Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

National Enquirer Immunity Deal


Tiggs

Recommended Posts

23 hours ago, Tiggs said:

He’s the tech guy in charge of the Clinton email server at the hosting company.

So, they subpoena him to appear in front of a grand jury, and he claims the 5th again, like he did in his FBI interview. Now what?

 

The point is not this guy, but the Clinton aides that were given immunity BEFORE the FBI ever talked to them. Why weren't the Trump guys treated the same. For you not to admit there are/were two different standards of treatment says quite a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

He lied...a lot. That's not his biggest problem, he's guilty of tax evasion. As for payments to prostitutes and the purchase of the rights to their stories to suppress them, that falls under the category of non disclosure agreements, perfectly legal if executed properly.

You can't NDA criminal activity.
 

3 hours ago, and then said:

The law also says that if there is ANY other purpose for the expenditure, it cannot be called campaign finance spending.  

That's not what the law says.
 

3 hours ago, and then said:

The John Edwards trial set precedent for this.  It was found by the FEC that any expenditure that COULD have another purpose other than direct funding of campaign expenses, cannot be proven to be "campaign" expense.  Good luck with those hopes and dreams.

Actually -- the John Edwards trial confirmed that protecting the campaign just needed to be a primary concern for it to count as campaign expenditure. Hence why there was a trial, at all.

You'll maybe also note that both Cohen and Pecker have confirmed under oath that it was the primary concern.
 

3 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Yeah, if this is all they've got, they ain't got nuthin'. 

Perhaps you missed the part where Cohen's already been sentenced for it.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

You can't NDA criminal activity.
 

That's not what the law says.
 

Actually -- the John Edwards trial confirmed that protecting the campaign just needed to be a primary concern for it to count as campaign expenditure. Hence why there was a trial, at all.

You'll maybe also note that both Cohen and Pecker have confirmed under oath that it was the primary concern.
 

Perhaps you missed the part where Cohen's already been sentenced for it.

Maybe you missed the part where it was about Trump. Look, maybe you weren't here, twenty years ago when we went through this political comedy, once before. The teams have reversed fields is the only significant difference, in my old eyes. Hush money and payments to mistresses is nothing new in politics. The Rhodes Scholar did it, himself and was exonerated by his party. 

 

,  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hammerclaw said:

Maybe you missed the part where it was about Trump.

Maybe you missed the part where Trump was present when the purpose of the catch and kill was discussed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, skliss said:

The point is not this guy, but the Clinton aides that were given immunity BEFORE the FBI ever talked to them.

Perhaps you'd care to name them, then? I suspect you won't find any who hadn't either given testimony -- or invoked their fifth amendment rights -- publicly, to Congress, prior.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

Maybe you missed the part where Trump was present when the purpose of the catch and kill was discussed.

So what? It was a private transaction concerning his private life--and as such--not a crime subject to prosecution. This private life defense or rationalization was used to successfully justify letting Bill Clinton off the hook. If they choose to go down this cul-de-sac, expect to hear it evoked again, quite a lot and just as successfully.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hammerclaw said:

So what? It was a private transaction concerning his private life--and as such--not a crime subject to prosecution.

Cohen and Pecker say otherwise. As does the SDNY, who've already prosecuted Cohen for the crime.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Tiggs said:

Cohen and Pecker say otherwise. As does the SDNY, who've already prosecuted Cohen for the crime.

He was prosecuted for lying about it, under oath, not doing it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

He was prosecuted for lying about it, under oath, not doing it. 

Which is what Slick Willie got into trouble for as well.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Which is what Slick Willie got into trouble for as well.

And Nixon, as well. He had the decency to resign and not further traumatize the country. Clinton didn't and set the standard for the present debacle, as claims of collusion recede for want of evidence and they fasten on to this sordid little ditty to soothe themselves to sleep.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

He was prosecuted for lying about it, under oath, not doing it. 

No. He was prosecuted for the offence, itself. Take another look at the SDNY's sentencing memo, section 4, helpfully titled "Cohen's Illegal Campaign Contributions".

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

No. He was prosecuted for the offence, itself. Take another look at the SDNY's sentencing memo, section 4, helpfully titled "Cohen's Illegal Campaign Contributions".

Yes, I've read the eight charges. There's no doubt he broke the law in the way he went about it. He pleaded guilty, after all. Trump is guilty of picking an incompetent intermediary.

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

And Nixon, as well. He had the decency to resign and not further traumatize the country. Clinton didn't and set the standard for the present debacle, as claims of collusion recede for want of evidence and they fasten on to this sordid little ditty to soothe themselves to sleep.

Investigations now entangle Donald Trump’s White House, campaign, transition, inauguration, charity and business.

Source: AP

In short -- pretty much everything Trump has touched is under serious criminal investigation -- and by various law-enforcement entities.

The investigation into Russia has yet to conclude. Still expecting several indictments (and plea deals) to happen, before it does.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Yes, I've read the eight charges. There's no doubt he broke the law in the way he went about it. He pleaded guilty, after all. Trump is guilty of picking an incompetent intermediary.

Ignorance of campaign law would be a good defence -- if there wasn't ample video of Trump laying into John Edwards.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Tiggs said:

Investigations now entangle Donald Trump’s White House, campaign, transition, inauguration, charity and business.

Source: AP

In short -- pretty much everything Trump has touched is under serious criminal investigation -- and by various law-enforcement entities.

The investigation into Russia has yet to conclude. Still expecting several indictments (and plea deals) to happen, before it does.

Like I said, I've lived through this before. Ken Starr squeezed every drop of blood out of his investigation he could, then Clinton reopened the wound with his Lewinsky travesty and was actually impeached. There were campaign contribution/donation irregularities with both campaigns, as there are with every campaign and endless accusations and investigations of investigations. It's been two years and he's still President. A year from now, we'll be having same discussion with his demise always illusively, just around the corner.   Sometimes, I think you guys across the pond got it right with that vote of confidence thing. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Like I said, I've lived through this before.

How many of Clinton's lawyers were prosecuted for felonies he'd commissioned?

ETA: And how many of Nixon's?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

How many of Clinton's lawyers were prosecuted for felonies he'd commissioned?

ETA: And how many of Nixon's?

Different era, different circumstances, and an extremely conflicted and incompetent Prosecutor.

http://webspace.webring.com/people/mi/incindiary2/starr.html

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

We seem to be at an impasse.

Time, as always, will tell.

Time tells nothing--it only passes. History speaks volumes, but in the voices of disparate authors. In politics, it is evil that's oft interred with the bones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hammerclaw said:

Time tells nothing--it only passes. History speaks volumes, but in the voices of disparate authors. In politics, it is evil that's oft interred with the bones.

Trump will either be indicted, or he won't.

Happy to score this one based on indictments.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tiggs said:

Trump will either be indicted, or he won't.

Happy to score this one based on indictments.

It wouldn't matter. He'd just skip across the bar the Dems lowered twenty years ago. Isn't it funny, how the Out party always rides into office on the high horse of sanctimony, only to dismount?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

It wouldn't matter. He'd just skip across the bar the Dems lowered twenty years ago. Isn't it funny, how the Out party always rides into office on the high horse of sanctimony, only to dismount?

I kind of think that Trump acts the way he does because he honestly believes the bar has been lowered and he will never be held accountable.  But if there truly are Deep State Republicans, then they along with the Democrats and independents (who have no team they are willing to let slide) easily out number and out power Trump and his band of cover up men.

Just out of curiosity, what should be call this lower bar for politicians?  Political Privilege?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

I kind of think that Trump acts the way he does because he honestly believes the bar has been lowered and he will never be held accountable.  But if there truly are Deep State Republicans, then they along with the Democrats and independents (who have no team they are willing to let slide) easily out number and out power Trump and his band of cover up men.

Just out of curiosity, what should be call this lower bar for politicians?  Political Privilege?

Political parties telling each other--do as I say, not as I do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gromdor said:

I kind of think that Trump acts the way he does because he honestly believes the bar has been lowered and he will never be held accountable.  But if there truly are Deep State Republicans, then they along with the Democrats and independents (who have no team they are willing to let slide) easily out number and out power Trump and his band of cover up men.

Just out of curiosity, what should be call this lower bar for politicians?  Political Privilege?

That would be quite apt, yes.

The Congress actually has a  special defense fund to be used by congressmen that are defending themselves in that #MeToo moment.  Guess who funds it??

 

Edited by Earl.Of.Trumps
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

That would be quite apt, yes.

The Congress actually has a  special defense fund to be used by congressmen that are defending themselves in that #MeToo moment.  Guess who funds it??

 

Same people who fund a similar fund at the local college here in town, I would imagine since it is a public state college.  The ones who use that fund aren't the "Politically Privileged" though.   I think they have a different adjective before the word "Privilege" in their title.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.