Nyezhov Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 11 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said: We know this because it was established by the courts when a judge entered Michael Cohen's guilty plea into the record on November 29, 2018. By accepting the plea, the judge ruled it to be a legal fact, proven by the evidence presented to him in support of the plea, that Cohen lied on behalf of Donald Trump. In the words of the actual filing by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York: Actually the Court accepted the Plea under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides for a finding that there is a factual basis for the plea. Therefore the only thing established is that Cohen lied. His admission is no sense determinative of this issue of whether he was directed by President Trump to do so, and would not even be admissible as evidence against President Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyezhov Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 13 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said: That's not hearsay, those are facts entered into evidence by a United States District Court. Nope. If testified to by Cohen at a prosecution of President Trump it becomes admissible evidence. If just proffered at a trial (ie, this was said in Court, etc) it remains hearsay. Please see the Hearsay Rules, I beleive it is Federal Rule Evidnece 801. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GroveHillWanderer Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 24 minutes ago, Nyezhov said: Nope. If testified to by Cohen at a prosecution of President Trump it becomes admissible evidence. If just proffered at a trial (ie, this was said in Court, etc) it remains hearsay. Please see the Hearsay Rules, I beleive it is Federal Rule Evidnece 801. What are you on about? Neither myself nor the person that made the previous post were making any allegations about what Trump did or did not do. Nor were we talking about a potential prosecution of the Donald. The issue being discussed was whether Michael Cohen lied on behalf of Trump (and whether a court finding that he did, was hearsay). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballpoint Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 "'We are at impeachment': Trump hit by most damaging story of his presidency. … BuzzFeed spokesman Matt Mittenthal said the publication stands by its reporting and urged readers to "stay tuned" as they worked to determine what Mueller was denying. Ben Smith, editor-in-chief of BuzzFeed News, also said the publication stands by the sources who informed it... … The authors of the story have broken some of the most significant stories on the Trump-Russia beat, and their reporting has later been backed up by the courts." https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/we-are-at-impeachment-trump-hit-by-most-damaging-story-of-his-presidency-20190119-p50scm.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyezhov Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 20 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said: he issue being discussed was whether Michael Cohen lied on behalf of Trump (and whether a court finding that he did, was hearsay). And I was making sure that folks know: 1. The Court made no finding that he did. 2. Cohens statements are hearsay in an evidentiary sense. Cohens statements are meaningless as to Trumps alleged actions at this point in time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyezhov Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 2 minutes ago, ballpoint said: The authors of the story have broken some of the most significant stories on the Trump-Russia beat, and their reporting has later been backed up by the courts." Like the Dossier and the FISA Court? ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolboy Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 1 minute ago, Nyezhov said: Like the Dossier and the FISA Court? ???? For those of you who don't know what Nyezhov has in mind, it's the repeatedly debunked allegations that the Steele Dossier was the basis of the investigation and that the FISA court wasn't told that the Democrats financed it once it was dropped by Republicans. This contention is based on lies and half-truths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keemapoot Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 1 minute ago, bristolboy said: For those of you who don't know what Nyezhov has in mind, it's the repeatedly debunked allegations that the Steele Dossier was the basis of the investigation and that the FISA court wasn't told that the Democrats financed it once it was dropped by Republicans. This contention is based on lies and half-truths. He puts on a good show though, kind of like a paralegal on steroids. ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolboy Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 1 minute ago, keemapoot said: He puts on a good show though, kind of like a paralegal on steroids. ???? "Paralegal" sounds about right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Srinivas Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 Jason Leopold the buzzfeeder has done this before, even got fired for it at Salon.com, which is probably why he is employed for these hit tactics. https://archives.cjr.org/politics/jason_leopold_caught_sourceles.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyezhov Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 3 minutes ago, keemapoot said: He puts on a good show though, kind of like a paralegal on steroids. ???? Glas you like it, love to make sure that the folks so consumed with the Trump hate bile at least gain a glimmer of knowledge about the law ???? One never knows what IG Horowitz and Mr. Huber will find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolboy Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 4 minutes ago, Srinivas said: Jason Leopold the buzzfeeder has done this before, even got fired for it at Salon.com, which is probably why he is employed for these hit tactics. https://archives.cjr.org/politics/jason_leopold_caught_sourceles.php On the other hand there is the fact that Leopold is not working alone on this and has in fact broken several major stories that have been confirmed. https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/18/media/buzzfeed-reporter-jason-leopold/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keemapoot Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 1 minute ago, Nyezhov said: Glas you like it, love to make sure that the folks so consumed with the Trump hate bile at least gain a glimmer of knowledge about the law ???? One never knows what IG Horowitz and Mr. Huber will find. Some of us are actually lawyers here who've managed global legal teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyezhov Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 12 minutes ago, keemapoot said: Some of us are actually lawyers here who've managed global legal teams. Some of us are actually lawyers here who have tried felonies before juries (albiet in my younger and wilder days). I am of course willing to accept your expertise in the areas of international banking, as long as you accept mine in areas such as Hearsay and Molineaux Rules. That being said, have I erred in saying that Mr. Cohens statements qua statements are hearsay at this point? Have I erred in stating that a plea allocution is not a finding of fact determinative in any matter other than against the one who plead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keemapoot Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 12 minutes ago, Nyezhov said: Some of us are actually lawyers here who have tried felonies before juries (albiet in my younger and wilder days). I am of course willing to accept your expertise in the areas of international banking, as long as you accept mine in areas such as Hearsay and Molineaux Rules. That being said, have I erred in saying that Mr. Cohens statements qua statements are hearsay at this point? Have I erred in stating that a plea allocution is not a finding of fact determinative in any matter other than against the one who plead? Excellent that we have established who is whom on this forum. We will need this expertise in the coming weeks as the Mueller report is divulged and we digest the legal implications of this. I think I have identified about 3 actual legal experts on this forum. Others who are lurking, please feel free to join in as I think we are about to have the ride of our lives as the Mueller opera opens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Srinivas Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 1 minute ago, bristolboy said: On the other hand there is the fact that Leopold is not working alone on this and has in fact broken several major stories that have been confirmed. https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/18/media/buzzfeed-reporter-jason-leopold/index.html Cofirmed by who or what? Trump Tower Moscow? or the Putin Penthouse? anyway yes there are two authors of this story and here is where they contradict each other. https://www.mediaite.com/tv/buzzfeednews-bombshell-reporter-no-we-have-not-seen-the-evidence-supporting-our-report/ Anthony Cormier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyezhov Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 8 minutes ago, keemapoot said: I think I have identified about 3 actual legal experts on this forum. The question is how many are true civil libertarians? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keemapoot Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 Just now, Nyezhov said: The question is how many are true civil libertarians? You should know lawyers don't have any religion, though I think all lawyers would agree that Trump is a bridge too far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tug Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 I’m no lawyer but I know a duck when I see one I think the question is does Donald get away with it or not he has had a lot of practice getting away with(stuff)but never has he had this kind of scrutiny before nore has he been exposed for the petty callous little petulant man baby that he is that’s not hate or bile it’s simpley obvious for anyone to see Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyezhov Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 5 minutes ago, keemapoot said: You should know lawyers don't have any religion, though I think all lawyers would agree that Trump is a bridge too far. Its not about Trump though. He is a frequent idiot. Its about all the rest. I lived though Watergate and the Church Hearings, and remember J. Edgar. Someones Ox will always get gored, but it shouldnt be the .gov doing the goring Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keemapoot Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 1 minute ago, Nyezhov said: Its not about Trump though. He is a frequent idiot. Its about all the rest. I lived though Watergate and the Church Hearings, and remember J. Edgar. Someones Ox will always get gored, but it shouldnt be the .gov doing the goring I hope member Lannarebirth responds to this. He is someone of stature who also remembers these moments of history and might share your views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 Post with an inflammatory reference has been removed along with posts which violate Fair Use Policy and replies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NanLaew Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 4 hours ago, keemapoot said: You should know lawyers don't have any religion, though I think all lawyers would agree that Trump is a bridge too far. ...but he pays well so never mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
losworld Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 People should be very concerned when the deep state and their media cronies try to take out an elected President. Let the guy finish his term and throw him out if he's not liked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 19 minutes ago, losworld said: People should be very concerned when the deep state and their media cronies try to take out an elected President. Let the guy finish his term and throw him out if he's not liked. "Deep state" is basically anti-democracy propaganda from Putin. It just means the democratic institutions that Putin-compromised "trump" has been ruthlessly degrading. He will likely finish his term if the Mueller report doesn't have any or many "smocking" guns severe enough for the house to impeach and the senate to convict (or a push to resign a la Nixon). As it stands now, are you aware of the term not too shabby? Well the current president who is without any doubt the worst president in American history (and likely in the future as well) really is too shabby. This brilliant and entertaining piece of writing coming from a highly respected CONSERVATIVE American intellectual commentator, George Will. Quote The shabbiest U.S. president ever is an inexpressibly sad specimen Half or a quarter of the way through this interesting experiment with an incessantly splenetic presidency, much of the nation has become accustomed to daily mortifications. Or has lost its capacity for embarrassment, which is even worse. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-a-misery-it-must-be-to-be-donald-trump/2019/01/18/d0e05eea-1a82-11e9-8813-cb9dec761e73_story.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EVENKEEL Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 1 hour ago, Jingthing said: "Deep state" is basically anti-democracy propaganda from Putin. It just means the democratic institutions that Putin-compromised "trump" has been ruthlessly degrading. He will likely finish his term if the Mueller report doesn't have any or many "smocking" guns severe enough for the house to impeach and the senate to convict (or a push to resign a la Nixon). As it stands now, are you aware of the term not too shabby? Well the current president who is without any doubt the worst president in American history (and likely in the future as well) really is too shabby. This brilliant and entertaining piece of writing coming from a highly respected CONSERVATIVE American intellectual commentator, George Will. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-a-misery-it-must-be-to-be-donald-trump/2019/01/18/d0e05eea-1a82-11e9-8813-cb9dec761e73_story.html Nothing like unbiased news reporting. Very sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 "trump" and his insufferable fans may think this correction from Mueller is some kind of decisive big win proving the innocence of their dear leader in all things for all time. Nothing could be further from the truth! So Buzzfeed got a detail wrong in the sense that Mueller can't prove it (or can't prove it yet). This was about one item among potentially several potential impeachable offenses. But the really big lose for "trump" is that after years of trying to trash Mueller as leading a witch hunt, he has just granted him total CREDIBILITY and AUTHORITY. This is a big deal and was actually mistake in his messaging. Just as he said he owns the shutdown, and that totally stuck with the public, now "trump" owns that he considers Mueller the highest authority on his own guilt or innocence. So if and when Mueller finally delivers the goods, we've got it now on loud record, "trump" and the majority of the American people regard Mueller as massively honorable, honest, and credible. The opposite qualities of the shabby con man president. So let the "trump" fans have their temporal moment. It won't last. To add, I was watching the coverage on CNN and MSNBC, they all repeated several times that they have not yet themselves verified the Buzzfeed report and were not presenting it as verified, only reporting that the report was made by Buzzfeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 The case for impeachment now. More ammunition to emphasize it's not about one Russia related lie to congress (told by Cohen, the involvement by "trump" still TBD), it's about his entire presidency. Interesting argument but I'm still in the wait for Mueller to finish majority. https://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/580579/trump-impeachment/ More written detail on this argument: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/03/impeachment-trump/580468/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bendejo Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 17 hours ago, Credo said: Buzzfeed is sticking by the story. The Editor, Ben Smith, said this on Twitter: "We stand by our reporting and the sources who informed it, and we urge the Special Counsel to make clear what he's disputing." Nice try, Smith, trolling Team Mueller. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 2 minutes ago, bendejo said: Nice try, Smith, trolling Team Mueller. We won't hear more from Mueller about this until his big release. That is, if the Justice department makes it public. If they don't … watch out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.