Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mueller as Special Counsel

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Topper View Post
    A loaned against one’s house is fraudulent?

    Let’s say for a moment that were true. That would be between the lender and the borrower not the payer and payee. You are trying to force it to get a result. That is what happens in political cases, legal principles are thrown out the window.
    So an agreement can still be upheld even though fraud was directly involved in acquiring the funds to execute the agreement? That doesn't sound right to a normal person, but whatever.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by BlueK View Post
      So an agreement can still be upheld even though fraud was directly involved in acquiring the funds to execute the agreement? That doesn't sound right to a normal person, but whatever.
      I must not be a normal person, then, because it seems to me that you are talking around separate issues.

      First - if the settlement is between Cohen and the porn star, then what does it matter what Trump knows or doesn't know? You keep bringing that up, but it sure seems irrelevant to me. Cohen has a non-disclosure agreement with a porn star. So it's related to not disclosing something about a client and not Cohen himself - I'm not sure that matters. Why would it matter?

      I think Trump is lying about the matter and knows about the payment and agreement. Put this on the long list of things he (and other politicians) have lied about. Unless it's under oath or about illegal activities, I'm not sure anyone cares or that anything can be done about it.

      Second - you point to fraudulently gained funds to make this non-disclosure agreement payment. Are you sure they were fraudulently gained? When's the last time you filled out paperwork for a 2nd mortgage or credit line against your home? Most of those kinds of loans have you filling out a checkbox saying what the loan is for, and the choices are pretty vague. It could be for home improvements, for debt consolidation, for vacation, or for personal reasons. Let's assume you're a highly successful attorney who makes a ton of cash on a regular basis - how much detail do you think the bank is asking? I'm a joe schmoe who doesn't earn anything NEAR what Cohen likely earns, but the last loan I got the bank wasn't asking for the detail you seem to imply they are asking Cohen for. I'd be surprised if the bank cares what it's for - it's a secured loan against real property - so at this point they know they're getting their money back one way or another.

      About the only reason I can think of that the bank might honestly care, or the very specific purposes of the loan might be important to the bank, revolves around that proviso mortgage companies make about how the interest "might" be tax deductible. Which, of course, is based on what they money is used for. So - if Cohen is trying to make the interest on this loan tax deductible by saying it's for something it wasn't for, I suppose you might have fraud there.

      But just for fun - let's go ahead and assume that I'm wrong and the bank does care. The bank cares DEEPLY, for some reason, what this money is used for. And let's say that they had a very specific conversation with Cohen about what he was using the money for (which, again, would probably be the first time I've ever heard of a bank doing this). If this is the case, then the bank may have a case against Cohen for fraud that they could pursue. But how does that let the porn star off the hook for the non-disclosure agreement for which she was paid? I can't imagine it does - but I'm also assuming that breaking the agreement just means she needs to pay back the money. And it sounds like she's likely OK with that.

      Of course, all of this is pure speculation without seeing the terms of the non-disclosure agreement. But I suspect for it to not be binding, there would have to be some element of fraud in the agreement itself. That, or the bank wanted their money back and he couldn't pay it.

      Everyone is assuming Trump had sex with her. Everyone assumes he is lying when he says he didn't. We're getting super desperate if THIS is the smoking gun everyone's looking for as a reason for Trump to finally be impeached.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Eddie View Post
        I must not be a normal person, then, because it seems to me that you are talking around separate issues.

        First - if the settlement is between Cohen and the porn star, then what does it matter what Trump knows or doesn't know? You keep bringing that up, but it sure seems irrelevant to me. Cohen has a non-disclosure agreement with a porn star. So it's related to not disclosing something about a client and not Cohen himself - I'm not sure that matters. Why would it matter?

        I think Trump is lying about the matter and knows about the payment and agreement. Put this on the long list of things he (and other politicians) have lied about. Unless it's under oath or about illegal activities, I'm not sure anyone cares or that anything can be done about it.

        Second - you point to fraudulently gained funds to make this non-disclosure agreement payment. Are you sure they were fraudulently gained? When's the last time you filled out paperwork for a 2nd mortgage or credit line against your home? Most of those kinds of loans have you filling out a checkbox saying what the loan is for, and the choices are pretty vague. It could be for home improvements, for debt consolidation, for vacation, or for personal reasons. Let's assume you're a highly successful attorney who makes a ton of cash on a regular basis - how much detail do you think the bank is asking? I'm a joe schmoe who doesn't earn anything NEAR what Cohen likely earns, but the last loan I got the bank wasn't asking for the detail you seem to imply they are asking Cohen for. I'd be surprised if the bank cares what it's for - it's a secured loan against real property - so at this point they know they're getting their money back one way or another.

        About the only reason I can think of that the bank might honestly care, or the very specific purposes of the loan might be important to the bank, revolves around that proviso mortgage companies make about how the interest "might" be tax deductible. Which, of course, is based on what they money is used for. So - if Cohen is trying to make the interest on this loan tax deductible by saying it's for something it wasn't for, I suppose you might have fraud there.

        But just for fun - let's go ahead and assume that I'm wrong and the bank does care. The bank cares DEEPLY, for some reason, what this money is used for. And let's say that they had a very specific conversation with Cohen about what he was using the money for (which, again, would probably be the first time I've ever heard of a bank doing this). If this is the case, then the bank may have a case against Cohen for fraud that they could pursue. But how does that let the porn star off the hook for the non-disclosure agreement for which she was paid? I can't imagine it does - but I'm also assuming that breaking the agreement just means she needs to pay back the money. And it sounds like she's likely OK with that.

        Of course, all of this is pure speculation without seeing the terms of the non-disclosure agreement. But I suspect for it to not be binding, there would have to be some element of fraud in the agreement itself. That, or the bank wanted their money back and he couldn't pay it.

        Everyone is assuming Trump had sex with her. Everyone assumes he is lying when he says he didn't. We're getting super desperate if THIS is the smoking gun everyone's looking for as a reason for Trump to finally be impeached.
        Don’t forget Stomy’s people claim they have a DVD.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by frank ryan View Post
          Don’t forget Stomy’s people claim they have a DVD.
          Doesn't Stormy Daniels have lots of DVDs? I thought she is a porn star.
          Last edited by Uncle Ted; 04-22-2018, 02:56 PM.
          "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
          "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
          "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
          GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Uncle Ted View Post
            Doesn't Stormy Daniels has lots of DVDs? I thought she is a porn star.
            "...you pointy-headed autopsy nerd. Do you think it's possible for you to post without using words like "hilarious," "absurd," "canard," and "truther"? Your bare assertions do not make it so. Maybe your reasoning is too stunted and your vocabulary is too limited to go without these epithets."
            "You are an intemperate, unscientific poster who makes light of very serious matters.”
            - SeattleUte

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Uncle Ted View Post
              Doesn't Stormy Daniels have lots of DVDs? I thought she is a porn star.
              That's got to be killing her. What kind of money do you think she made on the other DVD's? And she doesn't get to sell this one? I'm assuming it's included in the non-disclosure agreement.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Eddie View Post
                I must not be a normal person, then, because it seems to me that you are talking around separate issues.

                First - if the settlement is between Cohen and the porn star, then what does it matter what Trump knows or doesn't know? You keep bringing that up, but it sure seems irrelevant to me. Cohen has a non-disclosure agreement with a porn star. So it's related to not disclosing something about a client and not Cohen himself - I'm not sure that matters. Why would it matter?

                I think Trump is lying about the matter and knows about the payment and agreement. Put this on the long list of things he (and other politicians) have lied about. Unless it's under oath or about illegal activities, I'm not sure anyone cares or that anything can be done about it.

                Second - you point to fraudulently gained funds to make this non-disclosure agreement payment. Are you sure they were fraudulently gained? When's the last time you filled out paperwork for a 2nd mortgage or credit line against your home? Most of those kinds of loans have you filling out a checkbox saying what the loan is for, and the choices are pretty vague. It could be for home improvements, for debt consolidation, for vacation, or for personal reasons. Let's assume you're a highly successful attorney who makes a ton of cash on a regular basis - how much detail do you think the bank is asking? I'm a joe schmoe who doesn't earn anything NEAR what Cohen likely earns, but the last loan I got the bank wasn't asking for the detail you seem to imply they are asking Cohen for. I'd be surprised if the bank cares what it's for - it's a secured loan against real property - so at this point they know they're getting their money back one way or another.

                About the only reason I can think of that the bank might honestly care, or the very specific purposes of the loan might be important to the bank, revolves around that proviso mortgage companies make about how the interest "might" be tax deductible. Which, of course, is based on what they money is used for. So - if Cohen is trying to make the interest on this loan tax deductible by saying it's for something it wasn't for, I suppose you might have fraud there.

                But just for fun - let's go ahead and assume that I'm wrong and the bank does care. The bank cares DEEPLY, for some reason, what this money is used for. And let's say that they had a very specific conversation with Cohen about what he was using the money for (which, again, would probably be the first time I've ever heard of a bank doing this). If this is the case, then the bank may have a case against Cohen for fraud that they could pursue. But how does that let the porn star off the hook for the non-disclosure agreement for which she was paid? I can't imagine it does - but I'm also assuming that breaking the agreement just means she needs to pay back the money. And it sounds like she's likely OK with that.

                Of course, all of this is pure speculation without seeing the terms of the non-disclosure agreement. But I suspect for it to not be binding, there would have to be some element of fraud in the agreement itself. That, or the bank wanted their money back and he couldn't pay it.

                Everyone is assuming Trump had sex with her. Everyone assumes he is lying when he says he didn't. We're getting super desperate if THIS is the smoking gun everyone's looking for as a reason for Trump to finally be impeached.
                The agreement wasn't with Cohen though. He never said it was. He only said he paid the money. But he never claimed to be "Dennison."
                Last edited by BlueK; 04-22-2018, 06:48 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by BlueK View Post
                  So an agreement can still be upheld even though fraud was directly involved in acquiring the funds to execute the agreement? That doesn't sound right to a normal person, but whatever.
                  That's a third party agreement. A has an agreement with B for funds and lies about use of funds.

                  B has an agreement with C. A has a cause of action against B. C can't undo C's agreement with B because of what is going on with A&B.
                  "Guitar groups are on their way out, Mr Epstein."

                  Upon rejecting the Beatles, Dick Rowe told Brian Epstein of the January 1, 1962 audition for Decca, which signed Brian Poole and the Tremeloes instead.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Eddie View Post
                    That's got to be killing her. What kind of money do you think she made on the other DVD's? And she doesn't get to sell this one? I'm assuming it's included in the non-disclosure agreement.
                    Hasn't she already violated the non-disclosure agreement? She should just sell it so she can finance her legal fund.

                    Edit:

                    He added, “So we have the DVD, and we’re going to release it when and if it’s necessary and we’re going to see what happens with the case. But make no mistake about it: it’s locked and loaded.”
                    https://www.thedailybeast.com/stormy...ked-and-loaded

                    What are they waiting for? Just release it... or is she selling it to the highest bidder? The latter is more her style, I guess.
                    Last edited by Uncle Ted; 04-22-2018, 07:38 PM.
                    "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
                    "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
                    "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
                    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Uncle Ted View Post
                      Hasn't she already violated the non-disclosure agreement? She should just sell it so she can finance her legal fund.

                      Edit:


                      https://www.thedailybeast.com/stormy...ked-and-loaded

                      What are they waiting for? Just release it... or is she selling it to the highest bidder? The latter is more her style, I guess.
                      Releasing the tape didn’t work so well for Gawker in the Hogan case.
                      "Friendship is the grand fundamental principle of Mormonism" - Joseph Smith Jr.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Uncle Ted View Post
                        Hasn't she already violated the non-disclosure agreement? She should just sell it so she can finance her legal fund.

                        Edit:


                        https://www.thedailybeast.com/stormy...ked-and-loaded

                        What are they waiting for? Just release it... or is she selling it to the highest bidder? The latter is more her style, I guess.
                        Great legal advice here from Uncle Ted.
                        Ain't it like most people, I'm no different. We love to talk on things we don't know about.

                        "The only one of us who is so significant that Jeff owes us something simply because he decided to grace us with his presence is falafel." -- All-American

                        GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by falafel View Post
                          Great legal advice here from Uncle Ted.
                          See.. The fried bean ball guy agrees!
                          "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
                          "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
                          "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
                          GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sullyute View Post
                            Releasing the tape didn’t work so well for Gawker in the Hogan case.
                            But everybody hates Trump, so legal precedent and legal principles be damned.
                            "Guitar groups are on their way out, Mr Epstein."

                            Upon rejecting the Beatles, Dick Rowe told Brian Epstein of the January 1, 1962 audition for Decca, which signed Brian Poole and the Tremeloes instead.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Topper View Post
                              But everybody hates Trump, so legal precedent and legal principles be damned.
                              Gawker got sued out of existence. That's what he's referring to.
                              Ain't it like most people, I'm no different. We love to talk on things we don't know about.

                              "The only one of us who is so significant that Jeff owes us something simply because he decided to grace us with his presence is falafel." -- All-American

                              GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by falafel View Post
                                Gawker got sued out of existence. That's what he's referring to.
                                I know that. For those arguing if Trump does it, Gawker is a counter to that. However, I'm not certain Trump would prevail in a Hogalike case against the Contract Breacher, given the reaction he evokes.
                                "Guitar groups are on their way out, Mr Epstein."

                                Upon rejecting the Beatles, Dick Rowe told Brian Epstein of the January 1, 1962 audition for Decca, which signed Brian Poole and the Tremeloes instead.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X