The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: mystery-ak on December 10, 2018, 01:33:28 am
-
Prosecutors probing potential links between Trump Organization executives and hush-money payments: report
By Emily Birnbaum - 12/09/18 08:28 PM EST
Federal prosecutors are reportedly continuing to probe potential links between Trump Organization executives and the two hush-money payments that President Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen says the then-candidate helped coordinated.
The prosecutors have requested documents and other materials from the Trump Organization in recent weeks, The New York Times reported on Sunday. They are trying to identify if other organization officials helped pay off two women to keep quiet about alleged affairs with Trump, the Times reported.
In a sentencing memo released on Friday, prosecutors with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York said for the first time that Cohen acted “in coordination with and at the direction†of Trump when he organized payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, women who claimed that they had affairs with Trump in 2006. Trump has denied the alleged affairs.
Cohen has told prosecutors that other Trump Organization executives were involved in the hush-money payments, including the chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, the Times reported.
more
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/420497-prosecutors-probing-potential-links-between-trump-organization
-
@mystery-ak
@Oceander
"Cohen has told prosecutors that other Trump Organization executives were involved in the hush-money payments, including the chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, the Times reported."
Perhaps these "other executives" are the back-up witnesses for these pay-offs.
After reading another thread info. here and more info. on a news website, it appears Trump may be charged with a crime by the US Federal Southern District of New York. That is where Cohen is charged so Trump will be charged there, if anywhere at all.
According to what I read, the info. could be given to congress for them to decide what to do with the material, impeach, or not. Other than that, a few criminal attorneys think he would have to stand trial now, some say after he is no longer president. It appears that situation would go to the supreme court to determine the next action.
Mueller is not finished and no one knows who will be named as breaking the law in his final report - maybe those charged are already charged, no more to be charged. He has stayed silent, absolutely super to keep his investigation quiet. It is people on the TV/internet who are going crazy with charging people of crimes.
What does the above mean? Nothing. It is supposition, as we don't yet know what Mueller knows. He will make a report - wait for it.
-
@mystery-ak
@Oceander
"Cohen has told prosecutors that other Trump Organization executives were involved in the hush-money payments, including the chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, the Times reported."
Perhaps these "other executives" are the back-up witnesses for these pay-offs.
After reading another thread info. here and more info. on a news website, it appears Trump may be charged with a crime by the US Federal Southern District of New York. That is where Cohen is charged so Trump will be charged there, if anywhere at all.
According to what I read, the info. could be given to congress for them to decide what to do with the material, impeach, or not. Other than that, a few criminal attorneys think he would have to stand trial now, some say after he is no longer president. It appears that situation would go to the supreme court to determine the next action.
Mueller is not finished and no one knows who will be named as breaking the law in his final report - maybe those charged are already charged, no more to be charged. He has stayed silent, absolutely super to keep his investigation quiet. It is people on the TV/internet who are going crazy with charging people of crimes.
What does the above mean? Nothing. It is supposition, as we don't yet know what Mueller knows. He will make a report - wait for it.
Well, to me it seems that Mueller holds all the cards and I think Trump was a fool to not fire him. Mueller has a past history of being less than honest and ethical.
So ... can we believe anything that Cohen is saying? Did Mueller or did he not 'bribe' him so that the outcome is what Mueller and Rosenstein (a la Clinton and the left) want? I believe it is very doubtful and improbable that Mueller conducted a legitimate, honest investigation.
We have a corrupt DOJ. Sessions had the ability to ensure a competent and trustworthy DOJ and he FAILED. No one who is authority right now, can assure the American public that there is absolute integrity within the DOJ.
Rumor has it that Trump has enough dirt on Mueller to take him down...but WHO is going to take Muller down?? Certainly not his boss Rosenstein.
-
The will to disbelieve is strong among the trumpaloos.
-
The will to disbelieve is strong among the trumpaloos.
What is a "trumpaloo"
-
Just as a side note, this pleases me:
Prosecutors Recommend Several Years in Prison for Michael Cohen
Real Clear Politics, Dec 8, 2018
[...]
In a court filing ahead of Cohen’s sentencing next week, they assailed him as a greedy opportunist who rode Trump’s coattails to wealth and is now exaggerating his level of cooperation with investigators.
More: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/12/08/prosecutors_recommend_several_years_in_prison_for_michael_cohen_138873.html (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/12/08/prosecutors_recommend_several_years_in_prison_for_michael_cohen_138873.html)
-
Just as a side note, this pleases me:
Agreed. It does indicate that Cohen isn’t a particularly grave threat; if he were, they’d be playing nicer with him than they are.
-
Just as a side note, this pleases me:
Hilarious, considering you needed Xanax the day his office was raided.
-
****sheep****
-
Speaking of hush money:
Jennifer
🔱
🇺🇸
🔱
†@Jenn198523
5h5 hours ago
BREAKING: According to congressional sources Adam Schiff used tax payer money to reach a sexual harassment settlement w/ a 19 year old male in 2013.
Congress has a $17 million 'hush fund' & Dems refuse to release names of Congressmen.
Story developing
https://www-m.cnn.com/2017/11/16/politics/settlements-congress-sexual-harassment/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Famp.cnn.com%2Fcnn%2F2017%2F11%2F16%2Fpolitics%2Fsettlements-congress-sexual-harassment%2Findex.html%3F__twitter_impression%3Dtrue …
-
So the little Schiff is a chicken hawk! Well blow me down.
-
Speaking of hush money:
I guess someone figured they had to outdo the phony Soros in law meme.
-
Cohen pled guilty to a "crime" that probably wasn't actually a crime. Now Mueller and the media are claiming Trump must be guilty of a crime BECAUSE Cohen pled guilty to it. Thing is, paying off people to keep silent about affairs is not a crime unless it can be construed as a campaign contribution. Trump had lots of reasons to want to pay these girls off, beyond the effect it might have on his campaign. Plus, he did not use campaign funds.
If this is all Mueller has, then Trump will skate.
-
Cohen pled guilty to a "crime" that probably wasn't actually a crime. Now Mueller and the media are claiming Trump must be guilty of a crime BECAUSE Cohen pled guilty to it. Thing is, paying off people to keep silent about affairs is not a crime unless it can be construed as a campaign contribution. Trump had lots of reasons to want to pay these girls off, beyond the effect it might have on his campaign. Plus, he did not use campaign funds.
If this is all Mueller has, then Trump will skate.
This lays out why it likely was illegal. Plus, the SDNY, not Mueller, is handling this particular issue. They’re not relying strictly on Cohen. That’s why they interviewed and offered immunity to Allen Weisselberg and David Pecker.
https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/08/22/analysis-why-was-the-cohen-payment-to-stormy-daniels-a-crime-at-all (https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/08/22/analysis-why-was-the-cohen-payment-to-stormy-daniels-a-crime-at-all)
-
@mystery-ak
@Oceander
"Cohen has told prosecutors that other Trump Organization executives were involved in the hush-money payments, including the chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, the Times reported."
Perhaps these "other executives" are the back-up witnesses for these pay-offs.
After reading another thread info. here and more info. on a news website, it appears Trump may be charged with a crime by the US Federal Southern District of New York. That is where Cohen is charged so Trump will be charged there, if anywhere at all.
According to what I read, the info. could be given to congress for them to decide what to do with the material, impeach, or not. Other than that, a few criminal attorneys think he would have to stand trial now, some say after he is no longer president. It appears that situation would go to the supreme court to determine the next action.
Mueller is not finished and no one knows who will be named as breaking the law in his final report - maybe those charged are already charged, no more to be charged. He has stayed silent, absolutely super to keep his investigation quiet. It is people on the TV/internet who are going crazy with charging people of crimes.
What does the above mean? Nothing. It is supposition, as we don't yet know what Mueller knows. He will make a report - wait for it.
Some of us are holding our breath for nothing. There is no crime here. If Trump paid these women to get rid of them, it was exactly what they were looking for. Unless they thought Trump was really, really cute, they made advances to him because he is rich. They didn't expect to come out of the thing with nothing. At least Trump didn't rape anyone. So many dems are culpable.
-
So the little Schiff is a chicken hawk! Well blow me down.
Yeah, I can't wait to see some confirmation of this one. :laugh:
-
Some of us are holding our breath for nothing. There is no crime here. If Trump paid these women to get rid of them, it was exactly what they were looking for. Unless they thought Trump was really, really cute, they made advances to him because he is rich. They didn't expect to come out of the thing with nothing. At least Trump didn't rape anyone. So many dems are culpable.
There are so many reasons why you’re wrong. The article a few posts above explains the legal issues with the payment. Also, he avoided paying them for a decade, so there is a fairly obvious motive with the timing. The entire affair was handled poorly by incompetent people, at Trump’s direction. Cohen’s lawyers, Guy Petrillo, was chief of criminal investigation at SDNY, not long ago. He knows the people, how they operate, and what they have. If he thought he could have beaten the charges, he would have given different legal advice.
-
Should any of the women be prosecuted for extortion and blackmail?
-
So the little Schiff is a chicken hawk! Well blow me down.
You know what they say ... it's okay unless you're caught with a dead girl or a live boy ... Looks like Schiff may have one of two.
-
Should any of the women be prosecuted for extortion and blackmail?
The democrats will do anything to trash Trump, but I think they're making a big mistake here..
The democrats have so much in their closets and they are just begging for a tit for tat so what is the point in embroiling the government in this tawdry mess that involves no criminal action by Trump?
Unless they want to interrupt his agenda.
-
There are so many reasons why you’re wrong. The article a few posts above explains the legal issues with the payment. Also, he avoided paying them for a decade, so there is a fairly obvious motive with the timing. The entire affair was handled poorly by incompetent people, at Trump’s direction. Cohen’s lawyers, Guy Petrillo, was chief of criminal investigation at SDNY, not long ago. He knows the people, how they operate, and what they have. If he thought he could have beaten the charges, he would have given different legal advice.
What is the crime, Ed? Paying a prostitute? I don't believe there is much appetite for charging Johns with crimes ... not enough room in the jails. Whatever Trump did or did not pay, he did not use government funds.
-
Unless they want to interrupt his agenda.
The best way to do that is by handing the majority back over to Republicans.
-
What is the crime, Ed? Paying a prostitute? I don't believe there is much appetite for charging Johns with crimes ... not enough room in the jails. Whatever Trump did or did not pay, he did not use government funds.
There’s a nice, little, clickable link in reply 13 that will explain it for you. It’s called intellectual curiosity, MJ. Take it out of the closet, try it on, and see how it fits.
-
There’s a nice, little, clickable link in reply 13 that will explain it for you. It’s called intellectual curiosity, MJ. Take it out of the closet, try it on, and see how it fits.
I think we all know that Trump was susceptible to the charms of women. And we also know that a certain class of women headed for him like a laser because they expected or hoped for a pay-off.
Not much 'intellectual curiosity there, Ed. But most people do not think that Trump attacked or abused any women. He did not have to.
So, while this may not be the finest hour in Trump's presidency, it is not a crime by any intellectual standards.
So, go ahead and enjoy this, Ed. It will amount to nothing except interrupt the Republican agenda, which was just starting to come around to supporting Trump.
-
I think we all know that Trump was susceptible to the charms of women. And we also know that a certain class of women headed for him like a laser because they expected or hoped for a pay-off.
Not much 'intellectual curiosity there, Ed. But most people do not think that Trump attacked or abused any women. He did not have to.
So, while this may not be the finest hour in Trump's presidency, it is not a crime by any intellectual standards.
So, go ahead and enjoy this, Ed. It will amount to nothing except interrupt the Republican agenda, which was just starting to come around to supporting Trump.
The curiosity to which I referred was actually reading the article that explains why the payments are problematic. Try it. As far as ‘female charms’ go, it was Trump who sought them out and had Schiller deliver them, like a pimp. Strange how the republicans ‘came around’ when they knew they’d lose control of the House, isn’t it? Seems a lot like the days when they passed a clean repeal of Obamacare, knowing it would be vetoed and had no chance of being overridden. :pondering:
-
The curiosity to which I referred was actually reading the article that explains why the payments are problematic. Try it. As far as ‘female charms’ go, it was Trump who sought them out and had Schiller deliver them, like a pimp. Strange how the republicans ‘came around’ when they knew they’d lose control of the House, isn’t it? Seems a lot like the days when they passed a clean repeal of Obamacare, knowing it would be vetoed and had no chance of being overridden. :pondering:
Ed, Ed, don't I remember you salivating over that leaked conversation wherein Trump described how a certain kind of woman would go after rich guys ... no holes barred (if you should excuse the expression). Trump outlined it exactly and he did not have to seek them out.
You have a very odd view of life. Who do you like in politics? I like quite a few Republican Senators and I like the President, not because of his dubious relations with women but because he's been a very good President. I have never found any of your posts praising anyone ... maybe I missed it.
-
Ed, Ed, don't I remember you salivating over that leaked conversation wherein Trump described how a certain kind of woman would go after rich guys ... no holes barred (if you should excuse the expression). Trump outlined it exactly and he did not have to seek them out.
You have a very odd view of life. Who do you like in politics? I like quite a few Republican Senators and I like the President, not because of his dubious relations with women but because he's been a very good President. I have never found any of your posts praising anyone ... maybe I missed it.
If you’re referring to the Access Hollywood tape, you’re 180° out of phase with what he was saying. The person I like down the road is Cotton. At one time, it was Thune, but I don’t think he has further aspirations. As far as personal heroes go, mine is Gregory ‘Pappy’ Boyington. See if you can figure out the wry reason.
-
If you’re referring to the Access Hollywood tape, you’re 180° out of phase with what he was saying. The person I like down the road is Cotton. At one time, it was Thune, but I don’t think he has further aspirations. As far as personal heroes go, mine is Gregory ‘Pappy’ Boyington. See if you can figure out the wry reason.
It's easy to admire a war hero but admiring a politician takes a little work because there's always some compromise there and some mixed decisions.
I understood exactly what Trump was saying. He was saying it is beyond easy to attract a certain kind of woman if you're a rich dude.
But I would like to know why you admire Pappy, especially if it is a wry reason, or even a whole-wheat reason.
-
But I would like to know why you admire Pappy, especially if it is a wry reason, or even a whole-wheat reason.
He’s my hero, because he understood the absurdity of hero worshipping, when he wrote....
“If this story were to have a moral, then I would say: ‘Just name a hero and I’ll prove he’s a bum.’â€
-
What is the crime, Ed? Paying a prostitute? I don't believe there is much appetite for charging Johns with crimes ... not enough room in the jails. Whatever Trump did or did not pay, he did not use government funds.
Nor campaign funds.
-
“If this story were to have a moral, then I would say: ‘Just name a hero and I’ll prove he’s a bum.’â€
"I guess a legend and an out-of-work bum look a lot a like, daddy."
- Little Enos Burdette.
-
Doesn't Congress have it's own 'slush fund' to pay off their hookers and mistresses?
Did they (Congress Critters) contribute to this "hush fund" from their own wallets or did the money come from 'contributions?
I haven't heard, is Mueller investigating this too?
Maybe Trump got the money from there? :shrug: :silly:
-
Nor campaign funds.
No, but the payment was clearly intended to keep her quiet during the campaign, and that makes the payment a campaign contribution under federal election law. The fact that it wasn’t disclosed is what would make it an illegal campaign contribution. The source of the money is not relevant under the law.
-
No, but the payment was clearly intended to keep her quiet during the campaign, and that makes the payment a campaign contribution under federal election law. The fact that it wasn’t disclosed is what would make it an illegal campaign contribution. The source of the money is not relevant under the law.
He's going to claim that he didn't want his wife to know and it had nothing to do with election.
-
He's going to claim that he didn't want his wife to know and it had nothing to do with election.
Didn’t want her to know what? He still denies any encounters with Daniels and McDougal. There were approximately a dozen accusers of inappropriate behavior, at that point in the campaign. Trump promised in late October of 2016 all the accusers would be sued, after the election. They’d just be among the other people he said were lying. So, the only conclusion one can reach is one or both is not lying, could prove it, and endangered his campaign.
-
No, but the payment was clearly intended to keep her quiet during the campaign, and that makes the payment a campaign contribution under federal election law. The fact that it wasn’t disclosed is what would make it an illegal campaign contribution. The source of the money is not relevant under the law.
Right again... :2popcorn: :pop41: :2popcorn:
-
Hush money is legal. All this bullshit is the last dying breath of Stupid Bobby and his Russian Collusion investigation that hasn't arrested one Russian Colluding.
-
Hush money is legal. All this bullshit is the last dying breath of Stupid Bobby and his Russian Collusion investigation that hasn't arrested one Russian Colluding.
If hush money wasn't legal, half of Congress would be indicted.
-
It was apparent awhile ago that Trump's need to do porn actresses and playboy bunnies was the most likely threat to his presidency. The hush payments through his longtime fixer lawyer and the denials that followed are the legal invitations into his private business records which he otherwise could have kept hidden. Records that are likely a treasure trove of sleazy corrupt dealings over many decades. It is who he is.
-
If hush money wasn't legal, half of Congress would be indicted.
That's no defense when half the Congress are filthy Dems. J/S
-
There are two known knowns here.
1: Had the bimbo's talked in that last sprint of the election, he never would have been elected.
2: If he goes down the inconsequential NT'ers will be blamed.
-
He's going to claim that he didn't want his wife to know and it had nothing to do with election.
He can claim whatever he wants; the question is what a fact-finder believes.
-
If hush money wasn't legal, half of Congress would be indicted.
Hush money during a federal political campaign was a legal invitation into his business records/dealings. That was the primary problem with it in terms of tactics. We are way past morality issues with Trump. It will be those business records that will lead to other charges if they come. Records they otherwise wouldn't had legal access to. All because he had to have a porn star and playboy bunny to stroke his ego while his current wife was pregnant.
-
If hush money wasn't legal, half of Congress would be indicted.
At least half. $17 million in settlements passed out by Paul Ryan....
https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/trump-paid-stormy-congress-paid-victims-17-million-treasury-whore-real-criminals/ (https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/trump-paid-stormy-congress-paid-victims-17-million-treasury-whore-real-criminals/)
-
There are two known knowns here.
1: Had the bimbo's talked in that last sprint of the election, he never would have been elected.
2: If he goes down the inconsequential NT'ers will be blamed.
I challenge point number 1. I think there's a good chance his supporters would have loved him even more for doing porn stars and playboy bunnies. His anti PC credentials would have been enhanced even more. And his "religious" followers knew his past and voted for him anyway so that wasn't likely to change.
-
I challenge point number 1. I think there's a good chance his supporters would have loved him even more for doing porn stars and playboy bunnies. His anti PC credentials would have been enhanced even more. And his "religious" followers knew his past and voted for him anyway so that wasn't likely to change.
Good points.
-
Hush money is legal. All this bullshit is the last dying breath of Stupid Bobby and his Russian Collusion investigation that hasn't arrested one Russian Colluding.
Not if it’s paid to influence a campaign.
-
Wonder if he regrets getting his dick wet in exchange for all the trouble it is causing him now. Idiot.
-
There’s a nice, little, clickable link in reply 13 that will explain it for you. It’s called intellectual curiosity, MJ. Take it out of the closet, try it on, and see how it fits.
Blah bluh blah blah blah. Just because the corrupt SDNY AG's office says it's something doesn't make it so. Words and high edifices built of them are just ethereal wisps of smoke.
Alot of this is manufactured crap under the color of law. After it's over, the DOJ needs to send in a full SWAT team and get these guys for prosecutorial malfeasance, RICO and a whole list after that.
-
Wonder if he regrets getting his dick wet in exchange for all the trouble it is causing him now. Idiot.
Laying down some track and paying for it is not a crime.
-
Laying down some track and paying for it is not a crime.
In most places in the US it is, but in this case the *way* it was paid for apparently is a crime.
-
In most places in the US it is, but in this case the *way* it was paid for apparently is a crime.
Nah. Train keeps on a roll'in. Flesh for fantasy
-
Laying down some track and paying for it is not a crime.
Actually, it is in many places. Doubly so if the payment was intended to keep the “trackee†from blabbing about the ride during the “tracker’s†political campaign.
-
Actually, it is in many places. Doubly so if the payment was intended to keep the “trackee†from blabbing about the ride during the “tracker’s†political campaign.
Victimless crime. Slap and tickle.
-
Victimless crime. Slap and tickle.
Sure, for you or me.
-
There are two known knowns here.
1: Had the bimbo's talked in that last sprint of the election, he never would have been elected.
2: If he goes down the inconsequential NT'ers will be blamed.
@corbe No one could blame you for anything. Trump will not be going down and most people knew about his propensity for fondness for certain types of women ... probably because they took very little effort.
Democrats love the type of guy who preys on underlines or defenseless women and Trump never did that so ... I guess they prefer the Bill Clinton types.
-
In most places in the US it is, but in this case the *way* it was paid for apparently is a crime.
It was apparently a donation to help these girls go to college. That's not a crime.
-
Some of us are holding our breath for nothing. There is no crime here. If Trump paid these women to get rid of them, it was exactly what they were looking for. Unless they thought Trump was really, really cute, they made advances to him because he is rich. They didn't expect to come out of the thing with nothing. At least Trump didn't rape anyone. So many dems are culpable.
It is illegal because he made the payments to influence the election outcome. Like it or not its illegal. Red State has an article today that says he will be impeached.
-
Wonder if he regrets getting his dick wet in exchange for all the trouble it is causing him now. Idiot.
Why is anyone bringing this up now? It all happened prior to his presidency. And nothing was against either the law or common practice for way too many politicians.
-
Wonder if he regrets getting his dick wet mushroom marinated in exchange for all the trouble it is causing him now. Idiot.
I corrected the phrase to match the Daniels description. Most men have a self-inflicted story of regret, but not necessarily to this degree.
-
Why is anyone bringing this up now? It all happened prior to his presidency. And nothing was against either the law or common practice for way too many politicians.
I think you are about to find out why. It put his fixer lawyer in prison. None of this discussion would be taking place had he not done it.
-
Democrats love the type of guy who preys on underlines or defenseless women and Trump never did that so.....I guess they prefer the Bill Clinton types.
Hey, wanna guess the party Donny was affiliated with in 2006?
-
Hey, wanna guess the party Donny was affiliated with in 2006?
And who is Jeffrey Epstein and who did he associate with...
-
It was apparently a donation to help these girls go to college. That's not a crime.
LOL Sure it was.
-
And who is Jeffrey Epstein and who did he associate with...
And who is Katie who accused Donald of rape at an Epstein party?
-
Y'all are reaching a bit now. How about we stick to the more plausible broken law at hand.
-
Victimless crime. Slap and tickle.
So what? If it’s contrary to a statute, then it’s illegal. Duh. You may have a valid policy difference with existing law, but existing law makes it illegal.
-
Why is anyone bringing this up now? It all happened prior to his presidency. And nothing was against either the law or common practice for way too many politicians.
Uh, no. The payoffs took place in 2016, during the campaign.
-
Uh, no. The payoffs took place in 2016, during the campaign.
Shhh...don't tell her that. She thinks this is about Pam waking up to find Bobby in the shower.
-
(http://images5.fanpop.com/image/articles/131000/the-office_131721_1.jpg?cache=1320038046)
-
Uh, no. The payoffs took place in 2016, during the campaign.
Even if it didn’t and something illegal took place, it would still be investigated. Whitewater happened before Clinton was president.
-
:2popcorn:
-
Actually, it is in many places. Doubly so if the payment was intended to keep the “trackee†from blabbing about the ride during the “tracker’s†political campaign.
Utter media crapola ...
-
Uh, no. The payoffs took place in 2016, during the campaign.
Explain John Edwards' acquittal, counselor.
-
Utter media crapola ...
The logic is strong in you...
-
The Edwards acquittal is easy to explain - idiot jury and no desire for retrial on the other 5 counts.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/john-edwards-acquitted-1-6-counts-campaign-finance-060024649.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/john-edwards-acquitted-1-6-counts-campaign-finance-060024649.html)
-
Explain John Edwards' acquittal, counselor.
The jury.
-
Utter media crapola ...
Nope. Federal election law.
-
Nope. Federal election law.
It's not. And you can repeat this another 1,000 times and it still will not be true.
-
The jury.
Not even close.
-
It's not. And you can repeat this another 1,000 times and it still will not be true.
Yes, it is. A jury may not find the necessary state of mind - a not unlikely scenario, given how f**king stupid Trump is - but if they do, then it’s a crime.
-
Not even close.
Sorry, but that is the reason.
-
Even if it didn’t and something illegal took place, it would still be investigated. Whitewater happened before Clinton was president.
And not unlike Starr, Mueller was pretty much handed an open investigation that was entitled to go anywhere, at his discretion.
How ever did it go from an Arkansas real estate scam to blue dress stains?
Same $hit, different day.
-
Yes, it is. A jury may not find the necessary state of mind - a not unlikely scenario, given how f**king stupid Trump is - but if they do, then it’s a crime.
How dare you. He’s been consistent and clear about this. Well...maybe not.
A Short History of President Trump's Changing Story on the Stormy Daniels Payoff
http://time.com/5264555/donald-trump-statements-stormy-daniels-payoff/ (http://time.com/5264555/donald-trump-statements-stormy-daniels-payoff/)
-
Notice how this came out over the weekend with little chance to address it? That's timing, like a Friday afternoon news dump. Now, we see it's another case of much ado over nothing.
-
Sorry, but that is the reason.
This, too, is something you can repeat 1,000 times and it still won't make it true.
-
Yes, it is. A jury may not find the necessary state of mind - a not unlikely scenario, given how f**king stupid Trump is - but if they do, then it’s a crime.
Pull up, O, pull up. :laugh:
-
Notice how this came out over the weekend with little chance to address it? That's timing, like a Friday afternoon news dump. Now, we see it's another case of much ado over nothing.
This wasn’t a surprise. We knew months ago Cohen claimed he made the payments ‘at the direction of a candidate for federal office' (Trump). We also knew Weisselberg was questioned by SDNY. He and Trump are the executives.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/michael-cohen-pleads-guilty-to-8-counts-including-excessive-campaign-contribution (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/michael-cohen-pleads-guilty-to-8-counts-including-excessive-campaign-contribution)
-
This wasn’t a surprise. We knew months ago Cohen claimed he made the payments ‘at the direction of a candidate for federal office' (Trump). We also knew Weisselberg was questioned by SDNY. He and Trump are the executives.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/michael-cohen-pleads-guilty-to-8-counts-including-excessive-campaign-contribution (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/michael-cohen-pleads-guilty-to-8-counts-including-excessive-campaign-contribution)
It didn't mean anything then and it still doesn't mean anything unless you are a rabid anti-American Rat.
-
It didn't mean anything then and it still doesn't mean anything unless you are a rabid anti-American Rat.
It must mean something, because Cohen’s lawyer used to be chief of criminal at SDNY and he worked a plea deal, instead of fighting the charge.
-
It must mean something, because Cohen’s lawyer used to be chief of criminal at SDNY and he worked a plea deal, instead of fighting the charge.
Do you know how effed Cohen was on this Taxi Medallion scam? He was going to be gone for at least a decade. Of course he threw shit around to bail himself out.
We were sold your line of MSM bullshit at least 6 times in the last 2 years that Trump was finished because this jackass or the other flipped. Never ever ever pans out. You guys soiled your pants over Manafart taking a deal. Only thing that has happened since then is that Donny is even less involved than we were told then.
-
Do you know how effed Cohen was on this Taxi Medallion scam? He was going to be gone for at least a decade. Of course he threw shit around to bail himself out.
We were sold your line of MSM bullshit at least 6 times in the last 2 years that Trump was finished because this jackass or the other flipped. Never ever ever pans out. You guys soiled your pants over Manafart taking a deal. Only thing that has happened since then is that Donny is even less involved than we were told then.
Poor Trump. He was bamboozled by a crooked fixer lawyer over a period of 12 years... He never noticed or valued that sleaze that oozed out of him when it was working towards Trump's ends...
-
Poor Trump. He was bamboozled by a crooked fixer lawyer over a period of 12 years... He never noticed or valued that sleaze that oozed out of him when it was working towards Trump's ends...
LOL. Yeah, not like those upstanding statesmen like Clinton, Obama and the 2 Bush's. Were you alive when Papa Bush pardoned Caspar Weinberger the day before his trial where he was going to spill how GHWB was up to his eyeballs in Iran Contra and it was all in a diary the dumb eff had?
-
LOL. Yeah, not like those upstanding statesmen like Clinton, Obama and the 2 Bush's. Were you alive when Papa Bush pardoned Caspar Weinberger the day before his trial where he was going to spill how GHWB was up to his eyeballs in Iran Contra and it was all in a diary the dumb eff had?
The swamp is deep and wide. There are many players. Doesn't excuse the latest players.
-
Do you know how effed Cohen was on this Taxi Medallion scam? He was going to be gone for at least a decade. Of course he threw shit around to bail himself out.
We were sold your line of MSM bullshit at least 6 times in the last 2 years that Trump was finished because this jackass or the other flipped. Never ever ever pans out. You guys soiled your pants over Manafart taking a deal. Only thing that has happened since then is that Donny is even less involved than we were told then.
We have no idea if Trump is less involved, because much of the filing was redacted and the investigation has not concluded. What we do know is Cohen provided “useful information concerning certain discrete Russia-related matters core to its investigation that he obtained by virtue of his regular contact with Company executives during the campaign.â€
-
Poor Trump. He was bamboozled by a crooked fixer lawyer over a period of 12 years... He never noticed or valued that sleaze that oozed out of him when it was working towards Trump's ends...
He, in fact, looks for those qualities. Roy Cohn was exponentially more of a sleaze and crook than Cohen ever aspired to be.
-
The Orange Koolaid runs strong and deep on this thread.
-
What is a "trumpaloo"
It's regional mutation of a Trumsplican.
-
Do you know how effed Cohen was on this Taxi Medallion scam? He was going to be gone for at least a decade. Of course he threw shit around to bail himself out.
We were sold your line of MSM bullshit at least 6 times in the last 2 years that Trump was finished because this jackass or the other flipped. Never ever ever pans out. You guys soiled your pants over Manafart taking a deal. Only thing that has happened since then is that Donny is even less involved than we were told then.
Yup.
If these 'True Believers' that someone will get DJT yet were in charge of D-Day, they'd have issued orders that no Germans in those machine gun and 88MM concrete bunkers were to be hurt or get roughed up.
-
Explain John Edwards' acquittal, counselor.
I step into this thread with trepidation. The Edwards trial took place here. A client was on the jury. Afterwards, she told me that had Edwards paid out of funds DONATED TO HIS CAMPAIGN, he would have been convicted. Apparently, the judge's instructions on the law were enough to get Edwards off.
My thought is that as long as no money donated to the campaign was used, Trump is within the law. Especially since Trump has done this in the past.
I am very cynical about these things now. The press blows up on something that will "finish" Trump every few days. I did not vote for Trump (because I do not believe he has the character I want in a President), but I am sooooo weary of this crap from the press. Combine that with the double standard you see in everything (if a Dem does it, it's a nothing burger, if a Republican does it, it's jail), I don't know what it would take to convince me Trump had done something truly treasonable or criminal. Shady, yes. I believe the man is shady, but I also think he is a piker in that category alongside most politicians. As I said, I have become very cynical.
-
I step into this thread with trepidation. The Edwards trial took place here. A client was on the jury. Afterwards, she told me that had Edwards paid out of funds DONATED TO HIS CAMPAIGN, he would have been convicted. Apparently, the judge's instructions on the law were enough to get Edwards off.
My thought is that as long as no money donated to the campaign was used, Trump is within the law. Especially since Trump has done this in the past.
I am very cynical about these things now. The press blows up on something that will "finish" Trump every few days. I did not vote for Trump (because I do not believe he has the character I want in a President), but I am sooooo weary of this crap from the press. Combine that with the double standard you see in everything (if a Dem does it, it's a nothing burger, if a Republican does it, it's jail), I don't know what it would take to convince me Trump had done something truly treasonable or criminal. Shady, yes. I believe the man is shady, but I also think he is a piker in that category alongside most politicians. As I said, I have become very cynical.
If you are correct you would think his lawyers will prevail. Precedence is already set unless the money was from campaign donations.
Doesn't change how I feel about it. He did it to deceive voters. We will never know if this story came out if Donald Trump would have been elected. Lots of Christians voted for him.
-
If you are correct you would think his lawyers will prevail. Precedence is already set unless the money was from campaign donations.
Doesn't change how I feel about it. He did it to deceive voters. We will never know if this story came out if Donald Trump would have been elected. Lots of Christians voted for him.
Color me cynical - but those same Christians voted for him inspite of his questionable business deals, his many known marital infidelities and the whole "grab the bleep" thing. I really doubt the Stormy Daniels revelation would have made any difference.
I believe a large portion of the population was ready to elect ANYONE who was not a politician. And I believe that most of that population view efforts to bring down Trump as a direct attack on them.
It's just ugly.
-
I step into this thread with trepidation. The Edwards trial took place here. A client was on the jury. Afterwards, she told me that had Edwards paid out of funds DONATED TO HIS CAMPAIGN, he would have been convicted. Apparently, the judge's instructions on the law were enough to get Edwards off.
My thought is that as long as no money donated to the campaign was used, Trump is within the law. Especially since Trump has done this in the past.
I am very cynical about these things now. The press blows up on something that will "finish" Trump every few days. I did not vote for Trump (because I do not believe he has the character I want in a President), but I am sooooo weary of this crap from the press. Combine that with the double standard you see in everything (if a Dem does it, it's a nothing burger, if a Republican does it, it's jail), I don't know what it would take to convince me Trump had done something truly treasonable or criminal. Shady, yes. I believe the man is shady, but I also think he is a piker in that category alongside most politicians. As I said, I have become very cynical.
And you would be incorrect. Clearly, if funds from the campaigns own bank account, they would be illegal, but having the money go direct from a contributor to the third party receiving the funds does not avoid the issue. If, hypothetically, a supporter wrote checks directly to the television station for political ads, that would be a campaign contribution, and the failure to report it as such would violate federal election laws.
-
And you would be incorrect. Clearly, if funds from the campaigns own bank account, they would be illegal, but having the money go direct from a contributor to the third party receiving the funds does not avoid the issue. If, hypothetically, a supporter wrote checks directly to the television station for political ads, that would be a campaign contribution, and the failure to report it as such would violate federal election laws.
A lot of people point to the fact an individual is not limited on how much of his own funds can be spent on the campaign. While that is true, they are leaving out an important component - disclosure.
The payment was not disclosed on the 2017 filing. Additionally, the repayment structure to Cohen was set up in a way to make it seem like retainrr for legal work, when in fact, the money was a bridge loan. It is likely the SDNY has supporting documentation from the raid and statements from Trump Organization and AMI personnel, confirming the purposeful obfuscation. That’s a big problem.
-
And you would be incorrect. Clearly, if funds from the campaigns own bank account, they would be illegal, but having the money go direct from a contributor to the third party receiving the funds does not avoid the issue. If, hypothetically, a supporter wrote checks directly to the television station for political ads, that would be a campaign contribution, and the failure to report it as such would violate federal election laws.
It would only be illegal to use funds from the campaign account if it was not disclosed on the applicable FEC forms. Frim what I read in the article @edpc linked for us, that is the issue. And it becomes a criminal, instead of civil, issue because the amount of money given was above whatever threshold the law establishes. So, it's potentially illegal because of the appearance of a run around campaign finance law and it is criminal because of the amount of money involved. I say potentially because a jury would have to be convinced that the money was paid in attempt to influence the election.
-
First it was about Russia collusion, that falls through, then, it becomes about obstruction of justice, that fails. This whole thing is a fishing expedition.
-
First it was about Russia collusion, that falls through, then, it becomes about obstruction of justice, that fails. This whole thing is a fishing expedition.
Well, the whole campaign finance violation thing worked against Dinesh D'Souza.
-
First it was about Russia collusion, that falls through, then, it becomes about obstruction of justice, that fails. This whole thing is a fishing expedition.
Except there are multiple investigations running concurrently with crossover - SDNY, Mueller, and DC looking into Cohen, Russian connections, and Butina, respectively. If someone, like myself, with pedestrian legal knowledge can keep up, so should you.
-
First it was about Russia collusion, that falls through, then, it becomes about obstruction of justice, that fails. This whole thing is a fishing expedition.
Then it’s too bad Trump has been so assiduously giving them bait.
-
First it was about Russia collusion, that falls through, then, it becomes about obstruction of justice, that fails. This whole thing is a fishing expedition.
You know how this wouldn't have been an issue? If Trump hadn't bleep a porn star and then had to pay her off to keep quiet during his campaign.
-
It would only be illegal to use funds from the campaign account if it was not disclosed on the applicable FEC forms. Frim what I read in the article @edpc linked for us, that is the issue. And it becomes a criminal, instead of civil, issue because the amount of money given was above whatever threshold the law establishes. So, it's potentially illegal because of the appearance of a run around campaign finance law and it is criminal because of the amount of money involved. I say potentially because a jury would have to be convinced that the money was paid in attempt to influence the election.
At the end of the day, it is a factual issue, and so a jury would have the final say on what the legal consequences of the actions taken will be, if it ever gets that far.
-
You know how this wouldn't have been an issue? If Trump hadn't bleep a porn star and then had to pay her off to keep quiet during his campaign.
Stop making sense.
-
You know how this wouldn't have been an issue? If Trump hadn't bleep a porn star and then had to pay her off to keep quiet during his campaign.
Or if he had simply been honest about it all in the first place. I seriously doubt it would have had much effect on the election if he had simply owned up to it.
-
You know how this wouldn't have been an issue? If Trump hadn't bleep a porn star and then had to pay her off to keep quiet during his campaign.
And even that wouldn't have mattered had Trump changed his party affiliation.
-
At the end of the day, it is a factual issue, and so a jury would have the final say on what the legal consequences of the actions taken will be, if it ever gets that far.
Not necessarily, it is still opinion if Trump did it to influence the election.
-
It would only be illegal to use funds from the campaign account if it was not disclosed on the applicable FEC forms. Frim what I read in the article @edpc linked for us, that is the issue. And it becomes a criminal, instead of civil, issue because the amount of money given was above whatever threshold the law establishes. So, it's potentially illegal because of the appearance of a run around campaign finance law and it is criminal because of the amount of money involved. I say potentially because a jury would have to be convinced that the money was paid in attempt to influence the election.
And, Trump's defense will be that it was not a campaign issue and he would have had to have paid this regardless to protect his reputation as a business person, and as a married man. That is why he would have paid it out of personal, not campaign funds. And, he will probably win on that. We know that he was notoriously cheap with his personal funds, so the assumption would be that he would want to pay this out of campaign funds.
I'm not saying I think it's a good idea or that I buy it, but I think it will be a winning argument for this situation.
-
Here's a first image of prosecutors preparing to probe!
(http://i63.tinypic.com/2yulxex.jpg)
-
And even that wouldn't have mattered had Trump changed his party affiliation.
Again. :laugh:
Frankly, I find the whole thing absurd. But, you want to run with the big dogs you better dot your i and cross your t, and have some very savvy people you can trust for advice.
-
You know how this wouldn't have been an issue? If Trump hadn't bleep a porn star and then had to pay her off to keep quiet during his campaign.
:thumbsup:
-
And, Trump's defense will be that it was not a campaign issue and he would have had to have paid this regardless to protect his reputation as a business person, and as a married man. That is why he would have paid it out of personal, not campaign funds. And, he will probably win on that. We know that he was notoriously cheap with his personal funds, so the assumption would be that he would want to pay this out of campaign funds.
I'm not saying I think it's a good idea or that I buy it, but I think it will be a winning argument for this situation.
Yes. And I can somewhat agree with that angle. But the timing of it all is what makes me somewhat agree with the campaign finance fraud angle.
-
Yes. And I can somewhat agree with that angle. But the timing of it all is what makes me somewhat agree with the campaign finance fraud angle.
That's easily explained by "she wasn't interested in extortion until I became a candidate". Or, he may have some evidence of contact before he did become a candidate. If he had paid her after he was elected, then it would be hard to make either argument, but while he was just a candidate, he would have an interest in maintaining his reputation (I know, I know) so that he could continue to be a TV star and businessperson if he didn't win.
-
You know how this wouldn't have been an issue? If Trump hadn't bleep a porn star and then had to pay her off to keep quiet during his campaign.
I wouldn't have voted for him if he didn't do that.
-
Again. :laugh:
Frankly, I find the whole thing absurd. But, you want to run with the big dogs you better dot your i and cross your t, and have some very savvy people you can trust for advice.
It is absurd.
But, unfortunately, the only chance issues that matter to me have is in Trump's success. So until I see real evidence of actual wrongdoing I ain't gonna join in the pile on.
-
I step into this thread with trepidation. The Edwards trial took place here. A client was on the jury. Afterwards, she told me that had Edwards paid out of funds DONATED TO HIS CAMPAIGN, he would have been convicted. Apparently, the judge's instructions on the law were enough to get Edwards off.
My thought is that as long as no money donated to the campaign was used, Trump is within the law. Especially since Trump has done this in the past.
I am very cynical about these things now. The press blows up on something that will "finish" Trump every few days. I did not vote for Trump (because I do not believe he has the character I want in a President), but I am sooooo weary of this crap from the press. Combine that with the double standard you see in everything (if a Dem does it, it's a nothing burger, if a Republican does it, it's jail), I don't know what it would take to convince me Trump had done something truly treasonable or criminal. Shady, yes. I believe the man is shady, but I also think he is a piker in that category alongside most politicians. As I said, I have become very cynical.
Very thoughtful post @ConstitutionRose And so true. This is exactly why I'm cynical about every single accusation about Trump. The democrats and most of the news media can enjoy a nice dinner of horrible sex abuses by liberals and democrats and then muster up horror ... utter horror and disgust over some rumors about Trump spending a few hours with a high-priced hooker.
Until one democrat admits that Clinton was a serial sexual abuser who threatened his victims instead of paying them off, I am ignoring the Trump stuff. Before Trump was elected, I didn't want him because of that and other character traits that I thought would keep him from being a good President.
But, those things have not kept Trump from being a good President. The very things that have made his administration look like a shambles in some ways ... those things being that Trump was not insured and molded by a background in the inner workings of DC and a total unfamiliarity with who can be trusted and who can't. This has caused disruption in staff which some latch onto as chaos. It is not. It is a somewhat chaotic base from which Trump operates in a sensible manner.
An advantage of not being a part of 'how things are done' for lo, these many years, is that Trump brings a fresh outlook and sensible solutions. Just because America has been content with unfair trade for a long time does not mean we have to be. Just because the socialist wing has made some poor people think that if all the rich people could be brought down they would be rich, does not make it so. Trump wants to make things easier for business to operate here because that's where people get jobs.
And, yes, the U.S. has been way too tolerant of illegals. You cannot turn on an entertainment show without seeing a really sweet, hard-working, family-loving illegal family being threatened by some mean ICE people. We either have laws or we don't. Trump was the first to emphasize that we should have boundaries.
And Trump is almost innocent in some ways. Yes, he marveled at how a lot of women would through themselves at rich men and, yes, he talked about that in public. He wasn't even sneaky about it. But he didn't force himself on anybody and when they threatened publicity, he didn't send a hit man. He paid.
So, yeah, I believe if I try really hard, I will be able to get over these Trump affairs and maybe even go on with my life.
-
I wouldn't have voted for him if he didn't do that.
I see, you would have stepped out on Melania too? There's no way the porn star is a hotter piece of ass than Melania is.
-
Very thoughtful post @ConstitutionRose And so true. This is exactly why I'm cynical about every single accusation about Trump. The democrats and most of the news media can enjoy a nice dinner of horrible sex abuses by liberals and democrats and then muster up horror ... utter horror and disgust over some rumors about Trump spending a few hours with a high-priced hooker.
Until one democrat admits that Clinton was a serial sexual abuser who threatened his victims instead of paying them off, I am ignoring the Trump stuff. Before Trump was elected, I didn't want him because of that and other character traits that I thought would keep him from being a good President.
But, those things have not kept Trump from being a good President. The very things that have made his administration look like a shambles in some ways ... those things being that Trump was not insured and molded by a background in the inner workings of DC and a total unfamiliarity with who can be trusted and who can't. This has caused disruption in staff which some latch onto as chaos. It is not. It is a somewhat chaotic base from which Trump operates in a sensible manner.
An advantage of not being a part of 'how things are done' for lo, these many years, is that Trump brings a fresh outlook and sensible solutions. Just because America has been content with unfair trade for a long time does not mean we have to be. Just because the socialist wing has made some poor people think that if all the rich people could be brought down they would be rich, does not make it so. Trump wants to make things easier for business to operate here because that's where people get jobs.
And, yes, the U.S. has been way too tolerant of illegals. You cannot turn on an entertainment show without seeing a really sweet, hard-working, family-loving illegal family being threatened by some mean ICE people. We either have laws or we don't. Trump was the first to emphasize that we should have boundaries.
And Trump is almost innocent in some ways. Yes, he marveled at how a lot of women would through themselves at rich men and, yes, he talked about that in public. He wasn't even sneaky about it. But he didn't force himself on anybody and when they threatened publicity, he didn't send a hit man. He paid.
So, yeah, I believe if I try really hard, I will be able to get over these Trump affairs and maybe even go on with my life.
Jesus H Christ lady, it's not about the affairs.
bleep it, yeah, you know what, it is about the affairs. Trump is being investigated because he slept around and the SDNY thinks he's an idiot for cheating on Melania.
-
I see, you would have stepped out on Melania too? There's no way the porn star is a hotter piece of ass than Melania is.
Sometimes you just feel like getting it wet when you are at some random party full of chicks. No harm no foul.
-
Jesus H Christ lady, it's not about the affairs.
bleep it, yeah, you know what, it is about the affairs. Trump is being investigated because he slept around and the SDNY thinks he's an idiot for cheating on Melania.
It’s about an affair, during an affair. McDougal told Anderson Cooper she was at the Tahoe event with Trump.
-
It’s about an affair, during an affair. McDougal told Anderson Cooper she was at the Tahoe event with Trump.
Yeah and at the same time Obama was circle jerking with a convicted terrorist in Chicago. So what?
-
Yeah and at the same time Obama was circle jerking with a convicted terrorist in Chicago. So what?
So what? So, let’s dance!
Sorry... (http://youtube.com/watch?v=R8G-NHFELaw#)
-
Jesus H Christ lady, it's not about the affairs.
bleep it, yeah, you know what, it is about the affairs. Trump is being investigated because he slept around and the SDNY thinks he's an idiot for cheating on Melania.
Well, Roos, I think it is about brief sexual contacts with somewhat less than pristine women, but ... affairs?
Anyway, that whole post was to show a couple of things. One, that Trump paid for his dalliances and neither threatened or murdered any of the women involved. Two, that Trump is way, way down on the list of messing around. And, three, he's a good president anyway.
-
Jesus H Christ lady, it's not about the affairs.
bleep it, yeah, you know what, it is about the affairs. Trump is being investigated because he slept around and the SDNY thinks he's an idiot for cheating on Melania.
No, the President is being investigated because he's an America First, Republican president. If you shift your focus from the President's penis, even just slightly, you may be able to see this truth.
Good luck.
-
No, the President is being investigated because he's an America First, Republican president. If you shift your focus from the President's penis, even just slightly, you may be able to see this truth.
Good luck.
If folks can’t harrumph over important things like campaign finance laws and private non disclosure agreements, where’s the fun in bashing Trump? What are you deliberately trying to take the fun out of Christmas? Grinch!
-
No, the President is being investigated because he's an America First, Republican president. If you shift your focus from the President's penis, even just slightly, you may be able to see this truth.
Good luck.
No, he’s being investigated because he did some rather stupid things, and lied about it. Change his name to “Clinton†and the hue and cry for exactly this sort of investigation would be overwhelming from the same people now decrying the investigation.
-
Grist for the mill.
-
Sometimes you just feel like getting it wet when you are at some random party full of chicks. No harm no foul.
I disagree about the foul part, given the suspect.
-
I disagree about the foul part, given the suspect.
Exactly, Roos. While I am hoping that you and Frank don't get the band back together again, that is exactly what it is about. It's about whether you like Trump or not.
You can find more dalliances in the latest issue of US than in Trump's whole life but you don't find Brad Pitt's female contacts as disgusting as you do Trump's.
-
No, the President is being investigated because he's an America First, Republican president. If you shift your focus from the President's penis, even just slightly, you may be able to see this truth.
Good luck.
Yep, all I think about all day is you and the POTUS penis. Maybe someone can help me figure out why I associate those two things with each other.
-
Yep, all I think about all day is you and the POTUS penis. Maybe someone can help me figure out why I associate those two things with each other.
Hah, Roos. You know we'd have to go places no one wants to go to figure that out.
-
Yep, all I think about all day is you and the POTUS penis.
That's odd. I think about your penis and POTUS all day.
-
That's odd. I think about your penis and POTUS all day.
Yeah, I had you pegged alright.
-
Yeah, I had you pegged alright.
Your avatar is oddly appropriate for that comment.
-
Your avatar is oddly appropriate for that comment.
Yeah. This from the poster having a chick with a whip avatar.
-
Your avatar is oddly appropriate for that comment.
I cannot adequately express the joy that avatar brings me.
-
Yeah. This from the poster having a chick with a whip avatar.
That avatar brings me joy also, but in a different way.
-
That's odd. I think about your penis and POTUS all day.
Yeah, I had you pegged alright.
Alright you two.. I have counted over two dozen reports of individual acts of perversion so profound and disgusting, that decorum prohibits listing them here. Well, as of this moment, you both are on DOUBLE SECRET PROBATION!
-
That avatar brings me joy also, but in a different way.
You know her avatar and mine hang out on the weekends. It's apparently a good time.
-
Alright you two.. I have counted over two dozen reports of individual acts of perversion so profound and disgusting, that decorum prohibits listing them here. Well, as of this moment, you both are on DOUBLE SECRET PROBATION!
Only two dozen? That's not near enough.
-
You know her avatar and mine hang out on the weekends. It's apparently a good time.
That makes me feel sad and lonely.
-
You know her avatar and mine hang out on the weekends. It's apparently a good time.
Yeah, that's why wash day is Monday.
-
Yeah, that's why wash day is Monday.
Absolutely. My father always told me to clean and wipe down your equipment and tools when you are done using them.
-
Yeah. This from the poster having a chick with a whip avatar.
That's odd. I thought Annie Oakley was into guns....
-
That's odd. I thought Annie Oakley was into guns....
Don't destroy Frank's dreams.
-
That's odd. I thought Annie Oakley was into guns....
We've taken many informal polls on the topic and it is a whip.
-
Absolutely. My father always told me to clean and wipe down your equipment and tools when you are done using them.
Sage advice. Never want your tools to rust or wrinkle.
-
Don't destroy Frank's dreams.
Not to worry...
We've taken many informal polls on the topic and it is a whip.
...his dreams are intact. yogi555
-
Not to worry...
...his dreams are intact. yogi555
His fantasies are the problem! wink777
-
His fantasies are the problem! wink777
Only if there is a Mrs. Frank. :whistle:
-
Absolutely. My father always told me to clean and wipe down your equipment and tools when you are done using them.
uh huh
(https://i.imgur.com/cWsyTNS.jpg)
-
Only if there is a Mrs. Frank. :whistle:
Not to talk out of school but <redacted by Mod1> and that is the problem.
-
Not to talk out of school but <redacted by Mod1> and that is the problem.
Thank god that was redacted by mod1 before anyone could read it , could have spelled more campaign finance troubles for you know who.
-
<redacted by Mod1>
Mueller is everywhere....
-
Mueller is everywhere....
"Mueller" and "Mod*": All start with "M," and all are drunk with power. :pondering:
-
Mueller is everywhere....
The new Kilroy?
-
Thank god that was redacted by mod1 before anyone could read it , could have spelled more campaign finance troubles for you know who.
Mueller is everywhere....
"Mueller" and "Mod*": All start with "M," and all are drunk with power. :pondering:
:pondering:
-
<redacted by Mod7>
-
<redacted by Mod7>
mod 7?
Is that a double oh oh 7?
-
Mueller is everywhere....
Why I was told I was "Mueller's wingman" just today... Who knew...
-
<redacted by Mod7>
Boy, that's a killer redaction.
-
It is illegal because he made the payments to influence the election outcome. Like it or not its illegal. Red State has an article today that says he will be impeached.
Don't know where you received your law degree but let's hear from a real attorney that doesn't sit behind a keyboard, using MSM talking points!
"Reasonable people can disagree about whether it's wrong to pay hush money to somebody to stop them from disclosing alleged improprieties sexually. Reasonable people can say that's wrong or that's right. It's not illegal," Dershowitz said.
He explained that a presidential candidate could give cash to an individual and explicitly state not only that the payment is to buy their silence about alleged improprieties, but also that it is specifically designed to help their campaign, and that still would not be a crime.
From very liberal ... Alan Dershowitz
http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/12/14/alan-dershowitz-michael-cohen-claiming-trump-knew-payments-women-were-wrong-not-illegal (http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/12/14/alan-dershowitz-michael-cohen-claiming-trump-knew-payments-women-were-wrong-not-illegal)
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snDcaO0alc4# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snDcaO0alc4#)
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snDcaO0alc4# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snDcaO0alc4#)
A candidate may contribute any amount of their own money towards their own campaign that they want to, but are there not still accounting "rules" that must be followed to be within the law? Whether Cohen said Trump knew what he was doing was "wrong" is irrelevant.
-
A candidate may contribute any amount of their own money towards their own campaign that they want to, but are there not still accounting "rules" that must be followed to be within the law? Whether Cohen said Trump knew what he was doing was "wrong" is irrelevant.
Well Cohen clearly made an illegal donation then because Trump said he knew nothing of it and it wasn't his money... Remember, Cohen said it was "his" money that was used... All lies but what do you expect from liars.
-
A candidate may contribute any amount of their own money towards their own campaign that they want to, but are there not still accounting "rules" that must be followed to be within the law?
Yes and neither personal funds nor campaign money was used. It went through the Trump organization and was categorized, incrementally, as a retainer fee. The real problems stem from the fact there is purposeful obfuscation, to avoid disclosure.
-
Well Cohen clearly made an illegal donation then because Trump said he knew nothing of it and it wasn't his money... Remember, Cohen said it was "his" money that was used... All lies but what do you expect from liars.
Sounds like they got their man, then. Can we move on now?
-
Don't know where you received your law degree but let's hear from a real attorney that doesn't sit behind a keyboard, using MSM talking points!
From very liberal ... Alan Dershowitz
http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/12/14/alan-dershowitz-michael-cohen-claiming-trump-knew-payments-women-were-wrong-not-illegal (http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/12/14/alan-dershowitz-michael-cohen-claiming-trump-knew-payments-women-were-wrong-not-illegal)
Very nice of Mr. Dershowitz, but also not the definitive statement on the matter. The issue is open; that is the problem. In John Edwards’ case, he won, because the jury decided that the payment was a personal matter that would have been made irrespective of the campaign because Edwards was terrified of the personal consequences if his wife found out. That is different from Trump’s case, because he was terrified of the public finding out and using it as a reason to not vote for him. That difference could mean the difference between a wrong act and an illegal act.
Maybe Dershowitz didnt read the statute or the materials from the Edwards case.
-
Very nice of Mr. Dershowitz, but also not the definitive statement on the matter. The issue is open; that is the problem. In John Edwards’ case, he won, because the jury decided that the payment was a personal matter that would have been made irrespective of the campaign because Edwards was terrified of the personal consequences if his wife found out. That is different from Trump’s case, because he was terrified of the public finding out and using it as a reason to not vote for him. That difference could mean the difference between a wrong act and an illegal act.
Maybe Dershowitz didnt read the statute or the materials from the Edwards case.
Go to Mr Dershowitz's twitter page and offer him your vast knowledge?
Comprehension seems to be a problem?
Let me help .. again?
He explained that a presidential candidate could give cash to an individual and explicitly state not only that the payment is to buy their silence about alleged improprieties, but also that it is specifically designed to help their campaign, and that still would not be a crime.
-
Go to Mr Dershowitz's twitter page and offer him your vast knowledge?
Comprehension seems to be a problem?
Let me help .. again?
I think the part you are missing is "as long as the cash is disclosed on the appropriate FEC forms".
-
Go to Mr Dershowitz's twitter page and offer him your vast knowledge?
Comprehension seems to be a problem?
Let me help .. again?
It is really all about accounting. Claiming the hush money was a business expense for retaining lawyers is tax evasion for example. The FEC has disclosure forms about where money is coming from and spent on that are required.
Remember Trump mocking Cruz about his FEC disclosure error when filing for his presidential run? Because Cruz borrowed money against is stock holdings to start up his campaign and didn't properly note its source even though it was his money/personal liability? Trump had a good time with that. Kind of funny Trump is having his issue with that now.