TexasCHLforum.com

philbo wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 1:06 am

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Sun Sep 16, 2018 9:41 pmCohen pled guilty to two crimes that he did not commit and could not commit.

Sophistry at it's finest. Your conclusory statement is wrong on it's face. Lawschool 101... you can't plead guilty to a crime you can't commit.

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Sun Sep 16, 2018 9:41 pmBut here’s the problem...paying off Stormy for an NDA is not a campaign expenditure. Particularly because her claims of an affair with Trump predated the campaign and even if they didn’t, did not specifically arise out of the campaign. Since it’s not a campaign expenditure, the payment of it for, on behalf of, as directed by, and/or reimbursed by Trump...is not a contribution to the campaign by Cohen or Trump. This is from an FEC chairman. If SDNY has a different legal argument, let’s hear them make it in court. But they won’t because they already got him to plead.

The key here is whether the payments were made as a campaign expenditure, or whether the payments were made irrespective of the campaign. This would be the fact question for a jury.

Your conclusion is one possible outcome. If the payments would have been made irrespective of the campaign, cohen is not guilty. But, Cohen opted to plead guilty rather than test his defense before a jury, and given the evidence the government has in its possession (including tapes of his conversations with Trump and proof of conversations with AMI about their payments to hide the McDougal story) he had plenty of reason to choose the path did. Had it not been for the campaign, the evidence strongly suggests that neither payment would have been made, and a jury might reasonably find that the hush money paid was an expense that did not exist “irrespective of the campaign” (the relevant FEC standard), but rather only came about because of the rocky status of the Trump campaign just before the 2016 election.

Your contention that the incidents did not occur during the campaign, nor arise out of the campaign is not the relevant standard for prosecution. The question is rather why these payments occurred... and again a jury may have found sufficient evidence that the payments were made years later not to hush up the stories because of personal embarrassment, but because of the effect they may have had on the campaign itself. Trump could have paid these women at any time over the years, the fact that he directed cohen to do so when did, and then lie about it for months afterwards, could lead a reasonable person to conclude that the hush money was paid to directly benefit the campaign.

Bottom line, what former FEC chairmen or other talking heads espouse is irrelevant at this time. Cohen, his attorneys, the prosecution, and the judge agreed that cohen had met all the elements required by law when he plead guilty in court. Wishing otherwise won't change that.

philbo wrote: ↑Sun Sep 16, 2018 8:16 am

Jusme wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 10:53 amThe "campaign finance violations" that he plead guilty to, are not crimes.

Incorrect. Cohen violated federal campaign finance laws in two different ways: (1) He violated the long-standing ban on corporate political contributions under the Tillman Act of 1907 and (2) he violated the personal contribution limits in the Federal Election Campaign Act that restrict how much money an individual can provide to a presidential candidate. He also indicated that candidate Trump was involved with these violations of law.

Jusme wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 10:53 amHe cannot be charged with "campaign violations", because he was not seeking office.

This is just plain wrong. The Justice Department has noted in guidelines that campaign finance violations become crimes when they satisfy a monetary threshold and are committed with specific criminal intent — a threshold that Mr. Cohen’s violations met on both fronts. You can make a campaign violation and not be a candidate, to state otherwise is just wilful ignorance at this point.
https://www.justice.gov/criminal/file/1 ... ad#page=24

Jusme wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 10:53 amThe tax evasion, etc. are, so he will face the consequences for those. Paying someone as part of a non-disclosure agreement, is also not illegal, it is done all the time, not only by politicians, but celebrities, of all types.

It's true that nondisclosure agreements in and of themselves are not illegal. But, in this case cohen has admitted that the payments connected with those agreements were campaign related, not personal expenditures. Cohen further admits that the payments were made with the coordination and at the direction of a federal candidate. Those admissions make this a matter of campaign finance fraud... felonies for both violations in this matter.

dale blanker wrote:

Beiruty wrote:Trump has to stop self-inflicted wounds. Too many mayhem is going on in the west wing.

Are we headed for a Constitutional crisis when the president fires the special prosecutor (Mueller) for digging into Trump family business finances? This was just predicted by conservative columnist David Brooks on PBS tonight and I hope Brooks is wrong... the country has enough problems to deal with.

Too bad there is so much time wasted on this Russia thing...

dale blanker wrote:

bblhd672 wrote: I agree, let's never again in this thread mention President Faily McWorsethancarter

Oh yeah, Carter got the Nobel Peace Prize too.

bblhd672 wrote:

dale blanker wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote: Congress must approve foreign payments and gifts to federal employees per the emoluments clause. This is why Barack Obama was impeached when he accepted the Nobel peace prize along with it's accompanying cash payment from the government of Sweden.

Oh wait, no that didn't happen.

But didn't Obama donate the entire prize to charity? Should he have been impeached anyway? And didn't Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson each also receive the award and not be impeached?

I don't think Obama getting the award early in his 1st term made sense - he probably should have respectfully declined the award (?).

Sorry for being off topic but let's keep things straight...

I agree, let's never again in this thread mention President Faily McWorsethancarter

TreyHouston wrote:So can a president not have any business with any other country? This is getting to the point where the RIGHT is about to rise up. im SO SICK of this stuff!

dale blanker wrote:Please provide source references...
Lot's of folks have posted opinions about the Paris Agreement and/or climate change and that's fine but it would be more helpful if the source(s) of their data/conclusion were provided. There used to be a comprehensive analysis on climate change at epa.gov but I can't find it. I think it said that co2 levels have increased 50+% ppm monthly-average-wise compared to the last 800,000 years, caused mainly by fossil fuels. Does anyone recall this data?

On climate change and what to do about it, I tend to believe people like Tyson and Hawking. Of course they could be wrong but it seems to me that being a little extra conservative about the environment is a good bet anyway. I don't know whether the Paris Agreement is a "good deal" or not for the US but getting the world to agree on something that seems to be worthwhile is a good start.

I think it's neat that Georgetown, TX is going totally wind/solar for energy and that Texas was again the top wind power state with nearly 36 million megawatthours (MWh) of electricity.

Liberty wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:How about two items for gun owners, THIS WEEK?

Trump’s Interior Secretary IMMEDIATELY Reverses Obama’s Spiteful Lead Ammo Ban

A Promise Kept: Trump Signs Repeal of Obama-Era Social Security Gun Prohibition Rule

Good luck with that.
I posted that second story a few pages ago and they argued right on past like it never happened.

Actually it was a point conceded. To tell the truth I didn't even know about the 2 Obama restrictions were put on. The thing is that the COE and Post Office traps are onerous traps that potentially send the unwary to prison.

Reagan banned automatic Weapons, Bush Sr. Banned semi-autos from coming into the country, and Joined with Gabby Gifford on a gun control tour. Bill Clinton who claimed he would defend gun rights gave us the famous assault weapons ban .. Bush Jr., when he ran for president, claimed to be a 2nd amendment advocate, but promised to renew Bill Clinton's AWB if it came to his desk.

When it comes to gun rights we have been screwed over by every president since LBJ except maybe Nixon Ford and the peanut farmer. I remain skeptical. The born and raised New Yorker wrote in his book in 2000 The America We Deserve , “I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I also support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun,” He is if nothing else flexible on his stand.
He once claimed that he could shoot a man out in the open on Main Street and his supporters would still support him. I just want him to do what is right, and for us gun owners to remind him that he has more work to do. Yes, the chines trade agreements are important, so is the Mexican Border. Being able to go to our own parks and Post offices safely is important too and much simpler to fix.

philip964 wrote:http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/ ... -watergate

Dan Rather says Flynn scandal is bigger than Watergate.

In more important news Trump is meeting with Netanyahu today.

https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.reute ... SKBN15U0GB