Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

billpalto t1_j6nkohs wrote

Just to be clear, Trump's lawyer went to prison for felonies that included this one. He did it at Trump's direction, and used Trump's money for the payoff. He went to prison for it.

When asked about it, Trump of course lied.

564

Beard_o_Bees t1_j6nxi1z wrote

Loyalty is a strictly one-way street with Velveeta Voldemort.

124

quats5 t1_j6ocnwd wrote

…that’s the best name I’ve seen for him so far. I’d give you an award if I had one!

27

EvilDonald44 t1_j6oqjju wrote

I think it was Colin Mochrie who said that "Donald Trump" was an anagram of "Lord Dampnut".

20

GentlemanBastard2112 t1_j6opjdq wrote

I concur, and I thought I’d heard/seen them all. Kudos 👍🏻

Will definitely be using this in the future.

6

Alis451 t1_j6orikw wrote

The Cheddar Chump
The Swiss Swindler
The Gouda Ghoul
The Muenster Mobster

I'm not sure why i started spouting off cheese related villain names, but they seem to fit.

12

cgerrells t1_j6pem2f wrote

Processed American cheese is the most fitting

5

CoalCrackerKid t1_j6nmnd0 wrote

There's the rub, though (no pun intended)...they'll have to prove that he lied.

If the CFO or Pecker flipped, their testimony, in addition to Cohen's, could possibly be the evidence that the case needs.

109

billpalto t1_j6o1lbi wrote

It's on video. When asked about the check to the porn star, Trump claimed he knew nothing about it, and they should ask Cohen. Of course, then Cohen produced the check that had Trump;s signature on it.

140

Funklestein t1_j6phjrl wrote

The check wasn’t to her though was it? I thought he paid off the Enquirer to buy any story regarding him.

She sold her story to The Enquirer and they decided not to run it as per their deal with Trump.

Considering that he successfully civilly sued her for violating the non-disclosure what is his criminality regarding this?

6

CoalCrackerKid t1_j6o1ww4 wrote

As a lawyer, I suspect, would explain, that's not enough to show intent.

−49

TheManassaBaller t1_j6o7fwd wrote

I think writing a check would show intent.

45

Art-Zuron t1_j6oeo9p wrote

For any other rube, yeah, but Trump is a demogogue with a cult following. They'd deny it if they literally watched him pay her off on film, had a hot mic, and had his personal confession.

17

CoalCrackerKid t1_j6or0us wrote

If you think so, make the argument. Show what the check pays for.

−24

Ferregar t1_j6osgnm wrote

Seeing as Trump JUST tweeted that he, in fact, did have an affair with Stormy Daniels (a long time ago, well past the statute of limitations he says), I think many obstacles just got push-broomed out of the aisle.

39

CoalCrackerKid t1_j6ot24l wrote

The word "it" does a lot of lifting in your interpretation of his tweet. Convince a jury that "it" means what you say that it means, and not what The Count of Mostly Crisco says it'll mean.

−26

Ferregar t1_j6otauu wrote

If you haven't seen the tweet itself, do recommend. As for the jury, I reckon the combination of signed check, imprisoned lawyer, recorded and written confessions will do a solid number on "reasonable doubt."

20

CoalCrackerKid t1_j6otscz wrote

Perhaps we're referring to different tweets. Can you share a link to the one you'd cite as a confession?

−9

Ferregar t1_j6otwsc wrote

https://www.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/comments/10q7ojy/trump_finally_admits_affair_with_porn_star_stormy/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

9

CoalCrackerKid t1_j6oudk0 wrote

OK, we're on the same page. That's the one that I thought would be shared.

What is "VERY OLD & happened a long time ago"?

(asking for the jury)

−5

Ferregar t1_j6ov8ne wrote

Questions for the bench!

But my answer is Donald Trump.

7

CoalCrackerKid t1_j6ovneq wrote

Ha!

You see my point. When you want to win, you setting ambiguity like this before you bring the case.

To reiterate my prior though, if Weisselberg or Pecker came forward with evidence that they've sat on all this time, it all might be academic (and the reason why the DA finally decided to go to the grand jury).

Strange times. We'll all find out eventually.

−1

David_ungerer t1_j6p9o0g wrote

Yes . . . They’ll (The Prosecutors)have to prove that he lied . . . So they(The Prosecutors) cover their asses with a Grand Jury Inditement (foot dragging) to hold off charges ! ! !

−6

RuleFancy t1_j6nc34d wrote

Wake me up when there’s consequences

250

Karenomegas t1_j6ndhof wrote

Could have swore I saw a guy go to prison for this already. The lawyer?

60

NarrMaster t1_j6njgfj wrote

They can just change "Individual 1" to "Donald J. Trump" in Cohen's indictment, and bam!

44

jimtow28 t1_j6no2i0 wrote

Hey, that's unfair! We don't know for sure it's Trump.

"Individual-1" could be anyone who went on to become president in January of 2017!

28

ReincarnatedInc t1_j6ob10e wrote

If he ever actually thinks he could see jail, he would instantly turn over his 'secret' files showing how everything, the collusion with Russia, the corruption and payoffs, the tax fraud, everything..was...... Melanias fault!

10

Colossus_Of_Coburns t1_j6ojzrs wrote

Then after those consequences occur, please protect me and my loved ones from the most dangerous members of society as they react, fearmonger and retaliate in public.

6

demarr t1_j6odqfu wrote

Remember this when ever religions say he is our man. He did this while his 3rd wife who used to be a nude model was having his baby at the hospital.

138

jupiterkansas t1_j6p8ekf wrote

Religions will say he appointed the supreme court justices that overturned Roe v Wade, so whatever Trump does personally doesn't matter. All they care about is abortion.

51

spasske t1_j6p8n4f wrote

“He’s God’s flawed vessel!”

19

LimitedSwimmer t1_j6ndo3j wrote

Seems like a bunch of these cases were waiting for Trump to not be covered by the RNC.

74

InsuranceToTheRescue t1_j6nq0b6 wrote

Also waiting for him to not have the protection of the DOJ & the US government. A lot of conservative legal theories basically believe that the President is immune to legal challenges, both personal and public, and that nothing the President does can be construed as illegal.

53

Use_this_1 t1_j6nqa38 wrote

Unless he's a democrat then lock him up.

39

InsuranceToTheRescue t1_j6o5gfx wrote

Whether Drumpf was a Democrat or Republican, he should be locked up.

8

HiImDan t1_j6ota94 wrote

Well he did say to take away the guns first and ask questions later. He also "created" the vaccine and is pushing it which isn't very republican.

5

St1834 t1_j6ogx97 wrote

It's that presidents can't be prosecuted while in office and it's not a conservative legal theory. It's a pretty cut and dry 101 thing. Federal prosecutions are conducted by the executive branch. The president is irrevocably at the head of the executive branch. While lower authorities like the Attorney General can recuse themselves because everyone is ultimately under the authority of the president, the president can't recuse themselves. There's no one to recuse to. And you can't be at the head of your own prosecution. That's a fundamental fact that applies to everyone.

The real question is, why do people think it's such a great idea for a President to be prosecuted by their own DOJ? This was always so weird to me, when people would lay out the case for Trump to go to jail. He's corrupt, he's a liar, he abuses power...so let's have the people under his authority prosecute him?

4

Hundertwasserinsel t1_j6oqjq1 wrote

We have the entire process of impeachment for indictment of gov officials.

3

St1834 t1_j6osamy wrote

Exactly. Going back to Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, you should impeach and remove the President from office before pursuing prosecution.

3

thatnameagain t1_j6o5o1e wrote

The president is Joe Biden.

There aren’t really any active theories at the DOJ that the president can’t do anything illegal, which is why there have been numerous criminal investigations into presidents like Clinton and Trump while they were in office. I think you were referring to the legal memo at DOJ that recommends against indicting a sitting president.

3

notnickthrowaway t1_j6p1di1 wrote

>There aren’t really any active theories at the DOJ that the president can’t do anything illegal

Well, not currently, now that Barr’s gone and a Dem is president…

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/172098

https://www.thebulwark.com/william-barrs-dangerous-affection-for-the-imperial-presidency/

7

thatnameagain t1_j6p4j9e wrote

Barr wasn't adhering to any legal theories in the defense of Trump, he was just defending Trump from justice because he had personal interest in doing so.

5

Darkframemaster43 t1_j6nty4r wrote

Except in this case, Biden's DOJ did try to re-open the issue and immediately concluded the case wasn't worth pursuing, probably because the last time such a case went to court, the defendant (John Edwards) won.

2

JhymnMusic t1_j6pcmly wrote

K. Wake me up when he ever has to face any consequence for anything at all.

64

earhere t1_j6nfaar wrote

Wake me up when he's handcuffed

32

OGZ43 t1_j6okd41 wrote

The 'Evangelicals' will be gathering to forgive his sins even 'Harder & harder'

19

Use_this_1 t1_j6nq494 wrote

Wake me up when he's charged with something otherwise it is all performative BS.

7

safely_beyond_redemp t1_j6oxgu7 wrote

>“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”

At some point, the media has to be able to learn. Don't expect the media to let you know when democracy fails because they have an almost supernatural ability to believe the law still applies just because it says so. In other words, how often can the media print that charges are just around the corner for Trump without charges ever being delivered before the media learns that Trump isn't going to be held accountable in this lifetime? Don't get me wrong, I want Trump in jail but the pattern couldn't be more clear. Talk about charges and then ignore the outcome until the next round of charges for different crimes gets discussed.

7

cgerrells t1_j6pef6w wrote

Guy’s guilty as shit. Maybe this time they can lock him up. Doubt it though

1

[deleted] t1_j6o06yq wrote

[removed]

−46

TheSausageKing OP t1_j6o3yje wrote

They already sent his lawyer to prison for 3 years.

DJT fought hard to not have to turn over evidence. Now that they have it, it’s important to use it if there’s a case there.

15

ItsAllegorical t1_j6odj58 wrote

There are definitely much larger crimes they should be going after him for, I agree with that.

13