US Politics VII

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
anitram said:
That is absolutely not how even the loosest of retainers work.
Click to expand...

I know it's not, in the real world. But - under an imaginative agreement by Cohen to hide the fact that he's paying off a porn star while giving Trump a veneer of deniability and also avoiding campaign finance law violation - could it be made to work that way?
 
I think before it’s all said and done, there’ll be worse stuff out about Trump.

The fact that the pee tape is out in the conversation and no one cares (and honestly i don’t care what he does in his private life) why would he be so scared of it?

His base wouldn’t care. I believe his base would applaud the move.

I think Putin has something much worse on him.
 
digitize said:
I know it's not, in the real world. But - under an imaginative agreement by Cohen to hide the fact that he's paying off a porn star while giving Trump a veneer of deniability and also avoiding campaign finance law violation - could it be made to work that way?
Click to expand...

Well of course you can make anything work for you, the question is are the resulting actions/legal agreements flowing from such an arrangement legal and/or binding.

They may have an issue with structuring violations (there are rules for when financial institutions have to report deposits in excess of $X and structuring means that you avoid that by making consecutive payments within allowable periods of time that are just less than that amount to avoid triggering the reporting obligation but that's illegal) based on what Giuliani was saying about how the $ was paid. $35K per month could be broken down into less than $10K deposits weekly to avoid triggering but again, illegal. We don't really know, as we have just vague statements of the ghoulish Rudy to go on at this point.

With respect to retainers I am not aware of any legal retainer that gives the retained lawyer or firm carte blanche to act on behalf of a client without informing them of what is being done, why it's being done, getting the go-ahead to at least some degree, etc. Even the most passive retainers I have as corporate counsel with external firms (for routine things such as annual corporate maintenance filings for dozens of subsidiaries, routine securities laws filings, etc) work such that the firm does all the work and draws up the paperwork, and I get final once-over (whether I choose to take a look or not) and most importantly, I obtain corporate signatures and ok the filing. And that is for routine matters that come up every month/quarter/year and are the same each time and predictable. Trump was paying Cohen a retainer for ad hoc work which he was allegedly unaware of. It would be very bizarre for retained lawyers to be negotiating and drafting agreements, especially of a personal nature such as in this case, and signing them without the knowledge or permission of the client. It's arguably not legally binding anyway.

Obviously none of this is true in any way and it's a total con just like Trump himself. Only an idiot would believe otherwise.

I'd like to know what the other $330-340K paid to Cohen was spent on. Mistresses, abortions, etc?
 
anitram said:
Well of course you can make anything work for you, the question is are the resulting actions/legal agreements flowing from such an arrangement legal and/or binding.

They may have an issue with structuring violations (there are rules for when financial institutions have to report deposits in excess of $X and structuring means that you avoid that by making consecutive payments within allowable periods of time that are just less than that amount to avoid triggering the reporting obligation but that's illegal) based on what Giuliani was saying about how the $ was paid. $35K per month could be broken down into less than $10K deposits weekly to avoid triggering but again, illegal. We don't really know, as we have just vague statements of the ghoulish Rudy to go on at this point.

With respect to retainers I am not aware of any legal retainer that gives the retained lawyer or firm carte blanche to act on behalf of a client without informing them of what is being done, why it's being done, getting the go-ahead to at least some degree, etc. Even the most passive retainers I have as corporate counsel with external firms (for routine things such as annual corporate maintenance filings for dozens of subsidiaries, routine securities laws filings, etc) work such that the firm does all the work and draws up the paperwork, and I get final once-over (whether I choose to take a look or not) and most importantly, I obtain corporate signatures and ok the filing. And that is for routine matters that come up every month/quarter/year and are the same each time and predictable. Trump was paying Cohen a retainer for ad hoc work which he was allegedly unaware of. It would be very bizarre for retained lawyers to be negotiating and drafting agreements, especially of a personal nature such as in this case, and signing them without the knowledge or permission of the client. It's arguably not legally binding anyway.

Obviously none of this is true in any way and it's a total con just like Trump himself. Only an idiot would believe otherwise.

I'd like to know what the other $330-340K paid to Cohen was spent on. Mistresses, abortions, etc?
Click to expand...

Got it - thanks for the context.

I think we can agree that this is sketchy af no matter how you cut it. :)
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
Trump and Giuliani saying that there was absolutely no campaign money in the Stormy Daniels payment means there was absolutely campaign money in the Stormy Daniels payment, right?
Click to expand...



I don't think the president realized he paid him (Cohen) back for that specific thing until we (his legal team) made him aware of the paperwork,” he said.

Giuliani said the president responded, "‘Oh my goodness, I guess that's what it was for.’”
Click to expand...


This was the best laugh I had all week.

For real.

Goodness!
 
Avenatti: “If the President is watching, if you’d like to go on Fox & Friends tomorrow morning together with Mr. Giuliani, I would encourage you to do it, because we certainly would appreciate it.”

He has been masterfully trolling Trump all along.
 
DcW1il-V4AAHXIQ.jpg


Murica.
 
It's like people can't wrap their minds around the fact that Stormy Daniels has no shame about her profession and keep falling down the same trap.

Also, Trump just threw Giuliani under the bus live on TV. He's "new" around here, only been here a day. Fetching coffee.
 
It certainly does not get talked about enough that Trump violently raped his first wife.

Schneiderman sounds like a real piece of shit.
 
[tweet]993899948692426754[/tweet]

This is a positive development. Certainly it is an easier case to make when you have no control over any of the houses, but it's a start. I'd like to see this be the focus of the Dems, and hopefully popular support around these concepts will lead them to try more active measures in fighting back against this when they are back in a position to do such a thing. They swung and missed badly last time around.
 
So maybe we can get into two nuclear wars? Let’s not forget North Korea has been down this road before with talks. And having Trump trying to make a deal is terrifying.

Iran deal no more.

What a mess.

But her emails....
 
It's not surprising, his decision, sadly, but still. Fuck him.

Honestly, when the hell did our country decide we didn't need anyone with any sort of actual experience in matters as serious as nuclear weapons and the issues related to those, or other big issues in general, for that matter, to be president? There's basic office and retail jobs I've applied for and didn't get because I don't have the experience necessary for them. If that's the case for me, we damn sure had better demand more for anyone who wants to be president of the United fucking States.
 
Last edited:
isn't there anyone who realizes that nobody is going to sign trade deals and treaties with the united states if they think the next president is just going to unilaterally rip them up if he doesn't like the guy who signed them? this is not complicated.

jesus fucking christ, these people are so recklessly stupid and incompetent it baffles me how this is even possible. :doh:
 
The Iran Deal was already effectively dead, killed by Trump merely threatening to pull out. Iran's incentives into entering the deal were supposed to be economic-based, with the US encouraging investment there. The lingering threat of the US pulling out of the deal eliminated that interest. This is, essentially, a formality at this point.

Its impact may indeed may be more about Korea than about Iran in the short term. Any deal with the US is on shakier ground with the uncertainty that it could be reneged at any time if the country elects another moron.
 
DaveC said:
isn't there anyone who realizes that nobody is going to sign trade deals and treaties with the united states if they think the next president is just going to unilaterally rip them up if he doesn't like the guy who signed them? this is not complicated.

jesus fucking christ, these people are so recklessly stupid and incompetent it baffles me how this is even possible. :doh:
Click to expand...
You clearly don't want America to be great again
 
I’m sure North Korea can’t wait to sign an agreement with this stable and reliable genius.
 
Trump still thinks he’s running a reality TV program. All this build up to the “reveal,” when absolutely no one doubted this would be his move on Iran.

In a way, I suppose he is. Doesn’t get any more real than fucking around with nuclear powers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

clerks
Second Favorite Artist
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
Sicy
Sicy
LuckyNumber7
  • Locked
US Politics XXXIV: Biden Against the Manchine (Live at the Sinema)
32 33 34
Replies
1K
Views
50K
Diemen
Diemen
MrsSpringsteen
Billie Eilish Thought U2 Was From Scranton
Replies
1
Views
731
lazarus
lazarus
Headache in a Suitcase
  • Locked
Songs of Songs, Books & Fat Puns - New Album Discussion #8
33 34 35
Replies
1K
Views
53K
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
womanfish
**Political Junkies** 2020 US Election Predictions
Replies
1
Views
614
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom