When Hillary paid for the Steele Dossier and put it down as a "legal expense" her campaign was fined $100k

[Procrustes Stretched]

I read your link. It does not provide the information.

The link is a bullshit piece from...

The Best Of TIPP Insights - tippinsights

tippinsights provides gold standard polls, breaking news with international focus covering the economy, national security, technology, culture, and more.

tippinsights.com

inserted into the congressional record by some piece -of-shit, partisan hack on the GOP side of the isle.

TIPP polls and TechnoMetrica -- I know them. This was a poll -- a snapshot in time, put into the congressional record without any true context and ways to follow it up without getting caught up in traveling down wingnut rabbit holes.

And struth has no clue what they are doing. IT's not that smaht!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Yes her campaign, her campaign at her direction falsified business records to cover up illegal funds to a foreign national to interfere in our election

It was a vast conspiracy with others in the campaign and the dnc

The only vast conspiracy, was the one that went after the Clintons... The Arkansas Project was a big part of that early on.

The opposition research was normal every day shit ... and all campaigns engage in it. No on eat the DNC made the shit up. The connections to Steele were taken over from GOP rivals of Trump. It gets more complicated and convoluted, so I'll leave it there. And as for you -- you need to take a nap.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Yes her campaign, her campaign at her direction...

No one has claimed this in any filing, because it's not true.

next

 

[jc456]

Lie about the facts.

Go ahead.

what was the factual part of it? We've been waiting for seven years now.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

what was the factual part of it? We've been waiting for seven years now.

It's out there. You've just chosen to ignore it all of these years.

Trump Russia dossier key claim 'verified'​

Trump Russia dossier key claim 'verified'

The BBC has learned that US officials "verified" a key claim in a report about Russian involvement in Donald Trump's election.

www.bbc.com

Not all of the material in the dossier has been proven. But none has been disproven. As a raw intelligence document, the Steele dossier holds up well.

The Steele Dossier: A Retrospective

Not all of the material in the dossier has been proven. But none has been disproven. As a raw intelligence document, the Steele dossier holds up well.

www.lawfaremedia.org

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It's out there. You've just chosen to ignore it all of these years.

Trump Russia dossier key claim 'verified'​

Trump Russia dossier key claim 'verified'

The BBC has learned that US officials "verified" a key claim in a report about Russian involvement in Donald Trump's election.

www.bbc.com

Not all of the material in the dossier has been proven. But none has been disproven. As a raw intelligence document, the Steele dossier holds up well.

The Steele Dossier: A Retrospective

Not all of the material in the dossier has been proven. But none has been disproven. As a raw intelligence document, the Steele dossier holds up well.

www.lawfaremedia.org

Why the Discredited Dossier Does Not Undercut the Russia Investigation​

Donald J. Trump and his backers say revelations about the Steele dossier show the Russia investigation was a “hoax.” That is not what the facts indicate.

What was the Steele dossier?​

It was a series of memos about purported Trump-Russia links written by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence agent, during the 2016 campaign.

What was the Russia investigation?​

It was a counterintelligence and criminal inquiry into the Russian operation to manipulate the 2016 presidential election by hacking and anonymously dumping Democratic emails and by spreading propaganda using fake accounts on American social media platforms. The scrutiny of Russia’s activities included examining the nature of links between Trump campaign associates and Russians to see if there was any coordination.

Was the dossier a reliable source of information?​

No. It has become clear over time that its sourcing was thin and sketchy.

No corroborating evidence has emerged in intervening years to support many of the specific claims in the dossier, and government investigators determined that one key allegation — that Mr. Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, had met with Russian officials in Prague during the campaign — was false.

Did the F.B.I. open the investigation because of the dossier?​

No. Mr. Trump and his allies have insinuated that the F.B.I. based the Russia investigation on the dossier. But when counterintelligence agents launched the effort on July 30, 2016, they did not yet know about the dossier. An inspector general report established that Mr. Steele’s reports reached that counterintelligence team on Sept. 19, 2016.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What was the main impact of the dossier?​

Beyond its narrow role in facilitating the F.B.I.’s wiretap of Mr. Page, the dossier’s publication had the broader consequence of amplifying an atmosphere of suspicion about Mr. Trump.

Still, the dossier did not create this atmosphere of suspicion. Mr. Trump’s relationship with Russia had been a topic of significant discussion dating back to the campaign, including before the first report that Russia had hacked Democrats and before Mr. Steele drafted his reports and gave some to reporters.

Among the reasons: Mr. Trump had said flattering things about Russian President Vladimir V. Putin, kept bringing on advisers with ties to Russia, had financial ties to Russia, publicly encouraged Russia to hack Mrs. Clinton, and at his nominating convention, the party dropped a plank that called for arming Ukraine against Russian-backed rebels. In March 2017, the F.B.I. publicly acknowledged that it was investigating links between Russia and Trump campaign associates.

 

[bendog]

This is not the first topic about Hillary's fine since Trump was convicted.

Your propagandists have you by the rings in your noses.

I think if you go back as far as you like, you will find every presidential campaign ends up getting their pee-pees whacked by the FEC for violating this or that rule, INCLUDING THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.

Which has fuck-all to do with falsifying business records to cover up an illegal hush money payment to a hooker.

But you all knew that, right? Right?

Guess not.

I'm only posting this because our Canadian friend may honestly be confused.

Trump only ran afoul of the law when he paid back Cohen.

Cohen pled guilty to illegal campaign donations, which were illegal regardless of why he did it because the donations exceeded the legal max. However, before any crime was even alleged, Trump paid back Cohen. Up till then, the facts weren't totally unlike Edwards' facts, because Trump was playing the old card "I just paid the porn star/hooker so she wouldn't tell Melania."

But

The $130 K Stormy Daniels payoff: Was it campaign money?

Rudy Giuliani, politician and now lawyer to President Donald Trump, triggered an avalanche of commentary with his revela

www.politifact.com

"But Hasen said Giuliani’s reference to the impact of the Daniels story, if it had come during a debate with Hillary Clinton, muddied the legal waters.

"If what Giuliani says is true, and if the payments were made to help the campaign and not (just) to help Trump personally, the campaign may be implicated in illegal activity," he said. "If Trump knew that Cohen was advancing him a $130,000 loan for campaign purposes, that would have to be reported by the campaign."
-----
So it is irrelevant to how Trump classified the Cohen reimbursement. He could call it legal fees or payments to keep hooker quiet. Hillary's campaign paid a fine for labeling getting opposition dirt are legal fees. I always thought that was what lawyers were for. But she got fined and she paid up. BUT SHE PAID THE LEGAL FEES FROM CAMPAIGN FUNDS. THAT'S NEVER BEEN A QUESTION.

Trump tried to hide the fact that he used campaign funds. He tried to say the payoffs were not to influence the election. He might have got away with it .... but his own lawyer and phone calls dispelled that.

And if Trump hadn't made locking up Hillary a centerpiece of his campaign, I'd say this whole thing is bs. And if not for Jan 6, I might vote for Trump ... given the progs and Biden

 

[struth]

No one has claimed this in any filing, because it's not true.

next

what the F are you talking about? Yes, her campaign, the law firm and the DNC were all fined by the FEC for laundering money to a foreign nation to interfere in our election.

 

[jc456]

It's out there. You've just chosen to ignore it all of these years.

Trump Russia dossier key claim 'verified'​

Trump Russia dossier key claim 'verified'

The BBC has learned that US officials "verified" a key claim in a report about Russian involvement in Donald Trump's election.

www.bbc.com

Not all of the material in the dossier has been proven. But none has been disproven. As a raw intelligence document, the Steele dossier holds up well.

The Steele Dossier: A Retrospective

Not all of the material in the dossier has been proven. But none has been disproven. As a raw intelligence document, the Steele dossier holds up well.

www.lawfaremedia.org

you must have missed that mueller report thingy

 

[jc456]

what the F are you talking about? Yes, her campaign, the law firm and the DNC were all fined by the FEC for laundering money to a foreign nation to interfere in our election.

well see, he's a demofk and he thinks all he has to do is say nope, and that's the end of it.

 

[jc456]

Why the Discredited Dossier Does Not Undercut the Russia Investigation​

Donald J. Trump and his backers say revelations about the Steele dossier show the Russia investigation was a “hoax.” That is not what the facts indicate.

What was the Steele dossier?​

It was a series of memos about purported Trump-Russia links written by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence agent, during the 2016 campaign.

What was the Russia investigation?​

It was a counterintelligence and criminal inquiry into the Russian operation to manipulate the 2016 presidential election by hacking and anonymously dumping Democratic emails and by spreading propaganda using fake accounts on American social media platforms. The scrutiny of Russia’s activities included examining the nature of links between Trump campaign associates and Russians to see if there was any coordination.

Was the dossier a reliable source of information?​

No. It has become clear over time that its sourcing was thin and sketchy.

No corroborating evidence has emerged in intervening years to support many of the specific claims in the dossier, and government investigators determined that one key allegation — that Mr. Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, had met with Russian officials in Prague during the campaign — was false.

Did the F.B.I. open the investigation because of the dossier?​

No. Mr. Trump and his allies have insinuated that the F.B.I. based the Russia investigation on the dossier. But when counterintelligence agents launched the effort on July 30, 2016, they did not yet know about the dossier. An inspector general report established that Mr. Steele’s reports reached that counterintelligence team on Sept. 19, 2016.

dude, you better go tell robert mueller. You go tell him, you the internet guy says it was fact and he must change his findings. Go now and tell him!!!!

 

[bendog]

what the F are you talking about? Yes, her campaign, the law firm and the DNC were all fined by the FEC for laundering money to a foreign nation to interfere in our election.

There was nothing illegal with Hillary's campaign paying someone for dirt on Donald. What was illegal, according to the FEC, was "accounting" for the payment under legal expenses.

Trump would not have violated campaign finance laws if he'd simply have paid the money from his campaign coffers, and legally disclosed it, rather than trying to hide it, and then claiming he was only protecting Melania from embarrassment.

 

[scruffy]

Trump was convicted under SECTION 175.10 of the New York Penal Law

NYS Open Legislation | NYSenate.gov

www.nysenate.gov

"Falsifying business records in the first degree"

Everything else is irrelevant. He falsified business records.

Did Hillary falsify business records?

Hell yes.

 

[scruffy]

This is not the first topic about Hillary's fine since Trump was convicted.

Your propagandists have you by the rings in your noses.

I think if you go back as far as you like, you will find every presidential campaign ends up getting their pee-pees whacked by the FEC for violating this or that rule, INCLUDING THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.

Which has fuck-all to do with falsifying business records to cover up an illegal hush money payment to a hooker.

But you all knew that, right? Right?

Guess not.

No one cares about Trump's sex life.

No one but retarded libtards.

 

[bendog]

No one cares about Trump's sex life.

No one but retarded libtards.

Then why'd Dump lie about it? LOL

 

[scruffy]

It's out there. You've just chosen to ignore it all of these years.

Trump Russia dossier key claim 'verified'​

Trump Russia dossier key claim 'verified'

The BBC has learned that US officials "verified" a key claim in a report about Russian involvement in Donald Trump's election.

www.bbc.com

Not all of the material in the dossier has been proven. But none has been disproven. As a raw intelligence document, the Steele dossier holds up well.

The Steele Dossier: A Retrospective

Not all of the material in the dossier has been proven. But none has been disproven. As a raw intelligence document, the Steele dossier holds up well.

www.lawfaremedia.org

Horseshit.

 

[jc456]

There was nothing illegal with Hillary's campaign paying someone for dirt on Donald. What was illegal, according to the FEC, was "accounting" for the payment under legal expenses.

Trump would not have violated campaign finance laws if he'd simply have paid the money from his campaign coffers, and legally disclosed it, rather than trying to hide it, and then claiming he was only protecting Melania from embarrassment.

you realize there is no difference, right? explain how they're different?

 

[Lesh]

No intent to defraud, why doesn’t anyone address this?

Trump likely doesn’t make entries into the business ledgers, he has accountants do that.
Show me where Trump personally entered the false business record. Again, he probably has an accounting firm.

The jury was satisfied that there was evidence it was done at his direction

Guilty

 

[struth]

There was nothing illegal with Hillary's campaign paying someone for dirt on Donald. What was illegal, according to the FEC, was "accounting" for the payment under legal expenses.

Trump would not have violated campaign finance laws if he'd simply have paid the money from his campaign coffers, and legally disclosed it, rather than trying to hide it, and then claiming he was only protecting Melania from embarrassment.

Yes it was illegal for her to hire a foreign national, and illegal for her to try to launder that money through a law firm

Hence why she, the dnc and their lawyers all were found to have violated campaign fin laws