Tommy Tuberville admits he went to NYC to help trump break his gag order.

[Dragonlady]

If that were true, then all parties would have gag orders.

Only one party is slandering the proceedings and the people involved and that’s the criminal himself, Donald Trump

 

[Dragonlady]

Turns out the biggest liars in the russian hoax were Adam shifty, Clinton and the dnc who laundered money through a law firm to cover up paying foreign nationals for disinformation

Boy, are you stupid. Clinton “launderrf money through a law firm” to pay for the Dossier. In fact, what she did, was the absolute opposite of “laundering money”.

She was the purchaser in a “third-party arms length transaction”.

Neither the buyer, nor the seller knew who the other one was. Fusion GPS acted as agents for Christopher Steele, and the law firm acted as agents for the Clinton campaign.

Steele didn’t know who the client was in Clinton didn’t know who the investigator was.

The fact that you would attempt to characterize this very careful and ultra legal method of obtaining opposition research as something nefarious, shows the lengths that Republicans will go to in slandering Hillary Clinton.

All you’ve done is proven, how completely ignorant and gullible you truly are.

 

[struth]

Boy, are you stupid. Clinton “launderrf money through a law firm” to pay for the Dossier. In fact, what she did, was the absolute opposite of “laundering money”.

She was the purchaser in a “third-party arms length transaction”.

Neither the buyer, nor the seller knew who the other one was. Fusion GPS acted as agents for Christopher Steele, and the law firm acted as agents for the Clinton campaign.

Steele didn’t know who the client was in Clinton didn’t know who the investigator was.

The fact that you would attempt to characterize this very careful and ultra legal method of obtaining opposition research as something nefarious, shows the lengths that Republicans will go to in slandering Hillary Clinton.

All you’ve done is proven, how completely ignorant and gullible you truly are.

That’s what the FEC concluded

 

[MagicMike]

Yeah I latched on tot he conclusion, csuse that’s what matters

Are you trying to speak English here simp?

 

[Nostra]

F you. I don't have to list a damn thing. Alvin Bragg described the crimess in his indictment. If you don't know them YOU go look for them.

No he didn’t. You are a liar.

 

[Nostra]

He said as much in testimony. I read the report and 140 meeting between Trumps campaign and Russia just didn'thappen by coincidence.

More lies,

 

[Nostra]

That was not the conclusion of the report. Mueller stated in a press conference that Trump was not exonerated.

Because they found nothing to charge him with, Moron.

 

[Nostra]

Wrong.

Here is a concluson yu didn't post.

The Office determined that certain individuals associated with the Campaign lied to investigators about Campaign contacts with Russia and have taken other actions to interfere withthe investigation. As explained below, the Office therefore charged some U.S. persons connected to the Campaign with false statements and obstruction offenses.

Pg. 190

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report_volume1.pdf

No evidence of collusion, Moron.

 

[Nostra]

Only one party is slandering the proceedings and the people involved and that’s the criminal himself, Donald Trump

Bullshit. Typical.

 

[Nostra]

Boy, are you stupid. Clinton “launderrf money through a law firm” to pay for the Dossier. In fact, what she did, was the absolute opposite of “laundering money”.

She was the purchaser in a “third-party arms length transaction”.

Neither the buyer, nor the seller knew who the other one was. Fusion GPS acted as agents for Christopher Steele, and the law firm acted as agents for the Clinton campaign.

Steele didn’t know who the client was in Clinton didn’t know who the investigator was.

The fact that you would attempt to characterize this very careful and ultra legal method of obtaining opposition research as something nefarious, shows the lengths that Republicans will go to in slandering Hillary Clinton.

All you’ve done is proven, how completely ignorant and gullible you truly are.

FEC says you are a liar.

 

[Markle]

Boy, are you stupid. Clinton “launderrf money through a law firm” to pay for the Dossier. In fact, what she did, was the absolute opposite of “laundering money”.

She was the purchaser in a “third-party arms length transaction”.

Neither the buyer, nor the seller knew who the other one was. Fusion GPS acted as agents for Christopher Steele, and the law firm acted as agents for the Clinton campaign.

Steele didn’t know who the client was in Clinton didn’t know who the investigator was.

The fact that you would attempt to characterize this very careful and ultra legal method of obtaining opposition research as something nefarious, shows the lengths that Republicans will go to in slandering Hillary Clinton.

All you’ve done is proven, how completely ignorant and gullible you truly are.

 

[sealybobo]

Thanks for admitting it is a political show trial

Well that is a benefit of it. You think it's helping you so what's that say about you?

 

[struth]

Well that is a benefit of it. You think it's helping you so what's that say about you?

It says a lot about the American people, we overwhelming reject your fascist tyrantical acts

 

[BackAgain]

He just comes out and says it, no shame at all.

This can't be kosher, can it?

It's obviously happening at trump's direction,

Is it? Proof?

so isn't this a violation?

Not even if or were true.

 

[westwall]

Who told you that lie?

Don't be stupider than you have to be, Son.

It's not a lie.

 

[westwall]

It says a lot about the American people, we overwhelming reject your fascist tyrantical acts

Squeals the fascist demanding tyrannical acts.

 

[Markle]

That was not the conclusion of the report. Mueller stated in a press conference that Trump was not exonerated.

 

[Markle]

Wrong.

Here is a concluson yu didn't post.

The Office determined that certain individuals associated with the Campaign lied to investigators about Campaign contacts with Russia and have taken other actions to interfere with the investigation. As explained below, the Office therefore charged some U.S. persons connected to the Campaign with false statements and obstruction offenses.

Pg. 190

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report_volume1.pdf

Here is all of Pg 190 from your source. What you posted does not appear. Why?

189
U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
ii. Willfulness
As discussed, to establish a criminal campaign-finance violation, the government must
prove that the defendant acted “knowingly and willfully.” 52 U.S.C. § 30109(d)(1)(A)(i). That
standard requires proof that the defendant knew generally that his conduct was unlawful. Election
Offenses 123. Given the uncertainties noted above, the “willfulness” requirement would pose a
substantial barrier to prosecution.
iii. Constitutional Considerations
Finally, the First Amendment could pose constraints on a prosecution. Even if WikiLeaks,
as a non-citizen abroad, could not assert First Amendment rights, see DKT Mem’l Fund Ltd. v.
Agency for Int’l Dev., 887 F.2d 275, 284 (D.C. Cir. 1989); Bahlul v. United States, 840 F.3d 757,
797 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (en banc) (Millett, J., concurring) (“no governing precedent extends First
Amendment protection to speech undertaken by non-citizens on foreign soil”), WikiLeaks could
argue that the transmission of information into the United States that did not involve express
advocacy implicates the First Amendment rights of American audiences. See Lamont v.
Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301, 305 (1965) (treating limits on mailing propaganda into the
United States as “a limitation on the unfettered exercise of the addressee’s First Amendment
rights”); see also Bluman, 800 F. Supp. 2d at 290 (noting that the court’s interpretation of the
foreign-expenditure ban “does not restrain foreign nationals from speaking out about issues or
spending money to advocate their views about issues”). Assuming that no coordination with the
Campaign occurred, a criminal prosecution of overseas actors providing non-express-advocacy
information to American listeners would likely be difficult.
iv. Analysis as to Roger Stone
The Office also considered whether Roger Stone could be prosecuted for any direct or
indirect contacts with WikiLeaks about its release of hacked emails for the purpose of influencing
the presidential election, and whether any coordination between Stone and WikiLeaks would affect
WikiLeaks’s criminal exposure. If WikiLeaks’s release of documents were conducted in
coordination with Stone (or others associated with the Trump Campaign), the activity would
arguably constitute a “contribution,” rather than an “expenditure.” Cf. 52 U.S.C.
§ 30116(a)(7)(B)(i) (“For purposes of this subsection . . . expenditures made by any person in
cooperation, consultation, or concert, with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate, his
authorized political committees, or their agents, shall be considered to be a contribution to such
candidate.”). That characterization would potentially render Bluman’s express-advocacy limitation
inapplicable (because Bluman had applied that interpretation only to expenditures made
independent of a campaign) and would significantly alleviate the First Amendment concerns
identified above (because coordinated election activity would implicate the compelling interest in
preventing foreign participation in the U.S. political process and in avoiding quid pro quo
corruption or its appearance). See Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 357 (2010); FEC v.
Colorado Republican Fed. Campaign Comm., 533 U.S. 431, 444-60 (2001); Bluman, 800 F. Supp.
2d at 288.
190

 

[OKTexas]

Wrong on both counts.

But you should be used to that by now.

.

 

[TheGreatSatan]

Tommy