Trump has now been implicated in a federal crime

[Faun]

Campaign Violations? The FEC Doesn’t Seem to Care
Despite strong evidence the Trump campaign broke the law in 2016, Republican commissioners don’t see any reason to investigate

Federal Election Commission Republicans' Questionable Trump Moves - Bloomberg
Bloomberg › opinion › articles
Sep 17, 2018 · Despite strong evidence the Trump campaign broke the law in 2016, ... The Federal Election Commission would prefer not to know

That’s not the case involving his hush money to Stormy Daniels.

 

[BWK]

Dumbfuck, the DoJ can’t touch a sitting president. You really are dumber than shit.

Asshole. All it takes is a CHANGE in DOJ regulations AS THEY DID FOR CLINTON, to indict a sitting president, it is up to the AMMENDABLE DOJ REGS......STUPID ASS!

LOLOL

What a moron you are, eh? Clinton was never indicted with any crime by the DoJ while he was president.

You idiots never learn. What a pity.

These folks are so unbelievably stupid.

I’m tellin’ ya, bro.

OH MY! Do we have a budding bormance here?

.

Lol! Are you jealous?

 

[OKTexas]

Asshole. All it takes is a CHANGE in DOJ regulations AS THEY DID FOR CLINTON, to indict a sitting president, it is up to the AMMENDABLE DOJ REGS......STUPID ASS!

LOLOL

What a moron you are, eh? Clinton was never indicted with any crime by the DoJ while he was president.

You idiots never learn. What a pity.

These folks are so unbelievably stupid.

I’m tellin’ ya, bro.

OH MY! Do we have a budding bormance here?

.

Lol! Are you jealous?

ROFLMFAO, not lately.

.

 

[BWK]

How do you know that? Did you talk to Trump?

And by the way, prosecutors will charge it as a campaign finance crime/felony/expense because of the obvious. He needed to hide an affair weeks before the election, the money was not reported, it exceeded $2700 dollars, and it was reported to have come from stolen money out of his charity. Under federal law, an individual could not donate more than $2,700 directly to Trump’s primary or general election campaign in 2016. A $130,000 payment would far exceed that limit. Remember, Trump already lied about where the money came from. So for you to say it is not a campaign expense, is the joke of the day. Since Trump was lying, how in the hell do you know if it was an expense or not? Lol!

they don't charge people if something APPEARS to be obvious--but on evidence!!

The obvious is the evidence fool.

you just made a fatal/irrevocable error:
no the obvious is NOT evidence!!!!
you fked up
they didn't/could charge OJ without all the blood evidence/etc

LOl! You understand nothing of semantics sonny. Go back to school. You are way out of your league here.

I understand semantics is the last bastion of a loser. LMAO

Then you and Trump are in good company for each other.

 

[BWK]

LOLOL

What a moron you are, eh? Clinton was never indicted with any crime by the DoJ while he was president.

You idiots never learn. What a pity.

These folks are so unbelievably stupid.

I’m tellin’ ya, bro.

OH MY! Do we have a budding bormance here?

.

Lol! Are you jealous?

ROFLMFAO, not lately.

.

"Not lately?" So jealousy comes in spurts for you? Interesting!

 

[BWK]

Trump wasn't concerned about adulterous affairs swaying the religious right in the election. The hush money was to protect his personal spotless reputation.

Trump wasn't concerned about adulterous affairs swaying the religious right in the election.

Doesn't matter, it wasn't a campaign expense.

How do you know that? Did you talk to Trump?

And by the way, prosecutors will charge it as a campaign finance crime/felony/expense because of the obvious. He needed to hide an affair weeks before the election, the money was not reported, it exceeded $2700 dollars, and it was reported to have come from stolen money out of his charity. Under federal law, an individual could not donate more than $2,700 directly to Trump’s primary or general election campaign in 2016. A $130,000 payment would far exceed that limit. Remember, Trump already lied about where the money came from. So for you to say it is not a campaign expense, is the joke of the day. Since Trump was lying, how in the hell do you know if it was an expense or not? Lol!

How do you know that?

Because it's not a campaign expense.
Why do you feel it is?

I asked you two questions. Can't you answer?

Under federal law, an individual could not donate more than $2,700 directly to Trump’s primary or general election campaign in 2016.

I agree, a donation that size to the campaign would be an issue. This wasn't. It isn't.

Under what guidelines do you draw your conclusion?

Remember, Trump already lied about where the money came from.

So what?

Lol! Because that tells us everything you idiot. He wasn't straight with the American people exposing his lies about the source of the money. If you don't know the source, how can you claim it is or isn't a campaign expense? Answer, you can't, which is why you are so full of shit.

So for you to say it is not a campaign expense,

Was a check cut to the campaign? From the campaign?

You tell me? You are the one who said it wasn't an expense. Lol!

Under what guidelines do you draw your conclusion?

Cohen didn't write a $130,000 payment to the campaign.
Daniels didn't receive a $130,000 payment from the campaign.

You still aren't answering the question. You making the claim doesn't make it so. How do you know the money paid to Daniels didn't come from the charitable foundation or the campaign? Which by the way, has been reported as essentially being a big source for campaign expenditures, which is illegal. And that is probably why prosecutors have labeled this a campaign financing felony.

He wasn't straight with the American people exposing his lies about the source of the money.

Oh no! A politician wasn't straight with the American people. How unique.

Exposing your own stupid counter responses is all we need to know boss. Thanks! You just said nothing.

You tell me?

No, neither occurred.

That doesn't tell me anything either. Lol! You seem to be at a loss there hot shot.

You are the one who said it wasn't an expense.

Only because it wasn't.

Based on my previous questions from this current post of mine, I'm still asking the same question for which you seem to be paralyzed to answer. Telling me "because it wasn't", is a losers way of saying I don't know.

 

[OKTexas]

These folks are so unbelievably stupid.

I’m tellin’ ya, bro.

OH MY! Do we have a budding bormance here?

.

Lol! Are you jealous?

ROFLMFAO, not lately.

.

"Not lately?" So jealousy comes in spurts for you? Interesting!

Maybe 40 years ago, then I grew up. I see you haven't made the transition yet.

.

 

[Faun]

LOLOL

Trump attorney admitted he paid her off.

Giuliani: Trump reimbursed Cohen for $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels

Trump attorney admitted he paid her of

yes, Trump ATTORNEY

Giuliani: Trump reimbursed Cohen for $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels

He 'reimbursed' Cohen?

How does that cover Trump paying Stormy?

Trump paid for it... then didn’t report it.

It was a personal expense paid with his own money, he didn't need to report it.

.

LOLOL

You moron. Go learn campaign finance laws.

A previous FEC chairman said it wasn't a violation, I'll take his word over yours any day.

.

LOL

What does that have to do with your ignorance over campaign finance laws? It doesn’t matter if contributions come directly from the candidate or from elseware; if it’s of value to their campaign, it has to be reported.

And it matters not whose word you take. What matters is what the FEC does and what the House does.

 

[BWK]

I’m tellin’ ya, bro.

OH MY! Do we have a budding bormance here?

.

Lol! Are you jealous?

ROFLMFAO, not lately.

.

"Not lately?" So jealousy comes in spurts for you? Interesting!

Maybe 40 years ago, then I grew up. I see you haven't made the transition yet.

.

I never claimed to run in spurts. And by the way, for the guy who "grew up 40 years ago", who was it who brought up a "bromance" again?

 

[Lumpy 1]

The breaking news is that Trump violated three different campaign finance laws with the assistance of Michael Cohen according to prosecutors for the southern district of New York, and Trump is being implicated as a felon. Washington Post: Breaking News, World, US, DC News & Analysis

Late Friday, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York filed a document arguing that Michael Cohen, until last year President Trump’s personal attorney, should receive a substantial prison sentence for violations of federal law to which Cohen admitted guilt in August.


Analysis | The government implicates Trump and the Trump campaign in federal campaign finance violations

Democrats and fake news .. always looking for used up sluts and porno lawyers to hump for bucks and cheap political pussy shots ..

 

[BWK]

The breaking news is that Trump violated three different campaign finance laws with the assistance of Michael Cohen according to prosecutors for the southern district of New York, and Trump is being implicated as a felon. Washington Post: Breaking News, World, US, DC News & Analysis

Late Friday, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York filed a document arguing that Michael Cohen, until last year President Trump’s personal attorney, should receive a substantial prison sentence for violations of federal law to which Cohen admitted guilt in August.


Analysis | The government implicates Trump and the Trump campaign in federal campaign finance violations

Democrats and fake news .. almosts looking for used up sluts and porno lawyers to hump for bucks and political cheap shots ..

Otherwise known as following the money, the law, and the criminals. Don't you just love it?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Trump wasn't concerned about adulterous affairs swaying the religious right in the election.

Doesn't matter, it wasn't a campaign expense.

How do you know that? Did you talk to Trump?

And by the way, prosecutors will charge it as a campaign finance crime/felony/expense because of the obvious. He needed to hide an affair weeks before the election, the money was not reported, it exceeded $2700 dollars, and it was reported to have come from stolen money out of his charity. Under federal law, an individual could not donate more than $2,700 directly to Trump’s primary or general election campaign in 2016. A $130,000 payment would far exceed that limit. Remember, Trump already lied about where the money came from. So for you to say it is not a campaign expense, is the joke of the day. Since Trump was lying, how in the hell do you know if it was an expense or not? Lol!

How do you know that?

Because it's not a campaign expense.
Why do you feel it is?

I asked you two questions. Can't you answer?

Under federal law, an individual could not donate more than $2,700 directly to Trump’s primary or general election campaign in 2016.

I agree, a donation that size to the campaign would be an issue. This wasn't. It isn't.

Under what guidelines do you draw your conclusion?

Remember, Trump already lied about where the money came from.

So what?

Lol! Because that tells us everything you idiot. He wasn't straight with the American people exposing his lies about the source of the money. If you don't know the source, how can you claim it is or isn't a campaign expense? Answer, you can't, which is why you are so full of shit.

So for you to say it is not a campaign expense,

Was a check cut to the campaign? From the campaign?

You tell me? You are the one who said it wasn't an expense. Lol!

Under what guidelines do you draw your conclusion?

Cohen didn't write a $130,000 payment to the campaign.
Daniels didn't receive a $130,000 payment from the campaign.

You still aren't answering the question. You making the claim doesn't make it so. How do you know the money paid to Daniels didn't come from the charitable foundation or the campaign? Which by the way, has been reported as essentially being a big source for campaign expenditures, which is illegal. And that is probably why prosecutors have labeled this a campaign financing felony.

He wasn't straight with the American people exposing his lies about the source of the money.

Oh no! A politician wasn't straight with the American people. How unique.

Exposing your own stupid counter responses is all we need to know boss. Thanks! You just said nothing.

You tell me?

No, neither occurred.

That doesn't tell me anything either. Lol! You seem to be at a loss there hot shot.

You are the one who said it wasn't an expense.

Only because it wasn't.

Based on my previous questions from this current post of mine, I'm still asking the same question for which you seem to be paralyzed to answer. Telling me "because it wasn't", is a losers way of saying I don't know.

Based on my previous questions from this current post of mine, I'm still asking the same question for which you seem to be paralyzed to answer.

How is it a campaign expense?
Did it pay a campaign worker?
Pay for campaign ads?
Pay for transport to a campaign event?
Pay for campaign fundraising?
Paid out of campaign funds?

No?

Okay, not a campaign expense.

 

[Faun]

Does Trump have a cancelled check?

Do you have one from the campaign?

Let’s ask Stormy how she was paid
She will say the money came from Cohen......a violation

If Trump claims he paid Cohen......show us the check

She will say the money came from Cohen......a violation

Unless Cohen paid from campaign funds, how is it a violation?

It’s a violation because it wasn’t reported.

It wasn't a campaign expenditure, no reason to report it.

Of course it was. Keeping a porn star from going public just 11 days before an election with her account of an affair with Trump was certainly a benefit to his campaign.

 

[Faun]

He probably did but more importantly he has admitted to grabbing pussies which is sexual assault and he has lied to the FBI about his connection with the Ruskies.

I forgot to mention felonious oral gratification to the leader of a foreign hostile power and willfully playing the part of a kept woman..

Omitting what trump said about women is what crooks do

Trump told Billy bush on the bus that if you are a star you can do anything to women including grabbing them by their private parts Trump was upset at how women have been brainwashed to give to rock stars anything they want and not their husbands and hero vets

Trump is right as rain

Outrageously crooked minds that omits the part that shows what trump is trying to say

Trump has the men and the men will stop this outright crookedness by democrats and their brainwashed voters

In that video, Trump also confessed to attempting to commit adultery. That’s also “right as rain,” huh?

Got to love the regressives selective morality. LMAO What happened to the consensual adults thing? Hypocrite.

.

Where did I say it’s not consensual? And what cheater did I not call out for being a cheater?

How about the one who committed perjury and obstruction over what you folks said was a consensual affair, you folks claimed it wasn't really a crime.

.

What about him? I called him a piece of shit for cheating on his wife.

 

[Faun]

52 U.S. Code § 30104 - Reporting requirements

You’re welcome.

Cohen paid her out of campaign funds?
Link?

Too late bub. Talk to the prosecutors. They are calling it a contribution due to the nature of the payment. IT was hidden and never reported, and Trump said he knew nothing about it, which he lied about. The prosecutors are calling it a felony.

Talk to the prosecutors. They are calling it a contribution due to the nature of the payment. IT was hidden and never reported, and Trump said he knew nothing about it, which he lied about. The prosecutors are calling it a felony.

The headline on the website Pravda
trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup,...
"Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World"

The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West.
The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers
and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling
much of the global uranium supply chain.

But the untold story behind that story is one that involves
not just the Russian president, but also a former American president
and a woman who would like to be the next one.

At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.

the sale gave the Russians control of
one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.

Since uranium is considered a strategic asset,
with implications for national security,
the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of
representatives from a number of United States government agencies.
Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show,
a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation.

Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation
to make four donations totaling $2.35 million.
Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons,
despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck
with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors.
Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention
to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One,
Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech
from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin
that was promoting Uranium One stock.



September 2005:

Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining financier,
wins a major uranium deal in Kazakhstan for his company, UrAsia,
days after visiting the country with former President Bill Clinton.


2006:

Mr. Giustra donates $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation


February 2007:

UrAsia merges with a South African mining company
and assumes the name Uranium One.
In the next two months, the company expands into the United States.


June 2008:

Negotations begin for an investment in Uranium One
by the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom


2008-2010:

Uranium One and former UrAsia investors
make $8.65 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation.
Uranium One investors stand to profit on a Rosatom deal


June 2009:

Rosatom subsidiary ARMZ
takes a 17 percent ownership stake in Uranium One


2010-2011:

Investors give millions more in donations to the Clinton Foundation


June 2010:

Rosatom seeks majority ownership of Uranium One,
pending approval by the Committee on Foreign Investment
in the United States, of which the State Department is a member.

Rosatom says it does not plan to increase its stake in Uranium One
or to take the company private.


June 29, 2010:

Bill Clinton is paid $500,000 for a speech in Moscow
by a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin
that assigned a buy rating to Uranium One stock


October 2010:

Rosatom’s majority ownership approved by
Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.


January 2013:

Rosatom takes full control of Uranium One and takes it private

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation

Now...I didn't even mention the millions of dollars
from Russian investors and government agencies,
given to a small, off shore company,
which Podesta sat on the Executive Board

Podesta failed to disclose, not only the money but,
his involvement in this company, which had a stake in the sale

Now...unless you and your ilk
are capable of pulling your heads out of your asses
and admitting whose REALLY guilty of criminal conduct....

THEN FUCK OFF!

COLLUSION... RUSSIA... TREASON... CORRUPTED
*********CLINTONS*********

LOLOL

How many times has this narrative been debunked?

Almost all of the donations from Giustra came before Hillary was Secretary of State and Bill collecting $500,000 for speech was in line with how much he was paid for other speeches, which went as high as $700,000.

Almost all of the donations from Giustra came before Hillary was Secretary of State

The Russians were bribing a sitting US Senator?

Who were the Russians bribing? Almost all of the money came from Canadians.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Omitting what trump said about women is what crooks do

Trump told Billy bush on the bus that if you are a star you can do anything to women including grabbing them by their private parts Trump was upset at how women have been brainwashed to give to rock stars anything they want and not their husbands and hero vets

Trump is right as rain

Outrageously crooked minds that omits the part that shows what trump is trying to say

Trump has the men and the men will stop this outright crookedness by democrats and their brainwashed voters

In that video, Trump also confessed to attempting to commit adultery. That’s also “right as rain,” huh?

Got to love the regressives selective morality. LMAO What happened to the consensual adults thing? Hypocrite.

.

Where did I say it’s not consensual? And what cheater did I not call out for being a cheater?

How about the one who committed perjury and obstruction over what you folks said was a consensual affair, you folks claimed it wasn't really a crime.

.

What about him? I called him a piece of shit for cheating on his wife.

Lying to a grand jury. Felony.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do you have one from the campaign?

Let’s ask Stormy how she was paid
She will say the money came from Cohen......a violation

If Trump claims he paid Cohen......show us the check

She will say the money came from Cohen......a violation

Unless Cohen paid from campaign funds, how is it a violation?

It’s a violation because it wasn’t reported.

It wasn't a campaign expenditure, no reason to report it.

Of course it was. Keeping a porn star from going public just 11 days before an election with her account of an affair with Trump was certainly a benefit to his campaign.

And yet, not a campaign expense.

The New York Times published many, many articles which they thought were a benefit to the Hillary campaign, yet they didn't report a single one as a campaign contribution.

 

[Faun]

Stormy Daniels did speak up about it years earlier. Tiny didn’t pay for her silence then, so clearly, he didn’t silence her weeks before his election out of concerns that Melanie would find out.

Unfortunately you can't prove it. Just a coincidence, and as far as his lawyer goes, we have an indicted felon on taxi and IRS problems PLEADING IN FRONT OF A JUDGE,no less for a light sentence....and after making himself look like a rat bastard, Mulehead, STILL throws the book at him....or was he going to s pend 20 years behind bars as the various MSM's stated

LOLOL

Again, it’s up to the FEC to decide. Their evidence? That trump didn’t pay Stormy to stay silent for 10 years until his election was just 11 days away. Clearly not to hide it from Melanie.

And if the FEC finds he violated campaign finance laws, then the House can impeach him based on the same evidence that he didn’t pay her off for 10 years.

Maobama was fined 370,000 by the FEC, where was your impeachment talk then? Hypocrite.

.

Obama was fined for inadvertently not reporting campaign finances. We’ll see if the FEC finds the same for trump, who secretively paid off a porn star to keep her mouth shut.

It's all comes down to intent, did Trump intend to violate laws he had never been subject to just a year before? Candidates rely on lawyers to keep them straight, Trumps lawyer seems to have failed. That doesn't prove intent on Trump, if it was a violation at all, which is debatable. BTW failing to report is failing to report, where's the equal treatment under the law?

.

Impeachment doesn’t require intent.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Cohen paid her out of campaign funds?
Link?

Too late bub. Talk to the prosecutors. They are calling it a contribution due to the nature of the payment. IT was hidden and never reported, and Trump said he knew nothing about it, which he lied about. The prosecutors are calling it a felony.

Talk to the prosecutors. They are calling it a contribution due to the nature of the payment. IT was hidden and never reported, and Trump said he knew nothing about it, which he lied about. The prosecutors are calling it a felony.

The headline on the website Pravda
trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup,...
"Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World"

The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West.
The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers
and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling
much of the global uranium supply chain.

But the untold story behind that story is one that involves
not just the Russian president, but also a former American president
and a woman who would like to be the next one.

At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.

the sale gave the Russians control of
one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.

Since uranium is considered a strategic asset,
with implications for national security,
the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of
representatives from a number of United States government agencies.
Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show,
a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation.

Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation
to make four donations totaling $2.35 million.
Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons,
despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck
with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors.
Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention
to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One,
Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech
from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin
that was promoting Uranium One stock.



September 2005:

Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining financier,
wins a major uranium deal in Kazakhstan for his company, UrAsia,
days after visiting the country with former President Bill Clinton.


2006:

Mr. Giustra donates $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation


February 2007:

UrAsia merges with a South African mining company
and assumes the name Uranium One.
In the next two months, the company expands into the United States.


June 2008:

Negotations begin for an investment in Uranium One
by the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom


2008-2010:

Uranium One and former UrAsia investors
make $8.65 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation.
Uranium One investors stand to profit on a Rosatom deal


June 2009:

Rosatom subsidiary ARMZ
takes a 17 percent ownership stake in Uranium One


2010-2011:

Investors give millions more in donations to the Clinton Foundation


June 2010:

Rosatom seeks majority ownership of Uranium One,
pending approval by the Committee on Foreign Investment
in the United States, of which the State Department is a member.

Rosatom says it does not plan to increase its stake in Uranium One
or to take the company private.


June 29, 2010:

Bill Clinton is paid $500,000 for a speech in Moscow
by a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin
that assigned a buy rating to Uranium One stock


October 2010:

Rosatom’s majority ownership approved by
Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.


January 2013:

Rosatom takes full control of Uranium One and takes it private

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation

Now...I didn't even mention the millions of dollars
from Russian investors and government agencies,
given to a small, off shore company,
which Podesta sat on the Executive Board

Podesta failed to disclose, not only the money but,
his involvement in this company, which had a stake in the sale

Now...unless you and your ilk
are capable of pulling your heads out of your asses
and admitting whose REALLY guilty of criminal conduct....

THEN FUCK OFF!

COLLUSION... RUSSIA... TREASON... CORRUPTED
*********CLINTONS*********

LOLOL

How many times has this narrative been debunked?

Almost all of the donations from Giustra came before Hillary was Secretary of State and Bill collecting $500,000 for speech was in line with how much he was paid for other speeches, which went as high as $700,000.

Almost all of the donations from Giustra came before Hillary was Secretary of State

The Russians were bribing a sitting US Senator?

Who were the Russians bribing? Almost all of the money came from Canadians.

Who were the Russians bribing?

The junior Senator from New York.

Almost all of the money came from Canadians.

From business partners of Russians..

 

[BWK]

How do you know that? Did you talk to Trump?

And by the way, prosecutors will charge it as a campaign finance crime/felony/expense because of the obvious. He needed to hide an affair weeks before the election, the money was not reported, it exceeded $2700 dollars, and it was reported to have come from stolen money out of his charity. Under federal law, an individual could not donate more than $2,700 directly to Trump’s primary or general election campaign in 2016. A $130,000 payment would far exceed that limit. Remember, Trump already lied about where the money came from. So for you to say it is not a campaign expense, is the joke of the day. Since Trump was lying, how in the hell do you know if it was an expense or not? Lol!

How do you know that?

Because it's not a campaign expense.
Why do you feel it is?

I asked you two questions. Can't you answer?

Under federal law, an individual could not donate more than $2,700 directly to Trump’s primary or general election campaign in 2016.

I agree, a donation that size to the campaign would be an issue. This wasn't. It isn't.

Under what guidelines do you draw your conclusion?

Remember, Trump already lied about where the money came from.

So what?

Lol! Because that tells us everything you idiot. He wasn't straight with the American people exposing his lies about the source of the money. If you don't know the source, how can you claim it is or isn't a campaign expense? Answer, you can't, which is why you are so full of shit.

So for you to say it is not a campaign expense,

Was a check cut to the campaign? From the campaign?

You tell me? You are the one who said it wasn't an expense. Lol!

Under what guidelines do you draw your conclusion?

Cohen didn't write a $130,000 payment to the campaign.
Daniels didn't receive a $130,000 payment from the campaign.

You still aren't answering the question. You making the claim doesn't make it so. How do you know the money paid to Daniels didn't come from the charitable foundation or the campaign? Which by the way, has been reported as essentially being a big source for campaign expenditures, which is illegal. And that is probably why prosecutors have labeled this a campaign financing felony.

He wasn't straight with the American people exposing his lies about the source of the money.

Oh no! A politician wasn't straight with the American people. How unique.

Exposing your own stupid counter responses is all we need to know boss. Thanks! You just said nothing.

You tell me?

No, neither occurred.

That doesn't tell me anything either. Lol! You seem to be at a loss there hot shot.

You are the one who said it wasn't an expense.

Only because it wasn't.

Based on my previous questions from this current post of mine, I'm still asking the same question for which you seem to be paralyzed to answer. Telling me "because it wasn't", is a losers way of saying I don't know.

Based on my previous questions from this current post of mine, I'm still asking the same question for which you seem to be paralyzed to answer.

How is it a campaign expense?
Did it pay a campaign worker?
Pay for campaign ads?
Pay for transport to a campaign event?
Pay for campaign fundraising?
Paid out of campaign funds?

No?

Okay, not a campaign expense.

If it benefits a campaign it most certainly benefits a candidate.
And how did it do that? It used money from a charity, it didn't report the money that cheated the electorate out of a fair election, and it used measures to hide an affair that would have looked bad for the candidate.

The fact that it may or may not have paid campaign workers, ads, events, etc. is a useless distraction of an argument on your part. Illegal is one thing, your distraction is another.

Prosecutors are looking at all of that, and concluded that Trump conspired to commit a felony. You however, can't give us any intelligent reasons for why it is not an expense, other than to say it isn't. Which still tells us nothing.