Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
He paid more than $130k to Cohen. But it was for legal fees. It is entirely possible that shitbag Cohen never told Trump about the NDA at all.But he paid her 130k for something. Him fucking a porn star isnt illegal. Nor is paying her to not tell her story.
in 2006?Maybe he got Baron his first piece of ass.
I don't disagree that paying someone for an NDA isn't illegal. Nor do I disagree that it's very precarious to assert that doing so during a campaign would make it a campaign expenditure. By that logic anything a candidate bought, you could make the argument that that purchase was to court some portion of the electorate. Buy a dog, you're courting dog lovers. Buy a bag of chips? You're courting snack food junkies. Have a beer? You're courting alcoholics.He paid more than $130k to Cohen. But it was for legal fees. It is entirely possible that shitbag Cohen never told Trump about the NDA at all.
But even if he did and even if Trump knew and even if Trump knowingly repaid Cohen for fronting the NDA payment, as you say, none of that is criminal.
And it is a stupid stretch to insist that the NDA payment was a campaign contribution in kind.
OK, fill in the blank.in 2006?
Even if it was 2016 that would have made Barron 10....
You dont think the case is likely weak?
I'm basing that opinion on the fact that Bragg's predecessor, the FEC, Mueller and the Southern District of NY all looked at this and declined to prosecute.
So the illegal part of this is that Trump used his own money to pay off Daniels and didnt report that as a campaign contribution because him paying off Daniels is part of his run for President. That's the legal theory anyway. Right?
Does anyone think this DA wouldn't be charging Trump with an illegal campaign expenditure had he taken money from his campaign coffers and paid Daniels with it? And which is worse? Ideally you aren't banging porn stars but since that had already occurred and it's not illegal to pay someone to not tell their story....
If true, that’s incredibly irresponsible and unprofessional of Bragg.Are the facts starting to see the light of the day?
BREAKING: Soros-Funded DA Alvin Bragg CAUGHT HIDING Nearly 600 Pages of Exculpatory Evidence from NY Grand Jury in Trump Case (VIDEO)
Libs believe supposedly anonymous “sources” cited by The NY Times, etc., all the damn time. Suddenly this concerns you, now?State laws and Fed laws are all different.
I have no idea about the case, what they even plan to charge him with.
I just get a kick out of how "sources" are never questioned when they say what someone already believes to be true and are never trusted when they don't.
The great Karnac has spoken. LOL
Libs believe supposedly anonymous “sources” cited by The NY Times, etc., all the damn time. Suddenly this concerns you, now?
Sure.
I don’t care for reporting (such as that found in the NY Slimes) which inserts editorial opinions insidiously into so-called “reporting.” And when they cite “anonymous” so-called “sources,” yes, I do wonder if that’s often just a cover for using make-believe in lieu of actual facts of even actual statements.They sure do, and you all dismiss those sources. You all believe FoxNews and the like and the Libs dismiss them.
One more time, there is basically no difference between the two sides.
His predecessor investigated this issue (state) the FEC, Mueller, SDNY (Fed) and all of them decided there was nothing to prosecute.State laws and Fed laws are all different.
I have no idea about the case, what they even plan to charge him with.
I just get a kick out of how "sources" are never questioned when they say what someone already believes to be true and are never trusted when they don't.
Heard they ran out of ham sandwiches.For the day so the DA can try to figure out how to save his career.
I don’t care for reporting (such as that found in the NY Slimes) which inserts editorial opinions insidiously into so-called “reporting.” And when they cite “anonymous” so-called “sources,” yes, I do wonder if that’s often just a cover for using make-believe in lieu of actual facts of even actual statements.
While we all understand that there are times when it might be necessary to give a source anonymity (for their fear of retribution), it is now common-place to rely far too much on “sources” which can’t be questioned.
But there is a difference between the two sides. Your contrary claim is bullshit. One of the differences is found in what will even be reported.
It’s possible just possible that Bragg might have realized he overplayed this and is looking for an off ramp. But if he is like most political figures he will stay in this kamikaze dive right to the end.
