He said Pecker.
Cohen about to Flip
46,020 Views |
503 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by quash
The biggest claim for the dossier is that Cohen went to Prague for dirt.
Cohen just testified that he has never been to Prague which further discredits the dossier.
Is this supposed to be Cohen flipping?
Cohen just testified that he has never been to Prague which further discredits the dossier.
Is this supposed to be Cohen flipping?
why are you asking a question you already know the answer too?Doc Holliday said:
Are you a US citizen?
I'm the English Guy
The only thing Trump is guilty of is winning an election that was supposed to be in the bag for HRC and status quo for the swamp.
cms186 said:why are you asking a question you already know the answer too?Doc Holliday said:
Are you a US citizen?
"to" not "too".
And he's permanently damaging their operations.YoakDaddy said:
The only thing Trump is guilty of is winning an election that was supposed to be in the bag for HRC and status quo for the swamp.
No war, less taxes, more winning. He's doing everything the swamp doesn't want. He's making it harder for them to exploit their positions.
They don't just hate Trump...it's us who they really hate.
That will be quite difficult to do since it was not in fact illegal.HuMcK said:
The whole point of this hearing is Cohen providing evidence that Trump conducted the scheme willfully and with full knowledge of it's illegality.
Looks like J.R. called it.
Doc Holliday said:HuMcK said:Doc Holliday said:The DOJ accepted it.HuMcK said:
The whole point of this hearing is Cohen providing evidence that Trump conducted the scheme willfully and with full knowledge of it's illegality. The circumstance you describe where filings can be amended is in the case of mistake or undiscoverability, not after payments were knowingly concealed.
The SDNY would have brought up charges against POTUS. They didn't.
I rest my case.
Trump remains an unindicted co-conspirator because it is DOJ policy at this time to not indict a sitting President, he was however implicated in the same criminal scheme that Cohen plead guilty for. The designation Individual-1should ring a bell for that reason.
This Count Eight transaction surrounds a payment to Stephanie Clifford (Stormy Daniels) of $130,000 for a nuisance claim. Who says it is a campaign contribution? The SDNY does, no-one else. Not even the FEC considers this a campaign contribution.
Count eight is a political charge/plea specifically included for the purpose of pulling Donald Trump into the SDNY Cohen case. There is no FEC violation here. *Note it is not the Federal Election Commission making the claim, only the SDNY prosecutors.
it is not a campaign contribution for a candidate to instruct his attorney to pay-off a nuisance claim to avoid any issues or embarrassment. It is not a campaign donation for Donald Trump to reimburse his attorney for paying the claim.
The issue of the Cohen payment being an "in kind" campaign contribution is the bottom line question which underpins the charge.
There is no FEC rule or law that says a candidate cannot pay-off an accuser to avoid further issues, a nuisance claim. Paying an accuser to avoid controversy or embarrassment, is no different than a candidate buying an American made car -with personal funds- to gain the beneficial public optics of not driving a foreign car. Neither expense example makes the payment an aspect of am "in kind" campaign contribution.
There is no connected claim that President Trump used campaign funds to repay his attorney for eliminating the nuisance claim. President Trump, a businessman, used his own business income to repay his attorney; an attorney on a monthly retainer.
The entire charge of Cohen making a campaign contribution, or campaign finance violation, is a manufactured claim, made only by the SDNY, for political benefit.
That's lot of words to dance around an admission that SDNY Prosecutors (the only prosecutors with jurisdiction over this matter btw) believe they have uncovered criminal conduct by Individual-1 in conspiracy with Cohen.
That scheme you talked about where Cohen gets paid "retainer" fees to cover up the use of money is exactly what Cohen described as the unlawful scheme used to avoid disclosure req's. Huge coincidence I guess that those $35k installments all eventually added up to exactly what was paid to Stephanie Clifford.
As a side note, remember when Trump played dumb about this whole thing and said it never happened? It's crazy how much Trump has shifted the goal-posts at this point where he can blatantly lie to his followers' faces and still count on their unwavering support. What's more, not only do they still support him blindly, y'all continue to believe him when he spouts obvious lies. It's disheartening really, in a 1984 kind of way.
"Blue canary in the alley by the light switch. Who watches over you?"
This is Cohen singing.
This is Cohen singing.
Judge Nap, on Fox, puts the felony count at four.Sam Lowry said:That will be quite difficult to do since it was not in fact illegal.HuMcK said:
The whole point of this hearing is Cohen providing evidence that Trump conducted the scheme willfully and with full knowledge of it's illegality.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
They (SDNY) can believe it all they want, but they can't misinterpret the law and actions as they are doing and expect to get anywhere with it.HuMcK said:Doc Holliday said:HuMcK said:Doc Holliday said:The DOJ accepted it.HuMcK said:
The whole point of this hearing is Cohen providing evidence that Trump conducted the scheme willfully and with full knowledge of it's illegality. The circumstance you describe where filings can be amended is in the case of mistake or undiscoverability, not after payments were knowingly concealed.
The SDNY would have brought up charges against POTUS. They didn't.
I rest my case.
Trump remains an unindicted co-conspirator because it is DOJ policy at this time to not indict a sitting President, he was however implicated in the same criminal scheme that Cohen plead guilty for. The designation Individual-1should ring a bell for that reason.
This Count Eight transaction surrounds a payment to Stephanie Clifford (Stormy Daniels) of $130,000 for a nuisance claim. Who says it is a campaign contribution? The SDNY does, no-one else. Not even the FEC considers this a campaign contribution.
Count eight is a political charge/plea specifically included for the purpose of pulling Donald Trump into the SDNY Cohen case. There is no FEC violation here. *Note it is not the Federal Election Commission making the claim, only the SDNY prosecutors.
it is not a campaign contribution for a candidate to instruct his attorney to pay-off a nuisance claim to avoid any issues or embarrassment. It is not a campaign donation for Donald Trump to reimburse his attorney for paying the claim.
The issue of the Cohen payment being an "in kind" campaign contribution is the bottom line question which underpins the charge.
There is no FEC rule or law that says a candidate cannot pay-off an accuser to avoid further issues, a nuisance claim. Paying an accuser to avoid controversy or embarrassment, is no different than a candidate buying an American made car -with personal funds- to gain the beneficial public optics of not driving a foreign car. Neither expense example makes the payment an aspect of am "in kind" campaign contribution.
There is no connected claim that President Trump used campaign funds to repay his attorney for eliminating the nuisance claim. President Trump, a businessman, used his own business income to repay his attorney; an attorney on a monthly retainer.
The entire charge of Cohen making a campaign contribution, or campaign finance violation, is a manufactured claim, made only by the SDNY, for political benefit.
That's lot of words to dance around an admission that SDNY Prosecutors (the only prosecutors with jurisdiction over this matter btw) believe they have uncovered criminal conduct by Individual-1 in conspiracy with Cohen.
That scheme you talked about where Cohen gets paid "retainer" fees to cover up the use of money is exactly what Cohen described as the unlawful scheme used to avoid disclosure req's. Huge coincidence I guess that those $35k installments all eventually added up to exactly what was paid to Stephanie Clifford.
As a side note, remember when Trump played dumb about this whole thing and said it never happened? It's crazy how much Trump has shifted the goal-posts at this point where he can blatantly lie to his followers' faces and still count on their unwavering support. What's more, not only do they still support him blindly, y'all continue to believe him when he spouts obvious lies. It's disheartening really, in a 1984 kind of way.
Let's have a trial first and then see how far they get.Doc Holliday said:They (SDNY) can believe it all they want, but they can't misinterpret the law and actions as they are doing and expect to get anywhere with it.HuMcK said:Doc Holliday said:HuMcK said:Doc Holliday said:The DOJ accepted it.HuMcK said:
The whole point of this hearing is Cohen providing evidence that Trump conducted the scheme willfully and with full knowledge of it's illegality. The circumstance you describe where filings can be amended is in the case of mistake or undiscoverability, not after payments were knowingly concealed.
The SDNY would have brought up charges against POTUS. They didn't.
I rest my case.
Trump remains an unindicted co-conspirator because it is DOJ policy at this time to not indict a sitting President, he was however implicated in the same criminal scheme that Cohen plead guilty for. The designation Individual-1should ring a bell for that reason.
This Count Eight transaction surrounds a payment to Stephanie Clifford (Stormy Daniels) of $130,000 for a nuisance claim. Who says it is a campaign contribution? The SDNY does, no-one else. Not even the FEC considers this a campaign contribution.
Count eight is a political charge/plea specifically included for the purpose of pulling Donald Trump into the SDNY Cohen case. There is no FEC violation here. *Note it is not the Federal Election Commission making the claim, only the SDNY prosecutors.
it is not a campaign contribution for a candidate to instruct his attorney to pay-off a nuisance claim to avoid any issues or embarrassment. It is not a campaign donation for Donald Trump to reimburse his attorney for paying the claim.
The issue of the Cohen payment being an "in kind" campaign contribution is the bottom line question which underpins the charge.
There is no FEC rule or law that says a candidate cannot pay-off an accuser to avoid further issues, a nuisance claim. Paying an accuser to avoid controversy or embarrassment, is no different than a candidate buying an American made car -with personal funds- to gain the beneficial public optics of not driving a foreign car. Neither expense example makes the payment an aspect of am "in kind" campaign contribution.
There is no connected claim that President Trump used campaign funds to repay his attorney for eliminating the nuisance claim. President Trump, a businessman, used his own business income to repay his attorney; an attorney on a monthly retainer.
The entire charge of Cohen making a campaign contribution, or campaign finance violation, is a manufactured claim, made only by the SDNY, for political benefit.
That's lot of words to dance around an admission that SDNY Prosecutors (the only prosecutors with jurisdiction over this matter btw) believe they have uncovered criminal conduct by Individual-1 in conspiracy with Cohen.
That scheme you talked about where Cohen gets paid "retainer" fees to cover up the use of money is exactly what Cohen described as the unlawful scheme used to avoid disclosure req's. Huge coincidence I guess that those $35k installments all eventually added up to exactly what was paid to Stephanie Clifford.
As a side note, remember when Trump played dumb about this whole thing and said it never happened? It's crazy how much Trump has shifted the goal-posts at this point where he can blatantly lie to his followers' faces and still count on their unwavering support. What's more, not only do they still support him blindly, y'all continue to believe him when he spouts obvious lies. It's disheartening really, in a 1984 kind of way.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
They're going to have to wait until 2025.quash said:Let's have a trial first and then see how far they get.Doc Holliday said:They (SDNY) can believe it all they want, but they can't misinterpret the law and actions as they are doing and expect to get anywhere with it.HuMcK said:Doc Holliday said:HuMcK said:Doc Holliday said:The DOJ accepted it.HuMcK said:
The whole point of this hearing is Cohen providing evidence that Trump conducted the scheme willfully and with full knowledge of it's illegality. The circumstance you describe where filings can be amended is in the case of mistake or undiscoverability, not after payments were knowingly concealed.
The SDNY would have brought up charges against POTUS. They didn't.
I rest my case.
Trump remains an unindicted co-conspirator because it is DOJ policy at this time to not indict a sitting President, he was however implicated in the same criminal scheme that Cohen plead guilty for. The designation Individual-1should ring a bell for that reason.
This Count Eight transaction surrounds a payment to Stephanie Clifford (Stormy Daniels) of $130,000 for a nuisance claim. Who says it is a campaign contribution? The SDNY does, no-one else. Not even the FEC considers this a campaign contribution.
Count eight is a political charge/plea specifically included for the purpose of pulling Donald Trump into the SDNY Cohen case. There is no FEC violation here. *Note it is not the Federal Election Commission making the claim, only the SDNY prosecutors.
it is not a campaign contribution for a candidate to instruct his attorney to pay-off a nuisance claim to avoid any issues or embarrassment. It is not a campaign donation for Donald Trump to reimburse his attorney for paying the claim.
The issue of the Cohen payment being an "in kind" campaign contribution is the bottom line question which underpins the charge.
There is no FEC rule or law that says a candidate cannot pay-off an accuser to avoid further issues, a nuisance claim. Paying an accuser to avoid controversy or embarrassment, is no different than a candidate buying an American made car -with personal funds- to gain the beneficial public optics of not driving a foreign car. Neither expense example makes the payment an aspect of am "in kind" campaign contribution.
There is no connected claim that President Trump used campaign funds to repay his attorney for eliminating the nuisance claim. President Trump, a businessman, used his own business income to repay his attorney; an attorney on a monthly retainer.
The entire charge of Cohen making a campaign contribution, or campaign finance violation, is a manufactured claim, made only by the SDNY, for political benefit.
That's lot of words to dance around an admission that SDNY Prosecutors (the only prosecutors with jurisdiction over this matter btw) believe they have uncovered criminal conduct by Individual-1 in conspiracy with Cohen.
That scheme you talked about where Cohen gets paid "retainer" fees to cover up the use of money is exactly what Cohen described as the unlawful scheme used to avoid disclosure req's. Huge coincidence I guess that those $35k installments all eventually added up to exactly what was paid to Stephanie Clifford.
As a side note, remember when Trump played dumb about this whole thing and said it never happened? It's crazy how much Trump has shifted the goal-posts at this point where he can blatantly lie to his followers' faces and still count on their unwavering support. What's more, not only do they still support him blindly, y'all continue to believe him when he spouts obvious lies. It's disheartening really, in a 1984 kind of way.
Maybe in your business people are crooked, corrupt and always looking for that deal that gets them ahead but these are people who are doing their jobs. They can go home at night without having to screw someone to make a buck. I doubt they have trouble understanding the elements that make up the crimes they charge people with in United States District Courts.Doc Holliday said:They (SDNY) can believe it all they want, but they can't misinterpret the law and actions as they are doing and expect to get anywhere with it.HuMcK said:Doc Holliday said:HuMcK said:Doc Holliday said:The DOJ accepted it.HuMcK said:
The whole point of this hearing is Cohen providing evidence that Trump conducted the scheme willfully and with full knowledge of it's illegality. The circumstance you describe where filings can be amended is in the case of mistake or undiscoverability, not after payments were knowingly concealed.
The SDNY would have brought up charges against POTUS. They didn't.
I rest my case.
Trump remains an unindicted co-conspirator because it is DOJ policy at this time to not indict a sitting President, he was however implicated in the same criminal scheme that Cohen plead guilty for. The designation Individual-1should ring a bell for that reason.
This Count Eight transaction surrounds a payment to Stephanie Clifford (Stormy Daniels) of $130,000 for a nuisance claim. Who says it is a campaign contribution? The SDNY does, no-one else. Not even the FEC considers this a campaign contribution.
Count eight is a political charge/plea specifically included for the purpose of pulling Donald Trump into the SDNY Cohen case. There is no FEC violation here. *Note it is not the Federal Election Commission making the claim, only the SDNY prosecutors.
it is not a campaign contribution for a candidate to instruct his attorney to pay-off a nuisance claim to avoid any issues or embarrassment. It is not a campaign donation for Donald Trump to reimburse his attorney for paying the claim.
The issue of the Cohen payment being an "in kind" campaign contribution is the bottom line question which underpins the charge.
There is no FEC rule or law that says a candidate cannot pay-off an accuser to avoid further issues, a nuisance claim. Paying an accuser to avoid controversy or embarrassment, is no different than a candidate buying an American made car -with personal funds- to gain the beneficial public optics of not driving a foreign car. Neither expense example makes the payment an aspect of am "in kind" campaign contribution.
There is no connected claim that President Trump used campaign funds to repay his attorney for eliminating the nuisance claim. President Trump, a businessman, used his own business income to repay his attorney; an attorney on a monthly retainer.
The entire charge of Cohen making a campaign contribution, or campaign finance violation, is a manufactured claim, made only by the SDNY, for political benefit.
That's lot of words to dance around an admission that SDNY Prosecutors (the only prosecutors with jurisdiction over this matter btw) believe they have uncovered criminal conduct by Individual-1 in conspiracy with Cohen.
That scheme you talked about where Cohen gets paid "retainer" fees to cover up the use of money is exactly what Cohen described as the unlawful scheme used to avoid disclosure req's. Huge coincidence I guess that those $35k installments all eventually added up to exactly what was paid to Stephanie Clifford.
As a side note, remember when Trump played dumb about this whole thing and said it never happened? It's crazy how much Trump has shifted the goal-posts at this point where he can blatantly lie to his followers' faces and still count on their unwavering support. What's more, not only do they still support him blindly, y'all continue to believe him when he spouts obvious lies. It's disheartening really, in a 1984 kind of way.
The SDNY is a federal prosecutorial agency that terrorizes the masses and "investigates" opponents to find evidence of any political transgressions or opponents whose political views they disagree with.xiledinok said:Maybe in your business people are crooked, corrupt and always looking for that deal that gets them ahead but these are people who are doing their jobs. They can go home at night without having to screw someone to make a buck. I doubt they have trouble understanding the elements that make up the crimes they charge people with in United States District Courts.Doc Holliday said:They (SDNY) can believe it all they want, but they can't misinterpret the law and actions as they are doing and expect to get anywhere with it.HuMcK said:Doc Holliday said:HuMcK said:Doc Holliday said:The DOJ accepted it.HuMcK said:
The whole point of this hearing is Cohen providing evidence that Trump conducted the scheme willfully and with full knowledge of it's illegality. The circumstance you describe where filings can be amended is in the case of mistake or undiscoverability, not after payments were knowingly concealed.
The SDNY would have brought up charges against POTUS. They didn't.
I rest my case.
Trump remains an unindicted co-conspirator because it is DOJ policy at this time to not indict a sitting President, he was however implicated in the same criminal scheme that Cohen plead guilty for. The designation Individual-1should ring a bell for that reason.
This Count Eight transaction surrounds a payment to Stephanie Clifford (Stormy Daniels) of $130,000 for a nuisance claim. Who says it is a campaign contribution? The SDNY does, no-one else. Not even the FEC considers this a campaign contribution.
Count eight is a political charge/plea specifically included for the purpose of pulling Donald Trump into the SDNY Cohen case. There is no FEC violation here. *Note it is not the Federal Election Commission making the claim, only the SDNY prosecutors.
it is not a campaign contribution for a candidate to instruct his attorney to pay-off a nuisance claim to avoid any issues or embarrassment. It is not a campaign donation for Donald Trump to reimburse his attorney for paying the claim.
The issue of the Cohen payment being an "in kind" campaign contribution is the bottom line question which underpins the charge.
There is no FEC rule or law that says a candidate cannot pay-off an accuser to avoid further issues, a nuisance claim. Paying an accuser to avoid controversy or embarrassment, is no different than a candidate buying an American made car -with personal funds- to gain the beneficial public optics of not driving a foreign car. Neither expense example makes the payment an aspect of am "in kind" campaign contribution.
There is no connected claim that President Trump used campaign funds to repay his attorney for eliminating the nuisance claim. President Trump, a businessman, used his own business income to repay his attorney; an attorney on a monthly retainer.
The entire charge of Cohen making a campaign contribution, or campaign finance violation, is a manufactured claim, made only by the SDNY, for political benefit.
That's lot of words to dance around an admission that SDNY Prosecutors (the only prosecutors with jurisdiction over this matter btw) believe they have uncovered criminal conduct by Individual-1 in conspiracy with Cohen.
That scheme you talked about where Cohen gets paid "retainer" fees to cover up the use of money is exactly what Cohen described as the unlawful scheme used to avoid disclosure req's. Huge coincidence I guess that those $35k installments all eventually added up to exactly what was paid to Stephanie Clifford.
As a side note, remember when Trump played dumb about this whole thing and said it never happened? It's crazy how much Trump has shifted the goal-posts at this point where he can blatantly lie to his followers' faces and still count on their unwavering support. What's more, not only do they still support him blindly, y'all continue to believe him when he spouts obvious lies. It's disheartening really, in a 1984 kind of way.
Here is what ya'll don't understand:
If the SDNY's creative interpretation of campaign finance law is allowed to stand, the Justice Department will have the power to take down pretty much any major candidate they do not like.
In free countries, we investigate crimes. In authoritarian countries, they investigate individuals.
If there is any doubt that the Mueller investigation ceased being a counter-intelligence operation and became a criminal investigation with a specific target in search of a crime, this tangent in the Cohen probe (which was handed to the SDNY by the special counsel) offers absolute proof.
Here's how insidious this is: In order for Cohen to get a break on his fraud and tax evasion charges, he pled guilty to something that isn't even a crime and for which he's not getting additional jail time in order to name Donald Trump as a co-conspirator in that "crime."
We are closer to being a banana republic than ya'll think.
Campaign finance law must be restricted to regulating how campaign money is spent, or how money is spent to directly fund election efforts. Period.
If the SDNY's creative interpretation of campaign finance law is allowed to stand, the Justice Department will have the power to take down pretty much any major candidate they do not like.
In free countries, we investigate crimes. In authoritarian countries, they investigate individuals.
If there is any doubt that the Mueller investigation ceased being a counter-intelligence operation and became a criminal investigation with a specific target in search of a crime, this tangent in the Cohen probe (which was handed to the SDNY by the special counsel) offers absolute proof.
Here's how insidious this is: In order for Cohen to get a break on his fraud and tax evasion charges, he pled guilty to something that isn't even a crime and for which he's not getting additional jail time in order to name Donald Trump as a co-conspirator in that "crime."
We are closer to being a banana republic than ya'll think.
Campaign finance law must be restricted to regulating how campaign money is spent, or how money is spent to directly fund election efforts. Period.
Sure buddy. They are not all about to throw their careers and great benefits to bump Trump. Not every is corrupt and stupid enough to throw it all away.Doc Holliday said:The SDNY is a federal prosecutorial agency that terrorizes the masses and "investigates" opponents to find evidence of any political transgressions or opponents whose political views they disagree with.xiledinok said:Maybe in your business people are crooked, corrupt and always looking for that deal that gets them ahead but these are people who are doing their jobs. They can go home at night without having to screw someone to make a buck. I doubt they have trouble understanding the elements that make up the crimes they charge people with in United States District Courts.Doc Holliday said:They (SDNY) can believe it all they want, but they can't misinterpret the law and actions as they are doing and expect to get anywhere with it.HuMcK said:Doc Holliday said:HuMcK said:Doc Holliday said:The DOJ accepted it.HuMcK said:
The whole point of this hearing is Cohen providing evidence that Trump conducted the scheme willfully and with full knowledge of it's illegality. The circumstance you describe where filings can be amended is in the case of mistake or undiscoverability, not after payments were knowingly concealed.
The SDNY would have brought up charges against POTUS. They didn't.
I rest my case.
Trump remains an unindicted co-conspirator because it is DOJ policy at this time to not indict a sitting President, he was however implicated in the same criminal scheme that Cohen plead guilty for. The designation Individual-1should ring a bell for that reason.
This Count Eight transaction surrounds a payment to Stephanie Clifford (Stormy Daniels) of $130,000 for a nuisance claim. Who says it is a campaign contribution? The SDNY does, no-one else. Not even the FEC considers this a campaign contribution.
Count eight is a political charge/plea specifically included for the purpose of pulling Donald Trump into the SDNY Cohen case. There is no FEC violation here. *Note it is not the Federal Election Commission making the claim, only the SDNY prosecutors.
it is not a campaign contribution for a candidate to instruct his attorney to pay-off a nuisance claim to avoid any issues or embarrassment. It is not a campaign donation for Donald Trump to reimburse his attorney for paying the claim.
The issue of the Cohen payment being an "in kind" campaign contribution is the bottom line question which underpins the charge.
There is no FEC rule or law that says a candidate cannot pay-off an accuser to avoid further issues, a nuisance claim. Paying an accuser to avoid controversy or embarrassment, is no different than a candidate buying an American made car -with personal funds- to gain the beneficial public optics of not driving a foreign car. Neither expense example makes the payment an aspect of am "in kind" campaign contribution.
There is no connected claim that President Trump used campaign funds to repay his attorney for eliminating the nuisance claim. President Trump, a businessman, used his own business income to repay his attorney; an attorney on a monthly retainer.
The entire charge of Cohen making a campaign contribution, or campaign finance violation, is a manufactured claim, made only by the SDNY, for political benefit.
That's lot of words to dance around an admission that SDNY Prosecutors (the only prosecutors with jurisdiction over this matter btw) believe they have uncovered criminal conduct by Individual-1 in conspiracy with Cohen.
That scheme you talked about where Cohen gets paid "retainer" fees to cover up the use of money is exactly what Cohen described as the unlawful scheme used to avoid disclosure req's. Huge coincidence I guess that those $35k installments all eventually added up to exactly what was paid to Stephanie Clifford.
As a side note, remember when Trump played dumb about this whole thing and said it never happened? It's crazy how much Trump has shifted the goal-posts at this point where he can blatantly lie to his followers' faces and still count on their unwavering support. What's more, not only do they still support him blindly, y'all continue to believe him when he spouts obvious lies. It's disheartening really, in a 1984 kind of way.
They got enough information yesterday to get things started to investigate more crimes.Doc Holliday said:
Here is what ya'll don't understand:
If the SDNY's creative interpretation of campaign finance law is allowed to stand, the Justice Department will have the power to take down pretty much any major candidate they do not like.
In free countries, we investigate crimes. In authoritarian countries, they investigate individuals.
If there is any doubt that the Mueller investigation ceased being a counter-intelligence operation and became a criminal investigation with a specific target in search of a crime, this tangent in the Cohen probe (which was handed to the SDNY by the special counsel) offers absolute proof.
Here's how insidious this is: In order for Cohen to get a break on his fraud and tax evasion charges, he pled guilty to something that isn't even a crime and for which he's not getting additional jail time in order to name Donald Trump as a co-conspirator in that "crime."
We are closer to being a banana republic than ya'll think.
Campaign finance law must be restricted to regulating how campaign money is spent, or how money is spent to directly fund election efforts. Period.
Look at Trump, he's exhausted from getting blasted and then blown off by North Korea.
Why would North Korea be worried about him? He's in Putin's pocket. They will continue doing what they are doing because they know he is weak.
xiledinok said:Sure buddy. They are all about to throw their careers and great benefits to bump Trump. Not every is corrupt and stupid enough to throw it all away.Doc Holliday said:The SDNY is a federal prosecutorial agency that terrorizes the masses and "investigates" opponents to find evidence of any political transgressions or opponents whose political views they disagree with.xiledinok said:Maybe in your business people are crooked, corrupt and always looking for that deal that gets them ahead but these are people who are doing their jobs. They can go home at night without having to screw someone to make a buck. I doubt they have trouble understanding the elements that make up the crimes they charge people with in United States District Courts.Doc Holliday said:They (SDNY) can believe it all they want, but they can't misinterpret the law and actions as they are doing and expect to get anywhere with it.HuMcK said:Doc Holliday said:HuMcK said:Doc Holliday said:The DOJ accepted it.HuMcK said:
The whole point of this hearing is Cohen providing evidence that Trump conducted the scheme willfully and with full knowledge of it's illegality. The circumstance you describe where filings can be amended is in the case of mistake or undiscoverability, not after payments were knowingly concealed.
The SDNY would have brought up charges against POTUS. They didn't.
I rest my case.
Trump remains an unindicted co-conspirator because it is DOJ policy at this time to not indict a sitting President, he was however implicated in the same criminal scheme that Cohen plead guilty for. The designation Individual-1should ring a bell for that reason.
This Count Eight transaction surrounds a payment to Stephanie Clifford (Stormy Daniels) of $130,000 for a nuisance claim. Who says it is a campaign contribution? The SDNY does, no-one else. Not even the FEC considers this a campaign contribution.
Count eight is a political charge/plea specifically included for the purpose of pulling Donald Trump into the SDNY Cohen case. There is no FEC violation here. *Note it is not the Federal Election Commission making the claim, only the SDNY prosecutors.
it is not a campaign contribution for a candidate to instruct his attorney to pay-off a nuisance claim to avoid any issues or embarrassment. It is not a campaign donation for Donald Trump to reimburse his attorney for paying the claim.
The issue of the Cohen payment being an "in kind" campaign contribution is the bottom line question which underpins the charge.
There is no FEC rule or law that says a candidate cannot pay-off an accuser to avoid further issues, a nuisance claim. Paying an accuser to avoid controversy or embarrassment, is no different than a candidate buying an American made car -with personal funds- to gain the beneficial public optics of not driving a foreign car. Neither expense example makes the payment an aspect of am "in kind" campaign contribution.
There is no connected claim that President Trump used campaign funds to repay his attorney for eliminating the nuisance claim. President Trump, a businessman, used his own business income to repay his attorney; an attorney on a monthly retainer.
The entire charge of Cohen making a campaign contribution, or campaign finance violation, is a manufactured claim, made only by the SDNY, for political benefit.
That's lot of words to dance around an admission that SDNY Prosecutors (the only prosecutors with jurisdiction over this matter btw) believe they have uncovered criminal conduct by Individual-1 in conspiracy with Cohen.
That scheme you talked about where Cohen gets paid "retainer" fees to cover up the use of money is exactly what Cohen described as the unlawful scheme used to avoid disclosure req's. Huge coincidence I guess that those $35k installments all eventually added up to exactly what was paid to Stephanie Clifford.
As a side note, remember when Trump played dumb about this whole thing and said it never happened? It's crazy how much Trump has shifted the goal-posts at this point where he can blatantly lie to his followers' faces and still count on their unwavering support. What's more, not only do they still support him blindly, y'all continue to believe him when he spouts obvious lies. It's disheartening really, in a 1984 kind of way.
So which candidate in the Democratic Clown Car are you voting for? Or maybe you're waiting for old man Biden or young Robert O'rourke?
"Never underestimate Joe's ability to **** things up!"
-- Barack Obama
-- Barack Obama
Who cares, I told you who I planned to vote for a month ago. It was a Republican.RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:xiledinok said:Sure buddy. They are all about to throw their careers and great benefits to bump Trump. Not every is corrupt and stupid enough to throw it all away.Doc Holliday said:The SDNY is a federal prosecutorial agency that terrorizes the masses and "investigates" opponents to find evidence of any political transgressions or opponents whose political views they disagree with.xiledinok said:Maybe in your business people are crooked, corrupt and always looking for that deal that gets them ahead but these are people who are doing their jobs. They can go home at night without having to screw someone to make a buck. I doubt they have trouble understanding the elements that make up the crimes they charge people with in United States District Courts.Doc Holliday said:They (SDNY) can believe it all they want, but they can't misinterpret the law and actions as they are doing and expect to get anywhere with it.HuMcK said:Doc Holliday said:HuMcK said:Doc Holliday said:The DOJ accepted it.HuMcK said:
The whole point of this hearing is Cohen providing evidence that Trump conducted the scheme willfully and with full knowledge of it's illegality. The circumstance you describe where filings can be amended is in the case of mistake or undiscoverability, not after payments were knowingly concealed.
The SDNY would have brought up charges against POTUS. They didn't.
I rest my case.
Trump remains an unindicted co-conspirator because it is DOJ policy at this time to not indict a sitting President, he was however implicated in the same criminal scheme that Cohen plead guilty for. The designation Individual-1should ring a bell for that reason.
This Count Eight transaction surrounds a payment to Stephanie Clifford (Stormy Daniels) of $130,000 for a nuisance claim. Who says it is a campaign contribution? The SDNY does, no-one else. Not even the FEC considers this a campaign contribution.
Count eight is a political charge/plea specifically included for the purpose of pulling Donald Trump into the SDNY Cohen case. There is no FEC violation here. *Note it is not the Federal Election Commission making the claim, only the SDNY prosecutors.
it is not a campaign contribution for a candidate to instruct his attorney to pay-off a nuisance claim to avoid any issues or embarrassment. It is not a campaign donation for Donald Trump to reimburse his attorney for paying the claim.
The issue of the Cohen payment being an "in kind" campaign contribution is the bottom line question which underpins the charge.
There is no FEC rule or law that says a candidate cannot pay-off an accuser to avoid further issues, a nuisance claim. Paying an accuser to avoid controversy or embarrassment, is no different than a candidate buying an American made car -with personal funds- to gain the beneficial public optics of not driving a foreign car. Neither expense example makes the payment an aspect of am "in kind" campaign contribution.
There is no connected claim that President Trump used campaign funds to repay his attorney for eliminating the nuisance claim. President Trump, a businessman, used his own business income to repay his attorney; an attorney on a monthly retainer.
The entire charge of Cohen making a campaign contribution, or campaign finance violation, is a manufactured claim, made only by the SDNY, for political benefit.
That's lot of words to dance around an admission that SDNY Prosecutors (the only prosecutors with jurisdiction over this matter btw) believe they have uncovered criminal conduct by Individual-1 in conspiracy with Cohen.
That scheme you talked about where Cohen gets paid "retainer" fees to cover up the use of money is exactly what Cohen described as the unlawful scheme used to avoid disclosure req's. Huge coincidence I guess that those $35k installments all eventually added up to exactly what was paid to Stephanie Clifford.
As a side note, remember when Trump played dumb about this whole thing and said it never happened? It's crazy how much Trump has shifted the goal-posts at this point where he can blatantly lie to his followers' faces and still count on their unwavering support. What's more, not only do they still support him blindly, y'all continue to believe him when he spouts obvious lies. It's disheartening really, in a 1984 kind of way.
So which candidate in the Democratic Clown Car are you voting for? Or maybe you're waiting for old man Biden or young Robert O'rourke?
The assumption these folks are going to throw away their careers to set up Trump is assinine. Common sense is really lacking.
xiledinok said:Who cares, I told you who I planned to vote for a month ago. It was a Republican.RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:xiledinok said:Sure buddy. They are all about to throw their careers and great benefits to bump Trump. Not every is corrupt and stupid enough to throw it all away.Doc Holliday said:The SDNY is a federal prosecutorial agency that terrorizes the masses and "investigates" opponents to find evidence of any political transgressions or opponents whose political views they disagree with.xiledinok said:Maybe in your business people are crooked, corrupt and always looking for that deal that gets them ahead but these are people who are doing their jobs. They can go home at night without having to screw someone to make a buck. I doubt they have trouble understanding the elements that make up the crimes they charge people with in United States District Courts.Doc Holliday said:They (SDNY) can believe it all they want, but they can't misinterpret the law and actions as they are doing and expect to get anywhere with it.HuMcK said:Doc Holliday said:HuMcK said:Doc Holliday said:The DOJ accepted it.HuMcK said:
The whole point of this hearing is Cohen providing evidence that Trump conducted the scheme willfully and with full knowledge of it's illegality. The circumstance you describe where filings can be amended is in the case of mistake or undiscoverability, not after payments were knowingly concealed.
The SDNY would have brought up charges against POTUS. They didn't.
I rest my case.
Trump remains an unindicted co-conspirator because it is DOJ policy at this time to not indict a sitting President, he was however implicated in the same criminal scheme that Cohen plead guilty for. The designation Individual-1should ring a bell for that reason.
This Count Eight transaction surrounds a payment to Stephanie Clifford (Stormy Daniels) of $130,000 for a nuisance claim. Who says it is a campaign contribution? The SDNY does, no-one else. Not even the FEC considers this a campaign contribution.
Count eight is a political charge/plea specifically included for the purpose of pulling Donald Trump into the SDNY Cohen case. There is no FEC violation here. *Note it is not the Federal Election Commission making the claim, only the SDNY prosecutors.
it is not a campaign contribution for a candidate to instruct his attorney to pay-off a nuisance claim to avoid any issues or embarrassment. It is not a campaign donation for Donald Trump to reimburse his attorney for paying the claim.
The issue of the Cohen payment being an "in kind" campaign contribution is the bottom line question which underpins the charge.
There is no FEC rule or law that says a candidate cannot pay-off an accuser to avoid further issues, a nuisance claim. Paying an accuser to avoid controversy or embarrassment, is no different than a candidate buying an American made car -with personal funds- to gain the beneficial public optics of not driving a foreign car. Neither expense example makes the payment an aspect of am "in kind" campaign contribution.
There is no connected claim that President Trump used campaign funds to repay his attorney for eliminating the nuisance claim. President Trump, a businessman, used his own business income to repay his attorney; an attorney on a monthly retainer.
The entire charge of Cohen making a campaign contribution, or campaign finance violation, is a manufactured claim, made only by the SDNY, for political benefit.
That's lot of words to dance around an admission that SDNY Prosecutors (the only prosecutors with jurisdiction over this matter btw) believe they have uncovered criminal conduct by Individual-1 in conspiracy with Cohen.
That scheme you talked about where Cohen gets paid "retainer" fees to cover up the use of money is exactly what Cohen described as the unlawful scheme used to avoid disclosure req's. Huge coincidence I guess that those $35k installments all eventually added up to exactly what was paid to Stephanie Clifford.
As a side note, remember when Trump played dumb about this whole thing and said it never happened? It's crazy how much Trump has shifted the goal-posts at this point where he can blatantly lie to his followers' faces and still count on their unwavering support. What's more, not only do they still support him blindly, y'all continue to believe him when he spouts obvious lies. It's disheartening really, in a 1984 kind of way.
So which candidate in the Democratic Clown Car are you voting for? Or maybe you're waiting for old man Biden or young Robert O'rourke?
The assumption these folks are going to throw away their careers to set up Trump is assinine. Common sense is really lacking.
Kasich is not running. Most Republicans no longer consider him a Republican.
I don't blame you one bit for pleading the 5th on my question considering who you have to pick from.
"Never underestimate Joe's ability to **** things up!"
-- Barack Obama
-- Barack Obama
"...to which you already know the answer?"YoakDaddy said:cms186 said:why are you asking a question you already know the answer too?Doc Holliday said:
Are you a US citizen?
"to" not "too".
Sic Everyone.
RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:xiledinok said:Who cares, I told you who I planned to vote for a month ago. It was a Republican.RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:xiledinok said:Sure buddy. They are all about to throw their careers and great benefits to bump Trump. Not every is corrupt and stupid enough to throw it all away.Doc Holliday said:The SDNY is a federal prosecutorial agency that terrorizes the masses and "investigates" opponents to find evidence of any political transgressions or opponents whose political views they disagree with.xiledinok said:Maybe in your business people are crooked, corrupt and always looking for that deal that gets them ahead but these are people who are doing their jobs. They can go home at night without having to screw someone to make a buck. I doubt they have trouble understanding the elements that make up the crimes they charge people with in United States District Courts.Doc Holliday said:They (SDNY) can believe it all they want, but they can't misinterpret the law and actions as they are doing and expect to get anywhere with it.HuMcK said:Doc Holliday said:HuMcK said:Doc Holliday said:The DOJ accepted it.HuMcK said:
The whole point of this hearing is Cohen providing evidence that Trump conducted the scheme willfully and with full knowledge of it's illegality. The circumstance you describe where filings can be amended is in the case of mistake or undiscoverability, not after payments were knowingly concealed.
The SDNY would have brought up charges against POTUS. They didn't.
I rest my case.
Trump remains an unindicted co-conspirator because it is DOJ policy at this time to not indict a sitting President, he was however implicated in the same criminal scheme that Cohen plead guilty for. The designation Individual-1should ring a bell for that reason.
This Count Eight transaction surrounds a payment to Stephanie Clifford (Stormy Daniels) of $130,000 for a nuisance claim. Who says it is a campaign contribution? The SDNY does, no-one else. Not even the FEC considers this a campaign contribution.
Count eight is a political charge/plea specifically included for the purpose of pulling Donald Trump into the SDNY Cohen case. There is no FEC violation here. *Note it is not the Federal Election Commission making the claim, only the SDNY prosecutors.
it is not a campaign contribution for a candidate to instruct his attorney to pay-off a nuisance claim to avoid any issues or embarrassment. It is not a campaign donation for Donald Trump to reimburse his attorney for paying the claim.
The issue of the Cohen payment being an "in kind" campaign contribution is the bottom line question which underpins the charge.
There is no FEC rule or law that says a candidate cannot pay-off an accuser to avoid further issues, a nuisance claim. Paying an accuser to avoid controversy or embarrassment, is no different than a candidate buying an American made car -with personal funds- to gain the beneficial public optics of not driving a foreign car. Neither expense example makes the payment an aspect of am "in kind" campaign contribution.
There is no connected claim that President Trump used campaign funds to repay his attorney for eliminating the nuisance claim. President Trump, a businessman, used his own business income to repay his attorney; an attorney on a monthly retainer.
The entire charge of Cohen making a campaign contribution, or campaign finance violation, is a manufactured claim, made only by the SDNY, for political benefit.
That's lot of words to dance around an admission that SDNY Prosecutors (the only prosecutors with jurisdiction over this matter btw) believe they have uncovered criminal conduct by Individual-1 in conspiracy with Cohen.
That scheme you talked about where Cohen gets paid "retainer" fees to cover up the use of money is exactly what Cohen described as the unlawful scheme used to avoid disclosure req's. Huge coincidence I guess that those $35k installments all eventually added up to exactly what was paid to Stephanie Clifford.
As a side note, remember when Trump played dumb about this whole thing and said it never happened? It's crazy how much Trump has shifted the goal-posts at this point where he can blatantly lie to his followers' faces and still count on their unwavering support. What's more, not only do they still support him blindly, y'all continue to believe him when he spouts obvious lies. It's disheartening really, in a 1984 kind of way.
So which candidate in the Democratic Clown Car are you voting for? Or maybe you're waiting for old man Biden or young Robert O'rourke?
The assumption these folks are going to throw away their careers to set up Trump is assinine. Common sense is really lacking.
Kasich is not running. Most Republicans no longer consider him a Republican.
I don't blame you one bit for pleading the 5th on my question considering who you have to pick from.
Do you make decisions on who you will vote for 21 months from the election?
You forget the Democrats win the popular vote. You make it read like you are in the majority. Are you in the majority or is just your imagination?
xiledinok said:RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:xiledinok said:Who cares, I told you who I planned to vote for a month ago. It was a Republican.RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:xiledinok said:Sure buddy. They are all about to throw their careers and great benefits to bump Trump. Not every is corrupt and stupid enough to throw it all away.Doc Holliday said:The SDNY is a federal prosecutorial agency that terrorizes the masses and "investigates" opponents to find evidence of any political transgressions or opponents whose political views they disagree with.xiledinok said:Maybe in your business people are crooked, corrupt and always looking for that deal that gets them ahead but these are people who are doing their jobs. They can go home at night without having to screw someone to make a buck. I doubt they have trouble understanding the elements that make up the crimes they charge people with in United States District Courts.Doc Holliday said:They (SDNY) can believe it all they want, but they can't misinterpret the law and actions as they are doing and expect to get anywhere with it.HuMcK said:Doc Holliday said:HuMcK said:Doc Holliday said:The DOJ accepted it.HuMcK said:
The whole point of this hearing is Cohen providing evidence that Trump conducted the scheme willfully and with full knowledge of it's illegality. The circumstance you describe where filings can be amended is in the case of mistake or undiscoverability, not after payments were knowingly concealed.
The SDNY would have brought up charges against POTUS. They didn't.
I rest my case.
Trump remains an unindicted co-conspirator because it is DOJ policy at this time to not indict a sitting President, he was however implicated in the same criminal scheme that Cohen plead guilty for. The designation Individual-1should ring a bell for that reason.
This Count Eight transaction surrounds a payment to Stephanie Clifford (Stormy Daniels) of $130,000 for a nuisance claim. Who says it is a campaign contribution? The SDNY does, no-one else. Not even the FEC considers this a campaign contribution.
Count eight is a political charge/plea specifically included for the purpose of pulling Donald Trump into the SDNY Cohen case. There is no FEC violation here. *Note it is not the Federal Election Commission making the claim, only the SDNY prosecutors.
it is not a campaign contribution for a candidate to instruct his attorney to pay-off a nuisance claim to avoid any issues or embarrassment. It is not a campaign donation for Donald Trump to reimburse his attorney for paying the claim.
The issue of the Cohen payment being an "in kind" campaign contribution is the bottom line question which underpins the charge.
There is no FEC rule or law that says a candidate cannot pay-off an accuser to avoid further issues, a nuisance claim. Paying an accuser to avoid controversy or embarrassment, is no different than a candidate buying an American made car -with personal funds- to gain the beneficial public optics of not driving a foreign car. Neither expense example makes the payment an aspect of am "in kind" campaign contribution.
There is no connected claim that President Trump used campaign funds to repay his attorney for eliminating the nuisance claim. President Trump, a businessman, used his own business income to repay his attorney; an attorney on a monthly retainer.
The entire charge of Cohen making a campaign contribution, or campaign finance violation, is a manufactured claim, made only by the SDNY, for political benefit.
That's lot of words to dance around an admission that SDNY Prosecutors (the only prosecutors with jurisdiction over this matter btw) believe they have uncovered criminal conduct by Individual-1 in conspiracy with Cohen.
That scheme you talked about where Cohen gets paid "retainer" fees to cover up the use of money is exactly what Cohen described as the unlawful scheme used to avoid disclosure req's. Huge coincidence I guess that those $35k installments all eventually added up to exactly what was paid to Stephanie Clifford.
As a side note, remember when Trump played dumb about this whole thing and said it never happened? It's crazy how much Trump has shifted the goal-posts at this point where he can blatantly lie to his followers' faces and still count on their unwavering support. What's more, not only do they still support him blindly, y'all continue to believe him when he spouts obvious lies. It's disheartening really, in a 1984 kind of way.
So which candidate in the Democratic Clown Car are you voting for? Or maybe you're waiting for old man Biden or young Robert O'rourke?
The assumption these folks are going to throw away their careers to set up Trump is assinine. Common sense is really lacking.
Kasich is not running. Most Republicans no longer consider him a Republican.
I don't blame you one bit for pleading the 5th on my question considering who you have to pick from.
Do you make decisions on who you will vote for 21 months from the election?
You forget the Democrats win the popular vote. You make it read like you are in the majority. Are you in the majority or is just your imagination?
The majority? I am about to send Howard Schultz a few bucks. Am not going to vote for him but want him to do well. With the Socialist and baby-killing platform of the Democratic Party, I will be voting for Donald Trump. Only this time I won't be holding my nose.
"Never underestimate Joe's ability to **** things up!"
-- Barack Obama
-- Barack Obama
FormerFlash said:"...to which you already know the answer?"YoakDaddy said:cms186 said:why are you asking a question you already know the answer too?Doc Holliday said:
Are you a US citizen?
"to" not "too".
Yeah. I wasn't going to go that far....
Baby killing platform? 70 percent of Americans believe Roe v. Wade should not be overturned. They want government kept out of their very private business.RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:xiledinok said:RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:xiledinok said:Who cares, I told you who I planned to vote for a month ago. It was a Republican.RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:xiledinok said:Sure buddy. They are all about to throw their careers and great benefits to bump Trump. Not every is corrupt and stupid enough to throw it all away.Doc Holliday said:The SDNY is a federal prosecutorial agency that terrorizes the masses and "investigates" opponents to find evidence of any political transgressions or opponents whose political views they disagree with.xiledinok said:Maybe in your business people are crooked, corrupt and always looking for that deal that gets them ahead but these are people who are doing their jobs. They can go home at night without having to screw someone to make a buck. I doubt they have trouble understanding the elements that make up the crimes they charge people with in United States District Courts.Doc Holliday said:They (SDNY) can believe it all they want, but they can't misinterpret the law and actions as they are doing and expect to get anywhere with it.HuMcK said:Doc Holliday said:HuMcK said:Doc Holliday said:The DOJ accepted it.HuMcK said:
The whole point of this hearing is Cohen providing evidence that Trump conducted the scheme willfully and with full knowledge of it's illegality. The circumstance you describe where filings can be amended is in the case of mistake or undiscoverability, not after payments were knowingly concealed.
The SDNY would have brought up charges against POTUS. They didn't.
I rest my case.
Trump remains an unindicted co-conspirator because it is DOJ policy at this time to not indict a sitting President, he was however implicated in the same criminal scheme that Cohen plead guilty for. The designation Individual-1should ring a bell for that reason.
This Count Eight transaction surrounds a payment to Stephanie Clifford (Stormy Daniels) of $130,000 for a nuisance claim. Who says it is a campaign contribution? The SDNY does, no-one else. Not even the FEC considers this a campaign contribution.
Count eight is a political charge/plea specifically included for the purpose of pulling Donald Trump into the SDNY Cohen case. There is no FEC violation here. *Note it is not the Federal Election Commission making the claim, only the SDNY prosecutors.
it is not a campaign contribution for a candidate to instruct his attorney to pay-off a nuisance claim to avoid any issues or embarrassment. It is not a campaign donation for Donald Trump to reimburse his attorney for paying the claim.
The issue of the Cohen payment being an "in kind" campaign contribution is the bottom line question which underpins the charge.
There is no FEC rule or law that says a candidate cannot pay-off an accuser to avoid further issues, a nuisance claim. Paying an accuser to avoid controversy or embarrassment, is no different than a candidate buying an American made car -with personal funds- to gain the beneficial public optics of not driving a foreign car. Neither expense example makes the payment an aspect of am "in kind" campaign contribution.
There is no connected claim that President Trump used campaign funds to repay his attorney for eliminating the nuisance claim. President Trump, a businessman, used his own business income to repay his attorney; an attorney on a monthly retainer.
The entire charge of Cohen making a campaign contribution, or campaign finance violation, is a manufactured claim, made only by the SDNY, for political benefit.
That's lot of words to dance around an admission that SDNY Prosecutors (the only prosecutors with jurisdiction over this matter btw) believe they have uncovered criminal conduct by Individual-1 in conspiracy with Cohen.
That scheme you talked about where Cohen gets paid "retainer" fees to cover up the use of money is exactly what Cohen described as the unlawful scheme used to avoid disclosure req's. Huge coincidence I guess that those $35k installments all eventually added up to exactly what was paid to Stephanie Clifford.
As a side note, remember when Trump played dumb about this whole thing and said it never happened? It's crazy how much Trump has shifted the goal-posts at this point where he can blatantly lie to his followers' faces and still count on their unwavering support. What's more, not only do they still support him blindly, y'all continue to believe him when he spouts obvious lies. It's disheartening really, in a 1984 kind of way.
So which candidate in the Democratic Clown Car are you voting for? Or maybe you're waiting for old man Biden or young Robert O'rourke?
The assumption these folks are going to throw away their careers to set up Trump is assinine. Common sense is really lacking.
Kasich is not running. Most Republicans no longer consider him a Republican.
I don't blame you one bit for pleading the 5th on my question considering who you have to pick from.
Do you make decisions on who you will vote for 21 months from the election?
You forget the Democrats win the popular vote. You make it read like you are in the majority. Are you in the majority or is just your imagination?
The majority? I am about to send Howard Schultz a few bucks. Am not going to vote for him but want him to do well. With the Socialist and baby-killing platform of the Democratic Party, I will be voting for Donald Trump. Only this time I won't be holding my nose.
Yes, the majority of Americans didn't vote from Trump. He won't win any of those states in the North in 2020 he won in 2016.
What makes you think going after Trump is career suicide, legitimate or not? Plenty of plush liberal polical machines in and around and involved with the SDNY.xiledinok said:Who cares, I told you who I planned to vote for a month ago. It was a Republican.RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:xiledinok said:Sure buddy. They are all about to throw their careers and great benefits to bump Trump. Not every is corrupt and stupid enough to throw it all away.Doc Holliday said:The SDNY is a federal prosecutorial agency that terrorizes the masses and "investigates" opponents to find evidence of any political transgressions or opponents whose political views they disagree with.xiledinok said:Maybe in your business people are crooked, corrupt and always looking for that deal that gets them ahead but these are people who are doing their jobs. They can go home at night without having to screw someone to make a buck. I doubt they have trouble understanding the elements that make up the crimes they charge people with in United States District Courts.Doc Holliday said:They (SDNY) can believe it all they want, but they can't misinterpret the law and actions as they are doing and expect to get anywhere with it.HuMcK said:Doc Holliday said:HuMcK said:Doc Holliday said:The DOJ accepted it.HuMcK said:
The whole point of this hearing is Cohen providing evidence that Trump conducted the scheme willfully and with full knowledge of it's illegality. The circumstance you describe where filings can be amended is in the case of mistake or undiscoverability, not after payments were knowingly concealed.
The SDNY would have brought up charges against POTUS. They didn't.
I rest my case.
Trump remains an unindicted co-conspirator because it is DOJ policy at this time to not indict a sitting President, he was however implicated in the same criminal scheme that Cohen plead guilty for. The designation Individual-1should ring a bell for that reason.
This Count Eight transaction surrounds a payment to Stephanie Clifford (Stormy Daniels) of $130,000 for a nuisance claim. Who says it is a campaign contribution? The SDNY does, no-one else. Not even the FEC considers this a campaign contribution.
Count eight is a political charge/plea specifically included for the purpose of pulling Donald Trump into the SDNY Cohen case. There is no FEC violation here. *Note it is not the Federal Election Commission making the claim, only the SDNY prosecutors.
it is not a campaign contribution for a candidate to instruct his attorney to pay-off a nuisance claim to avoid any issues or embarrassment. It is not a campaign donation for Donald Trump to reimburse his attorney for paying the claim.
The issue of the Cohen payment being an "in kind" campaign contribution is the bottom line question which underpins the charge.
There is no FEC rule or law that says a candidate cannot pay-off an accuser to avoid further issues, a nuisance claim. Paying an accuser to avoid controversy or embarrassment, is no different than a candidate buying an American made car -with personal funds- to gain the beneficial public optics of not driving a foreign car. Neither expense example makes the payment an aspect of am "in kind" campaign contribution.
There is no connected claim that President Trump used campaign funds to repay his attorney for eliminating the nuisance claim. President Trump, a businessman, used his own business income to repay his attorney; an attorney on a monthly retainer.
The entire charge of Cohen making a campaign contribution, or campaign finance violation, is a manufactured claim, made only by the SDNY, for political benefit.
That's lot of words to dance around an admission that SDNY Prosecutors (the only prosecutors with jurisdiction over this matter btw) believe they have uncovered criminal conduct by Individual-1 in conspiracy with Cohen.
That scheme you talked about where Cohen gets paid "retainer" fees to cover up the use of money is exactly what Cohen described as the unlawful scheme used to avoid disclosure req's. Huge coincidence I guess that those $35k installments all eventually added up to exactly what was paid to Stephanie Clifford.
As a side note, remember when Trump played dumb about this whole thing and said it never happened? It's crazy how much Trump has shifted the goal-posts at this point where he can blatantly lie to his followers' faces and still count on their unwavering support. What's more, not only do they still support him blindly, y'all continue to believe him when he spouts obvious lies. It's disheartening really, in a 1984 kind of way.
So which candidate in the Democratic Clown Car are you voting for? Or maybe you're waiting for old man Biden or young Robert O'rourke?
The assumption these folks are going to throw away their careers to set up Trump is assinine. Common sense is really lacking.
You realize the two statements I bolded above can't both be true right? You're right that the majority of Americans didn't vote for Trump. Therefore, the majority are actually in favor of the government being involved in their very private business. A vote for the Democratic party is a vote for broad federal government oversight, over-involvement, and overreach.xiledinok said:Baby killing platform? 70 percent of Americans believe Roe v. Wade should not be overturned. They want government kept out of their very private business.RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:xiledinok said:RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:xiledinok said:Who cares, I told you who I planned to vote for a month ago. It was a Republican.RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:xiledinok said:Sure buddy. They are all about to throw their careers and great benefits to bump Trump. Not every is corrupt and stupid enough to throw it all away.Doc Holliday said:The SDNY is a federal prosecutorial agency that terrorizes the masses and "investigates" opponents to find evidence of any political transgressions or opponents whose political views they disagree with.xiledinok said:Maybe in your business people are crooked, corrupt and always looking for that deal that gets them ahead but these are people who are doing their jobs. They can go home at night without having to screw someone to make a buck. I doubt they have trouble understanding the elements that make up the crimes they charge people with in United States District Courts.Doc Holliday said:They (SDNY) can believe it all they want, but they can't misinterpret the law and actions as they are doing and expect to get anywhere with it.HuMcK said:Doc Holliday said:HuMcK said:Doc Holliday said:The DOJ accepted it.HuMcK said:
The whole point of this hearing is Cohen providing evidence that Trump conducted the scheme willfully and with full knowledge of it's illegality. The circumstance you describe where filings can be amended is in the case of mistake or undiscoverability, not after payments were knowingly concealed.
The SDNY would have brought up charges against POTUS. They didn't.
I rest my case.
Trump remains an unindicted co-conspirator because it is DOJ policy at this time to not indict a sitting President, he was however implicated in the same criminal scheme that Cohen plead guilty for. The designation Individual-1should ring a bell for that reason.
This Count Eight transaction surrounds a payment to Stephanie Clifford (Stormy Daniels) of $130,000 for a nuisance claim. Who says it is a campaign contribution? The SDNY does, no-one else. Not even the FEC considers this a campaign contribution.
Count eight is a political charge/plea specifically included for the purpose of pulling Donald Trump into the SDNY Cohen case. There is no FEC violation here. *Note it is not the Federal Election Commission making the claim, only the SDNY prosecutors.
it is not a campaign contribution for a candidate to instruct his attorney to pay-off a nuisance claim to avoid any issues or embarrassment. It is not a campaign donation for Donald Trump to reimburse his attorney for paying the claim.
The issue of the Cohen payment being an "in kind" campaign contribution is the bottom line question which underpins the charge.
There is no FEC rule or law that says a candidate cannot pay-off an accuser to avoid further issues, a nuisance claim. Paying an accuser to avoid controversy or embarrassment, is no different than a candidate buying an American made car -with personal funds- to gain the beneficial public optics of not driving a foreign car. Neither expense example makes the payment an aspect of am "in kind" campaign contribution.
There is no connected claim that President Trump used campaign funds to repay his attorney for eliminating the nuisance claim. President Trump, a businessman, used his own business income to repay his attorney; an attorney on a monthly retainer.
The entire charge of Cohen making a campaign contribution, or campaign finance violation, is a manufactured claim, made only by the SDNY, for political benefit.
That's lot of words to dance around an admission that SDNY Prosecutors (the only prosecutors with jurisdiction over this matter btw) believe they have uncovered criminal conduct by Individual-1 in conspiracy with Cohen.
That scheme you talked about where Cohen gets paid "retainer" fees to cover up the use of money is exactly what Cohen described as the unlawful scheme used to avoid disclosure req's. Huge coincidence I guess that those $35k installments all eventually added up to exactly what was paid to Stephanie Clifford.
As a side note, remember when Trump played dumb about this whole thing and said it never happened? It's crazy how much Trump has shifted the goal-posts at this point where he can blatantly lie to his followers' faces and still count on their unwavering support. What's more, not only do they still support him blindly, y'all continue to believe him when he spouts obvious lies. It's disheartening really, in a 1984 kind of way.
So which candidate in the Democratic Clown Car are you voting for? Or maybe you're waiting for old man Biden or young Robert O'rourke?
The assumption these folks are going to throw away their careers to set up Trump is assinine. Common sense is really lacking.
Kasich is not running. Most Republicans no longer consider him a Republican.
I don't blame you one bit for pleading the 5th on my question considering who you have to pick from.
Do you make decisions on who you will vote for 21 months from the election?
You forget the Democrats win the popular vote. You make it read like you are in the majority. Are you in the majority or is just your imagination?
The majority? I am about to send Howard Schultz a few bucks. Am not going to vote for him but want him to do well. With the Socialist and baby-killing platform of the Democratic Party, I will be voting for Donald Trump. Only this time I won't be holding my nose.
Yes, the majority of Americans didn't vote from Trump. He won't win any of those states in the North in 2020 he won in 2016.
Sic Everyone.
Potentially, I think he said. But in reality it's not a crime if it's not campaign money.quash said:Judge Nap, on Fox, puts the felony count at four.Sam Lowry said:That will be quite difficult to do since it was not in fact illegal.HuMcK said:
The whole point of this hearing is Cohen providing evidence that Trump conducted the scheme willfully and with full knowledge of it's illegality.
Sam Lowry said:Potentially, I think he said. But in reality it's not a crime if it's not campaign money.quash said:Judge Nap, on Fox, puts the felony count at four.Sam Lowry said:That will be quite difficult to do since it was not in fact illegal.HuMcK said:
The whole point of this hearing is Cohen providing evidence that Trump conducted the scheme willfully and with full knowledge of it's illegality.
You keep saying that as if it's a given when it is most certainly not. The lawyer who set up the transaction says it was a campaign related expenditure, in fact he plead guilty to it after the weight of evidence convinced prosecutors to charge him for it.
Campaign-related isn't enough. Unless the debt arose solely from the campaign, it's not campaign money.HuMcK said:Sam Lowry said:Potentially, I think he said. But in reality it's not a crime if it's not campaign money.quash said:Judge Nap, on Fox, puts the felony count at four.Sam Lowry said:That will be quite difficult to do since it was not in fact illegal.HuMcK said:
The whole point of this hearing is Cohen providing evidence that Trump conducted the scheme willfully and with full knowledge of it's illegality.
You keep saying that as if it's a given when it is most certainly not. The lawyer who set up the transaction says it was a campaign related expenditure, in fact he plead guilty to it after the weight of evidence convinced prosecutors to charge him for it.
Sam Lowry said:Potentially, I think he said. But in reality it's not a crime if it's not campaign money.quash said:Judge Nap, on Fox, puts the felony count at four.Sam Lowry said:That will be quite difficult to do since it was not in fact illegal.HuMcK said:
The whole point of this hearing is Cohen providing evidence that Trump conducted the scheme willfully and with full knowledge of it's illegality.
And that's why it's a crime.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Nope. Can you imagine the reaction if Trump had used the hard-earned dollars of his Rust Belt constituents to pay off the porn star? Because that's what y'all are saying he should have done. It's just the kind of abuse that the FEC is trying to discourage by interpreting campaign expenditures as narrowly as possible. You can be certain that Dems would be crying foul.quash said:Sam Lowry said:Potentially, I think he said. But in reality it's not a crime if it's not campaign money.quash said:Judge Nap, on Fox, puts the felony count at four.Sam Lowry said:That will be quite difficult to do since it was not in fact illegal.HuMcK said:
The whole point of this hearing is Cohen providing evidence that Trump conducted the scheme willfully and with full knowledge of it's illegality.
And that's why it's a crime.
Sam Lowry said:Nope. Can you imagine the reaction if Trump had used the hard-earned dollars of his Rust Belt constituents to pay off the porn star? Because that's what y'all are saying he should have done. It's just the kind of abuse that the FEC is trying to discourage by interpreting campaign expenditures as narrowly as possible. You can be certain that Dems would be crying foul.quash said:Sam Lowry said:Potentially, I think he said. But in reality it's not a crime if it's not campaign money.quash said:Judge Nap, on Fox, puts the felony count at four.Sam Lowry said:That will be quite difficult to do since it was not in fact illegal.HuMcK said:
The whole point of this hearing is Cohen providing evidence that Trump conducted the scheme willfully and with full knowledge of it's illegality.
And that's why it's a crime.
It's not just the source, it can also be the purpose.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat