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 -
Sign in to follow this  
Tiggs

National Enquirer Immunity Deal

206 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

skliss
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs
Just now, Hammerclaw said:

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

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

We seem to be at an impasse.

Time, as always, will tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.