HuMcK said:

---

---

Paging Lil Johnny, Davey, and Dr. Halliday

J.R. said:

---

Paging Lil Johnny, Davey, and Dr. Halliday

---

Im not worried lol

99.9% of the U.S. population would still have never heard of 'lawyer, Michael Cohen' if Donald J. Trump didn't successfully run for President. Michael Cohen would still be a successful lawyer if Donald J. Trump didn't run for the presidency.

This is Washington, D.C. telling * you * :

• that your vote doesn't matter
• that it protects it's own - the Awans, the Clintons, etc.
• that the rule of law doesn't exist anymore
• that no one outside of the 'chosen' shall ever hold office
• that you are no more than expendable tax cattle and you should learn your place

They should be burned out and treated like the roaches they are. It should be beyond clear that it's never going to happen legally at this point.

Cheshire Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

99.9% of the U.S. population would still have never heard of 'lawyer, Michael Cohen' if Donald J. Trump didn't successfully run for President. Michael Cohen would still be a successful lawyer if Donald J. Trump didn't run for the presidency.

This is Washington, D.C. telling * you * :

• that your vote doesn't matter
• that it protects it's own - the Awans, the Clintons, etc.
• that the rule of law doesn't exist anymore
• that no one outside of the 'chosen' shall ever hold office
• that you are no more than expendable tax cattle and you should learn your place

They should be burned out and treated like the roaches they are. It should be beyond clear that it's never going to happen legally at this point.

---

LOL The mental hoops you have to jump through to truly believe this *****..astounding. You guys are going to be a case study for the rest of recorded history.

---

What about Paula Jones' $850,000.00 payment from Bill Clinton? Why didn't Bill Clinton get prosecuted? It's not a crime.

What about the $1.8 million illegal campaign contributions to Obama. It was a crime and they had to pay a $375,000.00 fine. But did anyone go to jail for it? No, partisan politics rule the day and Democrats in power work to protect their own.

What about the Senate slush fund used to pay hush money or sexual assault settlements for sitting Senators? That was taxpayer money. Why hasn't anyone been prosecuted for those payouts? Instead just a couple resignations.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Cheshire Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

99.9% of the U.S. population would still have never heard of 'lawyer, Michael Cohen' if Donald J. Trump didn't successfully run for President. Michael Cohen would still be a successful lawyer if Donald J. Trump didn't run for the presidency.

This is Washington, D.C. telling * you * :

• that your vote doesn't matter
• that it protects it's own - the Awans, the Clintons, etc.
• that the rule of law doesn't exist anymore
• that no one outside of the 'chosen' shall ever hold office
• that you are no more than expendable tax cattle and you should learn your place

They should be burned out and treated like the roaches they are. It should be beyond clear that it's never going to happen legally at this point.

---

LOL The mental hoops you have to jump through to truly believe this *****..astounding. You guys are going to be a case study for the rest of recorded history.

---

What about Paula Jones' $850,000.00 payment from Bill Clinton? Why didn't Bill Clinton get prosecuted? It's not a crime.

What about the $1.8 million illegal campaign contributions to Obama. It was a crime and they had to pay a $375,000.00 fine. But did anyone go to jail for it? No, partisan politics rule the day and Democrats in power work to protect their own.

What about the Senate slush fund used to pay hush money or sexual assault settlements for sitting Senators? That was taxpayer money. Why hasn't anyone been prosecuted for those payouts? Instead just a couple resignations.

---

Man, bad case of Whataboutitis.

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Cheshire Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

99.9% of the U.S. population would still have never heard of 'lawyer, Michael Cohen' if Donald J. Trump didn't successfully run for President. Michael Cohen would still be a successful lawyer if Donald J. Trump didn't run for the presidency.

This is Washington, D.C. telling * you * :

• that your vote doesn't matter
• that it protects it's own - the Awans, the Clintons, etc.
• that the rule of law doesn't exist anymore
• that no one outside of the 'chosen' shall ever hold office
• that you are no more than expendable tax cattle and you should learn your place

They should be burned out and treated like the roaches they are. It should be beyond clear that it's never going to happen legally at this point.

---

LOL The mental hoops you have to jump through to truly believe this *****..astounding. You guys are going to be a case study for the rest of recorded history.

---

What about Paula Jones' $850,000.00 payment from Bill Clinton? Why didn't Bill Clinton get prosecuted? It's not a crime.

What about the $1.8 million illegal campaign contributions to Obama. It was a crime and they had to pay a $375,000.00 fine. But did anyone go to jail for it? No, partisan politics rule the day and Democrats in power work to protect their own.

What about the Senate slush fund used to pay hush money or sexual assault settlements for sitting Senators? That was taxpayer money. Why hasn't anyone been prosecuted for those payouts? Instead just a couple resignations.

---

Man, bad case of Whataboutitis.

---

Rules for thee but not for me.

HuMcK said:

---

---

Everyone has a plan until the orange jumpsuit is on and the steel bars lock shut.

Who here actually believes this is going to take down Trump lol?

Despite the media hype 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.

Cheshire Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Cheshire Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

99.9% of the U.S. population would still have never heard of 'lawyer, Michael Cohen' if Donald J. Trump didn't successfully run for President. Michael Cohen would still be a successful lawyer if Donald J. Trump didn't run for the presidency.

This is Washington, D.C. telling * you * :

• that your vote doesn't matter
• that it protects it's own - the Awans, the Clintons, etc.
• that the rule of law doesn't exist anymore
• that no one outside of the 'chosen' shall ever hold office
• that you are no more than expendable tax cattle and you should learn your place

They should be burned out and treated like the roaches they are. It should be beyond clear that it's never going to happen legally at this point.

---

LOL The mental hoops you have to jump through to truly believe this *****..astounding. You guys are going to be a case study for the rest of recorded history.

---

What about Paula Jones' $850,000.00 payment from Bill Clinton? Why didn't Bill Clinton get prosecuted? It's not a crime.

What about the $1.8 million illegal campaign contributions to Obama. It was a crime and they had to pay a $375,000.00 fine. But did anyone go to jail for it? No, partisan politics rule the day and Democrats in power work to protect their own.

What about the Senate slush fund used to pay hush money or sexual assault settlements for sitting Senators? That was taxpayer money. Why hasn't anyone been prosecuted for those payouts? Instead just a couple resignations.

---

You're worried about the wrong things, Doc. Y'all impeached Clinton for his blowjob. Don't look now, but Trump has had HUNDREDS of blowjobs. We need that classic republican moral authority to rear its head again.

---

I realize the following has literally nothing to do with this case, however it infuriates me that they are using phony campaign contribution insinuations within a plea agreement to ensnare the President while turning a blind eye to the tax dollar funded slush fund for sexual misconduct cases against Congress members.

I'm tired of the lopsided application of the "laws", I just hope more citizens feel it too and vote for a change from this UniParty system.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Despite the media hype 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.

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Who here actually believes this is going to take down Trump lol?

---

I don't know about Trump, but it's definitely taking down the appropriate use of a special prosecutor. This is Starr on steroids and HGH.

Step 1 - Rally up outcry around something
Step 2 - Use it to justify hiring a special prosecutor
Step 3 - Allow wide latitude to investigate and prosecute ANYTHING
Step 4 - Revel in the melee

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Who here actually believes this is going to take down Trump lol?

---

I don't know about Trump, but it's definitely taking down the appropriate use of a special prosecutor. This is Starr on steroids and HGH.

Step 1 - Rally up outcry around something
Step 2 - Use it to justify hiring a special prosecutor
Step 3 - Allow wide latitude to investigate and prosecute ANYTHING
Step 4 - Revel in the melee

---

1. Foreign countries pulling our crap on us is a something.
3. Prosecuting a crime discovered during the investigation is Ok by me. Note that the farther the offense is from the mandate the more likely it gets referred out.

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Who here actually believes this is going to take down Trump lol?

---

I don't know about Trump, but it's definitely taking down the appropriate use of a special prosecutor. This is Starr on steroids and HGH.

Step 1 - Rally up outcry around something
Step 2 - Use it to justify hiring a special prosecutor
Step 3 - Allow wide latitude to investigate and prosecute ANYTHING
Step 4 - Revel in the melee

---

1. Foreign countries pulling our crap on us is a something.
3. Prosecuting a crime discovered during the investigation is Ok by me. Note that the farther the offense is from the mandate the more likely it gets referred out.

---

What is hilarious is that you have spent the past two years defending ILLEGAL immigration are now citing the LAW to bring down Trump.

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Who here actually believes this is going to take down Trump lol?

---

I don't know about Trump, but it's definitely taking down the appropriate use of a special prosecutor. This is Starr on steroids and HGH.

Step 1 - Rally up outcry around something
Step 2 - Use it to justify hiring a special prosecutor
Step 3 - Allow wide latitude to investigate and prosecute ANYTHING
Step 4 - Revel in the melee

---

1. Foreign countries pulling our crap on us is a something.
3. Prosecuting a crime discovered during the investigation is Ok by me. Note that the farther the offense is from the mandate the more likely it gets referred out.

---

What is hilarious is that you have spent the past two years defending ILLEGAL immigration are now citing the LAW to bring down Trump.

---

I want serious reform of our immigration laws, and I attacked Trump's application of our current laws. Sorry, not sorry, you can't see the difference.

And it goes back a lot longer than two years. As deportations rose under Obama I was just as critical. Remember?

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Who here actually believes this is going to take down Trump lol?

---

I don't know about Trump, but it's definitely taking down the appropriate use of a special prosecutor. This is Starr on steroids and HGH.

Step 1 - Rally up outcry around something
Step 2 - Use it to justify hiring a special prosecutor
Step 3 - Allow wide latitude to investigate and prosecute ANYTHING
Step 4 - Revel in the melee

---

1. Foreign countries pulling our crap on us is a something.
3. Prosecuting a crime discovered during the investigation is Ok by me. Note that the farther the offense is from the mandate the more likely it gets referred out.

---

What is hilarious is that you have spent the past two years defending ILLEGAL immigration are now citing the LAW to bring down Trump.

---

I want serious reform of our immigration laws, and I attacked Trump's application of our current laws. Sorry, not sorry, you can't see the difference.

---

Oh cmon quash, you only like the application of laws when it benefits you.

You want reform but you don't want the current laws enforced.

The question of what is a campaign contribution is not cut and dried; basically, however, if the expense would have existed absent the campaign it can be a personal expense not subject to campaign finance law.

John Edwards successfully argued that his hush money payments about an affair were to keep his wife from knowing about the affair. Therefore, personal and not reportable.

Cohen's guilty plea means he recognizes the payments to McDougal and Daniels would not have been made if Trump had not been a candidate. My guess is there is plenty of evidence to back that up or Cohen would not have pled to it.

Booray said:

---

The question of what is a campaign contribution is not cut and dried; basically, however, if the expense would have existed absent the campaign it can be a personal expense not subject to campaign finance law.

John Edwards successfully argued that his hush money payments about an affair were to keep his wife from knowing about the affair. Therefore, personal and not reportable.

Cohen's guilty plea means he recognizes the payments to McDougal and Daniels would not have been made if Trump had not been a candidate. My guess is there is plenty of evidence to back that up or Cohen would not have pled to it.

---

To add to this, one thing not getting a lot of mention at the moment is structuring. If a campaign violation is on the table, the alleged structuring of the reimbursement payments to Cohen across a period of time to avoid reporting requirements is it's own seperate potential crime.

Booray said:

---

The question of what is a campaign contribution is not cut and dried; basically, however, if the expense would have existed absent the campaign it can be a personal expense not subject to campaign finance law.

John Edwards successfully argued that his hush money payments about an affair were to keep his wife from knowing about the affair. Therefore, personal and not reportable.

Cohen's guilty plea means he recognizes the payments to McDougal and Daniels would not have been made if Trump had not been a candidate. My guess is there is plenty of evidence to back that up or Cohen would not have pled to it.

---

Nope. There is no FEC rule or law that says a candidate cannot pay-off an accuser to avoid further issues, a nuisance claim.

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Who here actually believes this is going to take down Trump lol?

---

I don't know about Trump, but it's definitely taking down the appropriate use of a special prosecutor. This is Starr on steroids and HGH.

Step 1 - Rally up outcry around something
Step 2 - Use it to justify hiring a special prosecutor
Step 3 - Allow wide latitude to investigate and prosecute ANYTHING
Step 4 - Revel in the melee

---

1. Foreign countries pulling our crap on us is a something.
3. Prosecuting a crime discovered during the investigation is Ok by me. Note that the farther the offense is from the mandate the more likely it gets referred out.

---

What is hilarious is that you have spent the past two years defending ILLEGAL immigration are now citing the LAW to bring down Trump.

---

I want serious reform of our immigration laws, and I attacked Trump's application of our current laws. Sorry, not sorry, you can't see the difference.

---

Oh cmon quash, you only like the application of laws when it benefits you.

You want reform but you don't want the current laws enforced.

---

So you're ignoring all the tax benefits I get that I wanted eliminated in the tax reform bill. When we didn't get much tax reform.

J.R. said:

---

Paging Lil Johnny, Davey, and Dr. Halliday

---

You libs (including you, Junior) are hilarious. In fact, you hatemongers slobbering and having wet dreams over this latest Cohen thing are funnier than Wile E. Coyote hatching his latest "sure fire scheme" to at long last nail the Roadrunner. When will you people ever learn? You aren't going to invalidate the results of a completely legal election and Trump is going to be POTUS through 2024 unless he gets assassinated (which is admittedly a risk due in no small part to the hate you guys shamefully harbor, spew and support). You guys can wish, hope, and cross your fingers all you want, but in the end, this is a big nothing burger (to borrow a term from someone who really is a criminal - Hillary Clinton).

Don't take my word for it, however. Here's how a DEMOCRAT that knows a thing or two about the law analyzes this big pile of nothing:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/dershowitz-trump-safe-from-impeachment

You guys keep it up, though it's really entertaining!

^^ all my altnicks are out today ^^

xiledinok said:

---

Doc, grab some bench.
Being ignorant and a prideful clown gets one nowhere. You batted .028 on this thread.
Hack somewhere online where you actually went to school.

---

I'm pretty sure I've made all you leftists conclude that this is going nowhere:

Just because a prosecutor says that somebody violated a campaign law doesn't make it so. He is not the judge. He is not the jury. We didn't adjudicate anything. It never went to court.

A campaign expenditure under our federal campaign laws is an expenditure solely for campaign activity. A candidate who spends his own money or even corporate money for an event that occurred not as a result of the campaign, it is not a campaign expenditure.

HuMcK said:

---

---

LOL - Like Trump would pardon him.

Lets remember Mr. 'liar' Cohen is the same person who said these payments were not a violation just a few months ago and that he would take a bullet for Trump and he was extremely loyal to him. I wonder what changed? Mr. Cohen is the last person to trust and lets not forget his attorney wrote a book whose last chapter talked about how we needed to impeach Trump and he's very close to the Clintons.

Doc Holliday said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

Doc, grab some bench.
Being ignorant and a prideful clown gets one nowhere. You batted .028 on this thread.
Hack somewhere online where you actually went to school.

---

I'm pretty sure I've made all you leftists conclude that this is going nowhere:

Just because a prosecutor says that somebody violated a campaign law doesn't make it so. He is not the judge. He is not the jury. We didn't adjudicate anything. It never went to court.

A campaign expenditure under our federal campaign laws is an expenditure solely for campaign activity. A candidate who spends his own money or even corporate money for an event that occurred not as a result of the campaign, it is not a campaign expenditure.

---

You are ignoring your own definition. When Cohen pleaded guilty he said the payments to McDougal and Daniels were a result of the campaign. How does he know this? He was in the room.

The question is one of intent. No judge can rule on intent-it is a jury issue. Cohen calculated that a jury would agree with the prosecutors. Saw an article two days ago that indicated when Daniels first approached Trump they told her that they weren't interested, would not pay her anything. Then the Access Hollywood tape comes out and the campaign goest to Daniels to make a deal. That certainly is evidence that the payment was "because the campaign" and therefore a campaign contribution by your own definition.

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

Doc, grab some bench.
Being ignorant and a prideful clown gets one nowhere. You batted .028 on this thread.
Hack somewhere online where you actually went to school.

---

I'm pretty sure I've made all you leftists conclude that this is going nowhere:

Just because a prosecutor says that somebody violated a campaign law doesn't make it so. He is not the judge. He is not the jury. We didn't adjudicate anything. It never went to court.

A campaign expenditure under our federal campaign laws is an expenditure solely for campaign activity. A candidate who spends his own money or even corporate money for an event that occurred not as a result of the campaign, it is not a campaign expenditure.

---

You are ignoring your own definition. When Cohen pleaded guilty he said the payments to McDougal and Daniels were a result of the campaign. How does he know this? He was in the room.

The question is one of intent. No judge can rule on intent-it is a jury issue. Cohen calculated that a jury would agree with the prosecutors. Saw an article two days ago that indicated when Daniels first approached Trump they told her that they weren't interested, would not pay her anything. Then the Access Hollywood tape comes out and the campaign goest to Daniels to make a deal. That certainly is evidence that the payment was "because the campaign" and therefore a campaign contribution by your own definition.

---

Many things that can influence a campaign are NOT campaign expenditures. It has to be an obligation that would not exist but for the campaign, not simply related to the campaign.

riflebear said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

---

LOL - Like Trump would pardon him.

Lets remember Mr. 'liar' Cohen is the same person who said these payments were not a violation just a few months ago and that he would take a bullet for Trump and he was extremely loyal to him. I wonder what changed? Mr. Cohen is the last person to trust and lets not forget his attorney wrote a book whose last chapter talked about how we needed to impeach Trump and he's very close to the Clintons.

---

The last person we need to trust is Donald Trump. On this issue alone Trump told us he never had the affairs, knew nothing about the payments. Both are complete lies, the second one proven by the Cohen tape. The fact that trump hired a sleaze ball fixer is more evidence of his absolute lack of scruples, not less. He lies about everything. Everything.

Johnny Bear said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Paging Lil Johnny, Davey, and Dr. Halliday

---

You libs (including you, Junior) are hilarious. In fact, you hatemongers slobbering and having wet dreams over this latest Cohen thing are funnier than Wile E. Coyote hatching his latest "sure fire scheme" to at long last nail the Roadrunner. When will you people ever learn? You aren't going to invalidate the results of a completely legal election and Trump is going to be POTUS through 2024 unless he gets assassinated (which is admittedly a risk due in no small part to the hate you guys shamefully harbor, spew and support). You guys can wish, hope, and cross your fingers all you want, but in the end, this is a big nothing burger (to borrow a term from someone who really is a criminal - Hillary Clinton).

Don't take my word for it, however. Here's how a DEMOCRAT that knows a thing or two about the law analyzes this big pile of nothing:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/dershowitz-trump-safe-from-impeachment

You guys keep it up, though it's really entertaining!

---

Now LJ, at least u had the stones to poke ur head up from the cube farm and take ur medicine. As I've told u on numerous occasions, not a lib. Have never voted for a democrat. Voted for The Trumps. I simply think he is bad, slimy guy and is terrible for the country on balance!

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Who here actually believes this is going to take down Trump lol?

---

I don't know about Trump, but it's definitely taking down the appropriate use of a special prosecutor. This is Starr on steroids and HGH.

Step 1 - Rally up outcry around something
Step 2 - Use it to justify hiring a special prosecutor
Step 3 - Allow wide latitude to investigate and prosecute ANYTHING
Step 4 - Revel in the melee

---

1. Foreign countries pulling our crap on us is a something.
3. Prosecuting a crime discovered during the investigation is Ok by me. Note that the farther the offense is from the mandate the more likely it gets referred out.

---

1. A something that intelligence agencies and law enforcement are tasked with handling. A special prosecutor was an over reach because the task was to tie one campaign to collusion with a foreign government. An FBI/CIA task force would have been the more appropriate response.

3. I'm not seeing anything getting referred out, and we're wandering at the far edges of the pasture already. Campaign finance and bank fraud from years ago thus far.

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Who here actually believes this is going to take down Trump lol?

---

I don't know about Trump, but it's definitely taking down the appropriate use of a special prosecutor. This is Starr on steroids and HGH.

Step 1 - Rally up outcry around something
Step 2 - Use it to justify hiring a special prosecutor
Step 3 - Allow wide latitude to investigate and prosecute ANYTHING
Step 4 - Revel in the melee

---

1. Foreign countries pulling our crap on us is a something.
3. Prosecuting a crime discovered during the investigation is Ok by me. Note that the farther the offense is from the mandate the more likely it gets referred out.

---

1. A something that intelligence agencies and law enforcement are tasked with handling. A special prosecutor was an over reach because the task was to tie one campaign to collusion with a foreign government. An FBI/CIA task force would have been the more appropriate response.

3. I'm not seeing anything getting referred out, and we're wandering at the far edges of the pasture already. Campaign finance and bank fraud from years ago thus far.

---

3. Southern District of NY.

riflebear said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

---

LOL - Like Trump would pardon him.

Lets remember Mr. 'liar' Cohen is the same person who said these payments were not a violation just a few months ago and that he would take a bullet for Trump and he was extremely loyal to him. I wonder what changed? Mr. Cohen is the last person to trust and lets not forget his attorney wrote a book whose last chapter talked about how we needed to impeach Trump and he's very close to the Clintons.

---

What changed? Cohen said Helsinki did it for him.