The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: mystery-ak on December 10, 2018, 06:05:00 pm
-
Barack Obama’s Campaign Was Fined $375,000 for Campaign Finance Donations — Why Didn’t Liberal SDNY Prosecute Obama?
by Jim Hoft December 10, 2018
FOX News legal expert and best-selling author Gregg Jarrett UNLOADED on the New York State acting Attorney General Robert Khuzami and the “snot-nosed kids†and “morons†who put together the amateur accusations against Michael Cohen and targeting Donald Trump.
Gregg Jarrett went off after the New York Southern Division accused President Trump of campaign violations by paying hush money to two women from his own pocket.
Gregg Jarrett has argued for months that using your own money and not campaign funds to pay off former lovers.
Of course, the NYSD said nothing when Obama was accused of campaign finance donations.
In January 2013 the Obama Campaign was fined $375,000 for campaign reporting violations.
Obviously, the Southern District of New York did not for an instant consider filing charges against this failed liberal president.
more
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/12/barack-obamas-campaign-was-fined-375000-for-campaign-finance-donations-why-didnt-liberal-sdny-prosecute-obama/ (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/12/barack-obamas-campaign-was-fined-375000-for-campaign-finance-donations-why-didnt-liberal-sdny-prosecute-obama/)
-
Probably because Jarrett and Hoft don’t know what they’re talking about and what makes a campaign finance violation cross into criminal territory. I’ve posted this article on similar threads. It’s fairly useful to understand the technical aspects and written by a former election lawyer.
Most violations of campaign finance laws are in fact civil rather than criminal in nature and can be handled with a fine and an amended FEC report; however, in the case of “knowing and willful†violations of the law, criminal penalties definitely attach.
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)
-
Cuz Preet Bharara is a leftist hack.
-
Probably because Jarrett and Hoft don’t know what they’re talking about and what makes a campaign finance violation cross into criminal territory. I’ve posted this article on similar threads. It’s fairly useful to understand the technical aspects and written by a former election lawyer.
Most violations of campaign finance laws are in fact civil rather than criminal in nature and can be handled with a fine and an amended FEC report; however, in the case of “knowing and willful†violations of the law, criminal penalties definitely attach.
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)
Nice little spun bit of switcheroo, but there is as of yet no proof that it was knowing and willful that it was even illegal, or even could be considered a campaign expenditure.
-
Nice little spun bit of switcheroo, but there is as of yet no proof that it was knowing and willful that it was even illegal, or even could be considered a campaign expenditure.
That’s because you’re just looking at the Cohen aspect and not taking into account the interviews SDNY conducted with David Pecker and Allen Weisselberg, after giving them immunity.
-
That’s because you’re just looking at the Cohen aspect and not taking into account the interviews SDNY conducted with David Pecker and Allen Weisselberg, after giving them immunity.
That adds absolutely nothing to anything. This is Stupid Bobby clouding the water to make it look like he has something when all he has is a handful of process crimes and tax evasion from 2005. This is a nothing burger for the circle jerkers, NT's and all around mentally defective Left.
-
That’s because you’re just looking at the Cohen aspect and not taking into account the interviews SDNY conducted with David Pecker and Allen Weisselberg, after giving them immunity.
Again, so what? This is the hack SDNY AG trying to spin molehills into mountains just to find something, anything on Trump they can bring him down with.
-
Again, so what? This is the hack SDNY AG trying to spin molehills into mountains just to find something, anything on Trump they can bring him down with.
It’s not just a so-what. It’s a case of Trump having potentially handed his head to the democrats over something rather stupid and foolish.
The fact is, I rather doubt if it would have negatively affected his election if he had simply said “yeah, I did her back in 2006. Are you telling me you wouldn’t have?â€
-
It’s not just a so-what. It’s a case of Trump having potentially handed his head to the democrats over something rather stupid and foolish.
The fact is, I rather doubt if it would have negatively affected his election if he had simply said “yeah, I did her back in 2006. Are you telling me you wouldn’t have?â€
Or if he actually shelled out the $230K at the time and had the NDA signed. We'd never know about it and there'd be no legal questions.
-
It’s not just a so-what. It’s a case of Trump having potentially handed his head to the democrats over something rather stupid and foolish.
The fact is, I rather doubt if it would have negatively affected his election if he had simply said “yeah, I did her back in 2006. Are you telling me you wouldn’t have?â€
They gotta prove it was campiagn related, and so far that's very thin and tenuous, at best. Manufactured is more of a word I'd choose.
-
That adds absolutely nothing to anything. This is Stupid Bobby clouding the water to make it look like he has something when all he has is a handful of process crimes and tax evasion from 2005. This is a nothing burger for the circle jerkers, NT's and all around mentally defective Left.
First of all, why is it so difficult to differentiate between SDNY and Mueller? Cohen's financial issues aren't under Mueller's purview, but his false statements to Congress about Russian contacts are.
Also, during the Manafort trial, Ellis demanded to see the unredacted filings to show why the decade old charges were relevant to his investigation scope. Oddly enough, the skeptical old judge was satisfied there was a link and said so in his 31 page ruling. Since his indictment, Manafort continued to communicate with Kilimnik, then lied about it, repeatedly. That's one reason he's in his latest predicament.
-
First of all, why is it so difficult to differentiate between SDNY and Mueller? Cohen's financial issues aren't under Mueller's purview, but his false statements to Congress about Russian contacts are.
Also, during the Manafort trial, Ellis demanded to see the unredacted filings to show why the decade old charges were relevant to his investigation scope. Oddly enough, the skeptical old judge was satisfied there was a link and said so in his 31 page ruling. Since his indictment, Manafort continued to communicate with Kilimnik, then lied about it, repeatedly. That's one reason he's in his latest predicament.
As if they aren't coordinating with Mueller. Give me a break. That Dem hack fest operation and Mueller are working hand-in-hand.
-
They gotta prove it was campiagn related, and so far that's very thin and tenuous, at best. Manufactured is more of a word I'd choose.
It's not tenuous, as the article I posted above, which you obviously didn't read, explains quite well.
-
They gotta prove it was campiagn related, and so far that's very thin and tenuous, at best. Manufactured is more of a word I'd choose.
It’s pretty damned obvious that it was campaign-related. He didn’t give a damn about it for 10 years, and then all of a sudden he’s running for office and there are allegations coming out of the woodwork that don’t make him look good. It was campaign-related.
But, that’s what we have fact-finders for. All they have to do is convince a fact finder that it was campaign-related.
-
It's not tenuous, as the article I posted above, which you obviously didn't read, explains quite well.
I read it, seemed like a good explanation to me.
-
As if they aren't coordinating with Mueller. Give me a break. That Dem hack fest operation and Mueller are working hand-in-hand.
Fine, then you'd also have to allow Mueller also has to be working with the DC boys, who just reached a plea deal with Butina. She, Torshin, and Erickson have all been under investigation by the FBI and Senate Intel Committee for their possible role in election interference. So much for no Russians.
https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/12/10/politics/maria-butina-plea/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F (https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/12/10/politics/maria-butina-plea/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F)
-
It’s not just a so-what. It’s a case of Trump having potentially handed his head to the democrats over something rather stupid and foolish.
The fact is, I rather doubt if it would have negatively affected his election if he had simply said “yeah, I did her back in 2006. Are you telling me you wouldn’t have?â€
That's been my point for awhile. They constantly say this is "no big deal" but it allowed his opposition into his personal books and his fixer lawyers books. It is the doors this opened that is the big deal. Ask Cohen if this is no big deal... And Cohen was only doing Trump's bidding.
-
I read it, seemed like a good explanation to me.
It is and it was written almost 4 months ago, before the latest filings. We know from Mueller, he found Cohen to be cooperative and credible on questions he asked pertaining to his investigation. We know that SDNY considered Cohen to be a self-serving, uncooperative bleep bag in their investigation.
That means they have independent information to back his plea statements. Whether people here and Trump want to admit it or not, this is a real problem that's not going away. That's especially true, if he's still mainly relying on Giuliani and Sekulow for legal advice.
-
It’s pretty damned obvious that it was campaign-related. He didn’t give a damn about it for 10 years, and then all of a sudden he’s running for office and there are allegations coming out of the woodwork that don’t make him look good. It was campaign-related.
But, that’s what we have fact-finders for. All they have to do is convince a fact finder that it was campaign-related.
Meh. By that logic anything that the candidate does during the campaign is campaign related.
-
Meh. By that logic anything that the candidate does during the campaign is campaign related.
Duh. A lot of what a candidate does during a campaign is campaign-related. You have to be pretty deep into the orange koolaid to find that in the least surprising.
-
Meh. By that logic anything that the candidate does during the campaign is campaign related.
No, it really doesn't make sense that the money wasn't paid out until into the campaign when sooooo much time had passed since the (extremely icky) even occurred if it wasn't meant to influence the election.
-
Duh. A lot of what a candidate does during a campaign is campaign-related. You have to be pretty deep into the orange koolaid to find that in the least surprising.
The FEC would love it and the bureaucratic power if it could deem every last breath the candidate takes as under their jurisdiction, but the reality is this is a major reach to build a case on.
-
The FEC would love it and the bureaucratic power if it could deem every last breath the candidate takes as under their jurisdiction, but the reality is this is a major reach to build a case on.
It is pretty simple. The porn star and playmate's involvement with Trump wasn't worth much money to tabloids before Trump ran for president. It was just more of the same. But when he chose to run as a Republican the value of their stories went up dramatically. His campaign was obviously the direct cause of the interest in their stories and Trump's need to mute them. To claim it had nothing to do with the campaign is just plain foolish.
It doesn't really matter if it was technically legal or not. It was foggy enough during a political campaign to start a legal investigation. It opened the door to get into Cohen and Trump's financial records. It put Cohen in prison. And Cohen was doing Trump's bidding. That's the consequences of Trump's stupid porn star/playmate activities.
You say it is nothing. It could well be what ends Trump's presidency. It certainly ended Cohen's career and freedom. That's the problem with low character full of baggage candidates. It is a time bomb waiting to go off.
-
It is pretty simple. The porn star and playmate's involvement with Trump wasn't worth much money to tabloids before Trump ran for president. It was just more of the same. But when he chose to run as a Republican the value of their stories went up dramatically. His campaign was obviously the direct cause of the interest in their stories and Trump's need to mute them. To claim it had nothing to do with the campaign is just plain foolish.
It doesn't really matter if it was technically legal or not. It was foggy enough during a political campaign to start a legal investigation. It opened the door to get into Cohen and Trump's financial records. It put Cohen in prison. And Cohen was doing Trump's bidding. That's the consequences of Trump's stupid porn star/playmate activities.
You say it is nothing. It could well be what ends Trump's presidency. It certainly ended Cohen's career and freedom. That's the problem with low character full of baggage candidates. It is a time bomb waiting to go off.
Sorry, but what you have is a very derivative, longshot bet. You could make the argument that any non-campaign money spent by a candidate during a campiagn is in support of the campaign. How many degrees do you go out?
-
Sorry, but what you have is a very derivative, longshot bet. You could make the argument that any non-campaign money spent by a candidate during a campiagn is in support of the campaign. How many degrees do you go out?
My repeated point is it doesn't really matter if the hush money was legal or not. It was sufficiently gray to get an investigation.
It is the investigation that struck gold being able to look at both Cohen's and Trump's private financial records. It put Cohen in prison.
It was Trump's stupid actions that provided the excuse for the investigation. That is the point. And the consequences from that are just heating up.
-
My repeated point is it doesn't really matter if the hush money was legal or not. It was sufficiently gray to get an investigation.
It is the investigation that struck gold being able to look at both Cohen's and Trump's private financial records. It put Cohen in prison.
It was Trump's stupid actions that provided the excuse for the investigation. That is the point. And the consequences from that are just heating up.
What you describe literally does sound like a witch hunt, despite the fact that it all was supposed to be about Russian collusion.
-
What you describe literally does sound like a witch hunt, despite the fact that it all was supposed to be about Russian collusion.
It is a witch hunt. Did you expect anything different? Don't arm you enemies which is exactly what Trump has done.
-
It is pretty simple. The porn star and playmate's involvement with Trump wasn't worth much money to tabloids before Trump ran for president. It was just more of the same. But when he chose to run as a Republican the value of their stories went up dramatically. His campaign was obviously the direct cause of the interest in their stories and Trump's need to mute them. To claim it had nothing to do with the campaign is just plain foolish.
It doesn't really matter if it was technically legal or not. It was foggy enough during a political campaign to start a legal investigation. It opened the door to get into Cohen and Trump's financial records. It put Cohen in prison. And Cohen was doing Trump's bidding. That's the consequences of Trump's stupid porn star/playmate activities.
You say it is nothing. It could well be what ends Trump's presidency. It certainly ended Cohen's career and freedom. That's the problem with low character full of baggage candidates. It is a time bomb waiting to go off.
I remember it a little different. IIRC, at least one of these was a tabloid paying, or at least promising to pay, for exclusive story rights and then squashing the story. Then the bimbo(s?) claimed that they weren't paid (enough?) when THEY realized there was real money to be had. Actually, I THINK that was the formerly hottest chick to ever live, and the old stripper's argument was that since her agreement was with trump and the payment didn't come directly from trump she was free to back out.
But don't trust my memory, those are the kind of details I just don't care enough to really commit to memory.
If I'm wrong, yeah this was all about the election. I don't know the wording of the law, but I'm sure he's guilty as heck. But I also think this could be darn hard to prove.
If I'm right (and the hush money deals were older and the "ladies" changed their tune because of the election), then I'm not sure there's guilt there to begin with.
-
It is a witch hunt. Did you expect anything different? Don't arm you enemies which is exactly what Trump has done.
Yeah, I think it's a little more complicated than that. There was a whole of Get Trump, setups, traps, and manipulating going on to get to that point.