• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lothian said:
If what he did was legal, the criticism of his legal skills is unjustified and not a reason not to employ him.
Click to expand...

:eye-poppi

missing the whole "and Cohen rolled over on it to avoid more serious punishment for him and his wife on the tax claims" are we?
 
Hang on, is the argument now not that he didn't do it, but, schoolyard rules, he did it, but because he was tattled on, it shouldn't count?
 
BobTheCoward said:
Anything to make the sex stories go away.
Click to expand...

Ooookkkkkaaaayyyyyy....

Then, for example, Trump's payment to a paramour from his personal assets is a campaign contribution by your reckoning?

The FEC said otherwise under similar circumstances in the Edwards case
 
The Big Dog said:
:eye-poppi

missing the whole "and Cohen rolled over on it to avoid more serious punishment for him and his wife on the tax claims" are we?
Click to expand...
No I am clarifying a comment of yours that seems to criticize him for not structuring the deal in a legal way and also to criticize him for folding on a legal deal. One criticism has to be unfounded. It appears that you are rolling back on the first.
When you said "He could have structured the deal to fully comply with all campaign financing laws". He, according to you, did in fact do that.
 
Hang on, is the argument now not that he didn't do it, but, schoolyard rules, he did it, but because he was tattled on, it shouldn't count?
 
The Big Dog said:
Ooookkkkkaaaayyyyyy....

Then, for example, Trump's payment to a paramour from his personal assets is a campaign contribution by your reckoning?

The FEC said otherwise under similar circumstances in the Edwards case
Click to expand...

The FEC does not have jurisdiction in criminal matters. Furthermore, Edwards aides testified that they did not break any laws, nor did anyone attempt to influence them to do so. The outcome of that trial (1 acquittal and 2 mistrials) indicates the government didn't meet its burden.

I imagine having a key aide testifying that "yes, laws were broken and yes, they were broken at the direction of the candidate" might have a different outcome.
 
Lothian said:
No I am clarifying a comment of yours that seems to criticize him for not structuring the deal in a legal way and also to criticize him for folding on a legal deal. One criticism has to be unfounded. It appears that you are rolling back on the first.
When you said "He could have structured the deal to fully comply with all campaign financing laws". He, according to you, did in fact do that.
Click to expand...

It is complicated, let me walk you through it.

1. The deal as structured complied with FEC guidance
2. the deal could have and should have been structured better to avoid even the appearance of impropriety
3. Cohen abandoned the arguments that make step one true in order to avoid more serious punishments on his tax claims.
 
This thread has been shut down by the order of the Muller Investigation for excessive posts. Please use the new thread, located here.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis
 
This thread has been shut down by the order of the Muller Investigation for excessive posts. Please use the new thread, located here.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom