TrumpPutingate III: the beginning of the end

[Mick]

Let's see where it goes. Is this the tip of an iceberg or just an ice cube bobbing around in the ocean?

Looks like he was at least selling access to Trump. If he was scamming them or selling access to Trump is the issue. Seems like he is busted.

 

[evillawyer]

Illegalities only matter if you support Trump.

Nice avoidance.

Is it or is it not illegal to release banking information without approval?

It is important how he got his information, especially if what Cohen did was criminal. I thought you were a lawyer or do you just play one in your head?

Maybe there's a legal issue here for the person who leaked the information to Avenatti. But let's not kid ourselves that this is what we should REALLY be focused on.

 

[Mick]

Nice avoidance.

Is it or is it not illegal to release banking information without approval?

I will say yes. One crime does not cancel out another.

 

[hog88]

LOL! Do you really think that the drug giant Novartis paid Michael Cohen $1.2 million just for that ...

I know you guys aren't this naive.

You think all the foreign countries that paid Bill while Hillary was SOS just wanted to hear him speak?

 

[Vol_Doc]

I'm still waiting on the collective liberals on here to explain how this whole "selling my services for influence" is a new development in the political world.

Or is it just "because Trump."

For me, it's not because Trump, but it just shows he's not any less swampy than any other politician, though he tried to convince the public otherwise.

 

[hog88]

Maybe there's a legal issue here for the person who leaked the information to Avenatti. But let's not kid ourselves that this is what we should REALLY be focused on.

Sure it is, lawyers are selling access to politicians every freeking day in DC and there is nothing illegal or new about it.

Could Cohen have done something illegal, sure and I have no problem with them looking into it but if someone from the Southern District or Muellers team is leaking to Avenatti it is a major issue.

 

[hog88]

for me, it's not because trump, but it just shows he's not any less swampy than any other politician, though he tried to convince the public otherwise.

 

[evillawyer]

Sure it is, lawyers are selling access to politicians every freeking day in DC and there is nothing illegal or new about it.

Could Cohen have done something illegal, sure and I have no problem with them looking into it but if someone from the Southern District or Muellers team is leaking to Avenatti it is a major issue.

Just so I have this straight:

Pay for Play=OK
Exposing potential public corruption=Not OK

Gotcha!

 

[BowlBrother85]

Nice avoidance.

Is it or is it not illegal to release banking information without approval?

Well, of course it is for the institution. I don't think there are any repercussions for Avenatti to release what he was given though.

I work at First Tennessee on Downtown West Blvd in Knoxville... You have to be very careful even accessing someone's information if you don't have a business reason for doing so. My operations manager saw me one afternoon looking at my ex-wife's checking account info... I received a written reprimand that remains in my file to this day.

 

[hog88]

Just so I have this straight:

Pay for Play=OK
Exposing potential public corruption=Not OK

Gotcha!

Did you miss where I said they should look into it? It's not ok to give banking info to a private citizen to go in TV and mouth off about it. So how he got that information should be looked into with just as much gusto as why these people paid Cohen.

 

[hog88]

Well, of course it is for the institution. I don't think there are any repercussions for Avenatti to release what he was given though.

I work at First Tennessee on Downtown West Blvd in Knoxville... You have to be very careful even accessing someone's information if you don't have a business reason for doing so. My operations manager saw me one afternoon looking at my ex-wife's checking account info... I received a written reprimand that remains in my file to this day.

Should have fired your ass.

 

[Grand Vol]

Maybe there's a legal issue here for the person who leaked the information to Avenatti. But let's not kid ourselves that this is what we should REALLY be focused on.

Okay, so if someone leaked your banking information to me and I told the world how you blew your kid's college money on slots in Vegas and have a 10 year ongoing platinum membership to Pornhub and accepted money from a South American drug dealer, that's okay so long as I wasn't the one that obtained that information in the first place?

Just want to make sure I have my facts straight here.

 

[Vol_Doc]

View attachment 156627

Hey, I never bought into it. I knew he was full of crap. That's why I didn't vote for him.

 

[evillawyer]

Did you miss where I said they should look into it? It's not ok to give banking info to a private citizen to go in TV and mouth off about it. So how he got that information should be looked into with just as much gusto as why these people paid Cohen.

And I agree that if the person who provided the info to Avenatti did so illegally, it should be looked into. But that's a sideshow to what we should really be focused on--whether Cohen was selling access to Donny and whether Donny knew about and approved of this and agreed to see people who had paid up to Cohen.

Here's an analogy: I illegally record a phone call with Donny. On the call, Donny admits to collusion with Russia. Are you going to maintain that what the American public should really be focused on is how that call was illegally recorded?

 

[hog88]

Okay, so if someone leaked your banking information to me and I told the world how you blew your kid's college money on slots in Vegas and have a 10 year ongoing platinum membership to Pornhub and accepted money from a South American drug dealer, that's okay so long as I wasn't the one that obtained that information in the first place?

Just want to make sure I have my facts straight here.

Of course that's ok, your not on his team.

 

[evillawyer]

Okay, so if someone leaked your banking information to me and I told the world how you blew your kid's college money on slots in Vegas and have a 10 year ongoing platinum membership to Pornhub and accepted money from a South American drug dealer, that's okay so long as I wasn't the one that obtained that information in the first place?

Just want to make sure I have my facts straight here.

Do you mean OK morally or legally? Probably OK legally (but this is not my area of law). Morally probably not OK, especially since there is no competing public interest here.

 

[hog88]

And I agree that if the person who provided the info to Avenatti did so illegally, it should be looked into. But that's a sideshow to what we should really be focused on--whether Cohen was selling access to Donny and whether Donny knew about and approved of this and agreed to see people who had paid up to Cohen.

Here's an analogy: I illegally record a phone call with Donny. On the call, Donny admits to collusion with Russia. Are you going to maintain that what the American public should really be focused on is how that call was illegally recorded?

Your analogy is pathetic and dumb. Mueller wouldn't have handed the case off if anything remotely like this happened. Or even if he thought it might have happened.

Your first paragraph is worth looking into to see if Cohen violated any rules for selling access. There are rules and as long as Cohen was obeyed the same rules as Valerie Jarret did while she was selling access to Obama, Cohen is fine. The only potential crime here is how SDs lawyer got the info.

 

[hog88]

Do you mean OK morally or legally? Probably OK legally (but this is not my area of law). Morally probably not OK, especially since there is no competing public interest here.

There is no such thing when it comes to a persons private finances.

 

[Vol0725]

Pence on Mueller investigation: ‘It’s time to wrap it up’

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...-mueller-investigation-its-time-to-wrap-it-up

 

[evillawyer]

There is no such thing when it comes to a persons private finances.

No, there is legitimate public interest here. First, this is not Michael Cohen's private bank account. It's an account for a business that was set up, apparently, to pay off porn stars and sell access to the president. Second, Cohen is a public figure. I am not.

 

[evillawyer]

Your analogy is pathetic and dumb. Mueller wouldn't have handed the case off if anything remotely like this happened. Or even if he thought it might have happened.

Your first paragraph is worth looking into to see if Cohen violated any rules for selling access. There are rules and as long as Cohen was obeyed the same rules as Valerie Jarret did while she was selling access to Obama, Cohen is fine. The only potential crime here is how SDs lawyer got the info.

Ah, the old argument by assertion. Why it is pathetic and dumb? I'm simply using it to make a point about what the public should be focused on the most. It's a standard ploy by Fox to focus on the sideshows when bad information comes out instead of the bad information and what it may portend.

 

[hog88]

No, there is legitimate public interest here. First, this is not Michael Cohen's private bank account. It's an account for a business that was set up, apparently, to pay off porn stars and sell access to the president. Second, Cohen is a public figure. I am not.

No, there is not a legitimate public interest here. If it's found that he broke the law, was bribing Trump, was laundering money in a Trump/Putin scheme then yeah it would be in the public interest but as of now, it's not.

As of now it's an invasion of privacy the DOJ needs to look into.

 

[hog88]

Ah, the old argument by assertion. Why it is pathetic and dumb? I'm simply using it to make a point about what the public should be focused on the most. It's a standard ploy by Fox to focus on the sideshows when bad information comes out instead of the bad information and what it may portend.

Deflection.

 

[Vol0725]

No, there is legitimate public interest here. First, this is not Michael Cohen's private bank account. It's an account for a business that was set up, apparently, to pay off porn stars and sell access to the president. Second, Cohen is a public figure. I am not.

I can see it now...

“Cohen Cash: A Pay-for-Play Access Scheme with an Kremlin-Elected President of the United States”

 

[evillawyer]

No, there is not a legitimate public interest here. If it's found that he broke the law, was bribing Trump, was laundering money in a Trump/Putin scheme then yeah it would be in the public interest but as of now, it's not.

As of now it's an invasion of privacy the DOJ needs to look into.

So things are only in the public interest if we have rock solid, 100% certainty that a crime was committed? Until then, the public has no interest in it. That's your position?