Jump to content

TahoeHorn

banned
  • Posts

    617
  • Joined

Everything posted by TahoeHorn

  1. Yes. That too. I went from "You signed a contract. Tough shit" to "You got cheated. Get 'em girl."
  2. You can't read. I certainly didn't argue that money laundering can't be proven, or that when money is fungible you can't prove anything. Your reading or logic is bad. I think proving money laundering to the public, which is where this will be tried, may be difficult depending on how clear the facts are. You don't. That's that. It has nothing to do with how smart I am or you are.
  3. I find the role of Keith Davidson EXTREMELY troubling. I went from being very prejudiced against her case to heavily in favor when I learned that her lawyer seemed to be in cahoots with Cohen.
  4. I'm not issuing a defense. I'm explaining the realities of arguing what money went for when money is fungible. It's not MY argument. If you aren't aware of this then you haven't argued "money" cases. You used term "that money". A lot of people have different ideas about "that money". A lot of people in this world don't understand that money is fungible and can be bamboozled about what "that money" means. You need somebody "good at explaining" to get them to "get it".
  5. I don't think it's him. I think he's very talented but I think the person who started this ball rolling was the person who saw what was on the SAR and leaked it. I have a wild speculation: I have a theory that the person found Avenatti, not the other way around. I think the SAR showed Cohen paying Daniels and Davidson, and the individual in possession of the SAR knew that was a way to "pry open" a lot of things about Cohen and Trump. Ithink Avenatti has had the SAR as a roadmap from Day One. And it's a hell of a roadmap.
  6. I think that's correct in one sense and not in another. It's correct if people can be made to see it for what it is. But I'm sure you know that money is fungible and if the payment is not direct you can bet your life that showing it gets tougher. Trump will argue that the Novartis money went to Cohen and he had no idea, and Cohen "paid his mortgage" because Cohen was his buddy. I have no doubt that Cohen was functioning as a bagman. I've been crystal clear on that. I am unclear how easy that will be to prove.
  7. If it went to the Trump Organization or Ivanka or Stormy Daniels then it's not any different. Is it for the benefit of Cohen alone, or Cohen and Trump? That's the big question. We know Novartis was buying access. was it to get Cohen to put in a good word? Or was there a direct benefit to Trump? I already told you what I think. Hell, I told you two years ago and I've said it over a hundred times. We have all kinds of opinions and lies. I'm waiting for the paper trail. We will have one.
  8. I want to know if Trump received any of the money. The answer to that question has monstrous implications for where this goes.
  9. Engelhardt was confirmed today. I don't know when the vote will be for the other five which are coming to the floor. Can anybody explain to me how to read the Senate schedule? https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/executive_calendar/xcalv.pdf
  10. You would if you had at least average intelligence.
  11. I keep coming back to two or three things - a zillion documents and a zillion players, and maybe phone recordings. There is a massive chance of getting caught lying. Somebody (e.g. some AT&T executive who didn't do anything wrong) is going to tell the government everything he knows. Bet the farm on that. All we have to do is wait. The truth will come out.
  12. Sure. Do you think anybody believes that people were buying his insights into Trump? Do you think he will be able to show that he provided any insights into Trump? Do you think he prepared a 58 page report on his insights? BUT ... I'm not sure it will matter. I suspect that the documents will tell a story. I suspect that $4.4 MM wasn't for Cohen, and I suspect there are phone taps and documents which talk about what the money was for. And I suspect that entities like AT&T will ultimately decide to come clean.
  13. I think if you're going to lie or spin you damn well better not lie to yourself or you'll get caught for sure. (The reason Trump gets caught lying so much is that he lies to himself.) So, before we decide how Cohen will spin this let's decide what truth is, and how he'll explain away problems. I think it's fairly clear that he was not providing a legitimate service. He was either functioning as a bagman for Trump (my guess) or acting like he was, and keeping the money for himself. If he was not a bagman then there can't be money (or benefits of the money) going to Trump. And he has to fool very smart people into thinking he's a bagman when he isn't. I just can't see him doing that. Maybe you scam AT&T, but you don't scam $4.4 MM including the Prez and $500K from a Russian mobster and live a healthy life. I have to believe the Prez was in on it. But I'll let you assume whatever you think the real facts are. Now, tell me what documents exist, what phone taps exist and what AT&T et al will say. I don't think "lobbyist" is the bets spin, and it's not the one they are using.
  14. I'm no expert. I think the problem would be with AT&T. And I think we've already seen they aren't going there.
  15. There may be other funds flows between Trump and Cohen. And money is fungible. "Proof" gets messy.
  16. I don't think so. That has to be registered and AT&T has been clear that it wasn't for lobbying. They're arguing "consulting". But Cohen is cooked. Forget Cohen. The question is whether Trump received some of that money. That's the part which will need serious explaining.
  17. Yes. There are people who will want to see what AT&T received for $200K. If Mueller had acted more ineptly Cohen would be secretly writing a consulting report (however lame) right now for AT&T.
  18. I'm sure Mueller will ask for copies of Cohen's consulting reports, notes of his consulting advice, and records of meetings or phone calls to listen to advice. A showing of $200K worth of advice would go a long way to arguing that the payment was for advice. I don't expect we'll see that though. The real question is whether Trump received money or benefits (e.g. payment to women) from Cohen. Was Cohen (1) providing real benefit, (2) running a scam or (3) serving as Trump's bagman? The documents will say.
  19. Sure. But it isn't always clear when a vote is being bought. Suppose, John Doe, a cotton farmer from Alabama pools his money with other cotton farmers to get the message out that Billy Bob Jones, a cotton farmer sympathetic to the interests of cotton farmers, would make a good Senator. Is John Doe buying votes? Should he be able to pool his money with other cotton farmers to advertise the merits of Billy Bob?
  20. You are conflating a bunch of issues. Off-the-books bribes are not anything like PACs.
  21. I don't support the required use of GPS trackers. I'm normally dismissive of the complaints about government surveillance. But here's my test: If it's a small community a hundred years ago is it info that the police can and should know? If it is then it's ok for the police to do that today using advanced technology. If not, then they can't. In 1900 the Possum Hollow police couldn't track everybody's every move in a vehicle or horse. They could find out what books you checked out of the library, whether you attended the Possum Hollow Fair on Saturday, whether you were seen drinking in the Possum Hollow Saloon and even whether you asked Sadie to the dance. They'd know if you had trouble with the law as a boy. There are things which were easy for them to know. And they did. Everybody knew. But they didn't know what the doc told you about your illness or what Father Murray heard from you at confession. They didn't know what you and the wife did behind closed doors. There is a difference between privacy and anonymity. We have a right to privacy, not to anonymity. There is a difference between the police collecting info and us being required to provide it. We shouldn't be compelled to provide info on our movements even if we can do so without active measures. If the police want to electronically read our license plate and have a database of our moves that's ok. The 1900 Sheriff did that with 1900 technology. But he couldn't track us all the time.
  22. Well, at least Huck seems the same.
  23. What should "Trump" do? https://www.yahoo.com/news/navy-seals-allegedly-left-behind-120002859.html Based only on this info I'd give the Medal to the Air Force guy but not the SEAL.
  24. How are my actions different from Nancy Pelosi's? Or Chuck Schumer's? Or do you have the same criticism of them?
×
×
  • Create New...