Trump has now been implicated in a federal crime

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

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.

So it was a charitable contribution to help distressed porn stars and prostitutes?

It wasn't a charitable contribution anymore than it was a political one.

Well, if it wasn't a charitable contribution and wasn't a political contribution, then you are saying it was payment designed to protect Trump's good reputation and had nothing to do with the fact he was running for president and claiming to be a Christian who read his bible every night.

Well, if it wasn't a charitable contribution and wasn't a political contribution,

Then it didn't violate the campaign laws.

 

[OKTexas]

Maybe because...

up to his run for president, Melania didn't know about the affair, and he didn't want it coming out?

He didn't want his voters finding out either.

Do you seriously think his voters would care after the access hollywood tape?

.

These payments were made in 2016 before the Access Hollywood tape broke. You know, when Trump was claiming to be a Christian and hoping to get religious right to vote for him.

And made public in Jan 2017, the access hollywood story broke in Oct 2016, do try to keep up.

.

Cohen had founded Essential Consultants, LLC. On October 17th, 2016 as a front company to use for the bush money payment. And by that time, they were already talking to Stormy about paying for her silence.

This is what we're talking about asswipe. The timing of when the stories became public.

My comment was: "Do you seriously think his voters would care after the access hollywood tape?"

The access hollywood tape broke in Oct 2016 and the Daniels story didn't break till Jan 2017, hence my comment. Is your ignorance cured now?

.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Of course it wasn't.

Now how much was Bernie's endorsement valued at?

Again, endorsements aren’t contributions unless you can show Hillary was working with Bernie to get that endorsement.

Whereas keeping s scandal quiet is a benefit toba campaign. And this one was valued at $130,000.

Again, endorsements aren’t contributions

Endorsements aren't a benefit to Hillary's campaign? Why not?

The 74-year-old self-described democratic socialist, who has been a thorn in Clinton's side over the last year, pledged to support his former rival through Election Day: "I intend to do everything I can to make certain she will be the next president of the United States."

Wow! Sounds pretty valuable.

unless you can show Hillary was working with Bernie to get that endorsement.

Hillary didn't work to get his endorsement?​

”Endorsements aren't a benefit to Hillary's campaign? Why not?”

It’s a pity you can’t understand what you read. I didn’t say endorsements aren’t a benefit. I said they’re not a campaign contribution.

”Hillary didn't work to get his endorsement?”

I didn’t say that either. I said Hillary didn’t work with Bernie to get his endorsement.

Really, you should prolly re-read posts several times until you understand what is actually stated.

I didn’t say endorsements aren’t a benefit. I said they’re not a campaign contribution.

Why are some benefits a contribution while other, larger benefits are not a contribution?
Perhaps you should post the law/regulation that spells out the differentiation?

I said Hillary didn’t work with Bernie to get his endorsement.

How does her "working with" or "not working with" make the slightest difference to the valuable benefit (contribution) she received from Bernie?

Ask the FEC. They define campaign contributions.

You came up with your own definition.
One which Hillary clearly violated when she didn't report the value of Bernie's endorsement.

Types of contributions - FEC.gov

Maybe the above link will help clear up your confusion?

 

[Faun]

He didn't want his voters finding out either.

Do you seriously think his voters would care after the access hollywood tape?

.

These payments were made in 2016 before the Access Hollywood tape broke. You know, when Trump was claiming to be a Christian and hoping to get religious right to vote for him.

And made public in Jan 2017, the access hollywood story broke in Oct 2016, do try to keep up.

.

Cohen had founded Essential Consultants, LLC. On October 17th, 2016 as a front company to use for the bush money payment. And by that time, they were already talking to Stormy about paying for her silence.

This is what we're talking about asswipe. The timing of when the stories became public.

My comment was: "Do you seriously think his voters would care after the access hollywood tape?"

The access hollywood tape broke in Oct 2016 and the Daniels story didn't break till Jan 2017, hence my comment. Is your ignorance cured now?

.

You said, ”do you seriously think his voters would care after the access hollywood tape?” in response to someone else pointing out he paid off Daniels so the voters wouldn’t know. He paid her off in October, so what the fuck does January have to do with his motives for paying her off?

 

[Faun]

Again, endorsements aren’t contributions unless you can show Hillary was working with Bernie to get that endorsement.

Whereas keeping s scandal quiet is a benefit toba campaign. And this one was valued at $130,000.

Again, endorsements aren’t contributions

Endorsements aren't a benefit to Hillary's campaign? Why not?

The 74-year-old self-described democratic socialist, who has been a thorn in Clinton's side over the last year, pledged to support his former rival through Election Day: "I intend to do everything I can to make certain she will be the next president of the United States."

Wow! Sounds pretty valuable.

unless you can show Hillary was working with Bernie to get that endorsement.

Hillary didn't work to get his endorsement?​

”Endorsements aren't a benefit to Hillary's campaign? Why not?”

It’s a pity you can’t understand what you read. I didn’t say endorsements aren’t a benefit. I said they’re not a campaign contribution.

”Hillary didn't work to get his endorsement?”

I didn’t say that either. I said Hillary didn’t work with Bernie to get his endorsement.

Really, you should prolly re-read posts several times until you understand what is actually stated.

I didn’t say endorsements aren’t a benefit. I said they’re not a campaign contribution.

Why are some benefits a contribution while other, larger benefits are not a contribution?
Perhaps you should post the law/regulation that spells out the differentiation?

I said Hillary didn’t work with Bernie to get his endorsement.

How does her "working with" or "not working with" make the slightest difference to the valuable benefit (contribution) she received from Bernie?

Ask the FEC. They define campaign contributions.

You came up with your own definition.
One which Hillary clearly violated when she didn't report the value of Bernie's endorsement.

Types of contributions - FEC.gov

Maybe the above link will help clear up your confusion?

Holyfuckingshit!

You’re looking at the wrong link. Actually, it’s you who’s making up his own definitions. No worries. As usual, it takes a Liberal to educate a conservative...

Endorsing candidates

Disbursements for endorsements made to the general public are not contributions or expenditures as long as the endorsement is not coordinated with any candidate, candidate committee or its agents; and disbursements for any press release or press conference are de minimis.​

 

[OKTexas]

Maybe because...

up to his run for president, Melania didn't know about the affair, and he didn't want it coming out?

He didn't want his voters finding out either.

Do you seriously think his voters would care after the access hollywood tape?

.

These payments were made in 2016 before the Access Hollywood tape broke. You know, when Trump was claiming to be a Christian and hoping to get religious right to vote for him.

And made public in Jan 2017, the access hollywood story broke in Oct 2016, do try to keep up.

The point is the payments were made prior to release of the Access Hollywood Tapes. After the Access Hollywood Tapes mere released, Trump's affairs with porn stars and prostitutes would have little impact on the election. However, back in 2016 when the payments were made and Trump was claiming to be a Christian reading the bible every night and other such bullshit, porn stars and prostitutes going public would certainly be viewed by the campaign as a major problem and worthy of hush money.

Which had zero to do with the post you responded to. If you can't stay on point don't bother to respond, deflection doesn't become you.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Do you seriously think his voters would care after the access hollywood tape?

.

These payments were made in 2016 before the Access Hollywood tape broke. You know, when Trump was claiming to be a Christian and hoping to get religious right to vote for him.

And made public in Jan 2017, the access hollywood story broke in Oct 2016, do try to keep up.

.

Cohen had founded Essential Consultants, LLC. On October 17th, 2016 as a front company to use for the bush money payment. And by that time, they were already talking to Stormy about paying for her silence.

This is what we're talking about asswipe. The timing of when the stories became public.

My comment was: "Do you seriously think his voters would care after the access hollywood tape?"

The access hollywood tape broke in Oct 2016 and the Daniels story didn't break till Jan 2017, hence my comment. Is your ignorance cured now?

.

You said, ”do you seriously think his voters would care after the access hollywood tape?” in response to someone else pointing out he paid off Daniels so the voters wouldn’t know. He paid her off in October, so what the fuck does January have to do with his motives for paying her off?

The public didn't know about the NDA till Jan, well after the tape was made public, and they didn't care. It's just that simple, sorry you chose to retain your ignorance, but that's on you.

.

 

[Sunsettommy]

It is hilarious that NO ONE HERE has bothered to read the MEMO in full, it doesn't mention Trump at all.

I posted it here earlier, and totally ignored by Trump haters.

Post #1143

 

[The Purge]

Sounds to me that the 2 women should be arrested for extortion!

ex·tor·tion
/ikˈstôrSH(ə)n/
noun

1. the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats.
   synonyms: blackmail, shakedown;

 

[OKTexas]

Again, endorsements aren’t contributions

Endorsements aren't a benefit to Hillary's campaign? Why not?

The 74-year-old self-described democratic socialist, who has been a thorn in Clinton's side over the last year, pledged to support his former rival through Election Day: "I intend to do everything I can to make certain she will be the next president of the United States."

Wow! Sounds pretty valuable.

unless you can show Hillary was working with Bernie to get that endorsement.

Hillary didn't work to get his endorsement?​

”Endorsements aren't a benefit to Hillary's campaign? Why not?”

It’s a pity you can’t understand what you read. I didn’t say endorsements aren’t a benefit. I said they’re not a campaign contribution.

”Hillary didn't work to get his endorsement?”

I didn’t say that either. I said Hillary didn’t work with Bernie to get his endorsement.

Really, you should prolly re-read posts several times until you understand what is actually stated.

I didn’t say endorsements aren’t a benefit. I said they’re not a campaign contribution.

Why are some benefits a contribution while other, larger benefits are not a contribution?
Perhaps you should post the law/regulation that spells out the differentiation?

I said Hillary didn’t work with Bernie to get his endorsement.

How does her "working with" or "not working with" make the slightest difference to the valuable benefit (contribution) she received from Bernie?

Ask the FEC. They define campaign contributions.

You came up with your own definition.
One which Hillary clearly violated when she didn't report the value of Bernie's endorsement.

Types of contributions - FEC.gov

Maybe the above link will help clear up your confusion?

Holyfuckingshit!

You’re looking at the wrong link. Actually, it’s you who’s making up his own definitions. No worries. As usual, it takes a Liberal to educate a conservative...

Endorsing candidates

Disbursements for endorsements made to the general public are not contributions or expenditures as long as the endorsement is not coordinated with any candidate, candidate committee or its agents; and disbursements for any press release or press conference are de minimis.​

You mean like this?

Newly Leaked Emails Reveal Unprecedented Coordination Between Hillary Campaign And Press

Newly Leaked Emails Reveal Unprecedented Coordination Between Hillary Campaign And Press

"From "off-the-record dinners with the key national reporters" to feeding pre-written propaganda pieces to "friendly" journalists, the new leaks reveal startling coordination between the Clinton campaign and the mainstream media."

Sounds like in kind contributions to me.

.

 

[Faun]

These payments were made in 2016 before the Access Hollywood tape broke. You know, when Trump was claiming to be a Christian and hoping to get religious right to vote for him.

And made public in Jan 2017, the access hollywood story broke in Oct 2016, do try to keep up.

.

Cohen had founded Essential Consultants, LLC. On October 17th, 2016 as a front company to use for the bush money payment. And by that time, they were already talking to Stormy about paying for her silence.

This is what we're talking about asswipe. The timing of when the stories became public.

My comment was: "Do you seriously think his voters would care after the access hollywood tape?"

The access hollywood tape broke in Oct 2016 and the Daniels story didn't break till Jan 2017, hence my comment. Is your ignorance cured now?

.

You said, ”do you seriously think his voters would care after the access hollywood tape?” in response to someone else pointing out he paid off Daniels so the voters wouldn’t know. He paid her off in October, so what the fuck does January have to do with his motives for paying her off?

The public didn't know about the NDA till Jan, well after the tape was made public, and they didn't care. It's just that simple, sorry you chose to retain your ignorance, but that's on you.

.

It matters not when the public found out as that has nothing to do with the post you responded to.

Faun: Then why did he wait so many years before paying off Daniels?

WillHaftawaite: Maybe because... up to his run for president, Melania didn't know about the affair, and he didn't want it coming out?

BWK: He didn't want his voters finding out either.

OKTexas: Do you seriously think his voters would care after the access hollywood tape?​

What was being discussed was trump’s motive for paying off Daniels. That happened in October, not January. By January, the election was over and none of it mattered any longer. And again, trump entered into talks with Stormy through his attorney before the Access Hollywood taps emerged.

So when BWK said, ”he didn't want his voters finding out either,” he was spot on.

 

[Faun]

It is hilarious that NO ONE HERE has bothered to read the MEMO in full, it doesn't mention Trump at all.

I posted it here earlier, and totally ignored by Trump haters.

Post #1143

Your link doesn’t work.

 

[Sunsettommy]

It is hilarious that NO ONE HERE has bothered to read the MEMO in full, it doesn't mention Trump at all.

I posted it here earlier, and totally ignored by Trump haters.

Post #1143

Your link doesn’t work.

It works fine, just tried it, maybe you are afraid to go to the post?

 

[Faun]

”Endorsements aren't a benefit to Hillary's campaign? Why not?”

It’s a pity you can’t understand what you read. I didn’t say endorsements aren’t a benefit. I said they’re not a campaign contribution.

”Hillary didn't work to get his endorsement?”

I didn’t say that either. I said Hillary didn’t work with Bernie to get his endorsement.

Really, you should prolly re-read posts several times until you understand what is actually stated.

I didn’t say endorsements aren’t a benefit. I said they’re not a campaign contribution.

Why are some benefits a contribution while other, larger benefits are not a contribution?
Perhaps you should post the law/regulation that spells out the differentiation?

I said Hillary didn’t work with Bernie to get his endorsement.

How does her "working with" or "not working with" make the slightest difference to the valuable benefit (contribution) she received from Bernie?

Ask the FEC. They define campaign contributions.

You came up with your own definition.
One which Hillary clearly violated when she didn't report the value of Bernie's endorsement.

Types of contributions - FEC.gov

Maybe the above link will help clear up your confusion?

Holyfuckingshit!

You’re looking at the wrong link. Actually, it’s you who’s making up his own definitions. No worries. As usual, it takes a Liberal to educate a conservative...

Endorsing candidates

Disbursements for endorsements made to the general public are not contributions or expenditures as long as the endorsement is not coordinated with any candidate, candidate committee or its agents; and disbursements for any press release or press conference are de minimis.​

You mean like this?

Newly Leaked Emails Reveal Unprecedented Coordination Between Hillary Campaign And Press

Newly Leaked Emails Reveal Unprecedented Coordination Between Hillary Campaign And Press

"From "off-the-record dinners with the key national reporters" to feeding pre-written propaganda pieces to "friendly" journalists, the new leaks reveal startling coordination between the Clinton campaign and the mainstream media."

Sounds like in kind contributions to me.

.

Nope, nothing like that. There’s nothing in there about endorsements.

Try harder next time.

 

[Faun]

It is hilarious that NO ONE HERE has bothered to read the MEMO in full, it doesn't mention Trump at all.

I posted it here earlier, and totally ignored by Trump haters.

Post #1143

Your link doesn’t work.

It works fine, just tried it, maybe you are afraid to go to the post?

Nope, I clicked on it and it took me to a page which contained no posts by you. In fact, your link took me to page #58 which is posts 571-580.

 

[Sunsettommy]

It is hilarious that NO ONE HERE has bothered to read the MEMO in full, it doesn't mention Trump at all.

I posted it here earlier, and totally ignored by Trump haters.

Post #1143

Your link doesn’t work.

It works fine, just tried it, maybe you are afraid to go to the post?

Nope, I clicked on it and it took me to a page which contained no posts by you. In fact, your link took me to page #58 which is posts 571-580.

Are you blind, your post here is number 1255, on page 63.

My post #1243 is on page 58.

You have a problem since I can still reach post 1243 on page 58. I wonder if you are lying to me to avoid reading the filed MEMO that doesn't have the name of Trump anywhere in it.

Here is again straight from the MEMO website itself:

Michael Cohen Sentencing Memo

 

[OKTexas]

And made public in Jan 2017, the access hollywood story broke in Oct 2016, do try to keep up.

.

Cohen had founded Essential Consultants, LLC. On October 17th, 2016 as a front company to use for the bush money payment. And by that time, they were already talking to Stormy about paying for her silence.

This is what we're talking about asswipe. The timing of when the stories became public.

My comment was: "Do you seriously think his voters would care after the access hollywood tape?"

The access hollywood tape broke in Oct 2016 and the Daniels story didn't break till Jan 2017, hence my comment. Is your ignorance cured now?

.

You said, ”do you seriously think his voters would care after the access hollywood tape?” in response to someone else pointing out he paid off Daniels so the voters wouldn’t know. He paid her off in October, so what the fuck does January have to do with his motives for paying her off?

The public didn't know about the NDA till Jan, well after the tape was made public, and they didn't care. It's just that simple, sorry you chose to retain your ignorance, but that's on you.

.

It matters not when the public found out as that has nothing to do with the post you responded to.

Faun: Then why did he wait so many years before paying off Daniels?

WillHaftawaite: Maybe because... up to his run for president, Melania didn't know about the affair, and he didn't want it coming out?

BWK: He didn't want his voters finding out either.

OKTexas: Do you seriously think his voters would care after the access hollywood tape?​

What was being discussed was trump’s motive for paying off Daniels. That happened in October, not January. By January, the election was over and none of it mattered any longer. And again, trump entered into talks with Stormy through his attorney before the Access Hollywood taps emerged.

So when BWK said, ”he didn't want his voters finding out either,” he was spot on.

Wow, so pathetic. You're way over thinking it, I responded to one post in that string, Flopper responded to me. Confine your comments to that conversation. Or you can chose to piss off, frankly I prefer the latter.

.

 

[OKTexas]

It is hilarious that NO ONE HERE has bothered to read the MEMO in full, it doesn't mention Trump at all.

I posted it here earlier, and totally ignored by Trump haters.

Post #1143

Your link doesn’t work.

Worked fine for me.

.

 

[OKTexas]

I didn’t say endorsements aren’t a benefit. I said they’re not a campaign contribution.

Why are some benefits a contribution while other, larger benefits are not a contribution?
Perhaps you should post the law/regulation that spells out the differentiation?

I said Hillary didn’t work with Bernie to get his endorsement.

How does her "working with" or "not working with" make the slightest difference to the valuable benefit (contribution) she received from Bernie?

Ask the FEC. They define campaign contributions.

You came up with your own definition.
One which Hillary clearly violated when she didn't report the value of Bernie's endorsement.

Types of contributions - FEC.gov

Maybe the above link will help clear up your confusion?

Holyfuckingshit!

You’re looking at the wrong link. Actually, it’s you who’s making up his own definitions. No worries. As usual, it takes a Liberal to educate a conservative...

Endorsing candidates

Disbursements for endorsements made to the general public are not contributions or expenditures as long as the endorsement is not coordinated with any candidate, candidate committee or its agents; and disbursements for any press release or press conference are de minimis.​

You mean like this?

Newly Leaked Emails Reveal Unprecedented Coordination Between Hillary Campaign And Press

Newly Leaked Emails Reveal Unprecedented Coordination Between Hillary Campaign And Press

"From "off-the-record dinners with the key national reporters" to feeding pre-written propaganda pieces to "friendly" journalists, the new leaks reveal startling coordination between the Clinton campaign and the mainstream media."

Sounds like in kind contributions to me.

.

Nope, nothing like that. There’s nothing in there about endorsements.

Try harder next time.

Feeding pre-written propaganda, and you think Russia interfered, I'd say our fine protected media was right in there with them. But hey feel free to ignore the fact, you always do.

.

 

[Faun]

It is hilarious that NO ONE HERE has bothered to read the MEMO in full, it doesn't mention Trump at all.

I posted it here earlier, and totally ignored by Trump haters.

Post #1143

Your link doesn’t work.

It works fine, just tried it, maybe you are afraid to go to the post?

Nope, I clicked on it and it took me to a page which contained no posts by you. In fact, your link took me to page #58 which is posts 571-580.

Are you blind, your post here is number 1255, on page 63.

My post #1243 is on page 58.

You have a problem since I can still reach post 1243 on page 58. I wonder if you are lying to me to avoid reading the filed MEMO that doesn't have the name of Trump anywhere in it.

Here is again straight from the MEMO website itself:

Michael Cohen Sentencing Memo

Ah, ok, I see what the problem here is.... you must be a conservative, i.e., dumb as shit.

In regards to your first link, page 58 for you goes to different posts for me on page 58 because we must have different settings for the number of posts per page.

In regards to your next link, which goes directly to the court filing, you actually (and idiotically) claim it doesn’t mention trump at all. But you’re clearly brain-dead to assert such nonsense. It actually refers to him 23 times. Here’s an example...

During the campaign, Cohen played a central role in two similar schemes to purchase the rights to stories – each from women who claimed to have had an affair with Individual-1 – so as to suppress the stories and thereby prevent them from influencing the election. With respect to both payments, Cohen acted with the intent to influence the 2016 presidential election. Cohen coordinated his actions with one or more members of the campaign, including through meetings and phone calls, about the fact, nature, and timing of the payments. In particular, and as Cohen himself has now admitted, with respect to both payments, he acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1. As a result of Cohen's actions, neither woman spoke to the press prior to the election."

The memo says the "principal purpose" of an agreement with "Woman-1" was to "prevent [her] story from influencing the election."

"After the election, Cohen sought reimbursement for election-related expenses, including the $130,000 payment he had made to Woman-2."​