Political Talk Forum

[scotchandcigar]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

Not that this makes it much better, but there's this:
CORRECTION: The original version of this post said that any violation of Santa Barbara's straw ban could trigger civil and criminal penalties, when in fact two violations are required before such penalties are authorized.

Now that's a real strawman argument.

 

[memebag]

Everyone here seems to be dancing around this
CNN obtains secret Trump-Cohen tape - CNNPolitics

Everyone where?

 

[scotchandcigar]

Everyone where?

Here. DRC. Releasing these tapes is obviously a big political story, but we're talking about straws.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

Here. DRC. Releasing these tapes is obviously a big political story, but we're talking about straws.

Straws are less political.

I do enjoy straws. Banning them is stupid.


Sent from my iPhone6S using Tapatalk

 

[memebag]

Here. DRC. Releasing these tapes is obviously a big political story, but we're talking about straws.

I'm not dancing around it. I just don't come here to discuss politics.

 

[scotchandcigar]

Straws are less political.

I do enjoy straws. Banning them is stupid.

We should take a straw poll.

I'm not dancing around it. I just don't come here to discuss politics.

Per Hectic's rule.

 

[Wolf]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

That article sucks!

 

[scotchandcigar]

That article sucks!

 

[JHDK]

Trump yelling "CAN SOMEONE GET ME A COKE PLEASE?" made me laugh.

Even if Trump said some crazy shit, can they be legally used against him? I haven't read enough about it. I know this Mike fella is in some trouble and I think he gave the tapes to Mueller or they got the tapes when they raided his office but I thought Mike was the one who released this little snippet to the media. So he is in enough trouble that he will never be a lawyer again right? He can't be if he's going around taping and releasing his client's convos.

 

[HecticArt]

Straws are less political.

I do enjoy straws. Banning them is stupid.

You know that you aren't supposed to take sides.....

Per FORUM rule.

FIFY

 

[scotchandcigar]

Here's a rare Kumbaya moment

CNN correspondent blocked from White House press event

Fox News President Jay Wallace said the network stood with CNN.
“We stand in strong solidarity with CNN for the right to full access for our journalists as part of a free and unfettered press," Wallace said.
“As a member of the White House press pool, Fox stands firmly with CNN on this issue of access,” Fox News chief political anchor Bret Baier said on "Special Report" on Wednesday night.

 

[scotchandcigar]

Trump yelling "CAN SOMEONE GET ME A COKE PLEASE?" made me laugh.

Even if Trump said some crazy shit, can they be legally used against him? I haven't read enough about it. I know this Mike fella is in some trouble and I think he gave the tapes to Mueller or they got the tapes when they raided his office but I thought Mike was the one who released this little snippet to the media. So he is in enough trouble that he will never be a lawyer again right? He can't be if he's going around taping and releasing his client's convos.

You make me laugh. I find it interesting that your concern is with the career of Michael Cohen.

 

[HecticArt]

I think for as bad as Cohen appears to be as a lawyer, he probably has some smarts going on deep in there.

I'm wondering what the rules about recording without the participants permission. For instance, if Cohen records for his personal reference and note taking without the intent of releasing the tapes, is it ok? If he doesn't give them away, but the Feds confiscate them, does that keep him from getting in trouble?

Or I could be wrong, and he could just be a dumb shit in an ugly suit.

Aside: Is dumb-shit hyphened, or not?

 

[memebag]

Each state has laws about how many parties' consent is required to record a conversation. New York is a one party state, so the recording was legal. Trump waived privilege so Cohen was free to release them. The prosecutors will be pissed because they just don't like trying cases in the media.

I listened to the recording several times and I can't tell if Trump says "pay cash" (Cohen's version) or "don't pay cash" (Trump's version). That tells me Cohen has a bad lawyer. If there was any ambiguity in interpreting this recording he shouldn't have released it.

The tape names Allen Weisselberg, long time Trump family finance manager, so now he can be called as a witness. If anyone knows where the bodies are buried it's that guy.

 

[scotchandcigar]

I listened to the recording several times and I can't tell if Trump says "pay cash" (Cohen's version) or "don't pay cash" (Trump's version). That tells me Cohen has a bad lawyer. If there was any ambiguity in interpreting this recording he shouldn't have released it.

Based on my personal observations, I'd always go with not-Trump's version. In any case, it proves that he lied about not being aware or involved in the situation, and it implies that he was complicit in this scheme to use campaign funds (or expenditures during a campaign) to make a hush-money payoff, so as not to lose the election.

Bill Clinton was impeached - in one of the houses - for lying, and what he was lying about was perfectly legal.

 

[JHDK]

Bill Clinton was impeached - in one of the houses - for lying, and what he was lying about was perfectly legal.

Yea but that was for lying under oath. There's nothing illegal about lying in public or to the media.

it implies that he was complicit in this scheme to use campaign funds (or expenditures during a campaign) to make a hush-money payoff, so as not to lose the election.

How so? I think it certainly implies that he was in on paying her off but where do you make the leap to him using campaign money to do so?

(PS, we seem to be pretty civil so far. Hopefully we won't need another talking-to from our Ohio Overlord.)

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

Yea but that was for lying under oath. There's nothing illegal about lying in public or to the media.

I think lying is a job requirement for being a politician.

(PS, we seem to be pretty civil so far. Hopefully we won't need another talking-to from our Ohio Overlord.)

I like that. Ohio Overlord.


Sent from my iPhone6S using Tapatalk

 

[memebag]

How so? I think it certainly implies that he was in on paying her off but where do you make the leap to him using campaign money to do so?

(PS, we seem to be pretty civil so far. Hopefully we won't need another talking-to from our Ohio Overlord.)

Any expenditures that help a candidate get elected can be interpreted as falling under campaign finance law. Even if it was his own money, spending it might have to be declared. That's the theory, at least. It's pretty shaky legal ground because it relies on his underlying motivation. People with big hands pay broads to keep quiet all the time for personal reasons, Trump can argue.

 

[JHDK]

Any expenditures that help a candidate get elected can be interpreted as falling under campaign finance law. Even if it was his own money, spending it might have to be declared. That's the theory, at least. It's pretty shaky legal ground because it relies on his underlying motivation. People with big hands pay broads to keep quiet all the time for personal reasons, Trump can argue.

And wasn't there something about paying for the rights to her story? I thought I read that. I don't know how hush money payouts usually go but seems to me that while it's obvious why the money was paid the argument could be made that paying for someone's story rights is just about being interested in telling their tale for profit one day and not to silence them. How could someone prove otherwise?

 

[memebag]

And wasn't there something about paying for the rights to her story? I thought I read that. I don't know how hush money payouts usually go but seems to me that while it's obvious why the money was paid the argument could be made that paying for someone's story rights is just about being interested in telling their tale for profit one day and not to silence them. How could someone prove otherwise?

Yeah, judges aren't stupid.

AMI (National Enquirer) "bought her story" to cover it up. The recording we've heard is Trump and Cohen figuring out how to reimburse David Pecker (CEO of AMI, friend of Trump, actual name). "Catch and kill" is used to keep stories from becoming public and intimidate people into keeping quiet. Once the story is public, though, "catch and kill" doesn't provide legal cover for hush money.