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.
Wrong. Neither of those facts matter. They prove nothing other than that Cohen agreed to a plea bargain. If I agreed to a contract that said there are unicorns on Mars, would that prove there are unicorns on Mars?it doesn't matter what Cohen believes. It says nothing about what the judge believes.It proves that Michael Cohen believes it to be a crime and it proves the judge believes it to be a crime.
A judge is not going to accept a guilty plea on something that is not even a crime.
Says who? There is a statute about campaign expenditures. The problem is that neither Trump no Cohen violated it.
Cohen said he violated it, the Southern District of New York says Cohen violated it. That is all that really matters, everything is just opinion and holds no actual value.
Dudes, these fks can’t get out of their own wayYeah that debate she cheated and got the questions? That one?Considering he kept her "hush" for YEARS before ever running for President I'd say it certainly isn't political.If, historically, the FEC has said this sort of payment isn't a campaign contribution, cite the historic cases....
From everything I understand, it's going to come down to intent. Was the payment for personal or political reasons.
Would you not agree?
The timing of the payments (weeks before the election) and Guliani's statements put that in question.
"Imagine if that came out on Oct. 15, 2016, in the middle of the, you know, last debate with Hillary Clinton,”
I love it when experts are questioned by message board trolls. But, but, but, but
Really? Can you prove that?Wrong. Neither of those facts matter. They prove nothing other than that Cohen agreed to a plea bargain. If I agreed to a contract that said there are unicorns on Mars, would that prove there are unicorns on Mars?it doesn't matter what Cohen believes. It says nothing about what the judge believes.
A judge is not going to accept a guilty plea on something that is not even a crime.
Says who? There is a statute about campaign expenditures. The problem is that neither Trump no Cohen violated it.
Cohen said he violated it, the Southern District of New York says Cohen violated it. That is all that really matters, everything is just opinion and holds no actual value.
One more time, a judge is not going to accept a plea agreement that includes things that are "not even crimes". No lawyer would have his client sign a plea agreement that includes things that are "not even crimes".
If you think I am wrong, feel free to post some examples of these things happening.
Really? Can you prove that?
As I said previously, there is an FEC regulation about declaring campaign expenditures. The problem is that neither Cohen nor Trump violated it.
The chairman of the FEC trumps your judge and plea agreement. If he isn't the expert, then who is?I love it when experts are questioned by message board trolls. But, but, but, but
Yeah, the clowns on this forum have never questioned experts in the field of climate change...that would never happen.
Fucking hypocrite.
You found yourself a mouthpiece. Wonderful. Great. Now, all you have to do is to convince the Justice Department and the law courts.The snowflakes insist that paying Stormy to shut her pie hole is a campaign contribution. Here's the final word on the subject. Only sheer idiocy would cause anyone to continue claiming that the snowflake theory is valid.
Law Professor and former FEC chairman Bradley Smith spoke with conservative radio host Mark Levin on Tuesday. He laid out the reason why the payment made to porn star Stormy Daniels from President Trump’s private attorney Michael Cohen could not be an in-kind campaign contribution.
“Here’s the bottom line,” Smith told Levin. “The purpose of those laws is to prevent corruption and one way campaign contributions or in-kind campaign contributions are different than bribes is that you have to use them to get elected. You can’t use them to buy yourself grandfather clocks or fur coats or Rolex watches or something like that.”
He said, “And the FEC standard for that is you can’t use your campaign money for personal use. What they mean by that is you can’t use that for something you’d have to pay anyway that’s not directly for your campaign. The question is, ‘is this really a campaign obligation?’”
Professor Smith continued, “None of these expenditures helped Mr. Trump’s campaign. There’s all kinds of reasons why he may want to make these expenditures even if the allegations made by Stormy Daniels are untrue. Just for family harmony, commercial viability over the long term.”
He emphasized, “Historically, the FEC has said these things are not campaign contributions.”
Professor Smith added, “When the FEC wrote the regulation that says what constitutes campaign expenditures and what constitutes personal use, it rejected specifically the idea that a campaign expenditure was anything related to a campaign, and instead says it has to be something that exists only because of the campaign and solely for that reason.”
She had sex voluntarily what’s her issue? She was paid 130k and her issue is what exactly?Mine are based on public evidence and statements while yours are based on a desire for it to be true.The timing is likely based on her greed but that is just a guess. No more or less accurate than your assumptionsConsidering he kept her "hush" for YEARS before ever running for President I'd say it certainly isn't political.
Would you not agree?
The timing of the payments (weeks before the election) and Guliani's statements put that in question.
"Imagine if that came out on Oct. 15, 2016, in the middle of the, you know, last debate with Hillary Clinton,”
I have no desires on the subject dear.
Make no mistake, I don't give a rat's ass either way.
Stormy Grandma?
The chairman of the FEC trumps your judge and plea agreement. If he isn't the expert, then who is?I love it when experts are questioned by message board trolls. But, but, but, but
Yeah, the clowns on this forum have never questioned experts in the field of climate change...that would never happen.
Fucking hypocrite.
He said he violated it so he wouldn't have to spend the rest of his life in prison. He would agree that his mother sucks cocks in hell under those circumstances. The Southern District of New York simply accepted his plea agreement. They didn't comment on whether Cohen was actually guilty, nor are they qualified to comment on his guilt.Really? Can you prove that?
As I said previously, there is an FEC regulation about declaring campaign expenditures. The problem is that neither Cohen nor Trump violated it.
I do not know about Trump, but Cohen said he violated it.
The Southern District of New York said he violated it.
That is all that matters.
What you or me or anyone else says about it does not matter.
For what exactly? Can’t charge a sitting president!You found yourself a mouthpiece. Wonderful. Great. Now, all you have to do is to convince the Justice Department and the law courts.The snowflakes insist that paying Stormy to shut her pie hole is a campaign contribution. Here's the final word on the subject. Only sheer idiocy would cause anyone to continue claiming that the snowflake theory is valid.
Law Professor and former FEC chairman Bradley Smith spoke with conservative radio host Mark Levin on Tuesday. He laid out the reason why the payment made to porn star Stormy Daniels from President Trump’s private attorney Michael Cohen could not be an in-kind campaign contribution.
“Here’s the bottom line,” Smith told Levin. “The purpose of those laws is to prevent corruption and one way campaign contributions or in-kind campaign contributions are different than bribes is that you have to use them to get elected. You can’t use them to buy yourself grandfather clocks or fur coats or Rolex watches or something like that.”
He said, “And the FEC standard for that is you can’t use your campaign money for personal use. What they mean by that is you can’t use that for something you’d have to pay anyway that’s not directly for your campaign. The question is, ‘is this really a campaign obligation?’”
Professor Smith continued, “None of these expenditures helped Mr. Trump’s campaign. There’s all kinds of reasons why he may want to make these expenditures even if the allegations made by Stormy Daniels are untrue. Just for family harmony, commercial viability over the long term.”
He emphasized, “Historically, the FEC has said these things are not campaign contributions.”
Professor Smith added, “When the FEC wrote the regulation that says what constitutes campaign expenditures and what constitutes personal use, it rejected specifically the idea that a campaign expenditure was anything related to a campaign, and instead says it has to be something that exists only because of the campaign and solely for that reason.”
Trump intended to obstruct Hillary from the White HouseIf, historically, the FEC has said this sort of payment isn't a campaign contribution, cite the historic cases....
From everything I understand, it's going to come down to intent. Was the payment for personal or political reasons.
You found yourself a mouthpiece. Wonderful. Great. Now, all you have to do is to convince the Justice Department and the law courts.The snowflakes insist that paying Stormy to shut her pie hole is a campaign contribution. Here's the final word on the subject. Only sheer idiocy would cause anyone to continue claiming that the snowflake theory is valid.
Law Professor and former FEC chairman Bradley Smith spoke with conservative radio host Mark Levin on Tuesday. He laid out the reason why the payment made to porn star Stormy Daniels from President Trump’s private attorney Michael Cohen could not be an in-kind campaign contribution.
“Here’s the bottom line,” Smith told Levin. “The purpose of those laws is to prevent corruption and one way campaign contributions or in-kind campaign contributions are different than bribes is that you have to use them to get elected. You can’t use them to buy yourself grandfather clocks or fur coats or Rolex watches or something like that.”
He said, “And the FEC standard for that is you can’t use your campaign money for personal use. What they mean by that is you can’t use that for something you’d have to pay anyway that’s not directly for your campaign. The question is, ‘is this really a campaign obligation?’”
Professor Smith continued, “None of these expenditures helped Mr. Trump’s campaign. There’s all kinds of reasons why he may want to make these expenditures even if the allegations made by Stormy Daniels are untrue. Just for family harmony, commercial viability over the long term.”
He emphasized, “Historically, the FEC has said these things are not campaign contributions.”
Professor Smith added, “When the FEC wrote the regulation that says what constitutes campaign expenditures and what constitutes personal use, it rejected specifically the idea that a campaign expenditure was anything related to a campaign, and instead says it has to be something that exists only because of the campaign and solely for that reason.”
Convince them of what?You found yourself a mouthpiece. Wonderful. Great. Now, all you have to do is to convince the Justice Department and the law courts.The snowflakes insist that paying Stormy to shut her pie hole is a campaign contribution. Here's the final word on the subject. Only sheer idiocy would cause anyone to continue claiming that the snowflake theory is valid.
Law Professor and former FEC chairman Bradley Smith spoke with conservative radio host Mark Levin on Tuesday. He laid out the reason why the payment made to porn star Stormy Daniels from President Trump’s private attorney Michael Cohen could not be an in-kind campaign contribution.
“Here’s the bottom line,” Smith told Levin. “The purpose of those laws is to prevent corruption and one way campaign contributions or in-kind campaign contributions are different than bribes is that you have to use them to get elected. You can’t use them to buy yourself grandfather clocks or fur coats or Rolex watches or something like that.”
He said, “And the FEC standard for that is you can’t use your campaign money for personal use. What they mean by that is you can’t use that for something you’d have to pay anyway that’s not directly for your campaign. The question is, ‘is this really a campaign obligation?’”
Professor Smith continued, “None of these expenditures helped Mr. Trump’s campaign. There’s all kinds of reasons why he may want to make these expenditures even if the allegations made by Stormy Daniels are untrue. Just for family harmony, commercial viability over the long term.”
He emphasized, “Historically, the FEC has said these things are not campaign contributions.”
Professor Smith added, “When the FEC wrote the regulation that says what constitutes campaign expenditures and what constitutes personal use, it rejected specifically the idea that a campaign expenditure was anything related to a campaign, and instead says it has to be something that exists only because of the campaign and solely for that reason.”
There's no such thing as an unbiased neutral observer, dumbass.You found yourself a mouthpiece. Wonderful. Great. Now, all you have to do is to convince the Justice Department and the law courts.The snowflakes insist that paying Stormy to shut her pie hole is a campaign contribution. Here's the final word on the subject. Only sheer idiocy would cause anyone to continue claiming that the snowflake theory is valid.
Law Professor and former FEC chairman Bradley Smith spoke with conservative radio host Mark Levin on Tuesday. He laid out the reason why the payment made to porn star Stormy Daniels from President Trump’s private attorney Michael Cohen could not be an in-kind campaign contribution.
“Here’s the bottom line,” Smith told Levin. “The purpose of those laws is to prevent corruption and one way campaign contributions or in-kind campaign contributions are different than bribes is that you have to use them to get elected. You can’t use them to buy yourself grandfather clocks or fur coats or Rolex watches or something like that.”
He said, “And the FEC standard for that is you can’t use your campaign money for personal use. What they mean by that is you can’t use that for something you’d have to pay anyway that’s not directly for your campaign. The question is, ‘is this really a campaign obligation?’”
Professor Smith continued, “None of these expenditures helped Mr. Trump’s campaign. There’s all kinds of reasons why he may want to make these expenditures even if the allegations made by Stormy Daniels are untrue. Just for family harmony, commercial viability over the long term.”
He emphasized, “Historically, the FEC has said these things are not campaign contributions.”
Professor Smith added, “When the FEC wrote the regulation that says what constitutes campaign expenditures and what constitutes personal use, it rejected specifically the idea that a campaign expenditure was anything related to a campaign, and instead says it has to be something that exists only because of the campaign and solely for that reason.”
Look at this guy's history, his whole professional life has been spent trying to get less oversight and regulations regarding campaign finances. He is not exactly an unbiased neutral observer.
I'm waiting for the snowflakes to descend on this thread and explain how wrong I am.The snowflakes insist that paying Stormy to shut her pie hole is a campaign contribution. Here's the final word on the subject. Only sheer idiocy would cause anyone to continue claiming that the snowflake theory is valid.
Law Professor and former FEC chairman Bradley Smith spoke with conservative radio host Mark Levin on Tuesday. He laid out the reason why the payment made to porn star Stormy Daniels from President Trump’s private attorney Michael Cohen could not be an in-kind campaign contribution.
“Here’s the bottom line,” Smith told Levin. “The purpose of those laws is to prevent corruption and one way campaign contributions or in-kind campaign contributions are different than bribes is that you have to use them to get elected. You can’t use them to buy yourself grandfather clocks or fur coats or Rolex watches or something like that.”
He said, “And the FEC standard for that is you can’t use your campaign money for personal use. What they mean by that is you can’t use that for something you’d have to pay anyway that’s not directly for your campaign. The question is, ‘is this really a campaign obligation?’”
Professor Smith continued, “None of these expenditures helped Mr. Trump’s campaign. There’s all kinds of reasons why he may want to make these expenditures even if the allegations made by Stormy Daniels are untrue. Just for family harmony, commercial viability over the long term.”
He emphasized, “Historically, the FEC has said these things are not campaign contributions.”
Professor Smith added, “When the FEC wrote the regulation that says what constitutes campaign expenditures and what constitutes personal use, it rejected specifically the idea that a campaign expenditure was anything related to a campaign, and instead says it has to be something that exists only because of the campaign and solely for that reason.”
Of course what people say about it matters. You want the plea agreement to be the final word because you got nothing else. Of course, in a court of law, the plea agreement isn't even admissible.
Do you have a quote of any other FEC chairman contradicting what he says?The snowflakes insist that paying Stormy to shut her pie hole is a campaign contribution. Here's the final word on the subject. Only sheer idiocy would cause anyone to continue claiming that the snowflake theory is valid.
Law Professor and former FEC chairman Bradley Smith spoke with conservative radio host Mark Levin on Tuesday. He laid out the reason why the payment made to porn star Stormy Daniels from President Trump’s private attorney Michael Cohen could not be an in-kind campaign contribution.
“Here’s the bottom line,” Smith told Levin. “The purpose of those laws is to prevent corruption and one way campaign contributions or in-kind campaign contributions are different than bribes is that you have to use them to get elected. You can’t use them to buy yourself grandfather clocks or fur coats or Rolex watches or something like that.”
He said, “And the FEC standard for that is you can’t use your campaign money for personal use. What they mean by that is you can’t use that for something you’d have to pay anyway that’s not directly for your campaign. The question is, ‘is this really a campaign obligation?’”
Professor Smith continued, “None of these expenditures helped Mr. Trump’s campaign. There’s all kinds of reasons why he may want to make these expenditures even if the allegations made by Stormy Daniels are untrue. Just for family harmony, commercial viability over the long term.”
He emphasized, “Historically, the FEC has said these things are not campaign contributions.”
Professor Smith added, “When the FEC wrote the regulation that says what constitutes campaign expenditures and what constitutes personal use, it rejected specifically the idea that a campaign expenditure was anything related to a campaign, and instead says it has to be something that exists only because of the campaign and solely for that reason.”
First off, he's the former FEC Chairman so it isn't "the final word on the subject."
The courts haven't said he's guilty. Cohen says he's guilty, and you just agreed that it doesn't matter what he says.Of course what people say about it matters. You want the plea agreement to be the final word because you got nothing else. Of course, in a court of law, the plea agreement isn't even admissible.
No, what people say means nothing, all that matters is what the court says.
Did it matter what all the people were saying about OJ during his murder trial?
Says the guy who voted twice for a man who had to explain why he was getting hummers in the Ofal Office.The snowflakes insist that paying Stormy to shut her pie hole is a campaign contribution. Here's the final word on the subject. Only sheer idiocy would cause anyone to continue claiming that the snowflake theory is valid.
Law Professor and former FEC chairman Bradley Smith spoke with conservative radio host Mark Levin on Tuesday. He laid out the reason why the payment made to porn star Stormy Daniels from President Trump’s private attorney Michael Cohen could not be an in-kind campaign contribution.
“Here’s the bottom line,” Smith told Levin. “The purpose of those laws is to prevent corruption and one way campaign contributions or in-kind campaign contributions are different than bribes is that you have to use them to get elected. You can’t use them to buy yourself grandfather clocks or fur coats or Rolex watches or something like that.”
He said, “And the FEC standard for that is you can’t use your campaign money for personal use. What they mean by that is you can’t use that for something you’d have to pay anyway that’s not directly for your campaign. The question is, ‘is this really a campaign obligation?’”
Professor Smith continued, “None of these expenditures helped Mr. Trump’s campaign. There’s all kinds of reasons why he may want to make these expenditures even if the allegations made by Stormy Daniels are untrue. Just for family harmony, commercial viability over the long term.”
He emphasized, “Historically, the FEC has said these things are not campaign contributions.”
Professor Smith added, “When the FEC wrote the regulation that says what constitutes campaign expenditures and what constitutes personal use, it rejected specifically the idea that a campaign expenditure was anything related to a campaign, and instead says it has to be something that exists only because of the campaign and solely for that reason.”
Did you ever in your wildest dreams think you would find yourself defending a sleaze bag candidate who had to pay off porn stars prior to an election?
Are you still a member of the "Party of Family Values"?
Looks like Levin can get just about anybody to come on his show and say just about anything he wants them to say, but that doesn't change the facts.
From the American Bar Association:
Michael Cohen pleads guilty to campaign finance violations, tax and bank fraud
.
.
.
Again, for the legally impaired, a plea agreement is proof of nothing.
He said he violated it so he wouldn't have to spend the rest of his life in prison. .
