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.
This is untrue. The general counsel of the FEC investigated and recommended pursuing it.Not according to the FEC.
Her server was sent to the technician for decommissioning before a subpoena was issued. So as far as she knew the HD had been wiped. But everyone should know the only way to truly ensure no one can read what was on a HD is to take it apart and put the disks in a blender.
I'm in the UK, Trumpets live in the US. Just updating your lack of knowledge, these daysAnother Trumper who thinks a President is a King... lots of that going around in Trumplandia, these days...
No. It’s true. They didn’t prosecute it at all. And, unlike Bragg, they had jurisdiction.This is untrue. The general counsel of the FEC investigated and recommended pursuing it.
Not true. You really shouldn’t lie so much.Trump’s appointees on the FEC voted it down and in their statement they never declared his innocence but basically said they didn’t care.
/——/ So? What’s your point?‘I Would Have Every Right To Go After Them’
Surveying the news of the past 24 hours, we’re presented with a particularly sobering reflection of our current state of affairs. I will lay it out brick by brick in the items below, but first I want to circle back to Donald Trump’s appearance two nights ago on Sean Hannity’s Fox News program.
Hannity asked a leading question, clearly trying to throw Trump a softball that will let him deny his intention to use the office of the presidency to exact retribution against his political foes – even though Trump has spent many months now promising to do precisely that.
At first, Trump took the easy swing and suggested that he won’t perpetuate what he implies is a cycle of retribution he’s already been victimized by. But then he launched into an extended justification of doing exactly what he had just disclaimed and asserting that he has “every right to go after them”:
Trump Claims He Has Every Right To Prosecute His Enemies
This could be one of the better cons he's invented in a while. Setting up a win-win scenario by which should he be re-elected he can claim righteousness and excite the base for going after his proclaimed enemies, or get credit with the minions if he does not. Because if he goes after those who have held him accountable for his many crimes he'll say he's justified. If he doesn't he'll say he is showing great restraint. The Following will love him either way. This guy is a genius in a manipulative, malevolent kind of way.
Same thing with the hush money trial. Win or lose he set up a construct by which he was being unfairly treated by the system. Acquittal.......the charges were made up. Conviction.......the charges were made up. Amazingly, the rubes fell for it AGAIN.
Your post shows Trumpets can be found under rocks everywhere.I'm in the UK, Trumpets live in the US.
Bragg has jurisdiction over making false business records which is what he prosecuted.No. It’s true. They didn’t prosecute it at all. And, unlike Bragg, they had jurisdiction.
Not true. You really shouldn’t lie so much.
Also, commissions don’t declare innocence.
I don't and can't vote Trump. In fact, currently, I'm not registered to vote because of jiggling properties reasons, it's complicated for financial reasons. So in the UK, I won't be voting in the general election. If I had too, probably Farage, then Tory, I'm not stupid to vote Labour (democrats to you bozos).Your post shows Trumpets can be found under rocks everywhere.
And if not for the lapdogs Trump installed, their vote would have gone the other way, at the FEC.Bragg has jurisdiction over making false business records which is what he prosecuted.
What I said about the FEC is accurate. If they don’t declare innocence, don’t imply that they can. Trump’s crony he put on the FEC tried to testify that they found him innocent.
Republicans basically made Trump untouchable in campaign finance violations.And if not for the lapdogs Trump installed, their site would have gone the other way, at the FEC.
www.citizensforethics.org
He would had there been any. There weren’t. And it only could be a felony (and not an already time barred misdemeanor) if he could establish that the records (which were never in fact falsified) had been “falsified” to commit or conceal some “other” crime.Bragg has jurisdiction over making false business records which is what he prosecuted.
What I said about the FEC is accurate.
If they don’t declare innocence, don’t imply that they can.
Not that nobody believes you, but stop making up shit.Trump’s crony he put on the FEC tried to testify that they found him innocent.
The evidence presented before the jury said otherwise.He would had there been any. There weren’t.
Then don’t imply they did.They never declare innocence one way or the other. It’s not their job to even try.
The Republican cronies on the FEC wrote down their reasoning. They literally said they had more important matters to pursue and weren’t interested in it despite the results of the investigation that the FEC counsel presented them showing illegality.Not that nobody believes you, but stop making up shit
This is the first time that squealing cultist has heard any of this. Dan Bongino didn't mention it.The evidence presented before the jury said otherwise.
Then don’t imply they did.
The Republican cronies on the FEC wrote down their reasoning. They literally said they had more important matters to pursue and weren’t interested in it despite the results of the investigation that the FEC counsel presented them showing illegality.
You specialize in it.Not according to the FEC. You really like being wrong.
www.citizensforethics.org
lol. Politifact.You specialize in it.
In early February, following the news that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg had begun presenting evidence to a grand jury about his role in hush money payments to a porn star just before the 2016 election, former president Donald Trump declared in a Truth Social post that the Federal Election Commission (FEC) had previously “dropped” an investigation into the same issues “because they found no evidence of problems.” Trump’s claim was debunked as “misleading” and “wrong” by PolitiFact, but with the filing of felony charges against Trump over false business records related to his repayment of the hush money, the dysfunctional FEC’s failure to take action against Trump is again being used to attack the merits of the case against him.
Here’s what really happened: the FEC did not acquit Trump of the allegations against him and they did not release any kind of finding that there was “no evidence of problems.” In fact, after assessing the merits of three complaints related to former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen’s $130,000 payment to buy the silence of porn star Stephanie Clifford (a.k.a. Stormy Daniels) ahead of the 2016 election, the agency’s nonpartisan lawyers recommended that the FEC find reason to believe that Trump and others violated several campaign finance laws and proposed an investigation “to determine the extent to which Trump coordinated with, or otherwise directed, Cohen to make the Clifford payment to help his presidential campaign during the 2016 election.”
No, the FEC did not absolve Trump of his hush money campaign finance issues - CREW | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
The FEC did not acquit Trump of wrongdoing connected to hush money payments, and deadlocked on yet another Trump complaint.
Actually that’s CREW quoting from the linked report you stupid fucklol. Politifact.
You can't factually refute a word they wrote or you already would have.lol. Politifact.
www.politifact.com
