10 hours ago, SheungWan said:

 

No. Its about the cover-up. Specifically where the money came for the pay-off.

A non disclosure agreement is rather ordinary stuff for businessman and government officials. 

9 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

A non disclosure agreement is rather ordinary stuff for businessman and government officials. 

A non disclosure agreement is not ordinary stuff for government officials. Government officials may be bound by laws and regulations regarding confidentiality but they can not bound by NDAs keeping them quiet in order to protect the reputation of a particular individual. 

40 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

A non disclosure agreement is rather ordinary stuff for businessman and government officials. 

A non disclosure agreement under a fake name (who didn't sign it) is not ordinary.

47 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

A non disclosure agreement is not ordinary stuff for government officials. Government officials may be bound by laws and regulations regarding confidentiality but they can not bound by NDAs keeping them quiet in order to protect the reputation of a particular individual. 

Non disclosure documents are ordinary, I have signed many, and I was never close to any real power. A deal was made with a private citizen that she wouldn't talk about something, and she got paid. A lot. It's not illegal.

22 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Non disclosure documents are ordinary, I have signed many, and I was never close to any real power. A deal was made with a private citizen that she wouldn't talk about something, and she got paid. A lot. It's not illegal.

I don't know what country you're referring to, but in the USA pretty much every legal authority agrees that NDA's that work to protect an individual working for the government are not legal. If the NDA is in reference to some purely governmental matter that's another matter. Trump's NDAs that government workers were made to sign specifically forbid them from ever revealing anything or saying anything that might be construed as critical of Trump. This has nothing to do with facilitating the efficent conduct of government and everything to do with protecting Trump as a private individual.

Edited April 11, 20188 yr by bristolboy

53 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I don't know what country you're referring to, but in the USA pretty much every legal authority agrees that NDA's that work to protect an individual working for the government are not legal. If the NDA is in reference to some purely governmental matter that's another matter. Trump's NDAs that government workers were made to sign specifically forbid them from ever revealing anything or saying anything that might be construed as critical of Trump. This has nothing to do with facilitating the efficent conduct of government and everything to do with protecting Trump as a private individual.

Tempest in a tea cup though really, everyone knows what kind of lifestyle Trump had, Not as rapey as Bill Clinton though, more like Kennedy and Johnson.

1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

Tempest in a tea cup though really, everyone knows what kind of lifestyle Trump had, Not as rapey as Bill Clinton though, more like Kennedy and Johnson.

Not if the person whose interest the payment was made denies having made it thus negating the NDA and the source of the funds obscure. Again! This is about following the money. Numerous attempts to deflect towards making this a pure 'lifestyle' issue re Trump not quite working guys, but hey, there seems not much else for you to fall-back on, so keep going!

1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

Tempest in a tea cup though really, everyone knows what kind of lifestyle Trump had, Not as rapey as Bill Clinton though, more like Kennedy and Johnson.

Not as rapey? You have got to be kidding me. The guy who brags about grabbing girls crotches and who numerous women claim he forced himself on them or stuck his tongue down their throat unbidden? That guy?

3 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

Non disclosure documents are ordinary, I have signed many, and I was never close to any real power. A deal was made with a private citizen that she wouldn't talk about something, and she got paid. A lot. It's not illegal.

You are missing a few critical points:

 

The legality of the NDA is questionable: Trump never signed it and he denies knowledge of any payment. Enforcing an NDA that is not signed by one of the "Agreement" partners is rightly being questioned. 

 

Then there is the far more serious matter of the payment itself:

If Cohen actually did shell out $130,000 on behalf of Trump without Trump's agreement or instruction (Trump has denied knowledge), then there are at least two liar-eating traps opened. 

1. Cohen himself can face being struck off as a lawyer.

2. The payment, made to protect Trump's image in the run up to the election becomes a matter of election campaign finance law.

 

However, if we put our reality head back on we non of us will believe a lawyer shells out $130,000 for a client, and even if he did the money has to have come from somewhere - somewhere very traceable. 

 

If Cohen did not pay this money himself, who did and why was it necessary to lie about who paid the money? Again, campaign finance law.

 

Cohen's statement was unequivocal.

Trump's statement was unequivocal.

The money was paid.

The money is traceable.

Cohen and his communications with Trump are now under the microscope. 

 

 

The truth will out.

 

Something else not to take your eye off.

 

Trump's lawyer get's raided by the FBI by order of the US Attorney for New York (where all the banks are).

 

We know for sure that this has something to do with the payment to Danniels, but there might be other matters involved.

 

The news and public focus is on the fact Cohen is Trump's long time personal lawyer.

 

But Cohen has other jobs, he's also the Deputy Finance Chairman of the National Republican Committee.

 

 

Mueller's investigation includes (amongst a lot of other things) investigation of breaches of Campaign Finance Law, by example the funnelling of Russian money to the RNC via the National Rifle Association. 

 

Cohen will, in his post at the RNC, have a very direct view of what money was coming in, where it came from and who it went to.

 

The deafening silence from Republicans in the Senate and Congress is starting to make sense.

The deafening silence from Republicans in the Senate and Congress is starting to make sense.

Yeah, it’s all coming together...,any day now!!!!

Impeach 45, the orange buffoon must go!!!!!!

29 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

 

Yeah, it’s all coming together...,any day now!!!!

Impeach 45, the orange buffoon must go!!!!!!

 

 

It's either him or democracy. They both can not co-exist.

 

On ‎4‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 9:54 PM, Jingthing said:

"trump" in the danger zone. Interesting times indeed!

 

 

"Should Trump orchestrate the firing of Mueller, he would unleash a political tsunami and trigger demands for impeachment by Democrats. Republicans who run Congress would face extreme pressure to consider whether the President's actions merit such draconian action. There's no way out of that imbroglio without causing significant political reverberations that would last for years."

 

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/10/politics/michael-cohen-donald-trump-white-house/index.html

 

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

 

 

What none of Trump's opponents seem to have considered is that if the Dems take the house in November ( given they will try to impeach him, and shut down every house investigation into the current matters ) he may decide to bring it all down and destroy them all rather than go quietly. His base would demand that. He could start by firing Sessions, Rosenstein, Wray and get whomever took over as AG to fire Mueller and shut down the investigation. Then he could pardon anyone convicted. Meanwhile, he'd still be president till January, and could really run amok.

Anti Trumpers should be careful what they wish for.

 

BTW, know who takes over if Trump does get impeached and removed? 555555555

Be afraid, be very afraid if Trump does go.

4 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

 

Yeah, it’s all coming together...,any day now!!!!

Impeach 45, the orange buffoon must go!!!!!!

 

 

If Trump is impeached and removed by the senate, Pence takes over. Think about it.

On ‎4‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 7:44 AM, canuckamuck said:

A non disclosure agreement is rather ordinary stuff for businessman and government officials. 

They would have to prove Trump knew and approved the pay off to have any effect. If they can't then only the lawyer gets done.

Even if Trump knew, it's a long way off an impeachable offence.

Meanwhile, as all this c*** about porn actresses and a non politician goes on America is becoming a  stock to the world. Putin must be lovin' it.

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

BTW, know who takes over if Trump does get impeached and removed?  Be afraid, be very afraid if Trump does go.

 

I've considered that.  I used to be against an impeachment conviction for just that reason, but I've come to realize that impeachment is needed to show that there are consequences for electing a person such as Trump.  Impeachment would hopefully say to the citizens and the world, that this must never be allowed to happen again.  We now know what happens if we elect a used car salesman with zero experience to the presidency, and hopefully it never happens again.

 

If there is no impeachment, then next time it'll be the democrats who'll elect Oprah Winfrey or some other terrible candidate that rides into office on a populist wave.  And a democratically controlled house & senate will simply follow in the footsteps of the current batch of republicans, singing tit-for-tat.

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If Trump is impeached and removed by the senate, Pence takes over. Think about it.

You assume of course that Pence is not himself implicated in Trump's crimes.

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You assume of course that Pence is not himself implicated in Trump's crimes.

I am assuming Pence is untouched by this. By design. He's a crafty bugger, that one. 

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

They would have to prove Trump knew and approved the pay off to have any effect. If they can't then only the lawyer gets done.

Even if Trump knew, it's a long way off an impeachable offence.

Meanwhile, as all this c*** about porn actresses and a non politician goes on America is becoming a  stock to the world. Putin must be lovin' it.

You are completely missing the salient points, either because you've decided to do so or because they completely evaded you.

 

The reasons the Special Council is investigating the Trump/Danniels affair has nothing to do with the sex but the payments to coverup the story during the run up to the election.

 

Specific issues are:

 

The $130,000 payment to Danniels may have (almost certainly did) breach campaign finance law.

The president has denied the payment, the lawyer says he made the payment, so the payment was made, and the president's denial of knowledge is questionable (who has a lawyer that shells out $130,000 on their behalf). This opens the door to question who paid and where the money came from. 

There are at least three particular problems with where the money came from:

 

• It almost certainly breaches campaign finance law (see above).
• The money may have come from a foreign source (may be linked to Russia or other foreign source)
• The money may have been a pay for play arrangement.

Money is traceable, Mueller will follow the money.

You are completely missing the salient points, either because you've decided to do so or because they completely evaded you.
 
The reasons the Special Council is investigating the Trump/Danniels affair has nothing to do with the sex but the payments to coverup the story during the run up to the election.
 
Specific issues are:
 
The $130,000 payment to Danniels may have (almost certainly did) breach campaign finance law.
The president has denied the payment, the lawyer says he made the payment, so the payment was made, and the president's denial of knowledge is questionable (who has a lawyer that shells out $130,000 on their behalf). This opens the door to question who paid and where the money came from. 
There are at least three particular problems with where the money came from:
 

• It almost certainly breaches campaign finance law (see above).
• The money may have come from a foreign source (may be linked to Russia or other foreign source)
• The money may have been a pay for play arrangement.

Money is traceable, Mueller will follow the money.

Tax returns are coming...

1 hour ago, attrayant said:

If there is no impeachment, then next time it'll be the democrats who'll elect Oprah Winfrey or some other terrible candidate that rides into office on a populist wave.

Wooooaaaaahh!! There is a lot worse on offer than Oprah  Take this woman/actress Republican Stacey Dash is as dumb as rocks, she makes Sarah Palin look like a savant. Huge comedy value here.

 

 

 

Edited April 12, 20188 yr by Andaman Al

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

They would have to prove Trump knew and approved the pay off to have any effect. If they can't then only the lawyer gets done.

Even if Trump knew, it's a long way off an impeachable offence.

Meanwhile, as all this c*** about porn actresses and a non politician goes on America is becoming a  stock to the world. Putin must be lovin' it.

 

It is astonishing to see how far Trump supporters will go to give him a free ticket for crime.

 

 

Quote

Even if Trump knew, it's a long way off an impeachable offence.

The impeachable offence is the Campaign finance irregularity NOT screwing a porn star 12 years ago, that was just a moral offence on his wife and newborn son.

Cohen is currently facing a 30 year sentence if all that transpires is as it is, and that is JUST with the Stormy Daniels cloak and dagger stuff. Trump threw one of his most loyal 'subjects' under a fleet of buses - think on that.

 

Putin has been lovin' it for pushing 2 years - just about the same amount of time America has already been "a laughing stock to the world".

The impeachable offence is the Campaign finance irregularity NOT screwing a porn star 12 years ago, that was just a moral offence on his wife and newborn son.
Cohen is currently facing a 30 year sentence if all that transpires is as it is, and that is JUST with the Stormy Daniels cloak and dagger stuff. Trump threw one of his most loyal 'subjects' under a fleet of buses - think on that.
 
Putin has been lovin' it for pushing 2 years - just about the same amount of time America has already been "a laughing stock to the world".

Just wait until tRump tried to pardon Cohen...

13 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Just wait until tRump tried to pardon Cohen...

 

Yeah. They are having that and Trumps tweets about Syria written into the new version of the Evangelical King Trump I Bible in 'Revelations' as part of the Rapture.

4 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

Wooooaaaaahh!! There is a lot worse on offer than Oprah  Take this woman/actress Republican Stacey Dash is as dumb as rocks, she makes Sarah Palin look like a savant. Huge comedy value here.

 

 

 

 

Yeah, but she's cute as can be. As is Willie Brown's mistress, Kamala Harris. Nothing will be learned from all this, I guarantee you.

6 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You assume of course that Pence is not himself implicated in Trump's crimes.

 

6 hours ago, Jingthing said:

I am assuming Pence is untouched by this. By design. He's a crafty bugger, that one. 

I don't think that Chauncey Gardiner persona is an act.

6 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Yeah, but she's cute as can be. As is Willie Brown's mistress, Kamala Harris. Nothing will be learned from all this, I guarantee you.

Well, that reference to Kamala Harris shows just how low you're willing to go. Apparently, very.

On 4/10/2018 at 10:25 AM, lannarebirth said:

 

I agree with all that but to ensure the understanding of the American people, all of them, it is time for Mueller to give an update, even a vague one, on the nature and scope of his investigation. He need not divulge anything that would be harmful to his further investigations but he should give the public something to promote their civil forbearance.

 

 

 

He can't do that because the nature and scope evolves with his desire to get Trump at any cost.

10 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

Just wait until tRump tried to pardon Cohen...

 

 

There would be no "trying". A president can pardon whomever they want.

2 minutes ago, BuriramSam said:

He can't do that because the nature and scope evolves with his desire to get Trump at any cost.

And nothing at all to do with a scrupulous adherence to confidentiality?