***Official Political Discussion Thread***

We will see what the end result of the court case is. Sorry if that was unclear.
Either way that'll have to wait until he's out of office, whenever that happens. The SDNY mentioned an "Executive 2" as involved in forging the reimbursement payments as "retainer payments", knowing there was no such retainer agreement, so the next step (if there is one) would presumably be to go after Executive 2.

The key differences between the John Edwards case is the question of the timing, the intent and witnesses.
In Trump's case the hush money payments were right before the election, leaving no real room to question the timing like the Edwards case. If anything the key issue in the Edwards case was intent.
In this case you have 2 co-conspirators admitting in court that they conducted the scheme to influence the 2016 election. That's very different from the Edwards case.
 
If we use burgerttorney's logic, the lies Cohen told outside of what is being said under oath don't matter
 
they need will

tenor.gif
 
Reminder: Trump Jr testified that regarding the Moscow project, he "knew it got to a Letter Of Intent and that's about it."
The LOI was signed by Trump in late 2015. The discussions continued up to at least June 2016.
Trump Jr testified he had no knowledge of the counterparties, who the potential counterparties might have been, whether they knew Felix Sater and vice versa, ...
 
Clearly the office of the Special Counsel and the SDNY has found what he has offered during his cooperation credible enough...

Surely you wouldn't want Cohen as a witness in a deposition. Or am I wrong about that?

Pretty irrelevant that prosecutors are using less-than-credible witnesses. It happens all the time, I imagine (jailhouse snitches wanting lighter sentences, etc.).
 
Back
Top Bottom