Looks like the hush payments came from the campaign donations

[TJustice]

As I have stated there are no charges pending against Trump which would send him to jail. We already covered this. The charges against his foundation do not ask for jail time. (from what we read together)

No felony charges are pending. If they were we would be seeing Trump's team moving to get them stayed or quashed. I am not saying he would be successful.

2. The link to your article only alleged the Russians were burying their money into the real estate Trump was selling. That is an issue between Russia and the people buying the real estate. That is not laundering by Trump. That is not circumstantial evidence against Turmp. You need to learn the basics of the law. Its like plumbing. You need the right tool for the right job.

So you see a fact pattern.
You find a law.
You apply the elements of the law.
You consider the defenses.

So far you have facts you don't like (nor do I)
But you have not provided the law.
You have not applied the facts to the elements of the law.
You have not reviewed the defenses.



(Although I only read the first half before the story wandered.) If you have facts of Trump laundering money quote them.

What about the Attorney General of New York, do you give "two shits" about her and her suit naming the Trump Foundation and its Board of Directors? (Hint: Donald is on the Board.)
I doubt Ms Underwood really cares whether you like her letterhead. ..

And what about the Federal Prosecutors in the Southern District of New York. Do you give "two shits" about them? (Hint: The "Candidate" is named as a co-conspirator in a felony, to which his fellow conspirator has already plead guilty. You just get one chance to guess who the candidate is.)
I don't think they care either.

Looks like there will be enough non-pardonable left-overs to arrange a short vacation for Trump once he is out of office. There is no golf course at the particular vacation spot I have in mind. But there is ping pong and courses in Plumbing. He could learn a trade! It could be a "learning vacation. "

 

[piezoe]

No felony charges are pending. If they were we would be seeing Trump's team moving to get them stayed or quashed. I am not saying he would be successful.

The charges in the SDNY indictment were voluntarily not brought against Trump in the form of an indictment. But that does not mean they are not there. These are not pending charges in the usual sense of the word "pending," they are "dormant" charges that could be activated as soon as Trump is out of office. The formal accusation that he is a felon is the same regardless. It's formal in the sense that it is an ancillary charge included in a filed indictment.

Let us not beat around the bush with technicalities. As soon as Trump is out of office, he we'll have to answer to the SDNY Prosecutor, if the Prosecutor chooses to go forward and indict Trump. There is no hiding behind a technicality here. The only thing saving Trump right now from being indicted his station. And that itself is no absolute guarantee. We might see a test of the prior opinions from DOJ. In that regard, I will mention that there is at least one independent legal opinion to the contrary from outside of the DOJ.

 

[piezoe]

As I have stated there are no charges pending against Trump which would send him to jail. We already covered this. The charges against his foundation do not ask for jail time. (from what we read together)

No felony charges are pending. If they were we would be seeing Trump's team moving to get them stayed or quashed. I am not saying he would be successful.

2. The link to your article only alleged the Russians were burying their money into the real estate Trump was selling. That is an issue between Russia and the people buying the real estate. That is not laundering by Trump. That is not circumstantial evidence against Turmp. You need to learn the basics of the law. Its like plumbing. You need the right tool for the right job.

So you see a fact pattern.
You find a law.
You apply the elements of the law.
You consider the defenses.

So far you have facts you don't like (nor do I)
But you have not provided the law.
You have not applied the facts to the elements of the law.
You have not reviewed the defenses.



(Although I only read the first half before the story wandered.) If you have facts of Trump laundering money quote them.

With this: "(Although I only read the first half before the story wandered.) " you have let yourself appear as poindexter-like. What I mean by that is that when someone shows poindexter he is wrong by furnishing relevant, well documented facts, or links that will prove the same, he simply ignores it and parrots his same old tune. Please don't do that, or I will be forced to think less of your opinions. I have had to admit when I was wrong, and it has saved my credibility. Why not not do the same.

I am asking you to read my entire post, as I have read yours, and then read the entire long article I gave you a link to. It is cl;ear to me you did not read the entire article. This will, I am confident, assuage any harboring of thoughts you may still have that there is no strong circumstantial evidence that our Donald has been engaged in money laundering.

 

[TJustice]

I read your post. It was the link to your article that was rambling and not addressing how Trump could have been laundering money.

Your article spoke of Russians perhaps breaking Russian laws not Tump.

Cease playing games and give us facts. What facts do you have that Trump broke U.S law laundering money.

With this: "(Although I only read the first half before the story wandered.) " you have let yourself appear as poindexter-like. What I mean by that is that when someone shows poindexter he is wrong by furnishing relevant, well documented facts, or links that will prove the same, he simply ignores it and parrots his same old tune. Please don't do that, or I will be forced to think less of your opinions. I have had to admit when I was wrong, and it has saved my credibility. Why not not do the same.

I am asking you to read my entire post, as I have read yours, and then read the entire long article I gave you a link to. It is cl;ear to me you did not read the entire article. This will, I am confident, assuage any harboring of thoughts you may still have that there is no strong circumstantial evidence that our Donald has been engaged in money laundering.

 

[TJustice]

This was the definition of fuzzy thinking. You were pretending to say something but you could not because you had no facts or evidence. It was actually humorous.

Nothing in those two paragraphs gives us any useful information.


Essentially this is what you gave us.
Lets not beat around the Bush if a person is guilty they may some day be prosecuted by a prosecutor but until then we don't know because its "dormant" and may someday be activated.

Have you been reading the Manchurian Candidate?

The charges in the SDNY indictment were voluntarily not brought against Trump in the form of an indictment. But that does not mean they are not there. These are not pending charges in the usual sense of the word "pending," they are "dormant" charges that could be activated as soon as Trump is out of office. The formal accusation that he is a felon is the same regardless. It's formal in the sense that it is an ancillary charge included in a filed indictment.

Let us not beat around the bush with technicalities. As soon as Trump is out of office, he we'll have to answer to the SDNY Prosecutor, if the Prosecutor chooses to go forward and indict Trump. There is no hiding behind a technicality here. The only thing saving Trump right now from being indicted his station. And that itself is no absolute guarantee. We might see a test of the prior opinions from DOJ. In that regard, I will mention that there is at least one independent legal opinion to the contrary from outside of the DOJ.

 

[piezoe]

This is the definition of fuzzy thinking.

Nothing in those two paragraphs gives us any useful information.
You put some words together but gave us nothing.
Essentially this is what you gave us.
Lets not beat around the Bush if a person is guilty they may some day be prosecuted by a prosecutor but until then we don't know because its dormant.

Dormant for the time being! You got that right!

My concern, probably not yours, is do I want a felon for a President? I have decided I don't! Will you dismiss as. "well he hasn't been convicted, And it's just a little thing?" If so, fine. We disagree. The sun will still rise in the East tomorrow.

 

[CaptainObvious]

Dormant for the time being! You got that right!

My concern, probably not yours, is do I want a felon for a President? I have decided I don't! Will you dismiss as. "well he hasn't been convicted, And it's just a little thing?" If so, fine. We disagree. The sun will still rise in the East tomorrow.

A person cannot be called a felon unless they have in fact been convicted of a felony. You are labeling a man a felon who has not been convicted, which means your opinion is nothing more than political hyperbole.

 

[piezoe]

You are labeling a man a felon who has not been convicted

As a matter of fact, that's exactly what I am doing. Very perceptive of you. Having his co-conspirator plead guilty was enough for me. You should wait. It is not enough for you. Keep supporting your felon President. I mean what's a little felony here, a little there. It is nothing like first degree murder. It's just subversion of democracy. Nothing much.

 

[TJustice]

By your logic the Clintons would be felons too.
from Wikipedia...

The Clintons were never charged with any crime. Fifteen other persons were convicted of more than 40 crimes, including Jim Guy Tucker, who was removed from office.[44]

• Jim Guy Tucker: Governor of Arkansas at the time, removed from office (fraud, 3 counts)
• John Haley: attorney for Jim Guy Tucker (tax evasion)
• William J. Marks, Sr.: Jim Guy Tucker's business partner (conspiracy)
• Stephen Smith: former Governor Clinton aide (conspiracy to misapply funds). Bill Clinton pardoned.
• Webster Hubbell: Clinton political supporter; U.S. Associate Attorney General; Rose Law Firm partner (embezzlement, fraud)
• Jim McDougal: banker, Clinton political supporter: (18 felonies, varied)
• Susan McDougal: Clinton political supporter (multiple frauds). Bill Clinton pardoned.
• David Hale: banker, self-proclaimed Clinton political supporter: (conspiracy, fraud)
• Neal Ainley: Perry County Bank president (embezzled bank funds for Clinton campaign)
• Chris Wade: Whitewater real estate broker (multiple loan fraud). Bill Clinton pardoned.
• Larry Kuca: Madison real estate agent (multiple loan fraud)
• Robert W. Palmer: Madison appraiser (conspiracy). Bill Clinton pardoned.
• John Latham: Madison Bank CEO (bank fraud)
• Eugene Fitzhugh: Whitewater defendant (multiple bribery)
• Charles Matthews: Whitewater defendant (bribery)

As a matter of fact, that's exactly what I am doing. Very perceptive of you. Having his co-conspirator plead guilty was enough for me. You should wait. It is not enough for you. Keep supporting your felon President. I mean what's a little felony here, a little there. It is nothing like first degree murder. It's just subversion of democracy. Nothing much.

 

[piezoe]

By your logic the Clintons would be felons too.
from Wikipedia...

The Clintons were never charged with any crime. Fifteen other persons were convicted of more than 40 crimes, including Jim Guy Tucker, who was removed from office.[44]

• Jim Guy Tucker: Governor of Arkansas at the time, removed from office (fraud, 3 counts)
• John Haley: attorney for Jim Guy Tucker (tax evasion)
• William J. Marks, Sr.: Jim Guy Tucker's business partner (conspiracy)
• Stephen Smith: former Governor Clinton aide (conspiracy to misapply funds). Bill Clinton pardoned.
• Webster Hubbell: Clinton political supporter; U.S. Associate Attorney General; Rose Law Firm partner (embezzlement, fraud)
• Jim McDougal: banker, Clinton political supporter: (18 felonies, varied)
• Susan McDougal: Clinton political supporter (multiple frauds). Bill Clinton pardoned.
• David Hale: banker, self-proclaimed Clinton political supporter: (conspiracy, fraud)
• Neal Ainley: Perry County Bank president (embezzled bank funds for Clinton campaign)
• Chris Wade: Whitewater real estate broker (multiple loan fraud). Bill Clinton pardoned.
• Larry Kuca: Madison real estate agent (multiple loan fraud)
• Robert W. Palmer: Madison appraiser (conspiracy). Bill Clinton pardoned.
• John Latham: Madison Bank CEO (bank fraud)
• Eugene Fitzhugh: Whitewater defendant (multiple bribery)
• Charles Matthews: Whitewater defendant (bribery)

"The Clintons were never charged with any crime." Your words, not mine.

So what does this have to do with Trump. Is it, "well, he was a jerk so it's OK for Trump to be a jerk. Is that what it's about??? Or is it just some more "what-abouts" to serve as a diversion?

You're getting more poindexterish. Perhaps you should stop and try to salvage what little credibility you have left. By the way, its the usual courtesy when you cite Wiki to give the link. I guess the red stuff is hyperlinks. But for us old guys, may I condescend to request a regular web link to the whole thing.

One other thing. I will, as a courtesy, point out neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton are President, nor Al Capone, nor Jeffrey Dahmer, nor is Tom DeLay. Donald J. Trump is. So if you insist on mentioning persons having no connection to this thread, don't be surprised if I don't respond.

here is a nice link for you: https://www.vox.com/2018/8/21/17766218/michael-cohen-guilty-plea-trump-impeached-indicted
The only reason that Trump hasn’t been indicted is that he’s the president
The debate over indicting presidents, explained.
By Dylan Matthews@dylanmattdylan@vox.com Aug 21, 2018, 6:45pm EDT
Share

President Donald Trump during a meeting with House Republicans in the White House on July 17, 2018 in Washington, DC.
Mark Wilson/Getty Images
Michael Cohen, the former personal attorney for President Donald Trump, has pleaded guilty to eight criminal charges. Two of the charges are campaign finance offenses involving his payment of hush money to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, two women who say they had affairs with Trump.

Strikingly, Cohen admitted in court that he worked “in coordination with and at the direction of a candidate for federal office” to make one payment; the other was made merely “in coordination with” the candidate. While Trump wasn’t named, that effectively implicates him in the underlying crimes here: willfully causing an illegal corporate contribution and making an excessive campaign contribution.

Several law professors told my colleague Sean Illing that if Cohen’s account can be proven, it means Trump himself is guilty of federal crimes. “Although the president is not named in the charges, he is all but an unindicted co-conspirator,”* Duke’s Lisa Kern Griffin told Illing.

Lanny Davis, Cohen’s attorney, agrees:


“Trump is clearly guilty of violating campaign finance laws and also guilty of federal conspiracy as well (because he agreed with Cohen, and possibly others, on a plan to violate federal law),” Cornell’s Jens David Ohlin added to Illing. “Normally he would be indicted right away. But that won’t happen only because he’s the president.”

__________________
*For your benefit I'll explain this. Trump is never mentioned by name in the indictment. He is referred to as "a candidate for Federal Office." This does not matter of course, because when they do indict him after he is out of office, his name will be spelled out in the indictment: "Donald J. Trump".