Yep. Same kind of chess pigeons play.
2 Likes
Yeah but the right does it with conspiracy theory. The left does it with breaking news. Often good breaking news.
The former is frightening. The later is self defeating.
Is usually either lingering nostalgia for the 60s. Or a fantasy of revenge.
If you are a US citizen, I suggest you go very deep. You need to start from the foundations of your political system. The only comparable countries I can think of which do an equally bad job of electing their leaders are Russia and Italy.
3 Likes
Maybe it’s deliberate. “Your honor, it clearly says ‘roll,’ not ‘role’.”
Perhaps if you’re Calvin. Or am I forgetting how Calvinball works?
Interesting idea: someone should do some databasin’ to see if mentioning “Calvin & Hobbes” in a non-“Calvin & Hobbes” thread significantly increases “Likes” received. Even if the C&H reference is oblique, like “Calvinball” in your example. 30 likes (at this point in time) seems really high for a good-but-not-that-good post. No offense meant.
On the “12-d chess” angle… I’m getting to the point of being insulted buy just how dumb they think we are. We’re supposed to believe that Trump & Mr. 911 had a private meeting and came up with this strategy?
Every few days I exclaim to my wife “This is too crazy to be real! We’re being played!” At which point she takes the remote and makes me go outside…
4 Likes
I remember back when it was mere 4 dimensional chess that he was playing. The dimensions just keep on adding. It’s a veritable demihypercube of bullshit.
3 Likes
FWIW, I’m 90% convinced she’s telling the truth.
My guess: proof is on that CD or DVD that Mr. Avaneti teased a month or so ago.
My warning to my wife: you will see Trump’s dink before this is over.
But (and IANAL), couldn’t Trump have arranged a retainer agreement with Cohen a long time ago, with the fee set at $, with an understanding the monthly bill might be as high as 3 x $?
So Cohen can’t get the $130K from Trump immediately, so takes a LOC on his house, then bumps the next 6 invoices by $130K/6, with the remaining $10K split randomly and added to each of the 6 invoices, thus looking like routine fluctuations. All with Trump unaware of the specifics.
Also, since I find folk around here very smart, couldn’t a defense against “structuring” payments be: “Just normal fluctuations, officer. Business as usual.”? Just be smart enough to randomize. And be sure the total is not the exact amount as the “real” value.
If you squint, it looks like a robed ferret is feeding Lord Yeshua with its mouth.
3 Likes
Precisely.
I don’t know if he’s got a ploy, maybe a bad one. The other type of campaign finance violation is still quite serious, if it’s willful. They could argue not reporting the debt / repayment is because only Cohen could have known that it constituted a campaign contribution. It’s pretty crazy, though. Trump said on April 5 he didn’t know, then, where Cohen got the money for the payment. Simultaneously, this is revealed as a blatant lie, while also becoming the preposterous “truth” necessary to making the whole scheme hold together, legally. That he reimbursed without knowing what it was for, until just recently.
The funny part is that the president and his lawyer are hashing out their legal strategy via TV news interview and tweet.
1 Like
You could very well have an arrangment whereby Trump just pays $x amount a month or whatever, with any additional sums being billed for and paid for separately.
That’s not the problem as far as attorney ethics is concerned. As long as you’ve got the relevant agreements in place and are billing correctly and your accounting complies with the rules, that’s all fine.
The problem is with the idea that the lawyer under this retainer agreement:
(i) enters into negotiations over a non-disclosure agreement;
(ii) agrees a settlement figure;
(iii) draws up a non-disclosure agreement;
(iv) and pays out money on his client’s behalf
All without consulting with his client at any stage or even giving him a heads up about what’s happening.
Those are all precisely the sorts of things that lawyers are required to notify their clients of and obtain their instructions about.
We don’t magically ‘fix’ things. We’re not the shoemaker’s elves.
We act on the instructions of our client. We’re not supposed to go off and just decide that our client is going to pay out $130k (or even one cent) because we think that’s in his interests.
That’s the client’s decision. Not the lawyer’s.
In these circumstances an ethics violation is probably the least of Cohen’s worries since a violation of the campaign finance rules in this sort of amount could lead to jail time and/or a requirement to pay a civil penalty of up to twice the unlawful contribution amount.
So this avenue would keep Trump and the Trump campaign in the clear and keep Cohen out of jail with only the possibility of being disbarred to worry about. That he would be disbarred is not certain, he might get off, he might just be censured and/or fined, etc.
Either way, he’s clearly not dependent on his status as a lawyer to make money.
The ‘ploy’ I was thinking of in the post you quoted is superseded by other remarks made by Giuliani.
It’s still a possibilty but as you say it’s a bad one. The better theory is the “Cohen did it on his own without Trump knowing, then got reimbursed later” one.
As set out above I think that one may just sail narrowly through all of the campaign finance law rocks. No consultation or knowledge by anyone in the campaign = not a campaign contribution. So no requirement to report, no limits on payments, etc.
That is the modern world we live in.
As plenty of people have pointed out the PR battle is more important here than the legalities in any event (well possibly except for Cohen who is the only one facing any real consequences).
2 Likes
Clever like a fox, that Trump?
As one observer observes,
Given Giuliani’s deranged performance on Hannity, the grand strategy now seems obvious. Trump is setting up an “ineffectiveness of counsel” defense…
Source:
2 Likes
So…what are you implying? Something against Calvin & Hobbes? 
3 Likes
Liked! 
2 Likes
Since it was definitely, one way or another, influencing the campaign, it was a contribution. Spreading it out over time would make it a loan, definitely a contribution, regardless of whether Trump knew & approved. Way above the individual limit. Spreading it out and tucking it away just adds fraud to the list. Possibly wire fraud. If Trump or his campaign consulted on spreading it out and obfuscating the purpose, add conspiracy to the list.
The things that many people are weighing as mitigating factors or cleverness really just adds up to deeper doo-doo.
The best hope they have, IMO, is to put the whole thing on Trump himself. The FERC is 50-50 Dem-GOP, which means that they won’t be able to put together a majority against him. They’ll throw the book at Cohen.
The story keeps changing so fast I can’t keep up.
• Wednesday: “Trump reimbursed Cohen to shut Stormy up because it was election season.”
• Thursday, “I did reimburse Cohen, but just as a lawyer’s retainer, because repaying hush money is just something rich and famous people do on a regular basis.”
• Friday, “Ignore what Rudy said. It’s not true. He’s new to this, ha ha!”
5 Likes
Hell no! I 
Calvin & Hobbes. It just seemed odd that post got 30 likes. I suspect there is a Calvin & Hobbes bias 'round here. NTTAWWT.
2 Likes
OBVIOUSLY this is a legitimate business activity of SOME kind 
1 Like
Of course there is. At least I hope so.
6 Likes
Because they are narcissistic assholes who want attention?
2 Likes
