Trump Claims He Has Every Right To Prosecute His Enemies

[BackAgain]

You can't factually refute a word they wrote or you already would have.

Lol



You have my blessing to credit PolitiFact.

 

[berg80]

Why ? Your shit doesn’t improve with age.

The facts are there if you want to learn them. Wait.........what am I saying........of course you don't. You want to remain willfully ignorant, just the way Trump wants you.

 

[BackAgain]

The facts are there if you want to learn them. Wait.........what am I saying........of course you don't. You want to remain willfully ignorant, just the way Trump wants you.

Lol

You lecturing anybody on “facts” is hysterical.

You’re a funny guy. Not at all credible.

But you are funny.

 

[berg80]

Lol



You have my blessing to credit PolitiFact.

The comment refers to several related commission complaints brought against Michael Cohen, the Trump lawyer who handled the payoff to Daniels; Trump; Trump’s campaign; and a few other individuals and entities. The complaints alleged that Cohen, Trump, and others violated the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 at Trump’s direction in order to influence the 2016 election.

When it looked at the complaints, the commission’s office of general counsel determined that there was reason to believe that the contributions were illegal and improperly went unreported.

Can you prove otherwise?

 

[berg80]

Lol

You lecturing anybody on “facts” is hysterical.

You’re a funny guy. Not at all credible.

But you are funny.

In their own statement, Democratic Commissioners Shana Broussard and Ellen Weintraub, who supported investigating Trump, pointedly observed that their Republican colleagues’ statement was “notably devoid of any explanation that specifically addresses their votes to dismiss the allegations against Trump, the Committee, and the Trump Organization.” For their part, Broussard and Weintraub stated that there was “ample evidence in the record” to justify an investigation but the Commission “did not have enough votes to pursue well-grounded charges that the former President of the United States knowingly and willfully accepted contributions nearly 5,000% over the legal limit to suppress a negative story mere days before Election Day.”

Proving once again that you were lied to by Trump, believe the lie anyway despite being shown the truth, but don't have the integrity to admit it.

Because you know once you acknowledge he lied his entire dishonest narrative fails on itself like a house of cards.

 

[BackAgain]

The comment refers to several related commission complaints brought against Michael Cohen, the Trump lawyer who handled the payoff to Daniels; Trump; Trump’s campaign; and a few other individuals and entities. The complaints alleged that Cohen, Trump, and others violated the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 at Trump’s direction in order to influence the 2016 election.

When it looked at the complaints, the commission’s office of general counsel determined that there was reason to believe that the contributions were illegal and improperly went unreported.

Can you prove otherwise?

Again. I am quite indifferent to how the counsel or the counsel’s office claims to have viewed the perfectly legal NDA or the perfectly legal payment for the NDA.

Furthermore:

In its curtain-raiser, the Democrats’ house organ, the New York Times, tells readers that in their opening statement, “Prosecutors from the Manhattan district attorney’s office are expected to say that Mr. Trump orchestrated a scheme to suppress stories that could have damaged his 2016 campaign.”

That’s probably right. There’s just one tiny glitch: It is not a crime to suppress damaging information.

‘Hush money’ is not a crime, and Bragg has no case against Trump

From the perspective of Bragg and Democrats, to accurately describe what they’ve alleged would be to see it laughed out of any court that isn’t a kangaroo court.

nypost.com

— By Andrew C. McCarthy

The piece is a bit dated now. But it was spot on at the time. It still is.

 

[BackAgain]

In their own statement, Democratic Commissioners Shana Broussard and Ellen Weintraub, who supported investigating Trump, pointedly observed that their Republican colleagues’ statement was “notably devoid of any explanation that specifically addresses their votes to dismiss the allegations against Trump, the Committee, and the Trump Organization.” For their part, Broussard and Weintraub stated that there was “ample evidence in the record” to justify an investigation but the Commission “did not have enough votes to pursue well-grounded charges that the former President of the United States knowingly and willfully accepted contributions nearly 5,000% over the legal limit to suppress a negative story mere days before Election Day.”

Proving once again that you were lied to by Trump, believe the lie anyway despite being shown the truth, but don't have the integrity to admit it.

Because you know once you acknowledge he lied his entire dishonest narrative fails on itself like a house of cards.

Zzz

I don’t t give a shit what any hack Dumbocraps have to add.

The commission of non crimes by getting an NDA AND PAYING FOR AN NDA simply doesn’t require filing any payment information on one’s own company’s books in any particular fashion. And it’s also not a crime to seek to prevent the dissemination of defamatory material which might impact a campaign since that’s exactly what all politicians do.

You and your stupid ilk keep trying to convert non criminal behavior into “crimes.”

 

[berg80]

The piece is a bit dated now.

That's the under statement of the year. BTW, your deflection was pathetic.

In their own statement, Democratic Commissioners Shana Broussard and Ellen Weintraub, who supported investigating Trump, pointedly observed that their Republican colleagues’ statement was “notably devoid of any explanation that specifically addresses their votes to dismiss the allegations against Trump, the Committee, and the Trump Organization.” For their part, Broussard and Weintraub stated that there was “ample evidence in the record” to justify an investigation but the Commission “did not have enough votes to pursue well-grounded charges that the former President of the United States knowingly and willfully accepted contributions nearly 5,000% over the legal limit to suppress a negative story mere days before Election Day.”

Proving once again that you were lied to by Trump, believe the lie anyway despite being shown the truth, but don't have the integrity to admit it.

Because you know once you acknowledge he lied his entire dishonest narrative fails on itself like a house of cards.

 

[BackAgain]

That's the under statement of the year.

Zzz

No. It’s not. It was written just before the Soviet style show trial.

It still fully applies.

BTW, your deflection was pathetic.

Except, as you knew when you just posted that lie, I didn’t deflect at all.

 

[berg80]

Zzz

I don’t t give a shit what any hack Dumbocraps have to add.

The commission of non crimes by getting an NDA AND PAYING FOR AN NDA simply doesn’t require filing any payment information on one’s own company’s books in any particular fashion. And it’s also not a crime to seek to prevent the dissemination of defamatory material which might impact a campaign since that’s exactly what all politicians do.

You and your stupid ilk keep trying to convert non criminal behavior into “crimes.”

Every time I shove the facts in your face you fail to refute them. Cuz you can't.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

‘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.

Yes he does. I would hope he would but I doubt he will sad very sad

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Every time I shove the facts in your face you fail to refute them. Cuz you can't.

Numbnuts an NDA is not a crime. A misdemeanor that has expired is not a crime. But then again there is always Hunter expired tax charges. That will lead to the big guy.

 

[berg80]

Yes he does. I would hope he would but I doubt he will sad very sad

You're conflating power with authority. Besides, there is nothing to charge those who tried to bring him to justice with.

 

[berg80]

Numbnuts an NDA is not a crime. A misdemeanor that has expired is not a crime. But then again there is always Hunter expired tax charges. That will lead to the big guy.

He's a felon.

 

[Marener]

Again. I am quite indifferent to how the counsel or the counsel’s office claims to have viewed the perfectly legal NDA or the perfectly legal payment for the NDA.

You weren’t indifferent enough to leave well enough alone when you claimed that the FEC “felt differently” about the NDA being a campaign expense. You chose to drag them into this and it blew up in your face.

Just admit it and move on.

 

[sparky]

Trump has taken on deep state......~S~

 

[BackAgain]

Every time I shove the facts in your face you fail to refute them. Cuz you can't.

You have yet to do so.

Try it and we’ll see.

 

[BackAgain]

You weren’t indifferent enough to leave well enough alone when you claimed that the FEC “felt differently” about the NDA being a campaign expense. You chose to drag them into this and it blew up in your face.

Just admit it and move on.

The FEC never said otherwise.

Your fantasy doesn’t control, child.

 

[Marener]

The FEC never said otherwise.

Your fantasy doesn’t control, child.

The general counsel of the FEC did. It’s still not quite clear what you meant when you said the FEC felt otherwise because now you’re walked that back to the FEC never said anything otherwise, quite a different statement.

 

[BackAgain]

The general counsel of the FEC did. It’s still not quite clear what you meant when you said the FEC felt otherwise because now you’re walked that back to the FEC never said anything otherwise, quite a different statement.

If the general counsel saw something one way but the commission didn’t follow suit, then the commission didn’t credit the advice of “counsel.”

Do morons like you ever wonder why it’s called the “opinion” of counsel?

Do you grasp that it’s not binding?

Nah. You’re just a dumbass.