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.
sheesh!I'm still waiting for one of the Prog Loons to 'SPLAIN how a plea agreement which is not part of case law turns into a legal precedent.
even better the guy plead guilty to a charge that was not a crime
--LOL
You’re stating that
An attorney plead guilty to a charge that wasn’t a crime.
Sell bullshit somewhere else.
An attorney and his Clinton Pal lawyer made a deal to get the years he could have served reduced from 65 down to a few.
And here is a clue: Trump spent his own money, which is not a crime. Compare that to the $375M fine that Obama's campaign paid to settle $1.8M of campaign fraud. Was Obama impeached for misusing Other People's Money? No.
This is a huge Crap Nothing Burger which you left wing loons are gobbling up to the point where you have terminal intellectual constipation.
The Obama campaign did not file his last month before the election's donations to the FEC within the 9 days, the law allows.... they were late, during a very busy time.... and were fined for it.
There was no FRAUD, silly....
Stop buying in to right wing bull crap LIES so easily....
The reason what Cohen did was not a misdemeanor or simply a fine, is because another crime was committed along with the campaign finance malfeasance, which, according to the law, made the campaign finance misdoings a FELONY, if done with another crime.
Obabble also turned off the id verification so that a great deal of fraud was committed via online donations.
Just sayin.
Trump spent his own money. You people are so desperate.
Heard it on the news last night....Really? Where's the evidence for all that?the FEC is who TOLD the prosecutors it was a crime, the Judge determined there was a crime and law on the books before the Judge accepted Cohen's guilty plea.--LOLWhat election law was violated if Trump used his own money to pay off this woman?
Undeclared funding of election candidate...
It is a campaign funding law...
nope not according to the FEC
The reason it was a felony, instead of the normal misdemeanor, is because another crime was committed while breaking the campaign finance law.... in the law it would normally be a misdemeanor fine and slap on the wrist, but because there was another crime committed with what they did, under the LAW it became a felony.
yes that is exactly right
eventually when nothing happens to Trump
and your butthurt grows uncontrolled
you will realize you have been played once again
but for now carry on with your
"we really REALLY got him this time" crap
--LOL@UTROLL
It is not possible to plead guilty to something not a crime. In order to plead guilty you have to be charged, in order to be charged there has to be a crime.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
It's entirely possible to mischaracterize your actions to make them appear criminal when in reality they weren't. That's the pound of flesh Cohen gave the prosecutors for his deal.
.
So, Trump's lawyer was so stupid that he did not know that this was happening and pleaded guilty to the fake charges anyhow?
Damn, Trump has terrible judgment in people if his lawyer is that fucking stupid.
Trump's FORMER lawyer was desperate to say anything to stay out of jail for 65 yeas. Clinton Pal Lanny Davis told him what to say to make Mueller satisfied.
In the end, Trump paid his own money to women as compensation for signing non-disclosure agreements.
Not.A.Crime
Not. A. Crime is right and as you say he used his own money.
Gotta love these tree stump dumb lefty loons who all scream WE GOT YA
Bullshit. Apparently you believe the government should allow 'A' to murder 'B' because 'C' murdered 'D.' As I said previously, your moral compass is seriously askew. Furthermore, I've never seen any evidence that the Apartheid government was murdering blacks. In fact, prior to the end of Apartheid, most murders of blacks were committed by other blacks. Specifically, Winnie Mandela and her gang of ANC thugs enjoyed the practice of "neclacing" blacks who weren't supporting their agenda. Have you ever seen photos of that?Blacks have been murdering whites ever since the end of Apartheid. You're trying to say that's acceptable. It isn't. Blacks were denied the right to vote. They weren't murdered in their beds in the middle of the nights like they are currently doing to whites. They also aren't changing their country for the better with this so-called "land reform."What does that have to do with black thugs stealing the land of totally innocent farmers and then murdering them?It's not irrelevant, it proves a point that you continue to ignore. I knew you wouldn't know what happened after Apartheid because you don't pay to attention when people you don't like do fair shit.
They did what is called Truth and Reconciliation Hearings. When Blacks took power in South Africa, they didn't act out in a vindictive manner. No they allowed people that had committed horrible crimes against to come before the commission and admit their acts in return for forgiveness and amnesty.
What "horrible crimes" are you referring to? Committed against who?
What does it have to do with it? It has EVERYTHING to do with it. If Blacks had any time that could even remotely be called acceptable for them to commit violence against whites it would have been after the end of Apartheid, and it didn't happen. What is going on now is NOTHING like how you are trying to make it. After several years of widespread suppression and abuse, the Blacks of South Africa instead turned the other cheek and looked to change their country for the better. Yet here you are trying to spread a lie that there is widespread killings of white farmers by Blacks, and that isn't true.
Without exception, splendid enterprises that fed the country many times over have been reduced to “subsistence operations with a few mangy cattle and the odd mealie patch.” (Mealie is Afrikaans for “maize,” deriving, apparently, from the Portuguese word milho.)
In even the best-case scenario, farms belonging to the whites who feed the country and produce surpluses are being handed over to subsistence farmers who can barely feed themselves.
And Whites have been murdering Blacks. It's called crime.
How about sending a goon to threaten Stormy Daniels child?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...
Bullshit. Apparently you believe the government should allow 'A' to murder 'B' because 'C' murdered 'D.' As I said previously, your moral compass is seriously askew. Furthermore, I've never seen any evidence that the Apartheid government was murdering blacks. In fact, prior to the end of Apartheid, most murders of blacks were committed by other blacks. Specifically, Winnie Mandela and her gang of ANC thugs enjoyed the practice of "neclacing" blacks who weren't supporting their agenda. Have you ever seen photos of that?Blacks have been murdering whites ever since the end of Apartheid. You're trying to say that's acceptable. It isn't. Blacks were denied the right to vote. They weren't murdered in their beds in the middle of the nights like they are currently doing to whites. They also aren't changing their country for the better with this so-called "land reform."What does that have to do with black thugs stealing the land of totally innocent farmers and then murdering them?
What "horrible crimes" are you referring to? Committed against who?
What does it have to do with it? It has EVERYTHING to do with it. If Blacks had any time that could even remotely be called acceptable for them to commit violence against whites it would have been after the end of Apartheid, and it didn't happen. What is going on now is NOTHING like how you are trying to make it. After several years of widespread suppression and abuse, the Blacks of South Africa instead turned the other cheek and looked to change their country for the better. Yet here you are trying to spread a lie that there is widespread killings of white farmers by Blacks, and that isn't true.
Without exception, splendid enterprises that fed the country many times over have been reduced to “subsistence operations with a few mangy cattle and the odd mealie patch.” (Mealie is Afrikaans for “maize,” deriving, apparently, from the Portuguese word milho.)
In even the best-case scenario, farms belonging to the whites who feed the country and produce surpluses are being handed over to subsistence farmers who can barely feed themselves.
And Whites have been murdering Blacks. It's called crime.
Two white South African farmers appear in court accused of forcing black man into COFFIN
Says no one but Stormy.How about sending a goon to threaten Stormy Daniels child?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...
Bullshit. Apparently you believe the government should allow 'A' to murder 'B' because 'C' murdered 'D.' As I said previously, your moral compass is seriously askew. Furthermore, I've never seen any evidence that the Apartheid government was murdering blacks. In fact, prior to the end of Apartheid, most murders of blacks were committed by other blacks. Specifically, Winnie Mandela and her gang of ANC thugs enjoyed the practice of "neclacing" blacks who weren't supporting their agenda. Have you ever seen photos of that?Blacks have been murdering whites ever since the end of Apartheid. You're trying to say that's acceptable. It isn't. Blacks were denied the right to vote. They weren't murdered in their beds in the middle of the nights like they are currently doing to whites. They also aren't changing their country for the better with this so-called "land reform."What does it have to do with it? It has EVERYTHING to do with it. If Blacks had any time that could even remotely be called acceptable for them to commit violence against whites it would have been after the end of Apartheid, and it didn't happen. What is going on now is NOTHING like how you are trying to make it. After several years of widespread suppression and abuse, the Blacks of South Africa instead turned the other cheek and looked to change their country for the better. Yet here you are trying to spread a lie that there is widespread killings of white farmers by Blacks, and that isn't true.
Without exception, splendid enterprises that fed the country many times over have been reduced to “subsistence operations with a few mangy cattle and the odd mealie patch.” (Mealie is Afrikaans for “maize,” deriving, apparently, from the Portuguese word milho.)
In even the best-case scenario, farms belonging to the whites who feed the country and produce surpluses are being handed over to subsistence farmers who can barely feed themselves.
And Whites have been murdering Blacks. It's called crime.
Two white South African farmers appear in court accused of forcing black man into COFFIN
Two things: The victim wasn't killed, so it's not a murder, and it happened last year under the ANC government, not under Apartheid.
Now you don’t believe that? Last week you didn’t believe he colluded, or that he paid someone off to keep quiet, and now you and Rudy are arguing those things aren’t a crime because you now admit he did the things you said he didn’t do. You are losing credibilitySays no one but Stormy.How about sending a goon to threaten Stormy Daniels child?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...
You claimed there were all these murders of blacks of blacks committed by Whites under apartheid. That was your justification for the current government to allow blacks to kill white farmers.Bullshit. Apparently you believe the government should allow 'A' to murder 'B' because 'C' murdered 'D.' As I said previously, your moral compass is seriously askew. Furthermore, I've never seen any evidence that the Apartheid government was murdering blacks. In fact, prior to the end of Apartheid, most murders of blacks were committed by other blacks. Specifically, Winnie Mandela and her gang of ANC thugs enjoyed the practice of "neclacing" blacks who weren't supporting their agenda. Have you ever seen photos of that?Blacks have been murdering whites ever since the end of Apartheid. You're trying to say that's acceptable. It isn't. Blacks were denied the right to vote. They weren't murdered in their beds in the middle of the nights like they are currently doing to whites. They also aren't changing their country for the better with this so-called "land reform."
Without exception, splendid enterprises that fed the country many times over have been reduced to “subsistence operations with a few mangy cattle and the odd mealie patch.” (Mealie is Afrikaans for “maize,” deriving, apparently, from the Portuguese word milho.)
In even the best-case scenario, farms belonging to the whites who feed the country and produce surpluses are being handed over to subsistence farmers who can barely feed themselves.
And Whites have been murdering Blacks. It's called crime.
Two white South African farmers appear in court accused of forcing black man into COFFIN
Two things: The victim wasn't killed, so it's not a murder, and it happened last year under the ANC government, not under Apartheid.
Why would I post something that was done under Apartheid to show that white on Black crime is still taking place? That makes no sense.
Did you believe I wouldn't notice that you posted no evidence that anyone threatened Stormy's child?Now you don’t believe that? Last week you didn’t believe he colluded, or that he paid someone off to keep quiet, and now you and Rudy are arguing those things aren’t a crime because you now admit he did the things you said he didn’t do. You are losing credibilitySays no one but Stormy.How about sending a goon to threaten Stormy Daniels child?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...
You claimed there were all these murders of blacks of blacks committed by Whites under apartheid. That was your justification for the current government to allow blacks to kill white farmers.Bullshit. Apparently you believe the government should allow 'A' to murder 'B' because 'C' murdered 'D.' As I said previously, your moral compass is seriously askew. Furthermore, I've never seen any evidence that the Apartheid government was murdering blacks. In fact, prior to the end of Apartheid, most murders of blacks were committed by other blacks. Specifically, Winnie Mandela and her gang of ANC thugs enjoyed the practice of "neclacing" blacks who weren't supporting their agenda. Have you ever seen photos of that?And Whites have been murdering Blacks. It's called crime.
Two white South African farmers appear in court accused of forcing black man into COFFIN
Two things: The victim wasn't killed, so it's not a murder, and it happened last year under the ANC government, not under Apartheid.
Why would I post something that was done under Apartheid to show that white on Black crime is still taking place? That makes no sense.
Remember you believed him when he said he didn’t have sex with that woman?Did you believe I wouldn't notice that you posted no evidence that anyone threatened Stormy's child?Now you don’t believe that? Last week you didn’t believe he colluded, or that he paid someone off to keep quiet, and now you and Rudy are arguing those things aren’t a crime because you now admit he did the things you said he didn’t do. You are losing credibilitySays no one but Stormy.How about sending a goon to threaten Stormy Daniels child?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...
Did you believe I wouldn't notice that you posted no evidence that anyone threatened Stormy's child?Now you don’t believe that? Last week you didn’t believe he colluded, or that he paid someone off to keep quiet, and now you and Rudy are arguing those things aren’t a crime because you now admit he did the things you said he didn’t do. You are losing credibilitySays no one but Stormy.How about sending a goon to threaten Stormy Daniels child?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...
That's about the poorest defense of Trump's morality I have ever read. Obama wasn't immoral because he didn't have the opportunity so that makes Trump's immoral behavior ok.Your belief that Obama and Hillary didn't lie couldn't be more hilarious. If Obama had the kind of opportunities that have presented themselves to Trump, there is little doubt that he would have strayed. His fidelity is the result of the fact that he is not attractive to most women. Being a "community organizer" isn't exactly a glamorous job.For starters, there's sex and lies as with most politicians.So what is the "immoral behavior" you're accusing Trump of?When it comes to outrageous immoral behavior, Trump is in a league of his own. Over the last 30 years Trump used the media shamelessly to create a public image and keep that image in the headlines, often making fools of reporters and editors. Now, he is president and the media which was his most important tool in promoting himself has become his deadliest enemy. For the media, it's payback time. The free ride is over and it's time to pay the piper.So what, fucking moron?I didn't say the people on the list cheated on their spouses, but there's a long list of Dims who have.
I was talking about Trump being a piece of shit scumbag who cheated on his wife who had recently birthed his child. A brain-dead con asked, but what about Pelosi, Schumer and Waters.
I noted how their only defense of trump was another, butwhataboutism, to which you idiotically thought that made me a hypocrite.
Well, fucking moron, for me to be a hypocrite here, at least one of those Democrats would need to be a piece of shit scumbag cheater like trump.
Savvy?
However what separates Trump from his predecessors is volume and lack any remorse. Trump lies to illustrate a point, please his audience or himself. I doubt he see anything wrong with his lies. His infidelities and other sexual behavior seem to be source of pride, whether it's groping women, infidelities, or other activities he spoke of on late night shows, he seems to take great pride in his transgressions.
How many times has Trump cheated on his wives? Here's what we know
That would obviously be a crime, but we both know that isn't going to happen.Remember you believed him when he said he didn’t have sex with that woman?Did you believe I wouldn't notice that you posted no evidence that anyone threatened Stormy's child?Now you don’t believe that? Last week you didn’t believe he colluded, or that he paid someone off to keep quiet, and now you and Rudy are arguing those things aren’t a crime because you now admit he did the things you said he didn’t do. You are losing credibilitySays no one but Stormy.How about sending a goon to threaten Stormy Daniels child?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...
What if Michael Cohen corroborates trump sent someone to threaten her?
Remember you believed him when he said he didn’t have sex with that woman?Did you believe I wouldn't notice that you posted no evidence that anyone threatened Stormy's child?Now you don’t believe that? Last week you didn’t believe he colluded, or that he paid someone off to keep quiet, and now you and Rudy are arguing those things aren’t a crime because you now admit he did the things you said he didn’t do. You are losing credibilitySays no one but Stormy.How about sending a goon to threaten Stormy Daniels child?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...
What if Michael Cohen corroborates trump sent someone to threaten her?
For a split second I thought he was talking about Bill Clinton till I seen "with a newborn at home."There's no proof that Trump slept with the whore.Yeah, let’s not even talk about the scumbag married man who was cheating on his wife with a newborn at home. It’s the whore he slept with who’s the problem.You're just a fucking douchebag. No married man wants some whore claiming he slept with her.You are contradicting yourself.
You just said a minute ago she was shopping it around and that Cohen and Trump found out about it. How do you know? How do you know they didn't know about it BEFORE Trump was running for President?
The profound idiocy of the “she was shopping it” angle is this. If she had slept with Marco Rubio who was a Senator or Chuck Schumer who was a Senator or someone in federal government; that may make sense. People do devious things. However, Trump was not a politician much less thought to be a serious candidate for anything until he decided to run. Shopping around that a whore slept with a playboy (aka the blob) who has long been suspected of having affairs is kinda like the Pope shopping around that the Church has an issue with predator priests. Duh!
The fact is she was shopping it around. She approached various publications offering her story in exchange for large amounts of cash. The National Enquirer was one of them.
That's about the poorest defense of Trump's morality I have ever read. Obama wasn't immoral because he didn't have the opportunity so that makes Trump's immoral behavior ok.Your belief that Obama and Hillary didn't lie couldn't be more hilarious. If Obama had the kind of opportunities that have presented themselves to Trump, there is little doubt that he would have strayed. His fidelity is the result of the fact that he is not attractive to most women. Being a "community organizer" isn't exactly a glamorous job.For starters, there's sex and lies as with most politicians.So what is the "immoral behavior" you're accusing Trump of?When it comes to outrageous immoral behavior, Trump is in a league of his own. Over the last 30 years Trump used the media shamelessly to create a public image and keep that image in the headlines, often making fools of reporters and editors. Now, he is president and the media which was his most important tool in promoting himself has become his deadliest enemy. For the media, it's payback time. The free ride is over and it's time to pay the piper.So what, fucking moron?
I was talking about Trump being a piece of shit scumbag who cheated on his wife who had recently birthed his child. A brain-dead con asked, but what about Pelosi, Schumer and Waters.
I noted how their only defense of trump was another, butwhataboutism, to which you idiotically thought that made me a hypocrite.
Well, fucking moron, for me to be a hypocrite here, at least one of those Democrats would need to be a piece of shit scumbag cheater like trump.
Savvy?
However what separates Trump from his predecessors is volume and lack any remorse. Trump lies to illustrate a point, please his audience or himself. I doubt he see anything wrong with his lies. His infidelities and other sexual behavior seem to be source of pride, whether it's groping women, infidelities, or other activities he spoke of on late night shows, he seems to take great pride in his transgressions.
How many times has Trump cheated on his wives? Here's what we know
How can anyone defend Trump's morality after the Access Hollywood tape, release of recordings of Trump on the Howard Stern Show, and his involvement with porn stars while he was married to Melana and just months after she gave birth to Baron?
