line of credit. ....
Click to expand...
Well let's just throw all those bank laws out, go back to pre-2008 when the banks took everyone's money and invested it in loans people could not pay back then stuck the taxpayers with the bill when the housing equity market collapsed.

Great idea. No crime there. But selling loose cigarettes on NY streets or petty theft in a Ferguson minimart, those are some serious crimes.
 
The Big Dog said:
"coordination" "SDNY" "clean team."

Sorry, it is obvious, indeed the entire claim that it was done to avoid the appearance of bias is beyond silly.
Click to expand...
First off, "coordination" doesn't equal "an arm of". It means working together, stop with the hyperbole. Secondly, I see absolutely no reason why it's silly. Mueller has a bunch on his plate, there's not a whole lot of reason to keep going on his end, any possible appearance of bias is a reason not to, so follow the protocol and be done with it. I'm sure they'll share any relevant information. It's silly because...?

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
 
acbytesla said:
Ouch! We have way way too many people in prison and the dumbass DA wants to do that? He should be ashamed.
Click to expand...

Sure, and the religious will claim that as evidence of something. What thing, you ask? Something they cannot (or will not) identify.

Holy America is a god-fearing, christian nation, they will tell you, even though that is a lie.
 
The Big Dog said:
"coordination" "SDNY" "clean team."

Sorry, it is obvious, indeed the entire claim that it was done to avoid the appearance of bias is beyond silly.
Click to expand...

And we come full circle, back to your naked assertion that that you somehow have knowledge of why the Mueller team made the referral. :rolleyes:
 
Meadmaker said:
I realized I've been thinking about this case all wrong.

As I've noted, I can't get myself all worked up about "illegal campaign contributions". Hush money isn't really a campaign contribution, even if you squint really hard when you read the definition.
Click to expand...

Many lawyers disagree with you.


Meadmaker said:
I also can't get worked up about "bank fraud", if the only fraud was not disclosing exactly how he would spend the loan on the application. Besides, it was an equity line of credit. I've got one. It would never occur to me to spend it on hush money to a sex worker, but I don't need to inform the bank about it.
Click to expand...

It's a potential felony, whether you can get worked up about it or not, as pointed out earlier:
ponderingturtle said:
And yet embezzling that paltry sum is a serious felony in NY.
Click to expand...

Meadmaker said:
On the other hand, no one gives away 130,000 dollars, ever. Michael Cohen claims that he took out a substantial loan, secured by his personal residence, in order to give money to Stephanie Clifford, so she wouldn't talk about having sex with Donald Trump, and he did it, .......just because. And Donald Trump knew nothing about it.

Somebody's lying. However, that's not a crime, so no one ought to have their home invaded or searched or anything like that, so where's the criminal element? Well, Michael Cohen clearly expected something in return for his 130k investment in Donald Trump's political future. Was that something that The Donald could only do for him after he was elected?

If so, that's bribery. This is a bribery investigation.
Click to expand...

No.
 
About Meadmaker's theory of Cohen bribing Trump. It doesn't wash with me because of Cohen's expressed love of Trump, and whose actions seem to me to support that. Cohen might want some grand consideration from Trump after his Presidential win, but I don't see him doing anything at all underhanded against Trump to secure such. To me Cohen is quite the loyalist re.Trump and family.

Now, what will be fascinating to behold is the degree to which Cohen's loyalty is to be tested... And reciprocally, how considerate Trump will remain for his fixer/attack dog.
 
Meadmaker said:
I realized I've been thinking about this case all wrong.

As I've noted, I can't get myself all worked up about "illegal campaign contributions". Hush money isn't really a campaign contribution, even if you squint really hard when you read the definition. I also can't get worked up about "bank fraud", if the only fraud was not disclosing exactly how he would spend the loan on the application. Besides, it was an equity line of credit. I've got one. It would never occur to me to spend it on hush money to a sex worker, but I don't need to inform the bank about it.
Click to expand...

And yet Jareds dad when to prison for much less. That should clearly never have happened and his witness tampering taping his brother in law with a prostitute and giving the tape to his sister is just how people in this class do business. It bears nothing about any such videos of trump as potential blackmail material.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Well let's just throw all those bank laws out, go back to pre-2008 when the banks took everyone's money and invested it in loans people could not pay back then stuck the taxpayers with the bill when the housing equity market collapsed.

Great idea. No crime there. But selling loose cigarettes on NY streets or petty theft in a Ferguson minimart, those are some serious crimes.
Click to expand...

Exactly laws are only meant to be applied to non wealthy black people, the right whites are and should be above the law. That is something I am sure Meadmaker would agree with.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
And we come full circle, back to your naked assertion that that you somehow have knowledge of why the Mueller team made the referral. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I can't believe that there is a single reasonable person who has read my numerous explanations and my cites to relevant authority (and who understands them) that believes this.

go back to posting laughing dogs
 
Lurch said:
About Meadmaker's theory of Cohen bribing Trump. It doesn't wash with me because of Cohen's expressed love of Trump, and whose actions seem to me to support that. Cohen might want some grand consideration from Trump after his Presidential win, but I don't see him doing anything at all underhanded against Trump to secure such. To me Cohen is quite the loyalist re.Trump and family.

Now, what will be fascinating to behold is the degree to which Cohen's loyalty is to be tested... And reciprocally, how considerate Trump will remain for his fixer/attack dog.
Click to expand...

Bribes aren't malicious.

Perhaps "bribery" isn't the right word. However, if there was some sort of quid pro quo, in which Cohen said, "I will pay off Stormy in exchange for some post-election favor." that's bribery, or some other form of criminal corruption.

Elected officials trade favors all the time, but as Rod Blogoyovich(sp?) learned, you have to be subtle about it. Trump isn't known for his subtlety. If he made a deal with Cohen, and that deal involved in any way the use of his (future) presidential powers, it was a crime, and Trump can, and should, be thrown from office.

But, that is speculation. I won't claim to have evidence of it. I just find it odd that someone would pay someone 130,000 dollars without some sort of motivation.
 
Meadmaker said:
Bribes aren't malicious.

Perhaps "bribery" isn't the right word. However, if there was some sort of quid pro quo, in which Cohen said, "I will pay off Stormy in exchange for some post-election favor." that's bribery, or some other form of criminal corruption.

Elected officials trade favors all the time, but as Rod Blogoyovich(sp?) learned, you have to be subtle about it. Trump isn't known for his subtlety. If he made a deal with Cohen, and that deal involved in any way the use of his (future) presidential powers, it was a crime, and Trump can, and should, be thrown from office.

But, that is speculation. I won't claim to have evidence of it. I just find it odd that someone would pay someone 130,000 dollars without some sort of motivation.
Click to expand...

Then you are not on the supreme court, they have made this kind of bribery much more legal. See Bob McDonnell

"Mr. McDonnell, a Republican who served from 2010 to 2014, was charged with using his office to help Jonnie R. Williams Sr., who had provided the McDonnells with luxury products, loans and vacations worth more than $175,000 when Mr. McDonnell was governor. The gifts themselves were legal, and the question in the case was whether they were part of a corrupt bargain in which Mr. McDonnell reciprocated by using his office to help Mr. Williams."

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/us/politics/supreme-court-bob-mcdonnell-virginia.html
 
The Big Dog said:
I can't believe that there is a single reasonable person who has read my numerous explanations and my cites to relevant authority (and who understands them) that believes this.

go back to posting laughing dogs
Click to expand...

People who understand your posts seem to think you're completely off base. Your repeated assertions are not fact, you just think they are. Every reasonable person that has taken the time to explain why you're wrong has been met with your standard dose of handwaving magic. Then you come back to this same. Exact. Argument. Every time.

"I've explained this, I'm right, if Trump doesn't do what I am saying he should do, it means that he is wrong, I'm just giving the best possible path because I have absolutely no experience, education, or schooling with regards to contract law, but trust me I checked google."

None of that is a solid argument at all, but it's all you've given. Your repeated claims of no one proving you wrong falls on deaf ears.
 
The Big Dog said:
I can't believe that there is a single reasonable person who has read my numerous explanations and my cites to relevant authority (and who understands them) that believes this.

go back to posting laughing dogs
Click to expand...

So instead of addressing anything, you throw out a fallacy.

Par for the *********** course.

:dl:
 
TheL8Elvis said:
So instead of addressing anything, you throw out a fallacy.
Click to expand...

Coolz, teh laughing dog.

Now the ironic thing is that your post was a bare assertion supported by nothing, not even a laughing dog (but you corrected that "toot sweet" because of course you did), while my reply actually referred to my citations to things like the Fed Regs, the Neal Kayal article and other associated authorities.

Mueller had to go to the AAG for authority to search Cohen's office, Mueller had to go to the AAG if he wanted to expand the scope of his probes, Mueller had no authority to enlist the SDNY DA's office.

These are all undisputed conclusions of law as I have shown.

But I invite you to continue to post all the laughing dogs you want, because you know what they say about the Rule of the Laughing Dog.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom