Author Topic: Christie: It sounds like Mueller has corroborating evidence against Trump beyond Cohen  (Read 988 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 277,448
Christie: It sounds like Mueller has corroborating evidence against Trump beyond Cohen
By Megan Keller - 12/09/18 10:58 AM EST

Former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (R) said Sunday that the language federal prosecutors are using to refer to President Trump in an indictment against Michael Cohen makes it sound as if they might have corroborating evidence that the president violated campaign finance law.

"The language in the sentencing memo is different from what we've heard before," Christie told ABC's "This Week," noting that Trump's former attorney Cohen has previously said he violated campaign finance law at the president's direction. "The only thing that would concern me if I was the president's team this morning about this sentencing memo is the language."

"The language sounds very definite," Christie said. "And what I'd be concerned about is, what corroboration do they have?"

"Because everyone knows that Michael Cohen is not going to be the most effective or trustworthy witness on the stand, given some of his past statements," Christie said. "[W]hen prosecutors sound that definitive they've got more usually than just one witness."

more
https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/420448-christie-it-sounds-like-mueller-has-corroborating-evidence-against
Support the USO
Democrat Party...the Party of Infanticide

Offline Sanguine

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 32,627
Why would they need corroborating evidence?  The smear should be enough.
Cui bono?

Walk in Wisdom
See then that you walk circumspectly, not as fools but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil.

But the noble make noble plans, and by noble deeds they stand.

Offline skeeter

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 12,491
Maybe the sentencing memo's language means something, maybe it doesn't.

Since this entire investigation is a partisan farce & political stunt its kinda silly to try to analyze every pronouncement the prosecutors make for their meaning IMO. We know what they're motives are and what effect they want their words to have on the public. They have no integrity and the investigation no credibility.

Offline edpc

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,887
  • Professional Misanthrope - Briefer and Boxer
"The language sounds very definite," Christie said. "And what I'd be concerned about is, what corroboration do they have?"


They have testimony and/or evidence from Pecker and Weisselberg, which is why they were given immunity.
I disagree.  Circle gets the square.

Offline Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 40,568
  • "Heads I win, Tails you lose."

They have testimony and/or evidence from Pecker and Weisselberg, which is why they were given immunity.

Immunity from what, exactly?
I will NOT comply.
                                  Castillo del Cyber! ~~~~~>              :dontfeed:
Home Sweet Home!

Offline edpc

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,887
  • Professional Misanthrope - Briefer and Boxer
Immunity from what, exactly?


Likely protection from this and other questionable financial transactions.


According to prosecutors, Cohen, then Trump's attorney, sent an invoice to Executive 1, meaning Weisselberg, for "Payment for services rendered for the month of January and February, 2017," a payment that was really meant to reimburse Cohen for a payment to Stormy Daniels.

Weisselberg then sent the invoice to another Trump Organization executive via e-mail directing him to "Please pay from the Trust. Post to legal expenses. Put 'retainer for the months of January and February 2017' in the description."


https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/trump-org-cfo-allen-weisselberg-given-immunity-prosecutors-testify-n903566
I disagree.  Circle gets the square.

Offline Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 40,568
  • "Heads I win, Tails you lose."
Thanks!  Is that illegal for anybody not named "Trump?"  I'm sure it's illegal for him.
I will NOT comply.
                                  Castillo del Cyber! ~~~~~>              :dontfeed:
Home Sweet Home!

Offline edpc

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,887
  • Professional Misanthrope - Briefer and Boxer
Probably. I read stories about payments and finances being misrepresented, causing legal issues for accountants, CFOs, and CEOs quite a bit.
I disagree.  Circle gets the square.

Offline Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 40,568
  • "Heads I win, Tails you lose."
Probably. I read stories about payments and finances being misrepresented, causing legal issues for accountants, CFOs, and CEOs quite a bit.

I can see how that could be an issue for a publicly traded company.  They are saying, in the few stories I've seen, is that he did it with his own funds to affect the election.   :shrug:

A campaign financing charge?
« Last Edit: December 09, 2018, 10:32:07 PM by Cyber Liberty »
I will NOT comply.
                                  Castillo del Cyber! ~~~~~>              :dontfeed:
Home Sweet Home!

Offline edpc

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,887
  • Professional Misanthrope - Briefer and Boxer
I can see how that could be an issue for a publicly traded company.  They are saying, in the few stories I've seen, is that he did it with his own funds to affect the election.   :shrug:

A campaign financing charge?


This does a fairly good job of unraveling the technical aspects. The crux of it....


It is, of course, up to each individual person as to whether they believe Cohen that this was intentional and that Trump knew about it at the time, or whether they believe Trump that it was a mere oversight that he learned about later, but a person would have to have extraordinary trust in the honesty of Donald Trump to believe that a series of transaction that appears to have been carefully constructed to intentionally avoid disclosure of this payment was, in fact, a complete accident.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/08/22/analysis-why-was-the-cohen-payment-to-stormy-daniels-a-crime-at-all
« Last Edit: December 09, 2018, 10:45:45 PM by edpc »
I disagree.  Circle gets the square.

Offline Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 40,568
  • "Heads I win, Tails you lose."

This does a fairly good job of unraveling the technical aspects. The crux of it....


It is, of course, up to each individual person as to whether they believe Cohen that this was intentional and that Trump knew about it at the time, or whether they believe Trump that it was a mere oversight that he learned about later, but a person would have to have extraordinary trust in the honesty of Donald Trump to believe that a series of transaction that appears to have been carefully constructed to intentionally avoid disclosure of this payment was, in fact, a complete accident.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/08/22/analysis-why-was-the-cohen-payment-to-stormy-daniels-a-crime-at-all

Thanks!  Good article.

Quote
The botched cover-up was the real problem

Isn't it always?  And...the author admits it can be possible for even the most conscientious politician to get caught in campaign violations by the FEC.  That has a smell of "You show me the man, I'll tell you the crime."
I will NOT comply.
                                  Castillo del Cyber! ~~~~~>              :dontfeed:
Home Sweet Home!

Offline TomSea

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 32,635
Quote
Donald J. Trump
‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump

“Democrats can’t find a Smocking Gun tying the Trump campaign to Russia after James Comey’s testimony. No Smocking Gun...No Collusion.” @FoxNews  That’s because there was NO COLLUSION. So now the Dems go to a simple private transaction, wrongly call it a campaign contribution,...


....which it was not (but even if it was, it is only a CIVIL CASE, like Obama’s - but it was done correctly by a lawyer and there would not even be a fine. Lawyer’s liability if he made a mistake, not me). Cohen just trying to get his sentence reduced. WITCH HUNT!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump

We'll see if this defense holds up.
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it" --Ronald Reagan

Offline edpc

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,887
  • Professional Misanthrope - Briefer and Boxer
We'll see if this defense holds up.


Apparently, the cover up entails use of a smock.
I disagree.  Circle gets the square.

Offline Sanguine

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 32,627
We'll see if this defense holds up.

A smocking gun?   :laugh:
Cui bono?

Walk in Wisdom
See then that you walk circumspectly, not as fools but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil.

But the noble make noble plans, and by noble deeds they stand.

Offline Freya

  • "And though she be but little she is fierce"-Shakespeare
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 8,205
  • Quos Deus Vult Perdere Prius Dementat
I wish Christie would write a book rating Jersey’s diners. He would feel useful, and we need such a book.
G-d bless America. G-d bless us all

Adopt a puppy or kitty from your local shelter


1952-2019
In my ❤️Forever

Offline edpc

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,887
  • Professional Misanthrope - Briefer and Boxer
A smocking gun?   :laugh:



Not the first time he’s used that phrase, either....


I disagree.  Circle gets the square.

Offline aligncare

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 22,274
Thanks!  Good article.

Isn't it always?  And...the author admits it can be possible for even the most conscientious politician to get caught in campaign violations by the FEC.  That has a smell of "You show me the man, I'll tell you the crime."

Obama paid the highest fine in history for campaign finance violations in 2008. However, the candidate himself is never charged criminally. All it ever amounts to is an administrative penalty.

Trump paid off his mistress with his own money, the payment of which became necessary when he declared his run for president and was made to protect his marriage. An expense he would’ve paid anyway even if he were not running for president. In other words, no campaign finance violation.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2018, 11:50:39 AM by aligncare »

Offline Sanguine

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 32,627
It's very pretty, but I didn't know there was a gun for that.

« Last Edit: December 10, 2018, 10:47:07 AM by Sanguine »
Cui bono?

Walk in Wisdom
See then that you walk circumspectly, not as fools but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil.

But the noble make noble plans, and by noble deeds they stand.

Offline aligncare

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 22,274


Not the first time he’s used that phrase, either....




A typo. Call the FBI.

Offline edpc

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,887
  • Professional Misanthrope - Briefer and Boxer
A typo. Call the FBI.


They’re busy right now. Graham has them looking at the Khashoggi ‘smocking saw.’ In the August tweet, it may have been a typo. Since he used it two more times today, the stable genius obviously thinks that’s the correct phrase.


« Last Edit: December 10, 2018, 12:01:23 PM by edpc »
I disagree.  Circle gets the square.

Offline jpsb

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,635

They have testimony and/or evidence from Pecker and Weisselberg, which is why they were given immunity.

Since when did entering into a nondisclosure agreement, as advised by your attorney, become a crime? And how is that a campaign violation when you used your own money?

Offline edpc

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,887
  • Professional Misanthrope - Briefer and Boxer
Since when did entering into a nondisclosure agreement, as advised by your attorney, become a crime? And how is that a campaign violation when you used your own money?


This is when and how....

The first mistake the campaign made was having Cohen pay Daniels with his own money, rather than with campaign funds. The reason this is illegal is simple: because of the size of the contribution, it constituted a donation to the campaign far in excess of legally allowable amounts.

-snip-

Instead, Trump apparently paid Cohen out of Trump Organization funds rather than out of campaign funds — which he would have had no reason to do, except to avoid having to disclose on a publicly available FEC report that the payment was made at all. It would have frankly been better to make no payment to Cohen at all than to make a payment that looked for all the world like a way to avoid disclosure. That is likely what moved the violation from the civil to the criminal realm.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/08/22/analysis-why-was-the-cohen-payment-to-stormy-daniels-a-crime-at-all
I disagree.  Circle gets the square.


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf