No Russian Collusion? What now?

[Rigby5]

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.

Irrelevant.
Of course Stormy would not have considered telling all until Trump was running, so there would be no point in paying blackmail until then. But it is never illegal to pay blackmail, and it does not at all matter if the blackmail payment was campaign related.
The campaign finance reform laws do NOT cover blackmail, because they can't.
There are lots of payments and services that can not be legislated.
I think Citizens United was a bad ruling, but it is one famous example.
Go back to the basics of legal authority.
Government has absolutely no inherent authority at all and can't legislate anything on its own.
The only legal basis for any legislation is the defense of inherent rights of individuals.
Campaign finance reform legislation is based on the idea that if enough secret money were donated, a candidate would gain a monopoly on all the media, and therefore win simply by over spend instead of being popular.
Since that clearly would be harmful, you can legislate to stop that.
But you can NOT legislate to make people disclose blackmail payments.
That harms no one.
It does not tie up the media.

 

[Faun]

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.

Different circumstances.

 

[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.

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.

It has nothing to do with anyone being harmed or blackmail; and everything to do with trump failing to report money he spent on his campaign.

 

[Faun]

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.

Irrelevant.
Of course Stormy would not have considered telling all until Trump was running, so there would be no point in paying blackmail until then. But it is never illegal to pay blackmail, and it does not at all matter if the blackmail payment was campaign related.
The campaign finance reform laws do NOT cover blackmail, because they can't.
There are lots of payments and services that can not be legislated.
I think Citizens United was a bad ruling, but it is one famous example.
Go back to the basics of legal authority.
Government has absolutely no inherent authority at all and can't legislate anything on its own.
The only legal basis for any legislation is the defense of inherent rights of individuals.
Campaign finance reform legislation is based on the idea that if enough secret money were donated, a candidate would gain a monopoly on all the media, and therefore win simply by over spend instead of being popular.
Since that clearly would be harmful, you can legislate to stop that.
But you can NOT legislate to make people disclose blackmail payments.
That harms no one.
It does not tie up the media.

”Of course Stormy would not have considered telling all until Trump was running, so there would be no point in paying blackmail until then.”

LOLOL

Oh look, you’re making shit up again. Not only would she have considered going public with trump running for president... she did. And trump didn’t pay her off to keep his wife from learning of his affair. He only paid her off a week before his election. And there’s also a witness to testify the intent to hush Stormy and McDougal was because of the election and not Melanie.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Different circumstances.

Different perhaps in some cases, but from what I hear, all those congress people have very active libidos and are very isolated from their family while in DC, so likely very similar circumstances often.
Its not like the money was used to blackmail an opponent, fake evidence, or finance or cover up a break in.
Paying off Story Daniels harmed no one so no one gets to complain about it.

 

[Faun]

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.

Different circumstances.

Different perhaps in some cases, but from what I hear, all those congress people have very active libidos and are very isolated from their family while in DC, so likely very similar circumstances often.
Its not like the money was used to blackmail an opponent, fake evidence, or finance or cover up a break in.
Paying off Story Daniels harmed no one so no one gets to complain about it.

Harm has nothing to do with it. Intent of the hush money does.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

It has nothing to do with anyone being harmed or blackmail; and everything to do with trump failing to report money he spent on his campaign.

Failing to report something when no one is being harmed by it, is like a parking ticket. It is not a crime.
Again, that is why the jury deadlocked on any time this sort of prosecution has been tried.
It will never work because the prosecutor then becomes an accomplice in blackmail.

 

[Faun]

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.

It has nothing to do with anyone being harmed or blackmail; and everything to do with trump failing to report money he spent on his campaign.

Failing to report something when no one is being harmed by it, is like a parking ticket. It is not a crime.
Again, that is why the jury deadlocked on any time this sort of prosecution has been tried.
It will never work because the prosecutor then becomes an accomplice in blackmail.

You’re making shit up again. Here, watch this.... cite the section of the FEC law which relieves a candidate of criminal intent of failing to report campaign expenses if no one is harmed by such payments.......

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Different circumstances.

Different perhaps in some cases, but from what I hear, all those congress people have very active libidos and are very isolated from their family while in DC, so likely very similar circumstances often.
Its not like the money was used to blackmail an opponent, fake evidence, or finance or cover up a break in.
Paying off Story Daniels harmed no one so no one gets to complain about it.

Harm has nothing to do with it. Intent of the hush money does.

An intent to suppress blackmail is NOT remotely illegal or criminal.
The only thing that is illegal is attempting to secretly buy up all the media time so opponents can't get their message out.

 

[Faun]

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.

Different circumstances.

Different perhaps in some cases, but from what I hear, all those congress people have very active libidos and are very isolated from their family while in DC, so likely very similar circumstances often.
Its not like the money was used to blackmail an opponent, fake evidence, or finance or cover up a break in.
Paying off Story Daniels harmed no one so no one gets to complain about it.

Harm has nothing to do with it. Intent of the hush money does.

An intent to suppress blackmail is NOT remotely illegal or criminal.
The only thing that is illegal is attempting to secretly buy up all the media time so opponents can't get their message out.

No one is suggesting he be charged for “suppressing blackmail.” You don’t even understand the argument.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

It has nothing to do with anyone being harmed or blackmail; and everything to do with trump failing to report money he spent on his campaign.

Failing to report something when no one is being harmed by it, is like a parking ticket. It is not a crime.
Again, that is why the jury deadlocked on any time this sort of prosecution has been tried.
It will never work because the prosecutor then becomes an accomplice in blackmail.

You’re making shit up again. Here, watch this.... cite the section of the FEC law which relieves a candidate of criminal intent of failing to report campaign expenses if no one is harmed by such payments.......

You clearly do NOT understand how law works.
The FEC does not have the authority to pass law or regulations that can force someone to disclose blackmail payments, ever.
In a democratic republic, there can never legally be a law that is not based on what is needed for the defense of individual rights.
So then in order to penalize payment secrecy to Stormy Daniels, one would have to prove they harmed someone.
That can't be done.
It does not at all matter what some legislator claims some legislation says.
If legislation does not protect rights so it can be justified as essential, then the legislation is abusive and illegal.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Different circumstances.

Different perhaps in some cases, but from what I hear, all those congress people have very active libidos and are very isolated from their family while in DC, so likely very similar circumstances often.
Its not like the money was used to blackmail an opponent, fake evidence, or finance or cover up a break in.
Paying off Story Daniels harmed no one so no one gets to complain about it.

Harm has nothing to do with it. Intent of the hush money does.

An intent to suppress blackmail is NOT remotely illegal or criminal.
The only thing that is illegal is attempting to secretly buy up all the media time so opponents can't get their message out.

No one is suggesting he be charged for “suppressing blackmail.” You don’t even understand the argument.

The point is that if you don't let him pay off the blackmail, you make the blackmail succeed, and become complicit in the crime of blackmail. Neither sex with Story Daniels nor hush money payments in any way are illegal or required to be disclosed.
They harm no one, so are no one's business.
You can't pass a law that protects no rights from abuse, but instead can be used to increase the ability of blackmail to cause harm to people.
Legislation like that would clearly be illegal.

 

[Faun]

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.

It has nothing to do with anyone being harmed or blackmail; and everything to do with trump failing to report money he spent on his campaign.

Failing to report something when no one is being harmed by it, is like a parking ticket. It is not a crime.
Again, that is why the jury deadlocked on any time this sort of prosecution has been tried.
It will never work because the prosecutor then becomes an accomplice in blackmail.

You’re making shit up again. Here, watch this.... cite the section of the FEC law which relieves a candidate of criminal intent of failing to report campaign expenses if no one is harmed by such payments.......

You clearly do NOT understand how law works.
The FEC does not have the authority to pass law or regulations that can force someone to disclose blackmail payments, ever.
In a democratic republic, there can never legally be a law that is not based on what is needed for the defense of individual rights.
So then in order to penalize payment secrecy to Stormy Daniels, one would have to prove they harmed someone.
That can't be done.
It does not at all matter what some legislator claims some legislation says.
If legislation does not protect rights so it can be justified as essential, then the legislation is abusive and illegal.

“You clearly do NOT understand how law works.
The FEC does not have the authority to pass law or regulations that can force someone to disclose blackmail payments, ever.”

Unreal. Now you’re making shit up again. Of course there are laws governing elections....

Federal Election Campaign Laws

.... so g’head.... cite the section of the FEC law which relieves a candidate of criminal intent of failing to report campaign expenses if no one is harmed by such payments....... or you’re exposed as once again trying to win a debate by making shit up......

 

[Faun]

Different circumstances.

Different perhaps in some cases, but from what I hear, all those congress people have very active libidos and are very isolated from their family while in DC, so likely very similar circumstances often.
Its not like the money was used to blackmail an opponent, fake evidence, or finance or cover up a break in.
Paying off Story Daniels harmed no one so no one gets to complain about it.

Harm has nothing to do with it. Intent of the hush money does.

An intent to suppress blackmail is NOT remotely illegal or criminal.
The only thing that is illegal is attempting to secretly buy up all the media time so opponents can't get their message out.

No one is suggesting he be charged for “suppressing blackmail.” You don’t even understand the argument.

The point is that if you don't let him pay off the blackmail, you make the blackmail succeed, and become complicit in the crime of blackmail. Neither sex with Story Daniels nor hush money payments in any way are illegal or required to be disclosed.
They harm no one, so are no one's business.
You can't pass a law that protects no rights from abuse, but instead can be used to increase the ability of blackmail to cause harm to people.
Legislation like that would clearly be illegal.

Again, it has nothing to do with whether or not someone is harmed. That’s evident by your inability to cite the FEC law which relieves a candidate from having to report campaign contributions in cases where no one is harmed.

 

[Truth1253]

The Left is very weak and fractured with not direction but “hate” and socialism. The “isms” are tired and done.

Face it you fucking Leftest drones Trump is here and will win 2020, so eat your soy and enjoy the ride betas.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The Left is very weak and fractured with not direction but “hate” and socialism. The “isms” are tired and done.

Face it you fucking Leftest drones Trump is here and will win 2020, so eat your soy and enjoy the ride betas.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry pussy,he's probably not winning 2020.

 

[jc456]

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.

yep, after that post. thanks BTW. that's how to do it. was that difficult for you?

 

[XponentialChaos]

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.

yep, after that post. thanks BTW. that's how to do it. was that difficult for you?

Was it difficult? No.

It also wasn't difficult to know what he was referring to if you had listened to Cohen's testimony.

 

[jc456]

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.

yep, after that post. thanks BTW. that's how to do it. was that difficult for you?

Was it difficult? No.

It also wasn't difficult to know what he was referring to if you had listened to Cohen's testimony.

that isn't the game in here though. I merely ask that we all follow the rules. that's all. respect the forum.

 

[Truth1253]

The Left is very weak and fractured with not direction but “hate” and socialism. The “isms” are tired and done.

Face it you fucking Leftest drones Trump is here and will win 2020, so eat your soy and enjoy the ride betas.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry pussy,he's probably not winning 2020.

Who’s going to beat him snowflake?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk