Trump's lawyer gets raided

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Gulf Coast States

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Status
    Not open for further replies.

    donr101395

    Master
    Super Moderator
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages
    2,984
    Points
    83
    Location
    Crestview
    I can't be the only one who couldn't care less if Trump was boning an entire harem of washed up porn stars tonight in the white house tonight. It's funny watching liberals get wound up frothing at the mouth about something that probably happened before he was in office while dismissing as nothing the things that both Clintons did while in office.
     

    Droshki

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages
    3,864
    Points
    38
    Location
    Texas
    Well sure, ok. No problem. But that's not what the Cohen investigation is about. The government has stated this clearly and unequivocally.
    It's about Cohen's business dealings. And when he's charged here soon, it will be for crimes Cohen will be alleged to have committed, not Trump.

    If he DOES have dirt on Trump that he can trade for a reduced sentence, it will have to be much more serious then the fact that Trump can't keep his dick in his pants. Because the FBI already knows that.

    But the general consensus even among Trump supporters is that Cohen does posses information that is valuable to the FBI of this nature. Almost nobody is disputing this anymore. I've previously posted articles in this thread that discuss this.


    Did investigation of the Clinton's not already occur? Many of them? But essentially no charges were ever brought, except lying about getting a hummer at work? There was like 7 Benghazi investigations alone, right?
     

    Jeb21

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages
    2,098
    Points
    0
    Location
    Cantonment
    President Trumps lawyer has plead the fifth and will be charged with a variety of crimes. That is the story. Trump is a total sleazeball, that is not the story. His friends allegedly paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to conceal the affairs, that is a bit of the story because it possibly violated the election laws.

    As an aside think about this for a moment, how self centered you must be to have multiple affairs and then just expect your friends to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to cover it up for you, possibly violating federal laws in the process. That is our president. Disgusting.
     

    Jeb21

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages
    2,098
    Points
    0
    Location
    Cantonment
    If I told you , you'd just call me a racist.

    Let me guess you were going to say . . .New Yorkers? ummm bomb makers, no wait wait wait - Tom Bradey

    Ok, final guess - guys who are too stupid to throw away their old phones that have incriminating evidence on them. you know the same guys who illegally tape calls and conversations AND THEN KEEP THOSE TAPES.
     

    FLT

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    May 15, 2017
    Messages
    3,847
    Points
    113
    Location
    Havana
    Let me guess you were going to say . . .New Yorkers? ummm bomb makers, no wait wait wait - Tom Bradey

    Ok, final guess - guys who are too stupid to throw away their old phones that have incriminating evidence on them. you know the same guys who illegally tape calls and conversations AND THEN KEEP THOSE TAPES.

    Close. :drum:
     

    MAXman

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Joined
    Aug 4, 2014
    Messages
    2,559
    Points
    83
    Location
    Milton fl
    Let me guess you were going to say . . .New Yorkers? ummm bomb makers, no wait wait wait - Tom Bradey

    Ok, final guess - guys who are too stupid to throw away their old phones that have incriminating evidence on them. you know the same guys who illegally tape calls and conversations AND THEN KEEP THOSE TAPES.

    I was gonna say drug dealers and pimps,
     

    Droshki

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages
    3,864
    Points
    38
    Location
    Texas
    If I told you , you'd just call me a racist.

    I asked you politely in the other thread, to stop trying to put words in my mouth. I was under the impression that you understood why this was improper and inflammatory, and had agreed to stop doing it. It's flame bait, that is just asking me to make a personal response attacking you in return. What you are doing is impolite, and designed to start an argument. That's not the kind of dialog that we need on here.

    If you are unable to discuss the topic instead of discussing me, or other forum members, I would politely suggest you refrain from participating at all. I've seen you complain many times about people arguing on here - why not help prevent it by acting like the gentleman that I know you to be?
     

    Droshki

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages
    3,864
    Points
    38
    Location
    Texas
    I can't be the only one who couldn't care less if Trump was boning an entire harem of washed up porn stars tonight in the white house tonight. It's funny watching liberals get wound up frothing at the mouth about something that probably happened before he was in office while dismissing as nothing the things that both Clintons did while in office.

    I have purposely NOT threadjacked this thread about Trump's lawyer (Cohen) to being about Trump himself (much less, the Clintons) because it's just generally not good forum manners and on this forum, there's a few people that get really angry about it. If we're cleared off here for it though or someone wants to create a new thread for it, that would be interesting because there's been like 5 pertinent articles that have come out in recent days. None have anything to do with Daniels, and are more of the level that the Russian lawyer that Don Jr met with and then lied about, has herself admitted that shes not exactly an adoption lawyer, but actually an informant for the Russian government. Also, it turns out Flynn and his son met with the Russian ambassador, at his house, even BEFORE the election. I will caveat this however by saying I will be very busy today, and so not have time for it immediately.


    That said, to get us back on topic:

    Cohen, Davidson: Amid Trump’s legal troubles, two lawyers’ names surface again and again
     

    oyeme!

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Jun 30, 2013
    Messages
    68
    Points
    8
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    I do not think that it is appropriate or even possible to try and separate the raid on Cohen from the actions being taken against the president. It is extremely naive to think that this raid on Cohen is in any way about Cohen. It, as well as all actions since before the election, are only about over turning the election. In other words, it is all about getting Trump-nothing else! So if you think it is comparable to say that the actions against Cohen, the media's actions, the Intelligence agencies, and the DOJ over the past 18+ months are like any "investigations" conducted on the Clinton's, past or present; then there is nothing further to discuss. At least not with me.

    There are some very basic and core constitutional violations that are taking place and being allowed just with the hopes of removing the president from office. These actions have not, nor would they ever be tolerated about a democrat in office. I do understand there are some that didn't and don't ever want this president to succeed or even survive. However, don't make it sound like any of these actions are fair and impartial. That would be totally disingenuous.
     
    Last edited:

    Droshki

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages
    3,864
    Points
    38
    Location
    Texas
    So...all the people that have pled guilty to federal crimes as a result of these investigations.......including a former National Security advisor to the President of the United States of America....weren't really guilty?


    They just pled guilty.....in a scheme with...."the media's actions, the Intelligence agencies, and the DOJ"...... to illegally remove the president from office?
     

    oyeme!

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Jun 30, 2013
    Messages
    68
    Points
    8
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Flynn pled lying to FBI after having his entire life and resources adversely impacted by an investigation that even the FBI agents involved admitted later he was not guilty of doing. You obviously have never had a government agency after your very livelihood with unlimited time and resources on their side. You will never accept the fact that there is a concerted effort underway for nearly two years to oust the POTUS or to weaken his ability to act. Nor will you admit that the actions being taken are in many cases unprecedented, unconstitutional, and extremely detrimental to our entire form of government. I get it, so I will not continue this any further because no amount of information conveyed will change your mind.
    However, I just find it quite incongruous and frankly very unexpected, to find the never Trump movement alive and well on a FL website dedicated to gun owners and their ilk. Trump was elected to do exactly what he has been trying to do (with no help from anyone) and that is to disrupt the very incestuous and dangerous quid pro quo relationships that have been formed within our government. A government that has gotten way too big and willing to trample civil liberties to achieve its objective. Nothing follows.
     

    Droshki

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages
    3,864
    Points
    38
    Location
    Texas
    Unlike many posters on here I suppose, I had the opportunity back in the day to serve as the bailiff on a few courts martial. Inevitably, before Airman Snuffy hit the courtroom he had made the decision to plead guilty, because really, the federal government takes few cases to trial that they don't have sufficient evidence to convict with.

    In every case where I saw a man plead guilty, it was followed by an on-the-witness stand, under oath, question and answer session with the judge. The defendant was required to testify truthfully about his actions, his understanding of the law, and why he truly believed his actions had broken the law. The reason for this is that the judge before accepting his guilty plea, as part of his professional duty, made sure that Airman Snuffy had not been improperly coerced into such a plea.

    I imagine every federal courtroom operates in the same, or similar, manner.

    TL,DR: Flynn couldn't have been convicted if he had not broken the law.
     

    oyeme!

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Jun 30, 2013
    Messages
    68
    Points
    8
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Wrong. UCMJ is not the same as civilian federal trials. While on active duty, I prosecuted some Chapter 13 cases done for separation of soldiers under honorable or general discharges. I also was assigned for 1 year to be a member of a board of officers on a Special Court martial with Bad Conduct Discharge authority. Never once saw what you describe. I did see that happening in cases of Non Judicial punishment, i.e. Article 15, and I did it myself as the CO on my folks before deciding on punishment. Simply not the same rules as civilian federal trials. Actually more protections under UCMJ in some cases for the accused. Outside of that environment, I am sure conviction only requires an admission of guilt and understanding of charges because it is presumed the individual has proper legal counsel.
     

    Droshki

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages
    3,864
    Points
    38
    Location
    Texas
    What about all the other guilty pleas as well? Is it your position that they are all victims of a great conspiracy, and really innocent as well-- just railroaded into pleading guilty by an out of control government? How many conspirators do you think are involved? hundreds? thousands? Is this what is known as the "deep state" ? Do you a have newsletter to which I might subscribe?
     

    Droshki

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages
    3,864
    Points
    38
    Location
    Texas
    Do you think Paul Manafort is totally innocent as well?

    If there's been no tomfoolery, why doesn't Trump jut sit down with Mueller and clear everything up? The National Enquirer is reporting that he "aced" a polygraph. So he's got nothing to hide, right?
     

    Droshki

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages
    3,864
    Points
    38
    Location
    Texas
    Are you familiar with the John Edwards case? Because if you're a lawyer, you can easily see how the John Edwards case is analogous to the Cohen case, right? Or was John Edwards railroaded by an out-of-control government too?
     

    oyeme!

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Jun 30, 2013
    Messages
    68
    Points
    8
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Since you are not going to believe anyone, it is futile to continue this interchange. However, maybe you should read what a true constitutional lawyer of great repute has to say about this whole matter. Keep in mind, this was all initiated because of evidence of collusion with Russia to throw the election to then candidate Trump. Have a great day.

    Dershowitz responded by saying there had been "no probable cause" of crimes committed by Trump and that meant a special counsel was not necessary.

    "First of all, the president is 100 percent right. There never should have been an appointment of special counsel and there was no probable cause that crimes were committed," said Dershowitz. "I’ve seen no credible evidence that crimes were committed by the president."

    "The investigation should never have begun. The question is how does he deal with it. He’s playing good cop, bad cop. He has some lawyers cooperating and some attacking Mueller because he wants to be ready to attack in the event there are recommendations that are negative to the president."

    The Harvard law professor emeritus went on to describe the Mueller investigation as a "legal colonoscopy" that is looking at "every conceivable aspect" of Trump's business life.

    "Who knows how many people can survive that kind of an inquiry," Dershowitz said. "I think on the public things being the Russia thing and obstruction of justice these are safe grounds, but on the material of his business dealings there’s no way to know."
     
    Last edited:
    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    Top Bottom