Individual-1

[Go Braves]

The Department of Justice Calls Donald Trump a Felon

Federal prosecutors released sentencing recommendations for two alleged criminals who worked closely with Donald Trump: his lawyer MichaelCohen, and campaign manager Paul Manafort. They are filled with damning details. But the most important passage by far is this, about Trump’s fixer: “Cohen himself has now admitted, with respect to both payments, he acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1.”

The payments in question, as the document explains, concern a payoff to two women who claimed to have affairs with Trump. The payments, according to prosecutors, were intended to influence the campaign, and thereby constituted violations of campaign finance law. They have not formally charged Trump with this crime — it is a sentencing report for Cohen, not Trump — but this is the U.S. Department of Justice calling Trump a criminal.

There is more. Under normal circumstances, the long list of charges federal prosecutors cited against Michael Cohen would be a political catastrophe for President Trump. One of the president’s closest associates turns out to have allegedly committed a long string of crimes, from tax evasion to making false statements to a financial institution, that would besmirch the good name of the man who worked at his side for years.

Of course Trump has no good name. But the fact that he is being called a felon by the United States government is a historic step. And it is likely the first of more to come.

Do y'all have any doubt that Individual-1 is none other than Donald J Trump?

 

[CitizenD]

The yugest individual.

 

[camille70]

It's been confirmed he was individual one a while back. BTW here is a twitter explanation regarding the payments and why they are an issue. This has been covered on the forum before, I think I posted actual news story's about the reimbursement of the payment being an issue, but Kurt breaks it all down. Threaded to make it easy to read:

Thread by @kurteichenwald: "1. Everyone has some area of expertise. Mine is in corporate crime. I reported about it for 20 years at NY Times, wrote all or parts of 4 bo […]"

 

[com7fy8]

So, why the "Individual-1" name, instead of just naming whoever it is?

And the source of this quote > is there a source? Let me see, on the Net, if I can find something with "Cohen admitted direction of Individual-1". This sounds like what could be in a conspiracy site, but we will see.

Oh-h . . . this is in mainstream news sites. Oh.

oh-oh

They seem to also use terms "Woman-1" and "Woman-2" with reference to ones said to have had affairs with . . . "Individual-1".

It seems the President's press secretary knows who is meant by "Individual-1", and she is quoted as mentioning how Mr. Cohen has lied; and I think the implication is she might be defending that who has been a liar is now lying, too.

I guess there is a point to not trusting a proven liar to tell the truth.

 

[rambot]

So, why the "Individual-1" name, instead of just naming whoever it is?

And the source of this quote > is there a source? Let me see, on the Net, if I can find something with "Cohen admitted direction of Individual-1". This sounds like what could be in a conspiracy site, but we will see.

Oh-h . . . this is in mainstream news sites. Oh.

oh-oh

They seem to also use terms "Woman-1" and "Woman-2" with reference to ones said to have had affairs with . . . "Individual-1".

It seems the President's press secretary knows who is meant by "Individual-1", and she is quoted as mentioning how Mr. Cohen has lied; and I think the implication is she might be defending that who has been a liar is now lying, too.

I guess there is a point to not trusting a proven liar to tell the truth.

Ahh yes; the "why" questions that could likely easily answered with a Google search but which is better used to create a conspiracy and allow the complete dismissal of claims.

I guess there is a point to not trusting a proven liar to tell the truth

and yet millions trust the most dishonest president EVER. If he hires a dishonest man to do dishonest things for him how does that make the president noble?

 

[camille70]

So, why the "Individual-1" name, instead of just naming whoever it is?

And the source of this quote > is there a source? Let me see, on the Net, if I can find something with "Cohen admitted direction of Individual-1". This sounds like what could be in a conspiracy site, but we will see.

Oh-h . . . this is in mainstream news sites. Oh.

oh-oh

They seem to also use terms "Woman-1" and "Woman-2" with reference to ones said to have had affairs with . . . "Individual-1".

It seems the President's press secretary knows who is meant by "Individual-1", and she is quoted as mentioning how Mr. Cohen has lied; and I think the implication is she might be defending that who has been a liar is now lying, too.

I guess there is a point to not trusting a proven liar to tell the truth.

Individual 1 is the name being used in the court filings. They often mask the names of parties they are not ready to file charges against, who they are trying to protect for some reason or if they are involved in other cases or an ongoing investigation.

In this case there has been enough context to figure out who it is, along with some of the other players whose names were masked.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Donald's own DoJ saying he committed a felony? I see many firings in the near future...

 

[essentialsaltes]

With his ego, of course he would insist on being #1.

 

[com7fy8]

millions trust the most dishonest president EVER. If he hires a dishonest man to do dishonest things for him how does that make the president noble?

Thank you for taking the time to answer to my theorizing

Well, I am not sure I know enough about every president "EVER", myself, including President Nixon.

If Donald hired someone who is dishonest . . . he knew he was doing this, or he has a problem with being able to tell the difference between someone honest and someone not exactly. Either way, he is not the only one.

There are people who trust dishonest people. Donald is human, too. So, I won't automatically assume. I think it is possible that a more or less honest person can get involved with someone who is trouble. We have numerous cases in history of highly esteemed government persons turning out to be spies and other things.

And yes there are conspiracies. Hitler did it, bringing down the whole German government. And it seems he started off as a cheap shot rascal. But, for all I know, both "sides" are conspiring against one another, and neither one is right.

You have people who are ok with killing unborn people, while others are mainly interested in money. Love of money can breed murder and cheating and lying, too.

From the start, it seemed to me that he said, Donald was not really a Republican. He just took on the Republicans as a Republican candidate, first, I can see, so he could recruit backing of a whole party before taking on Hillary. If he had run as an independent, he would not have had as much backing.

They often mask the names of parties they are not ready to file charges against,

Thank you for taking the time to inform me

And I suppose this can be partly because a code-named person is innocent until proven guilty, and they are busy with dealing with the one being officially accused or investigated.

 

[com7fy8]

With his ego, of course he would insist on being #1.

Well, one of the women said to be involved with him is termed "Woman-1". So, being "1" in this case might not be a promise that someone will be good for you

At first, I considered that "Individual-1" could be like calling the President's plane . . .

Air Force One >

I thought the term might be used to refer to the President of the United States.

But . . . I was mistaken. My imagination would be "fired", I suppose.

 

[iluvatar5150]

 

[wing2000]

"political synergy" - ah, we can finally replace the term collusion.

 

[rambot]

Thanks
for taking the time to answer to my theorizing

Well, I am not sure I know enough about every president "EVER", myself, including President Nixon.

Nixon told a few BIG ones.
But Trump just constantly tells lies of ALL sizes ALL the time. Around 5000.
Not only that, he is quoted as saying he only TRIES to tell the truth; as if telling the truth is/should be an "EFFORT".

If Donald hired someone who is dishonest . . . he knew he was doing this, or he has a problem with being able to tell the difference between someone honest and someone not exactly. Either way, he is not the only one.

There are people who trust dishonest people. Donald is human, too.

You automatically assume the latter of the two options when there is AMPLE evidence that Trump is NOT an honest person and not an honest businessman.
Why do you assume Trump is a victim here? What EVIDENCE do you have of his honesty in his judgements of people?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Thank you for taking the time to answer to my theorizing

Well, I am not sure I know enough about every president "EVER", myself, including President Nixon.

If Donald hired someone who is dishonest . . . he knew he was doing this, or he has a problem with being able to tell the difference between someone honest and someone not exactly. Either way, he is not the only one.

And if Donald hires several people who are dishonest -- and then claims to barely know them after their dishonesty is revealed... a claim which is easily refuted by his past actions...

There are people who trust dishonest people. Donald is human, too. So, I won't automatically assume. I think it is possible that a more or less honest person can get involved with someone who is trouble. We have numerous cases in history of highly esteemed government persons turning out to be spies and other things.

Question: How many blatant lies does a person have to be caught in before even you stop considering him a "more or less honest person"?

Ballpark figure...

 

[com7fy8]

Why do you assume Trump is a victim here? What EVIDENCE do you have of his honesty in his judgements of people?

And if Donald hires several people who are dishonest -- and then claims to barely know them after their dishonesty is revealed... a claim which is easily refuted by his past actions...

Question: How many blatant lies does a person have to be caught in before even you stop considering him a "more or less honest person"?

^ Just so you two ^ know I read your responses. ^

I don't really think either way, since I know I don't know him personally. And I know I also don't personally know the ones accusing him. I would not be surprised if all are alike, of the ones taking "sides".

I mean, I have been getting confronted about how I myself need to be honest by pointing first at my own self, versus pointing always and first at someone else. So, I do note how ones on both "sides" are mainly or only pointing at the other and not pointing out how they themselves have been wrong and deceitful however.

I go with >

"nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:7)

I understand that an example leader will make a point of pointing out how he or she has been wrong and getting corrected by God, so we can feed on this person's example and see how we ourselves also need correction and be encouraged to also be honest. So, this is what I look for in a political candidate, among other things.

And I find that the Bible says > Romans 13 < not to make a project of badmouthing public figures in government. Even Michael the Archangel did not dare to bring railing accusations against even Satan himself > Jude 8-11. And I have been one to be very swift to self-righteously condemn others, instead of "first of all" (1 Timothy 2:1-4) praying with hope for any and all people and having compassion for ones who are wrong > Hebrews 5:2.

But I admit I find Donald more to be entertaining; I mean, if he is not really a humble and honest person, not much can be expected of him. So, I am kind of curious to see how he will turn out in the long run, after whatever amount of time relating with a checks and balances government after he was I suppose in much more of a dictatorial capacity in private business.

But instead I need to care about him and all the others, with compassion and hope in prayer.

I do not have any evidence for him or against him, from my own personal experience. And like I say I don't know any of them in the situation. I get the impression ones on both sides are mainly about pointing at the others, though, and only congratulating their own selves. But possibly ones have shared how they have been wrong, but it is in their books and I have been only peeking at the newscasts and net notes so I would miss their more personal sharing.

But ones can confess to being wrong by saying they were wrong to trust dirtbag so-and-so; so their "confession" is really a criticism of someone else.

 

[Go Braves]

View attachment 246660

Lol, this is great. Thanks for sharing.

 

[DaisyDay]

^ Just so you two ^ know I read your responses. ^

I don't really think either way, since I know I don't know him personally. And I know I also don't personally know the ones accusing him. I would not be surprised if all are alike, of the ones taking "sides".

You don't personally know Cohen either, but you said he was an "admitted liar".

Donald is on record saying things contrary to fact. He has admitted on video that he makes things up. Yet you "don't know" and can't tell for sure.

The statements about "Individual-1" come from the official sentencing memo for Michael Cohen issued by the US Dept. of Justice, not some conspiracy site.

I mean, I have been getting confronted about how I myself need to be honest by pointing first at my own self, versus pointing always and first at someone else. So, I do note how ones on both "sides" are mainly or only pointing at the other and not pointing out how they themselves have been wrong and deceitful however.

In this case, both sides would be the US Justice Dept. with Mr. Cohen on one side, and who on the other?

<snip>I do not have any evidence for him or against him, from my own personal experience. And like I say I don't know any of them in the situation. I get the impression ones on both sides are mainly about pointing at the others, though, and only congratulating their own selves. But possibly ones have shared how they have been wrong, but it is in their books and I have been only peeking at the newscasts and net notes so I would miss their more personal sharing.

But ones can confess to being wrong by saying they were wrong to trust dirtbag so-and-so; so their "confession" is really a criticism of someone else.

Michael Cohen has confessed in court that he did wrong. He also implicated Individual-1, who was his boss that paid him to act on his behalf. The illegal acts Cohen confessed to didn't benefit Cohen directly, but did benefit Individual-1. From what I understand, Cohen kept records and recordings, but, of course, I don't know this personally.

 

[com7fy8]

You don't personally know Cohen either, but you said he was an "admitted liar".

I mean officially so reported.

And what I mean is a general point, that if someone has been lying, I find it interesting that all of a sudden what he says is believed.

Cohen kept records and recordings,

Thank you for offering what you have on this. If he does have evidence which likely could not have been rigged, this can mean a problem for Someone-1, I do understand.

 

[rambot]

^ Just so you two ^ know I read your responses. ^

I don't really think either way, since I know I don't know him personally. And I know I also don't personally know the ones accusing him. I would not be surprised if all are alike, of the ones taking "sides".

I mean, I have been getting confronted about how I myself need to be honest by pointing first at my own self, versus pointing always and first at someone else. So, I do note how ones on both "sides" are mainly or only pointing at the other and not pointing out how they themselves have been wrong and deceitful however.

I go with >

There are people in your life who, when you are around them, you modify your behaviour or have different expectations from them. You do that because you have made judgements about how they behave and you respond to that. At least, this is something homo sapiens do; so I assume you do it to.
So at what point do you believe it is okay to use "discernment"?

 

[Go Braves]

I mean officially so reported.

And what I mean is a general point, that if someone has been lying, I find it interesting that all of a sudden what he says is believed.
Thank you for offering what you have on this. If he does have evidence which likely could not have been rigged, this can mean a problem for Someone-1, I do understand.

Then do you believe Trump? He's been caught on camera lying several times.