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.
no evidence = crap..that's all you have is crapthe OP wants Trump out of the white house for an ALLEGED crime he can't even link
but it was ok for Bill to commit a crime
case closed..
have some more kool-aid. This topic is way over your limited IQ to handle......
(what a fuckinglol)
I see nothing in this thread where the OP calls for trump’s impeachment. Maybe I missed it?hahahahYou made no case. You falsely ascribed a position to me I did not take about treating Trump unfairly; and when I pointed that out to you, you switched to — oh yeah? Well what about the OP?I made the case---what's good for the goose is good for the ganderNah, I’m not interested in following everyone’s words on here. If you have a case to make, make it. If you want to discuss this thread’s topic, discuss it. Otherwise, stop gumming at my ankles.hahahhaHe does? The OP is claiming Cohen may have violated campaign finance laws and that may extend to Trump as well, depended upon his involvement. How the fuck is that treating trump unfairly?
please--you are real good at acting stupid
please read the OP's posts on USMB --that will give you the answer
That’s not an argument. That’s crying.
the OP wants Trump out of the white house for an ALLEGED crime he can't even link
but it was ok for Bill to commit a crime
case closed...
in which post did he say that?
LOLOLhow many times are you people going to argue with insults/etc and 0 evidence? which means your argument is crap-worthlessHow many times need I request you stop fantasizing about me? You’re creeping me out.I made the case---what's good for the goose is good for the ganderNah, I’m not interested in following everyone’s words on here. If you have a case to make, make it. If you want to discuss this thread’s topic, discuss it. Otherwise, stop gumming at my ankles.hahahha
please--you are real good at acting stupid
please read the OP's posts on USMB --that will give you the answer
Correct, if it’s ok in case 1, then why not in case 2.
Faun, wants you to quit “gumming at his ankles” he’d prefer you aim higher. By about 3 feet.
you can't even find the law you are talking about !!
Because if I cited fox news, you would call the same accusation a lie.How can paying someone from your own personal funds violate campaign finance law?Oh my, how very specific of you.
Not.
That fails to answer the question. How can a personal payoff from an attorney be classified as a campaign contribution? Cohen didn't contribute to the campaign, he paid someone off with his own money.
Apples and oranges.
If you don't have any factual evidence, just say so. No harm in admitting defeat, Nat.
this has been explained multiple times. trumptards seem to enjoy trolling by repeating the same question over and over. but feel free to read:
Payment To Stormy Daniels May Have Broken Campaign Finance Law
Clearly a question you can't answer.
And NPR? Ha. You'll need to do better than that.
you were given information. learn to read, nutter butter
now you want to pretend NPR is lying because it tells the truth and not what insane trumptards want.
Who is the "eternal nitwit" now?
How many times need I request you stop fantasizing about me? You’re creeping me out.I made the case---what's good for the goose is good for the ganderNah, I’m not interested in following everyone’s words on here. If you have a case to make, make it. If you want to discuss this thread’s topic, discuss it. Otherwise, stop gumming at my ankles.hahahhaHe does? The OP is claiming Cohen may have violated campaign finance laws and that may extend to Trump as well, depended upon his involvement. How the fuck is that treating trump unfairly?
please--you are real good at acting stupid
please read the OP's posts on USMB --that will give you the answer
Correct, if it’s ok in case 1, then why not in case 2.
Faun, wants you to quit “gumming at his ankles” he’d prefer you aim higher. By about 3 feet.
very professional, mature response......professional mature members will really listen to ityou can't even find the law you are talking about !!
Here, moron....have someone read this to you and explain it, while changing your diaper....
Who can and can't contribute | FEC
LOLvery professional, mature response......professional mature members will really listen to ityou can't even find the law you are talking about !!
Here, moron....have someone read this to you and explain it, while changing your diaper....
Who can and can't contribute | FEC
this is about contributionsyou can't even find the law you are talking about !!
Here, moron....have someone read this to you and explain it, while changing your diaper....
Who can and can't contribute | FEC
yes after the many times I asked.....appears he is trying hide the truthLOLvery professional, mature response......professional mature members will really listen to ityou can't even find the law you are talking about !!
Here, moron....have someone read this to you and explain it, while changing your diaper....
Who can and can't contribute | FEC
You said he couldn’t find the law.
Looks like he found it.
this is about contributionsyou can't even find the law you are talking about !!
Here, moron....have someone read this to you and explain it, while changing your diaper....
Who can and can't contribute | FEC
who can and can't contribute
please explain how this is connected to campaign contributions--since you didn't do that in the OP
Or maybe you just don’t want to see what he’s posting. He linked an article in his OP, did you glance at it?yes after the many times I asked.....appears he is trying hide the truthLOLvery professional, mature response......professional mature members will really listen to ityou can't even find the law you are talking about !!
Here, moron....have someone read this to you and explain it, while changing your diaper....
Who can and can't contribute | FEC
You said he couldn’t find the law.
Looks like he found it.
It’s being investigated.One could have asked the same question of Bill Clinton.
Too much moral preening and hypocrisy in this thread.
Trump cultists have REFUSED to address the more salient point that Trump and Cohen my have broken campaign finance laws...........
I GUESS ITS EASIER TO LOOK AT THE SEX PART SO THAT CLINTON CAN ALSO BE BLAMED?
So let's get a ruling on that. An actual ruling, not a lawyer's opinion, not a keyboard hockey who's mindlessly repeating something he liked hearing.
yes-it appears to be like a lot of other threads that make a big deal out of something when it really is not/no evidence/not even near decisive evidence/etcthis is about contributionsyou can't even find the law you are talking about !!
Here, moron....have someone read this to you and explain it, while changing your diaper....
Who can and can't contribute | FEC
who can and can't contribute
please explain how this is connected to campaign contributions--since you didn't do that in the OP
Their claim is that it’s “in kind” contribution.
I guess if true, we’ll have to dig into Comey’s contribution to the viability of Clinton’s campaign.
Ain’t this shit a hoot?
they don't make anything clear or provide evidence in the OP and follow up responsesthis is about contributionsyou can't even find the law you are talking about !!
Here, moron....have someone read this to you and explain it, while changing your diaper....
Who can and can't contribute | FEC
who can and can't contribute
please explain how this is connected to campaign contributions--since you didn't do that in the OP
Their claim is that it’s “in kind” contribution.
I guess if true, we’ll have to dig into Comey’s contribution to the viability of Clinton’s campaign.
Ain’t this shit a hoot?
The simple fact is Trump is saying "I didn't do it" through other people, never personally and his lawyer is basically saying to her "you can't talk about that sex".
So, if the sex didn't happen, the lawyer doesn't need to say she can't talk about it. Right?
That simple equation BAFFLES the half brains of Trump cultists......
Now watch them come back and state...."Bill Clinton was a lech also.....:"
that's not even close to any kind of evidence or explanationOr maybe you just don’t want to see what he’s posting. He linked an article in his OP, did you glance at it?yes after the many times I asked.....appears he is trying hide the truthLOLvery professional, mature response......professional mature members will really listen to ityou can't even find the law you are talking about !!
Here, moron....have someone read this to you and explain it, while changing your diaper....
Who can and can't contribute | FEC
You said he couldn’t find the law.
Looks like he found it.
And this isn’t about who contributes. It’s about how much they’re allowed to contribute as well as contributions must be reported. And at the root of this, does this even constitute a campaign contribution — which is what is being investigated now.
Don’t you think it would behoove you to know what the argument you’re arguing is about?
So folks can’t opine? Hillary was investigated and no charges were brought — how many on the right don’t conclusively state she broke the law?It’s being investigated.One could have asked the same question of Bill Clinton.
Too much moral preening and hypocrisy in this thread.
Trump cultists have REFUSED to address the more salient point that Trump and Cohen my have broken campaign finance laws...........
I GUESS ITS EASIER TO LOOK AT THE SEX PART SO THAT CLINTON CAN ALSO BE BLAMED?
So let's get a ruling on that. An actual ruling, not a lawyer's opinion, not a keyboard hockey who's mindlessly repeating something he liked hearing.
So we can then safely say that anyone conclusively stating that Trump broke campaign finance laws doesn't know what they're talking about and is spouting partisan nonsense?
So folks can’t opine? Hillary was investigated and no charges were brought — how many on the right don’t conclusively state she broke the law?It’s being investigated.One could have asked the same question of Bill Clinton.
Too much moral preening and hypocrisy in this thread.
Trump cultists have REFUSED to address the more salient point that Trump and Cohen my have broken campaign finance laws...........
I GUESS ITS EASIER TO LOOK AT THE SEX PART SO THAT CLINTON CAN ALSO BE BLAMED?
So let's get a ruling on that. An actual ruling, not a lawyer's opinion, not a keyboard hockey who's mindlessly repeating something he liked hearing.
So we can then safely say that anyone conclusively stating that Trump broke campaign finance laws doesn't know what they're talking about and is spouting partisan nonsense?
