Feds Raid Office of Trump Lawyer Who Paid Off Stormy Daniels. This Is a Big Deal.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, Brad_ATX said:

 

As for Mueller out to get Cohen, do you realize how many people had to sign off on this raid?

As you know, the only signature that really matters is that of the federal judge. Not to discredit “preliminary” matters, though.

[AUUSN 823]

[AUUSN 823]

16 minutes ago, AUUSN said:

 

[AU64 10,122]

Sorry....looks like this is on Rosenstein, not Muller....that obviously makes a big difference..  

 

 

[DKW 86 7,424]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

This "debate" with Nola had nothing to do with politics DKW.  It's about intellectual honesty.

I understood that. Intellectual Honesty in American Politics is about the squishiest road around. IH is the heart and soul of much of what passes for politics these days.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

This "debate" with Nola had nothing to do with politics DKW.  It's about intellectual honesty.

Something you're not very good at.

Let it go and move on... 

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

If they find that Cohen committed a crime, by all means punish him for it.  But it's disconcerting to see unelected officials being so one sided when it comes to carrying out 'justice'. 

I'm certainly not going to hold my breath waiting for the day when the Feds raid the DNC and Hillary campaign office's e-mails and records. They didn't disclose the payments to Fusion GPS during the 2016 election and also didn't disclose that they did opposition research for the campaign. Not disclosing those things amounts to breaking campaign finance law. This has been known since last October yet those revelations have gone nowhere and no one in the media wants to acknowledge that it happened.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/357213-clinton-dnc-connections-to-trump-dossier-funding-could-create-election-law

Yet now when it's Trump's personal lawyer/attorney that's considered to have broken campaign finance law , that's now enough to warrant a raid. 

Who knows what else the DNC and Hillary campaign didn't disclose, at the least you'd think somebody in the DOJ would want to look into it. But since Hillary's not president, what difference does it make right?

[homersapien 11,373]

7 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

I understood that. Intellectual Honesty in American Politics is about the squishiest road around. IH is the heart and soul of much of what passes for politics these days.

It was about the intellectual honesty of Nola, not "American politics".  

[homersapien 11,373]

6 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Something you're not very good at.

Let it go and move on... 

Thanks to a written format, the record is there for anyone to see.

[homersapien 11,373]

1 hour ago, Auburnfan91 said:

If they find that Cohen committed a crime, by all means punish him for it.  But it's disconcerting to see unelected officials being so one sided when it comes to carrying out 'justice'. 

I'm certainly not going to hold my breath waiting for the day when the Feds raid the DNC and Hillary campaign office's e-mails and records. They didn't disclose the payments to Fusion GPS during the 2016 election and also didn't disclose that they did opposition research for the campaign. Not disclosing those things amounts to breaking campaign finance law. This has been known since last October yet those revelations have gone nowhere and no one in the media wants to acknowledge that it happened.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/357213-clinton-dnc-connections-to-trump-dossier-funding-could-create-election-law

Yet now when it's Trump's personal lawyer/attorney that's considered to have broken campaign finance law , that's now enough to warrant a raid. 

Who knows what else the DNC and Hillary campaign didn't disclose, at the least you'd think somebody in the DOJ would want to look into it. But since Hillary's not president, what difference does it make right?

Squirrel HILLARY !!!

[AUDub 11,148]

Just now, homersapien said:

Squirrel HILLARY !!!

Funniest thing is he's comparing apples and airplanes. What Hillary did (if found in violation, as the CLC's case is pretty shaky) would result in, at most, a hefty fine. What Cohen did is worthy of prison. 

[TitanTiger 20,482]

1 hour ago, Auburnfan91 said:

Who knows what else the DNC and Hillary campaign didn't disclose, at the least you'd think somebody in the DOJ would want to look into it. But since Hillary's not president, what difference does it make right?

So what motive do you suppose Trump's DOJ would have for ignoring Hillary and the DNC's aforementioned sins?

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

Just now, AUDub said:

Funniest thing is he's comparing apples and airplanes. What Hillary did (if found in violation, as the CLC's case is pretty shaky) would result in, at most, a hefty fine. What Cohen did is worthy of prison. 

I guess criminal case means hefty fine, or am I just bad at reading comprehension?

Quote

Baran said that the law allows for civil penalties if an expenditure is misreported unintentionally, but a criminal case could be brought if the misrepresentation is shown to be willful and knowing.

 

[AUDub 11,148]

18 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

I guess criminal case means hefty fine, or am I just bad at reading comprehension?

If they can prove "willful and knowing," I'll eat my hat. Think carefully about that. 

Federal law enforcement is headed by the executive branch. Who controls the executive branch right now? Trump, right? A Republican with far less impulse control than most. If hiring a firm that hired a firm that hired Christopher Steele was illegal, wouldn’t he already be prosecuting her? After all he any many on his campaign led chants of “lock her up!”

This isn’t a "deep state" issue. Put staunch Republican Jeff Sessions and staunch Republican Chris Wray in front of a camera and a microphone, have them declare what she did illegal and indict her! The only reasonable explanation for why this hasn’t happened is: A. that the combined might of Trump, his handpicked Attorney General, and his handpicked FBI director are incapable of this. B. that the extremely anti-Clinton executive branch doesn’t know its own laws. C. that it isn’t actually illegal.

Which do you think is most likely?

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

36 minutes ago, AUDub said:

If they can prove "willful and knowing," I'll eat my hat. Think carefully about that. 

Federal law enforcement is headed by the executive branch. Who controls the executive branch right now? Trump, right? A Republican with far less impulse control than most. If hiring a firm that hired a firm that hired Christopher Steele was illegal, wouldn’t he already be prosecuting her? After all he any many on his campaign led chants of “lock her up!”

This isn’t a ‘deep state’ issue. Put staunch Republican Jeff Sessions and staunch Republican Chris Wray in front of a camera and a microphone, have them declare what she did illegal and indict her! The only reasonable explanations for why this hasn’t happened is either a) that the combined might of Trump, his handpicked Attorney General, and his handpicked FBI director are incapable of this; that the extremely anti-Clinton executive branch doesn’t know its own laws; or c) that it isn’t actually illegal.

Which do you think is most likely?

False argument, opposition research isn't illegal. But not disclosing payments, or disclosing opposition research breaks campaign finance law. It's only a fine for not disclosing it. I think you can make a pretty strong argument that considering how much money was spent on the dossier, which was at least a couple of millions that it's hard to make an excuse that the campaign didn't know where the money went and no one knew about it.

Quote

However, Republicans and campaign watchdogs have accused the Clinton campaign and the D.N.C. of violating campaign finance laws by disguising the payments to Fusion GPS on mandatory disclosures to the Federal Election Commission. Their disclosure reports do not list any payments from the Clinton campaign or the D.N.C. to Fusion GPS. They do list a total of $12.4 million in payments to Perkins Coie, but that’s almost entirely for legal consulting, with only one payment — of $66,500 — for “research consulting” from the D.N.C.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/us/politics/steele-dossier-trump-expained.html

 The dossier you can argue was an interference in the election because it played a role in the Trump campaign investigation. It was the DNC and Hillary campaign that cast Trump as a puppet of Putin and connected him with Russia during the campaign. Paul Manafort resigned as Trump's campaign chairman in August 2016 after the media reported his connections to the former Ukraine president. So even before the dossier was made public, smearing Trump  over Russia was already being done. You can't tell me it was just a coincidence that a dossier was produced connecting Trump to Russia and it just happened to fall in the FBI's lap. 

 

[TitanTiger 20,482]

Flea'd from the Twitters...

Trump on FBI raids: "that was pretty tough stuff. Ya wake him up, maybe his family was there...pretty tough stuff." 

Trump on ICE Raids where Mom’s and Dads are torn from their kids: "**** them and the ****hole countries they come from."

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

3 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Flea'd from the Twitters...

Trump on FBI raids: "that was pretty tough stuff. Ya wake him up, maybe his family was there...pretty tough stuff." 

Trump on ICE Raids where Mom’s and Dads are torn from their kids: "**** them and the ****hole countries they come from."

I'm sure Cohen would have liked an alert or heads up like the Oakland mayor gave to her city when ICE was about to do raids there.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

1 minute ago, Auburnfan91 said:

I'm sure Cohen would have liked an alert or heads up like the Oakland mayor gave to her city when ICE was about to do raids there.

 

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

 

So Trump actually said '**** them and the ****hole countries they come from?

If so then I'll agree with you.

[AUDub 11,148]

34 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

False argument, opposition research isn't illegal.

I didn't say it was. What was that you said about reading comprehension a couple of posts back?

Quote

But not disclosing payments, or disclosing opposition research breaks campaign finance law.

Here's the complaint filed by CLC to the FEC. You can decide for yourself on the legal merits but their case is very circumstantial. Yes, the law firm hired by the Clinton camp funded the research. They will have to prove without a shadow of a doubt that the Clinton camp knowingly paid them for that service. That is the only way they will be breaking FEC rules. I would imagine the law firm is smart enough to cover their book keeping records to ensure that any money coming in from the Clinton camp was used strictly for "legal services." 

If you read the CLC report they mention on article 17, "The Commission has not always required committees to report the identity of subcontractors whom itemized contractors hire, as long as the stated purpose of the payment to the contractor reflected the “actual purpose” of the subsequent payment to the subcontractor, and the contractor receiving the disbursement has an “arms-length” relationship with the committee making the disbursement. See Advisory Opinion 1983-25 (Mondale) at 3. That is not the case here. The stated purpose of the disbursements to Perkins Coie (“Legal Services” or “Legal and Compliance Consulting”) did not reflect the “actual purpose” of how the disbursement was intended to be used in hiring Fusion GPS as a subcontractor."

This may come down to interpretation of what "actual purpose" means. If that's the case then it's hardly an open and shut case for the CLC.

Quote

It's only a fine for not disclosing it. I think you can make a pretty strong argument that considering how much money was spent on the dossier, which was at least a couple of millions that it's hard to make an excuse that the campaign didn't know where the money went and no one knew about it.

LOL Nope. 

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-dossier-cost-millions-699816

Quote

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/us/politics/steele-dossier-trump-expained.html

The dossier you can argue was an interference in the election because it played a role in the Trump campaign investigation.

You keep prattling on like the dossier was formulated to "spy" on Trump when it was one part of many other pieces of evidence they used for their warrants.

US law enforcement and intelligence officials have said US investigators did their own work, separate from the dossier, to support their findings that Russia tried to meddle in the 2016 presidential election in favor of Trump.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/18/politics/fbi-dossier-carter-page-donald-trump-russia-investigation/index.html

Quote

It was the DNC and Hillary campaign that cast Trump as a puppet of Putin and connected him with Russia during the campaign.

Hardly. Some disconcerting s*** was found in the course of their opposition research and it was turned over to law enforcement. When law enforcement was able to verify at least a portion (what portion that may be is still unknown), then they could use it in the course of an investigation, including seeking warrants. 

Quote

Paul Manafort resigned as Trump's campaign chairman in August 2016 after the media reported his connections to the former Ukraine president. So even before the dossier was made public, smearing Trump  over Russia was already being done.

Not so difficult when the guy leaves a paper trail a mile long. Guy was a foreign agent. Tough s***. 

Quote

You can't tell me it was just a coincidence that a dossier was produced connecting Trump to Russia and it just happened to fall in the FBI's lap. 

When the guy kept hiring folks mysteriously linked to the Russians, I find it very believable. 

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

@AUDub

I didn't say the dossier cost $12.4 million, that's just the number that was cited in the NYT article and how much was reported that the campaign spent paying the law firm. Fusion GPS was paid $1.02 million. So in effect that's how much Steele and the dossier cost.

I did say 'millions' in my last post so I'll concede I was off, but it was still $1.02 million. 

$1.02 million is still more than the $150,000 that Michael Cohen paid Stormy Daniels. $150,000 is enough to warrant a raid but $1.02 million isn't?....  Mmmmkay

The DOJ has no problem taking initiative in opening probes and investigations of Trump's campaign or associates without it being made public. But Trump, Sessions, etc.... literally have to PUBLICLY prod the DOJ to look into things related to Hillary and her campaign. The House Judiciary Committee had to request documents related to Hillary's 2016 investigation and they still haven't received those documents. 

And what about John Podesta, Hillary campaign chairman? He had links to Russia, he was also a foreign agent but the media didn't out him like they did Manafort...........Why?  It's clear that Podesta's ties to Russia were a problem for Hillary so the media never brought it up. They were busy exclusively going after Trump and his campaign's ties to Russia and never said anything about Podesta until AFTER the Wikileaks stuff came out. But instead of hammering Podesta, they went after Wikileaks and tried to tie Trump to Wikileaks..... lol....... Once again wrong doing is not as important if your on Hillary's side. If you're on Trump's side, IT'S A BIG DEAL!!!!

There's a clear double standard. You don't have to be MAGA person to see that. I also think it's partly why this country is so screwed up and divided, at least politically. There's been no consistency from the DOJ and only one sided accountability. Yet the folks on here and the Mueller's media cheerleaders claim they want wrongdoing punished and want Trump taken out and are more than willing to overlook all the unethical and law breaking things Hillary and her campaign did.

When people like Hillary can get off scot-free, people have a right to be angry. If Hillary can escape punishment why can't Trump? Imo, they need smoking gun evidence on Trump that he "willfully and knowingly" broke the law. That's the standard that Hillary got, she broke the law but Comey ruled it wasn't intentional. So Donald should get that same standard. It's not whether he broke the law, it's whether he intentionally did it.

You can bet that Mueller is going to drag this investigation out past the mid-terms in hopes the Democrats take control of Congress just because it would make his job easier in getting Trump taken down. Impeaching Trump is going to be the 1st thing Democrats try to do if they gain the majority in Congress. 

[TitanTiger 20,482]

1 hour ago, Auburnfan91 said:

So Trump actually said '**** them and the ****hole countries they come from?

If so then I'll agree with you.

[AUDub 11,148]

1 hour ago, Auburnfan91 said:

@AUDub

I didn't say the dossier cost $12.4 million, that's just the number that was cited in the NYT article and how much was reported that the campaign spent paying the law firm. Fusion GPS was paid $1.02 million. So in effect that's how much Steele and the dossier cost.

I did say 'millions' in my last post so I'll concede I was off, but it was still $1.02 million. 

Only 168K made it to Orbis, Steele’s firm. It’s not really clear how much of the $1.02 million resulted in the dossier, as Fusion GPS might have other expenditures. Pretty sure Fusion saw a cool profit, however. 

Quote

$1.02 million is still more than the $150,000 that Michael Cohen paid Stormy Daniels. $150,000 is enough to warrant a raid but $1.02 million isn't?....  Mmmmkay

Again, you’re comparing apples and airplanes. The only potentially illegal thing the Clinton campaign did was not disclose how some money was spent on what is generally considered a standard practice. A big no-no, but at worst a hefty fine. Cohen donated an illegal contribution, a bigger no-no, and, given the nature of the raid, it’s certain they have him on a slew of other stuff too. Investigators don’t generally raid an attorney’s office unless there’s some seriously shady s*** going on.

Again, Cohen is ******. How ****** is up to him, because they’re almost certainly going to turn the screws and offer him a deal to get him to sing about what else he might know. 

Quote

The DOJ has no problem taking initiative in opening probes and investigations of Trump's campaign or associates without it being made public. But Trump, Sessions, etc.... literally have to PUBLICLY prod the DOJ to look into things related to Hillary and her campaign. The House Judiciary Committee had to request documents related to Hillary's 2016 investigation and they still haven't received those documents. 

People Trump put into place currently run the DOJ. If they’re not acting on Hillary, the reason why couldn’t be more obvious. They can’t nail her on anything.

Quote

And what about John Podesta, Hillary campaign chairman? He had links to Russia, he was also a foreign agent but the media didn't out him like they did Manafort...........Why?  It's clear that Podesta's ties to Russia were a problem for Hillary so the media never brought it up.

Yeah, you’ve got that completely wrong. Wrong Podesta. John ran the campaign. Tony ran the lobbying firm. John is not affiliated with the firm.

Tony got in deep s*** because it turns out they lobbied on ECFMU’s behalf along with Manafort. They also didn’t file the proper forms. The only reasons off hand he’s probably not under indictment like Manafort probably stems from three things. A. They cooperated fully with the investigation. B. They can’t reasonably be shown to have known on whose behalf they were lobbying like Manafort was (Yanukovych). 

Quote

"The Podesta Group has fully cooperated with the special counsel's office and taken every possible step to provide documentation that confirms compliance with the law," the company said in a statement. "Based on our due diligence and on the recommendation of definitive legal experts, the firm immediately filed the appropriate public disclosures of its representation of the ECFMU over five years ago, and in eight subsequent public filings. The Podesta Group's work for ECFMU, a nonprofit think tank, was in support of Ukraine's admission to the EU, a position supported by foreign policy experts at the time. The ECFMU provided formal certification that it was neither funded by nor directed by a government or political party."

C. Their crimes aren’t commensurate. They have Podesta on the failure to register under FARA, which has been rectified. They indicted Manafort on money laundering, unregistered agent of a foreign principal, false and misleading Foreign Agent Registration Act statements, false statements, and seven counts of failure to file reports of foreign bank and financial accounts.

The media did out Tony:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mueller-now-investigating-democratic-lobbyist-tony-podesta-n812776

http://www.businessinsider.com/podesta-group-shutting-down-mueller-russia-2017-11

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/09/politics/podesta-manafort-lobbying/index.html

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/paul-manafort-lobbying-ukraine-podesta-group-237163

And, once again, Trump’s people currently run the DOJ. Take it up with them. 

Quote

There's a clear double standard. You don't have to be MAGA person to see that. I also think it's partly why this country is so screwed up and divided, at least politically. There's been no consistency from the DOJ and only one sided accountability. Yet the folks on here and the Mueller's media cheerleaders claim they want wrongdoing punished and want Trump taken out and are more than willing to overlook all the unethical and law breaking things Hillary and her campaign did.

Oh, honey. It ain’t what you know. It’s what you can prove. 

Quote

When people like Hillary can get off scot-free, people have a right to be angry.

They have to have something actionable to hang her with.

Quote

If Hillary can escape punishment why can't Trump?

He most likely will. 

Quote

Imo, they need smoking gun evidence on Trump that he "willfully and knowingly" broke the law.

Which may or may not exist, but what’s going on does warrant an investigation, and Trump would do better to let it play out than to force a crisis by initiating a Saturday Night Massacre like Nixon did. He’s not acting innocent. 

Quote

That's the standard that Hillary got, she broke the law but Comey ruled it wasn't intentional. So Donald should get that same standard. It's not whether he broke the law, it's whether he intentionally did it.

Many people are confusing the FBI's national security function with its law enforcement function. 

And the truth about the e-mail scandal is that it was overblown. Countless government officials going back 2 decades now are probably guilty of worse, including in the current admin, where they are said to be extremely flippant about the matter. Hell, the Bush admin alone deleted 10s of millions. 

Quote

You can bet that Mueller is going to drag this investigation out past the mid-terms in hopes the Democrats take control of Congress just because it would make his job easier in getting Trump taken down. Impeaching Trump is going to be the 1st thing Democrats try to do if they gain the majority in Congress. 

That would be the single stupidest thing they could do unless Mueller finds an unequivocal smoking gun, if he ever does, which I seriously doubt. Hell, campaigning on it would be stupid, as they already have the mo’ to pull off a blue wave come November. The Rs are already picking up the “they’ll impeach!” ball in an effort to save their majority. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/08/us/politics/trump-impeachment-midterms.html

[DKW 86 7,424]

ONE: The Blue Wave, at whatever peak it crests at will take the HOR. IMHO, The Dems will tap the brakes on impeachment because they are going to be overjoyed at winning the HOR back. They will wait on Mueller. So far, I see a ton of very bad money laundering and very bad business, but i have yet to SEE a smoking gun on "Collusion." I can easily see the Dems not impeaching Trump. As long as the regular Republicans hold the Senate, there is a chance tho. Nixon left when he knew the Reps had turned on him and his actions. The regular Reps hate Trump. The link to the Russians STARTED during the primaries.

TWO: However removing Trump may permanently mark the Republican brand as bad, so that may actually work to Trump's favor. The public could also see it as the Republicans Policing their own. (Something I, unfortunately, have an extremely hard time seeing Democrats doing. If the Dems can overlook Chappaquiddick, and Clinton doing an intern in the workplace, lying under oath what do they actually get queasy over?)

[kevon67 2,368]

9 hours ago, homersapien said:

It was about the intellectual honesty of Nola, not "American politics".  

 Its okay little buddy lets go get some ice-cream