Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Kapture1]

Duncan Hunter had over a thousand overdraft fees. I am not sure why the bank didn't close his account. That has to be a record.

why on earth would they close it when they can continue to rack up overdraft fees? Banks love that shit.

[Ghengis Jon]

Kellyanne Conway's hubby trolls on twitter.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/24/politics/george-conway-trump-sessions-tweets/index.html

[Jeff Buchanan]

Senator John McCain will discontinue treatment he has been receiving for brain cancer (Glioblastoma Multiforma). Sad day for a great American.

My older brother went through this and ultimately passed after making a similar decision after about 4y of surviving this horrible cancer. My brother was 69 when he died. His wife went through a long process of dying with him because he was relatively young and healthy other than the brain cancer. McCain is 81 but he's a tough hombre. It won't be pretty. Death sucks.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sen-...ry?id=57379671

[Ghengis Jon]

John McCain takes control of his fate.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-mccain/republican-senator-mccain-to-stop-medical-treatment-for-brain-cancer-idUSKCN1L91NA

Thank you for your service, sir.

[Kapture1]

When there's nothing nice to say... i will keep my thoughts about McCain to myself.

[The Oracle]

Ohhhhhhh, we're all on pins and needles as to your thoughts on this!!!!

Hint, same as fuckboy in the WH. Amirite?!?!?!

[Dr. Strangelove]

So Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to a campaign violation that Kapture insists isn't actually a crime. David Pecker has accepted an immunity deal to testify about the same campaign violations which Kapture insists isn't a crime. The Enquirer's Editor, Dylan Howard, has accepted an immunity deal in exchange for testimony. And now the Trump Organization's CFO, Weisselberg, has accepted immunity. Why are all these guys accepting immunity deals if it's totally clear-cut there's no crime here? They shoulda hired Kapture instead of these overrated high-priced lawyers!!!

[froot loops]

We need a Geraldo sequel to his Al Capone vaults special, this time the subject will be David Pecker's safe.

[Da Geezer]

So Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to a campaign violation that Kapture insists isn't actually a crime. David Pecker has accepted an immunity deal to testify about the same campaign violations which Kapture insists isn't a crime. The Enquirer's Editor, Dylan Howard, has accepted an immunity deal in exchange for testimony. And now the Trump Organization's CFO, Weisselberg, has accepted immunity. Why are all these guys accepting immunity deals if it's totally clear-cut there's no crime here? They shoulda hired Kapture instead of these overrated high-priced lawyers!!!

Strange: Because Michael Cohen pleads guilty to something that may not be a crime does not make it a crime. Of course, any decent lawyer would not allow his client to plead to something so nebulous or inexact, particularly since he was reimbursed by the candidate. But Cohen's attorney is the consiglieri for the Clinton crime family, and it serves their purpose to create the talking point which you guys are debating. It appears that the prosecutor has a lay-down case against Cohen for bank fraud or violations of his taxi licenses. When the prosecutor sets the terms of a plea deal, why would Cohen say, "...no, I want to plead guilty to campaign finance violations and not for bank fraud..." He is looking to cut his time in jail from 20 years to 5 years, and he would be stupid to argue with the prosecutor about which crime to plead to.

Trump paying these women out of his personal funds is not a crime. He can donate as much of his own money to his campaign as he wants (see the John Edwards case). We know he donated 60M, so these payments are easily "covered" even if the money was taken from campaign funds. What may have been an illegal donation for Cohen to make is legal for Trump to make according to the Edwards decision.

And if there were a failure to report the donation, that is typically a $ 25,000 fine, not jail time.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Strange: Because Michael Cohen pleads guilty to something that may not be a crime does not make it a crime. Of course, any decent lawyer would not allow his client to plead to something so nebulous or inexact, particularly since he was reimbursed by the candidate. But Cohen's attorney is the consiglieri for the Clinton crime family, and it serves their purpose to create the talking point which you guys are debating. It appears that the prosecutor has a lay-down case against Cohen for bank fraud or violations of his taxi licenses. When the prosecutor sets the terms of a plea deal, why would Cohen say, "...no, I want to plead guilty to campaign finance violations and not for bank fraud..." He is looking to cut his time in jail from 20 years to 5 years, and he would be stupid to argue with the prosecutor about which crime to plead to.

Trump paying these women out of his personal funds is not a crime. He can donate as much of his own money to his campaign as he wants (see the John Edwards case). We know he donated 60M, so these payments are easily "covered" even if the money was taken from campaign funds. What may have been an illegal donation for Cohen to make is legal for Trump to make according to the Edwards decision.

And if there were a failure to report the donation, that is typically a $ 25,000 fine, not jail time.

Geezer-

Your version of events is as follows. The SDNY prosecutors are totally corrupt and decided to prosecute Cohen for non-existent crimes in order to get to Trump. Cohen then decided, under the advice of evil Clinton pawn Lanny Davis, to admit to those non-existent crimes in order to lighten his sentence.

This is fairy tale already but let's continue

Why would David Pecker's attorney advise him to accept an immunity deal if if was clear no crimes had been committed? Why would Dylan Howard's attorney advise him to take an immunity deal if it was clear no crimes had been committed? Why would Allen Weisselberg's attorney advise him to take an immunity deal and agree to cooperate if it was totally clear that no crimes had been committed?

What do Pecker, Howard, and Weisselberg all need immunity from? None were involved in Cohen's taxi business or tax evasion. You and Kapture insist it's clear cut that no campaign-related crimes took place. It would seem their attorneys do not agree it's quite so "clear-cut"

[Kstat]

When there's nothing nice to say... i will keep my thoughts about McCain to myself.

Trust me, everyone in this forum already knows what you're thinking. You brain has all the complexity of a paint-by-numbers coloring book.... one that's been left untouched for decades because you're triggered by anything that isn't white.

[millenwasmyfavorite]

When there's nothing nice to say... i will keep my thoughts about McCain to myself.

Damn. The Edgelord rests.

try to hide your raging civility boner while tipping your fedora and bowing with your katana.

[Kapture1]

So Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to a campaign violation that Kapture insists isn't actually a crime. David Pecker has accepted an immunity deal to testify about the same campaign violations which Kapture insists isn't a crime. The Enquirer's Editor, Dylan Howard, has accepted an immunity deal in exchange for testimony. And now the Trump Organization's CFO, Weisselberg, has accepted immunity. Why are all these guys accepting immunity deals if it's totally clear-cut there's no crime here? They shoulda hired Kapture instead of these overrated high-priced lawyers!!!

correct. Although, it isn't just me, The former head of the FEC, who helped write the regulations on this says it was a personal expenditure

Prosecutor needed the physical evidence of the money and paper trail. They go to the publisher, and to the CFO and say Mr Trump's former lawyer is testifying to breaking a campaign finance law, where you arranged payment for. we need your testimony and in turn we will grant you immunity. Give us the documents and proof of payment as you are now implicated in this "crime", and we will grant you immunity to prosecution. Pecker and the CFO aren't experts in campaign finance law.

So they do.


Or you can tell me where Bradley Smith is mistaken. I look forward to that very much.

[Kapture1]

Strange: Because Michael Cohen pleads guilty to something that may not be a crime does not make it a crime. Of course, any decent lawyer would not allow his client to plead to something so nebulous or inexact, particularly since he was reimbursed by the candidate. But Cohen's attorney is the consiglieri for the Clinton crime family, and it serves their purpose to create the talking point which you guys are debating. It appears that the prosecutor has a lay-down case against Cohen for bank fraud or violations of his taxi licenses. When the prosecutor sets the terms of a plea deal, why would Cohen say, "...no, I want to plead guilty to campaign finance violations and not for bank fraud..." He is looking to cut his time in jail from 20 years to 5 years, and he would be stupid to argue with the prosecutor about which crime to plead to.

Trump paying these women out of his personal funds is not a crime. He can donate as much of his own money to his campaign as he wants (see the John Edwards case). We know he donated 60M, so these payments are easily "covered" even if the money was taken from campaign funds. What may have been an illegal donation for Cohen to make is legal for Trump to make according to the Edwards decision.

And if there were a failure to report the donation, that is typically a $ 25,000 fine, not jail time.

correct.

and again, this is done for a specific reason. It allows the democrats to claim that Trump is an indicted co conspirator guilty by extension and implicated in those crimes WITHOUT EVER HAVING TO PROVE IT. Time to vote on impeachment.

They can and seem to be using the fact that Trump can not be indicted against him. Again, it's brilliant, as far as plot to overthrow a democratically elected President of the United States can be.

[Dr. Strangelove]

correct. Although, it isn't just me, The former head of the FEC, who helped write the regulations on this says it was a personal expenditure

Prosecutor needed the physical evidence of the money and paper trail. They go to the publisher, and to the CFO and say Mr Trump's former lawyer is testifying to breaking a campaign finance law, where you arranged payment for. we need your testimony and in turn we will grant you immunity. Give us the documents and proof of payment as you are now implicated in this "crime", and we will grant you immunity to prosecution. Pecker and the CFO aren't experts in campaign finance law.

So they do.


Or you can tell me where Bradley Smith is mistaken. I look forward to that very much.

Bradley Smith resigned from the FEC nearly 15 years ago when they asked him to begin regulating 527's. He's an ideologue who believes there should be virtually no regulation of campaign finance, so it's not surprising that he would think this is absolutely not a crime. The lawyers for Pecker, Howard, and Weisselberg clearly don't agree.

You can cite Bradley Smith as if he's the only authority on this all you want, and you were probably introduced to him through Mark Levin or some other obese conservative radio host, but I see one man pleaded guilty to a crime Smith says doesn't exist and 3 others took deals rather than risk being charged with the same "non-existent crime". So while Bradley Smith might be nice theory, we see what's happening in reality.