HawkShack.com

More bad news for the POTUS. They might not be able to link Manafort directly to DJT, but they won't have any problems linking this guy to him:

Federal authorities investigating whether President Trump’s former personal lawyer and fixer, Michael D. Cohen, committed bank and tax fraud have zeroed in on well over $20 million in loans obtained by taxi businesses that he and his family own...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/19/nyre ... trump.html

And this is in addition to an already ongoing investigation into whether campaign finance laws were broken by Cohen's involvement in fixing Trump's womanizing problems.

Like I said in the Manafort thread, you can fully expect the Dems to be chanting "Drain the swamp" during the midterm campaigns later this fall.

It won't have any effect on Trump. Trump is not liable for the business dealings of his lawyer any more than your attorney will reflect badly on you if he represents a mafia boss.

My attorney when I lived in Virginia represented that kid that shot people out of the trunk of his car (Malvo). I'm no different person or guilty of anything because my attorney represented him.

Also, your link is broken.

idhawkman wrote:It won't have any effect on Trump. Trump is not liable for the business dealings of his lawyer any more than your attorney will reflect badly on you if he represents a mafia boss.

My attorney when I lived in Virginia represented that kid that shot people out of the trunk of his car (Malvo). I'm no different person or guilty of anything because my attorney represented him.

Of course, he's not liable for his lawyer's activities. But unlike you and me, Trump is the POTUS and lives in the biggest fishbowl in the world, and rightfully or wrongfully, people will link his close friend and confidant's activities and problems to him. Jimmy Carter once had to go on national TV in order to distance himself from his brother and his various problems because it was hurting his popularity.

And in this case, there's considerably more justification in linking the two. It's a guilt by association thing. If Trump's personal lawyer and former close friend is corrupt, there's a pretty good chance that he's dirty, too. Birds of a feather flock together.

Thanks for the heads up on the broken link, it's been fixed. For some reason, when I copy/paste a link off my msn start page, it doesn't translate on this site.

I think it was the apostrophe that broke the link.

I think lines have been drawn and people will not change their vote for or againt Trump regardless of if Cohen or Manafort are guilty or acquitted. Whichever way it goes one side will say, "see, we told you" and the other side will just get energized to vote the next election.

I can't ever imagine converting you and I'm sure you know that converting me would be almost impossible.

idhawkman wrote:I think lines have been drawn and people will not change their vote for or againt Trump regardless of if Cohen or Manafort are guilty or acquitted. Whichever way it goes one side will say, "see, we told you" and the other side will just get energized to vote the next election.

I can't ever imagine converting you and I'm sure you know that converting me would be almost impossible.

That we agree on. It's not going to change most people's minds, at least not the 75% or so of us that already have our minds made up. But there's always a certain percentage of the voting population that is sitting on the fence, and repeated stories like this can have a cumulative effect on them. Additionally, stories like this can motivate their bases, either to turn out or discourage them from turning out.

Bottom line is that this is not good news for DJT and the R's.

RiverDog wrote:
That we agree on. It's not going to change most people's minds, at least not the 75% or so of us that already have our minds made up. But there's always a certain percentage of the voting population that is sitting on the fence, and repeated stories like this can have a cumulative effect on them. Additionally, stories like this can motivate their bases, either to turn out or discourage them from turning out.

Bottom line is that this is not good news for DJT and the R's.

I don't have any articles to support this but I feel the percentage is more like the mid to high 90's who have their minds made up. I think the few who could be swayed are very few at this point - especially after all the information that has come out about the witch hunt and corruption in the DOJ, FBI and CIA.

Again, anything short of Trump killing someone, I don't think the news is bad or good. The left will rile up their base either way and the Right will do the same.

idhawkman wrote:I don't have any articles to support this but I feel the percentage is more like the mid to high 90's who have their minds made up. I think the few who could be swayed are very few at this point - especially after all the information that has come out about the witch hunt and corruption in the DOJ, FBI and CIA.

90% of the voting public taking an unretractable position would surprise me. But even if your 90% is true, it's only going to take about 25 out of the 435 house races to flip it for the Dems, and a lot of those races are likely to be decided by just a percent or two.

The more Trump talks about witch hunt and complains about the DOJ, the more people will get callous to it. Every day he's complaining about Mueller, Jeff Sessions, et al, to the point where his words become routine. It's the little boy that cried wolf syndrome. He'd be better off putting down his cell phone a few days and let the public digest stuff rather than constantly complaining and making the debate about him.

Again, anything short of Trump killing someone, I don't think the news is bad or good. The left will rile up their base either way and the Right will do the same.

That's true. But it's a fact that the incumbent POTUS's base doesn't turn out like the out of power base does in midterm elections. Trump needs a victory in order to give R candidates something to run on instead of forcing them to play defense. Trump ought to be out talking up his SCOTUS nominee and putting pressure on the red state senators that are up for re-election rather than whining about witch hunts, Mueller, Sessions, et al.

RiverDog wrote:That's true. But it's a fact that the incumbent POTUS's base doesn't turn out like the out of power base does in midterm elections. Trump needs a victory in order to give R candidates something to run on instead of forcing them to play defense. Trump ought to be out talking up his SCOTUS nominee and putting pressure on the red state senators that are up for re-election rather than whining about witch hunts, Mueller, Sessions, et al.

I don't think the norm can be attributed to this POTUS though. All of the polls said that Hillary had a 95% chance of winning, too. I am predicting now that the Rs will only lose a maximum of 10 seats in the house and will gain 3-5 seats in the senate. The blue wave will not materialize. Partially because Trump will be stumping in battleground areas for candidates but also because the dems are going so far left and introducing socialism.

Both houses of congress will remain in the republican hands after the mid terms.

I think this is going to lead to some immense payback by the Republicans when a Democrat takes office. The next Democrat president better be well vetted and nearly bulletproof for he or she will have a microscope up their behind so deep that we'll know what they ate for breakfast. The politics of payback are going to continue in my opinion. Now personal life including business deals and the like are no longer off limits. The Democrats are making it very clear that now anything is fair game. You want to be a politician of a high rank, be prepared to be squeak for everyone from your lawyer to your children are targets after what the Democrats and left are doing to Trump. They at least used to leave the kids out of it, but Democrats are making this extremely personal. This is going to be a real freakshow for a long time I'm betting. Trump is likely the tip of the iceberg.

This is political warfare the likes of which we haven't seen for a while.

idhawkman wrote:I don't think the norm can be attributed to this POTUS though. All of the polls said that Hillary had a 95% chance of winning, too. I am predicting now that the Rs will only lose a maximum of 10 seats in the house and will gain 3-5 seats in the senate. The blue wave will not materialize. Partially because Trump will be stumping in battleground areas for candidates but also because the dems are going so far left and introducing socialism.

Both houses of congress will remain in the republican hands after the mid terms.

Polls don't measure the chances of winning percentages. That's what the analysts do. As a matter of fact, the most recent polling data prior to the 2016 election rated as too close to call, or in other words, within their margin of error. Some, like Bloomberg, ABC/WA Post, Rassmussen and Reuters, hit it right on the nose, pegging Hillary with a 2-3% point lead in the last week, and that's exactly what she won the popular vote by.

https://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/la ... president/

It was the pundints and self appointed know-it-alls that missed the boat with their laughable odds of winning percentages.

It's apparent that your predictions for the midterms are influenced more by wishful thinking than factual logic. Nearly all of the polling data has the Dems leading by 6-7%. The math in the Senate, along with the red state solons up for re-election, should allow the R's to at least maintain their razor thin majority especially given that the SCOTUS confirmation hearings are going to occur smack dab in the middle of the campaign, but all the data favors a Dem takeover in the House. It's still a ways out, though.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I think this is going to lead to some immense payback by the Republicans when a Democrat takes office. The next Democrat president better be well vetted and nearly bulletproof for he or she will have a microscope up their behind so deep that we'll know what they ate for breakfast. The politics of payback are going to continue in my opinion. Now personal life including business deals and the like are no longer off limits. The Democrats are making it very clear that now anything is fair game. You want to be a politician of a high rank, be prepared to be squeak for everyone from your lawyer to your children are targets after what the Democrats and left are doing to Trump. They at least used to leave the kids out of it, but Democrats are making this extremely personal. This is going to be a real freakshow for a long time I'm betting. Trump is likely the tip of the iceberg.

This is political warfare the likes of which we haven't seen for a while.

It's been like that for a long time. Anyone remember Gary Hart? Scores of pols from both sides of the aisle have been brought down by scandals over the past 40 years or so.

More so than personal politics, the press is influenced by sensationalism, in other words, scandals, and liberal pols are just as subject to the Latex finger as conservatives. They're like a pack of jackals when they smell a scandal. But it's going to be tough to find a pol that has accumulated as much scandal rich information on them that DJT has, and that's not even considering his goofy tweets that gives them something to write about ever waking hour of the day. As much as Trump attacks the press, he's a writer and cartoonist's dream come true as he provides them with a continuous stream of material.

RiverDog wrote:
Polls don't measure the chances of winning percentages. That's what the analysts do. As a matter of fact, the most recent polling data prior to the 2016 election rated as too close to call, or in other words, within their margin of error. Some, like Bloomberg, ABC/WA Post, Rassmussen and Reuters, hit it right on the nose, pegging Hillary with a 2-3% point lead in the last week, and that's exactly what she won the popular vote by.

https://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/la ... president/

It was the pundints and self appointed know-it-alls that missed the boat with their laughable odds of winning percentages.

It's apparent that your predictions for the midterms are influenced more by wishful thinking than factual logic. Nearly all of the polling data has the Dems leading by 6-7%. The math in the Senate, along with the red state solons up for re-election, should allow the R's to at least maintain their razor thin majority especially given that the SCOTUS confirmation hearings are going to occur smack dab in the middle of the campaign, but all the data favors a Dem takeover in the House. It's still a ways out, though.

All the polls in the 2016 election showed no way for Trump to get to 270 and that was broken down state by state not nationwide. The only reason Hillary had that 3% margin is because of California. So the polls were dead wrong and the pundits were buying into the trash that the polls were predicting.

So if you break it down district by district for the house and state by state for the senate my prediction will come true. Remember you saw it here first.

Granted some districts in NY and Connecticut and California may be blowouts for the dems but the rest of the middle of the country will win more seats than the blowout districts. So the 6-7% you are predicting is just same kind of trash that influenced the pollsters in the 2016 election.

Unfortunately, you can give your middle finger to Trump to make you feel better but in reality your vote won't count for much since the dems in your state would win anyway whether you voted for the dem, rep, or ind.

RiverDog wrote:It's been like that for a long time. Anyone remember Gary Hart? Scores of pols from both sides of the aisle have been brought down by scandals over the past 40 years or so.

More so than personal politics, the press is influenced by sensationalism, in other words, scandals, and liberal pols are just as subject to the Latex finger as conservatives. They're like a pack of jackals when they smell a scandal. But it's going to be tough to find a pol that has accumulated as much scandal rich information on them that DJT has, and that's not even considering his goofy tweets that gives them something to write about ever waking hour of the day. As much as Trump attacks the press, he's a writer and cartoonist's dream come true as he provides them with a continuous stream of material.

If you believe that you haven't been paying attention.

idhawkman wrote:All the polls in the 2016 election showed no way for Trump to get to 270 and that was broken down state by state not nationwide. The only reason Hillary had that 3% margin is because of California. So the polls were dead wrong and the pundits were buying into the trash that the polls were predicting.

So if you break it down district by district for the house and state by state for the senate my prediction will come true. Remember you saw it here first.

Granted some districts in NY and Connecticut and California may be blowouts for the dems but the rest of the middle of the country will win more seats than the blowout districts. So the 6-7% you are predicting is just same kind of trash that influenced the pollsters in the 2016 election.

Unfortunately, you can give your middle finger to Trump to make you feel better but in reality your vote won't count for much since the dems in your state would win anyway whether you voted for the dem, rep, or ind.

First off, I didn't predict squat. All I am saying is that all the available data....right, wrong, or indifferent...favors a Dem win and that you're basing your prediction on gut feel. Perhaps your gut feel will prove more accurate than the data, but I wouldn't bet the house on it.

The polls most commonly referenced in the 2016 election were the nationwide ones, and as I mentioned, they were right on the money. In conducting a poll, they choose a randomly generated phone number to call and as such they know no state boundaries, so your statement that it was Hillary's win in CA that made the difference in her 2-3% margin is very misleading.

Statewide races have has always been a lot more difficult to accurately poll as far as the Presidential race goes, and you are correct, they generally showed a tilt towards Clinton in 2016. But even in electoral analysis's, with the state wide polling factored in, it still showed Clinton with 203 electoral votes classified as either likely or leaning Clinton and 171 classified as toss ups, with 270 needed to win:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... e_map.html

Anyone looking at those numbers, ie a 9% Clinton lead in a winner-take-all electoral college with nearly 40% of the electoral votes rated as toss ups, yet had the audacity to predict a 95% chance of Clinton winning the election, was a fool.

And lastly, all polls do is show data. They do not forecast a chance of winning percentage. It is up to those that interpret them (or the computer modeling they design) to assign odds.

Having said all that, polling has gotten more complex over the past 20 years. It used to be that pollsters could rely on someone answering a phone call and giving an accurate answer as to their opinion. Not anymore. Plus there are scores of polls, some of them well done, others not so much so, and their cumulative results look like a scatter chart. However, they're still better than throwing darts at a board.

All I am saying is that all the available data....right, wrong, or indifferent...favors a Dem win and that you're basing your prediction on gut feel.

I tend to agree with you about the House flipping, but in fairness to ID, I've heard some pretty rational, non-partisan analyses that came to similar conclusions as him due to the number of Dem seats being defended that went to Trump in 2016, etc.

It's a bit more than gut feel.

burrrton wrote:I tend to agree with you about the House flipping, but in fairness to ID, I've heard some pretty rational, non-partisan analyses that came to similar conclusions as him due to the number of Dem seats being defended that went to Trump in 2016, etc.

It's a bit more than gut feel.

You're referring to the Senate, and I've stated on a number of occasions that the R's are likely to hold onto it, perhaps even pick up a couple of seats, especially if the R's play their cards right in the SCOTUS hearing. Our differences are in the House races, and the indicators clearly favors the Dems.

All that is known for certain is barring airtight charges against Trump or health issues including death, if the Dems don't flip both houses Trump survives 4 years. We will have two more years of ridiculous Twitter wars, off the cuff remarks the media blows up into huge statements on Trump's character, and other such crap. Though I think there is a wildcard the Dems are waiting to play next election that is the tape with Trump using racial epithets. That comes out during the next Trump election and that should kill him. The Dems are building up everything they can to throw at the guy if he lasts 4 years and survives their trumped up (pun intended) Russian spy rubbish. The next presidential election if Trump runs for a second term will likely be the most brutal we've ever seen. The most brutal political cycle I've seen in my lifetime as an adult was the Republican attack on Bill Clinton during his second term. This is exceeding that. The Democrats are hammering relentlessly along with the Never Trumpers.

Uh oh. It looks like the bosom buddy just reached a plea agreement with prosecutors:

ABC News is reporting President Donald Trump's ex-personal attorney Michael Cohen has reached a tentative plea deal with federal prosecutors on campaign finance violations, bank fraud and tax evasion.

This could get interesting. It comes a few days after Trump's White House lawyer (not his personal lawyer), Don McGahn, spent some 30 hours being interviewed by Robert Mueller's team.

Can't wait to hear Trump's tweets.

Our differences are in the House races, and the indicators clearly favors the Dems.

No, I'm speaking of House races, too- many people who pay closer attention to this than I are saying the most likely scenario is Dems picking up ~10 seats, with almost no chance to pick up the 23(?) needed to flip it.

I tend to be bearish on that prediction, but just sayin'.

Can't wait to hear Trump's tweets.

Kill me.

burrrton wrote:No, I'm speaking of House races, too- many people who pay closer attention to this than I are saying the most likely scenario is Dems picking up ~10 seats, with almost no chance to pick up the 23(?) needed to flip it.

I tend to be bearish on that prediction, but just sayin'.

Fair enough.

Like playing chess. The govt. has made its move, now it is time for counter move.

Manafort - Guilty on 8 counts all revolving around his personal tax filings as far as I can tell. The other 10 counts around his company are still pending to be announced.

Cohen - All counts are for failure to report income on taxes, lying to a tax attorney and 2 counts on campaign finance violations. All but the last two won't have any bearing on Trump. As for the last 2, one count was on him making too large of an individual donation to a single candidate and the second one is for falsifying the invoice for services in 2017 where he tried to recoup the money he paid. I'm not seeing how this can be linked to Trump - we'll have to wait and see the full story around all of this before we know if it is water off a duck's back or if it has an impact. I'm thinking as of now, no impact.

idhawkman wrote:Like playing chess. The govt. has made its move, now it is time for counter move.

Manafort - Guilty on 8 counts all revolving around his personal tax filings as far as I can tell. The other 10 counts around his company are still pending to be announced.

Cohen - All counts are for failure to report income on taxes, lying to a tax attorney and 2 counts on campaign finance violations. All but the last two won't have any bearing on Trump. As for the last 2, one count was on him making too large of an individual donation to a single candidate and the second one is for falsifying the invoice for services in 2017 where he tried to recoup the money he paid. I'm not seeing how this can be linked to Trump - we'll have to wait and see the full story around all of this before we know if it is water off a duck's back or if it has an impact. I'm thinking as of now, no impact.

From your OP in the Manafort thread:

Any predictions on what he will be "guilty" of? I'm predicting he will not be convicted of anything.

And now you're predicting that there will be no impact. More wishful thinking. Here's the part of the Cohen plea that's significant: Cohen said the first payment was "in coordination and at the direction of a candidate for federal office," and the second was made "under direction of the same candidate." Those statements line up directly with dates and amounts of the Daniels and McDougal payments and is contrary to Trump's public statements. That places DJT squarely in the cross hairs.

This has been a bad week for Trump. His White House lawyer spent 30 hours talking to Mueller about Lord knows what, his former campaign manager was just convicted on 10 counts of tax evasion, and his "bosom buddy" has just testified that Trump not only knew about but directed Cohen to make two illegal payments. Mueller has drawn blood. It's going to inspire his team to go further.

Nevertheless, I still don't think there's a credible impeachment charge in all of this, at least not yet. Unless Trump does something stupid, like fire Mueller, the only thing tangible so far is campaign violations, and IMO they do not rise to the "high crimes and misdeameanors". But what it does do is that it keeps the investigation active, increases the chances of a Trump supoena, keeps him on the defensive, and will hinder his ability to govern.

Now things are getting interesting. How bulletproof is Trump? Now it will be tested. Two of his associates including his personal lawyer are under the gun. Will they flip or stay loyal like previous president associates? Though I think Bill and Hilary had a few associates killed before they could talk. Will see if The Donald has any skeletons they can drag out of the closet to get him.

Sorry Idhawkman, this isn't Russian collusion. That's mostly made up garbage. But tax crimes are very open to manipulation. The tax codes are so complex and ridiculous they could pin tax crimes against anyone if they press hard enough and Trump has businesses so large that some kind of questionable tax code violation is likely to be found. And possibly election law violations if Cohen knows about questionable meetings, payouts, or the like. The Manafort charges I'm not as concerned about, but the personal lawyer is a big deal if he flips on Trump.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Now things are getting interesting. How bulletproof is Trump? Now it will be tested. Two of his associates including his personal lawyer are under the gun. Will they flip or stay loyal like previous president associates? Though I think Bill and Hilary had a few associates killed before they could talk. Will see if The Donald has any skeletons they can drag out of the closet to get him.

Sorry Idhawkman, this isn't Russian collusion. That's mostly made up garbage. But tax crimes are very open to manipulation. The tax codes are so complex and ridiculous they could pin tax crimes against anyone if they press hard enough and Trump has businesses so large that some kind of questionable tax code violation is likely to be found. And possibly election law violations if Cohen knows about questionable meetings, payouts, or the like. The Manafort charges I'm not as concerned about, but the personal lawyer is a big deal if he flips on Trump.

Perhaps not with this verdict, but the worst is yet to come. Manafort is scheduled to go to trial next month on more charges, including failure to register as a foreign agent, money laundering, and witness tampering, and that could lead directly to a Russian collusion charge that could ensnare DJT.

And let's not forget the bombshell dropped by Trump's bosom buddy. By saying that Trump directed him to make illegal payments, Cohen is accusing Trump of more than just a violation of a campaign finance law, he's accusing him of a criminal act.

What's interesting is how Trump will react to all of this. Will he pardon Manafort to prevent him from testifying? Will he fire Mueller? We all know how volatile and unpredictable this POTUS is, so nothing he can do would surprise me.

RiverDog wrote:Perhaps not with this verdict, but the worst is yet to come. Manafort is scheduled to go to trial next month on more charges, including failure to register as a foreign agent, money laundering, and witness tampering, and that could lead directly to a Russian collusion charge that could ensnare DJT.

The Russian puppet crap is made up. The media's charges and the use of social media to influence campaigns has been ongoing for a while. I've already stated all the nations that try to influence U.S. elections and using foreign intel is nothing new. I haven't see anything yet that indicates the Russian attacks are anything more than the usual. Hilary Clinton just wants an excuse for her loss and she has manufactured one because the Clintons are some of the savviest politicians to ever play the game.

And let's not forget the bombshell dropped by Trump's bosom buddy. By saying that Trump directed him to make illegal payments, Cohen is accusing Trump of more than just a violation of a campaign finance law, he's accusing him of a criminal act.

What's interesting is how Trump will react to all of this. Will he pardon Manafort to prevent him from testifying? Will he fire Mueller? We all know how volatile and unpredictable this POTUS is, so nothing he can do would surprise me.

Yep. Cohen can screw Trump hard, whether or not he is lying. Cohen is very clearly proving Trump made a bad choice of lawyers. Cohen looks like he's going to do whatever he has to do to survive including serve up Trump. Trump has let too many snakes into his empire from Omarosa to this Cohen guy. You let snakes in that serve you because you demand loyalty based on obsequious behavior and those snakes will bite you when other power brokers pull them from their holes.

I was fairly certain they would never get Trump on Russian collusion crap. They may be able to drill him to the wall on tax charges and election law violations. The payments are tied to election laws? It is my understanding that he directed Cohen to use campaign funds to pay for silence? If not, why wouldn't you be able to settle legal problems with money? They have to tie the payments to the use of election funds. Paying someone off not to talk is not a crime as far as I know. Corporations do it all the time legally and so do personal individuals.

Trump's arrogance is going to cost him heavily. He should have given up his businesses to clear his table, but he just couldn't do it. He thought he could do whatever he wants, but he's finding out he cannot.

Sorry Idhawkman, Trump is screwed. There's no way to spin flipping one of his close personal lawyers as a positive or neutral occurrence. Trump may survive doing jailtime, but he's not going to survive in office I don't believe. We'll see for certain soon enough. I think this Cohen guy is going to cook Trump's presidency.

Pence as president will at least be a return to boredom.Pence is a career politician that knows how to talk and won't be twittering. Now we're in for a rough ride the rest of the year. Should be interesting.

Aseahawkfan wrote:The Russian puppet crap is made up. The media's charges and the use of social media to influence campaigns has been ongoing for a while. I've already stated all the nations that try to influence U.S. elections and using foreign intel is nothing new. I haven't see anything yet that indicates the Russian attacks are anything more than the usual. Hilary Clinton just wants an excuse for her loss and she has manufactured one because the Clintons are some of the savviest politicians to ever play the game.

I agree, there's nothing concrete that I've seen that ties Trump to Russian interference in the 2016 election. However, Manafort's upcoming trial in September could change all of that. Consider this:

Of all of President Trump’s top advisers during the campaign, Mr. Manafort’s connections to Russian businessmen and Russia-aligned politicians ran the deepest. He earned tens of millions of dollars over several years in Ukraine bolstering the political fortunes of Viktor F. Yanukovych, the president at the time and an ally of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia. Mr. Manafort did business with Oleg V. Deripaska, a Russian oligarch, before a dispute over money ended the relationship.

One of Mr. Manafort’s close business associates in Kiev was Konstantin V. Kilimnik, a Russian whom Mr. Mueller’s prosecutors have said had active ties to Russian intelligence — including in 2016, when he was in contact with Mr. Manafort in the months before the presidential election.

Mr. Manafort is set to face another trial in Washington next month, during which his relationship with Mr. Kilimnik is expected to be part of the government’s case. In indictments in that case, prosecutors have argued that Mr. Kilimnik and Mr. Manafort tried to influence the testimony of two witnesses.

The 8 convictions obtained yesterday hands Mueller a potent weapon as he can leverage Manafort into cooperating with him by means of a plea bargain in exchange for leniency in the sentencing phase. As it stands now, Manafort is on the hook for several decades in a federal penitentiary. Is it all just a bunch of made up crap? Let's wait and see where this all takes us before we conclude that there's nothing to it.

Yep. Cohen can screw Trump hard, whether or not he is lying. Cohen is very clearly proving Trump made a bad choice of lawyers. Cohen looks like he's going to do whatever he has to do to survive including serve up Trump. Trump has let too many snakes into his empire from Omarosa to this Cohen guy. You let snakes in that serve you because you demand loyalty based on obsequious behavior and those snakes will bite you when other power brokers pull them from their holes.

IMO Trump didn't let any snakes into his kingdom. It wasn't just some bad personnel choice to bring in those guys. As the saying goes, the fish rots from the head down. Trump made his hire because Cohen was a willing stooge capable of doing anything to protect him. Trump knew he had political dirt that needed covering up and that he needed a lawyer that was willing to skirt the law and take personal chances in order to enable him to run for POTUS. This all started with Trump and his womanizing.

I was fairly certain they would never get Trump on Russian collusion crap. They may be able to drill him to the wall on tax charges and election law violations. The payments are tied to election laws? It is my understanding that he directed Cohen to use campaign funds to pay for silence? If not, why wouldn't you be able to settle legal problems with money? They have to tie the payments to the use of election funds. Paying someone off not to talk is not a crime as far as I know. Corporations do it all the time legally and so do personal individuals.

Had it been just Cohen making a payment w/o Trump's knowledge, then it wouldn't have been a crime. But here's the kicker: Cohen has accused Trump of conspiring with him to commit an illegal act with the expressed purpose of influencing the election. Conspiracy to break a federal law is a criminal act.

Trump's arrogance is going to cost him heavily. He should have given up his businesses to clear his table, but he just couldn't do it. He thought he could do whatever he wants, but he's finding out he cannot.

Sorry Idhawkman, Trump is screwed. There's no way to spin flipping one of his close personal lawyers as a positive or neutral occurrence. Trump may survive doing jailtime, but he's not going to survive in office I don't believe. We'll see for certain soon enough. I think this Cohen guy is going to cook Trump's presidency.

Pence as president will at least be a return to boredom.Pence is a career politician that knows how to talk and won't be twittering. Now we're in for a rough ride the rest of the year. Should be interesting.

Agreed on your first paragraph.

As far as what happens from here on out, we'll have to wait and see as there's still more to come. This is going to be an interesting if not downright entertaining next couple of months. Will Trump pardon Manafort? Will he fire Mueller? Will he fire Jeff Sessions? Yesterday was a monumental day.

RiverDog wrote:From your OP in the Manafort thread:

Any predictions on what he will be "guilty" of? I'm predicting he will not be convicted of anything.

And now you're predicting that there will be no impact. More wishful thinking. Here's the part of the Cohen plea that's significant: Cohen said the first payment was "in coordination and at the direction of a candidate for federal office," and the second was made "under direction of the same candidate." Those statements line up directly with dates and amounts of the Daniels and McDougal payments and is contrary to Trump's public statements. That places DJT squarely in the cross hairs.

This has been a bad week for Trump. His White House lawyer spent 30 hours talking to Mueller about Lord knows what, his former campaign manager was just convicted on 10 counts of tax evasion, and his "bosom buddy" has just testified that Trump not only knew about but directed Cohen to make two illegal payments. Mueller has drawn blood. It's going to inspire his team to go further.

Nevertheless, I still don't think there's a credible impeachment charge in all of this, at least not yet. Unless Trump does something stupid, like fire Mueller, the only thing tangible so far is campaign violations, and IMO they do not rise to the "high crimes and misdeameanors". But what it does do is that it keeps the investigation active, increases the chances of a Trump supoena, keeps him on the defensive, and will hinder his ability to govern.

Not sure you will click on this link and watch the video but it addresses every one of your points above if you watch it all the way through.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5825126132001/?#sp=show-clips

I do like how you say it is wishful thinking on my part that no impact will happen and then in your last paragraph you pretty much agree with me though.

RiverDog wrote:
Perhaps not with this verdict, but the worst is yet to come. Manafort is scheduled to go to trial next month on more charges, including failure to register as a foreign agent, money laundering, and witness tampering, and that could lead directly to a Russian collusion charge that could ensnare DJT.

And let's not forget the bombshell dropped by Trump's bosom buddy. By saying that Trump directed him to make illegal payments, Cohen is accusing Trump of more than just a violation of a campaign finance law, he's accusing him of a criminal act.

What's interesting is how Trump will react to all of this. Will he pardon Manafort to prevent him from testifying? Will he fire Mueller? We all know how volatile and unpredictable this POTUS is, so nothing he can do would surprise me.

Trump probably won't do anything because:

1. Collusion is not a crime except in financial crimes. Not election crime.

2. Lanny Davis had Cohen plea guilty to two campaign violations that are not violations. If you clicked on my previous link, you'll know why.

So there's nothing to come back on the president for with either of Manaforts or Cohens pleas and convictions.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Sorry Idhawkman, Trump is screwed. There's no way to spin flipping one of his close personal lawyers as a positive or neutral occurrence. Trump may survive doing jailtime, but he's not going to survive in office I don't believe. We'll see for certain soon enough. I think this Cohen guy is going to cook Trump's presidency.

Do you remember John Edwards who ran for the presidency and was charged with election law violations for paying off his girlfriend with campaign funds? He wasn't convicted and he used campaign funds. Trump used personal funds to reimburse Cohen who made the payments out of his own money. He has stated multiple times in public that he paid it without the president knowing and then billed him for reimbursement. Now, he is saying the president knew. One of the statements is false and shows he is a liar. Combine that with his tax evasions and his credibility is scrutinized.

Also, the plea that Cohen gave is a non cooperative plea.

RiverDog wrote:
One of Mr. Manafort’s close business associates in Kiev was Konstantin V. Kilimnik, a Russian whom Mr. Mueller’s prosecutors have said had active ties to Russian intelligence — including in 2016, when he was in contact with Mr. Manafort in the months before the presidential election.

Mr. Manafort is set to face another trial in Washington next month, during which his relationship with Mr. Kilimnik is expected to be part of the government’s case. In indictments in that case, prosecutors have argued that Mr. Kilimnik and Mr. Manafort tried to influence the testimony of two witnesses.[/i]

The 8 convictions obtained yesterday hands Mueller a potent weapon as he can leverage Manafort into cooperating with him by means of a plea bargain in exchange for leniency in the sentencing phase. As it stands now, Manafort is on the hook for several decades in a federal penitentiary. Is it all just a bunch of made up crap? Let's wait and see where this all takes us before we conclude that there's nothing to it.

You do realize that Ukraine and Russia are not allies but that they are actually at war with each other, right? Manafort's connections with Ukraine would actually be a hinderance with him cooperating with Russia.

Had it been just Cohen making a payment w/o Trump's knowledge, then it wouldn't have been a crime. But here's the kicker: Cohen has accused Trump of conspiring with him to commit an illegal act with the expressed purpose of influencing the election. Conspiracy to break a federal law is a criminal act.

Your news stations really should get better legal experts to explain what the law is and not use Lanny Davis' biased hope that Trump did something wrong. Again, the funds that paid the ladies were not campaign funds but Cohen's funds that he billed back to the President in 2017 for services which is one of the counts against cohen.

idhawkman wrote:Not sure you will click on this link and watch the video but it addresses every one of your points above if you watch it all the way through.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5825126132001/?#sp=show-clips

I do like how you say it is wishful thinking on my part that no impact will happen and then in your last paragraph you pretty much agree with me though.

I didn't watch the video, but I did copy and paste a quote that I think you are referring to:

There's two reasons why this is not an illegal campaign contribution. As long as there is a secondary or dual purpose, the law says it's not a campaign expense. So, for the president, it would be personal and commercial reasons for paying money in exchange for a nondisclosure agreement.

That's going to be extremely tough to prove. In his plea deal, Cohen said that the payoff was made with the express purpose of influencing the election. He said nothing about any type of commercial purpose. The timing of the donation, ie just weeks before the election, pretty much rules out any secondary purpose.

And the fact that he's done it in the past, before he ever became a candidate, only supports that argument. And second of all, in order to criminalize an illegal campaign contribution, which is normally a civil penalty, you actually have to show the law's very special on this for that statute. You have to show willful and knowing violation of the campaign laws

Don't forget about the taped conversation that Cohen made that makes it clear that Trump at the very least knew about the donation.

As I told ASF, we'll see how this all plays out. Cohen undoubtedly has more dirt on Trump as the two have been bosom buddies for decades. I saw this morning that he doesn't want a pardon from Trump, so he's going to be singing like a canary. And we haven't heard the last of Manafort, either. He's going on trial in mid September unless they come up with some sort of plea arrangement before then....or if Trump decides to pardon him.

Like any issue, there's a wide variety of opinions on this topic. But if I were you, I wouldn't be betting on anything you hear from Fox News. I suspect that they're the ones that led you to believe that Manafort wouldn't be convicted of anything and probably where you got the idea that these events will have "zero" impact. It's already a huge distraction for DJT as that's all he can talk about, it will inspire Mueller and his team to continue the "witch hunt", it will be a topic discussed in the SCOTUS confirmation hearings, and it will be used by the Dems as a campaign issue.

Your news stations really should get better legal experts to explain what the law is and not use Lanny Davis' biased hope that Trump did something wrong. Again, the funds that paid the ladies were not campaign funds but Cohen's funds that he billed back to the President in 2017 for services which is one of the counts against cohen.

FYI I get my information from a variety of sources, including Fox News. I don't get it from one source or from one POV.

RiverDog wrote:I didn't watch the video, but I did copy and paste a quote that I think you are referring to:

There's two reasons why this is not an illegal campaign contribution. As long as there is a secondary or dual purpose, the law says it's not a campaign expense. So, for the president, it would be personal and commercial reasons for paying money in exchange for a nondisclosure agreement.

That's going to be extremely tough to prove. In his plea deal, Cohen said that the payoff was made with the express purpose of influencing the election. He said nothing about any type of commercial purpose. The timing of the donation, ie just weeks before the election, pretty much rules out any secondary purpose.

Sigh... It doesn't say it has to be a commercial dual purpose. It could be personal such as not wanting to drag his family through the public spectacle of such allegations. Remember, they are only allegations. That's real easy to prove.

And the fact that he's done it in the past, before he ever became a candidate, only supports that argument. And second of all, in order to criminalize an illegal campaign contribution, which is normally a civil penalty, you actually have to show the law's very special on this for that statute. You have to show willful and knowing violation of the campaign laws

Done what? Pay someone to settle an allegation? That just proves he had a dual purpose

Don't forget about the taped conversation that Cohen made that makes it clear that Trump at the very least knew about the donation.

This is laughable. Do you know the timeline? It might embarrass you if you go look up the timeline of that tape.

As I told ASF, we'll see how this all plays out. Cohen undoubtedly has more dirt on Trump as the two have been bosom buddies for decades. I saw this morning that he doesn't want a pardon from Trump, so he's going to be singing like a canary. And we haven't heard the last of Manafort, either. He's going on trial in mid September unless they come up with some sort of plea arrangement before then....or if Trump decides to pardon him.

Why do you think Cohen will sing? His plea is not a cooperative plea so he won't get a shorter sentence if he cooperates. Regarding Manafort, he won't get a pardon just yet. We'll see what the sentence is from the judge and then see what else may come out before Trump may pardon him for the financial crimes from so long ago. The pardon won't come until after the mid terms and it will be done probably in Jan so that it will be forgotten by the 2020 election.

Like any issue, there's a wide variety of opinions on this topic. But if I were you, I wouldn't be betting on anything you hear from Fox News. I suspect that they're the ones that led you to believe that Manafort wouldn't be convicted of anything and probably where you got the idea that these events will have "zero" impact. It's already a huge distraction for DJT as that's all he can talk about, it will inspire Mueller and his team to continue the "witch hunt", it will be a topic discussed in the SCOTUS confirmation hearings, and it will be used by the Dems as a campaign issue.

Maybe but the impact has yet to show itself so I'll stick with my prediction. And as far as the convictions, he still may appeal those so it is a long way from over.

An appeal by Manafort at this point probably isn't going to have much of an affect on the events to come. He has another trial in 4 weeks. So is he going to forgo his ability to cut a deal with Mueller and instead lay his hopes of avoiding a long prison sentence by taking a chance that an appeal will swing in his favor? An appeal can take many months, if not years, and all the while, Manafort will be in prison waiting for the appeal process to run its course. Remember, he was convicted on 8 charges and not found innocent of any of the 18 charges filed against him. IMO that makes a successful appeal on all 8 seem unlikely. And suppose he's convicted of one or more of the charges against him in the September trial? He could be looking at spending decades behind bars.

IMO outside of cutting a deal with Mueller, Manafort's only reasonable hope for a long prison sentence is for a presidental pardon, and that's probably not going to happen until Trump is leaving office or else he'd open himself up to an abuse of power or obstruction of justice charge. Trump has already gone to great lengths to distance himself from Manafort.

I'm not buying any of your spin or predictions. You've already damaged your credibility with your prediction that Manafort won't be found guilty of anything and further by claiming that these events will have zero effect. Get back with me after Manafort's September trial.

RiverDog wrote:An appeal by Manafort at this point probably isn't going to have much of an affect on the events to come. He has another trial in 4 weeks. So is he going to forgo his ability to cut a deal with Mueller and instead lay his hopes of avoiding a long prison sentence by taking a chance that an appeal will swing in his favor? An appeal can take many months, if not years, and all the while, Manafort will be in prison waiting for the appeal process to run its course. Remember, he was convicted on 8 charges and not found innocent of any of the 18 charges filed against him. IMO that makes a successful appeal on all 8 seem unlikely. And suppose he's convicted of one or more of the charges against him in the September trial? He could be looking at spending decades behind bars.

IMO outside of cutting a deal with Mueller, Manafort's only reasonable hope for a long prison sentence is for a presidental pardon, and that's probably not going to happen until Trump is leaving office or else he'd open himself up to an abuse of power or obstruction of justice charge. Trump has already gone to great lengths to distance himself from Manafort.

I'm not buying any of your spin or predictions. You've already damaged your credibility with your prediction that Manafort won't be found guilty of anything and further by claiming that these events will have zero effect. Get back with me after Manafort's September trial.

Ridiculous. He can not be charged with either of those charges by exercising his constitutional power.

I see too many Coulda woulda and shoulda's in your comments above to take it seriously so I'm not buying into your spin either.

Predictions are predictions and it is yet to be seen what impact this will have. 8 convictions on charges that should have been done on an IRS audit is hardly going to have an impact on Trump.

idhawkman wrote:[Ridiculous. He can not be charged with either of those charges by exercising his constitutional power.

He can be charged with anything that Congress views as a "high crime or misdemeanor". Impeachment proceedings against Richard Nixon charged him with obstruction of justice and abuse of power.

I see too many Coulda woulda and shoulda's in your comments above to take it seriously so I'm not buying into your spin either.

Predictions are predictions and it is yet to be seen what impact this will have. 8 convictions on charges that should have been done on an IRS audit is hardly going to have an impact on Trump.

What impact? You predicted that it wouldn't have any impact. Do you want to modify that to "what, if any" or are you admitting that you were wrong again?

But be that as it may. I'll leave the predictions to you. I'm just going to sit here and enjoy the next couple of months. It's bound to offer some good, reality show quality drama.

idhawkman wrote:Do you remember John Edwards who ran for the presidency and was charged with election law violations for paying off his girlfriend with campaign funds? He wasn't convicted and he used campaign funds. Trump used personal funds to reimburse Cohen who made the payments out of his own money. He has stated multiple times in public that he paid it without the president knowing and then billed him for reimbursement. Now, he is saying the president knew. One of the statements is false and shows he is a liar. Combine that with his tax evasions and his credibility is scrutinized.

Also, the plea that Cohen gave is a non cooperative plea.

Hmm. One thing I'll give you, if he survives Cohen being flipped he'll be nearly bulletproof. Only way I see him getting taken down if that happens is the release of a tape with him speaking racial epithets during The Apprentice.

I do understand campaign finance law violations are extremely common. It's hard to manage everything perfectly with a campaign that large and so many zealots on both sides doing whatever they can to help you win or make you lose. This is his personal lawyer. If anyone can sink him, it's Cohen.

We'll see if survives. If all they have are the payouts to women, I don't know if that will sink him given Clinton sat on the witness stand and committed perjury after banging an intern in The White House and skipped out. If Cohen doesn't have more, he might wriggle off the hook.

All I know for certain is Americans are one deluded group of people thinking that more of their candidates aren't just as dirty as Trump. This is a country that has done many corrupt and evil acts as as well many noble and benign acts. It's a country of millions of people with enormous power. That has never in history happened without a lot of bad with the good and everything in-between. There's no way to be a "good" country and hold power in a world like this. You'll lose trying to be honorable and right like Ned Stark in Game of Thrones and the numerous other real figures in history that tried to do right and died or failed. This is a game for power and power doesn't come cheap or easy. Right now we are witnessing an immense power struggle in the United States between the president and his allies and everyone else that wants him out. It's pretty interesting to say the least. I imagine this is going to be mined for entertainment for a long time even after Trump is out of office and gone.

Trump really has turned The White House into a reality TV show and a picture of our times where realty TV stars and their associates are key figures in our politics. It's one of those times when reality is stranger than fiction.

RiverDog wrote:
What impact? You predicted that it wouldn't have any impact. Do you want to modify that to "what, if any" or are you admitting that you were wrong again?

Why would I modify my stance? There's been no impact yet. Not sure what you think the "impact" is.

idhawkman wrote:Why would I modify my stance? There's been no impact yet. Not sure what you think the "impact" is.

Your sentence, absent a "if any", suggests that there will be some sort of an impact. But it sounds like you intended to insert the "if any" into your phrase.

There's already been an impact on both sides of the aisle, with the SCOTUS nomination process, the midterm campaigns. Here's just a sampling of the impact it's having:

Senior Republican Party leaders began urging their most imperiled incumbents on Wednesday to speak out about the wrongdoing surrounding President Trump, with Representative Tom Cole, a former House Republican campaign chairman, warning, “Where there’s smoke, and there’s a lot of smoke, there may well be fire.”

Democrats face their own pressure to shed their cautious midterm strategy and hammer the opposition for fostering what Democratic leaders are labeling “a culture of corruption” that starts at Mr. Trump and cascades through two indicted House Republicans to a series of smaller scandals breaking out in the party’s backbenches.

From what I've read, the strategy of using or not using these latest developments in midterm campaigns varies widely. Contrary to the quote above, some Dems are avoiding it, citing HRC's lack of success in attacking Trump's character, while others are worried that talking about impeachment would take away from their message and make their candidacy simply as a means to remove Trump. Some R's are using it as a "I told you so", that Dems from the get go have wanted to overturn the results of the election and thus motivate their base.

It's been the lead story of every national news outlet for the past two days. Both liberal and conservative shows talk shows have been discussing it for the past 36 hours, and about 1 out of every 6 articles on my MSN start page has a headline about it. Chuck Schumer wants to delay the SCOTUS hearings. The R's say they're going forward with them. There's widespread speculation that the Dems will quiz Judge K about the prospect of becoming a juror of the man that nominated him (should a subpoena be issued).

I'd say that's a pretty fair impact.