The Trump Presidency

SDNY announced today a non-prosecution agreement with AMI in which AMI admitted to making a $150,000 payment in concert with Trump's presidential campaign, and "in order to ensure that the woman did not publicize damaging allegations about the candidate before the 2016 election. AMI further admitted that the principal purpose in making the payment was to suppress the woman's story so as to prevent it from influencing the election."

It is worth noting that the defense in the John Edwards case was that the payments were to spare Edwards from personal embarrassment rather than to influence the course of the campaign. Don't think this defense is available to Trump given the facts that AMI and Cohen have stipulated to.
 
nsacpi said:
SDNY announced today a non-prosecution agreement with AMI in which AMI admitted to making a $150,000 payment in concert with Trump's presidential campaign, and "in order to ensure that the woman did not publicize damaging allegations about the candidate before the 2016 election. AMI further admitted that the principal purpose in making the payment was to suppress the woman's story so as to prevent it from influencing the election."

It is worth noting that the defense in the John Edwards case was that the payments were to spare Edwards from personal embarrassment rather than to influence the course of the campaign. Don't think this defense is available to Trump given the facts that AMI and Cohen have stipulated to.
Click to expand...

Worthwhile to note that AMI denied these specific charges, on the record, to the WSJ when they were originally reported.
 
This seems like a reasonable time to take a historical snapshot.

Roughly halfway into his first term, the president’s former campaign chair is in prison, his deputy campaign chair pleaded out to avoid same, his personal lawyer and ex-RNC deputy finance chair is headed there—after having implicated the president in a felony—and his former National Security Advisor has pleaded guilty to a felony and cooperated with prosecutors in order to avoid jail time.

Obviously, we’ve got things like the Clinton impeachment, Iran-Contra, and even Watergate in (relatively) recent memory, so this is not without precedent, but it’s kinda shocking at first glance how quickly things seem to be flying apart. And this, unlike those events, has all happened without the opposition party having the gavel and subpoena powers.
 
nsacpi said:
SDNY announced today a non-prosecution agreement with AMI in which AMI admitted to making a $150,000 payment in concert with Trump's presidential campaign, and "in order to ensure that the woman did not publicize damaging allegations about the candidate before the 2016 election. AMI further admitted that the principal purpose in making the payment was to suppress the woman's story so as to prevent it from influencing the election."

It is worth noting that the defense in the John Edwards case was that the payments were to spare Edwards from personal embarrassment rather than to influence the course of the campaign. Don't think this defense is available to Trump given the facts that AMI and Cohen have stipulated to.
Click to expand...

For whatever reason, there's been a few more people who "know" Trump that have been saying the last few weeks on TV that he never expected nor wanted to win the election in 2016. lol.
 
Individual-1 said:
For whatever reason, there's been a few more people who "know" Trump that have been saying the last few weeks on TV that he never expected nor wanted to win the election in 2016. lol.
Click to expand...

There is a quote from Flynn during the campaign. Someone asked him if some of his activities might cause problems. And his reply was "not if we lose."
 
Julio3000 said:
This seems like a reasonable time to take a historical snapshot.

Roughly halfway into his first term, the president’s former campaign chair is in prison, his deputy campaign chair pleaded out to avoid same, his personal lawyer and ex-RNC deputy finance chair is headed there—after having implicated the president in a felony—and his former National Security Advisor has pleaded guilty to a felony and cooperated with prosecutors in order to avoid jail time.

Obviously, we’ve got things like the Clinton impeachment, Iran-Contra, and even Watergate in (relatively) recent memory, so this is not without precedent, but it’s kinda shocking at first glance how quickly things seem to be flying apart. And this, unlike those events, has all happened without the opposition party having the gavel and subpoena powers.
Click to expand...

Usually it's the 2nd term when Presidents get in the most trouble, after the opposition has had plenty of time to solidify.
 
Runnin said:
Usually it's the 2nd term when Presidents get in the most trouble, after the opposition has had plenty of time to solidify.
Click to expand...

And, let’s be honest, it usually takes more time for people to settle in and be comfortable enough to start doing crime.
 
nsacpi said:
unless it is the family business
Click to expand...

An admittedly rudimentary analysis would suggest that a habitually bankrupt and multiply fraudulent chiseler possibly in hock to organized crime would, in fact, not turn over a new leaf when elected to the most powerful office in the land.
 
Andrew McCarthy of the National Review, a former federal prosecutor whose analysis of Trump/Russia thethe used to post all the time, has also said he expects Trump to be indicted for the payoff chicanery. It’s not a stretch—pretty much every other party involved, from Cohen to Weisselberg to Pecker, has indicated it—but it’s interesting to see what happens when the rubber meets the road in court. I can’t imagine it’s going to be the last criminal allegation.

Who’s going to be left on the bus? Who’s going to be left to defend Trump once the dam starts to break and there is uncertainty about where the next leak is coming from? I imagine it’s gonna get there, sooner rather than later.
 
republicans about to prove they don't care about the rule of law, they don't care about anything other than tax cuts and if you have a R next to your name.

just morally bankrupt

love that it has pretty much proven he didn't think he would win and didn't want to win
 
Individual-1 said:
Very strong and clear cut words by Judge Napolitano. Would have liked to have seen him go on Hannity and utter these words, but Hannity would have never allowed it.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-n...we-now-know-trump-committed-a-felony?ref=home
Click to expand...

But what about Hillary?

:YDS:

Seriously though. I understand this involves hush money, but how did prosecutors handle the fact that Paula Jones was supposedly promoted (at least I think I recall that) in return for her silence about Bubba's indiscretions? I have so much Clinton fatigue that I can't remember the details of the myriad charges against Bill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top