No Russian Collusion? What now?

[Rigby5]

Hard to believe Cohen is actually a lawyer.
It seems he plead guilty to something that is not even a crime, paying blackmail.
The John Edwards case showed the jury was having none of it.
Clearly campaign finance laws only have jurisdiction over someone monopolizing media, not paying blackmail.
You can NEVER criminalize paying blackmail because that makes you complicit in the blackmail.

paying that cash was a campaign violation because its revelation could have influenced the election outcome.

Wrong.
That is a total misunderstanding not only of the campaign finance reform laws, but laws in general.
It does not matter at all if blackmail influences the outcome of an election.
There is no legal jurisdiction to prevent things from influencing the outcome of an election.
All there is under legal principles, is the authority to prevent one side from tying up all the media with huge hidden purchases of media time, by investors expecting a quid pro quo from their investment.
Money spent on blackmail does not at all unfairly prevent other competing candidates from accessing media at reasonable prices.
So there is absolutely NO legal justification for attempting to interfere with a candidates right to privacy, by paying blackmail.
And the Citizen's United ruling has pretty much even made foreign campaign contributions legal now, as long as they are funneled through a multi national corporation with US investments.

Again, attempting to make blackmail illegal is a crime by being complicit with blackmailer, after the fact.

The John Edwards case shows how corrupt and stupid it is to attempt to criminalize paying campaign blackmail, because obviously Edwards was freed on a hung jury that was intent on jury nullification. No rational juror would ever convict anyone for paying campaign blackmail.

 

[Rigby5]

Copies are NOT legal evidence.

You are just pulling stuff out of your ass, at this point.

What is Forensic Hard Drive Imaging? - Forensicon

Forensic hard drive imaging is for making a copy that you want to risk damaging while doing searches on it.
The copied image can not then be substituted for the original and call it evidence any more.
The original has to be left in pristine conditions so that the defense experts get the exact same opportunity to examine the evidence and dispute it if they can.
If instead you try to give them a copy, the chain of evidence has been broken because you can put anything on a copy that you want to.
It is no longer the real thing and you can't testify that is it.

That would be like finding a gun a murder scene, purchasing a copy of it, doing destructive test on the original, and then putting the copy back into the evidence locker as the original.
Its not the original, and it would be illegal to claim a copy is identically the same as the original.

No two drives are ever going to be identical. When manufactured, tests are run on the new device, and bad sectors mapped out. No two drives are ever going to have the exact same patterns of errors that require being mapped out.

 

[danielpalos]

Flip Trump so he can discuss Terms with Congress!

 

[playtime]

Hard to believe Cohen is actually a lawyer.
It seems he plead guilty to something that is not even a crime, paying blackmail.
The John Edwards case showed the jury was having none of it.
Clearly campaign finance laws only have jurisdiction over someone monopolizing media, not paying blackmail.
You can NEVER criminalize paying blackmail because that makes you complicit in the blackmail.

paying that cash was a campaign violation because its revelation could have influenced the election outcome.

Wrong.
That is a total misunderstanding not only of the campaign finance reform laws, but laws in general.
It does not matter at all if blackmail influences the outcome of an election.
There is no legal jurisdiction to prevent things from influencing the outcome of an election.
All there is under legal principles, is the authority to prevent one side from tying up all the media with huge hidden purchases of media time, by investors expecting a quid pro quo from their investment.
Money spent on blackmail does not at all unfairly prevent other competing candidates from accessing media at reasonable prices.
So there is absolutely NO legal justification for attempting to interfere with a candidates right to privacy, by paying blackmail.
And the Citizen's United ruling has pretty much even made foreign campaign contributions legal now, as long as they are funneled through a multi national corporation with US investments.

Again, attempting to make blackmail illegal is a crime by being complicit with blackmailer, after the fact.

The John Edwards case shows how corrupt and stupid it is to attempt to criminalize paying campaign blackmail, because obviously Edwards was freed on a hung jury that was intent on jury nullification. No rational juror would ever convict anyone for paying campaign blackmail.

you want quotes?

"no".

there. i watched the entire thing - i heard every word... you want a link? find the transcript & read it for yourself. i understand it's over 200 pages. you'll need a few cans of spinach for that one. good luck

you can go get

BTW, have you ever heard of the find or search buttons in documents on the internet? dude, you are truly a loser.

or you could have. why not? cause you either didn't want to know the truth or you don't care what the truth is. either one make you a basket dweller. i got the quote for you not to prove i tell the truth - cause there's no need to lie... but to give myself an reason to say fuck you.... & neener neener.

lol...........i did notice you didn't address the f-a-c-t that there is a quote & cohen never said there was no collusion.

why? i made no claim. you did. that's your responsibility in this forum. why are you fking losers against fking rules? I don't get it.

If you want respect, give some fking respect.

haaaaaaaaaaaa........................ you thought i made it up. that's not respectful, given that i always will back up what i say. you still demanded a link & i gave you a link & you didn't acknowledge that it existed. how rude.

how deplorably rude.

To be accurate, I stated that without a link and a forward from the link, I couldn't trust what you wrote as a quote. The mere fact you tried to avoid proper protocol in here is the respect issue. I would never make a quote without a link or forward quote from it. EVER!!!. that is disrespectful to all who use this forum.

uh-huh.

 

[playtime]

Hard to believe Cohen is actually a lawyer.
It seems he plead guilty to something that is not even a crime, paying blackmail.
The John Edwards case showed the jury was having none of it.
Clearly campaign finance laws only have jurisdiction over someone monopolizing media, not paying blackmail.
You can NEVER criminalize paying blackmail because that makes you complicit in the blackmail.

paying that cash was a campaign violation because its revelation could have influenced the election outcome.

Wrong.
That is a total misunderstanding not only of the campaign finance reform laws, but laws in general.
It does not matter at all if blackmail influences the outcome of an election.
There is no legal jurisdiction to prevent things from influencing the outcome of an election.
All there is under legal principles, is the authority to prevent one side from tying up all the media with huge hidden purchases of media time, by investors expecting a quid pro quo from their investment.
Money spent on blackmail does not at all unfairly prevent other competing candidates from accessing media at reasonable prices.
So there is absolutely NO legal justification for attempting to interfere with a candidates right to privacy, by paying blackmail.
And the Citizen's United ruling has pretty much even made foreign campaign contributions legal now, as long as they are funneled through a multi national corporation with US investments.

Again, attempting to make blackmail illegal is a crime by being complicit with blackmailer, after the fact.

The John Edwards case shows how corrupt and stupid it is to attempt to criminalize paying campaign blackmail, because obviously Edwards was freed on a hung jury that was intent on jury nullification. No rational juror would ever convict anyone for paying campaign blackmail.

'eh... that's the least of his problems anyhow.

 

[Faun]

michael cohen said he had no direct knowledge. that does not mean that there is no collusion. actually there is no 'collusion'.... it's 'conspiracy to defraud the united states'.

nice try, but it doesn't fly & your spin just won't be cutting it today.

I love how you leftists move goal posts.

that was verbatim.

why wasn't it in quotes? and where is the link?

you want quotes?

"no".

there. i watched the entire thing - i heard every word... you want a link? find the transcript & read it for yourself. i understand it's over 200 pages. you'll need a few cans of spinach for that one. good luck

you can go get

BTW, have you ever heard of the find or search buttons in documents on the internet? dude, you are truly a loser.

You poor thing, you're brain-dead. She posted the exact quote verbatim. Now everyone here sees you're a chickenshit who's running from the quote.

 

[Faun]

Hard to believe Cohen is actually a lawyer.
It seems he plead guilty to something that is not even a crime, paying blackmail.
The John Edwards case showed the jury was having none of it.
Clearly campaign finance laws only have jurisdiction over someone monopolizing media, not paying blackmail.
You can NEVER criminalize paying blackmail because that makes you complicit in the blackmail.

paying that cash was a campaign violation because its revelation could have influenced the election outcome.

Wrong.
That is a total misunderstanding not only of the campaign finance reform laws, but laws in general.
It does not matter at all if blackmail influences the outcome of an election.
There is no legal jurisdiction to prevent things from influencing the outcome of an election.
All there is under legal principles, is the authority to prevent one side from tying up all the media with huge hidden purchases of media time, by investors expecting a quid pro quo from their investment.
Money spent on blackmail does not at all unfairly prevent other competing candidates from accessing media at reasonable prices.
So there is absolutely NO legal justification for attempting to interfere with a candidates right to privacy, by paying blackmail.
And the Citizen's United ruling has pretty much even made foreign campaign contributions legal now, as long as they are funneled through a multi national corporation with US investments.

Again, attempting to make blackmail illegal is a crime by being complicit with blackmailer, after the fact.

The John Edwards case shows how corrupt and stupid it is to attempt to criminalize paying campaign blackmail, because obviously Edwards was freed on a hung jury that was intent on jury nullification. No rational juror would ever convict anyone for paying campaign blackmail.

LOLOL

Making up more shit, are ya? If it's of value to the campaign, it can be a campaign contribution. And silencing a porn star a week before the election about an affair is certainly of value to the campaign. $130,000 worth of value. And of course, Cohen plead guilty to the crime.

 

[playtime]

Hard to believe Cohen is actually a lawyer.
It seems he plead guilty to something that is not even a crime, paying blackmail.
The John Edwards case showed the jury was having none of it.
Clearly campaign finance laws only have jurisdiction over someone monopolizing media, not paying blackmail.
You can NEVER criminalize paying blackmail because that makes you complicit in the blackmail.

paying that cash was a campaign violation because its revelation could have influenced the election outcome.

Wrong.
That is a total misunderstanding not only of the campaign finance reform laws, but laws in general.
It does not matter at all if blackmail influences the outcome of an election.
There is no legal jurisdiction to prevent things from influencing the outcome of an election.
All there is under legal principles, is the authority to prevent one side from tying up all the media with huge hidden purchases of media time, by investors expecting a quid pro quo from their investment.
Money spent on blackmail does not at all unfairly prevent other competing candidates from accessing media at reasonable prices.
So there is absolutely NO legal justification for attempting to interfere with a candidates right to privacy, by paying blackmail.
And the Citizen's United ruling has pretty much even made foreign campaign contributions legal now, as long as they are funneled through a multi national corporation with US investments.

Again, attempting to make blackmail illegal is a crime by being complicit with blackmailer, after the fact.

The John Edwards case shows how corrupt and stupid it is to attempt to criminalize paying campaign blackmail, because obviously Edwards was freed on a hung jury that was intent on jury nullification. No rational juror would ever convict anyone for paying campaign blackmail.

LOLOL

Making up more shit, are ya? If it's of value to the campaign, it can be a campaign contribution. And silencing a porn star a week before the election about an affair is certainly of value to the campaign. $130,000 worth of value. And of course, Cohen plead guilty to the crime.

he didn't report it either.

President Trump’s checks repaying Michael Cohen for hush money, explained

The checks themselves don’t prove a crime, but they could be one piece of evidence in a potential case against Trump.
By Emily Stewart Mar 6, 2019, 5:00pm EST
[...]
Trump didn’t disclose the reimbursements to Cohen
Trump’s reimbursement payments to Cohen don’t just matter in the campaign finance realm — they’re significant in terms of government ethics, too. Trump should have reported his debt to Cohen in financial disclosures to the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) from the get-go. He didn’t.

Trump left the money he owed Cohen off of his 2017 disclosure, but in a footnote in his 2018 disclosure he said he had “fully reimbursed” Cohen for expenses he had incurred. (It didn’t specify for what.) Subsequently, in May of last year, the OGE sent a letter to the Department of Justice alerting Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein about the omission. And in August, watchdog group the Project on Government Oversight asked the OGE to review whether that footnote had been accurate, since it declared Trump had paid Cohen up to $250,000 but prosecutors revealed Cohen had received $420,000.

The OGE appears to have responded with a subtweet at the time.

There are criminal penalties for some ethics violations, like willfully omitting information on ethics disclosures, working on government matters when one has a financial conflict, and accepting money from private persons in exchange for doing government work.

— U.S. OGE (@OfficeGovEthics) August 23, 2018
“Trump was required to disclose this debt on an ethics form he filed in June 2017, and he failed to disclose it,” Kathleen Clark, a professor of government ethics law at Washington University Law School, said. “In other words, while he was president, Trump lied to the Office of Government Ethics.”

President Trump’s checks repaying Michael Cohen for hush money, explained

 

[XponentialChaos]

you want quotes?

"no".

there. i watched the entire thing - i heard every word... you want a link? find the transcript & read it for yourself. i understand it's over 200 pages. you'll need a few cans of spinach for that one. good luck

you can go get

BTW, have you ever heard of the find or search buttons in documents on the internet? dude, you are truly a loser.

or you could have. why not? cause you either didn't want to know the truth or you don't care what the truth is. either one make you a basket dweller. i got the quote for you not to prove i tell the truth - cause there's no need to lie... but to give myself an reason to say fuck you.... & neener neener.

lol...........i did notice you didn't address the f-a-c-t that there is a quote & cohen never said there was no collusion.

why? i made no claim. you did. that's your responsibility in this forum. why are you fking losers against fking rules? I don't get it.

If you want respect, give some fking respect.

haaaaaaaaaaaa........................ you thought i made it up. that's not respectful, given that i always will back up what i say. you still demanded a link & i gave you a link & you didn't acknowledge that it existed. how rude.

how deplorably rude.

To be accurate, I stated that without a link and a forward from the link, I couldn't trust what you wrote as a quote. The mere fact you tried to avoid proper protocol in here is the respect issue. I would never make a quote without a link or forward quote from it. EVER!!!. that is disrespectful to all who use this forum.

Do you even know what you're arguing against anymore?

The link was provided. And I also provided you with the video.

 

[Faun]

BTW, have you ever heard of the find or search buttons in documents on the internet? dude, you are truly a loser.

or you could have. why not? cause you either didn't want to know the truth or you don't care what the truth is. either one make you a basket dweller. i got the quote for you not to prove i tell the truth - cause there's no need to lie... but to give myself an reason to say fuck you.... & neener neener.

lol...........i did notice you didn't address the f-a-c-t that there is a quote & cohen never said there was no collusion.

why? i made no claim. you did. that's your responsibility in this forum. why are you fking losers against fking rules? I don't get it.

If you want respect, give some fking respect.

haaaaaaaaaaaa........................ you thought i made it up. that's not respectful, given that i always will back up what i say. you still demanded a link & i gave you a link & you didn't acknowledge that it existed. how rude.

how deplorably rude.

To be accurate, I stated that without a link and a forward from the link, I couldn't trust what you wrote as a quote. The mere fact you tried to avoid proper protocol in here is the respect issue. I would never make a quote without a link or forward quote from it. EVER!!!. that is disrespectful to all who use this forum.

Do you even know what you're arguing against anymore?

The link was provided. And I also provided you with the video.

He's just a troll who argues for the sake of being a troll.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The link was provided. And I also provided you with the video.

He's not going to to read that article or watch that video. He doesn't even open the links that he posts himself. You're wasting your time.

 

[Rigby5]

Hard to believe Cohen is actually a lawyer.
It seems he plead guilty to something that is not even a crime, paying blackmail.
The John Edwards case showed the jury was having none of it.
Clearly campaign finance laws only have jurisdiction over someone monopolizing media, not paying blackmail.
You can NEVER criminalize paying blackmail because that makes you complicit in the blackmail.

paying that cash was a campaign violation because its revelation could have influenced the election outcome.

Wrong.
That is a total misunderstanding not only of the campaign finance reform laws, but laws in general.
It does not matter at all if blackmail influences the outcome of an election.
There is no legal jurisdiction to prevent things from influencing the outcome of an election.
All there is under legal principles, is the authority to prevent one side from tying up all the media with huge hidden purchases of media time, by investors expecting a quid pro quo from their investment.
Money spent on blackmail does not at all unfairly prevent other competing candidates from accessing media at reasonable prices.
So there is absolutely NO legal justification for attempting to interfere with a candidates right to privacy, by paying blackmail.
And the Citizen's United ruling has pretty much even made foreign campaign contributions legal now, as long as they are funneled through a multi national corporation with US investments.

Again, attempting to make blackmail illegal is a crime by being complicit with blackmailer, after the fact.

The John Edwards case shows how corrupt and stupid it is to attempt to criminalize paying campaign blackmail, because obviously Edwards was freed on a hung jury that was intent on jury nullification. No rational juror would ever convict anyone for paying campaign blackmail.

'eh... that's the least of his problems anyhow.

He already plead guilty, so now there is no defense left.

 

[Rigby5]

Hard to believe Cohen is actually a lawyer.
It seems he plead guilty to something that is not even a crime, paying blackmail.
The John Edwards case showed the jury was having none of it.
Clearly campaign finance laws only have jurisdiction over someone monopolizing media, not paying blackmail.
You can NEVER criminalize paying blackmail because that makes you complicit in the blackmail.

paying that cash was a campaign violation because its revelation could have influenced the election outcome.

Wrong.
That is a total misunderstanding not only of the campaign finance reform laws, but laws in general.
It does not matter at all if blackmail influences the outcome of an election.
There is no legal jurisdiction to prevent things from influencing the outcome of an election.
All there is under legal principles, is the authority to prevent one side from tying up all the media with huge hidden purchases of media time, by investors expecting a quid pro quo from their investment.
Money spent on blackmail does not at all unfairly prevent other competing candidates from accessing media at reasonable prices.
So there is absolutely NO legal justification for attempting to interfere with a candidates right to privacy, by paying blackmail.
And the Citizen's United ruling has pretty much even made foreign campaign contributions legal now, as long as they are funneled through a multi national corporation with US investments.

Again, attempting to make blackmail illegal is a crime by being complicit with blackmailer, after the fact.

The John Edwards case shows how corrupt and stupid it is to attempt to criminalize paying campaign blackmail, because obviously Edwards was freed on a hung jury that was intent on jury nullification. No rational juror would ever convict anyone for paying campaign blackmail.

LOLOL

Making up more shit, are ya? If it's of value to the campaign, it can be a campaign contribution. And silencing a porn star a week before the election about an affair is certainly of value to the campaign. $130,000 worth of value. And of course, Cohen plead guilty to the crime.

No its not.
Something of value is NOT possible to regulate by law.
For example, a PAC can run commercials for you, which help the campaign, and are of value to the campaign, but they do NOT have to be declared, disclosed, or stay within the individual contribution limits.
There is absolutely no way any legislation attempting to prevent people from doing this to aid a campaign could ever be legal.
All you can do is to make sure there is full disclosure of funds that can be used to monopolize media.

A candidate has a right to be free of blackmail and their sexual privacy being violated.
So the blackmail pay off does NOT advance the campaign, but merely puts it back to where it is supposed to be, by law.

Again, Edwards was not convicted, even though he did exactly the same thing, and there was absolutely no doubt he did it.
Sure Cohen plead guilty, but that is because he is stupid and does not understand law.
Apparently you do not understand law either.
Sounds like you are a lawyer?

 

[Rigby5]

Hard to believe Cohen is actually a lawyer.
It seems he plead guilty to something that is not even a crime, paying blackmail.
The John Edwards case showed the jury was having none of it.
Clearly campaign finance laws only have jurisdiction over someone monopolizing media, not paying blackmail.
You can NEVER criminalize paying blackmail because that makes you complicit in the blackmail.

paying that cash was a campaign violation because its revelation could have influenced the election outcome.

Wrong.
That is a total misunderstanding not only of the campaign finance reform laws, but laws in general.
It does not matter at all if blackmail influences the outcome of an election.
There is no legal jurisdiction to prevent things from influencing the outcome of an election.
All there is under legal principles, is the authority to prevent one side from tying up all the media with huge hidden purchases of media time, by investors expecting a quid pro quo from their investment.
Money spent on blackmail does not at all unfairly prevent other competing candidates from accessing media at reasonable prices.
So there is absolutely NO legal justification for attempting to interfere with a candidates right to privacy, by paying blackmail.
And the Citizen's United ruling has pretty much even made foreign campaign contributions legal now, as long as they are funneled through a multi national corporation with US investments.

Again, attempting to make blackmail illegal is a crime by being complicit with blackmailer, after the fact.

The John Edwards case shows how corrupt and stupid it is to attempt to criminalize paying campaign blackmail, because obviously Edwards was freed on a hung jury that was intent on jury nullification. No rational juror would ever convict anyone for paying campaign blackmail.

LOLOL

Making up more shit, are ya? If it's of value to the campaign, it can be a campaign contribution. And silencing a porn star a week before the election about an affair is certainly of value to the campaign. $130,000 worth of value. And of course, Cohen plead guilty to the crime.

he didn't report it either.

President Trump’s checks repaying Michael Cohen for hush money, explained

The checks themselves don’t prove a crime, but they could be one piece of evidence in a potential case against Trump.
By Emily Stewart Mar 6, 2019, 5:00pm EST
[...]
Trump didn’t disclose the reimbursements to Cohen
Trump’s reimbursement payments to Cohen don’t just matter in the campaign finance realm — they’re significant in terms of government ethics, too. Trump should have reported his debt to Cohen in financial disclosures to the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) from the get-go. He didn’t.

Trump left the money he owed Cohen off of his 2017 disclosure, but in a footnote in his 2018 disclosure he said he had “fully reimbursed” Cohen for expenses he had incurred. (It didn’t specify for what.) Subsequently, in May of last year, the OGE sent a letter to the Department of Justice alerting Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein about the omission. And in August, watchdog group the Project on Government Oversight asked the OGE to review whether that footnote had been accurate, since it declared Trump had paid Cohen up to $250,000 but prosecutors revealed Cohen had received $420,000.

The OGE appears to have responded with a subtweet at the time.

There are criminal penalties for some ethics violations, like willfully omitting information on ethics disclosures, working on government matters when one has a financial conflict, and accepting money from private persons in exchange for doing government work.

— U.S. OGE (@OfficeGovEthics) August 23, 2018
“Trump was required to disclose this debt on an ethics form he filed in June 2017, and he failed to disclose it,” Kathleen Clark, a professor of government ethics law at Washington University Law School, said. “In other words, while he was president, Trump lied to the Office of Government Ethics.”

President Trump’s checks repaying Michael Cohen for hush money, explained

There is no proof of what Trump's check was for, and there can never be legal legislation that forces people to admit to paying blackmail. That not only is a violation of a person't right to privacy, but would be aiding and abetting blackmail.

Failure to comply with some regulator requirement that is design to prevent criminal behavior is not the same as criminal behavior.
If the failure has sufficient cause, like to prevent blackmail, that is perfectly legal.

 

[Faun]

Hard to believe Cohen is actually a lawyer.
It seems he plead guilty to something that is not even a crime, paying blackmail.
The John Edwards case showed the jury was having none of it.
Clearly campaign finance laws only have jurisdiction over someone monopolizing media, not paying blackmail.
You can NEVER criminalize paying blackmail because that makes you complicit in the blackmail.

paying that cash was a campaign violation because its revelation could have influenced the election outcome.

Wrong.
That is a total misunderstanding not only of the campaign finance reform laws, but laws in general.
It does not matter at all if blackmail influences the outcome of an election.
There is no legal jurisdiction to prevent things from influencing the outcome of an election.
All there is under legal principles, is the authority to prevent one side from tying up all the media with huge hidden purchases of media time, by investors expecting a quid pro quo from their investment.
Money spent on blackmail does not at all unfairly prevent other competing candidates from accessing media at reasonable prices.
So there is absolutely NO legal justification for attempting to interfere with a candidates right to privacy, by paying blackmail.
And the Citizen's United ruling has pretty much even made foreign campaign contributions legal now, as long as they are funneled through a multi national corporation with US investments.

Again, attempting to make blackmail illegal is a crime by being complicit with blackmailer, after the fact.

The John Edwards case shows how corrupt and stupid it is to attempt to criminalize paying campaign blackmail, because obviously Edwards was freed on a hung jury that was intent on jury nullification. No rational juror would ever convict anyone for paying campaign blackmail.

LOLOL

Making up more shit, are ya? If it's of value to the campaign, it can be a campaign contribution. And silencing a porn star a week before the election about an affair is certainly of value to the campaign. $130,000 worth of value. And of course, Cohen plead guilty to the crime.

No its not.
Something of value is NOT possible to regulate by law.
For example, a PAC can run commercials for you, which help the campaign, and are of value to the campaign, but they do NOT have to be declared, disclosed, or stay within the individual contribution limits.
There is absolutely no way any legislation attempting to prevent people from doing this to aid a campaign could ever be legal.
All you can do is to make sure there is full disclosure of funds that can be used to monopolize media.

A candidate has a right to be free of blackmail and their sexual privacy being violated.
So the blackmail pay off does NOT advance the campaign, but merely puts it back to where it is supposed to be, by law.

Again, Edwards was not convicted, even though he did exactly the same thing, and there was absolutely no doubt he did it.
Sure Cohen plead guilty, but that is because he is stupid and does not understand law.
Apparently you do not understand law either.
Sounds like you are a lawyer?

Your example of a PAC is ludicrous. A PAC didn't pay to silence a porn star -- trump's personal attorney did. And he paid her $130,000; for which he plead guilty to violating campaign finance laws.

 

[Faun]

Hard to believe Cohen is actually a lawyer.
It seems he plead guilty to something that is not even a crime, paying blackmail.
The John Edwards case showed the jury was having none of it.
Clearly campaign finance laws only have jurisdiction over someone monopolizing media, not paying blackmail.
You can NEVER criminalize paying blackmail because that makes you complicit in the blackmail.

paying that cash was a campaign violation because its revelation could have influenced the election outcome.

Wrong.
That is a total misunderstanding not only of the campaign finance reform laws, but laws in general.
It does not matter at all if blackmail influences the outcome of an election.
There is no legal jurisdiction to prevent things from influencing the outcome of an election.
All there is under legal principles, is the authority to prevent one side from tying up all the media with huge hidden purchases of media time, by investors expecting a quid pro quo from their investment.
Money spent on blackmail does not at all unfairly prevent other competing candidates from accessing media at reasonable prices.
So there is absolutely NO legal justification for attempting to interfere with a candidates right to privacy, by paying blackmail.
And the Citizen's United ruling has pretty much even made foreign campaign contributions legal now, as long as they are funneled through a multi national corporation with US investments.

Again, attempting to make blackmail illegal is a crime by being complicit with blackmailer, after the fact.

The John Edwards case shows how corrupt and stupid it is to attempt to criminalize paying campaign blackmail, because obviously Edwards was freed on a hung jury that was intent on jury nullification. No rational juror would ever convict anyone for paying campaign blackmail.

LOLOL

Making up more shit, are ya? If it's of value to the campaign, it can be a campaign contribution. And silencing a porn star a week before the election about an affair is certainly of value to the campaign. $130,000 worth of value. And of course, Cohen plead guilty to the crime.

he didn't report it either.

President Trump’s checks repaying Michael Cohen for hush money, explained

The checks themselves don’t prove a crime, but they could be one piece of evidence in a potential case against Trump.
By Emily Stewart Mar 6, 2019, 5:00pm EST
[...]
Trump didn’t disclose the reimbursements to Cohen
Trump’s reimbursement payments to Cohen don’t just matter in the campaign finance realm — they’re significant in terms of government ethics, too. Trump should have reported his debt to Cohen in financial disclosures to the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) from the get-go. He didn’t.

Trump left the money he owed Cohen off of his 2017 disclosure, but in a footnote in his 2018 disclosure he said he had “fully reimbursed” Cohen for expenses he had incurred. (It didn’t specify for what.) Subsequently, in May of last year, the OGE sent a letter to the Department of Justice alerting Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein about the omission. And in August, watchdog group the Project on Government Oversight asked the OGE to review whether that footnote had been accurate, since it declared Trump had paid Cohen up to $250,000 but prosecutors revealed Cohen had received $420,000.

The OGE appears to have responded with a subtweet at the time.

There are criminal penalties for some ethics violations, like willfully omitting information on ethics disclosures, working on government matters when one has a financial conflict, and accepting money from private persons in exchange for doing government work.

— U.S. OGE (@OfficeGovEthics) August 23, 2018
“Trump was required to disclose this debt on an ethics form he filed in June 2017, and he failed to disclose it,” Kathleen Clark, a professor of government ethics law at Washington University Law School, said. “In other words, while he was president, Trump lied to the Office of Government Ethics.”

President Trump’s checks repaying Michael Cohen for hush money, explained

There is no proof of what Trump's check was for, and there can never be legal legislation that forces people to admit to paying blackmail. That not only is a violation of a person't right to privacy, but would be aiding and abetting blackmail.

Failure to comply with some regulator requirement that is design to prevent criminal behavior is not the same as criminal behavior.
If the failure has sufficient cause, like to prevent blackmail, that is perfectly legal.

LOLOLOL

You poor thing. We know what Trump paid for. Mueller's got the tape.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Hard to believe Cohen is actually a lawyer.
It seems he plead guilty to something that is not even a crime, paying blackmail.
The John Edwards case showed the jury was having none of it.
Clearly campaign finance laws only have jurisdiction over someone monopolizing media, not paying blackmail.
You can NEVER criminalize paying blackmail because that makes you complicit in the blackmail.

paying that cash was a campaign violation because its revelation could have influenced the election outcome.

Wrong.
That is a total misunderstanding not only of the campaign finance reform laws, but laws in general.
It does not matter at all if blackmail influences the outcome of an election.
There is no legal jurisdiction to prevent things from influencing the outcome of an election.
All there is under legal principles, is the authority to prevent one side from tying up all the media with huge hidden purchases of media time, by investors expecting a quid pro quo from their investment.
Money spent on blackmail does not at all unfairly prevent other competing candidates from accessing media at reasonable prices.
So there is absolutely NO legal justification for attempting to interfere with a candidates right to privacy, by paying blackmail.
And the Citizen's United ruling has pretty much even made foreign campaign contributions legal now, as long as they are funneled through a multi national corporation with US investments.

Again, attempting to make blackmail illegal is a crime by being complicit with blackmailer, after the fact.

The John Edwards case shows how corrupt and stupid it is to attempt to criminalize paying campaign blackmail, because obviously Edwards was freed on a hung jury that was intent on jury nullification. No rational juror would ever convict anyone for paying campaign blackmail.

LOLOL

Making up more shit, are ya? If it's of value to the campaign, it can be a campaign contribution. And silencing a porn star a week before the election about an affair is certainly of value to the campaign. $130,000 worth of value. And of course, Cohen plead guilty to the crime.

No its not.
Something of value is NOT possible to regulate by law.
For example, a PAC can run commercials for you, which help the campaign, and are of value to the campaign, but they do NOT have to be declared, disclosed, or stay within the individual contribution limits.
There is absolutely no way any legislation attempting to prevent people from doing this to aid a campaign could ever be legal.
All you can do is to make sure there is full disclosure of funds that can be used to monopolize media.

A candidate has a right to be free of blackmail and their sexual privacy being violated.
So the blackmail pay off does NOT advance the campaign, but merely puts it back to where it is supposed to be, by law.

Again, Edwards was not convicted, even though he did exactly the same thing, and there was absolutely no doubt he did it.
Sure Cohen plead guilty, but that is because he is stupid and does not understand law.
Apparently you do not understand law either.
Sounds like you are a lawyer?

Your example of a PAC is ludicrous. A PAC didn't pay to silence a porn star -- trump's personal attorney did. And he paid her $130,000; for which he plead guilty to violating campaign finance laws.

yeah because private citizens dont ever pay hush money.....what planet do you live on?

and if it's a crime, we can toss out congress, they used MY money to pay off their whores.

 

[Rigby5]

paying that cash was a campaign violation because its revelation could have influenced the election outcome.

Wrong.
That is a total misunderstanding not only of the campaign finance reform laws, but laws in general.
It does not matter at all if blackmail influences the outcome of an election.
There is no legal jurisdiction to prevent things from influencing the outcome of an election.
All there is under legal principles, is the authority to prevent one side from tying up all the media with huge hidden purchases of media time, by investors expecting a quid pro quo from their investment.
Money spent on blackmail does not at all unfairly prevent other competing candidates from accessing media at reasonable prices.
So there is absolutely NO legal justification for attempting to interfere with a candidates right to privacy, by paying blackmail.
And the Citizen's United ruling has pretty much even made foreign campaign contributions legal now, as long as they are funneled through a multi national corporation with US investments.

Again, attempting to make blackmail illegal is a crime by being complicit with blackmailer, after the fact.

The John Edwards case shows how corrupt and stupid it is to attempt to criminalize paying campaign blackmail, because obviously Edwards was freed on a hung jury that was intent on jury nullification. No rational juror would ever convict anyone for paying campaign blackmail.

LOLOL

Making up more shit, are ya? If it's of value to the campaign, it can be a campaign contribution. And silencing a porn star a week before the election about an affair is certainly of value to the campaign. $130,000 worth of value. And of course, Cohen plead guilty to the crime.

he didn't report it either.

President Trump’s checks repaying Michael Cohen for hush money, explained

The checks themselves don’t prove a crime, but they could be one piece of evidence in a potential case against Trump.
By Emily Stewart Mar 6, 2019, 5:00pm EST
[...]
Trump didn’t disclose the reimbursements to Cohen
Trump’s reimbursement payments to Cohen don’t just matter in the campaign finance realm — they’re significant in terms of government ethics, too. Trump should have reported his debt to Cohen in financial disclosures to the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) from the get-go. He didn’t.

Trump left the money he owed Cohen off of his 2017 disclosure, but in a footnote in his 2018 disclosure he said he had “fully reimbursed” Cohen for expenses he had incurred. (It didn’t specify for what.) Subsequently, in May of last year, the OGE sent a letter to the Department of Justice alerting Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein about the omission. And in August, watchdog group the Project on Government Oversight asked the OGE to review whether that footnote had been accurate, since it declared Trump had paid Cohen up to $250,000 but prosecutors revealed Cohen had received $420,000.

The OGE appears to have responded with a subtweet at the time.

There are criminal penalties for some ethics violations, like willfully omitting information on ethics disclosures, working on government matters when one has a financial conflict, and accepting money from private persons in exchange for doing government work.

— U.S. OGE (@OfficeGovEthics) August 23, 2018
“Trump was required to disclose this debt on an ethics form he filed in June 2017, and he failed to disclose it,” Kathleen Clark, a professor of government ethics law at Washington University Law School, said. “In other words, while he was president, Trump lied to the Office of Government Ethics.”

President Trump’s checks repaying Michael Cohen for hush money, explained

There is no proof of what Trump's check was for, and there can never be legal legislation that forces people to admit to paying blackmail. That not only is a violation of a person't right to privacy, but would be aiding and abetting blackmail.

Failure to comply with some regulator requirement that is design to prevent criminal behavior is not the same as criminal behavior.
If the failure has sufficient cause, like to prevent blackmail, that is perfectly legal.

LOLOLOL

You poor thing. We know what Trump paid for. Mueller's got the tape.

If Mueller had a tape, then there still would be no more of a conviction than there was with Edwards,
That is especially true with House of Representatives, of which likely all of them have already paid blackmail themselves at one time or another.

 

[Rigby5]

Hard to believe Cohen is actually a lawyer.
It seems he plead guilty to something that is not even a crime, paying blackmail.
The John Edwards case showed the jury was having none of it.
Clearly campaign finance laws only have jurisdiction over someone monopolizing media, not paying blackmail.
You can NEVER criminalize paying blackmail because that makes you complicit in the blackmail.

paying that cash was a campaign violation because its revelation could have influenced the election outcome.

Wrong.
That is a total misunderstanding not only of the campaign finance reform laws, but laws in general.
It does not matter at all if blackmail influences the outcome of an election.
There is no legal jurisdiction to prevent things from influencing the outcome of an election.
All there is under legal principles, is the authority to prevent one side from tying up all the media with huge hidden purchases of media time, by investors expecting a quid pro quo from their investment.
Money spent on blackmail does not at all unfairly prevent other competing candidates from accessing media at reasonable prices.
So there is absolutely NO legal justification for attempting to interfere with a candidates right to privacy, by paying blackmail.
And the Citizen's United ruling has pretty much even made foreign campaign contributions legal now, as long as they are funneled through a multi national corporation with US investments.

Again, attempting to make blackmail illegal is a crime by being complicit with blackmailer, after the fact.

The John Edwards case shows how corrupt and stupid it is to attempt to criminalize paying campaign blackmail, because obviously Edwards was freed on a hung jury that was intent on jury nullification. No rational juror would ever convict anyone for paying campaign blackmail.

LOLOL

Making up more shit, are ya? If it's of value to the campaign, it can be a campaign contribution. And silencing a porn star a week before the election about an affair is certainly of value to the campaign. $130,000 worth of value. And of course, Cohen plead guilty to the crime.

No its not.
Something of value is NOT possible to regulate by law.
For example, a PAC can run commercials for you, which help the campaign, and are of value to the campaign, but they do NOT have to be declared, disclosed, or stay within the individual contribution limits.
There is absolutely no way any legislation attempting to prevent people from doing this to aid a campaign could ever be legal.
All you can do is to make sure there is full disclosure of funds that can be used to monopolize media.

A candidate has a right to be free of blackmail and their sexual privacy being violated.
So the blackmail pay off does NOT advance the campaign, but merely puts it back to where it is supposed to be, by law.

Again, Edwards was not convicted, even though he did exactly the same thing, and there was absolutely no doubt he did it.
Sure Cohen plead guilty, but that is because he is stupid and does not understand law.
Apparently you do not understand law either.
Sounds like you are a lawyer?

Your example of a PAC is ludicrous. A PAC didn't pay to silence a porn star -- trump's personal attorney did. And he paid her $130,000; for which he plead guilty to violating campaign finance laws.

It does not matter what PACs pay for. There is nothing at all illegal about paying blackmail, and there is nothing criminal about trying to prevent blackmail from succeeding. Something is only criminal when it harms someone. Who was harmed?
Cohen is a fool for pleading guilty when he would never have been convicted by any jury on the planet.

 

[Faun]

paying that cash was a campaign violation because its revelation could have influenced the election outcome.

Wrong.
That is a total misunderstanding not only of the campaign finance reform laws, but laws in general.
It does not matter at all if blackmail influences the outcome of an election.
There is no legal jurisdiction to prevent things from influencing the outcome of an election.
All there is under legal principles, is the authority to prevent one side from tying up all the media with huge hidden purchases of media time, by investors expecting a quid pro quo from their investment.
Money spent on blackmail does not at all unfairly prevent other competing candidates from accessing media at reasonable prices.
So there is absolutely NO legal justification for attempting to interfere with a candidates right to privacy, by paying blackmail.
And the Citizen's United ruling has pretty much even made foreign campaign contributions legal now, as long as they are funneled through a multi national corporation with US investments.

Again, attempting to make blackmail illegal is a crime by being complicit with blackmailer, after the fact.

The John Edwards case shows how corrupt and stupid it is to attempt to criminalize paying campaign blackmail, because obviously Edwards was freed on a hung jury that was intent on jury nullification. No rational juror would ever convict anyone for paying campaign blackmail.

LOLOL

Making up more shit, are ya? If it's of value to the campaign, it can be a campaign contribution. And silencing a porn star a week before the election about an affair is certainly of value to the campaign. $130,000 worth of value. And of course, Cohen plead guilty to the crime.

No its not.
Something of value is NOT possible to regulate by law.
For example, a PAC can run commercials for you, which help the campaign, and are of value to the campaign, but they do NOT have to be declared, disclosed, or stay within the individual contribution limits.
There is absolutely no way any legislation attempting to prevent people from doing this to aid a campaign could ever be legal.
All you can do is to make sure there is full disclosure of funds that can be used to monopolize media.

A candidate has a right to be free of blackmail and their sexual privacy being violated.
So the blackmail pay off does NOT advance the campaign, but merely puts it back to where it is supposed to be, by law.

Again, Edwards was not convicted, even though he did exactly the same thing, and there was absolutely no doubt he did it.
Sure Cohen plead guilty, but that is because he is stupid and does not understand law.
Apparently you do not understand law either.
Sounds like you are a lawyer?

Your example of a PAC is ludicrous. A PAC didn't pay to silence a porn star -- trump's personal attorney did. And he paid her $130,000; for which he plead guilty to violating campaign finance laws.

yeah because private citizens dont ever pay hush money.....what planet do you live on?

and if it's a crime, we can toss out congress, they used MY money to pay off their whores.

Trump didn’t for years after Stormy was looking to go public with her story. He only paid her off as his election was about a week away.