No Russian Collusion? What now?

[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.

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

i meant donny. those hush money payoffs are the least of the problems he's created. hell, even the pee pee tape - if it exists - pales in comparison with the real charges he's facing.

 

[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.

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?

'Something of value is NOT possible to regulate by law.'

uh, if donny is being investigated for conspiracy to defraud the united states because of the trump tower meeting & the 'dirt' that the roooskies had on hillary... & there are laws that say it's illegal... & if found guilty.... all involved are going to jail.

 

[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

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.

even if that were true... traitor tot & the CFO allen weiselburg aren't covered under that umbrella.

 

[playtime]

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.

i am not the OP & i didn't put quotes around what i said because they didn't require them. i used the term verbatum when i should have said paraphrased. you've pulled this crap before, so i'm not buying your explanation.

 

[jc456]

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.

i am not the OP & i didn't put quotes around what i said because they didn't require them. i used the term verbatum when i should have said paraphrased. you've pulled this crap before, so i'm not buying your explanation.

nope, you didn't say verbatim until after I queried you.

 

[playtime]

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

 

[jc456]

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

oh goodie, you have evidence. where is the corruption? please since you know, point it out.

 

[playtime]

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.

i am not the OP & i didn't put quotes around what i said because they didn't require them. i used the term verbatum when i should have said paraphrased. you've pulled this crap before, so i'm not buying your explanation.

nope, you didn't say verbatim until after I queried you.

this is what you replied to...

No Russian Collusion? What now?

'moving goalposts' does not equate to demanding quotes & a link in the post you replied to. i paraphrased so generally that it didn't require any quotes.

<buzzer> you fail.

 

[playtime]

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

oh goodie, you have evidence. where is the corruption? please since you know, point it out.

remember when i said you suck as a troll?


^^^ ya, that ^^^

 

[jc456]

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

oh goodie, you have evidence. where is the corruption? please since you know, point it out.

remember when i said you suck as a troll?


^^^ ya, that ^^^

 

[jc456]

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.

i am not the OP & i didn't put quotes around what i said because they didn't require them. i used the term verbatum when i should have said paraphrased. you've pulled this crap before, so i'm not buying your explanation.

nope, you didn't say verbatim until after I queried you.

this is what you replied to...

No Russian Collusion? What now?

'moving goalposts' does not equate to demanding quotes & a link in the post you replied to. i paraphrased so generally that it didn't require any quotes.

<buzzer> you fail.

not in the thread you quoted. now, quote the correct thread.

here you stupid ass

No Russian Collusion? What now?

 

[playtime]

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.

i am not the OP & i didn't put quotes around what i said because they didn't require them. i used the term verbatum when i should have said paraphrased. you've pulled this crap before, so i'm not buying your explanation.

nope, you didn't say verbatim until after I queried you.

this is what you replied to...

No Russian Collusion? What now?

'moving goalposts' does not equate to demanding quotes & a link in the post you replied to. i paraphrased so generally that it didn't require any quotes.

<buzzer> you fail.

not in the thread you quoted. now, quote the correct thread.

here you stupid ass

No Russian Collusion? What now?

haaaaaaaaaaa........ you are flailing. anyhoo - i linked exactly where this stupid b/f started. you link the same thread as i did but just a few posts up.

you still suck & need to go back to troll school.

 

[jc456]

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

i am not the OP & i didn't put quotes around what i said because they didn't require them. i used the term verbatum when i should have said paraphrased. you've pulled this crap before, so i'm not buying your explanation.

nope, you didn't say verbatim until after I queried you.

this is what you replied to...

No Russian Collusion? What now?

'moving goalposts' does not equate to demanding quotes & a link in the post you replied to. i paraphrased so generally that it didn't require any quotes.

<buzzer> you fail.

not in the thread you quoted. now, quote the correct thread.

here you stupid ass

No Russian Collusion? What now?

haaaaaaaaaaa........ you are flailing. anyhoo - i linked exactly where this stupid b/f started. you link the same thread as i did but just a few posts up.

you still suck & need to go back to troll school.

Nope, here is the thread I posted against.
QUOTE="jc456, post: 21948200, member: 46512"]

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.[/QUOTE]

which part are you having difficult with the post # where you used the word verbatim? If you need it I will give it to you in here. post #320.

BTW, tell me what is in that post!!!

 

[Faun]

i am not the OP & i didn't put quotes around what i said because they didn't require them. i used the term verbatum when i should have said paraphrased. you've pulled this crap before, so i'm not buying your explanation.

nope, you didn't say verbatim until after I queried you.

this is what you replied to...

No Russian Collusion? What now?

'moving goalposts' does not equate to demanding quotes & a link in the post you replied to. i paraphrased so generally that it didn't require any quotes.

<buzzer> you fail.

not in the thread you quoted. now, quote the correct thread.

here you stupid ass

No Russian Collusion? What now?

haaaaaaaaaaa........ you are flailing. anyhoo - i linked exactly where this stupid b/f started. you link the same thread as i did but just a few posts up.

you still suck & need to go back to troll school.

Nope, here is the thread I posted against.

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.

which part are you having difficult with the post # where you used the word verbatim? If you need it I will give it to you in here. post #320.

BTW, tell me what is in that post!!!

You’ve been schooled again, troll. You really should move on.

 

[playtime]

i am not the OP & i didn't put quotes around what i said because they didn't require them. i used the term verbatum when i should have said paraphrased. you've pulled this crap before, so i'm not buying your explanation.

nope, you didn't say verbatim until after I queried you.

this is what you replied to...

No Russian Collusion? What now?

'moving goalposts' does not equate to demanding quotes & a link in the post you replied to. i paraphrased so generally that it didn't require any quotes.

<buzzer> you fail.

not in the thread you quoted. now, quote the correct thread.

here you stupid ass

No Russian Collusion? What now?

haaaaaaaaaaa........ you are flailing. anyhoo - i linked exactly where this stupid b/f started. you link the same thread as i did but just a few posts up.

you still suck & need to go back to troll school.

Nope, here is the thread I posted against.
QUOTE="jc456, post: 21948200, member: 46512"]

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.

which part are you having difficult with the post # where you used the word verbatim? If you need it I will give it to you in here. post #320.

BTW, tell me what is in that post!!![/QUOTE]

lol............ yes. i know which post. i just linked it a few moments ago. anyhoooooooooooooo............ tell you what - you report me if that makes you feel better, m'k? i'm not at all concerned.

 

[jc456]

nope, you didn't say verbatim until after I queried you.

this is what you replied to...

No Russian Collusion? What now?

'moving goalposts' does not equate to demanding quotes & a link in the post you replied to. i paraphrased so generally that it didn't require any quotes.

<buzzer> you fail.

not in the thread you quoted. now, quote the correct thread.

here you stupid ass

No Russian Collusion? What now?

haaaaaaaaaaa........ you are flailing. anyhoo - i linked exactly where this stupid b/f started. you link the same thread as i did but just a few posts up.

you still suck & need to go back to troll school.

Nope, here is the thread I posted against.
QUOTE="jc456, post: 21948200, member: 46512"]

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.

which part are you having difficult with the post # where you used the word verbatim? If you need it I will give it to you in here. post #320.

BTW, tell me what is in that post!!!

lol............ yes. i know which post. i just linked it a few moments ago. anyhoooooooooooooo............ tell you what - you report me if that makes you feel better, m'k? i'm not at all concerned.[/QUOTE]
naw, I like humiliating you like this.

 

[playtime]

this is what you replied to...

No Russian Collusion? What now?

'moving goalposts' does not equate to demanding quotes & a link in the post you replied to. i paraphrased so generally that it didn't require any quotes.

<buzzer> you fail.

not in the thread you quoted. now, quote the correct thread.

here you stupid ass

No Russian Collusion? What now?

haaaaaaaaaaa........ you are flailing. anyhoo - i linked exactly where this stupid b/f started. you link the same thread as i did but just a few posts up.

you still suck & need to go back to troll school.

Nope, here is the thread I posted against.
QUOTE="jc456, post: 21948200, member: 46512"]

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.

which part are you having difficult with the post # where you used the word verbatim? If you need it I will give it to you in here. post #320.

BTW, tell me what is in that post!!!

lol............ yes. i know which post. i just linked it a few moments ago. anyhoooooooooooooo............ tell you what - you report me if that makes you feel better, m'k? i'm not at all concerned.

naw, I like humiliating you like this.[/QUOTE]

^^^

 

[jc456]

not in the thread you quoted. now, quote the correct thread.

here you stupid ass

No Russian Collusion? What now?

haaaaaaaaaaa........ you are flailing. anyhoo - i linked exactly where this stupid b/f started. you link the same thread as i did but just a few posts up.

you still suck & need to go back to troll school.

Nope, here is the thread I posted against.
QUOTE="jc456, post: 21948200, member: 46512"]

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.

which part are you having difficult with the post # where you used the word verbatim? If you need it I will give it to you in here. post #320.

BTW, tell me what is in that post!!!

lol............ yes. i know which post. i just linked it a few moments ago. anyhoooooooooooooo............ tell you what - you report me if that makes you feel better, m'k? i'm not at all concerned.

naw, I like humiliating you like this.

^^^

[/QUOTE]

 

[Rigby5]

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......

You still do not understand law at all.
In a democratic republic, government is not a source of authority.
Legislators can make laws, but they can ONLY make laws based on the fact they are necessary in order to defend individual rights.
And a law that would criminalize PAYING blackmail not only does not do that, but would then become a source of harm and violation of individual rights.
It does not at all matter what some FEC statute says.
If it says blackmail payments have to be publicly recorded, then the statutes are illegal.
A prosecutor trying to use them like they did on Cohen then is a criminal.
Prosecuting Cohen was a crime, paying Stormy was perfectly legal.
You need to start understanding what the basis for law IS, in a democratic republic.
If legislation says something CAN be prosecuted, that does not mean it should be or is right to always.
It depends on the circumstances.
And in no way does paying blackmail fall under any federal jurisdiction.
In fact, all gun laws, drug laws, etc.actually are totally illegal as well.
It is incredibly foolish for someone to essentially claim that something is illegal because federal prosecutors are convicting people of it.
According to those principles, we would still be paying tea tax to the British crown.

 

[Faun]

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......

You still do not understand law at all.
In a democratic republic, government is not a source of authority.
Legislators can make laws, but they can ONLY make laws based on the fact they are necessary in order to defend individual rights.
And a law that would criminalize PAYING blackmail not only does not do that, but would then become a source of harm and violation of individual rights.
It does not at all matter what some FEC statute says.
If it says blackmail payments have to be publicly recorded, then the statutes are illegal.
A prosecutor trying to use them like they did on Cohen then is a criminal.
Prosecuting Cohen was a crime, paying Stormy was perfectly legal.
You need to start understanding what the basis for law IS, in a democratic republic.
If legislation says something CAN be prosecuted, that does not mean it should be or is right to always.
It depends on the circumstances.
And in no way does paying blackmail fall under any federal jurisdiction.
In fact, all gun laws, drug laws, etc.actually are totally illegal as well.
It is incredibly foolish for someone to essentially claim that something is illegal because federal prosecutors are convicting people of it.
According to those principles, we would still be paying tea tax to the British crown.

LOLOL

What utter nonsense. Of course the government is an authority as it’s the government who creates laws and enforces them.

“If it says blackmail payments have to be publicly recorded, then the statutes are illegal.”

More tripe. All laws are legal the moment they are passed. You may not like a law, but that doesn’t make it illegal. There are processes in place to nullify laws, such as via the justice system, but laws are legal and constitutional.

But no worries, I’ll accept this nonsense as you merely avoiding citing a section of campaign laws which relieve a candidate of criminal intent of failing to report campaign expenses if no one is harmed by such payments. Which of course you can’t demonstrate since no such statute exists.

But thanks for playing anyway.