Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Stop kazzing, moron. I didn't ask you shit. There is no question mark in my post, which would have established an actual question, had I actually asked one.Imbecile, I am not responsible for what others say.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.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
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?
You asked me, dick head. If you don't want the answer to a question, don't ask it. WTF, idiot
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.
.
Cohen spent the money in 2016... Trump didn't start paying Cohen back, and hence breaking the campaign financing laws until 2017.
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.
.
Cohen spent the money in 2016... Trump didn't start paying Cohen back, and hence breaking the campaign financing laws until 2017.
Damn, stop with the circular bullshit already. You claimed Cohen made an illegal excessive campaign contribution in 2016 and now you're saying it wasn't a violation of law until Trump started returning the money to Cohen in 2017. Is that really the story you want to stick with? LMAO
.
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.
.
Cohen spent the money in 2016... Trump didn't start paying Cohen back, and hence breaking the campaign financing laws until 2017.
Damn, stop with the circular bullshit already. You claimed Cohen made an illegal excessive campaign contribution in 2016 and now you're saying it wasn't a violation of law until Trump started returning the money to Cohen in 2017. Is that really the story you want to stick with? LMAO
.
Stop kazzing, moron. I didn't ask you shit. There is no question mark in my post, which would have established an actual question, had I actually asked one.Imbecile, I am not responsible for what others say.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.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
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?
You asked me, dick head. If you don't want the answer to a question, don't ask it. WTF, idiot
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.
.
Cohen spent the money in 2016... Trump didn't start paying Cohen back, and hence breaking the campaign financing laws until 2017.
Damn, stop with the circular bullshit already. You claimed Cohen made an illegal excessive campaign contribution in 2016 and now you're saying it wasn't a violation of law until Trump started returning the money to Cohen in 2017. Is that really the story you want to stick with? LMAO
.
I never said that... Trump is the one saying HE MADE THE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION WHEN HE PAID COHEN BACK. He paid Cohen back starting with a payment in January 2017. They are two different things.
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.
.
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.
Trump paid Cohen back starting in January 2017.
You're not making sense, the money was spent in 2016.
.
Cohen spent the money in 2016... Trump didn't start paying Cohen back, and hence breaking the campaign financing laws until 2017.
Damn, stop with the circular bullshit already. You claimed Cohen made an illegal excessive campaign contribution in 2016 and now you're saying it wasn't a violation of law until Trump started returning the money to Cohen in 2017. Is that really the story you want to stick with? LMAO
.
I never said that... Trump is the one saying HE MADE THE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION WHEN HE PAID COHEN BACK. He paid Cohen back starting with a payment in January 2017. They are two different things.
Yes, and now you want to impeach Trump for failing to file a form.
He should have sexually assaulted a woman in the Oval Office. That you were OK with
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.
.
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.
Great, run along since you can't even keep the topics straight. I was asking about congresscritters using federal funds to pay hush money and why that money isn't counted as an illegal unreported excessive contribution to their campaign. After all the money is used to effect a federal election.
.
Trump paid Cohen back starting in January 2017.
You're not making sense, the money was spent in 2016.
.
Cohen spent the money in 2016... Trump didn't start paying Cohen back, and hence breaking the campaign financing laws until 2017.
Damn, stop with the circular bullshit already. You claimed Cohen made an illegal excessive campaign contribution in 2016 and now you're saying it wasn't a violation of law until Trump started returning the money to Cohen in 2017. Is that really the story you want to stick with? LMAO
.
I never said that... Trump is the one saying HE MADE THE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION WHEN HE PAID COHEN BACK. He paid Cohen back starting with a payment in January 2017. They are two different things.
Yes, and now you want to impeach Trump for failing to file a form. I'll echo your call though that yes, he should receive a fine like Obama did when Obama failed to file 1,300 forms for the same thing.
Trump should have sexually assaulted a woman in the Oval Office. That you were OK with
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.
.
That's ok, he also claims no one heard of Stormy Daniels' claims of an affair with Trump in 2011.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.
.
I did not say that, you losing track of who said what in this thread.
You're not making sense, the money was spent in 2016.
.
Cohen spent the money in 2016... Trump didn't start paying Cohen back, and hence breaking the campaign financing laws until 2017.
Damn, stop with the circular bullshit already. You claimed Cohen made an illegal excessive campaign contribution in 2016 and now you're saying it wasn't a violation of law until Trump started returning the money to Cohen in 2017. Is that really the story you want to stick with? LMAO
.
I never said that... Trump is the one saying HE MADE THE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION WHEN HE PAID COHEN BACK. He paid Cohen back starting with a payment in January 2017. They are two different things.
Yes, and now you want to impeach Trump for failing to file a form.
He should have sexually assaulted a woman in the Oval Office. That you were OK with
For coordinating and directing $400,000 in illegal campaign contributions. And then trying to cover up those contributions with lies, faked documents, shell companies, and shifting stories.
Among whatever else Mueller has on him.
The answer is, yes of course it was to make the congress critter more electable.... and a damn shame that it came out of our tax dollars.was it during an election cycle?The sentencing recommendation was part of the agreement. Why did you avoid my question?
Because your question has nothing to do with this discussion and you are just going to try and state some conspiracy theory.
1. You folks contend that paying for an NDA to avoid embarrassment before an election, is a campaign expense, right?
2. Any entity that gives a candidate more than $2,700 in an election cycle is violating campaign finance laws, right?
3. It's been proven that sitting congress critter have used taxpayer funds to pay for NDAs far in excess of allowable campaign finance laws, WHY AREN'T YOU DEMANDING THEIR PROSECUTION???????????????
.
The house is in a constant election cycle, they raise money all the time. But the cycle is irrelevant, the question is, was the money spent to keep the congresscritter more electable, therefore influencing an election?
.
You're not making sense, the money was spent in 2016.
.
Cohen spent the money in 2016... Trump didn't start paying Cohen back, and hence breaking the campaign financing laws until 2017.
Damn, stop with the circular bullshit already. You claimed Cohen made an illegal excessive campaign contribution in 2016 and now you're saying it wasn't a violation of law until Trump started returning the money to Cohen in 2017. Is that really the story you want to stick with? LMAO
.
I never said that... Trump is the one saying HE MADE THE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION WHEN HE PAID COHEN BACK. He paid Cohen back starting with a payment in January 2017. They are two different things.
Yes, and now you want to impeach Trump for failing to file a form. I'll echo your call though that yes, he should receive a fine like Obama did when Obama failed to file 1,300 forms for the same thing.
Trump should have sexually assaulted a woman in the Oval Office. That you were OK with
Strawman. Please show where I EVER said it was ok to sexually assault someone in the oval office.
Good grief you are one of the most unethical people I'eve ever met.
Cohen spent the money in 2016... Trump didn't start paying Cohen back, and hence breaking the campaign financing laws until 2017.
Damn, stop with the circular bullshit already. You claimed Cohen made an illegal excessive campaign contribution in 2016 and now you're saying it wasn't a violation of law until Trump started returning the money to Cohen in 2017. Is that really the story you want to stick with? LMAO
.
I never said that... Trump is the one saying HE MADE THE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION WHEN HE PAID COHEN BACK. He paid Cohen back starting with a payment in January 2017. They are two different things.
Yes, and now you want to impeach Trump for failing to file a form.
He should have sexually assaulted a woman in the Oval Office. That you were OK with
For coordinating and directing $400,000 in illegal campaign contributions. And then trying to cover up those contributions with lies, faked documents, shell companies, and shifting stories.
Among whatever else Mueller has on him.
I'll give you one thing that Trump sucks at. He's a horrible criminal. I means he keeps repaying the money he stole. I haven't heard anyone this bad at crime since the Piranha brothers.
The answer is, yes of course it was to make the congress critter more electable.... and a damn shame that it came out of our tax dollars.was it during an election cycle?Because your question has nothing to do with this discussion and you are just going to try and state some conspiracy theory.
1. You folks contend that paying for an NDA to avoid embarrassment before an election, is a campaign expense, right?
2. Any entity that gives a candidate more than $2,700 in an election cycle is violating campaign finance laws, right?
3. It's been proven that sitting congress critter have used taxpayer funds to pay for NDAs far in excess of allowable campaign finance laws, WHY AREN'T YOU DEMANDING THEIR PROSECUTION???????????????
.
The house is in a constant election cycle, they raise money all the time. But the cycle is irrelevant, the question is, was the money spent to keep the congresscritter more electable, therefore influencing an election?
.
So how is it not an illegal unreported campaign contribution? Why aren't these people being prosecuted and going to jail for campaign finance violations? I mean if this type of violation is serious enough to end a presidency and congresscritter going to jail should be a done deal.
.
Cohen spent the money in 2016... Trump didn't start paying Cohen back, and hence breaking the campaign financing laws until 2017.
Damn, stop with the circular bullshit already. You claimed Cohen made an illegal excessive campaign contribution in 2016 and now you're saying it wasn't a violation of law until Trump started returning the money to Cohen in 2017. Is that really the story you want to stick with? LMAO
.
I never said that... Trump is the one saying HE MADE THE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION WHEN HE PAID COHEN BACK. He paid Cohen back starting with a payment in January 2017. They are two different things.
Yes, and now you want to impeach Trump for failing to file a form. I'll echo your call though that yes, he should receive a fine like Obama did when Obama failed to file 1,300 forms for the same thing.
Trump should have sexually assaulted a woman in the Oval Office. That you were OK with
Strawman. Please show where I EVER said it was ok to sexually assault someone in the oval office.
Good grief you are one of the most unethical people I'eve ever met.
I'm referring to your silence, Einstein
Damn, stop with the circular bullshit already. You claimed Cohen made an illegal excessive campaign contribution in 2016 and now you're saying it wasn't a violation of law until Trump started returning the money to Cohen in 2017. Is that really the story you want to stick with? LMAO
.
I never said that... Trump is the one saying HE MADE THE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION WHEN HE PAID COHEN BACK. He paid Cohen back starting with a payment in January 2017. They are two different things.
Yes, and now you want to impeach Trump for failing to file a form. I'll echo your call though that yes, he should receive a fine like Obama did when Obama failed to file 1,300 forms for the same thing.
Trump should have sexually assaulted a woman in the Oval Office. That you were OK with
Strawman. Please show where I EVER said it was ok to sexually assault someone in the oval office.
Good grief you are one of the most unethical people I'eve ever met.
I'm referring to your silence, Einstein
My silence? I have said REPEATEDLY I thought Clinton should have been impeached back then for lying under oath.
Jesus Christ it is like some kind of incurable widespread sickness on this forum for Trump supporters to just make shit up about what people say or support.
