Doc Holliday said:

---

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.

---

He had no obligation to pay Daniels and McDougal. He can argue that he did it to protect his family or his business. The prosecutors can argue he did it to protect his campaign. That is why the Edwards case was tried to a jury. Edwards won becuase he was able to convince a jury the evidence demonstrated he was trying to keep his wife from knowing.

My guess is that Michael Cohen knows the evidence that would go on trial here a lot better than we do. And that is why he pled guilty. If you don't understand this distinction, I can't help you anymore.

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.

---

A special commission run the way the Senate has run its investigation would have been the best result. A special commission run the way the House has run is investigation would have been the worst result. The special prosecutor falls in between.

ATL Bear said:

---

3. I'm not seeing anything getting referred out

---

What do you think the Cohen case was?

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

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.

---

He had no obligation to pay Daniels and McDougal. He can argue that he did it to protect his family or his business. The prosecutors can argue he did it to protect his campaign. That is why the Edwards case was tried to a jury. Edwards won becuase he was able to convince a jury the evidence demonstrated he was trying to keep his wife from knowing.

My guess is that Michael Cohen knows the evidence that would go on trial here a lot better than we do. And that is why he pled guilty. If you don't understand this distinction, I can't help you anymore.

---

There is no FEC violation here. Note it is not the Federal Election Commission making the claim, only the SDNY prosecutors.

If you don't understand this distinction, I can't help you anymore.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

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.

---

He had no obligation to pay Daniels and McDougal. He can argue that he did it to protect his family or his business. The prosecutors can argue he did it to protect his campaign. That is why the Edwards case was tried to a jury. Edwards won becuase he was able to convince a jury the evidence demonstrated he was trying to keep his wife from knowing.

My guess is that Michael Cohen knows the evidence that would go on trial here a lot better than we do. And that is why he pled guilty. If you don't understand this distinction, I can't help you anymore.

---

There is no FEC violation here. Note it is not the Federal Election Commission making the claim, only the SDNY prosecutors.

---

The same prosecutors who prosecute tax fraud and bank fraud. Are you saying that it has to be IRS attorneys on tax fraud cases, FDIC attorneys on bank fraud, etc. etc.? US Attorneys represent the government including the FEC.

You refuse to acknowledge how this could have been an FEC violation-A payment that would not have otherwise been made but for the campaign. Ultimately a jury would decide the intention behind the payment. That may be a trial Cohen/Trump could win, but you cannot in any universe say it is not an FEC violation as a matter of law. Just saying it does not make it so.

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

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.

---

He had no obligation to pay Daniels and McDougal. He can argue that he did it to protect his family or his business. The prosecutors can argue he did it to protect his campaign. That is why the Edwards case was tried to a jury. Edwards won becuase he was able to convince a jury the evidence demonstrated he was trying to keep his wife from knowing.

My guess is that Michael Cohen knows the evidence that would go on trial here a lot better than we do. And that is why he pled guilty. If you don't understand this distinction, I can't help you anymore.

---

There is no FEC violation here. Note it is not the Federal Election Commission making the claim, only the SDNY prosecutors.

---

The same prosecutors who prosecute tax fraud and bank fraud. Are you saying that it has to be IRS attorneys on tax fraud cases, FDIC attorneys on bank fraud, etc. etc.? US Attorneys represent the government including the FEC.

You refuse to acknowledge how this could have been an FEC violation-A payment that would not have otherwise been made but for the campaign. Ultimately a jury would decide the intention behind the payment. That may be a trial Cohen/Trump could win, but you cannot in any universe say it is not an FEC violation as a matter of law. Just saying it does not make it so.

---

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 an "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.

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.

---

Leftist? Grab some bench. Where do we send the carton of cigarettes to Paul Manfort? He's going to die or cry loudly.

He's going to fold.

We will see what the next jury thinks. I m confident you ll be down batting .005 by then.
All those crimes that Cohen knew about are now on the table.
Online Russian troll or political hack, you should have known these guys were in trouble. They don't file charges in federal court unless they have exceptional evidence.
Tell your boy Art that when the local Italians tell him not to cover the spread, don't cover.

Isn't this Bill Clinton stuff all over again? Didn't care then, don't care now...

bubbadog said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

3. I'm not seeing anything getting referred out

---

What do you think the Cohen case was?

---

A case investigated and built by the special prosecutors office.

Lets be honest. Could you imagine what they would have found if a special counsel asked NYC to raid Hillary's or the DNC's attorneys office and confiscate all their files & cell phones, videos etc.

It's still crazy that Mueller was able to raid Trump's attorney's office. Equal justice, right?

Another story buried because it looks bad for the Dems.

ATL Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

3. I'm not seeing anything getting referred out

---

What do you think the Cohen case was?

---

A case investigated and built by the special prosecutors office.

---

A case uncovered by the special prosecutor's office during the course of their other investigations and that they examined, in keeping with their original mandate from Rozenstein, enough to see that it warranted further investigation. So, after consultation with Rozenstein, they turned it over to the Southern District of Manhattan, which then called the shots on how and whether to pursue it.

You claimed that nothing got referred out. And that wasn't accurate.

LOL

bubbadog said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

3. I'm not seeing anything getting referred out

---

What do you think the Cohen case was?

---

A case investigated and built by the special prosecutors office.

---

A case uncovered by the special prosecutor's office during the course of their other investigations and that they examined, in keeping with their original mandate from Rozenstein, enough to see that it warranted further investigation. So, after consultation with Rozenstein, they turned it over to the Southern District of Manhattan, which then called the shots on how and whether to pursue it.

You claimed that nothing got referred out. And that wasn't accurate.

---

It wasn't the original mandate.

Rosenstein had a secret memo expanding Mueller's mandate: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000162-8b23-d039-a976-dfe7110d0001

The first and obvious question is, why on Earth was this kept secret? It smacks of secret police, not an open and fair investigation.

But there is another, truly serious problem with it: Mueller actually raided Manafort prior to this mandate.

The midnight raid on Manafort's home, waking him and his wife, was a shocking example of unnecessary bullying on its face intended to intimidate, not just to develop evidence. But the fact that it took place before the scope was even authorized, and that subsequent authorization took place in secret, absolutely stinks.

Mueller is earning the title of "rogue prosecutor," while Rosenstein is looking more like his accomplice than his boss.

They used this memo against Cohen as well.

You would have to be a complete moron to believe this is a fair and unbiased investigation.

I'm just glad Trumps is draining that swamp.

J.R. said:

---

I'm just glad Trumps is draining that swamp.

---

The economy is crushing it. Unemployment is incredibly low. The majority of people believe the country is moving in the right direction. We're not involved in any major foreign conflicts. People have more money in their pocket.
But yeah, let's spend our entire energy on peripheral scumbags to Trump in the hopes we can take him down, because that's really what's best for this country, not the other stuff I mentioned.

Crime can balloon up, unemployment can be at record highs, but hey, as long as Trump is removed, that's all that seems to matter to you.

Doc Holliday said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

3. I'm not seeing anything getting referred out

---

What do you think the Cohen case was?

---

A case investigated and built by the special prosecutors office.

---

A case uncovered by the special prosecutor's office during the course of their other investigations and that they examined, in keeping with their original mandate from Rozenstein, enough to see that it warranted further investigation. So, after consultation with Rozenstein, they turned it over to the Southern District of Manhattan, which then called the shots on how and whether to pursue it.

You claimed that nothing got referred out. And that wasn't accurate.

---

It wasn't the original mandate.

Rosenstein had a secret memo expanding Mueller's mandate: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000162-8b23-d039-a976-dfe7110d0001

The first and obvious question is, why on Earth was this kept secret? It smacks of secret police, not an open and fair investigation.

But there is another, truly serious problem with it: Mueller actually raided Manafort prior to this mandate.

The midnight raid on Manafort's home, waking him and his wife, was a shocking example of unnecessary bullying on its face intended to intimidate, not just to develop evidence. But the fact that it took place before the scope was even authorized, and that subsequent authorization took place in secret, absolutely stinks.

Mueller is earning the title of "rogue prosecutor," while Rosenstein is looking more like his accomplice than his boss.

They used this memo against Cohen as well.

You would have to be a complete moron to believe this is a fair and unbiased investigation.

---

I remember that raid. You called it a coup.

riflebear said:

---

---

Deflectors on max.

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

3. I'm not seeing anything getting referred out

---

What do you think the Cohen case was?

---

A case investigated and built by the special prosecutors office.

---

A case uncovered by the special prosecutor's office during the course of their other investigations and that they examined, in keeping with their original mandate from Rozenstein, enough to see that it warranted further investigation. So, after consultation with Rozenstein, they turned it over to the Southern District of Manhattan, which then called the shots on how and whether to pursue it.

You claimed that nothing got referred out. And that wasn't accurate.

---

It wasn't the original mandate.

Rosenstein had a secret memo expanding Mueller's mandate: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000162-8b23-d039-a976-dfe7110d0001

The first and obvious question is, why on Earth was this kept secret? It smacks of secret police, not an open and fair investigation.

But there is another, truly serious problem with it: Mueller actually raided Manafort prior to this mandate.

The midnight raid on Manafort's home, waking him and his wife, was a shocking example of unnecessary bullying on its face intended to intimidate, not just to develop evidence. But the fact that it took place before the scope was even authorized, and that subsequent authorization took place in secret, absolutely stinks.

Mueller is earning the title of "rogue prosecutor," while Rosenstein is looking more like his accomplice than his boss.

They used this memo against Cohen as well.

You would have to be a complete moron to believe this is a fair and unbiased investigation.

---

I remember that raid. You called it a coup.

---

Well doing it without a mandate then having your buddy at the DOJ create one for you sure looks like a coup to me.

Doc Holliday said:

---

J.R. said:

---

I'm just glad Trumps is draining that swamp.

---

The economy is crushing it. Unemployment is incredibly low. The majority of people believe the country is moving in the right direction. We're not involved in any major foreign conflicts. People have more money in their pocket.
But yeah, let's spend our entire energy on peripheral scumbags to Trump in the hopes we can take him down, because that's really what's best for this country, not the other stuff I mentioned.

Crime can balloon up, unemployment can be at record highs, but hey, as long as Trump is removed, that's all that seems to matter to you.

---

Peripheral? really? His Fixer and campaign chief are hardly Peripheral. The posse is catching up to him. I don't know if he will be removed or not, but he won't get re elected.

quash said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Deflectors on max.

---

Captn, I kenna hold her together much longa! At this rate she's gonna blow!

J.R. said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

J.R. said:

---

I'm just glad Trumps is draining that swamp.

---

The economy is crushing it. Unemployment is incredibly low. The majority of people believe the country is moving in the right direction. We're not involved in any major foreign conflicts. People have more money in their pocket.
But yeah, let's spend our entire energy on peripheral scumbags to Trump in the hopes we can take him down, because that's really what's best for this country, not the other stuff I mentioned.

Crime can balloon up, unemployment can be at record highs, but hey, as long as Trump is removed, that's all that seems to matter to you.

---

Peripheral? really? His Fixer and campaign chief are hardly Peripheral. The posse is catching up to him. I don't know if he will be removed or not, but he won't get re elected.

---

Youll probably have a different take after midterms and when SPYGATE is blown wide open lol

J.R. said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

J.R. said:

---

I'm just glad Trumps is draining that swamp.

---

The economy is crushing it. Unemployment is incredibly low. The majority of people believe the country is moving in the right direction. We're not involved in any major foreign conflicts. People have more money in their pocket.
But yeah, let's spend our entire energy on peripheral scumbags to Trump in the hopes we can take him down, because that's really what's best for this country, not the other stuff I mentioned.

Crime can balloon up, unemployment can be at record highs, but hey, as long as Trump is removed, that's all that seems to matter to you.

---

Peripheral? really? His Fixer and campaign chief are hardly Peripheral. The posse is catching up to him. I don't know if he will be removed or not, but he won't get re elected.

---

He won't be removed for a couple of campaign finance violations. If this is all they have, it'll be well forgotten by 2020.

A lot of the rhetoric around this reminds me of the 1990s.

There were a number of conservatives, obviously not all, who were absolutely delighted about Bill Clinton's debacle. Even before impeachment, some of them had a ridiculous confidence, a sense of gloating, that he would soon be removed from office. A lot of Democrats, meanwhile, set loyalty to person, party and policy above all else. Lying didn't matter, sexual exploitation didn't matter. Only policy mattered.

I see a lot of the same kind of thinking from some liberals and conservatives today, but the roles are switched. It will be fascinating to watch and see if Democrats follow the Republican script from that time and if Republicans follow the Democrats script from that time as this all plays out.

bubbadog said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

3. I'm not seeing anything getting referred out

---

What do you think the Cohen case was?

---

A case investigated and built by the special prosecutors office.

---

A case uncovered by the special prosecutor's office during the course of their other investigations and that they examined, in keeping with their original mandate from Rozenstein, enough to see that it warranted further investigation. So, after consultation with Rozenstein, they turned it over to the Southern District of Manhattan, which then called the shots on how and whether to pursue it.

You claimed that nothing got referred out. And that wasn't accurate.

---

You're talking prosecution, I'm talking investigation. I know cases were turned over to the Southern District for prosecution. If that's the point you're making, then yes I agree. But the only reason these cases were built and around is the open ended approach beyond the Rozenstein mandate, to investigate anything and everywhere. Rozenstein's primary mandate was about coordination between the Russian government, and the Trump campaign. The anything arising from that investigation is assumed to involve attempts to obstruct justice, intimidate witnesses (that supposedly happened), and other grounds laid out by the Federal law that governs special counsels. Mueller hasn't just said, hey, there may be something here Southern District, take a look at it further, they used these as bargaining tools to try and get info on their actual mandate, and to no avail I might add.

Everyone is cheering on a massively beyond scope investigation that's gone well beyond what it was intended to address. This isn't something to be proud of. There are agencies in law enforcement that are tasked with investigating these activities, and I know many disdain the party associated with the people being hammered, but these are still private citizens being swept up in an investigation that still hasn't produced anything about the target(s) it was sent in after.

Starr started with a questionable land deal, and ended up with perjury in a Sexual Harassment suit. That wasn't a proud moment then, and this isn't one now. Frankly, it's frightening as the precedent is being set for wide and meandering special counsel investigations.

Sam Lowry said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

J.R. said:

---

I'm just glad Trumps is draining that swamp.

---

The economy is crushing it. Unemployment is incredibly low. The majority of people believe the country is moving in the right direction. We're not involved in any major foreign conflicts. People have more money in their pocket.
But yeah, let's spend our entire energy on peripheral scumbags to Trump in the hopes we can take him down, because that's really what's best for this country, not the other stuff I mentioned.

Crime can balloon up, unemployment can be at record highs, but hey, as long as Trump is removed, that's all that seems to matter to you.

---

Peripheral? really? His Fixer and campaign chief are hardly Peripheral. The posse is catching up to him. I don't know if he will be removed or not, but he won't get re elected.

---

He won't be removed for a couple of campaign finance violations. If this is all they have, it'll be well forgotten by 2020.

---

We need him to shoot someone on Fifth Avenue. Oh wait, that won't change anyone's mind either.

I agree that paying Stormy off will not result in removal nor should it.

Sam Lowry said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

J.R. said:

---

I'm just glad Trumps is draining that swamp.

---

The economy is crushing it. Unemployment is incredibly low. The majority of people believe the country is moving in the right direction. We're not involved in any major foreign conflicts. People have more money in their pocket.
But yeah, let's spend our entire energy on peripheral scumbags to Trump in the hopes we can take him down, because that's really what's best for this country, not the other stuff I mentioned.

Crime can balloon up, unemployment can be at record highs, but hey, as long as Trump is removed, that's all that seems to matter to you.

---

Peripheral? really? His Fixer and campaign chief are hardly Peripheral. The posse is catching up to him. I don't know if he will be removed or not, but he won't get re elected.

---

He won't be removed for a couple of campaign finance violations. If this is all they have, it'll be well forgotten by 2020.

---

Really speaks to how morally low the Right has sunk in America these days. Felony crimes are now no big deal for Trump, the habitual liar who pays off mistresses to keep quiet and perpetually screws everyone around him. And yet, he can still count on the support of the "moral majority".

HuMcK said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

J.R. said:

---

I'm just glad Trumps is draining that swamp.

---

The economy is crushing it. Unemployment is incredibly low. The majority of people believe the country is moving in the right direction. We're not involved in any major foreign conflicts. People have more money in their pocket.
But yeah, let's spend our entire energy on peripheral scumbags to Trump in the hopes we can take him down, because that's really what's best for this country, not the other stuff I mentioned.

Crime can balloon up, unemployment can be at record highs, but hey, as long as Trump is removed, that's all that seems to matter to you.

---

Peripheral? really? His Fixer and campaign chief are hardly Peripheral. The posse is catching up to him. I don't know if he will be removed or not, but he won't get re elected.

---

He won't be removed for a couple of campaign finance violations. If this is all they have, it'll be well forgotten by 2020.

---

Really speaks to how morally low the Right has sunk in America these days. Felony crimes are now no big deal for Trump, the habitual liar who pays off mistresses to keep quiet and perpetually screws everyone around him. And yet, he can still count on the support of the "moral majority".

---

Not really. It's hard to imagine a president of any party being removed for this.

HuMcK said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

J.R. said:

---

I'm just glad Trumps is draining that swamp.

---

The economy is crushing it. Unemployment is incredibly low. The majority of people believe the country is moving in the right direction. We're not involved in any major foreign conflicts. People have more money in their pocket.
But yeah, let's spend our entire energy on peripheral scumbags to Trump in the hopes we can take him down, because that's really what's best for this country, not the other stuff I mentioned.

Crime can balloon up, unemployment can be at record highs, but hey, as long as Trump is removed, that's all that seems to matter to you.

---

Peripheral? really? His Fixer and campaign chief are hardly Peripheral. The posse is catching up to him. I don't know if he will be removed or not, but he won't get re elected.

---

He won't be removed for a couple of campaign finance violations. If this is all they have, it'll be well forgotten by 2020.

---

Really speaks to how morally low the Right has sunk in America these days. Felony crimes are now no big deal for Trump, the habitual liar who pays off mistresses to keep quiet and perpetually screws everyone around him. And yet, he can still count on the support of the "moral majority".

---

Says the person who votes pro abortion, pro shipping pallets of cash to Iran, pro let illegals murder our citizens, pro rules for thee not for me crowd.

You think the left is the moral majority? The same people pushing pedophilia acceptance?

GTFO.

keep fighting Doc

don't let the bazterds get the best of ya !!

corncob pipe said:

---

keep fighting Doc

don't let the bazterds get the best of ya !!

---

Gotta think two moves ahead

Immediate next move: bird bites Pepe in half
after that: bisected Pepe relaxes grip

Sic transit gloria Pepe

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

3. I'm not seeing anything getting referred out

---

What do you think the Cohen case was?

---

A case investigated and built by the special prosecutors office.

---

A case uncovered by the special prosecutor's office during the course of their other investigations and that they examined, in keeping with their original mandate from Rozenstein, enough to see that it warranted further investigation. So, after consultation with Rozenstein, they turned it over to the Southern District of Manhattan, which then called the shots on how and whether to pursue it.

You claimed that nothing got referred out. And that wasn't accurate.

---

It wasn't the original mandate.

Rosenstein had a secret memo expanding Mueller's mandate: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000162-8b23-d039-a976-dfe7110d0001

The first and obvious question is, why on Earth was this kept secret? It smacks of secret police, not an open and fair investigation.

But there is another, truly serious problem with it: Mueller actually raided Manafort prior to this mandate.

The midnight raid on Manafort's home, waking him and his wife, was a shocking example of unnecessary bullying on its face intended to intimidate, not just to develop evidence. But the fact that it took place before the scope was even authorized, and that subsequent authorization took place in secret, absolutely stinks.

Mueller is earning the title of "rogue prosecutor," while Rosenstein is looking more like his accomplice than his boss.

They used this memo against Cohen as well.

You would have to be a complete moron to believe this is a fair and unbiased investigation.

---

I remember that raid. You called it a coup.

---

Well doing it without a mandate then having your buddy at the DOJ create one for you sure looks like a coup to me.

---

Thrn you don't know the meaning of the word. Too late now, I guess, already printed up the Coup Cucks Clan jerseys.