ADVERTISEMENT

report to come that there was a prior meeting or meetings to set up trump tower meeting

dherd

dherd

Platinum Buffalo
Feb 23, 2007
11,203
556
113
another huge brick in the wall - to be reported that Cohen will say there were meetings
to set up trump tower meeting, according to giulliani who says report is coming and he
is talking about it to "get out front" of it.

first indication was on CNN interview this morning repeated on fox propaganda.

ORGANIZE THE FIRING SQUADS - WE HAVE TRAITORS.
 
lLTlGs1.gif
 
Giuliani says, Cohen is claiming that, while he was meeting with Trump in his office, Donald Trump Jr. walked in and told his father about the planned Russian meeting.

Second, and even more intriguingly, Giuliani says Cohen is claiming that before the Russian meeting, several Trump aides met without Trump himself for a pre-meeting to discuss “the strategy of the meeting with the Russians” — and, perhaps crucially, that one of those aides was Rick Gates.

If true, that latter claim would be huge because Gates has been cooperating with special counsel Robert Mueller’s team for months and would presumably have told them about that meeting long ago, meaning this claim wouldn’t hinge on Cohen’s own credibility.

What Giuliani says Cohen’s team is telling reporters
According to Giuliani, Cohen’s team has been making two separate claims about preparations for the Trump Tower meeting. In his morning TV appearances, Giuliani wasn’t clear about how he knew this. But in the afternoon, he called into Fox to say he was describing what he had heard from reporters, not from Cohen or his team directly. In any case, here’s what he had to say:

1) That Cohen was there when Don Jr. allegedly told Trump about the meeting: According to Giuliani, Cohen “leaked” that he was meeting with Trump in his office and Don Jr. walked in to tell Donald about the Russian offer and meeting. Giuliani told CNN:

2) That Cohen attended a meeting with several Trump aides to strategize for the Russian meeting in advance: Then, Giuliani says he’s heard from reporters that Cohen is saying there was a meeting before the Trump Tower meeting, with several Trump aides, about “the strategy of the meeting with the Russians.” He told CNN

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/30/17630148/giuliani-trump-tower-cohen-mueller-russia
 
So what you're saying is that Trump aides thought it was a good idea to prep for a meeting, a meeting we already know occurred? I don't know about you accountants, but in banking we were generally expected to have a written pre-call (meeting) plan in place to make sure the time was as productive as possible.

It amazes me how you get excited over the least little thing (or least little nothing burger like this). You miss out on the big picture. We already know the meeting happened, no one is disputing that. Also, no one is disputing that nothing came of the meeting. Don jr. told the Russian that he wasn't interested in any info she had. Even if he had said "Yea, I'll take it", would that be different than Hillary and the DNC paying Steele to obtain information from the Russians about Trump? Why is it okay for Hillary to get info from the Russians but not Trump?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ohio herd
No doubt from what we know about the trump "crime family" bankers meet with Russian gangsters all the time.
With us - no we do not meet with criminals and so unlike and the trump gang no prep is necessary.

Also trump says no collusion - his lawyer says BUT if when he gets caught doing it it's not illegal. Well no it isn't BUT CONSPIRING WITH FOREIGN POWERS TO DEFRAUD THE U.S. IS BTW SO IS TREASON.

IDONT HEAR YOU FOOLS YELLING WITCH HUNT ANY LONGER - JUST
PULLING THE OLD TRUMP WEASEL
 
Bankerreturns said:
So what you're saying is that Trump aides thought it was a good idea to prep for a meeting, a meeting we already know occurred? I don't know about you accountants, but in banking we were generally expected to have a written pre-call (meeting) plan in place to make sure the time was as productive as possible.

It amazes me how you get excited over the least little thing (or least little nothing burger like this). You miss out on the big picture. We already know the meeting happened, no one is disputing that. Also, no one is disputing that nothing came of the meeting. Don jr. told the Russian that he wasn't interested in any info she had. Even if he had said "Yea, I'll take it", would that be different than Hillary and the DNC paying Steele to obtain information from the Russians about Trump? Why is it okay for Hillary to get info from the Russians but not Trump?
Click to expand...

Damn, where to start. That’s a helluva lot of bullshit.

First of all, the Democrats didn’t conspire with a foreign government, let alone an adversary. They didn’t even hire Steele. They hired Fusion GPS, an American firm.

Secondly, it doesn’t matter if the trump campaign obtained any information or not. They conspired with a foreign government. So, whoever was in the meeting is guilty of conspiracy. It is a big deal that little hands donnie knew about the meeting ahead of time. If there is nothing wrong with meeting with Russians, then why did they first deny the meeting took place, then lie that the meeting was about adoption and then after they knew their email was out, they admitted to meeting to obtain information about the campaign?

Lastly, it amazes me that you compare a preparatory meeting regarding banking to conspiring with a foreign adversary. You right wingers will just brush meetings and conspiring with Russia under the table for political purposes. Party over country. Sickening.
 
Why don't the Democrats worry about trying to win elections instead of this Russian shit?
 
Pretty cool how you leap from a meeting in which the Trump campaign refused the information offered to conspiring with a foreign government. That's Olympic quality distance right there. Kudos.
 
Bankerreturns said:
Pretty cool how you leap from a meeting in which the Trump campaign refused the information offered to conspiring with a foreign government. That's Olympic quality distance right there. Kudos.
Click to expand...

So if you break into a bank at night, armed, but for whatever reason you flee with no money, was it armed robbery?

You do realize if your bank-robbing partner murders someone in the act, you can be charged with conspiracy to commit murder?

LOL!

18 USC 371 If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose...

Conspire - make secret plans jointly to commit an unlawful or harmful act

The very definition of conspiracy doesn't require it to be successful.
 
countryroads89 said:
So if you break into a bank at night, armed, but for whatever reason you flee with no money, was it armed robbery?

You do realize if your bank-robbing partner murders someone in the act, you can be charged with conspiracy to commit murder?

LOL!

18 USC 371 If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose...

Conspire - make secret plans jointly to commit an unlawful or harmful act

The very definition of conspiracy doesn't require it to be successful.
Click to expand...

Actually, that would be breaking and entering, not armed robbery. Additionally, since no one but the criminal was present, the possession of a firearm is meaningless. If you had decided to follow through with taking the money you would be charged with robbery, period.

Oh, and collusion is not unlawful.

Please don't try and play attorney, you are not good at it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 19MU88
Bankerreturns said:
Actually, that would be breaking and entering, not armed robbery. Additionally, since no one but the criminal was present, the possession of a firearm is meaningless. If you had decided to follow through with taking the money you would be charged with robbery, period.

Oh, and collusion is not unlawful.

Please don't try and play attorney, you are not good at it.
Click to expand...

You can’t be a banker. I have never met a banker this stupid.

You should tell Giuliani to keep running with that “collusion isn’t a crime” strategy. I bet it plays out well.
 
countryroads89 said:
So if you break into a bank at night, armed, but for whatever reason you flee with no money, was it armed robbery?
Click to expand...

No, you moron, because robbery involves the taking of property from another by force or threat. What you just described is burglary.
 
countryroads89 said:
18 USC 371 If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose...

Conspire - make secret plans jointly to commit an unlawful or harmful act

The very definition of conspiracy doesn't require it to be successful.
Click to expand...

You are correct that a conspiracy doesn't have to be successful or complete (or, in most cases, even acted on).

What is the underlying crime though? Conspiracy is an agreement to commit a specified illegal act under U.S. law - the "offense" in your definition. In your mind, what crime did they enter into an agreement to commit?
 
countryroads89 said:
You can’t be a banker. I have never met a banker this stupid.

You should tell Giuliani to keep running with that “collusion isn’t a crime” strategy. I bet it plays out well.
Click to expand...
Robbery
n. 1) the direct taking of property (including money) from a person (victim) through force, threat or intimidation. Robbery is afelony (crime punishable by a term in state or federal prison). "Armed robbery" involves the use of gun or other weapon whichcan do bodily arm, such as a knife or club, and under most state laws carries a stiffer penalty (longer possible term) thanrobbery by merely taking. 2) a term improperly used to describe thefts, including burglary (breaking and entering) andshoplifting (secret theft from the stock of a store), expressed: "We've been robbed." (See: theft)
 
countryroads89 said:
You can’t be a banker. I have never met a banker this stupid.

You should tell Giuliani to keep running with that “collusion isn’t a crime” strategy. I bet it plays out well.
Click to expand...
You must be a moron. Collusion a crime? I hope they come up with something so you retards can have your heads explode when you learn the law and constitution and how it applies to the president
 
ThunderCat98 said:
What is the underlying crime though? Conspiracy is an agreement to commit a specified illegal act under U.S. law - the "offense" in your definition. In your mind, what crime did they enter into an agreement to commit?
Click to expand...

It's far, far, far from being that simple. Don't tier three us, Alan Dershowitz.

19MU88 said:
You must be a moron. Collusion a crime? I hope they come up with something so you retards can have your heads explode when you learn the law and constitution and how it applies to the president
Click to expand...

Child, really, go back to just liking posts. You have no idea what you're talking about. It is amazing that you guys suddenly start saying "collusion isn't a crime" after Giuliani and cheeto just said it, while you haven't mentioned it at all for the year it has been discussed.
 
Y.A.G Si Ye Nots said:
It's far, far, far from being that simple. Don't tier three us, Alan Dershowitz.
Click to expand...

This makes no sense. What is "far, far, far from being that simple"? My question to cuntry is what crime did they conspire to commit. Was it treason? Was it money laundering? Was it a campaign financing violation? There has to be an underlying crime that they conspired or agreed to commit. I just want to know what crime he's saying they conspired to commit.
 
ThunderCat98 said:
This makes no sense. What is "far, far, far from being that simple"? My question to cuntry is what crime did they conspire to commit. Was it treason? Was it money laundering? Was it a campaign financing violation? There has to be an underlying crime that they conspired or agreed to commit. I just want to know what crime he's saying they conspired to commit.
Click to expand...

Post 19.

18 USC 371

Go back and read it. Several Russians have already been charged with that crime. Read Mueller's indictments.
 
I understand the general conspiracy statute. What you seem to be missing is, under that statute, they have to conspire to either (1) defraud the U.S.(that is, fail to pay taxes owed or some other similar financial crime that equates to a federal fraud offenses), or (2) commit a some other specific federal offense. Which offense are you alleging? Is it fraud? If so, what kind? Or is it another federal crime? Treason? Gun trafficking? Cutting timber on public lands? I'm not trying to be a dick. I really want to know what you're theory of criminal wrongdoing is.
 
ThunderCat98 said:
I understand the general conspiracy statute. What you seem to be missing is, under that statute, they have to conspire to either (1) defraud the U.S.(that is, fail to pay taxes owed or some other similar financial crime that equates to a federal fraud offenses), or (2) commit a some other specific federal offense. Which offense are you alleging? Is it fraud? If so, what kind? Or is it another federal crime? Treason? Gun trafficking? Cutting timber on public lands? I'm not trying to be a dick. I really want to know what you're theory of criminal wrongdoing is.
Click to expand...
I am waiting as well.
 
ThunderCat98 said:
I understand the general conspiracy statute. What you seem to be missing is, under that statute, they have to conspire to either (1) defraud the U.S.(that is, fail to pay taxes owed or some other similar financial crime that equates to a federal fraud offenses), or (2) commit a some other specific federal offense. Which offense are you alleging? Is it fraud? If so, what kind? Or is it another federal crime? Treason? Gun trafficking? Cutting timber on public lands? I'm not trying to be a dick. I really want to know what you're theory of criminal wrongdoing is.
Click to expand...
I’ll answer for him and dtard. It’s obvious conspiracy to commit treason
 
ThunderCat98 said:
This makes no sense. What is "far, far, far from being that simple"? My question to cuntry is what crime did they conspire to commit. Was it treason? Was it money laundering? Was it a campaign financing violation? There has to be an underlying crime that they conspired or agreed to commit. I just want to know what crime he's saying they conspired to commit.
Click to expand...

It makes no sense? What makes no sense is your lack of knowing the difference between "your" and "you're." Do they give tier three attorneys paralegals and legal assistants or are you obligated with making sure your documents could pass a middle school writing assignment?

It makes perfect sense. We could spend all day discussing the numerous possible crimes he/they could be charged with based on their collusion . . . contributions and donations by foreign nationals, wire fraud, seeking dirt on Hillary from the Russians could violate election laws, Computer Fraud Act . . . there are so many that could reasonably be argued were conspired that we'd be here all day discussing them.
 
ohio herd said:
still waiting
Click to expand...

Sorry, I had to actually do some work today.

52 USC 30121

(a) Prohibition

It shall be unlawful for--

(1)  a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make--

(A)  a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;

(B)  a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party;  or

(C)  an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title);  or

(2)  a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

(b)  “Foreign national” defined

As used in this section, the term “foreign national” means--

(1)  a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of Title 22 , except that the term “foreign national” shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States;  or

(2)  an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of Title 8 ) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of Title 8 .


Information = other thing of value. It is illegal for a foreign national to make the contribution and it is illegal to accept it from the foreign national.

So they conspired to violate 52 USC 30121.

You're welcome.
 
Bankerreturns said:
Actually, that would be breaking and entering, not armed robbery. Additionally, since no one but the criminal was present, the possession of a firearm is meaningless. If you had decided to follow through with taking the money you would be charged with robbery, period.

Oh, and collusion is not unlawful.

Please don't try and play attorney, you are not good at it.
Click to expand...

YOUVE BEEN LISTENING TO TRUMP AGAIN HAVEN'T YOU.
Col·lu·sion
kəˈlo͞oZHən/
noun
noun: collusion
  1. secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.
    "the armed forces were working in collusion with drug traffickers"
    synonyms: conspiracy, connivance, complicity, intrigue, plotting, secret understanding, collaboration, scheming
    "there had been collusion between the security forces and paramilitary groups"
    • Law
      illegal cooperation or conspiracy,       especially between ostensible opponents in a lawsuit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

30CAT

It's time for a New York Post Alert: 45 lawmakers sound alarm on Pedo-Joe's decline as cognitive struggles in private meetings exposed

Replies
11
Views
626
Pullman Square - Non Sports Talk
i am herdman
i am herdman
30CAT

Fox News Alert ⚠️ : Revelation of secret homObama-era program casts doubt on stated reason for Trump Mar-a-Lago raid

Replies
14
Views
927
Pullman Square - Non Sports Talk
extragreen
extragreen
dherd

CROOKED DONALD TRUMP KNEW ABOUT TOWER MEETING & WIKILEAKS AHEAD OF TIME

Replies
9
Views
842
Pullman Square - Non Sports Talk
extragreen
extragreen
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back