ExpressLane
Verified User
Correct Lewinsky just walked away with a stained dress and a bad taste in her mouth.
Monica Lewinsky Asks Bill Clinton....
- Thread starter Libhater
- Start date
If the F.E.C. thought there was enough evidence to convict, they would have indicted him, Walter.
Poor Walter.
ExpressLane
Verified User
Yeah they just brought up that Clinton lied about the affair under oath and the fact that Clinton encouraged her to commit perjury. Sum bag.
ExpressLane
Verified User
Poor Walter. I find it amusing he wants others to provide proof when he very rarely does.
ExpressLane
Verified User
Yep they are require to prosecute election crimes.
Which is not illegal. So you admit the whole thread about Clinton hush money is nonsense?
It was completely legal for trump to have sex with porn stars. It is questionably legal for trump to have sex with foreign models who had limited rights to say no. It is definitely illegal for trump to have sex with minors.
Big jump from having enough evidence to convict, and being completely legal.
The trial determines if the defendant is guilty or not guilty. The person was indicted for a crime (ex: murder). But he might not have been guilty of committing that crime. He can't be indicted (or tried) for something that is not a crime.
I didn't say it was or was not completely legal, Walter.
I said "if the F.E.C. thought there was enough evidence to convict, they would have indicted him," Walter.
Did you catch the 69 cents, Walter, a bit of “(!)" or (~) better known as sarcasm...Walter.
To be accurate, it was 1/2 of 69. The sexual predator, old Bill only provided 1/2 of the 69...34.5. (~).
Last edited:
Actually, you did. Express said the FEC says what trump did was legal. Jarod said they did not. You said that saying they did not is a lie.
Do they not have enough evidence, or just not enough members of the FEC to progress with confidence. Whatever it is, they definitely do not have the confidence to progress. New York State does have the confidence, and the legal jurisdiction to progress.
It is ironic that you do not know what sarcasm means.
For 90% of convictions there is no trial. The person pleads guilty.
ExpressLane
Verified User
And your evidence is??????
ExpressLane
Verified User
And your point is????
Walter, "Whatever it is, they definitely do not have the confidence to progress."
This would have sufficed.
If the F.E.C thought it was illegal, they would have prosecuted him.
You still do not understand sarcasm, do you? $810,000.69.
Last edited:
The FEC deals with federal campaign finance violations. Cohen was convicted by federal prosecutors (DOJ)
The current trial is a state case dealing with falsifying NY business records in order to conceal damaging information that might influence the 2016 election.
That is not true. For most of the period the FEC lacked a quorum, so could not act. It now can act, but with a 50/50 split. And even if they all were willing to consider prosecuting him, they need to believe they have a case that will be successful, not that he is not illegal.
It continues to be ironic that you think a double entendre is sarcasm. You lack of education is really showing here.
I was clarifying my answer to your post "So we don't need trials if a person is indicted by the grand jury?"
We do need a trial for an indicted person to determine his guilt; but, in practice, most plead guilty so no trial is necessary.
ExpressLane
Verified User
Not really. If there is no evidence there is no indictment and no crime. AGAIN the Chairman of the FEC for 6 years and Law Professor on election laws Bradley Smith says what Trump did is not a crime. If the expense has a legitimate non election reason and an election reason too it not considered to be an election expense. Trump would have gladly paid 130K to have his wife , kids and the public not know about Stormy Daniels. So this expense very clearly is not an FEC violation.
I think Trump will likely get convicted in a NYC court but will eventually win on appeal. I don't think the Judge wanted it televised so the leftwing Media could filter the trial to fit their narrative. If the public got to watch the trial they could make up their own minds and we can't have that.
Um...Walter..."You lack of education is really showing here."
Sarcasm is the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.