Ex-Trump lawyer Michael Cohen 'strikes plea deal'

By your own statement a crime occurred when your house was broke into, a crime occurred and it can be investigated. Would the police start an investigation to see if your house had been broken into if it hadn't been broken into. I think not.

NOT according to the evidence submitted to the judge.

when are you going to stop repeating what Trump says the day before. has that EVER worked out for you? has it EVER been correct?

It was a plea deal and none of the charges were adjudicated. He was advised to plead guilty,by his attorney,the attorney for the Clinton Crime family, to something that was not a crime. His option was to plea and say in before the judge exactly what the federal prosecutor told to say or spend 66 years in jail. What Trump did in this case violated no campaign finance laws.

that plea of guilty if you read the transcripts came with a mountain of evidence given to the judge to back up Choens statements.

if you like I can give you even the page numbers where the statements from the prosecutors on this matter is asserted.

Why don't you look up the law. Because prosecutor says it is a crime does not make it so. Cohen was persecuted because he was connected to Trump to get anything that could be used against him and the two campaign violations he plead guilty to were not violations of the campaign regulations and laws. Of course it did not help him that had the Clinton Crime lawyer as his lawyer.

The transcript said 'we (the prosecutors) are prepared to submit texts, emails, documents and audio tapes to back up Choens plea.

OF COURSE! someone making a plea statement is not fact which is exactly why they submit evidence of which is in the god damn transcript!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

a 'transcript' is a document showing what the lawyers actually said in front of the judge...jesus h christ!

It doesn't matter what he has or submits if the law was not broken.

example of the evidence statement. This case is highly unusual in the amount of evidence that is collected to back up every single word of Choens statement.....as a matter of law

'communications between those individuals and Mr. Cohen. With respect to our evidence on Count Six, as the 3 defendant allocuted, we would prove at trial that in connection 4 with an application for a home equity line of credit, the 5 defendant made false statements to a bank about his true 6 financial condition, including about debts for which he was 7 personally liable and about his cash flow. 8 9 We would prove this through the following categories of evidence: 10 Bank records, including the home equity line of credit'

AND the more you push this bullshit the more we will just focus on that evidence

what does that have to do with campaign finance laws?

Wrong. They used campaign funds and that is a crime.

Right. Choen made those comments with full knowledge that he and the prosecutors had hard evidence to back up that specific claim (as well as pretty much every choosen word in that well thought out detailed plea)

if anyone should 'knowing something about the law' JimB might want to spend a little time reading the highlights of the transcript

Here is an article I just read about what I have been saying.

ttps://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/08/17_million_reasons_why_trump_not_guilty_of_campaign_violations.html

Campaign funds were not used Trump paid for them.

not

according

to

the

plea

evidence

more over, it doesnt matter where it came from, it matters what it was for. AND not reporting that payment to election board is a problem in of itself

First of all Cohen was not involved in the campaign. So he would have no knowledge of what was reported and what wasn't reported. His plea deal dose not involve Trump. If you want to talk about not reporting expenditures in a campaign you should talk to the DNC and the Hillary campaign that paid $12,000,000 for the fake Russian Dossier using campaign funds and did not report it to the FEC. I would not believe a thing in the plea evidence as Cohen has changed his story so many time it makes your head spin.

I am telling you that they know exactly where the money came from, where it went, each place it stopped along the way and there is no way in hell given the evidence given to the Judge that Choen would have made the explicit statement he did about intent without having strong evidence to back it up which as they say in the transcripts includes documents, text, emails and recordings

YOU are the person who needs to learn more about the specifics of this case and a bit more on your understanding of the law

oh and by the way, on these two payments its looking like its likely D Jr, Eric and Ivanka will be going to jail.

if you knew the details you would know why i say this

Stop reading blogs and thinking they are facts.

@JimB

If you give money with the explict intent to help and election and that money DOESNT go to the campaign fund that in of itself is a crime.

What Trump is saying is 'Its not a crime because I commited a crime to make it not a crime'

A. Its a crime to not report money that is for a campaign. REGARDLESS of where that money comes from OR where that money goes. its the intent that is the problem.

B. The amount was far to high for legal limits

Let me tell you something when you are dealing with the DOJ you don't stand a chance. Look at what happened to Gen Flynn. He plead guilty to something he did not do just to put and end to the Mueller pressure. He went bankrupt had to sell his house and they were threatening to go after his son. So he plead guilty to something he did not do. The same thing happened to Cohen as in regard to the two payments. There have been other that have had their lives destroyed because of this probe and have done nothing wrong and were never charged. That transcript is crap. It is a document created by the prosecutors and forced to be signed by someone who was forced into signing it as truthful. You would do the same thing even if you had done nothing wrong just to save what normal life you might have left.

Stop listening to the main stream media and taking them for being truthful.

You are confusing two things here, He/she said is not "evidence" it´s simply he/she said gossip.

Someone may believe Cohen but until there is hard evidence on the table, it´s just gossip.

no I am not.

documents, text messages, recordings and emails where submitted to the judge as evidence of the plea Choen was making and we know that because they say so in the transcript.

guys!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

when someone makes a plea every word is backed up with EVIDENCE submitted to the Judge.

more over, it doesnt matter where the money came from or where the money went. if its intent is to influence the campaign it doesnt matter where it came its illegal to not report it.

(of which they NEVER would have said that if they did not have strong evidence to support that assertion)

THEY

HAVE

THE

EVIDENCE

TO

BACK

UP

THE

STATEMENTS

Are you ok?

No, they have a statement from Cohen, they don´t have anything to show if what he says is true.

The audio they do have from a tape Cohen released, showed Trump to talk about talking about the magazine, not the Playboy model, I know you and the left media has still not got that but facts are facts.

.

WRONG

what they have which you can read in the transcripts that they gave the judge are

A. emails

B. Texts

C. Documents

D. recordings

to specifically back up the claim that there was intent which is prooveable.

The 'statement' is only a reflection of the evidence, its not the evidence in question

if you had actually read the parts of the actual transcripts like I have you would see how unbelievably absurd your statement is. They talked far more about the ACTUAL EVIDENCE then any statement he made.

the audio you heard is NOT the audio in question

Of course, they do and soon your impeachment hearings will begin right?

Got to admire your attempts to troll every thread you are in.

now you are changing the subject.

I read parts of the actual transcript. To suggest Choen just said these things without evidence is absolutely fucking absurd and ignorant of what is happened the other day. I keep telling people this for multiple days, what he said was backed up with TONS of evidence of which was given to the Judge, every word in that plea was carefully crafted and backed up with evidence. god dammit!!!!!!!!

The police don't know that. For all they know I could be trying to commit insurance fraud, or I could be a crazy person who thinks that my house got burgled when in reality I just misplaced my wallet. The law doesn't know a crime was committed every time they investigate a possible crime, else we'd almost never have need for police at all.

Not changing the subject.

If you really think that Cohen handed the smoking gun over to a judge, then it would, of course, lead to Trump being impeached.

Again all there is evidence is off, is towards Cohens crimes.

And this back and forth is getting tedious, so just link to the credible source of ironclad evidence that trump committed a campaign fund violation.

I am not talking to you about Trump impeachment.

I want you to understand that what was said in that plea is backed with hard evidence that was given to the Judge

do you understand that?

because I am not talking about anything else at this time.

Did you miss the last bit? again link to a credible source.

ITS

IN

THE

TRANSCRIPT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/22/politics/michael-cohen-transcript-plea/index.html

Dont read the article, go straight to the actual transcript and type in 'count six' and read every page where that word comes up which I think is twice

for the 3rd time

its in the actual literal transcript of the plea that happened in front of the judge and you can read it, its part of public record.

I think you are a bit confused here.

The evidence talked about is not regarding the Trump payments, but as to the other charges against Cohen.

And all there is mentioned is an intent from the DA to provide these kinds of evidence in a court case.

You are jumping so far ahead that it almost makes it sad.

no it is.

and I know you didnt read it because if you had you would have pointed out that the count six is wrong, its count seven and eight.

I am telling you, they craft these pleas very carefully to ensure they have the evidence.

more over, regarding just making a payment, Trump Lawyer said that is what happened multiple times on live TV.

they dont make pleas of this level of exact language without evidence to back it up, that would be idiotic.

you think they would write something like this in a legal document without evidence?

Second, that the contribution was made directly or the 12 expenditure was made in cooperation, consultation or concert 13 with, or at the request or suggestion of a candidate or 14 campaign;

EDIT: also regarding 'where the money came from' just TODAY Trump said PUBLICALLY 'the payment came from me'
thats it...done

I don't. You only get your news from Fox...the most unreliable site in existence.

There has to be some evidence of a crime before it can be investigated.

All the evidence you presented does not have anything to do with campaign finance laws. You keep mixing banking fraud with campaign finance laws.

actually it does.

If a payment is made (which is prooven in the evidence) with the intent of affecting an election (which the evidence shows) and its not reported. that is breaking federal law. It does not matter where that money came from or where it went.

in ADDITION to that, the amount of the payment exceeded the max allowed.

so yes..the evidence very clearly DOES show campaign finance law was broken.

I think the person who might want to brush up on this case and the law is you.

and by the way, as the Supenda from yesterday evening and today's immunity that just got released its safe to say Choens plea the other day is just the beginning, the actual avalanche hasnt started yet

If an individual comes to the police and says x happened the police will investigate to see if there is evidence.

The police and Special Prosecutor operate under different guidelines.

@tryit: I'm not commenting my opinion on political boards anymore, but I gotta ask you how, with as much research as you've done on this guy, and the case, misspell "Cohen" over a dozen times? Not making fun of you, because I'm not a dick, just honestly wondering, because it seems you're really passionate about this case.

Edit: I enjoy all the comments back and forth... Hope you guys keep it up.

So now you're being dishonest? This post is about the police. Read the exchange. You were involved in it. You're wrong. And you're lying.

yeah I am a terrible speller. I am also horrible at grammar.

but that doesn't affect the evidence

You don't know what you are talking about. A candidate can donate as much as they want to their own campaign. They payments were out side the campaign and are not in violation of the campaign finance laws. The Access Hollywood tape should also then be considered a campaign violation. The Hillary Russian dossier was a campaign violation is that it was never reported to the FEC. That came from the Washington Times.

You really need check the law you are not as intelligent as you think you are.

The immunity granted was to testify against Cohen and that is where it stops.

No I wasn't lying. I stated if you read it correctly the police have to have a reason to start an investigation. I made that pretty clear they just don't start an investigation because they feel like starting one.

It still has to be reported, which it wasnt, which is a federal crime.

which immunity am I speaking about? here is a hint

• AMI chairman David Pecker gave prosecutors information about President Donald Trump's knowledge of payments his ex-lawyer Michael Cohen made to women alleging affairs with Trump.
• Pecker, along with both his company and the Trump Organization, had reportedly been subpoenaed by federal investigators in April.
• Cohen pleaded guilty Tuesday to eight criminal charges including tax fraud and campaign finance violations, and could face years in prison.

Yes, evidence, not proof. In your first statement you claimed that since collusion hadn't been proven the special investigation should never have taken place, which is patently ridiculous because the point of an investigation is to prove the crime. There was evidence a crime had been committed. It wasn't definitive proof, but you don't need proof to start an investigation.

My post was about the Special prosecutor. The police came in to the conversation and I posted the po0lice do investigations when there evidence of a crime. They just don't start investigations for no reason WHAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND. My original post was the Special Prosecutor was appointed to investigate when there was no crime. To expand further it was a foreign intelligence investigation where no crime had been committed.

This was a foreign intelligence investigation to get the Special Prosecutor when in fact it was a get Trump investigation and to date there is no evidence that Trump committed a crime. After over a year and a half Mueller still has nothing. As an intelligence investigation the Hillary campaign should have been investigated but all you see on that side of the investigation are immunity for people who have committed crimes.