What are the chances of Trump's political survival to 2020?

[_EAllusion]

you want to see how many legal experts on Fox agree with your legal experts on CNN?

Modern conservatism in a nutshell right here.

[_canpakes]

Again, where is the evidence/proof that Trump used campaign money illegally?

I love how you use these two words interchangeably in your argument about evidence. : )

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Thus far, thirty-three people and three companies have been indicted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s ongoing probe into whether or not the Trump campaign colluded with Russia in the 2016 presidential election. It’s clear that Mueller is now connecting the dots between a massive obstruction intended to hide the truth about the Trump campaign, Trump, his business organization, and his family from the investigators. I have no idea how he makes it to 2020.

As far as subgenius is concerned, I don't know how to talk to someone who can't be bothered to read Mueller's and the SDNY's filings found here:

https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/ ... bgAKNck/v0

https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/ ... o8gW4oI/v0

Attempting to talk to subgenius is akin to talking to the insufferable uncle who pretty much can't stand anyone outside his little enclave, who has at best a superficial understanding of the larger world around him, pays lip service to this country but doesn't know anything about service, our institutions, or his role in this world outside of lighting off some fireworks on the 4th.

The fact that he's a Trump apologist is so astoundingly bizarre, and so disheartening, that he would willingly go to bat for a thief, a grifter, and a traitor is just sad. I legitimately hope subgenius never flies our flag because I don't think he's worthy to do so; I hope he just sticks to a state flag sticker, or his local university's sticker, on his vehicle's window.

- Doc

[_Chap]

Again, where is the evidence/proof that Trump used campaign money illegally?

I love how you use these two words interchangeably in your argument about evidence. : )

Yup. Evidence is the material from which a prosecutor constructs a case. It is not by itself a proof that the accused is guilty. The prosecutor uses the evidence as his raw material to try to construct an argument sufficiently strong to persuade a jury that it is beyond any reasonable doubt that the accused did the act or acts for which he is being prosecuted.

If all you can offer is "Cohen promises" then I have to giggle about how you guys suddenly believe Cohen,

If subgenius would bother to read the detailed documents prepared by Mueller's office that have been cited and linked to on this thread, he would see that there is much, much more to this than Cohen's confession. There is a whole paper trail showing how the money moved, from where and to where, and who moved it. If the only evidence for the claim that Trump conspired to cause an illegal corporate campaign contribution to be made was Cohen's say-so alone, then it is extremely unlikely that Cohen would have confessed to his part in this, thereby earning himself substantial jail time. He knew darn well that Mueller had plenty on him, and confessed in order to get a smaller penalty than if he had been convicted after a not guilty plea, as he almost certainly would have been.

[_subgenius]

Again, where is the evidence/proof that Trump used campaign money illegally?

I love how you use these two words interchangeably in your argument about evidence. : )

Well, i can't take the credit, Webster really put 'em together...pesky synonyms.
ev·i·dence
[ˈevədəns]
NOUN
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
"the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"
synonyms:
proof · confirmation · verification · substantiation · corroboration ·

So when both occurring:

Cohen saying "A"
is not evidence for "A"
and Trump saying "not A"
is not evidence for "not A"

Cohen saying "A"
is not proof for "A"
and Trump saying "not A"
is not proof for "not A"

Literally.

[_subgenius]

Thus far, thirty-three people and three companies have been indicted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s ongoing probe into whether or not the Trump campaign colluded with Russia in the 2016 presidential election. It’s clear that Mueller is now connecting the dots between a massive obstruction intended to hide the truth about the Trump campaign, Trump, his business organization, and his family from the investigators. I have no idea how he makes it to 2020.

As far as subgenius is concerned, I don't know how to talk to someone who can't be bothered to read Mueller's and the SDNY's filings found here:

https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/ ... bgAKNck/v0

https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/ ... o8gW4oI/v0

Attempting to talk to subgenius is akin to talking to the insufferable uncle who pretty much can't stand anyone outside his little enclave, who has at best a superficial understanding of the larger world around him, pays lip service to this country but doesn't know anything about service, our institutions, or his role in this world outside of lighting off some fireworks on the 4th.

The fact that he's a Trump apologist is so astoundingly bizarre, and so disheartening, that he would willingly go to bat for a thief, a grifter, and a traitor is just sad. I legitimately hope subgenius never flies our flag because I don't think he's worthy to do so; I hope he just sticks to a state flag sticker, or his local university's sticker, on his vehicle's window.

- Doc

Again, you link but you do not cite. because you cannot.
So yeah, Cohen pleads guilty to a bunch of stuff...but where is the beef? I didn't read anything that concluded with Trump violated campaign finance law or used any campaign money illegally. Your recent citations establish that Cohen has cheated and abused his profession on many fronts and all for self gain...and none at the direction of Trump or any other individual.

Again can you cite the evidence? or are you just going to rely upon "Cohen is guilty so Trump must be"....Literally.....Literally you aren't even reading your own links.....but please, just fall back on arrogance as your rebuttal instead of actually meeting the challenge.

After the election, Cohen sought reimbursement for election-related expenses, including
the $130,000 payment he had made to Woman-2. Cohen presented an executive of the Company
with a copy of a bank statement reflecting the $130,000 wire transfer. Cohen also requested
reimbursement of an additional $50,000, which represented a claimed payment for campaignrelated
“tech services.” Executives of the Company agreed to reimburse Cohen by adding
$130,000 and $50,000, “grossing up” that amount to $360,000 for tax purposes, and adding a
$60,000 bonus, such that Cohen would be paid $420,000 in total. Executives of the Company
decided to pay the $420,000 in monthly installments of $35,000 over the course of a year. (PSR
¶¶ 52-53).
At the instruction of an executive for the Company, Cohen sent monthly invoices to the
Company for these $35,000 payments, falsely indicating that the invoices were being sent pursuant
to a “retainer agreement.” The Company then falsely accounted for these payments as “legal
expenses.” In fact, no such retainer agreement existed and these payments were not “legal
expenses” – Cohen in fact provided negligible legal services to Individual-1 or the Company in
2017 – but were reimbursement payments. Cohen then received the $420,000 during the course
of 2017.

Show us herein where campaign funds were used for this transaction?...or any of these transactions? Where is the campaign finance violation by Trump? Where is the 2016 election collusion by Trump?

Don't get me wrong simply because you want to...I am not claiming that the evidence does or does not exist...it is just that it has not appeared if it does exist....but you guys are running around like there is a cancelled check from Trump 2016 campaign bank account with Stormy Daniels' name on it.

[_subgenius]

Yup. Evidence is the material from which a prosecutor constructs a case. It is not by itself a proof that the accused is guilty. The prosecutor uses the evidence as his raw material to try to construct an argument sufficiently strong to persuade a jury that it is beyond any reasonable doubt that the accused did the act or acts for which he is being prosecuted.

Agreed, and in a civil case contradicting testimony is resolved by "who is more believable" which is a much lower threshold for judgment than in criminal cases where resolution is by facts and evidence. For example, if a guy gets shot and I testify that Person A shot that guy, but then you testify that Person B shot that guy then both Person A and Person B don't go to prison. And right now Person A is the only guy holding a gun.

If all you can offer is "Cohen promises" then I have to giggle about how you guys suddenly believe Cohen,

If subgenius would bother to read the detailed documents prepared by Mueller's office that have been cited and linked to on this thread, he would see that there is much, much more to this than Cohen's confession. There is a whole paper trail showing how the money moved, from where and to where, and who moved it. If the only evidence for the claim that Trump conspired to cause an illegal corporate campaign contribution to be made was Cohen's say-so alone, then it is extremely unlikely that Cohen would have confessed to his part in this, thereby earning himself substantial jail time. He knew darn well that Mueller had plenty on him, and confessed in order to get a smaller penalty than if he had been convicted after a not guilty plea, as he almost certainly would have been.

Read the documents, there is no evidence or even indication that campaign money was used illegally or that Trump colluded...but again, feel free to QUOTE where those documents say such a thing.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Well. I see why subgenius seems to relate to our idiot in Chief. Trump just can't help himself and admits to complicity in his felonies:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-defend ... 20077.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Donald Trump on Monday defended hush money payments reported by his former lawyer, responding a day after Democratic lawmakers said the U.S. president could face impeachment and jail time if the transactions are proven to violate campaign finance laws.

Trump said on Twitter that Democrats were wrongly targeting "a simple private transaction." Court filings last week drew renewed attention to six-figure payments made during the 2016 presidential campaign by Trump's personal lawyer to two women so they would not discuss their alleged affairs with the candidate.

U.S. Representative Jerrold Nadler, who will lead the Judiciary Committee when Democrats take control of the House of Representatives next month, said on Sunday that if the payments were found to violate campaign finance laws it would be an impeachable offense.

His Democratic counterpart on the Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam Schiff, said Trump could be indicted once he leaves office and could "face the real prospect of jail time."

Under U.S. law, campaign contributions, defined as things of value given to a campaign to influence an election, must be disclosed. Such payments are also limited to $2,700 per person.

Earlier this year, Trump acknowledged repaying his former lawyer Michael Cohen for the $130,000 paid to porn star Stephanie Clifford, also known as Stormy Daniels. He previously disputed knowing anything about the payments.

On Monday, the president again denied wrongdoing and sought to shift any blame to Cohen. One post misspelled the word "smoking" twice, drawing criticism and ridicule on Twitter.

"Democrats can’t find a Smocking Gun tying the Trump campaign to Russia after James Comey’s testimony. No Smocking Gun...No Collusion," he wrote, referring to Fox News comment on the case.

"So now the Democrats go to a simple private transaction, wrongly call it a campaign contribution, which it was not," he wrote. He said that even if it were a campaign contribution it would amount to a civil case, adding, "but it was done correctly by a lawyer and there would not even be a fine. Lawyer’s liability if he made a mistake, not me."

Trump has denied affairs with Stormy Daniels and the other woman who Cohen said was given hush money, former Playboy model Karen McDougal.

U.S. prosecutors on Friday sought prison time for Cohen, Trump's self-proclaimed "fixer," for the payments they said were made in "coordination with and at the direction of" Trump, as well as on charges of evading taxes and lying to Congress.

The case stemmed from a federal investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and possible collusion with Trump's campaign. Russia has denied interfering and Trump has said his campaign did not cooperate with Moscow.

Legal experts are divided over whether a sitting president can be charged with a crime, as well as on whether a violation of campaign finance law would be an impeachable offense.

- Doc

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/ ... t-payments

New York Times columnist Jim Rutenberg noted in response to Trump's morning tweet, "In Stormy Daniels/Karen McDougal hush $ deals prosecutors didn’t see 'simple transactions,' they saw a brazen effort to deceive the voting public through illegal means meant to hide that deception from campaign disclosure requirements."

As Reuters notes in its reporting on the president's claim, "Under U.S. law, campaign contributions, defined as things of value given to a campaign to influence an election, must be disclosed. Such payments are also limited to $2,700 per person."

According to a Saturday column in the Times by government watchdog experts Barry Berke, Noah Bookbinder and Norman Eisen, the sentencing memos released last week are, in fact, quite damaging to Trump and put him at legal risk:

The Trump Organization’s reimbursements to Mr. Cohen for payments were fraudulently disguised as legal fees — and, according to the memo, were approved by senior executives at the organization. The New York prosecutors also disclosed that they are investigating additional unspecified matters involving Mr. Cohen and, presumably, the Trump Organization. In light of these disclosures, the likelihood that the company and the Trump campaign face charges is now high.

Although President Trump may avoid a similar fate because the Justice Department is unlikely to indict a sitting president, he could be named as an unindicted co-conspirator, as was President Richard Nixon, or charged if he leaves office before the statute of limitations runs out (most likely in 2022).

"Contrary to the president's claim that all of this 'totally clears' him," the trio of legal experts wrote, "the danger to Mr. Trump, his business and his campaign has compounded significantly."

TL;DR for subgenius (since he doesn't read anything beyond a sentence or two):

Trump calls creating a shell company to pay off a porn star from disclosing an extramarital affair weeks before a presidential election a "simple private transaction." It's not. It's a felony.

- Doc

[_EAllusion]

One of the problems with the defenses the Trump team and its surrogates are trying out is they fail to explain and/or flat out contradict the fact that the president lied and lied about the payments for about a year in an effort to conceal them. I suppose there is a plausible explanation for this that goes something like, "The president is a pathological liar who denys anything that even gives a whiff of impropriety even if it hurts his own case, so him lying doesn't necessarily mean anything."

Hell of a defense there.