Trump directly involved in talks that led to Stormy Daniels payment, FBI says

Not always, but I do agree it is in regards to a traffic ticket. Settlements in a plea agreement are not an admission of guilt. We just saw this in the Smollett case. He agreed to pay a fine and part of his agreement was that it specifically was not an admission of guilt. Paying off a hooker is not admission that it was a campaign violation. You personally may think it is, but your opinion has no legal standing.

 

Please look up what "sealed indictments" are. The same goes for the author of the article and for Sekulow.

 

Yeah I'm the one who doesn't get that the case is closed.

Keep the dream alive. Vive la resistance and stuff.

 

Please look up "grasping at straws" and "overactive imagination".

 

Again, please look up what sealed indictments. If Trump has been indicted, we still wouldn't know.

 

‘I believe’ is an opinion.

 

Yes, I just made up sealed indictments and the legal fact that this is how Trump would be handled if he were being indicted. Surely.

 

Sure, and maybe him and Putin meet in a secret room to play Scrabble.

I love that you think an FEC violation, for the first time in history, would have sealed indictments though.

That's a good one.

 

Unlike secret Putin Scrabble rooms, sealed indictments are actually a thing that exists and legal commentators stated well before this that this is how Trump would be handled in this case if indicted.

 

Yeah, sure.

Sealed indictments in an FEC case, when they couldn't convict a guy they proved took payments for a bribe in the last FEC attempt to charge someone.

Maybe there's some sealed indictments for the Hatch Act too.

Oh man made myself laugh.

 

Sealed indictments in a campaign finance case. When they already have one conviction. It isn't exactly common for prosecutors to indict a lawyer and not is client when the lawyer was acting at the direction of the client, which is the the case the SDNY is making.

 

You keep pretending that it was the FEC non-crime admission instead of the tax evasion and I'll keep laughing.

 

Not if you're a leftist.

 

Source for your claim that his campaign finance violation convictions were all non-criminal?

 

The part where prosecutors can put anything they want into a plea deal.

 

Strike one. Attempt two: Source for your claim that his campaign finance violation convictions were all non-criminal?

 

So you got him ? Is this the big one ?

 

No, I won't play T-ball with you.

I'll tell you what: you go ahead and use string and push pins all over your wall plotting out how your sekret indictments will play out, and I'll try to keep the laughing down as much as possible.

 

Strike two. Most desperate part of the dodge cut. Attempt three: Source for your claim that his campaign finance violation convictions were all non-criminal?

Cohen was convicted on two counts of campaign finance violations. You claim both were non-criminal. For a second I thought you might actually have something, but you are quickly proving otherwise. Where is your evidence that both of these charges were non-criminal. Should be easy. No need to keep trying to run away from your own claim.

Don't get me wrong, though. Running away from being asked for a source for your claims by complaining about "t-ball" has its entertainment value.

 

You're playing with yourself, by the way.

I'm not really interested in trying to drag you into reality because the alternative is much more amusing.

You've won the argument. Any day now the sekret sealed indictments will be delivered to all corners of the realm.

 

Thanks for admitting your claim was a complete fabrication, I guess. Let us know when you are willing to engage in honest discussion and debate on the discussion and debate forum.

 

Thank you for not understanding how plea deals work.

https://rewire.news/article/2017/02/08/people-pleading-guilty-crimes-didnt-commit-can-stop/

I look forward to your future "TEH SEKRETZ SEALED INDICTMENTZ WUZ RELEAZED: TEH WALLS ARE CLOSIN INZ AGAINZ" thread.

 

If you think your link proved anything you are once again wrong. As for your "If I misspell 'sealed indictmetn' and type lots of crazy words that means they don't exist anymore" argument, it's adorable, but if Trump is going to be indicted based on what happened here, it will be through a sealed indictment. Because he's President and the DOJ is iffy about indicting sitting Presidents. You may have heard about that . . . or not. Regardless, that's what I've been saying since at least December of last year, and that's what has been reported on Fox News. But keep playing make believe.

 

Says the guy who thinks there are sealed indictments for an FEC case in a closed investigation.

Tell me more.

 

Despite your claim (that you ran away from) that Cohen's campaign finance violations were non-criminal, and despite your superstition that typing the capital letters FEC makes anything magically disappear, a sealed indictment means that we won't know about the indictment until it is unsealed. That's what sealed means. Trump isn't out of the woods. He may very well avoid any charges, that's true. It all depends, as I've repeated several times, whether or not the SDNY has information about whether or not he had knowledge of these dealings and/or directed them. There are three primary possibilities:

1) Trump, despite his communications during this time period, somehow had no knowledge that this deal was taking place. This is probably the most fanciful assumption.
2) Trump did know what Cohen is up to, but either there are no records of his knowledge or there are no records that he thought of the election as a concern during these discussions. This is the most favorable option for Trump.
3) Trump did know and the SDNY, as they seem to have indicated, has evidence that this is so. If that's the case, then there is likely a sealed indictment.