That may well be true, but before accusing a private individual in a public forum of criminal activities, you and Red Duke would be well advised to become familiar with libel laws.
I take my chances but thanks for the advice. It may not be true? No, it is true, it could just not be proven. Judgment day will open the books for everyone to see and hear every last dirty detail of that rat's life.
Yep what a clown, can't keep up with arguments, but must display his stance because he thinks he is intellectually superior.
You must have missed my post. I agreed with your point because at the end if the day, he was not charged. We are a nation of laws, and everyone is innocent until proven guilty. That being said, I can express my opinion without accusing anyone.
Have you ever thought of the real meaning of this principle? Innocent until proven guilty? What a horrific statement. This must logically also apply to a murderer who has been caught on tape during the act and until the moment he is convicted of murder he is essentially innocent. How wrong is that? Isn't it better to change that to "not convicted until proven guilty". Cohen is without the shred of a doubt guilty as fuck, he just paid whatever was asked to avoid a trial because he would have otherwise been convicted. In what other jurisdiction can one buy himself out of a verdict than in good ol America? How dare the prosecution and DA betray the people and country by letting criminals off the hook just to build a quick CV?
Irrelevant when criminals can buy themselves out of a conviction. Laws then don't matter anymore because they are not applied (ironically by law enforcement itself)
Not being charged and not doing an illegal activity are two different things. There was an entire presidency that was based on the fact that he could not be charged while doing illegal things. He still did the illegal things.