Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

Michael Cohen sentenced to 3 years

Page 3 of 3 [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Previous topic | Next topic

Biscuitman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2013
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,674
Location: Dunking jammy dodgers

15 Dec 2018, 7:20 am

No one is above the law, any suggestion of wrong doing should be investigated, and if people are found guilty of crimes they will be punished.

Good work from Mueller's team here



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

15 Dec 2018, 7:24 am

kokopelli wrote:
It doesn't matter. You can't expect them to ignore other crimes that come to light during an investigation. The only real question becomes whether the investigators take on the investigation into those crimes themselves or refer them to other investigators. As we have seen, Trump investigators like to whine about it either way.


So it doesn't matter if the special counsel that was formed to specifically investigate any connections between members of the Trump campaign and Russia, ever indicts anyone regarding the matter of collusion.



kokopelli
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,399
Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind

15 Dec 2018, 7:30 am

EzraS wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
It doesn't matter. You can't expect them to ignore other crimes that come to light during an investigation. The only real question becomes whether the investigators take on the investigation into those crimes themselves or refer them to other investigators. As we have seen, Trump investigators like to whine about it either way.


So it doesn't matter if the special counsel that was formed to specifically investigate any connections between members of the Trump campaign and Russia, ever indicts anyone regarding the matter of collusion.


It doesn't matter. There are many reasons that they might not indict.

One such reason would be if having a trial would reveal highly sensitive details and methods involving national security. In such a case, it would be far more advantageous to indict someone for other reasons that would not reveal those details and methods.



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

15 Dec 2018, 10:01 am

kokopelli wrote:
EzraS wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
It doesn't matter. You can't expect them to ignore other crimes that come to light during an investigation. The only real question becomes whether the investigators take on the investigation into those crimes themselves or refer them to other investigators. As we have seen, Trump investigators like to whine about it either way.


So it doesn't matter if the special counsel that was formed to specifically investigate any connections between members of the Trump campaign and Russia, ever indicts anyone regarding the matter of collusion.


It doesn't matter. There are many reasons that they might not indict.

One such reason would be if having a trial would reveal highly sensitive details and methods involving national security. In such a case, it would be far more advantageous to indict someone for other reasons that would not reveal those details and methods.


That doesn't sound very convincing. That they haven't come up with anything regarding collusion they can indict anyone with, seems more likely.



kokopelli
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,399
Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind

15 Dec 2018, 3:23 pm

EzraS wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
EzraS wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
It doesn't matter. You can't expect them to ignore other crimes that come to light during an investigation. The only real question becomes whether the investigators take on the investigation into those crimes themselves or refer them to other investigators. As we have seen, Trump investigators like to whine about it either way.


So it doesn't matter if the special counsel that was formed to specifically investigate any connections between members of the Trump campaign and Russia, ever indicts anyone regarding the matter of collusion.


It doesn't matter. There are many reasons that they might not indict.

One such reason would be if having a trial would reveal highly sensitive details and methods involving national security. In such a case, it would be far more advantageous to indict someone for other reasons that would not reveal those details and methods.


That doesn't sound very convincing. That they haven't come up with anything regarding collusion they can indict anyone with, seems more likely.


Not very convincing that it did happen? Or that it couldn't happen?

I'm not claiming that they aren't prosecuting because of that. I'm giving that as an example of why they might not prosecute even with ample evidence. Would that one prosecution really be worth burning an agent or divulging methods and capabilities? Not hardly.



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

15 Dec 2018, 8:51 pm

kokopelli wrote:
EzraS wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
EzraS wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
It doesn't matter. You can't expect them to ignore other crimes that come to light during an investigation. The only real question becomes whether the investigators take on the investigation into those crimes themselves or refer them to other investigators. As we have seen, Trump investigators like to whine about it either way.


So it doesn't matter if the special counsel that was formed to specifically investigate any connections between members of the Trump campaign and Russia, ever indicts anyone regarding the matter of collusion.


It doesn't matter. There are many reasons that they might not indict.

One such reason would be if having a trial would reveal highly sensitive details and methods involving national security. In such a case, it would be far more advantageous to indict someone for other reasons that would not reveal those details and methods.


That doesn't sound very convincing. That they haven't come up with anything regarding collusion they can indict anyone with, seems more likely.


Not very convincing that it did happen? Or that it couldn't happen?

I'm not claiming that they aren't prosecuting because of that. I'm giving that as an example of why they might not prosecute even with ample evidence. Would that one prosecution really be worth burning an agent or divulging methods and capabilities? Not hardly.


The scenarios given (by more people than just you) as to why they are indicting people for other things rather than for anything having to do with collusion aren't very convincing. When it comes to different explanations for something, the more assumptions that are presented, the more unlikely it seems. Especially to those who doubt that collusion ever took place.



kokopelli
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,399
Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind

15 Dec 2018, 9:23 pm

EzraS wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
EzraS wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
EzraS wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
It doesn't matter. You can't expect them to ignore other crimes that come to light during an investigation. The only real question becomes whether the investigators take on the investigation into those crimes themselves or refer them to other investigators. As we have seen, Trump investigators like to whine about it either way.


So it doesn't matter if the special counsel that was formed to specifically investigate any connections between members of the Trump campaign and Russia, ever indicts anyone regarding the matter of collusion.


It doesn't matter. There are many reasons that they might not indict.

One such reason would be if having a trial would reveal highly sensitive details and methods involving national security. In such a case, it would be far more advantageous to indict someone for other reasons that would not reveal those details and methods.


That doesn't sound very convincing. That they haven't come up with anything regarding collusion they can indict anyone with, seems more likely.


Not very convincing that it did happen? Or that it couldn't happen?

I'm not claiming that they aren't prosecuting because of that. I'm giving that as an example of why they might not prosecute even with ample evidence. Would that one prosecution really be worth burning an agent or divulging methods and capabilities? Not hardly.


The scenarios given (by more people than just you) as to why they are indicting people for other things rather than for anything having to do with collusion aren't very convincing. When it comes to different explanations for something, the more assumptions that are presented, the more unlikely it seems. Especially to those who doubt that collusion ever took place.


By your logic, if the police do a traffic stop for a broken tail light and notice that the driver has an open half full whiskey bottle in his hand, they shouldn't do anything about it because that wasn't the reason for the traffic stop.



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

15 Dec 2018, 10:02 pm

kokopelli wrote:
EzraS wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
EzraS wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
EzraS wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
It doesn't matter. You can't expect them to ignore other crimes that come to light during an investigation. The only real question becomes whether the investigators take on the investigation into those crimes themselves or refer them to other investigators. As we have seen, Trump investigators like to whine about it either way.


So it doesn't matter if the special counsel that was formed to specifically investigate any connections between members of the Trump campaign and Russia, ever indicts anyone regarding the matter of collusion.


It doesn't matter. There are many reasons that they might not indict.

One such reason would be if having a trial would reveal highly sensitive details and methods involving national security. In such a case, it would be far more advantageous to indict someone for other reasons that would not reveal those details and methods.


That doesn't sound very convincing. That they haven't come up with anything regarding collusion they can indict anyone with, seems more likely.


Not very convincing that it did happen? Or that it couldn't happen?

I'm not claiming that they aren't prosecuting because of that. I'm giving that as an example of why they might not prosecute even with ample evidence. Would that one prosecution really be worth burning an agent or divulging methods and capabilities? Not hardly.


The scenarios given (by more people than just you) as to why they are indicting people for other things rather than for anything having to do with collusion aren't very convincing. When it comes to different explanations for something, the more assumptions that are presented, the more unlikely it seems. Especially to those who doubt that collusion ever took place.


By your logic, if the police do a traffic stop for a broken tail light and notice that the driver has an open half full whiskey bottle in his hand, they shouldn't do anything about it because that wasn't the reason for the traffic stop.


My logic is the basic application of Occam's razor. The most straightforward explanation is most likely the correct one.

The assertion that people are saying Cohen and Manafort et al shouldn't have been indicted for anything other than collusion is erroneous. What's being said is the indictments while justified, were not connected to what the special counsel was created for.

If those indicted and convicted during the Watergate investigation, had been indicted and convicted for things other than breaking into the democratic headquarters in the Watergate hotel, then it wouldn't be "Watergate", it would be "Something-else-completely-unrelated-gate". The same applies to "Russiagate".

Another analogy would be a team of elk hunters coming back with deer and rabbits, instead of elk. Their hunting expedition was a success in that they brought back game, but it was also a failure.



kokopelli
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,399
Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind

16 Dec 2018, 7:23 am

EzraS wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
EzraS wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
EzraS wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
EzraS wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
It doesn't matter. You can't expect them to ignore other crimes that come to light during an investigation. The only real question becomes whether the investigators take on the investigation into those crimes themselves or refer them to other investigators. As we have seen, Trump investigators like to whine about it either way.


So it doesn't matter if the special counsel that was formed to specifically investigate any connections between members of the Trump campaign and Russia, ever indicts anyone regarding the matter of collusion.


It doesn't matter. There are many reasons that they might not indict.

One such reason would be if having a trial would reveal highly sensitive details and methods involving national security. In such a case, it would be far more advantageous to indict someone for other reasons that would not reveal those details and methods.


That doesn't sound very convincing. That they haven't come up with anything regarding collusion they can indict anyone with, seems more likely.


Not very convincing that it did happen? Or that it couldn't happen?

I'm not claiming that they aren't prosecuting because of that. I'm giving that as an example of why they might not prosecute even with ample evidence. Would that one prosecution really be worth burning an agent or divulging methods and capabilities? Not hardly.


The scenarios given (by more people than just you) as to why they are indicting people for other things rather than for anything having to do with collusion aren't very convincing. When it comes to different explanations for something, the more assumptions that are presented, the more unlikely it seems. Especially to those who doubt that collusion ever took place.


By your logic, if the police do a traffic stop for a broken tail light and notice that the driver has an open half full whiskey bottle in his hand, they shouldn't do anything about it because that wasn't the reason for the traffic stop.


My logic is the basic application of Occam's razor. The most straightforward explanation is most likely the correct one.

The assertion that people are saying Cohen and Manafort et al shouldn't have been indicted for anything other than collusion is erroneous. What's being said is the indictments while justified, were not connected to what the special counsel was created for.

If those indicted and convicted during the Watergate investigation, had been indicted and convicted for things other than breaking into the democratic headquarters in the Watergate hotel, then it wouldn't be "Watergate", it would be "Something-else-completely-unrelated-gate". The same applies to "Russiagate".

Another analogy would be a team of elk hunters coming back with deer and rabbits, instead of elk. Their hunting expedition was a success in that they brought back game, but it was also a failure.


You realize, don't you, that the real issue of Watergate concerning Nixon was his cover-up of the break-in? Nixon was not one of the burglars. Also, that there were other break-ins involved as well such as the one into Daniel Ellsburg's physchiatrist's office?



Piobaire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,347
Location: Smackass Gap, NC

16 Dec 2018, 7:34 am

If they really wanted to "Lock her up!", they should've given Hillary Clinton a position in the Trump administration.



kokopelli
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,399
Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind

16 Dec 2018, 7:43 am

Piobaire wrote:
If they really wanted to "Lock her up!", they should've given Hillary Clinton a position in the Trump administration.


Or in his campaign. Mueller would be investigating her, too.



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

16 Dec 2018, 10:50 am

kokopelli wrote:
You realize, don't you, that the real issue of Watergate concerning Nixon was his cover-up of the break-in? Nixon was not one of the burglars. Also, that there were other break-ins involved as well such as the one into Daniel Ellsburg's physchiatrist's office?


Okay so what if those who committed the break-ins were indicted for crimes other than the break-ins?



kokopelli
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,399
Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind

16 Dec 2018, 2:59 pm

EzraS wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
You realize, don't you, that the real issue of Watergate concerning Nixon was his cover-up of the break-in? Nixon was not one of the burglars. Also, that there were other break-ins involved as well such as the one into Daniel Ellsburg's physchiatrist's office?


Okay so what if those who committed the break-ins were indicted for crimes other than the break-ins?


People were indicted for crimes discovered during the investigation. The indictments were not limited to only the reason for the investigation.

Admittedly the investigation was much more focused. I think that is partially because the people themselves had much cleaner pasts. Except for extra "help" brought in for the burglaries, they were generally law abiding people who got worked up and stepped way over the line in protecting the President during the campaign. So they didn't get anyone for prior crimes that had nothing to do with the Nixon Campaign.

Note that the investigation into Agnew that led to his eventual resignation was a separate investigation from Whitewater. That investigation went into both his current and his past criminal activities such as extortion provided that the statute of limitations was not an issue.



JohnPowell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2016
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,806
Location: Palestine

16 Dec 2018, 4:11 pm

kokopelli wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
EzraS wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
EzraS wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
NOTHING to do with 'collusion'. The whole thing is a complete hoax.


I see that you got Trump's talking points.

Is anyone even claiming that it has anything to do with collusion? I haven't heard anyone claim that.

Mueller did exactly as he should have when he found the serious problems with Cohen breaking the law -- he referred it to the proper federal authorities to investigate and prosecute.


The special council was formed to find evidence that Trump colluded with Putin to interfere with the election.


No. The special counsel was formed to investigate any connections between members of the Trump campaign and Russia. And that was definitely happening.

I doubt that Trump was colluding with Russia, but if he was, then he should be prosecuted, too.


So just Trump's people having any (rather than specific) connections to Russia, which wouldn't involve Trump himself being involved.

In what way was that definitely happening? What indictments have there been specifically regarding connections between members of the Trump campaign and Russia?


Are you completely blind to the fact that Manafort had very strong ties to Russia. Not only that, he was actively trying to sell his insight into the Trump campaign to the Russians when he sought to provide them with private briefings on it.

And Manafort was hardly the only one.


Having 'ties to Russia' is not a crime or proof of 'collusion'. He'd have spoke with numerous countries.
What we do have is Flynn and the Trump campaign colluding with Israel to try and get Russia to veto a UN resolution about illegal Israeli settlements.


It doesn't matter whether having ties to Russia is a crime. It is definitely worth looking into to see if there are any crimes involved when there is evidence between ties between members of a campaign and a country that often works against our interests. Not doing so would be truly stupid


So you're going to look into US politicians who have ties with Israel? Could take a while....


Don't be stupid. Israel is not a traditional foe of the US. Russia is.


Yes it is in reality.


_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"


JohnPowell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2016
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,806
Location: Palestine

16 Dec 2018, 4:12 pm

kokopelli wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Biscuitman wrote:
No one should be above the law, if a crime has been committed then the perpetrator must pay.

More good work from Mueller & co


That's not why he's been put away.


If he didn't commit any crimes why did he plead guilty to committing crimes?


That's not my point. It's just politically motivated. Mueller is just dragging it out.


I guess you didn't know that Mueller is a Republican. A real Republican.


He's a neocon lying traitor. A real neocon lying traitor.


I'll never understand the minds of people who so strongly detest anyone who they see as on another side than their own. There are plenty of lying traitors out there, but Mueller isn't one of them.

The biggest liar in government today has to be Trump. He hasn't told the truth in so long that he can no longer distinguish between the truth and lies.


So you don't understand yourself? Mueller is definitely one of them, you hate Trump so much so won't admit it. Ironic again.

He is indeed a liar.


That's not true. I don't think that Trump is competent to be the President (he has shown his lack of competence to a remarkable degree) and I don't trust him at all, but I don't hate him, either.

We've yet to see any lies from Mueller. Hardly a day goes by that we don't hear lie after lie after lie from Trump.


The whole investigation is based on a lie. He's been caught out lying about Iraq.


_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"


EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

17 Dec 2018, 12:13 am

kokopelli wrote:
EzraS wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
You realize, don't you, that the real issue of Watergate concerning Nixon was his cover-up of the break-in? Nixon was not one of the burglars. Also, that there were other break-ins involved as well such as the one into Daniel Ellsburg's physchiatrist's office?


Okay so what if those who committed the break-ins were indicted for crimes other than the break-ins?


People were indicted for crimes discovered during the investigation. The indictments were not limited to only the reason for the investigation.

Admittedly the investigation was much more focused. I think that is partially because the people themselves had much cleaner pasts. Except for extra "help" brought in for the burglaries, they were generally law abiding people who got worked up and stepped way over the line in protecting the President during the campaign. So they didn't get anyone for prior crimes that had nothing to do with the Nixon Campaign.

Note that the investigation into Agnew that led to his eventual resignation was a separate investigation from Whitewater. That investigation went into both his current and his past criminal activities such as extortion provided that the statute of limitations was not an issue.


This keeps getting more convoluted leanding more towards using occam's razor. It's either, this that and the other so forth and so on... Or it's simply the special counsel hasn't been able to pin collusion on anybody. Probably because it never really happened.

One can come up with numerous scenarios of why no snipes were caught during a snipe hunt. But the real reason is the snipes never existed. "Oh but that doesn't matter because they caught other unrelated things during the snipe hunt".