Paying people off to avoid a scandal is perfectly legal

[bripat9643]

Virtually every snowflake in this forum is arguing exactly that, including you.

No one is, ya fucking moron. What we're saying is that his failure to report it is illegal. Dayum, you rightards are fucking nuts.

ROFL! Oh yeah, now that's different!

LOLOL

Fucking moron, yes, the amount he paid Stormy IS different from him not reporting it.

You are unbelievably retarded to be incapable of comprehending the difference.

You're too far gone into insanity to waste time disputing your incoherent mutterings.

Watch me prove you're a fucking moron.....

You claim I said Trump's crime was based on how much he personally contributed his campaign....

Raving lunatic, no one is contending the amount he spent to silence a porn star is illegal.

Virtually every snowflake in this forum is arguing exactly that, including you.​

…. so either you can quote me saying the amount he gave is what violated the law or you prove I'm right when I point out you're a fucking moron.....

Choice is yours.....​

I'm not going down this road, asshole. Your favorite tactic is making a major issue out of some trivial fact.

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong, idiot. Pleading guilty to a non crime doesn't make you guilty of a crime.

Saying it's a non-crime doesn't make it so - particularly when a statute says it is a crime.

Well, not in the real world, but in Trumplandia, I suppose a crime is whatever Trump says it is.

The fact that it's a non crime is what makes it a non crime. A crime isn't whatever Cohen blurts out because of a plea agreement. Meuller was the author of Cohen's plea agreement. That much is clear. All you psycho snowflakes behave as if Mueller is infallible.

You're insane to think a lawyer would plead guilty to a non-crime when all it would take to walk free is a motion to dismiss based on improper charges.

But then again, you have proven time and time again what a fucking moron you are.

It's a plea agreement, numskull. If he has an issue with the charges, he simply refuses to accept them. Those are his choices. He can't accept the plea and then complain it's improper.

That still does not explain why a lawyer would plead guilty to a non-crime when all it would take to walk free is a motion to dismiss based on improper charges.

And if it is a "non-crime" why is the statute that was broken listed in the plea agreement?

I just explained why he couldn't do that, but your skull is too thick for it to penetrate.

 

[Lewdog]

You mean like Republican Blake Farenthold?

I mean anyone of either party. Should they be prosecuted for campaign finance violations? They accepted money far beyond the donation limits to pay for what you and your ilk say is a campaign expense.

.

That money comes out of a fund for Congress, just like if a company has legal funds for settling cases of wrongdoing. I think it is ridiculous that any party should be getting their sexual harassment suits or whatever liability suit paid for with tax dollars. They rip off citizens enough already. The money should come out of their paychecks.

If Trump paying Stormy to sign an NDA is a campaign expense, then all the douchebags who used the Congressional fund to pay off sexual harassment claims also received illegal donations.

I don't think you scumbags have thought this one out. If you insist and trying to skewer Trump by labeling his payment as a campaign expense, then a lot of Dim politicians will be wriggling on the same hook.

It's a campaign contribution not an expense. An expense is paying for the plane ride to rallies... a contribution is anything of value like a cash donation, if someone caters a rally for free, or something like this where they pay someone not to say something that would damage their chances of getting elected.

I'm done trying to convince you psychos that a triangle has 3 sides. You will continue to insist it has 4 sides until doomsday.

You couldn't convince shit, because people aren't buying your false brainwashed rhetoric. You don't understand basic law, business, or account procedures but you think we should believe you on anything?

 

[Skylar]

Cohen is going to be sentenced in December for no reason. You trump leg humpers CANNOT be this stupid.

You are making FOOLS of yourself! Stop posting stupid shit!

no trial--no crime
that's not the American way

There was a trial. It's called a bench trial. Both parties - prosecution and defense - are represented. A judge presides, charges are read, a plea is entered, and the Court makes its ruling. It's much more common than a jury trial.

That's not a "trial," it is a ruling. The court ruled to accept the contract of the plea arrangement in lieu of a trial.

Cohen is as guilty now as he would have if he had a trial. He spoke under oath on a courtroom saying trump ordered him to commit a felony.

Sooner or later trump will have to speak under oath about this crime and many more. Just a matter of time....

Wrong, idiot. Pleading guilty to a non crime doesn't make you guilty of a crime.

Save of course that excessive campaign contributions is a crime. And you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Faun]

Cohen is as guilty now as he would have if he had a trial. He spoke under oath on a courtroom saying trump ordered him to commit a felony.

Sooner or later trump will have to speak under oath about this crime and many more. Just a matter of time....

Wrong, idiot. Pleading guilty to a non crime doesn't make you guilty of a crime.

Saying it's a non-crime doesn't make it so - particularly when a statute says it is a crime.

Well, not in the real world, but in Trumplandia, I suppose a crime is whatever Trump says it is.

The fact that it's a non crime is what makes it a non crime. A crime isn't whatever Cohen blurts out because of a plea agreement. Meuller was the author of Cohen's plea agreement. That much is clear. All you psycho snowflakes behave as if Mueller is infallible.

You're insane to think a lawyer would plead guilty to a non-crime when all it would take to walk free is a motion to dismiss based on improper charges.

But then again, you have proven time and time again what a fucking moron you are.

It's a plea agreement, numskull. If he has an issue with the charges, he simply refuses to accept them. Those are his choices. He can't accept the plea and then complain it's improper.

Fucking moron, no lawyer is going to plead guilty to non-criminal charges. You're fucking insane.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Saying it's a non-crime doesn't make it so - particularly when a statute says it is a crime.

Well, not in the real world, but in Trumplandia, I suppose a crime is whatever Trump says it is.

The fact that it's a non crime is what makes it a non crime. A crime isn't whatever Cohen blurts out because of a plea agreement. Meuller was the author of Cohen's plea agreement. That much is clear. All you psycho snowflakes behave as if Mueller is infallible.

You're insane to think a lawyer would plead guilty to a non-crime when all it would take to walk free is a motion to dismiss based on improper charges.

But then again, you have proven time and time again what a fucking moron you are.

It's a plea agreement, numskull. If he has an issue with the charges, he simply refuses to accept them. Those are his choices. He can't accept the plea and then complain it's improper.

That still does not explain why a lawyer would plead guilty to a non-crime when all it would take to walk free is a motion to dismiss based on improper charges.

And if it is a "non-crime" why is the statute that was broken listed in the plea agreement?

I just explained why he couldn't do that, but your skull is too thick for it to penetrate.

No, you claimed he could not do that, you did not explain why.

Why would anyone, especially most of all a trained lawyer, plead guilty to something that is not even a crime?

And how can it not be a crime if the statute he is accused of breaking is listed on the plea agreement? Did they just make up that part as well?

 

[OKTexas]

.

Link to what? That trump knew that the National Inquirer had her story and was sitting on it? It was revealed he knew about it on Cohen’s tape where they discussed buying the story from the inquirer.

Hey retard, you're mixing up the two whores.

.

Dumbfuck, I mixed up no one as I never said I was talking about only one porn star. I was clear, comparing the National Inqurier sitting on a story with In Touch sitting on a story. And we know for a fact that Trump knew the inquirer was sitting on a story even though the story wasn’t released to the public; meaning you’re assumption he didn’t know about the In Touch article stems only from your brain, which you’ve proven is deformed.

Poor little retard, there's nothing being reported or written, that I've seen, that says Trump was aware of the In Touch interview. If he were aware, why would he pay her to not give an interview that she had already given several years before? You're the one making assumptions against logic.

.

To buy her silence for the election. You’re not very bright.

LMAO, the silence was broken 6 years earlier.

.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Link to what? That trump knew that the National Inquirer had her story and was sitting on it? It was revealed he knew about it on Cohen’s tape where they discussed buying the story from the inquirer.

Hey retard, you're mixing up the two whores.

.

Dumbfuck, I mixed up no one as I never said I was talking about only one porn star. I was clear, comparing the National Inqurier sitting on a story with In Touch sitting on a story. And we know for a fact that Trump knew the inquirer was sitting on a story even though the story wasn’t released to the public; meaning you’re assumption he didn’t know about the In Touch article stems only from your brain, which you’ve proven is deformed.

Poor little retard, there's nothing being reported or written, that I've seen, that says Trump was aware of the In Touch interview. If he were aware, why would he pay her to not give an interview that she had already given several years before? You're the one making assumptions against logic.

.

To buy her silence for the election. You’re not very bright.

LMAO, the silence was broken 6 years earlier.

.

Which makes his choice to do it right before the election even more confusing.

 

[bripat9643]

It's not a crime when 2 consenting adults screw each other..............Ethically........pretty shitty thing to do to your wife..........but it's not a crime.........

They had sex for future cashing in on doing so with Trump...........in Clinton's case they accused him of sexual abuse............Not hardly the same......Stormy bragged about it............didn't say he FORCED ME as was with Clinton............Big difference..........

You can say.........ehtically is it wrong .............yeah......I'd never cheat on my wife.........but legally...........your full of shit......

Now you judge me..........I see what I see...........I see an establishment fucking the entire country..........getting away with massive abuse of power........Obama was one of the dirtiest dang jerks I've seen in my lifetime..........You can try to say I KNOW NOTHING........about what happened with Federal Agencies then and I could care less .............too dang much went on for that excuse............

IRS targeting costing citizens millions in defense when they committed no crimes.............These same people were also targeted by the FBI, ATF and intel agencies..............because they disagree...............Those doing this are TRAITORS to the Republic............and these leftover assholes are the same ones that took part in it............

Same ones who gave Hillary a pass before she even testified..........same ones who got financial gain from the lobbies of the dirty political gang of Democraps.........

Tired of me saying this.........I don't care........you will continue to see these posts.

So you're saying the NDA wasn't a campaign expense? And a personal loan, not used for a campaign expense, is still a campaign contribution. Did I get your sentiment correct there?

.

Contributions are monies paid into the campaign. Cohen paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to benefit the campaign. The was is gross excess of the federal contribution limits. The funds didn't come out of the campaign coffers. But from Cohen personally, at Trumps personal direction. Making your description of Cohen's payments as a campaign expense simply wrong.

Trump reimembursed Cohen AFTER the election. And it being Trump, of course it was done through fraud. Faked time lines, fraudulent invoices, faked work descriptions. And obviously without reporting any of it to the FEC.

All of which has been turned over to federal prosecutors and submitted to the court.

Cohen's money didn't go to Trump or the campaign, it went to finance the NDA.

IT went to immediately benefit the campaign. But came out of Cohen's pocket. Not the campaign's.

Thus, a campaign contribution. Not a campaign expense. You've literally got opposites confused with each other. You probably want to stop polishing that turd and just accept the fact that you used the wrong term.

Trump, not the campaign reimbursed Cohen, so how could Cohen's outlay been a contribution to the campaign, when the purpose it was used for wasn't a campaign expenditure? It was basically just a short term personal loan to Trump.

Trump reimbursed him after the election.....under fraudulent circumstances, as its Trump. So of course it involved fraud, lies, faked time lines, and false invoices.

Now for your 'short term loan' theory. Even by that logic, the short term loan was for the purpose of aiding his presidential campaign. And loans are subject to campaign contribution limits too. Says who? Says the FEC.

If any person, including a relative or friend of the candidate, gives or loans the candidate money “for the purpose of influencing any election for federal office,” the funds are not considered personal funds of the candidate even if they are given to the candidate directly. Instead, the gift or loan is considered a contribution from the donor to the campaign, subject to the per-election limit and reportable by the campaign. This is true even if the candidate uses the funds for personal living expenses while campaigning.

Personal loans from the candidate - FEC.gov

And of course, because its Trump none of this sizable transaction was reported to the FEC. It was all done through shell companies, using fake invoices and fraudulent time lines. With Trump trying backdate the reason for the payment from 2016, when the illegal campaign contribution was made to 2017.

And there's a paper trail for all of it. With Trump's own CFO now having an immunity deal. So we're likely to learn even more of the fraudulent and corrupt criminal practices within the Trump organization.

The NDA was executed in 2016, how could it have been considered a contribution in 2017?

.

How indeed.

And the deceit and fraud committed by Trump go further still. As when Trump reimbursed Cohen in 2017 for the illegal campaign contribution made in 2016......he also used a fraudulent description of work. With the faked invoices claiming it was for legal work Cohen did in February of 2017.

And the Feds have the entire paper trail now. Every last fraudulent scrap of it.

It was legal work. Cohen drew up the papers and had Stormy sign them.

 

[skews13]

I'm not sure why, but it seems the Democrats think that paying off a woman to be quiet about a scandal is somehow illegal. Well, it isn't.

Meanwhile, I'm wondering what any of this has to do with collusion with Russia...

Why would he payoff someone he has never had a relationship with, like he has repeatedly said....

 

[Faun]

No one is, ya fucking moron. What we're saying is that his failure to report it is illegal. Dayum, you rightards are fucking nuts.

ROFL! Oh yeah, now that's different!

LOLOL

Fucking moron, yes, the amount he paid Stormy IS different from him not reporting it.

You are unbelievably retarded to be incapable of comprehending the difference.

You're too far gone into insanity to waste time disputing your incoherent mutterings.

Watch me prove you're a fucking moron.....

You claim I said Trump's crime was based on how much he personally contributed his campaign....

Raving lunatic, no one is contending the amount he spent to silence a porn star is illegal.

Virtually every snowflake in this forum is arguing exactly that, including you.​

…. so either you can quote me saying the amount he gave is what violated the law or you prove I'm right when I point out you're a fucking moron.....

Choice is yours.....​

I'm not going down this road, asshole. Your favorite tactic is making a major issue out of some trivial fact.

LOLOL

No quote = you're a fucking moron, proven by your abject inability to prove the hallucination you posted on the forum.

 

[Skylar]

Link to what? That trump knew that the National Inquirer had her story and was sitting on it? It was revealed he knew about it on Cohen’s tape where they discussed buying the story from the inquirer.

Hey retard, you're mixing up the two whores.

.

Dumbfuck, I mixed up no one as I never said I was talking about only one porn star. I was clear, comparing the National Inqurier sitting on a story with In Touch sitting on a story. And we know for a fact that Trump knew the inquirer was sitting on a story even though the story wasn’t released to the public; meaning you’re assumption he didn’t know about the In Touch article stems only from your brain, which you’ve proven is deformed.

Poor little retard, there's nothing being reported or written, that I've seen, that says Trump was aware of the In Touch interview. If he were aware, why would he pay her to not give an interview that she had already given several years before? You're the one making assumptions against logic.

.

To buy her silence for the election. You’re not very bright.

LMAO, the silence was broken 6 years earlier.

.

Then why, pray tell, was Stormy Daniels paid 11 days before the election?

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong, idiot. Pleading guilty to a non crime doesn't make you guilty of a crime.

Saying it's a non-crime doesn't make it so - particularly when a statute says it is a crime.

Well, not in the real world, but in Trumplandia, I suppose a crime is whatever Trump says it is.

The fact that it's a non crime is what makes it a non crime. A crime isn't whatever Cohen blurts out because of a plea agreement. Meuller was the author of Cohen's plea agreement. That much is clear. All you psycho snowflakes behave as if Mueller is infallible.

You're insane to think a lawyer would plead guilty to a non-crime when all it would take to walk free is a motion to dismiss based on improper charges.

But then again, you have proven time and time again what a fucking moron you are.

It's a plea agreement, numskull. If he has an issue with the charges, he simply refuses to accept them. Those are his choices. He can't accept the plea and then complain it's improper.

Fucking moron, no lawyer is going to plead guilty to non-criminal charges. You're fucking insane.

A claim lacking any visible support. You're saying we should trust Cohen's lawyer, Lanny Davis, who was formerly the lawyer for the Clintons.

 

[bripat9643]

ROFL! Oh yeah, now that's different!

LOLOL

Fucking moron, yes, the amount he paid Stormy IS different from him not reporting it.

You are unbelievably retarded to be incapable of comprehending the difference.

You're too far gone into insanity to waste time disputing your incoherent mutterings.

Watch me prove you're a fucking moron.....

You claim I said Trump's crime was based on how much he personally contributed his campaign....

Raving lunatic, no one is contending the amount he spent to silence a porn star is illegal.

Virtually every snowflake in this forum is arguing exactly that, including you.​

…. so either you can quote me saying the amount he gave is what violated the law or you prove I'm right when I point out you're a fucking moron.....

Choice is yours.....​

I'm not going down this road, asshole. Your favorite tactic is making a major issue out of some trivial fact.

LOLOL

No quote = you're a fucking moron, proven by your abject inability to prove the hallucination you posted on the forum.

What part of "I'm not going down this road" didn't you understand?

 

[Skylar]

Contributions are monies paid into the campaign. Cohen paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to benefit the campaign. The was is gross excess of the federal contribution limits. The funds didn't come out of the campaign coffers. But from Cohen personally, at Trumps personal direction. Making your description of Cohen's payments as a campaign expense simply wrong.

Trump reimembursed Cohen AFTER the election. And it being Trump, of course it was done through fraud. Faked time lines, fraudulent invoices, faked work descriptions. And obviously without reporting any of it to the FEC.

All of which has been turned over to federal prosecutors and submitted to the court.

Cohen's money didn't go to Trump or the campaign, it went to finance the NDA.

IT went to immediately benefit the campaign. But came out of Cohen's pocket. Not the campaign's.

Thus, a campaign contribution. Not a campaign expense. You've literally got opposites confused with each other. You probably want to stop polishing that turd and just accept the fact that you used the wrong term.

Trump, not the campaign reimbursed Cohen, so how could Cohen's outlay been a contribution to the campaign, when the purpose it was used for wasn't a campaign expenditure? It was basically just a short term personal loan to Trump.

Trump reimbursed him after the election.....under fraudulent circumstances, as its Trump. So of course it involved fraud, lies, faked time lines, and false invoices.

Now for your 'short term loan' theory. Even by that logic, the short term loan was for the purpose of aiding his presidential campaign. And loans are subject to campaign contribution limits too. Says who? Says the FEC.

If any person, including a relative or friend of the candidate, gives or loans the candidate money “for the purpose of influencing any election for federal office,” the funds are not considered personal funds of the candidate even if they are given to the candidate directly. Instead, the gift or loan is considered a contribution from the donor to the campaign, subject to the per-election limit and reportable by the campaign. This is true even if the candidate uses the funds for personal living expenses while campaigning.

Personal loans from the candidate - FEC.gov

And of course, because its Trump none of this sizable transaction was reported to the FEC. It was all done through shell companies, using fake invoices and fraudulent time lines. With Trump trying backdate the reason for the payment from 2016, when the illegal campaign contribution was made to 2017.

And there's a paper trail for all of it. With Trump's own CFO now having an immunity deal. So we're likely to learn even more of the fraudulent and corrupt criminal practices within the Trump organization.

The NDA was executed in 2016, how could it have been considered a contribution in 2017?

.

How indeed.

And the deceit and fraud committed by Trump go further still. As when Trump reimbursed Cohen in 2017 for the illegal campaign contribution made in 2016......he also used a fraudulent description of work. With the faked invoices claiming it was for legal work Cohen did in February of 2017.

And the Feds have the entire paper trail now. Every last fraudulent scrap of it.

It was legal work. Cohen drew up the papers and had Stormy sign them.

It was a campaign contribution made by Cohen himself. Says who? Says Cohen. And the prosecutors. And the judge.

You've literally got nothing but naked denial, Brit. And your willful ignorance isn't a legal standard.

What else have you got?

 

[bripat9643]

The fact that it's a non crime is what makes it a non crime. A crime isn't whatever Cohen blurts out because of a plea agreement. Meuller was the author of Cohen's plea agreement. That much is clear. All you psycho snowflakes behave as if Mueller is infallible.

You're insane to think a lawyer would plead guilty to a non-crime when all it would take to walk free is a motion to dismiss based on improper charges.

But then again, you have proven time and time again what a fucking moron you are.

It's a plea agreement, numskull. If he has an issue with the charges, he simply refuses to accept them. Those are his choices. He can't accept the plea and then complain it's improper.

That still does not explain why a lawyer would plead guilty to a non-crime when all it would take to walk free is a motion to dismiss based on improper charges.

And if it is a "non-crime" why is the statute that was broken listed in the plea agreement?

I just explained why he couldn't do that, but your skull is too thick for it to penetrate.

No, you claimed he could not do that, you did not explain why.

Why would anyone, especially most of all a trained lawyer, plead guilty to something that is not even a crime?

And how can it not be a crime if the statute he is accused of breaking is listed on the plea agreement? Did they just make up that part as well?

Yes, I did explain why, but it didn't penetrate your thick skull.

 

[joaquinmiller]

Wrong, idiot. Pleading guilty to a non crime doesn't make you guilty of a crime.

Saying it's a non-crime doesn't make it so - particularly when a statute says it is a crime.

Well, not in the real world, but in Trumplandia, I suppose a crime is whatever Trump says it is.

The fact that it's a non crime is what makes it a non crime. A crime isn't whatever Cohen blurts out because of a plea agreement. Meuller was the author of Cohen's plea agreement. That much is clear. All you psycho snowflakes behave as if Mueller is infallible.

You're insane to think a lawyer would plead guilty to a non-crime when all it would take to walk free is a motion to dismiss based on improper charges.

But then again, you have proven time and time again what a fucking moron you are.

It's a plea agreement, numskull. If he has an issue with the charges, he simply refuses to accept them. Those are his choices. He can't accept the plea and then complain it's improper.

That still does not explain why a lawyer would plead guilty to a non-crime when all it would take to walk free is a motion to dismiss based on improper charges.

And if it is a "non-crime" why is the statute that was broken listed in the plea agreement?

The lawyer Cohen also had a lawyer. Theoretically, he could seek to have his plea thrown out, based on inadequate representation, if, as Trump and his cultish followers claim, the illegal donation wasn't illegal.

 

[Faun]

Link to what? That trump knew that the National Inquirer had her story and was sitting on it? It was revealed he knew about it on Cohen’s tape where they discussed buying the story from the inquirer.

Hey retard, you're mixing up the two whores.

.

Dumbfuck, I mixed up no one as I never said I was talking about only one porn star. I was clear, comparing the National Inqurier sitting on a story with In Touch sitting on a story. And we know for a fact that Trump knew the inquirer was sitting on a story even though the story wasn’t released to the public; meaning you’re assumption he didn’t know about the In Touch article stems only from your brain, which you’ve proven is deformed.

Poor little retard, there's nothing being reported or written, that I've seen, that says Trump was aware of the In Touch interview. If he were aware, why would he pay her to not give an interview that she had already given several years before? You're the one making assumptions against logic.

.

To buy her silence for the election. You’re not very bright.

LMAO, the silence was broken 6 years earlier.

.

So? Trump still paid her not to talk about it just before the election where he was running for president. That's a campaign contribution.

 

[bripat9643]

Cohen's money didn't go to Trump or the campaign, it went to finance the NDA.

IT went to immediately benefit the campaign. But came out of Cohen's pocket. Not the campaign's.

Thus, a campaign contribution. Not a campaign expense. You've literally got opposites confused with each other. You probably want to stop polishing that turd and just accept the fact that you used the wrong term.

Trump, not the campaign reimbursed Cohen, so how could Cohen's outlay been a contribution to the campaign, when the purpose it was used for wasn't a campaign expenditure? It was basically just a short term personal loan to Trump.

Trump reimbursed him after the election.....under fraudulent circumstances, as its Trump. So of course it involved fraud, lies, faked time lines, and false invoices.

Now for your 'short term loan' theory. Even by that logic, the short term loan was for the purpose of aiding his presidential campaign. And loans are subject to campaign contribution limits too. Says who? Says the FEC.

If any person, including a relative or friend of the candidate, gives or loans the candidate money “for the purpose of influencing any election for federal office,” the funds are not considered personal funds of the candidate even if they are given to the candidate directly. Instead, the gift or loan is considered a contribution from the donor to the campaign, subject to the per-election limit and reportable by the campaign. This is true even if the candidate uses the funds for personal living expenses while campaigning.

Personal loans from the candidate - FEC.gov

And of course, because its Trump none of this sizable transaction was reported to the FEC. It was all done through shell companies, using fake invoices and fraudulent time lines. With Trump trying backdate the reason for the payment from 2016, when the illegal campaign contribution was made to 2017.

And there's a paper trail for all of it. With Trump's own CFO now having an immunity deal. So we're likely to learn even more of the fraudulent and corrupt criminal practices within the Trump organization.

The NDA was executed in 2016, how could it have been considered a contribution in 2017?

.

How indeed.

And the deceit and fraud committed by Trump go further still. As when Trump reimbursed Cohen in 2017 for the illegal campaign contribution made in 2016......he also used a fraudulent description of work. With the faked invoices claiming it was for legal work Cohen did in February of 2017.

And the Feds have the entire paper trail now. Every last fraudulent scrap of it.

It was legal work. Cohen drew up the papers and had Stormy sign them.

It was a campaign contribution made by Cohen himself. Says who? Says Cohen. And the prosecutors. And the judge.

You've literally got nothing but naked denial, Brit. And your willful ignorance isn't a legal standard.

What else have you got?

You're incapable of committing logic, so why should I bother trying to convince you with facts and logic? You'll continue to repeat your bogus premise no matter how many times it is debunked. That's what you do.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Saying it's a non-crime doesn't make it so - particularly when a statute says it is a crime.

Well, not in the real world, but in Trumplandia, I suppose a crime is whatever Trump says it is.

The fact that it's a non crime is what makes it a non crime. A crime isn't whatever Cohen blurts out because of a plea agreement. Meuller was the author of Cohen's plea agreement. That much is clear. All you psycho snowflakes behave as if Mueller is infallible.

You're insane to think a lawyer would plead guilty to a non-crime when all it would take to walk free is a motion to dismiss based on improper charges.

But then again, you have proven time and time again what a fucking moron you are.

It's a plea agreement, numskull. If he has an issue with the charges, he simply refuses to accept them. Those are his choices. He can't accept the plea and then complain it's improper.

Fucking moron, no lawyer is going to plead guilty to non-criminal charges. You're fucking insane.

A claim lacking any visible support. You're saying we should trust Cohen's lawyer, Lanny Davis, who was formerly the lawyer for the Clintons.

You even have this part wrong, Cohen's lawyer the did the plea agreement is Guy Petrillo, not Lanny Davis.