|
Quoted:
AMI, David Pecker, would make shit up because the SDNY prosecutors were threatening to investigate other "issues". Cohen committed a felony on his own, he plead guilty to a non-crime. Trump hasn't plead guilty and cannot possibly be a co conspirator for trusting a lawyer to follow the law. Democrats will make political hay out of Trump's tie color. Mueller better stick to Russian collusion(his mandate) or his report will be thrown in the trash by Whittaker. Sorry your girl lost. |
|
Quoted: Again, there is zero legal question that it was a crime. There's no question why the payments were made; the person who wrote the NDAs and made at least two of the payments has said why it was done and that Trump knew why it was done. AMI has said exactly the same thing. Why on gods green earth would David Pecker and Micheal Cohen both cop to a crime that you think wasn't even a crime? Why wouldn't they just say 'nah, it wasn't about the election'. What about this is so complex? Cohen plead guilty to it. He was just sentenced for it. He's going to jail. Do you really think that after all the evidence showing that Cohen was a total sleazeball that recorded everything going on around him that he's got nothing to back his story up? That it's just Trump vs Cohens word? That really seems unlikely. If Trump is smart he'll just keep his mouth and twitter shut about it. He can't be legally hurt by it, but it can continue to be a giant embarrassment if he lets it. 
If the liberals had anything, they would have filed an impeachment motion already and its would be all over the media 24/7/365.....Not to mention mueller would have ended his investigation screaming at the world..."I found it, I found it..I got him...I got him" and not one of those things have happened.... |
|
Quoted:
Again, there is zero legal question that it was a crime. There's no question why the payments were made; the person who wrote the NDAs and made at least two of the payments has said why it was done and that Trump knew why it was done. AMI has said exactly the same thing. Why on gods green earth would David Pecker and Micheal Cohen both cop to a crime that you think wasn't even a crime? Why wouldn't they just say 'nah, it wasn't about the election'. What about this is so complex? Cohen plead guilty to it. He was just sentenced for it. He's going to jail. Do you really think that after all the evidence showing that Cohen was a total sleazeball that recorded everything going on around him that he's got nothing to back his story up? That it's just Trump vs Cohens word? That really seems unlikely. If Trump is smart he'll just keep his mouth and twitter shut about it. He can't be legally hurt by it, but it can continue to be a giant embarrassment if he lets it. Quoted:
Quoted: Remove "influence the election" from your post, and what do you have? Can this be proven? What about this is so complex? Cohen plead guilty to it. He was just sentenced for it. He's going to jail. Do you really think that after all the evidence showing that Cohen was a total sleazeball that recorded everything going on around him that he's got nothing to back his story up? That it's just Trump vs Cohens word? That really seems unlikely. If Trump is smart he'll just keep his mouth and twitter shut about it. He can't be legally hurt by it, but it can continue to be a giant embarrassment if he lets it. Except democrats won't shut up. Let democrats tell us what happened. Thats definitely what Trump should do, if he was smart. 
|
|
Quoted:
Again, there is zero legal question that it was a crime. There's no question why the payments were made; the person who wrote the NDAs and made at least two of the payments has said why it was done and that Trump knew why it was done. AMI has said exactly the same thing. Why on gods green earth would David Pecker and Micheal Cohen both cop to a crime that you think wasn't even a crime? Why wouldn't they just say 'nah, it wasn't about the election'. What about this is so complex? Cohen plead guilty to it. He was just sentenced for it. He's going to jail. Do you really think that after all the evidence showing that Cohen was a total sleazeball that recorded everything going on around him that he's got nothing to back his story up? That it's just Trump vs Cohens word? That really seems unlikely. If Trump is smart he'll just keep his mouth and twitter shut about it. He can't be legally hurt by it, but it can continue to be a giant embarrassment if he lets it. Quoted:
Quoted: Remove "influence the election" from your post, and what do you have? Can this be proven? What about this is so complex? Cohen plead guilty to it. He was just sentenced for it. He's going to jail. Do you really think that after all the evidence showing that Cohen was a total sleazeball that recorded everything going on around him that he's got nothing to back his story up? That it's just Trump vs Cohens word? That really seems unlikely. If Trump is smart he'll just keep his mouth and twitter shut about it. He can't be legally hurt by it, but it can continue to be a giant embarrassment if he lets it. Got it! There is no question! Lock him up! |
|
Quoted:
Yeah, Cohen just decided to do it on his own, and Trump reimbursed him why? Is it really hard to believe Trump didn't want these women giving interviews literally weeks before the election, with the whole Billy Bush thing out there? After all, Cohen has Trump on tape discussing exactly this kind of stuff. Quoted:
Quoted:
AMI, David Pecker, would make shit up because the SDNY prosecutors were threatening to investigate other "issues". Cohen committed a felony on his own, he plead guilty to a non-crime. Trump hasn't plead guilty and cannot possibly be a co conspirator for trusting a lawyer to follow the law. Democrats will make political hay out of Trump's tie color. Mueller better stick to Russian collusion(his mandate) or his report will be thrown in the trash by Whittaker. Sorry your girl lost. Did Cohen knowingly commit a crime on his own and plead guilty to it? |
|
Quoted:
Yeah, Cohen just decided to do it on his own, and Trump reimbursed him why? Is it really hard to believe Trump didn't want these women giving interviews literally weeks before the election, with the whole Billy Bush thing out there? After all, Cohen has Trump on tape discussing exactly this kind of stuff. Quoted:
Quoted:
AMI, David Pecker, would make shit up because the SDNY prosecutors were threatening to investigate other "issues". Cohen committed a felony on his own, he plead guilty to a non-crime. Trump hasn't plead guilty and cannot possibly be a co conspirator for trusting a lawyer to follow the law. Democrats will make political hay out of Trump's tie color. Mueller better stick to Russian collusion(his mandate) or his report will be thrown in the trash by Whittaker. Sorry your girl lost. How is this a campaign violation? He would have done it, regardless of the election. |
|
Quoted: Yes, we do know what the NDAs were for because Cohen, the guy who wrote them, has told us exactly what they were for. Cohen has said that they were to buy the silence of the women so they didn't influence the election negatively for Trump, and that Trump asked for them to happen. AMI also made a payment to another women and is also saying it was at the request and direction of Trump for the purpose of influencing the election. Why the fuck would David Pecker just make that up? These payments end up qualifying as campaign contributions because they materially help the candidate. At that point it doesn't really matter how Cohen or AMI were compensated because they long since missed the train on declaring the fuckup and just paying a fine. Again; it really doesn't matter, at all who paid cohen back or how. What matters is why he made the payments and who told him to do it. Right now the why is, according to everyone involved but Trump, 'influence the election' and the who is 'Person 1'. That means that Trump directed Cohen to commit a felony, and that makes Trump a co-conspirator. Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying 'but cohen is a liar' doesn't mean anything. This isn't going to be a he said/he said thing. The motherfucker was taping conversations and kept records. Now, Trump isn't going to jail for this but you better believe it's going to be real political hay for democrats. And Muellers report is going to come out, eventually, and add to the list of dumb fucking mistakes Trump made because he surrounds him self with the dumbest motherfuckers on earth. HRC committed numerous felonies all to undermine this nation and to make her family wealth. Let me know when she is prosecuted. |
|
Quoted:
Which brings us to the real message at the heart of all these investigations - don't talk to the feds, about anything. Literally say nothing. Because they'll talk you into lying about a crime you didn't even commit, which then becomes the crime. "It is crucial to note that affirmatively declining to discuss the investigation in the absence of counsel is not the same thing as remaining completely silent . If you are not in custody, your total silence, especially in the face of an accusation, can very possibly be used against you as an adoptive admission under the Federal Rules of Evidence." |
|
Quoted: Again, there is zero legal question that it was a crime. There's no question why the payments were made; the person who wrote the NDAs and made at least two of the payments has said why it was done and that Trump knew why it was done. AMI has said exactly the same thing. Why on gods green earth would David Pecker and Micheal Cohen both cop to a crime that you think wasn't even a crime? Why wouldn't they just say 'nah, it wasn't about the election'. What about this is so complex? Cohen plead guilty to it. He was just sentenced for it. He's going to jail. Do you really think that after all the evidence showing that Cohen was a total sleazeball that recorded everything going on around him that he's got nothing to back his story up? That it's just Trump vs Cohens word? That really seems unlikely. If Trump is smart he'll just keep his mouth and twitter shut about it. He can't be legally hurt by it, but it can continue to be a giant embarrassment if he lets it. |
|
Quoted: How to Avoid Going to Jail under 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 for Lying to Government Agents "It is crucial to note that affirmatively declining to discuss the investigation in the absence of counsel is not the same thing as remaining completely silent . If you are not in custody, your total silence, especially in the face of an accusation, can very possibly be used against you as an adoptive admission under the Federal Rules of Evidence." |
|
Quoted: Is it really hard to believe the guy didn't want his wife and business partners to know about him banging whores? How is this a campaign violation? He would have done it, regardless of the election. ETA: you do recall the huge amount of material seized from Cohen, and that Trump surely thought (wrongly) that whatever he said around Cohen would never see the light of day? |
|
Quoted:
Well, Cohen, AMI and most importantly the SDNY say it was done at Trump's direction for that purpose. Cohen and AMI might say lots of things to save their skin, but I'd bet good money the SDNY is not saying that about the President without hard evidence. Quoted:
Quoted: Is it really hard to believe the guy didn't want his wife and business partners to know about him banging whores? How is this a campaign violation? He would have done it, regardless of the election. |
|
Quoted:
Well, Cohen, AMI and most importantly the SDNY say it was done at Trump's direction for that purpose. Cohen and AMI might say lots of things to save their skin, but I'd bet good money the SDNY is not saying that about the President without hard evidence. Quoted:
Quoted: Is it really hard to believe the guy didn't want his wife and business partners to know about him banging whores? How is this a campaign violation? He would have done it, regardless of the election. |
|
Quoted:
How much you wanna bet they have no hard evidence whatsoever and they are heavily relying on Cohen to make shit up? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Is it really hard to believe the guy didn't want his wife and business partners to know about him banging whores? How is this a campaign violation? He would have done it, regardless of the election. |
|
Quoted:
A billion dollars. Because once upon a time, Trump very clearly said he knew nothing about the payments. No reason to lie once everyone knew he was boning these women. Which wouldn't surprise anyone to begin with. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Is it really hard to believe the guy didn't want his wife and business partners to know about him banging whores? How is this a campaign violation? He would have done it, regardless of the election. |
|
Quoted:
Well, by that logic, THE PRESIDENT says it's bullshit. He trumps those other calls to authority, so you are wrong. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Is it really hard to believe the guy didn't want his wife and business partners to know about him banging whores? How is this a campaign violation? He would have done it, regardless of the election. |
|
Quoted:
And you won't pay no matter what evidence shows up. So $1 billion. Quoted:
Quoted:
You don't have a billion dollars. How much do you want to bet? |
|
Quoted:
Yeah, federal prosecutors, who actually work for the President, are working on a different level. You don't accuse your boss of a crime on Michael Cohen's say-so. Or maybe you would, but SDNY prosecutors wouldn't. Not that it matters. If there is an email or tape of Trump saying to make the payment so he doesn't lose the election, that wouldn't change a thing for you. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Is it really hard to believe the guy didn't want his wife and business partners to know about him banging whores? How is this a campaign violation? He would have done it, regardless of the election. If a tape comes out, which has him saying "bribe her, or I can't be president", then you're right. I'm waiting. |
| Holy ever loving fuck can someone explain to me when it’s been wrong to try and influence an election. We have super pacs that try to influence election. We have celebrities that try to influence elections. We have unions that try to influence elections. We have politicians that spend tens of millions of dollars try to influence elections. So Trump trying to keep some affairs secret is somehow trying to influence an election? I don’t give a fuck. |
|
Quoted:
And you won't pay no matter what evidence shows up. So $1 billion. Quoted:
Quoted:
You don't have a billion dollars. How much do you want to bet? |
|
Quoted: The monthly "retainer" didn't start until well after the payment had been paid. It isn't a retainer if you don't pay it until long after someone has already spent money on your behalf. Then it is a reimbursement. According to Trump's and Cohen's own records, Cohen was not under a retainer agreement when he paid the funds to get the NDA. In fact, and someone can correct me if I'm wrong, Cohen was counsel to Trump's companies before and during part of the campaign, so he was always paid via Trump org directly. There wouldn't have been a retainer agreement anyway because of that. |
|
Quoted: I think people are missing a key point. It wasn't illegal to pay whores off to influence the election. You can absolutely do that as much as you want as Trump had clearly done in the past. What you can't do, however, is pay people off to influence an election and not RRPORT the payments on your campaign finance report. If they had reported the payments as payments to "Essential Consultants, LLC" or whatever proxy company Cohen had registered as "legal services" or "legal settlement fees" or something like that there wouldn't be any issue. In short, the issue isn't paying someone to influence an election. That's literally politics at its core. The issue is raising or spending money that you don't report. It would be no different than if Trump had taken a 120k campaign donation and didn't disclose it on his campaign finance reports. One, it would be in excess of the contribution caps mandated by law, and two it would be illegally concealing that you received the funds. Part of Cohen's issue is that he FRONTED the money and in doing so broke the contributions cap. Being reimbursed after the fact doesn't change that because the spending was never legally reported before being discovered. Whether people have a problem with Trump paying off whores or not isn't at issue. Personally, I don't give a shit. But you cannot spend money to influence an election and not report it. That's goes for any campaign, PAC, or non-profit out there. Trump isn't being singled out - - people are prosecuted for concealing donations or not reporting spending all the time. Generally, these cases never make it to the criminal level because if a violation is uncovered the violating party typically files an updated campaign finance report and pays a negotiated fine. Trump refused to do that, and instead worked with Cohen to keep the payments hidden. That's why it becomes criminal and isn't like other cases where the campaign or candidate can simply amend their report, say mea culpa, and pay a fine. If you go to extraordinary lengths to conceal the payments, refuse to admit the payments happened until a search warrant uncovers evidence of the payment during a search of your attorney's office, and a tape made by your attorney is discovered, in which you and your attorney conspire to conceal the payment and source of the funds, then the door is closed on a voluntary settlement. Especially since Trump continues to deny that it was a campaign related expenditure even though he's on tape implying otherwise. Finally, Trump eventually did disclose the payment in an official filing, but it was on his mandatory ethics form for being President (where you list assets and liabilities), was done after the Cohen raid, and totally prevents a voluntary settlement because he's still trying to claim it wasn't a campaign expenditure. Trump, more or less, did a version of OJ's "If I did it..." by claiming he didn't do it, but if he did, it was simply a private matter not related to the campaign, but if it was actually a campaign expenditure it was OK because he's allowed to contribute as much money to his own campaign he wants. The obvious flaw being that Cohen paid the money and not Trump, and so Trump's public statements and ethics form are actually self-incriminating instead of being exculpatory. |
|
Quoted:
All expenses have to be disclosed. This was not Quoted:
Quoted:
Can someone explain to me how it's a campaign finance violation to use your own money to pay women that you had affairs with to keep quiet? Does Congress have a slush fund for that exact thing?  |
|
Quoted:
All of your personal expenses? Or the campaign's expenses? Because I doubt he needed or was stupid enough to have his campaign pay.
Hillary’s campaign has actually been caught and ruled against for accepting illegal contributions in the State of California and all they got was a slap on the wrist and they got to keep the fucking money... |
|
Quoted: I've already said I'd admit that I was wrong, if there is evidence that shows it. If a tape comes out, which has him saying "bribe her, or I can't be president", then you're right. I'm waiting. Stormy Daniels had an affair with Trump in 2006, and the payment in late October 2016 had nothing to do with the election in early November 2016? That's kind of in the realm of "anything is possible." |
|
Quoted:
Serious question: do/did you also believe Trump when he said he never had sex with these women? And that he just cuts a $130K check to any woman who makes a false accusation? Stormy Daniels had an affair with Trump in 2006, and the payment in late October 2016 had nothing to do with the election in early November 2016? That's kind of in the realm of "anything is possible." Quoted:
Quoted: I've already said I'd admit that I was wrong, if there is evidence that shows it. If a tape comes out, which has him saying "bribe her, or I can't be president", then you're right. I'm waiting. Stormy Daniels had an affair with Trump in 2006, and the payment in late October 2016 had nothing to do with the election in early November 2016? That's kind of in the realm of "anything is possible." I have no idea if the payment to Stormy Daniels was influenced by the election. Neither do you. Or anyone else. If you have proof, please present it. |
|
Quoted:
Serious question: do/did you also believe Trump when he said he never had sex with these women? And that he just cuts a $130K check to any woman who makes a false accusation? Stormy Daniels had an affair with Trump in 2006, and the payment in late October 2016 had nothing to do with the election in early November 2016? That's kind of in the realm of "anything is possible." Quoted:
Quoted: I've already said I'd admit that I was wrong, if there is evidence that shows it. If a tape comes out, which has him saying "bribe her, or I can't be president", then you're right. I'm waiting. Stormy Daniels had an affair with Trump in 2006, and the payment in late October 2016 had nothing to do with the election in early November 2016? That's kind of in the realm of "anything is possible." Cohens job was to follow the laws and get the NDA without Trump's knowledge. That is what he was paid for. As I understand it the SCO can still reduce Cohens sentence. This is a show. |
|
Quoted:
Serious question: do/did you also believe Trump when he said he never had sex with these women? And that he just cuts a $130K check to any woman who makes a false accusation? Stormy Daniels had an affair with Trump in 2006, and the payment in late October 2016 had nothing to do with the election in early November 2016? That's kind of in the realm of "anything is possible." Quoted:
Quoted: I've already said I'd admit that I was wrong, if there is evidence that shows it. If a tape comes out, which has him saying "bribe her, or I can't be president", then you're right. I'm waiting. Stormy Daniels had an affair with Trump in 2006, and the payment in late October 2016 had nothing to do with the election in early November 2016? That's kind of in the realm of "anything is possible." |
|
Quoted:
She was not just any woman, the media could put them in the same room together for a photo. Personally I do not think he fucked her. I think he chose to pay 130K in extortion to keep her accusations quiet rather than spend 5 or 6 million to make her retract the claims in court. I don't Think Kavanaugh raped anyone or that Trump paid whores to piss on a bed either. Cohens job was to follow the laws and get the NDA without Trump's knowledge. That is what he was paid for. As I understand it the SCO can still reduce his sentence. This is a show. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: I've already said I'd admit that I was wrong, if there is evidence that shows it. If a tape comes out, which has him saying "bribe her, or I can't be president", then you're right. I'm waiting. Stormy Daniels had an affair with Trump in 2006, and the payment in late October 2016 had nothing to do with the election in early November 2016? That's kind of in the realm of "anything is possible." Cohens job was to follow the laws and get the NDA without Trump's knowledge. That is what he was paid for. As I understand it the SCO can still reduce his sentence. This is a show. |
|
Quoted:
He banged her bro. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: I've already said I'd admit that I was wrong, if there is evidence that shows it. If a tape comes out, which has him saying "bribe her, or I can't be president", then you're right. I'm waiting. Stormy Daniels had an affair with Trump in 2006, and the payment in late October 2016 had nothing to do with the election in early November 2016? That's kind of in the realm of "anything is possible." Cohens job was to follow the laws and get the NDA without Trump's knowledge. That is what he was paid for. As I understand it the SCO can still reduce his sentence. This is a show. |
|
Quoted:
Holy ever loving fuck can someone explain to me when it’s been wrong to try and influence an election. We have super pacs that try to influence election. We have celebrities that try to influence elections. We have unions that try to influence elections. We have politicians that spend tens of millions of dollars try to influence elections. So Trump trying to keep some affairs secret is somehow trying to influence an election? I don’t give a fuck. |
|
Quoted:
For something like 15 years Trump was on record saying he wanted a tower in Moscow. Discussions were had and continued leading up to the 2016 election regarding this and since the Venn diagram of TT Moscow and Trump 2016 has slight overlay, evidently there's collusion or tax evasion or lying under oath or something about paying whores. Quoted:
Quoted:
Could someone give me - or point me to - the executive summary on this “possible Trump Tower Moscow project”? 
Kharn |
|
Quoted:
Holy ever loving fuck can someone explain to me when it’s been wrong to try and influence an election. We have super pacs that try to influence election. We have celebrities that try to influence elections. We have unions that try to influence elections. We have politicians that spend tens of millions of dollars try to influence elections. So Trump trying to keep some affairs secret is somehow trying to influence an election? I don’t give a fuck. |
|
Quoted:
No, but I don't / didn't care. I have no idea if the payment to Stormy Daniels was influenced by the election. Neither do you. Or anyone else. If you have proof, please present it. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: I've already said I'd admit that I was wrong, if there is evidence that shows it. If a tape comes out, which has him saying "bribe her, or I can't be president", then you're right. I'm waiting. Stormy Daniels had an affair with Trump in 2006, and the payment in late October 2016 had nothing to do with the election in early November 2016? That's kind of in the realm of "anything is possible." I have no idea if the payment to Stormy Daniels was influenced by the election. Neither do you. Or anyone else. If you have proof, please present it. Put up or shut up. Otherwise, this is nothing but a dog and pony show for the special counsel to save face after they couldn't find RuSsIaN COLLUSION. |
|
Quoted:
How in the hell is that not directly in conflict with the 5th amendment? Quoted:
Quoted: How to Avoid Going to Jail under 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 for Lying to Government Agents "It is crucial to note that affirmatively declining to discuss the investigation in the absence of counsel is not the same thing as remaining completely silent . If you are not in custody, your total silence, especially in the face of an accusation, can very possibly be used against you as an adoptive admission under the Federal Rules of Evidence." |
|
Quoted:
If Cohen cut a deal, and turned over information that can be used against Trump... ...why is he going to prison for 3 years? The 3 years is the deal - instead of something more like what Manafort is getting. |
|
Quoted:
If Cohen cut a deal, and turned over information that can be used against Trump... ...why is he going to prison for 3 years?
|
|
Quoted:
We also have at least 280 Congressional Settlements that by the logical of the SDNY make the Congress Clowns are now guilty of campaign finance violations, as well as theft of Tax$$$. Since it would mean they converted Tax$$$ to campaign donations, because the point of the settlements was to hide the lawsuits, allegations to protecting their elections. It is such a scope of corruptions that it would be a RICO case. Quoted:
Quoted:
Holy ever loving fuck can someone explain to me when it’s been wrong to try and influence an election. We have super pacs that try to influence election. We have celebrities that try to influence elections. We have unions that try to influence elections. We have politicians that spend tens of millions of dollars try to influence elections. So Trump trying to keep some affairs secret is somehow trying to influence an election? I don’t give a fuck. |
|
Quoted:
If Cohen cut a deal, and turned over information that can be used against Trump... ...why is he going to prison for 3 years? Quoted:
If Cohen cut a deal, and turned over information that can be used against Trump... ...why is he going to prison for 3 years? From his sentencing recommendation: “Cohen, an attorney and businessman, committed four distinct federal crimes over a period of several years. He was motivated to do so by personal greed, and repeatedly used his power and influence for deceptive ends. Now he seeks extraordinary leniency — a sentence of no jail time — based principally on his rose-colored view of the seriousness of the crimes. ... The crimes committed by Cohen were more serious than his submission allows and were marked by a pattern of deception that permeated his professional life (and was evidently hidden from the friends and family members who wrote on his behalf).” “Cohen’s commission of two campaign finance crimes on the eve of the 2016 election for President of the United States struck a blow to one of the core goals of the federal campaign finance laws: transparency. While many Americans who desired a particular outcome to the election knocked on doors, toiled at phone banks, or found any number of other legal ways to make their voices heard, Cohen sought to influence the election from the shadows.” |
|
Quoted:
Eh, it's a bit more than that. The presidents personal lawyer is sentenced to 3 years in prison for crimes that he and the dept of justice agree were committed at the direction of the president. Can debate whether or not either of them thought or knew it was illegal, but happened non the less. Yea Hillary and others should be dragged in front of a judge too, but it doesn't change the fact or outcome. |
|
Quoted:
https://media.giphy.com/media/10PcMWwtZSYk2k/giphy.gif
Add the press release that the SDNY just dropped regarding their non-prosecution agreement with AMI and you can start to see the picture that the Southern District is painting... Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Eh, it's a bit more than that. The presidents personal lawyer is sentenced to 3 years in prison for crimes that he and the dept of justice agree were committed at the direction of the president. Can debate whether or not either of them thought or knew it was illegal, but happened non the less. Yea Hillary and others should be dragged in front of a judge too, but it doesn't change the fact or outcome.
Add the press release that the SDNY just dropped regarding their non-prosecution agreement with AMI and you can start to see the picture that the Southern District is painting... |