View Poll Results: If NYT reported Cohen tapes are real and made public, what will be political impact?

Voters
18. You may not vote on this poll
  • Very little impact/ none

    9 50.00%
  • Some impact but easily manageable

    3 16.67%
  • Major impact/ could threaten 2020/midterms/Presidency

    4 22.22%
  • Not sure / other

    2 11.11%
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 72 of 72

Thread: If NYT reported Cohen tapes are real and made public, what will be political impact?

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by Aratus View Post
    In his feud with Gov.Mitt Romney, Donald Trump verbally stomped all over him.
    Any new disclosures from the FBI raid on Mister Cohen could cause the Mittsters
    to rethink how they GOP vote. If THEY turn on DJT and align with the traditional
    LEFT, Trump has one big problem looming. Gentleman Mitt is the last practitioner
    of 1950s era Eisenhower Republicanism. We'd hate to think IKE horridly cheated
    on Mamie, we all are more inclined to think FDR wronged poor Eleanor more often
    and badly. The younger generation of Republicans has looser morals almost. Maybe.
    The New Left in the 1970s never trusted DJT, they only tolerated his antics. His PR.
    It's a specific core of support inside the GOP that the tapes are game changers to!
    Nearly all the Democrats have made up their minds about him. This is why a 50/50
    split exists in the way we all voted in the poll. Some 80% of the public will not shift
    or change, but swing states that are battleground have 20% of their voters flipping
    elections red or blue. Or to elsewhere, when being a confused political "purple" often.
    This is where preference falsification starts working in our favor. The Dems have been using it for a while.

    Just move the sheep. Gently.
    Last edited by timosman; 07-21-2018 at 07:57 PM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post

    What they are looking into is was election money used to pay of any of the women- that would be illegal. If it came from his personal funds- no problem.


    Thus proving that Zippy doesn't understand campaign finance law.

    Any money spent to influence an election has to be reported as a campaign expenditure even if the candidate paid it personally.

    If they paid it for any other reason, such as simply to avoid embarrassing Mrs. Trump and all the little Trumpettes, then that's no problem.

    This is a fishing expedition, nothing to be proud of.
    Last edited by angelatc; 07-21-2018 at 10:11 PM.

  4. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    Thus proving that Zippy doesn't understand campaign finance law.

    Any money spent to influence an election has to be reported as a campaign expenditure even if the candidate paid it personally.

    If they paid it for any other reason, such as simply to avoid embarrassing Mrs. Trump and all the little Trumpettes, then that's no problem.

    This is a fishing expedition, nothing to be proud of.
    Half right. Try this. https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-.../personal-use/

    Personal use

    Using campaign funds for personal use is prohibited.

    Commission regulations provide a test, called the “irrespective test,” to differentiate legitimate campaign and officeholder expenses from personal expenses. Under the “irrespective test,” personal use is any use of funds in a campaign account of a candidate (or former candidate) to fulfill a commitment, obligation or expense of any person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s campaign or responsibilities as a federal officeholder.

    More simply, if the expense would exist even in the absence of the candidacy or even if the officeholder were not in office, then the personal use ban applies.

    Conversely, any expense that results from campaign or officeholder activity falls outside the personal use ban.

    Relating to other activity

    In specific situations the Commission has concluded that campaign funds may be used to pay for up to 50% of legal expenses that do not relate directly to allegations arising from campaign or officeholder activity (for example, activity prior to becoming a candidate or officeholder or activity of a business owned by the candidate/officeholder) if the candidate or officeholder is required to provide substantive responses to the press regarding the allegations of wrongdoing.
    Exceptions

    No contribution will result, however, if the payment would have been made irrespective of the candidacy.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 07-22-2018 at 02:38 PM.

  5. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan
    Clinton has sex outside marriage- right freaks out- proclaiming immorality and demands impeachment (gets him for lying about it). Trump has sex outside marriage- right is "so what?". (noting that Republicans controlled Congress at both times- partisanship was surely a factor)

    What they are looking into is was election money used to pay of any of the women- that would be illegal. If it came from his personal funds- no problem.
    Is there a difference between having an affair in the White House while you are president and having an affair before you were even elected? If Clinton had not lied about it under oath, would he have still been impeached? Is there any real evidence that Trump's infidelity took place (not that it would surprise me)? Paying someone to shut up and go away doesn't necessarily mean you did it.
    Last edited by FvS; 07-22-2018 at 12:50 PM.



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #65
    In other news:

    Alan Dershowitz vs. Michael Avenatti: Did Trump Himself Leak News Of Cohen Tape?

    Tim Hains
    July 22, 2018

    STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, I can flip that around. CNBC is reporting actually that it came from the Trump camp. But let me bring that to you, Dan Abrams. I could imagine the Trump camp would want it out, thinking bad news, get it out early.

    DAN ABRAMS, CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS ANCHOR, ABC NEWS: Yes, and address it and Giuliani can say it’s exculpatory. But the only way that this is exculpatory is if literally President Trump is on that tape saying $150,000? Why would we want to pay her $150,000? I didn’t have a relationship with her.

    ...
    STEPHANOPOULOS: I want to follow up on this just a little bit, you know there are tapes, do you know what's on the tapes?

    AVENATTI: I know the substance of some of the tapes, yes.


    STEPHANOPOULOS: And what you have also mentioned, saying that your relationship with Michael Cohen is evolving, what did you mean by that?

    AVENATTI: Well, exactly what I said. I mean, I think that I ran into Michael Cohen at a restaurant in New York City on Monday. We had a conversation, I thought it was very fruitful. And we've continued to have a dialogue. And I think that ultimately, George, Michael Cohen is going to assist us in our search for the truth and disclosure of what happened here.

    I think you have seen an evolution by Michael Cohen over the last month or so with the retention of Lanny Davis and others, I think he is ready to tell the truth. And ultimately I think he is going to cooperate with us as it relates for our search for the truth.
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...ohen_tape.html




    Quote Originally Posted by RJB View Post
    They need not call him Teflon because so far they really have nothing damning on him (in a legal sense). Just about every night the MSM claims they have something and it turns out to be a nothing burger. The worse they had was the Access Hollywood tape. It was funny seeing some Democratic friends throwing a fit when I heard these friends of mine use as bad or worse language. What else do you think Bill C and Donald T talked about on their golf outings?
    Hard to disagree with these points, there seems to be a pattern of over-reactions and then reversals over so many Trump MSM news. Perhaps a sign of things to come, US markets dropped 700 points on first news of Trump winning election and then a mega reversal started with new highs.

  8. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    I do campaign finance reporting. I am not half right. I am 100% right, because there's as far as I've seen, there's absolutely no allegation that the campaign money was used to pay her. The issue is that the money paid to her (through the National Enquirer, IIRC) should be considered a campaign related expenditure.

    What you stated was, and is wrong. They are not looking to see if campaign money was used to pay her. They are looking to see if the expenditure should have been reported as an in-kind campaign expenditure.

  9. #67
    ....................think this thru..................

  10. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by enhanced_deficit View Post


    Hard to disagree with these points, there seems to be a pattern of over-reactions and then reversals over so many Trump MSM news. Perhaps a sign of things to come, US markets dropped 700 points on first news of Trump winning election and then a mega reversal started with new highs.
    BTW Enhanced,. I like these discussions. We are speculating. I may turn out wrong. You may turn out wrong, and we're fine with it. Where threads tend to go off the rails is when two people fight to have their speculation seen as ultimate truth.
    ...

  11. #69
    Yesterday, CNN aired the “secret tape” made in September 2016 of Donald Trump discussing with his attorney Michael Cohen about buying Karen McDougal's story. Trump's campaign had claimed it knew nothing about any payment to McDougal.
    McDougal is a former Playboy model who allegedly had an affair with Trump in 2006, 2007 while Trump was married to Melania.
    Cohen tells Trump he plans to set up a company to purchase the rights of the story from American Media who bought it from McDougal for $150,000.

    Trump appears to tell Cohen “pay with cash” but notorious liar Rudy Giuliani insists he said “don't pay with cash” and “suggesting otherwise is ridiculous“. Giuliani also claims that the rest of the recording, if it hadn't cut off, would have been ”exculpatory”.
    U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff said the tape proves that Trump and Cohen tried to kill the story in the run up to the election so it was ”campaign motivated”.

    See some excerpts:
    TRUMP: [In background] Good. Let me know what's happening, okay? Oh, oh. Maybe because of this it would be better if you didn't go, you know? Maybe because of this. For that one, you know, I think what you should do is get rid of this. Because it's so false what they're saying, it's such bulls**t.
    (…)
    COHEN: And, I've spoken to Allen Weisselberg about how to set the whole thing up with …
    TRUMP: So, what do we got to pay for this? One-fifty?
    (…)
    TRUMP: Wait a sec, what financing?
    COHEN: Well, I'll have to pay him something.
    TRUMP: [UNINTELLIGIBLE] pay with cash.
    COHEN: No, no, no, no, no. I got it.
    TRUMP: Check.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-revealed.html

    See a picture with McDougal on the far right, Donald in the centre with a smirk on his face with Melania on his left and Ivanka to his right.
    Do NOT ever read my posts. Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: Google-censors-the-world/page3

    The Order of the Garter rules the world: Order of the Garter and the Carolingian dynasty

  12. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by Firestarter View Post
    Yesterday, CNN aired the “secret tape” made in September 2016 of Donald Trump discussing with his attorney Michael Cohen about buying Karen McDougal's story. Trump's campaign had claimed it knew nothing about any payment to McDougal.
    McDougal is a former Playboy model who allegedly had an affair with Trump in 2006, 2007 while Trump was married to Melania.
    Cohen tells Trump he plans to set up a company to purchase the rights of the story from American Media who bought it from McDougal for $150,000.

    Trump appears to tell Cohen “pay with cash” but notorious liar Rudy Giuliani insists he said “don't pay with cash” and “suggesting otherwise is ridiculous“. Giuliani also claims that the rest of the recording, if it hadn't cut off, would have been ”exculpatory”.
    U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff said the tape proves that Trump and Cohen tried to kill the story in the run up to the election so it was ”campaign motivated”.

    See some excerpts: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-revealed.html

    Rudy's claim was still being investigated and confirmed by media.



    Related


    REPORTS: COHEN KOREAN CONNECTION
    SOLICITED $1M FROM QATAR





    Tom Arnold says he's teaming up with Michael Cohen and 'taking Trump down'



  13. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by enhanced_deficit View Post
    Rudy's claim was still being investigated and confirmed by media.
    I guess you'll immediately say that there is no "evidence"...

    But I think that maybe Cohen was sent to prison for 3 years for taping and leaking the conversation with Trump: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ears-in-prison
    Do NOT ever read my posts. Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: Google-censors-the-world/page3

    The Order of the Garter rules the world: Order of the Garter and the Carolingian dynasty

  14. #72



  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 05-28-2015, 12:24 AM
  2. Don't worry, Ron Paul HAS made an impact, here's proof (pic)
    By jeremiahj13 in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-16-2012, 09:41 AM
  3. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-23-2010, 04:21 PM
  4. Secret Counterfeiting Treaty Public Must be Made Public
    By tangent4ronpaul in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-22-2009, 08:24 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •