Trump has now been implicated in a federal crime

[Faun]

It would seem that the reason for the payments is important.

Cohen’s reason was to influence the election.

President Trump’s reason could have been strictly personal.

They don’t have to have the same reason.

This also seems like something the President could make go away by simply repaying the money to those who coughed up the money.

Reimbursement effectively means he made the payments himself.

Whatever the specific truth is, it’s all just bullshit nonsense by the sore loser left.

How the hell can hush money to mistresses influence an election when everyone already knew he was an adulterer?

With the election just days out, a porn star telling everyone he had sex with her while his newlywed wife was at home taking care of their newborn would have been explosive and certainly would have cost him votes. Maybe you’re scum who would vote for such a piece of shit of a husband, but many are not.

 

[Faun]

It would seem that the reason for the payments is important.

Cohen’s reason was to influence the election.

President Trump’s reason could have been strictly personal.

They don’t have to have the same reason.

This also seems like something the President could make go away by simply repaying the money to those who coughed up the money.

Reimbursement effectively means he made the payments himself.

Whatever the specific truth is, it’s all just bullshit nonsense by the sore loser left.

How the hell can hush money to mistresses influence an election when everyone already knew he was an adulterer?

You can't make influencing an election go away after the election is over with reimbursements. Lol! How stupid is that? He influenced the election by hiding the affair through hush money that wasn't his.

Hiding an affair isn’t influencing an election. We already knew that he’s an adulterer and it’s none of your damn business anyway.

The public doesn’t have an inherent right to know what someone does in his or her personal life, especially if laws aren’t being broken.

The only thing that matters in this case is intent.

We know what Cohen’s intent was.

It will be next to impossible to prove 2 President Trump’s intention was anything other than personal.

If trump’s intent was to hide the affair from his wife, why didn’t he pay Stormy to remain silent in 2011 when she went public with her story?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You left out an important part, moron.

Endorsing a candidate to the general public
A corporation or labor organization may endorse a candidate and may communicate the endorsement to the general public. The corporation or labor organization may communicate with candidates for the purpose of deciding which, if any, candidate to endorse. For example, the corporation or labor organization may discuss issues with the candidate in determining whether or not to make an endorsement. However, the corporation or labor organization may not coordinate the announcement of its public endorsement with any candidate, candidate committee or its agents without the endorsement resulting in a contribution or expenditure.

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. (Disbursements are considered de minimis if the press release and notice of press conference are distributed only to the organization’s usual media contacts when issuing non-political press releases or holding press conferences for other purposes.)

Sanders isn't a corporation or a labor organization.

He’s a member of one ... the DNC. Members of the DNC can certainly endorse fellow members without violating campaign finance laws.

Members of the DNC can certainly endorse fellow members without violating campaign finance laws.

You're the one who said a benefit to a campaign is a contribution.
She received a benefit, arguably one worth millions.

And I showed you where the FEC exempts endorsements. Time for you to realize you made up a stupid excuse in lieu of sound reasoning, lick your wounds and move on.

And I showed you where the FEC exempts endorsements.

Unions and corporations. You didn't show individual endorsements are exempt.
And if a benefit is exempt that means your previous claim, "a benefit is a reportable contribution"
was wrong.

Of course I did. Your denial is a lie. Bernie was a member of the DNC, which can endorse its own candidates. If the parties can’t enforce their own candidates without reporting that as campaign contributions to the FEC, as you idiotically claim, then show where trump reported his contributions from such party endorsements.....

Bernie was a member of the DNC, which can endorse its own candidates.

You bet. He can give Hillary's campaign a huge benefit.
Why didn't she report that on her FEC documents?

 

[Faun]

He’s a member of one ... the DNC. Members of the DNC can certainly endorse fellow members without violating campaign finance laws.

Members of the DNC can certainly endorse fellow members without violating campaign finance laws.

You're the one who said a benefit to a campaign is a contribution.
She received a benefit, arguably one worth millions.

And I showed you where the FEC exempts endorsements. Time for you to realize you made up a stupid excuse in lieu of sound reasoning, lick your wounds and move on.

And I showed you where the FEC exempts endorsements.

Unions and corporations. You didn't show individual endorsements are exempt.
And if a benefit is exempt that means your previous claim, "a benefit is a reportable contribution"
was wrong.

Of course I did. Your denial is a lie. Bernie was a member of the DNC, which can endorse its own candidates. If the parties can’t enforce their own candidates without reporting that as campaign contributions to the FEC, as you idiotically claim, then show where trump reported his contributions from such party endorsements.....

Bernie was a member of the DNC, which can endorse its own candidates.

You bet. He can give Hillary's campaign a huge benefit.
Why didn't she report that on her FEC documents?

Because the party can endorse its own caywithout being reported as a contribution. I note you failed to show trump reported his endorsements, which you claim should have been reported.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Members of the DNC can certainly endorse fellow members without violating campaign finance laws.

You're the one who said a benefit to a campaign is a contribution.
She received a benefit, arguably one worth millions.

And I showed you where the FEC exempts endorsements. Time for you to realize you made up a stupid excuse in lieu of sound reasoning, lick your wounds and move on.

And I showed you where the FEC exempts endorsements.

Unions and corporations. You didn't show individual endorsements are exempt.
And if a benefit is exempt that means your previous claim, "a benefit is a reportable contribution"
was wrong.

Of course I did. Your denial is a lie. Bernie was a member of the DNC, which can endorse its own candidates. If the parties can’t enforce their own candidates without reporting that as campaign contributions to the FEC, as you idiotically claim, then show where trump reported his contributions from such party endorsements.....

Bernie was a member of the DNC, which can endorse its own candidates.

You bet. He can give Hillary's campaign a huge benefit.
Why didn't she report that on her FEC documents?

Because the party can endorse its own caywithout being reported as a contribution. I note you failed to show trump reported his endorsements, which you claim should have been reported.

Because the party can endorse its own caywithout being reported as a contribution

But you said a benefit to the campaign is a contribution. Any benefit. You were wrong.

I note you failed to show trump reported his endorsements,

If I had made the claim you did, I'd have been all over the failure to report.

 

[Faun]

And I showed you where the FEC exempts endorsements. Time for you to realize you made up a stupid excuse in lieu of sound reasoning, lick your wounds and move on.

And I showed you where the FEC exempts endorsements.

Unions and corporations. You didn't show individual endorsements are exempt.
And if a benefit is exempt that means your previous claim, "a benefit is a reportable contribution"
was wrong.

Of course I did. Your denial is a lie. Bernie was a member of the DNC, which can endorse its own candidates. If the parties can’t enforce their own candidates without reporting that as campaign contributions to the FEC, as you idiotically claim, then show where trump reported his contributions from such party endorsements.....

Bernie was a member of the DNC, which can endorse its own candidates.

You bet. He can give Hillary's campaign a huge benefit.
Why didn't she report that on her FEC documents?

Because the party can endorse its own caywithout being reported as a contribution. I note you failed to show trump reported his endorsements, which you claim should have been reported.

Because the party can endorse its own caywithout being reported as a contribution

But you said a benefit to the campaign is a contribution. Any benefit. You were wrong.

I note you failed to show trump reported his endorsements,

If I had made the claim you did, I'd have been all over the failure to report.

And I gave you an exemption to what has to be reported. It’s not my fault it bothers you so. And I take it your refusal to show trump reported such endorsements because he didn’t. Which means according to your nonsense, that’s yet another example of trump breaking the law.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And I showed you where the FEC exempts endorsements.

Unions and corporations. You didn't show individual endorsements are exempt.
And if a benefit is exempt that means your previous claim, "a benefit is a reportable contribution"
was wrong.

Of course I did. Your denial is a lie. Bernie was a member of the DNC, which can endorse its own candidates. If the parties can’t enforce their own candidates without reporting that as campaign contributions to the FEC, as you idiotically claim, then show where trump reported his contributions from such party endorsements.....

Bernie was a member of the DNC, which can endorse its own candidates.

You bet. He can give Hillary's campaign a huge benefit.
Why didn't she report that on her FEC documents?

Because the party can endorse its own caywithout being reported as a contribution. I note you failed to show trump reported his endorsements, which you claim should have been reported.

Because the party can endorse its own caywithout being reported as a contribution

But you said a benefit to the campaign is a contribution. Any benefit. You were wrong.

I note you failed to show trump reported his endorsements,

If I had made the claim you did, I'd have been all over the failure to report.

And I gave you an exemption to what has to be reported. It’s not my fault it bothers you so. And I take it your refusal to show trump reported such endorsements because he didn’t. Which means according to your nonsense, that’s yet another example of trump breaking the law.

And I gave you an exemption to what has to be reported.

So not every benefit needs to be reported?
Excellent!
You have a link that shows Trump's payoff benefit needs to be reported?

 

[hunarcy]

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."​

Where is the word TRUMP in that paragraph you quoted?

Snicker.

by the way I am Independent, you assumed wrong.

I said “conservative,” not Republican.

And dumbfuck, trump is referred to as “Individual-1” in that document.

Which leads to one of only two possibilities here.

Either 1), you’re as dumb as can be to not know Individual-1 is trump. Shit, even searching your conservative treehouse link for “trump” turns up, “Individual-1” is Trump; or 2)

You’re so dumb, you thought you could dishonestly fool the forum into believing trump isn’t mentioned at all in that document.

Either way, it doesn’t bode well for you.

Wow, you are a nasty person, which means a leftist democrat is what you are.

I didn't realize the word Trump is spelled Individual-1, what grade school did you graduate from?

Meanwhile you have NOT once showed that the MEMO claims Trump did anything illegal, how come that reality zooms over your head?

It looms over your head because you do not understand the difference between legal and illegal. Do you think it is legal to pay a porn star with stolen money to keep her quiet, so you can get elected?

"stolen money"? You are caught up in a fantasy.

 

[EverCurious]

Who remembers Trump's lawyer saying "He's paid off 100s of women" ??

Bonus points to anyone who can figure out what that actually means in relation to this "hopes and dreams" thread...

 

[RealDave]

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.

There’s no evidence Clinton paid them for it. So there’s no monetary value.

There’s no evidence Clinton paid them for it.

A bunch of positive stories in the New York Times....no monetary value?

You can't be serious.

So, if I write a LTE favoring a candidate, the value must be calculated & counted an that candidate's campaign expense ? Really. You are that fucking stupid?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

There’s no evidence Clinton paid them for it. So there’s no monetary value.

There’s no evidence Clinton paid them for it.

A bunch of positive stories in the New York Times....no monetary value?

You can't be serious.

So, if I write a LTE favoring a candidate, the value must be calculated & counted an that candidate's campaign expense ? Really. You are that fucking stupid?

So, if I write a LTE favoring a candidate, the value must be calculated & counted an that candidate's campaign expense ?

According to Faun, benefits to a campaign have to be reported.
Was he lying or just stupid?

 

[joaquinmiller]

At some point you fools need to read the writing on the wall. There is no crime and Trump is going to be president for a long time. You need to come to terms with this.

Fool, Have you read the OP?

Your Trumpenfuhrer has been found to have committed crimes.

Are you OK w/a criminal President?

No he has not. The SDNY threatened a man with 65 years in prison if he didn't say that. Are you ok with a fascist prosecutor?

Judge Scolds Mueller: You're Just Using Manafort to Impeach Trump

A federal judge challenged special counsel Robert Mueller's prosecution of Paul Manafort, scolding prosecutors Friday for squeezing the former campaign manager to get information that would help impeach President Donald Trump.

"The vernacular is, 'to sing,'" Judge T.S. Ellis III, a Ronald Reagan appointee, told prosecutors in the Alexandria, Virginia, courtroom.

Ellis was hearing motion-to-dismiss arguments in the Virginia case, in which Mueller’s team has charged Manafort with filing false income tax returns, failing to report foreign bank accounts and bank fraud. The charges relate to work he did for the government of Ukraine.

"You don't really care about Mr. Manafort's bank fraud," Ellis said during the hearing. "You really care about getting information Mr. Manafort can give you that would reflect on Mr. Trump and lead to his prosecution or impeachment."
Ellis didn't rule on the motion, saying he wants to see unredacted versions of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's orders assigning special counsel before he can issue a ruling. Ellis gave prosecutors two weeks to provide.




Judge Ellis nailed what it's about in the Manifort case................Right on the money.

That was in May. After the Judge did his grandstanding from the bench, and after seeing the unredacted versions of Rosenstein's Order, he ruled in favor of the Special Counsel's investigation.

 

[Dana7360]

Drumpf claimed he never knew about the payment. You are being led by a liar and carnival barker

And Bill Clinton said he never had sex with Monica...to attempt to save his marriage...I didn't hear you bellyaching back then....its his personal life...remember?....Trump wasn't even president when he met Stormy...but slick boy was when he shoved a cigar up Monica...

Clinton didn't break campaign contributions laws by bribing her to stay quiet.

There's a big difference here. Clinton having oral sex with Monica wasn't a crime.

trump bribing two women to stay quiet about sex is a crime. It's an illegal campaign contribution. He didn't declare it and it's above the legal amount allowed to contribute. Then he lied about the whole thing because he knew what he did was a crime.

The republicans impeached Clinton for his lie and you cheered them on pretending to be so shocked about the whole thing.

So this isn't the same thing. What trump did was much worse. It's pathetic that every time trump has been exposed as committing crimes you people lie and claim that either Clinton or Obama did it too. Which they didn't and pointing fingers of blame doesn't absolve trump from any of the many crimes he committed.

Since Clinton was impeached for lies about oral sex, you're a hypocrite to not want trump impeached for violating campaign and bribery laws. Yet you use that lie about oral sex to justify trump's crimes and not impose the same consequences on trump as you demanded on Clinton.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Drumpf claimed he never knew about the payment. You are being led by a liar and carnival barker

And Bill Clinton said he never had sex with Monica...to attempt to save his marriage...I didn't hear you bellyaching back then....its his personal life...remember?....Trump wasn't even president when he met Stormy...but slick boy was when he shoved a cigar up Monica...

Clinton didn't break campaign contributions laws by bribing her to stay quiet.

There's a big difference here. Clinton having oral sex with Monica wasn't a crime.

trump bribing two women to stay quiet about sex is a crime. It's an illegal campaign contribution. He didn't declare it and it's above the legal amount allowed to contribute. Then he lied about the whole thing because he knew what he did was a crime.

The republicans impeached Clinton for his lie and you cheered them on pretending to be so shocked about the whole thing.

So this isn't the same thing. What trump did was much worse. It's pathetic that every time trump has been exposed as committing crimes you people lie and claim that either Clinton or Obama did it too. Which they didn't and pointing fingers of blame doesn't absolve trump from any of the many crimes he committed.

Since Clinton was impeached for lies about oral sex, you're a hypocrite to not want trump impeached for violating campaign and bribery laws. Yet you use that lie about oral sex to justify trump's crimes and not impose the same consequences on trump as you demanded on Clinton.

trump bribing two women to stay quiet about sex is a crime.

You're lying.

It's an illegal campaign contribution.

No it isn't.

 

[Dana7360]

View attachment 233409

Give it time

Mueller hasn’t released his report yet
When he does, Trump won’t have a Republican House to cover for him

Exactly.

The republicans who control the house right now came out last summer saying that they probably won't allow Mueller's report to be released to the public. Since they control the House and Senate they claimed they would classify it so that the public couldn't see it.

That's gone now. That report will be released in it's entirety and there's absolutely no way republicans can stop it.

I'm looking forward to their screams of CLINTON! OBAMA! And finger pointing to justify the many serious crimes trump has committed.

Clinton was impeached. Will they demand the same consequences they demanded on Clinton be imposed on trump?

 

[Cosmos]

Drumpf claimed he never knew about the payment. You are being led by a liar and carnival barker

And Bill Clinton said he never had sex with Monica...to attempt to save his marriage...I didn't hear you bellyaching back then....its his personal life...remember?....Trump wasn't even president when he met Stormy...but slick boy was when he shoved a cigar up Monica...

Clinton didn't break campaign contributions laws by bribing her to stay quiet.

There's a big difference here. Clinton having oral sex with Monica wasn't a crime.

trump bribing two women to stay quiet about sex is a crime. It's an illegal campaign contribution. He didn't declare it and it's above the legal amount allowed to contribute. Then he lied about the whole thing because he knew what he did was a crime.

The republicans impeached Clinton for his lie and you cheered them on pretending to be so shocked about the whole thing.

So this isn't the same thing. What trump did was much worse. It's pathetic that every time trump has been exposed as committing crimes you people lie and claim that either Clinton or Obama did it too. Which they didn't and pointing fingers of blame doesn't absolve trump from any of the many crimes he committed.

Since Clinton was impeached for lies about oral sex, you're a hypocrite to not want trump impeached for violating campaign and bribery laws. Yet you use that lie about oral sex to justify trump's crimes and not impose the same consequences on trump as you demanded on Clinton.

trump bribing two women to stay quiet about sex is a crime.

You're lying.

It's an illegal campaign contribution.

No it isn't.

A woman threatening a man with revealing private information about him to the public unless he pays her a large sum of money is a crime. It's called extortion. That is the crime that should be investigated here.

 

[BigTruck]

It would seem that the reason for the payments is important.

Cohen’s reason was to influence the election.

President Trump’s reason could have been strictly personal.

They don’t have to have the same reason.

This also seems like something the President could make go away by simply repaying the money to those who coughed up the money.

Reimbursement effectively means he made the payments himself.

Whatever the specific truth is, it’s all just bullshit nonsense by the sore loser left.

How the hell can hush money to mistresses influence an election when everyone already knew he was an adulterer?

With the election just days out, a porn star telling everyone he had sex with her while his newlywed wife was at home taking care of their newborn would have been explosive and certainly would have cost him votes. Maybe you’re scum who would vote for such a piece of shit of a husband, but many are not.

The only scum are those who vote for Democrats.

How many Democrats refused to vote for Billy?

I bet that number is far fewer than the number of Republicans who refused to vote for President Trump.

 

[beautress]

It would seem that the reason for the payments is important.

Cohen’s reason was to influence the election.

President Trump’s reason could have been strictly personal.

They don’t have to have the same reason.

This also seems like something the President could make go away by simply repaying the money to those who coughed up the money.

Reimbursement effectively means he made the payments himself.

Whatever the specific truth is, it’s all just bullshit nonsense by the sore loser left.

How the hell can hush money to mistresses influence an election when everyone already knew he was an adulterer?

With the election just days out, a porn star telling everyone he had sex with her while his newlywed wife was at home taking care of their newborn would have been explosive and certainly would have cost him votes. Maybe you’re scum who would vote for such a piece of shit of a husband, but many are not.

What you have outlined in a series of posts is starting to smell like attempted entrapment of a political candidate by its worst element--a planning committee to assassinate the character of a human being who is fighting them back. And your wannabe victim is fighting back like a man should when facing the pack of wolves your party's planning committee has, since it does not seem to regard having a stronger agenda than benefiting approximately 13% of the people, and shunning the rest. Why, that's the reason the USA decided to declare its independence from a heartless kingpin who wanted to collect taxes from a helpless group of people thousands of miles away from him whom he felt owed him an undeserved living. And he did things just as mean as your little get 'em committee did before the cannons started coughing out death to dissenters.

 

[joaquinmiller]

Drumpf claimed he never knew about the payment. You are being led by a liar and carnival barker

And Bill Clinton said he never had sex with Monica...to attempt to save his marriage...I didn't hear you bellyaching back then....its his personal life...remember?....Trump wasn't even president when he met Stormy...but slick boy was when he shoved a cigar up Monica...

Clinton didn't break campaign contributions laws by bribing her to stay quiet.

There's a big difference here. Clinton having oral sex with Monica wasn't a crime.

trump bribing two women to stay quiet about sex is a crime. It's an illegal campaign contribution. He didn't declare it and it's above the legal amount allowed to contribute. Then he lied about the whole thing because he knew what he did was a crime.

The republicans impeached Clinton for his lie and you cheered them on pretending to be so shocked about the whole thing.

So this isn't the same thing. What trump did was much worse. It's pathetic that every time trump has been exposed as committing crimes you people lie and claim that either Clinton or Obama did it too. Which they didn't and pointing fingers of blame doesn't absolve trump from any of the many crimes he committed.

Since Clinton was impeached for lies about oral sex, you're a hypocrite to not want trump impeached for violating campaign and bribery laws. Yet you use that lie about oral sex to justify trump's crimes and not impose the same consequences on trump as you demanded on Clinton.

trump bribing two women to stay quiet about sex is a crime.

You're lying.

It's an illegal campaign contribution.

No it isn't.

A woman threatening a man with revealing private information about him to the public unless he pays her a large sum of money is a crime. It's called extortion. That is the crime that should be investigated here.

It's a shame the victim wasn't a Law 'n Order candidate. He would've hustled right down to the Police Station and filed charges.

 

[beautress]

It would seem that the reason for the payments is important.

Cohen’s reason was to influence the election.

President Trump’s reason could have been strictly personal.

They don’t have to have the same reason.

This also seems like something the President could make go away by simply repaying the money to those who coughed up the money.

Reimbursement effectively means he made the payments himself.

Whatever the specific truth is, it’s all just bullshit nonsense by the sore loser left.

How the hell can hush money to mistresses influence an election when everyone already knew he was an adulterer?

With the election just days out, a porn star telling everyone he had sex with her while his newlywed wife was at home taking care of their newborn would have been explosive and certainly would have cost him votes. Maybe you’re scum who would vote for such a piece of shit of a husband, but many are not.

quote: Maybe you’re scum who would vote for such a piece of shit of a husband, but many are not.

What a laugh. If you voted for either Bill or Hill, are you defining yourself as 'scum'? Oh, never mind, introspection is not your forte.