Paying people off to avoid a scandal is perfectly legal

[bripat9643]

He said exactly the opposite before the plea agreement.

So? He was covering for trump who was also lying at the time, claiming he had nothing to do with the payments. But then facts emerged showing they were lying.

Why should anyone believe he isn't lying now when he's being threatened with spending the rest of his life in prison?

Because turning on Trump relinquishes any chance for a presidential pardon. There was no reason to lie to make trump look guilty.

He's already done that, moron. There was a very good reason to lie: spending the rest of his life in prison if he didn't. He would have plead guilty to fucking a unicorn in the ass if it prevented that from happening. Everyone who read your claim that "he had no reason to lie" has to be rolling on the floor laughing.

As always, you make no sense. You're literally arguing he flipped on Trump to reduce his prison sentence while ignoring the presidential pardon he would have received, eliminating his sentence entirely, had he just remained loyal to trump.

That's pure speculation. Cohen was already giving Mueller ammunition before the plea deal, especially the tape recording. A pardon was already not in the cards by that time.

 

[Skylar]

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?

See post 1217

.

So you acknowledge that Stormy Daniels was paid 11 days before the election.

But it didn't have anything to do with the election, huh?

 

[bripat9643]

He said exactly the opposite before the plea agreement.

So? He was covering for trump who was also lying at the time, claiming he had nothing to do with the payments. But then facts emerged showing they were lying.

Why should anyone believe he isn't lying now when he's being threatened with spending the rest of his life in prison?

Sworn testimony. His plea deal goes away if he lies. And of course, there's a paper trail backing up his account.

Why woiuld anyone believe Trump? His story has changed again and again. It changed yet again 3 days ago. And he's never offered his account under oath.

Sworn testimony under oath, backed by documentation is far more reliable than a random tweet.

Total bullshit. Once the judge accepts it, it's a done deal. It only goes away if he reneges on his side of the deal. As far as we know, the only thing he agreed to is to plead guilty.

Says you, citing yourself. And you're nobody.

Show us anything affirming your nonsense claim that pleading guilty before a judge in court is not sworn testimony.

The court filings, as well as Cohen’s sworn testimony, added a new layer to the Trump team’s series of shifting accounts about Trump’s role in financing hush money payments ahead of the election.

What Michael Cohen's guilty plea means for Donald Trump

You can't. You're entire argument is to just make up nonsense and deny everything.

Good luck with that, too.

When did he swear to tell the truth?

 

[Skylar]

So? He was covering for trump who was also lying at the time, claiming he had nothing to do with the payments. But then facts emerged showing they were lying.

Why should anyone believe he isn't lying now when he's being threatened with spending the rest of his life in prison?

Because turning on Trump relinquishes any chance for a presidential pardon. There was no reason to lie to make trump look guilty.

He's already done that, moron. There was a very good reason to lie: spending the rest of his life in prison if he didn't. He would have plead guilty to fucking a unicorn in the ass if it prevented that from happening. Everyone who read your claim that "he had no reason to lie" has to be rolling on the floor laughing.

As always, you make no sense. You're literally arguing he flipped on Trump to reduce his prison sentence while ignoring the presidential pardon he would have received, eliminating his sentence entirely, had he just remained loyal to trump.

That's pure speculation. Cohen was already giving Mueller ammunition before the plea deal, especially the tape recording. A pardon was already not in the cards by that time.

How do you know what is in the cards for pardons? You're just making shit up, backed by nothing, Brit.

All while ignoring sworn testimony, guilty pleas, crimes, paper trails and Trump being implicated in federal felonies.

Once again, you try and counter facts and evidence....with your imagination. Backed by nothing.

 

[kaz]

Since these funds are used to keep embarrassing situations quiet to keep a congresscritter more electable, how can they not be considered campaign contributions. Aren't they being spent to influence an election? You can't have it both ways, if Trump and Cohen are criminals, these congresscritter must be too, they're not reporting these contributions form the taxpayers.

.

Is this where you start calling a campaign contribution an 'expense' again?

You know you can actually read an article or two on the topic and get answers to these questions in a few minutes, right?

I don't want some reporters opinion, I'm asking people here. You can deflect all you want, that just demonstrates your discomfort with the prospect of admitting that payoffs for silence, aren't really campaign expenses.

.

You don't want to bother to read up on the most basic aspects of the case.

When you have, I'd be happy to discuss it with you. But feeding you, baby bird style, answers to questions you could find yourself is tedious. And of course, I'm more than happy to correct your misunderstandings.

On short term loans or campaign expenses, for example.

You got Trump this time, tubby. Ooohhhh, he might get a fine ...

Laughing....and notice you don't actually dispute any point of fact I've made regarding the case.

That Cohen's payments were excessive campaign contributions. That Cohen admitted that he made these illegal campaign contributions under Trump's direction and with Trump's coordination. The paper trail backing up Cohen's account. The faked invoices, the fraudlent descriptions of work, the faked time lines.

Good. You're learning.

Laughing harder...you still don't know what a lawyer is.

Cohen made an excessive campaign contribution, which Trump repaid. You have Trump for not filing a form. Obama did the same thing 1,300 times and got fined for it. Congratulations, you are in the realm of the stupid

 

[JimH52]

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.

Since these funds are used to keep embarrassing situations quiet to keep a congresscritter more electable, how can they not be considered campaign contributions. Aren't they being spent to influence an election? You can't have it both ways, if Trump and Cohen are criminals, these congresscritter must be too, they're not reporting these contributions form the taxpayers.

.

Is this where you start calling a campaign contribution an 'expense' again?

You know you can actually read an article or two on the topic and get answers to these questions in a few minutes, right?

I don't want some reporters opinion, I'm asking people here. You can deflect all you want, that just demonstrates your discomfort with the prospect of admitting that payoffs for silence, aren't really campaign expenses.

.

If its a felony for Cohen....it is a felony for trump.....the only thing saving him right now is being the so called president.

But as the crimes begin to pile up....his base will begin to shake. Sooner or later he will have to answer a deposition....as Clinton did.

Since trump is a serial lair...that won't go well.

 

[Skylar]

So? He was covering for trump who was also lying at the time, claiming he had nothing to do with the payments. But then facts emerged showing they were lying.

Why should anyone believe he isn't lying now when he's being threatened with spending the rest of his life in prison?

Sworn testimony. His plea deal goes away if he lies. And of course, there's a paper trail backing up his account.

Why woiuld anyone believe Trump? His story has changed again and again. It changed yet again 3 days ago. And he's never offered his account under oath.

Sworn testimony under oath, backed by documentation is far more reliable than a random tweet.

Total bullshit. Once the judge accepts it, it's a done deal. It only goes away if he reneges on his side of the deal. As far as we know, the only thing he agreed to is to plead guilty.

Says you, citing yourself. And you're nobody.

Show us anything affirming your nonsense claim that pleading guilty before a judge in court is not sworn testimony.

The court filings, as well as Cohen’s sworn testimony, added a new layer to the Trump team’s series of shifting accounts about Trump’s role in financing hush money payments ahead of the election.

What Michael Cohen's guilty plea means for Donald Trump

You can't. You're entire argument is to just make up nonsense and deny everything.

Good luck with that, too.

When did he swear to tell the truth?

Show us any evidence that a plea deal before a judge in a court is not sworn testimony.

There's you citing yourself......and nothing.

Sorry, Brit.....but your desperate denials aren't evidence. Just like your willful ignorance isn't evidence.

 

[bripat9643]

Why should anyone believe he isn't lying now when he's being threatened with spending the rest of his life in prison?

Because turning on Trump relinquishes any chance for a presidential pardon. There was no reason to lie to make trump look guilty.

He's already done that, moron. There was a very good reason to lie: spending the rest of his life in prison if he didn't. He would have plead guilty to fucking a unicorn in the ass if it prevented that from happening. Everyone who read your claim that "he had no reason to lie" has to be rolling on the floor laughing.

As always, you make no sense. You're literally arguing he flipped on Trump to reduce his prison sentence while ignoring the presidential pardon he would have received, eliminating his sentence entirely, had he just remained loyal to trump.

That's pure speculation. Cohen was already giving Mueller ammunition before the plea deal, especially the tape recording. A pardon was already not in the cards by that time.

How do you know what is in the cards for pardons? You're just making shit up, backed by nothing, Brit.

All while ignoring sworn testimony, guilty pleas, crimes, paper trails and Trump being implicated in federal felonies.

Once again, you try and counter facts and evidence....with your imagination. Backed by nothing.

What "sworn testimony?" There was no trial. No one was sworn in. No one is swallowing your made-up horseshit, fat boy.

 

[bripat9643]

Why should anyone believe he isn't lying now when he's being threatened with spending the rest of his life in prison?

Sworn testimony. His plea deal goes away if he lies. And of course, there's a paper trail backing up his account.

Why woiuld anyone believe Trump? His story has changed again and again. It changed yet again 3 days ago. And he's never offered his account under oath.

Sworn testimony under oath, backed by documentation is far more reliable than a random tweet.

Total bullshit. Once the judge accepts it, it's a done deal. It only goes away if he reneges on his side of the deal. As far as we know, the only thing he agreed to is to plead guilty.

Says you, citing yourself. And you're nobody.

Show us anything affirming your nonsense claim that pleading guilty before a judge in court is not sworn testimony.

The court filings, as well as Cohen’s sworn testimony, added a new layer to the Trump team’s series of shifting accounts about Trump’s role in financing hush money payments ahead of the election.

What Michael Cohen's guilty plea means for Donald Trump

You can't. You're entire argument is to just make up nonsense and deny everything.

Good luck with that, too.

When did he swear to tell the truth?

Show us any evidence that a plea deal before a judge in a court is not sworn testimony.

There's you citing yourself......and nothing.

Sorry, Brit.....but your desperate denials aren't evidence. Just like your willful ignorance isn't evidence.

In other words, he never swore to tall the truth.

I don't have to prove that he didn't. You have to prove that he did.

Thanks for playing, fat boy.

 

[kaz]

Cohen is not lying and the Feds are corroborating his words with facts from Pecker and his CFO. trump is a criminal....but that is just one of the crimes he has committed. There are much more serious felonies on the horizon.

Cohen is a proven liar.

So is Trump.

Trump first said he had no knowledge of the NDA.

Then he said ok, he knew about it, but he did not pay it.

Then he said, ok, he paid for it by reimbursing his attorney, but it wasn't paid for with campaign funds.

Then he said, ok, doesn't matter that it wasn't campaign funds, it was his own money and he can spend as much as he wants.

Then he said, that doesn't matter because it's not a crime.

And all of that adds up to that Trump committed the minor offense of not reporting a campaign contribution that was repaid. Obama had a bunch of those and got a fine, which his campaign and the DNC paid, not him

Which is why it's so baffling that rightards are in such utter denial that trump violated campaign finance laws when all he's facing is a fine.

Please, you see the stupid shit that leftists are saying. You aren't all just saying Trump will be fined for failing to file a form, woo hoo! You're talking about crimes and impeachment and stupid shit.

Aren't you going to slap your dick on a tree, pound your chest and crow about how you own us all like you usually do?

 

[Faun]

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.

Not really, no one was aware of the In Touch interview, Faun insist that's Trump and Cohen knew about it. Of course he has presented zero proof.

.

Dumbfuck, now you're flat out lying. I never insisted trump knew she went public with her story. What I actually said was it is ridiculous to assume he didn't know she went public.

But even if he didn't know she went public, he did know of the affair 10 years earlier and never once tried to silence her -- until just before his election and just after his campaign took a huge hit from the Access Hollywood tape.

You have to be completely fucked in the head to think silencing her had nothing to do with his election.

 

[Faun]

Cohen is not lying and the Feds are corroborating his words with facts from Pecker and his CFO. trump is a criminal....but that is just one of the crimes he has committed. There are much more serious felonies on the horizon.

Cohen is a proven liar.

So is Trump.

Trump first said he had no knowledge of the NDA.

Then he said ok, he knew about it, but he did not pay it.

Then he said, ok, he paid for it by reimbursing his attorney, but it wasn't paid for with campaign funds.

Then he said, ok, doesn't matter that it wasn't campaign funds, it was his own money and he can spend as much as he wants.

Then he said, that doesn't matter because it's not a crime.

And all of that adds up to that Trump committed the minor offense of not reporting a campaign contribution that was repaid. Obama had a bunch of those and got a fine, which his campaign and the DNC paid, not him

Which is why it's so baffling that rightards are in such utter denial that trump violated campaign finance laws when all he's facing is a fine.

Please, you see the stupid shit that leftists are saying. You aren't all just saying Trump will be fined for failing to file a form, woo hoo! You're talking about crimes and impeachment and stupid shit.

Aren't you going to slap your dick on a tree, pound your chest and crow about how you own us all like you usually do?

Imbecile, I am not responsible for what others say.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and just to demonstrate just how laughably clueless you are, Brit.....

Because turning on Trump relinquishes any chance for a presidential pardon. There was no reason to lie to make trump look guilty.

He's already done that, moron. There was a very good reason to lie: spending the rest of his life in prison if he didn't. He would have plead guilty to fucking a unicorn in the ass if it prevented that from happening. Everyone who read your claim that "he had no reason to lie" has to be rolling on the floor laughing.

As always, you make no sense. You're literally arguing he flipped on Trump to reduce his prison sentence while ignoring the presidential pardon he would have received, eliminating his sentence entirely, had he just remained loyal to trump.

That's pure speculation. Cohen was already giving Mueller ammunition before the plea deal, especially the tape recording. A pardon was already not in the cards by that time.

How do you know what is in the cards for pardons? You're just making shit up, backed by nothing, Brit.

All while ignoring sworn testimony, guilty pleas, crimes, paper trails and Trump being implicated in federal felonies.

Once again, you try and counter facts and evidence....with your imagination. Backed by nothing.

What "sworn testimony?" There was no trial. No one was sworn in. No one is swallowing your made-up horseshit, fat boy.

Laughing.....you're offering us your fantasies yet again.

And back in reality, is the court transcript at Cohen's plea deal:

THE COURT: Mr. Cohen, do you understand, sir, that you are now under oath, and that if you answer any of my questions falsely, your false or untrue answers may later be used against you in another prosecution for perjury or making a false statement?

THE DEFENDANT: I do, your honor.

Read Michael Cohen's plea in which he implicates President Trump - CNNPolitics

But according to Brit......its not sworn testimony. And Cohen was never sworn in.

Says who? Says Brit. Predictably backed by nothing and once again contradicted by overwhelming evidence.

This, Brit....is why you citing yourself means nothing. And yet its all you've got.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

.

Trump paid Cohen back starting in January 2017.

You're not making sense, the money was spent in 2016.

.

Yes, Cohen spent the money in 2016 in the heat of the campaign to influence the outcome of the campaign.

Glad we got that worked out.

Then why did you say this: (my bold)

"With Trump trying backdate the reason for the payment from 2016, when the illegal campaign contribution was made to 2017."

You're the one that needed to work things out, I already knew when the supposed contribution was made.

.

 

[Skylar]

Sworn testimony. His plea deal goes away if he lies. And of course, there's a paper trail backing up his account.

Why woiuld anyone believe Trump? His story has changed again and again. It changed yet again 3 days ago. And he's never offered his account under oath.

Sworn testimony under oath, backed by documentation is far more reliable than a random tweet.

Total bullshit. Once the judge accepts it, it's a done deal. It only goes away if he reneges on his side of the deal. As far as we know, the only thing he agreed to is to plead guilty.

Says you, citing yourself. And you're nobody.

Show us anything affirming your nonsense claim that pleading guilty before a judge in court is not sworn testimony.

The court filings, as well as Cohen’s sworn testimony, added a new layer to the Trump team’s series of shifting accounts about Trump’s role in financing hush money payments ahead of the election.

What Michael Cohen's guilty plea means for Donald Trump

You can't. You're entire argument is to just make up nonsense and deny everything.

Good luck with that, too.

When did he swear to tell the truth?

Show us any evidence that a plea deal before a judge in a court is not sworn testimony.

There's you citing yourself......and nothing.

Sorry, Brit.....but your desperate denials aren't evidence. Just like your willful ignorance isn't evidence.

In other words, he never swore to tall the truth.

I don't have to prove that he didn't. You have to prove that he did.

Thanks for playing, fat boy.

In other words, he was sworn in. And you offered us yet another fantasy to back you other conspiracy batshit.

Predictably backed by nothing. Thank you for once again demonstrating what your 'legal analysis' is worth, Brit:

Jack shit.

 

[bripat9643]

Oh, and just to demonstrate just how laughably clueless you are, Brit.....

He's already done that, moron. There was a very good reason to lie: spending the rest of his life in prison if he didn't. He would have plead guilty to fucking a unicorn in the ass if it prevented that from happening. Everyone who read your claim that "he had no reason to lie" has to be rolling on the floor laughing.

As always, you make no sense. You're literally arguing he flipped on Trump to reduce his prison sentence while ignoring the presidential pardon he would have received, eliminating his sentence entirely, had he just remained loyal to trump.

That's pure speculation. Cohen was already giving Mueller ammunition before the plea deal, especially the tape recording. A pardon was already not in the cards by that time.

How do you know what is in the cards for pardons? You're just making shit up, backed by nothing, Brit.

All while ignoring sworn testimony, guilty pleas, crimes, paper trails and Trump being implicated in federal felonies.

Once again, you try and counter facts and evidence....with your imagination. Backed by nothing.

What "sworn testimony?" There was no trial. No one was sworn in. No one is swallowing your made-up horseshit, fat boy.

Laughing.....you're offering us your fantasies yet again.

And back in reality, is the court transcript at Cohen's plea deal:

THE COURT: Mr. Cohen, do you understand, sir, that you are now under oath, and that if you answer any of my questions falsely, your false or untrue answers may later be used against you in another prosecution for perjury or making a false statement?

THE DEFENDANT: I do, your honor.

Read Michael Cohen's plea in which he implicates President Trump - CNNPolitics

But according to Brit......its not sworn testimony. And Cohen was never sworn in.

Says who? Says Brit. Predictably backed by nothing and once again contradicted by overwhelming evidence.

This, Brit....is why you citing yourself means nothing. And yet its all you've got.

You have failed, once again, to demonstrate the his plea constitutes sworn testimony.

 

[bripat9643]

Total bullshit. Once the judge accepts it, it's a done deal. It only goes away if he reneges on his side of the deal. As far as we know, the only thing he agreed to is to plead guilty.

Says you, citing yourself. And you're nobody.

Show us anything affirming your nonsense claim that pleading guilty before a judge in court is not sworn testimony.

The court filings, as well as Cohen’s sworn testimony, added a new layer to the Trump team’s series of shifting accounts about Trump’s role in financing hush money payments ahead of the election.

What Michael Cohen's guilty plea means for Donald Trump

You can't. You're entire argument is to just make up nonsense and deny everything.

Good luck with that, too.

When did he swear to tell the truth?

Show us any evidence that a plea deal before a judge in a court is not sworn testimony.

There's you citing yourself......and nothing.

Sorry, Brit.....but your desperate denials aren't evidence. Just like your willful ignorance isn't evidence.

In other words, he never swore to tall the truth.

I don't have to prove that he didn't. You have to prove that he did.

Thanks for playing, fat boy.

In other words, he was sworn in. And you offered us yet another fantasy to back you other conspiracy batshit.

Predictably backed by nothing. Thank you for once again demonstrating what your 'legal analysis' is worth, Brit:

Jack shit.

"In other words he was sworn in?" When did you demonstrate that? Please post a link that Cohen was sworn in.

 

[Skylar]

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 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.

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?

.

Trump paid Cohen back starting in January 2017.

You're not making sense, the money was spent in 2016.

.

Yes, Cohen spent the money in 2016 in the heat of the campaign to influence the outcome of the campaign.

Glad we got that worked out.

Then why did you say this: (my bold)

"With Trump trying backdate the reason for the payment from 2016, when the illegal campaign contribution was made to 2017."

You're the one that needed to work things out, I already knew when the supposed contribution was made.

.

The reason is simple: Fraud. Trump didn't declare the payments to the FEC as he was required to. Trump used shell companies to move the funds. Trump used backdated invoices and fraudulent work descriptions. And of course lied flagrantly in an attempt to cover the payments up.

All of which we've explained to you. And yet you pretend not to know.

 

[kaz]

Cohen is a proven liar.

So is Trump.

Trump first said he had no knowledge of the NDA.

Then he said ok, he knew about it, but he did not pay it.

Then he said, ok, he paid for it by reimbursing his attorney, but it wasn't paid for with campaign funds.

Then he said, ok, doesn't matter that it wasn't campaign funds, it was his own money and he can spend as much as he wants.

Then he said, that doesn't matter because it's not a crime.

And all of that adds up to that Trump committed the minor offense of not reporting a campaign contribution that was repaid. Obama had a bunch of those and got a fine, which his campaign and the DNC paid, not him

Which is why it's so baffling that rightards are in such utter denial that trump violated campaign finance laws when all he's facing is a fine.

Please, you see the stupid shit that leftists are saying. You aren't all just saying Trump will be fined for failing to file a form, woo hoo! You're talking about crimes and impeachment and stupid shit.

Aren't you going to slap your dick on a tree, pound your chest and crow about how you own us all like you usually do?

Imbecile, I am not responsible for what others say.

You asked me, dick head. If you don't want the answer to a question, don't ask it. WTF, idiot

 

[Skylar]

Says you, citing yourself. And you're nobody.

Show us anything affirming your nonsense claim that pleading guilty before a judge in court is not sworn testimony.

You can't. You're entire argument is to just make up nonsense and deny everything.

Good luck with that, too.

When did he swear to tell the truth?

Show us any evidence that a plea deal before a judge in a court is not sworn testimony.

There's you citing yourself......and nothing.

Sorry, Brit.....but your desperate denials aren't evidence. Just like your willful ignorance isn't evidence.

In other words, he never swore to tall the truth.

I don't have to prove that he didn't. You have to prove that he did.

Thanks for playing, fat boy.

In other words, he was sworn in. And you offered us yet another fantasy to back you other conspiracy batshit.

Predictably backed by nothing. Thank you for once again demonstrating what your 'legal analysis' is worth, Brit:

Jack shit.

"In other words he was sworn in?" When did you demonstrate that? Please post a link that Cohen was sworn in.

I've already posted the link. I've already cited the court swearing Cohen in. I've already linked to the transcript of the court proceedings.

Paying people off to avoid a scandal is perfectly legal

And yet you continue to deny that Cohen was ever sworn in. Based on....nothing. Just you making shit up.

Thank you for demonstrating how worthless your 'legal assessment' is. How how little you citing yourself means. And your imagination, backed by nothing, is all you have to offer us.

You're done.