Do you believe Cohen or Trump?

[bripat9643]

Its actually a moot point since there really wasn't any crime committed regarding the hush money payments to the bimbos.

There is absolutely nothing wrong out side of moral character, with paying off bimbos under normal situations.

HOWEVER, if the primary reason these ladies of the night were being paid off, was because he did not want them spilling the beans to the public, because of the Access Hollywood video or the 12 women that said he sexually harassed them during his campaign for presidency, then it would be breaking the law....

-it would have to be the primary reason or sole reason, due to the election campaign....for it to be illegal

here are some of the facts and reasons:

It is illegal for a Corporation to donate money or in kind services, to any campaign.

The payoff to Karen McDougall to silence her, for Donald Trump, by the National Enquirer/AMI Corp. was specifically done to silence her during Trump's campaign. She had approached the National Enquirer a couple of months earlier than her August payoff, to tell her "story" is my understanding and they hymned and hawed over it... until Candidate Trump had won his primary, I believe they were trying to catch and kill her story of the two of them, for less money....but once Trump had won, it actually cost them a pretty penny.

Both David Pecker, (the National Enquirer guy) and Michael Cohen and Donald Trump met in 2015 to discuss HOW the National Enquirer could help him in his campaign for the Presidency.... To Catch and Kill any of the women coming forward that he slept with, AND to run negative ads on Hillary during the campaign.... of which the National Enquirer did BOTH.

The discussion was NOT to hide it from Melania... ( I think they probably have a sexualy open marriage or she would have left him long ago....) There are two people, Cohen and Pecker, that have said this happened.... vs. the Don. Not just Cohen.

So, this means a Corporation was donating to the Trump Campaign, with gifts that would help him in the election.... so the National Enquirer/AMI broke the law... but Donald was aware and okay and even asked them to do what they did, and I believe Trump's Company paid them back.... in a back handed and fraudulent way, by paying Cohen for legal services that he never performed, then he paid AMI Corp, so to hide the whole thing....

all of this was dirty, and for the purpose of the election and hiding from we the people, of what was being done.... normally as said, this might have been ok, but Campaign Finance laws have the sole purpose of giving sunshine to we the people, so we can make educated choices and to know where the money came from that donates directly to these campaigns...

Oh darn, the dinner bell for the oven is going off so I will have to come back and finish this and get in to the Stormy pay off....

Wrong again. It's been explained to you multiple times why your theory is wrong. If an expenditure can have any conceivable private purpose, then it's not a campaign expenditure.

I've never seen such a huge pile of obviously wrong snowflake myths in my life

LOL- you idiot snowflakes keep thinking if you keep repeating your 'theories' over and over it is 'explaining'

Both Cohen and AMI have both admitted to the illegal campaign contributions.

Can't get around that.

A plea bargain can't be used as evidence, dumbass, so it doesn't matter what they supposedly "admitted." Cohen doesn't get to determine whether Trump committed a campaign expenditure, and neither does Manafort. A judge does that, and Mueller obviously knows that no judge is going to rule in his favor.

 

[bripat9643]

...They aren't campaign donations, douchebag. ...

Calm yourself, Princess...

...The evidence has been produced time and time again...

Apparently, the US Justice Department, and the Southern District of New York, disagree with you.

...Shit like this is why debating leftists is a complete waste of time...

How would you know? You don't understand the concept of 'debate' anyway.

...They never acknowledge that they've been beaten...

Especially when they have not been.

...They just keep repeating the same idiocies over and over and over.

You have them confused with TrumpBots in this instance.

Your post amounted to little more than saying "nuh uhn!" Refuting it would be a waste of time and bandwidth.

 

[bripat9643]

Its actually a moot point since there really wasn't any crime committed regarding the hush money payments to the bimbos.

There is absolutely nothing wrong out side of moral character, with paying off bimbos under normal situations.

HOWEVER, if the primary reason these ladies of the night were being paid off, was because he did not want them spilling the beans to the public, because of the Access Hollywood video or the 12 women that said he sexually harassed them during his campaign for presidency, then it would be breaking the law....

-it would have to be the primary reason or sole reason, due to the election campaign....for it to be illegal

here are some of the facts and reasons:

It is illegal for a Corporation to donate money or in kind services, to any campaign.

The payoff to Karen McDougall to silence her, for Donald Trump, by the National Enquirer/AMI Corp. was specifically done to silence her during Trump's campaign. She had approached the National Enquirer a couple of months earlier than her August payoff, to tell her "story" is my understanding and they hymned and hawed over it... until Candidate Trump had won his primary, I believe they were trying to catch and kill her story of the two of them, for less money....but once Trump had won, it actually cost them a pretty penny.

Both David Pecker, (the National Enquirer guy) and Michael Cohen and Donald Trump met in 2015 to discuss HOW the National Enquirer could help him in his campaign for the Presidency.... To Catch and Kill any of the women coming forward that he slept with, AND to run negative ads on Hillary during the campaign.... of which the National Enquirer did BOTH.

The discussion was NOT to hide it from Melania... ( I think they probably have a sexualy open marriage or she would have left him long ago....) There are two people, Cohen and Pecker, that have said this happened.... vs. the Don. Not just Cohen.

So, this means a Corporation was donating to the Trump Campaign, with gifts that would help him in the election.... so the National Enquirer/AMI broke the law... but Donald was aware and okay and even asked them to do what they did, and I believe Trump's Company paid them back.... in a back handed and fraudulent way, by paying Cohen for legal services that he never performed, then he paid AMI Corp, so to hide the whole thing....

all of this was dirty, and for the purpose of the election and hiding from we the people, of what was being done.... normally as said, this might have been ok, but Campaign Finance laws have the sole purpose of giving sunshine to we the people, so we can make educated choices and to know where the money came from that donates directly to these campaigns...

Oh darn, the dinner bell for the oven is going off so I will have to come back and finish this and get in to the Stormy pay off....

Wrong again. It's been explained to you multiple times why your theory is wrong. If an expenditure can have any conceivable private purpose, then it's not a campaign expenditure.

I've never seen such a huge pile of obviously wrong snowflake myths in my life

NOPE.....

The reason Edwards got off, is because they did not believe the campaign was the primary reason... he was married, but was having an affair with her and she and he had a child together, and the payments went over a long period of time and even when he had already knew he was pulling out of the primary.... so even though he was no longer going to be in the primary race, she and their child, was still getting paid....

This is why he got off.... the primary purpose was to take care of his mistress, and to take care of her while she was with child, and to take care of her and their child , after the child was born, and to hide this all from his wife who was dying, and it also helped his campaign.... the campaign came in 3rd place.

The discussion with Trump, Cohen and Pecker did not mention Melania and hiding it from her.... she already knew she married a whore.... and certainly saw all the pictures of him with these other two women... it was ONLY ABOUT his campaign.... the whole discussion of the 3 was about the Campaign... And these were past affairs, near ten years past, not an affair he was presently having...

So it is a better shot that he would be guilty than Edwards, of covering it up for the main purpose of the campaign, thus making it an illegal campaign donation from a corporation.... and Trump's company paying Pecker back is also an illegal donation....

If Trump had made all the payments out of his own money and not his company's, and didn't go through contortions the best mob boss could imagine to cover it all up financially, he probably would not be in trouble at all for it...

but honestly, to me...this all is a side show to deflect from his Russian collusion....

That's rationalization, not logic. You aren't able to commit logic. If the payment conceivably had a private purpose, then it's not a campaign expenditure, period.

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong !!!!! They were made to keep possible blackmailing extortionist from attacking the office of our Presidency if Trump a billionaire business man were to win the office legitimately in which he did. No crime was committed, in fact an act in securing that office from head hunters was the act being committed. No crime there, and in fact after all that has come to light, Donald J. Trump was absolutely right in doing what he did in that NDA in order to protect the office if he became the President.

A crime was committed as described in depth by Andrew Napalitano, a former judge. The malicious intent to conceal campaign related expendiures.
Your saying "nun-unh" doesn't matter.

There is no such crime, moron. Paying off bimbos extorting money from you is not a crime.

Neapolitano has only revealed that he's an imbecile.

Again, it is when you don't report it as a campaign expenditure.

It isn't a campaign expenditure, so why would you need to report it?

LOL well you are as usual reliably parroting Lying Donald.

Cohen and the parent company of the National Enquirer have both admitted they were expenditures specifically intended to affect the election.

But sure- just keep parroting what your Dear Leader tells you to parrot.

LOL

A plea deal isn't admissible evidence, dumbass, so it doesn't matter what they "admitted."

 

[bripat9643]

There is no such crime, moron. Paying off bimbos extorting money from you is not a crime.

Neapolitano has only revealed that he's an imbecile.

Again, it is when you don't report it as a campaign expenditure.

It isn't a campaign expenditure, so why would you need to report it?

It is when you buy silence (or try to) during a presidential campaign and not report it on the disclosures.

wrong.

"Nuh UH" is no defense moron

All the principles involved (save of course Trump) have admitted it was to aid Trump's election chances

Plea deals are not admissible as evidence, dumb fuck. When is that fact going to penetrate your thick skull?

 

[candycorn]

A crime was committed as described in depth by Andrew Napalitano, a former judge. The malicious intent to conceal campaign related expendiures.
Your saying "nun-unh" doesn't matter.

There is no such crime, moron. Paying off bimbos extorting money from you is not a crime.

Neapolitano has only revealed that he's an imbecile.

Again, it is when you don't report it as a campaign expenditure.

It isn't a campaign expenditure, so why would you need to report it?

LOL well you are as usual reliably parroting Lying Donald.

Cohen and the parent company of the National Enquirer have both admitted they were expenditures specifically intended to affect the election.

But sure- just keep parroting what your Dear Leader tells you to parrot.

LOL

A plea deal isn't admissible evidence, dumbass, so it doesn't matter what they "admitted."

The "plea deal" is based on what Michael Cohen and the parent company gave to the authorities. In this world, you do not get something for nothing and while the plea itself may not be admissible, the information they gave would certainly be admissible.

 

[Syriusly]

Fox analyst Napolitano explains it very well.

Judge Napolitano Disproves Fox & Friends' Pro-Trump Talking Points Live On Air

Your specific question about “what crime” starts at 1:20.

Enjoy!

Napolitano has turned into a Trump-hating douchebag. He's opinion isn't worth the bandwidth used to broadcast it.

Oh…that is why he is on Fox.

So the Republican Mueller has turned
The Republican Napolitao has turned
Cohen has turned
Manafort has turned
Flynn has turned
Papadopolous has turned
The douche who ran the Enquirer has turned

How long until you turn? Or will you “take a bullet” for Trump?

All turning under pressure, just like anyone will do if threatened by things unrelated to an investigation. Is Mueller the equal to a leg breaker only in a mental sense ????

Thought the squimish Demon-crat's were weak stomached about torture by American's, yet here they are cheering it on in this Mueller probe/witch Hunt to hang/lynch one Donald Trump. Well I'll be darned, you don't say (hypocrisy at it's finest again). LOL

Wow- I thought the Trumpkins couldn't stoop any lower- but comparing water boarding to the FBI using the same tactic on a priveleged white man that is used daily by police and the FBI around the country on hundreds of people.......yeah hypocrisy is at its finest whenever we watch you Trumpkins parrot whatever your Dear Leader tells you.

This will be Mueller's undoing. The coup is officially over.

The 'coupe' never started- despite the frantic and hysterical imagineering of Trump and his loyal Trumpkins.

 

[bripat9643]

There is no such crime, moron. Paying off bimbos extorting money from you is not a crime.

Neapolitano has only revealed that he's an imbecile.

Again, it is when you don't report it as a campaign expenditure.

It isn't a campaign expenditure, so why would you need to report it?

LOL well you are as usual reliably parroting Lying Donald.

Cohen and the parent company of the National Enquirer have both admitted they were expenditures specifically intended to affect the election.

But sure- just keep parroting what your Dear Leader tells you to parrot.

LOL

A plea deal isn't admissible evidence, dumbass, so it doesn't matter what they "admitted."

The "plea deal" is based on what Michael Cohen and the parent company gave to the authorities. In this world, you do not get something for nothing and while the plea itself may not be admissible, the information they gave would certainly be admissible.

It doesn't matter what it's "based on," you fucking moron. It's not freely given uncoerced testimony that can be cross examined, and Cohen doesn't have the qualifications do determine what the law means.

By the "information" you mean the contents of the plea deal. That's exactly what isn't admissible.

 

[bripat9643]

Its actually a moot point since there really wasn't any crime committed regarding the hush money payments to the bimbos.

There is absolutely nothing wrong out side of moral character, with paying off bimbos under normal situations.

HOWEVER, if the primary reason these ladies of the night were being paid off, was because he did not want them spilling the beans to the public, because of the Access Hollywood video or the 12 women that said he sexually harassed them during his campaign for presidency, then it would be breaking the law....

-it would have to be the primary reason or sole reason, due to the election campaign....for it to be illegal

here are some of the facts and reasons:

It is illegal for a Corporation to donate money or in kind services, to any campaign.

The payoff to Karen McDougall to silence her, for Donald Trump, by the National Enquirer/AMI Corp. was specifically done to silence her during Trump's campaign. She had approached the National Enquirer a couple of months earlier than her August payoff, to tell her "story" is my understanding and they hymned and hawed over it... until Candidate Trump had won his primary, I believe they were trying to catch and kill her story of the two of them, for less money....but once Trump had won, it actually cost them a pretty penny.

Both David Pecker, (the National Enquirer guy) and Michael Cohen and Donald Trump met in 2015 to discuss HOW the National Enquirer could help him in his campaign for the Presidency.... To Catch and Kill any of the women coming forward that he slept with, AND to run negative ads on Hillary during the campaign.... of which the National Enquirer did BOTH.

The discussion was NOT to hide it from Melania... ( I think they probably have a sexualy open marriage or she would have left him long ago....) There are two people, Cohen and Pecker, that have said this happened.... vs. the Don. Not just Cohen.

So, this means a Corporation was donating to the Trump Campaign, with gifts that would help him in the election.... so the National Enquirer/AMI broke the law... but Donald was aware and okay and even asked them to do what they did, and I believe Trump's Company paid them back.... in a back handed and fraudulent way, by paying Cohen for legal services that he never performed, then he paid AMI Corp, so to hide the whole thing....

all of this was dirty, and for the purpose of the election and hiding from we the people, of what was being done.... normally as said, this might have been ok, but Campaign Finance laws have the sole purpose of giving sunshine to we the people, so we can make educated choices and to know where the money came from that donates directly to these campaigns...

Oh darn, the dinner bell for the oven is going off so I will have to come back and finish this and get in to the Stormy pay off....

Wrong again. It's been explained to you multiple times why your theory is wrong. If an expenditure can have any conceivable private purpose, then it's not a campaign expenditure.

I've never seen such a huge pile of obviously wrong snowflake myths in my life

LOL- you idiot snowflakes keep thinking if you keep repeating your 'theories' over and over it is 'explaining'

Both Cohen and AMI have both admitted to the illegal campaign contributions.

Can't get around that.

A plea bargain can't be used as evidence, dumbass, so it doesn't matter what they supposedly "admitted." Cohen doesn't get to determine whether Trump committed a campaign expenditure, and neither does Manafort. A judge does that, and Mueller obviously knows that no judge is going to rule in his favor.

Cohen's testimony can be used as evidence- dumbass. As can the testimony of
Trump's National Enquirer publisher buddy.
And I think it is hilarious that you think you know what any judge will do0 what with your rather perfect record of absolute failure.

Cohen gave no testimony, moron. He agreed to a plea deal. "Testimony" is something that occurs during a trial, and defense lawyers have a right to cross examine the witness. Non of that occurred. Cohen's plea is not testimony and it's not admissible.

You're a fucking moron, of course.

 

[bripat9643]

Napolitano has turned into a Trump-hating douchebag. He's opinion isn't worth the bandwidth used to broadcast it.

Oh…that is why he is on Fox.

So the Republican Mueller has turned
The Republican Napolitao has turned
Cohen has turned
Manafort has turned
Flynn has turned
Papadopolous has turned
The douche who ran the Enquirer has turned

How long until you turn? Or will you “take a bullet” for Trump?

All turning under pressure, just like anyone will do if threatened by things unrelated to an investigation. Is Mueller the equal to a leg breaker only in a mental sense ????

Thought the squimish Demon-crat's were weak stomached about torture by American's, yet here they are cheering it on in this Mueller probe/witch Hunt to hang/lynch one Donald Trump. Well I'll be darned, you don't say (hypocrisy at it's finest again). LOL

Wow- I thought the Trumpkins couldn't stoop any lower- but comparing water boarding to the FBI using the same tactic on a priveleged white man that is used daily by police and the FBI around the country on hundreds of people.......yeah hypocrisy is at its finest whenever we watch you Trumpkins parrot whatever your Dear Leader tells you.

This will be Mueller's undoing. The coup is officially over.

The 'coupe' never started- despite the frantic and hysterical imagineering of Trump and his loyal Trumpkins.

Nonsense. The coup started the minute Obama administration officials began illegaly searching through the NSA database for any communications by the Trump campaign.

 

[Syriusly]

Oh…that is why he is on Fox.

So the Republican Mueller has turned
The Republican Napolitao has turned
Cohen has turned
Manafort has turned
Flynn has turned
Papadopolous has turned
The douche who ran the Enquirer has turned

How long until you turn? Or will you “take a bullet” for Trump?

All turning under pressure, just like anyone will do if threatened by things unrelated to an investigation. Is Mueller the equal to a leg breaker only in a mental sense ????

Thought the squimish Demon-crat's were weak stomached about torture by American's, yet here they are cheering it on in this Mueller probe/witch Hunt to hang/lynch one Donald Trump. Well I'll be darned, you don't say (hypocrisy at it's finest again). LOL

Wow- I thought the Trumpkins couldn't stoop any lower- but comparing water boarding to the FBI using the same tactic on a priveleged white man that is used daily by police and the FBI around the country on hundreds of people.......yeah hypocrisy is at its finest whenever we watch you Trumpkins parrot whatever your Dear Leader tells you.

This will be Mueller's undoing. The coup is officially over.

The 'coupe' never started- despite the frantic and hysterical imagineering of Trump and his loyal Trumpkins.

Nonsense. The coup started the minute Obama administration officials began illegaly searching through the NSA database for any communications by the Trump campaign.

Really- when did that happen? Specifically?

 

[bripat9643]

All turning under pressure, just like anyone will do if threatened by things unrelated to an investigation. Is Mueller the equal to a leg breaker only in a mental sense ????

Thought the squimish Demon-crat's were weak stomached about torture by American's, yet here they are cheering it on in this Mueller probe/witch Hunt to hang/lynch one Donald Trump. Well I'll be darned, you don't say (hypocrisy at it's finest again). LOL

Wow- I thought the Trumpkins couldn't stoop any lower- but comparing water boarding to the FBI using the same tactic on a priveleged white man that is used daily by police and the FBI around the country on hundreds of people.......yeah hypocrisy is at its finest whenever we watch you Trumpkins parrot whatever your Dear Leader tells you.

This will be Mueller's undoing. The coup is officially over.

The 'coupe' never started- despite the frantic and hysterical imagineering of Trump and his loyal Trumpkins.

Nonsense. The coup started the minute Obama administration officials began illegaly searching through the NSA database for any communications by the Trump campaign.

Really- when did that happen? Specifically?

 

[candycorn]

Again, it is when you don't report it as a campaign expenditure.

It isn't a campaign expenditure, so why would you need to report it?

LOL well you are as usual reliably parroting Lying Donald.

Cohen and the parent company of the National Enquirer have both admitted they were expenditures specifically intended to affect the election.

But sure- just keep parroting what your Dear Leader tells you to parrot.

LOL

A plea deal isn't admissible evidence, dumbass, so it doesn't matter what they "admitted."

The "plea deal" is based on what Michael Cohen and the parent company gave to the authorities. In this world, you do not get something for nothing and while the plea itself may not be admissible, the information they gave would certainly be admissible.

It doesn't matter what it's "based on," you fucking moron. It's not freely given uncoerced testimony that can be cross examined, and Cohen doesn't have the qualifications do determine what the law means.

By the "information" you mean the contents of the plea deal. That's exactly what isn't admissible.

I see you're now retreating to the hair-splitting exercise.

The plea deal is predicated on testimony that will be presented. You do not get the deal unless you're willing to testify.

 

[bripat9643]

It isn't a campaign expenditure, so why would you need to report it?

LOL well you are as usual reliably parroting Lying Donald.

Cohen and the parent company of the National Enquirer have both admitted they were expenditures specifically intended to affect the election.

But sure- just keep parroting what your Dear Leader tells you to parrot.

LOL

A plea deal isn't admissible evidence, dumbass, so it doesn't matter what they "admitted."

The "plea deal" is based on what Michael Cohen and the parent company gave to the authorities. In this world, you do not get something for nothing and while the plea itself may not be admissible, the information they gave would certainly be admissible.

It doesn't matter what it's "based on," you fucking moron. It's not freely given uncoerced testimony that can be cross examined, and Cohen doesn't have the qualifications do determine what the law means.

By the "information" you mean the contents of the plea deal. That's exactly what isn't admissible.

I see you're now retreating to the hair-splitting exercise.

The plea deal is predicated on testimony that will be presented. You do not get the deal unless you're willing to testify.

Once he's sentenced, Mueller has no leverage over the defendant. He can't revoke any deals at that point.

You obviously don't understand the first thing about how plea deals operate.

 

[Syriusly]

I will leave Brip to continue kissing Trump's ass.

There are two testimonies on record describing Trump's collusion to violate campaign laws. Whether or not Trump is ever prosecuted for those violations of the law will be up to prosecutors after Trump is out of office.

But certainly the evidence is there to support filing the charges.

 

[candycorn]

LOL well you are as usual reliably parroting Lying Donald.

Cohen and the parent company of the National Enquirer have both admitted they were expenditures specifically intended to affect the election.

But sure- just keep parroting what your Dear Leader tells you to parrot.

LOL

A plea deal isn't admissible evidence, dumbass, so it doesn't matter what they "admitted."

The "plea deal" is based on what Michael Cohen and the parent company gave to the authorities. In this world, you do not get something for nothing and while the plea itself may not be admissible, the information they gave would certainly be admissible.

It doesn't matter what it's "based on," you fucking moron. It's not freely given uncoerced testimony that can be cross examined, and Cohen doesn't have the qualifications do determine what the law means.

By the "information" you mean the contents of the plea deal. That's exactly what isn't admissible.

I see you're now retreating to the hair-splitting exercise.

The plea deal is predicated on testimony that will be presented. You do not get the deal unless you're willing to testify.

Once he's sentenced, Mueller has no leverage over the defendant. He can't revoke any deals at that point.

You obviously don't understand the first thing about how plea deals operate.

Ok; go with that. Meanwhile back in reality, the prosecutor can add charges and lengthen a sentence if the cooperation that was promised does not materialize. If, of course, there are charges to add.

 

[cnm]

A plea deal isn't admissible evidence, dumbass, so it doesn't matter what they "admitted."

Admissions are evidence. Ffs. That everyone is publicly demonstrating your idol has feet of clay is deranging your mind to the point you can't recognise reality.

Oh. Such has always been the case, hasn't it? My bad.

 

[Kondor3]

...They aren't campaign donations, douchebag. ...

Calm yourself, Princess...

...The evidence has been produced time and time again...

Apparently, the US Justice Department, and the Southern District of New York, disagree with you.

...Shit like this is why debating leftists is a complete waste of time...

How would you know? You don't understand the concept of 'debate' anyway.

...They never acknowledge that they've been beaten...

Especially when they have not been.

...They just keep repeating the same idiocies over and over and over.

You have them confused with TrumpBots in this instance.

Your post amounted to little more than saying "nuh uhn!" Refuting it would be a waste of time and bandwidth.

You tell 'em, tiger...

My "substance" here is that the Justice Dept and the SDNY both disagree with your assessment...

It's not my opinion that matters in this context...

It's not even your opinion that matters in this context...

It's the opinion of the appointed prosecutors in both jurisdictions that matters in this context...

And their opinion differs from yours...

< mic drop >

 

[Kondor3]

...Obama administration officials began illegaly searching through the NSA database for any communications by the Trump campaign.

Good thing they did, too, otherwise, we would not know what a self-serving, disloyal, traitorous sleaze-ball that The Creature truly is.

As to 'legality' in this context, that's a matter of interpretation, and, so far, your boy hasn't found the grounds to do anything about it.

Things are falling apart for your boy, and the pace is accelerating - thank God.

He can't even find himself a decent Chief of Staff anymore; nobody wants the job; not even a former bootlicker like Mister New Jersey.

With his lies, divisiveness, clumsiness and disloyal behaviors, your boy is single-handedly driving what's left of the GOP into the ground.

In another two years, a Republican won't be able to get him(her)self elected as Dogcatcher, never mind anything responsible.

You've backed the wrong horse; you're defending a Robber Baron who is grotesquely incompetent and unfit, outside of his business universe.

 

[Claudette]

If Cohen has tapes or documentation to support his claim, then I will tend to believe his version

Obviously, but absent this type of undeniable proof I don't see how anyone can believe either of them.

And for the record unless it was campaign money I dont see what the big deal is.

and paying off those who might throw a monkey wrench into trumps election hopes is no big deal?

Happens all the time there dumbass. You think Trump is the only one who ever paid someone to keep silent during an election??

Not a damned thing illegal about it.

How stupid you are.