montgomery
Verified User
No, neither Trump or the GOP have survived each other, but the GOP will survive Trump. Is there any reason to ever expect anything more than your mewling shit comebacks?
Cohen’s pleas concocted by prosecutors to snare Trump
- Thread starter anatta
- Start date
No, neither Trump or the GOP have survived each other, but the GOP will survive Trump. Is there any reason to ever expect anything more than your mewling shit comebacks?
Adolf_Twitler
Verified User
You and Donald Trump are certainly allowed to have your own opinions about whatever you like!
But Mueller's job cannot just be based on his opinions. If he makes an accusation, it has to be based on facts.
Now what part of his investigation so far, that you know of, is not based on facts?
I don't even see how you are anyone else can make opinions on what you don't even know!
But, one thing we noticed here, is that you AND DONALD TRUMP are forming opinions that are not factually based!
Last edited:
I don't know. Is this related to campaign spending?
I've gone over this like 15 times. Once more.
Cohen lies about whatever the fuck. ( he lies so much) . Mueller gets him to plea guilty with the added narrative
"to effect the election results" in his charging document.
What is Cohen supposed to do? not plea guilty because of the added narrative? Of course not.
So Mueller puts in a bunch of stuff from a solely prosecutorial p.o.v. Cohen can't afford to contest the language .
what is reported? "Cohen pleas guilty to conspiracy to effect the election with Trump"
This despite the fact the obvious reason is to pay her off with hush money is just that -not some far reaching
"to effect the election". Which Mueller would never win in court.
Mueller is creating the political narrative by charging documents -not court cases
Yes.. Trump and Cohen created at least 3 shell companies for the sole purpose of moving money.
it was Cohens shell company -he used it much more then just for Stormy (FYI)
Essential Consultants
https://www.businessinsider.com/who-paid-michael-cohen-shell-company-2018-5
No, you are not following the discussion. I did not mention Trump or complain about anything. I just pointed out that it is common for candidates to pay penalties or return funds (when they used federal funding) following an election after a FEC audit.
Neither Trump or Hillary used federal funding because candidates can raise far more money than government funding and they do not have to abide by spending limits. Obama was the first presidential candidate to forego federal funding of the general election.
There were three of the shell companies.
They have to report campaign expenditures for any spending including their own money. The issue in this case is whether is whether the money was spent to influence the election.
Entering into an agreement as a private citizen with someone is not about campaign expenditures you willful idiot. Do you think that if you bloviate the same false stupid thing enough times it will make it look less false and stupid?
You can't read. I did not say Stormy would have influenced the election results or that the money was spent to influence the election. I said the legal issue was that if the money was spent to influence the election it had to be reported.
Everything does not have to be debated based on anti-Trump or pro-Trump terms. You cannot distinguish between facts and partisan rants.
You are extremely naive to believe an affair that occurred in 2006 but was not paid off until 2016 was not about the election. But Trump supporters are so dumb they will believe anything.
Getin the ring
Verified User
how about facts, you like facts
The actual campaign rules and context do NOT include Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) or infinite other contracts, payments, arrangements, acts of a private nature, etc. as campaign contributions. This is normal human behavior and was never intended to be regulated or reported. Southern District of New York (SDNY) is dead wrong. And these private payments can be made in any manner or any amount. Again, they’re private payments involving private matters. To underscore, there’s no reporting requirement because they’re not campaign payments made with or without campaign funds.
Mark Levin
Former staff member in the Regan Administration, and former Chief of Staff for Attorney General Edwin Meese
I have listened to Mark Levin. He is not exactly an unbiased source. The Southern District of New York has many staff attorneys who think otherwise.
However, read my posts. I did not say this had to be reported or violated any rules--I said that was the legal issue. Neither one of us knows enough about campaign finance law to know the answer. But, it is not strictly a private issue if it was used to influence an election.
You idiot; what do you think you are saying here?
I don't base anything on anti-Trump or pro-Trump. I debate the FACTS. You continue to fabricate a narrative that never existed. Unless, you're just too dumb to comprehend that is what you are doing.
You are extremely stupid to not comprehend that the ONLY reason it had ANYTHING to do with the election was the FACT that a prostitute thought she could blackmail Trump.
It is clear that the Southern District of New York has many staff attorneys who are partisan hacks and clueless about the law.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
you are starting to sound like kudzu.......let me know when you get to a relevant part........
How is that clear and what makes Levin correct? We know he is a partisan hack by just listening to his radio show.
All the rules and regulations are on the FEC website. Someone should be able to help us understand these rules by linking to the relevant provisions.
It was relevant back when you posted that a candidate does not have to report campaign spending.