Here are five felonies Trump committed — if Cohen is telling the truth

[sooda]

I am glad. It seems there is misunderstanding regarding how Edwards relates. The simplest answer is that it does not relate.

Sorry. I needed to fix MY mistake. Don jr signed the check to Stormy. What a family.

 

[Shad]

Right, Trump lied.

Assertion. (One I believe is correct).

That only makes it worse for Trump.

Conclusion based on an assertion

And it appears that you still do not understand why he cannot use the same excuse that Edwards used.

Actually he can if he denies knowledge of the payments like Edwards. That's was the jury's verdict on Edwards.

 

[Shad]

The defense would likely be incompetent if they did not file for a dismissal. But, the Edwards case will not be cited or used in that filing. Nor, if there is a trial, would a dismissal likely be granted.

It can due to the knowledge part of the verdict.

 

[Shad]

Of course they can. And a judge can have a good laugh at their expense.

Yup when the only evidence is presented a confessed liar trying to get off of 70 years in jail. One that only admitted, to Congress, that he realized the error of his ways when he was busted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Assertion. (One I believe is correct).

Incorrect, a conclusion drawn from massive evidence.

Conclusion based on an assertion

Not based on an assertion.

Your error was not to ask why it was reasonable to draw that conclusion, one you oddly agreed with.

Actually he can if he denies knowledge of the payments like Edwards. That's was the jury's verdict on Edwards.

That will not fly. First it is illogical. Second Cohen has phone recordings, legal ones, and other evidence to document his claims.

 

[Curious George]

It can due to the knowledge part of the verdict.

No, it cannot.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yup when the only evidence is presented a confessed liar trying to get off of 70 years in jail. One that only admitted, to Congress, that he realized the error of his ways when he was busted.

Trump never confessed. Your post makes no sense. It couldn't be Cohen that you are talking about since he was never facing seventy years.

 

[Curious George]

Yup when the only evidence is presented a confessed liar trying to get off of 70 years in jail. One that only admitted, to Congress, that he realized the error of his ways when he was busted.

I do agree if Cohen's testimony is the only evidence, no charges will ever arise.

 

[Shad]

Incorrect, a conclusion drawn from massive evidence.

No all you have is speculation or Trump would be charged. Cohen's word is garbage.

Not based on an assertion.

Wrong.

Your error was not to ask why it was reasonable to draw that conclusion, one you oddly agreed with.

Wrong. I acknowledge an opinion I hold but separated it from a legal burden of evidence.

That will not fly. First it is illogical.

Wrong. Anyone can deny anything they wish. The denial can be a lie even. Nothing stops it

Second Cohen has phone recordings, legal ones, and other evidence to document his claims.

Claims to have X is not evidence of X. His cheques are Trumps personal accounts not the campaign.

 

[Shad]

It couldn't be Cohen that you are talking about since he was never facing seventy years.

Yes I am talking about Cohen as he is the one that confessed to lying while Trump hasn't and I doubt will ever

 

[Shad]

I do agree if Cohen's testimony is the only evidence, no charges will ever arise.

That is all there is right now as all Cohen's claims of evidence are in Mueller's hands or prove nothing thus can be made public

 

[Shad]

No, it cannot.

Wrong. Edwards was ruled not guilty as prosecutors couldn't prove knowledge even when the jury thought he was guilty in opinion. If there is no evidence of Trump's knowledge present it can be dismissed.

 

[Curious George]

Wrong. Edwards was ruled not guilty as prosecutors couldn't prove knowledge even when the jury thought he was guilty in opinion. If there is no evidence of Trump's knowledge present it can be dismissed.

I am not wrong on this Shad. Edward's case is not precedent for any charges in other cases to be dismissed.

 

[Shad]

I am not wrong on this Shad. Edward's case is not precedent for any charges in other cases to be dismissed.

Yes it can if no evidence of knowledge is present.

 

[Curious George]

That is all there is right now as all Cohen's claims of evidence are in Mueller's hands or prove nothing thus can be made public

My sole purpose here is to address the issue of Edward's case as "precedent."

 

[Subduction Zone]

No all you have is speculation or Trump would be charged. Cohen's word is garbage.£

A claim that you cannot even begin to support. But go ahead, once you do I will explain why it is not.

Wrong.

Once again you have no clue.

Wrong. I acknowledge an opinion I hold but separated it from a legal burden of evidence.

If it is an opinion then it is almost worthless. I can support my claims.

Wrong. Anyone can deny anything they wish. The denial can be a lie even. Nothing stops it

Why do you break up posts excessively? That is often done when a person cannot argue honestly.

Try again.

Claims to have X is not evidence of X. His cheques are Trumps personal accounts not the campaign.

Not just him. Those were subpoenaed and seized. You clearly do not understand whywhy Cohen's claims are not garbage.

 

[sooda]

I am not wrong on this Shad. Edward's case is not precedent for any charges in other cases to be dismissed.

Could Trump be convicted of campaign finance fraud, witness tampering or whatever?

 

[Curious George]

Yes it can if no evidence of knowledge is present.

Edwards case was Edwards case. Any other cases live in there own world. Edwards trial does not relate.

 

[Shad]

My sole purpose here is to address the issue of Edward's case as "precedent."

Has it be solved in your mind?

 

[Curious George]

Could Trump be convicted of campaign finance fraud, witness tampering or whatever?

In theory, or in actuality?

@Nous had a decent thread on this topic.

We can speculate on just about anything. Any case will turn on the facts. We can be sure that we do not have all the facts.