Refresh your driving skills with the AARP Smart Driver online course! Use promo code THANKS to save 25 percent.

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
117
Views

Re: Cohen Gets 3 Years - Trump Should Get Life

117 Views
Message 1 of 23

    We are all reading the Journalist and Legal experts on what the documents that have been released by the court as to what will happen.

    While the RW here appear to be in denial, one of their own - Judge Napolitano ( sp)   FOX

 

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/andrew-napolitano-rips-trump-defense_us_5c12836ee4b0449012f7acb...

 

http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/12/13/judge-napolitano-michael-flynn-alleging-he-was-pressured-fbi-a...

 

      Stay tuned!   

PRO-LIFE is Affordable Healthcare for ALL .
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
117
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
152
Views

Re: Cohen Gets 3 Years - Trump Should Get Life

152 Views
Message 2 of 23

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

Stupidity isn't an option either.


It always has been for trump supporters. It seems to be 'default'.


In the minds of the radical left, I'm not surprised!

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
152
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
178
Views

Re: Cohen Gets 3 Years - Trump Should Get Life

178 Views
Message 3 of 23

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

Stupidity isn't an option either.


It always has been for trump supporters. It seems to be 'default'.


What else but stupidity could be responsible for voting for trump and continuing to support Putin's subservient Pup Pet Potus that committed treason at Helsinki?

 

Of course trump should get life for the acts of treason he has committed.

44>dolt45
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
178
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
195
Views

Re: Cohen Gets 3 Years - Trump Should Get Life

195 Views
Message 4 of 23

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

Stupidity isn't an option either.


It always has been for trump supporters. It seems to be 'default'.


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
195
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
210
Views

Re: Cohen Gets 3 Years - Trump Should Get Life

210 Views
Message 5 of 23

If he keeps screwing porn stars, it will be a very short sentence. Somebody say HI to Melonia for me. 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
210
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
231
Views

Re: Cohen Gets 3 Years - Trump Should Get Life

231 Views
Message 6 of 23

@KidBoy2 wrote:
Mick posted..

Well, I get very Nervous around Law Enforcement - so how about I just start here



1. Michael Cohen named Trump as 'Individual-1'.



Here's why prosecutors haven't identified him in court.



The use of “Individual-1” seems like a bulky and unnecessary contrivance. But what's actually going on here?



The U.S. Attorneys' Manual (a guidebook for federal prosecutors) supplies an answer:



"Ordinarily, there is no need to name a person as an unindicted co-conspirator in an indictment [or other court document] in order to fulfill any legitimate prosecutorial interest or duty…. In any indictment where an allegation that the defendant conspired with 'another person or persons known' is insufficient, some other generic reference should be used, such as 'Employee 1' or 'Company 2.'”



So, prosecutors adhered to the rules when they referred to the president as “Individual-1.” What’s the rationale behind this? Again, the guidebook is helpful:



“In all public filings and proceedings, federal prosecutors should remain sensitive to the privacy and reputation interests of uncharged third-parties.... [T]his means that, in the absence of some significant justification, it is not appropriate to identify … a third-party wrongdoer unless that party has been officially charged with the misconduct at issue…. [T]here is ordinarily 'no legitimate governmental interest served' by the government's public allegation of wrongdoing by an uncharged party…."



That gives rise to a third question, based on the guidebook’s acknowledgment that there might be some “significant justification” to depart from the normal rule and to actually name an unindicted coconspirator.



When does this exception apply and when would this “significant justification” threshold be reached? The answer, again, is a matter of law — the law of evidence.



This gets a bit complicated but it is interesting. The Federal Rules of Evidence hold that hearsay — an out-of-court statement offered in court for its truth — is inadmissible.



Many people have at least heard of that rule, even if they do not quite know how it works. Good prosecutors, of course, know the hearsay rule intimately and also know that there are numerous exceptions to it.



One of the most important exceptions is another rule that permits statements by co-conspirators, even if otherwise hearsay, to be admitted at trial.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From your link..

Prosecutors in the Cohen case are not providing Trump with an extra level of anonymity but are instead simply following established rules.


Sorry Mick you do not have a leg to stand on.

So much to ado about nothing...that said come January the Democrats in the US House are going to try their best to impeach Trump .. good luck with that.

Awe Don't Be Sorry - David Expletive from the National Enquirer just Flipped on Trump Today and is corroborating everything Cohen said about Trumps Conspiracy to Defraud the American People so he could get elected

 

Are you going to be OK with that Lemming Pence running the Country?

 

 

Trump Dominos Falling.png

 

 

 

 

Source - https://www.google.com/search?q=Trump+dominos+falling&client=firefox-b-1&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&f...:

 

 

( " China if You're Listening - Get Trumps Tax Returns " )

" )
" - Anonymous

Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
231
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
247
Views

Re: Cohen Gets 3 Years - Trump Should Get Life

247 Views
Message 7 of 23
Mick posted..

Well, I get very Nervous around Law Enforcement - so how about I just start here



1. Michael Cohen named Trump as 'Individual-1'.



Here's why prosecutors haven't identified him in court.



The use of “Individual-1” seems like a bulky and unnecessary contrivance. But what's actually going on here?



The U.S. Attorneys' Manual (a guidebook for federal prosecutors) supplies an answer:



"Ordinarily, there is no need to name a person as an unindicted co-conspirator in an indictment [or other court document] in order to fulfill any legitimate prosecutorial interest or duty…. In any indictment where an allegation that the defendant conspired with 'another person or persons known' is insufficient, some other generic reference should be used, such as 'Employee 1' or 'Company 2.'”



So, prosecutors adhered to the rules when they referred to the president as “Individual-1.” What’s the rationale behind this? Again, the guidebook is helpful:



“In all public filings and proceedings, federal prosecutors should remain sensitive to the privacy and reputation interests of uncharged third-parties.... [T]his means that, in the absence of some significant justification, it is not appropriate to identify … a third-party wrongdoer unless that party has been officially charged with the misconduct at issue…. [T]here is ordinarily 'no legitimate governmental interest served' by the government's public allegation of wrongdoing by an uncharged party…."



That gives rise to a third question, based on the guidebook’s acknowledgment that there might be some “significant justification” to depart from the normal rule and to actually name an unindicted coconspirator.



When does this exception apply and when would this “significant justification” threshold be reached? The answer, again, is a matter of law — the law of evidence.



This gets a bit complicated but it is interesting. The Federal Rules of Evidence hold that hearsay — an out-of-court statement offered in court for its truth — is inadmissible.



Many people have at least heard of that rule, even if they do not quite know how it works. Good prosecutors, of course, know the hearsay rule intimately and also know that there are numerous exceptions to it.



One of the most important exceptions is another rule that permits statements by co-conspirators, even if otherwise hearsay, to be admitted at trial.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From your link..

Prosecutors in the Cohen case are not providing Trump with an extra level of anonymity but are instead simply following established rules.


Sorry Mick you do not have a leg to stand on.

So much to ado about nothing...that said come January the Democrats in the US House are going to try their best to impeach Trump .. good luck with that.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
247
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
258
Views

Re: Cohen Gets 3 Years - Trump Should Get Life

258 Views
Message 8 of 23

@KidBoy2 wrote:
Mick posted..

Cohen Gets 3 Years - Trump Should Get Life

====================================================

Why? Do you have some information? If so you should notify the proper authorities.

Well, I get very Nervous around Law Enforcement - so how about I just start here

 

1. Michael Cohen named Trump as 'Individual-1'.

 

Here's why prosecutors haven't identified him in court.

 

The use of “Individual-1” seems like a bulky and unnecessary contrivance. But what's actually going on here?

 

The U.S. Attorneys' Manual (a guidebook for federal prosecutors) supplies an answer:

 
 

"Ordinarily, there is no need to name a person as an unindicted co-conspirator in an indictment [or other court document] in order to fulfill any legitimate prosecutorial interest or duty…. In any indictment where an allegation that the defendant conspired with 'another person or persons known' is insufficient, some other generic reference should be used, such as 'Employee 1' or 'Company 2.'”

 

So, prosecutors adhered to the rules when they referred to the president as “Individual-1.” What’s the rationale behind this? Again, the guidebook is helpful:

 

“In all public filings and proceedings, federal prosecutors should remain sensitive to the privacy and reputation interests of uncharged third-parties.... [T]his means that, in the absence of some significant justification, it is not appropriate to identify … a third-party wrongdoer unless that party has been officially charged with the misconduct at issue…. [T]here is ordinarily 'no legitimate governmental interest served' by the government's public allegation of wrongdoing by an uncharged party…."

 

That gives rise to a third question, based on the guidebook’s acknowledgment that there might be some “significant justification” to depart from the normal rule and to actually name an unindicted coconspirator.

 

When does this exception apply and when would this “significant justification” threshold be reached? The answer, again, is a matter of law — the law of evidence.

 

This gets a bit complicated but it is interesting. The Federal Rules of Evidence hold that hearsay — an out-of-court statement offered in court for its truth — is inadmissible.

 

Many people have at least heard of that rule, even if they do not quite know how it works. Good prosecutors, of course, know the hearsay rule intimately and also know that there are numerous exceptions to it.

 

One of the most important exceptions is another rule that permits statements by co-conspirators, even if otherwise hearsay, to be admitted at trial.

 

Here’s a hypothetical example to explain both the hearsay rule and the co-conspirator exception to it. Let’s say Joe is on trial for fraud.

 

Jane, the honest bookkeeper who worked for him, is called by the government as a witness at trial. Jane overheard a conversation between Joe and Bill, (since deceased) at the office, in which Bill urged Joe to backdate numerous invoices.

 

The government wants Jane to repeat Bill’s statement (“backdate those invoices, Joe”) at Joe’s trial, but it is clearly hearsay. Why? Because the statement made by Bill to Joe out of court is being offered in court, by the government through Jane, for its truth.

 

The statement can be admitted, however, if two things are true. First, based on evidence supplied by the government (and evaluated by a judge), Bill can be determined to be an unindicted co-conspirator.

 

WAIT FOR IT

 

And second, if Bill’s out-of-court statement was made during the conspiracy and in furtherance of it, it can be admitted at trial, through Jane and against Joe. That’s the classic formulation for the admission into evidence of a statement by a co-conspirator.

( " China if You're Listening - Get Trumps Tax Returns " )

" )
" - Anonymous

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
258
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
262
Views

Re: Cohen Gets 3 Years - Trump Should Get Life

262 Views
Message 9 of 23
Mick posted..

Cohen Gets 3 Years - Trump Should Get Life

====================================================

Why? Do you have some information? If so you should notify the proper authorities.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
262
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
263
Views

Re: Cohen Gets 3 Years - Trump Should Get Life

263 Views
Message 10 of 23

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@Tom5678 wrote:
Trump will be very worried as Cohen's Lawyer, Lanny Davis said in a story I just read on NBC news, once the Mueller investigation is over Cohen will "release everything he knows about the President." Not too good......

Not too good for the left since nothing is there. Oh, the left knows something is there - they heard on left wing tv.

 

Are These 16 Trump Team Individuals - All Just Phantoms - Conjured up in the Delusional Minds of the Left Wing?

 

 

Trump Team Russian Contacts 2.png

 


 

Source - micks photo archives

 

 

( " China if You're Listening - Get Trumps Tax Returns " )

" )
" - Anonymous

Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
263
Views