Frothers Unite! UK

McKinstry wrote:

I don't see any of them that Trump has violated

Cohen plead guilty to a campaign finance law violation for paying Stormy Daniels. A US Federal Court acknowledged his plea and thus per se, a law was violated and Cohen stands, today, a convicted Federal felon. In his plea, "the candidate" was specifically stated as the knowing beneficiary of that campaign finance law violation and co-conspirator.

It is a legitimate issue of law as to whether a sitting President can be indicted. It is however factual that the Draftdodger is at this point, an unindicted co-conspirator for that particular violation.

Cohen pleading guilty to something that is not a crime based on wording given to him to say as a part of a plea deal does not make what he did a crime. It isn't. The reason is that for it to have been a campaign finance law violation, the item in question needs to be uniquely tied to the campaign and would not have otherwise occurred. Just like settling a lawsuit, buying ads for your business or getting a haircut, all of those things could reasonably be expected to occur to improve one's image in the world. Were he just Trump the businessman, he would very likely been just as eager to not have that information get out, hence not unique to the campaign, hence no campaign violation. Dershowitz is but one of a number of lawyers and legal experts, of whom I do not claim to be, who have provided that same explanation. Sorry.

Find another one to try.

Tiny Dick Dogfucker now claims that an innocent person pled guilty to a non-crime? He presumes to know the law better than the lawyers involved and the judge that signed off on the guilty plea? I guess that tinfoil is not wrapped around his little head.

Rebelyell fails to recognize that any legal positions I post are based on information that is available from open sources, from actual legal experts. Yes, he plead guilty to a non-crime in order to get what was being offered to him. That was the price. Nevertheless, legal experts have pointed out that his plea does not equate to a crime being committed.

I'd say he could look it up for himself online but that is a lost cause. So here's that noted alt-right source CBS News
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/commentary-will-michael-cohens-guilty-plea-take-trump-down-no/

Rebelyell fails to recognize that any legal positions I post are based on information that is available from open sources, from actual legal experts. Yes, he plead guilty to a non-crime in order to get what was being offered to him. That was the price. Nevertheless, legal experts have pointed out that his plea does not equate to a crime being committed.

I'd say he could look it up for himself online but that is a lost cause. So here's that noted alt-right source CBS News
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/commentary-will-michael-cohens-guilty-plea-take-trump-down-no/

Apologize for the dupe posts. Don't know why they are happening.

If Rebelyell were able to do internet searches, he'd find other extreme alt-right sites like Reuters, Time, and The Independent in the UK, so maybe he thinks their foil hats aren't wrapped correctly either.

But then, given the frequent displays of Rebelyell's "thinking" and displays of his logic and cognitive skills as well as reading, reading comprehension, memory, and other shortcomings, there's no telling what he'll come up with next. I'm confident it will be just as important as all of his other deeply researched pronouncements, and just as correct.

Tiny Dick Dogfucker double-posts a link to an editorial written by a right-wing shock jock? A link that does not say anything related to the legality of pleading guilty to a non-crime? He seems a bit desperate and extremely moronic, because judges do not allow non-crimes to be tried in their courts.

And proving my point, I guess that he thinks that attorney John Hinderaker, and lawyer and head of the Landmark Legal Foundation are radio shock jocks.

"He seems a bit desperate and extremely moronic, because judges do not allow non-crimes to be tried in their courts."
Making excessive campaign contributions is a crime. That was why he was in court. The content of the plea was not limited to the case itself and may be tied to future matters but still does not change what Dershowitz and other legal experts have stated.

I can't wait for his next display of uninformed nonsense.

Tiny Dick Dogfucker did not even read the link he posted. He's turning into a dotard like the fatass in chief he worships.

Michael Graham CBSN contributor Michael Graham is a conservative columnist for the Boston Herald.

So tell me Rebelyell, what stations have this "radio shock jock" as a part of their programming? See, HE'S the guy who wrote the opinion piece.

Weren't we just discussing reading comprehension? Or the lack thereof?

I don't think Rebelyell should be talking about folks who didn't read the link. Since I know who did and did not write it, and know of two lawyers who expressed their opinions in the article, I think I have a pretty solid case that I read it. Rebelyell? HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa!

Cohen pleading guilty to something that is not a crime based on wording given to him to say as a part of a plea deal does not make what he did a crime.

I would point out that it is quite impossible to plead guilty, in court, to something that is not against the law and have the court accept that plea.

Fact: Right here, right now on September 18, 2018 Michael Cohen is a convicted felon, guilty of a Federal Campaign Violation.

Fact: Right here, right now, Donald J. Trump is, in a statement admitted into the record and accepted as fact by a Federal Court, an unindicted co-conspirator of Michael Cohen in conspiring to donate $130,000 in illegal campaign contributions to hush up an embarrassing personal peccadillo and illegally impact the 2016 Presidential election.