Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Ghengis Jon]

. dog.jpg

[Kapture1]

They took immunity/cooperation deals almost certainly in exchange for not being charged with the same campaign finance crimes to which Cohen pleaded guilty. Which is why I say what Bradley Smith thinks is pretty immaterial; four different individuals and their lawyers felt the crimes were real enough to cut deals.

As to the latter part of your post, it's been alleged on this board that what even Cohen did is no crime. Essentially he made an illegal contribution to the campaign (all intent was to influence the election as he admitted) with the full cooperation and assistance of the National Enquirer guys and was reimbursed by Trump Org execs who paid him $420,000 for 'services rendered'. I assume there is evidence suggesting they fully understood what they were reimbursing Cohen for.

Irrespective test.

apparently the National Inquirer has a safe full of info on people Trump has paid off throughout the years. Which is the pattern evidence that Trump has to prove the NDAs would be paid for without a run at president. So what Bradley Smith said has everything to do with this.

mentioned before that there are several things that soley influence an election that do not fall under campaign expenses, like a 5,000 suit and a Rolex watch for example. Use campaign funds on a 15,000 watch for your image to influence the election and you end up where Duncan Hunter is.

use campaign funds for hush money, you would be prosecuted for using campaign money for personal expenditure. I mean look at the congressional sexual slush fund and payments made for NDAs of former staffers, think those influence elections??

[WingsFan]

There are 4 college football games today:

(all times central)

Duquesne at UMass 4:30pm
Prairie View at Rice 6pm ESPN+
Hawaii at Colorado State 6:30pm CBS-SN
Wyoming at New Mexico State 9pm ESPN2

My Lame Life (Not as bad as The Wizards though) And yes, Im participating in this with my twitter friends - (besides hack)


Dldir8LW4AIWDJU.jpg:large.jpg

[Dr. Strangelove]

Kapture & Geezer

Please pay attention to this article. It directly attacks the Mark Levin/Bradley Smith argument that Cohen commited no campaign finance crimes

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-michael-cohen-crimes-not-crimes-talking-point-2018-8

In fact, the article quotes ANOTHER former FEC Chairman, named Trevor Potter, who says that what Cohen did broke the law. So explain to me why I should care more about what former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith thinks and should totally disregard what Trevor Potter says.

Trevor Potter, president of the Campaign Legal Center and a Republican former chairman of the FEC, wrote in The Washington Post

I would also repeat that if I believe you two and Mark Levin are to be believed, a group of Federal Prosecutors would have had to accept guilty pleas to crimes that were simply fabricated and not only that, a Federal Judge approved the deal as well.

So it's the word of an obese, nasally, hysterical talk show host and one former FEC chairman against the word of another former FEC Chairman, a US attorney, a team of Federal Prosecutors, a Federal Judge, and a group of defense attorneys.

Sometimes people just believe what they WANT to believe and have nothing rational to back it up.

[Jeff Buchanan]

I've read a bit about the constitutional authority or, in this case the lack thereof, for a sitting president to be indicted. While it is not a settled matter and Trump could be indicted for campaign finance law breaking, most legal authorities I've read think it's a bad idea both for practical and technical reasons. For practical reasons, prosecuting a sitting president would detract from his ability to perform his duties. Technically, all law enforcement resides in the president and that everybody else in the executive branch, including prosecutors, is essentially irrelevant. And the president, therefore, would in effect be prosecuting himself.

So, let's for a moment forget that Trump is going to be indicted for violation of campaign finance laws. If a scenario plays out where he becomes an un-indicted co-conspirator - and we have no idea whether or not Mueller has the necessary evidence to make a solid case for that - the script is likely to follow that of the Nixon resignation following the Watergate scandal. While they are not at all similar scandals, thier outcomes could be very much the same.

I prefer that to an impeachment process but Nixon was intelligent and facing an impeachment process, chose the right path. If the drum beat of impeachment increases and a serious effort to get it going is undertaken, I think it is highly unlikely that Trump would do the same. It appears to me that we are on an inexorable path to a great deal of disruption in this country and none of it is going to be particularly good for the economy, states-craft, trade and so forth. Not looking forward to it at all.

[CGVT]

R.I.P John McCain.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Yep, RIP John McCain

[Kapture1]

Kapture & Geezer

Please pay attention to this article. It directly attacks the Mark Levin/Bradley Smith argument that Cohen commited no campaign finance crimes

https://www.businessinsider.com/trum...g-point-2018-8

In fact, the article quotes ANOTHER former FEC Chairman, named Trevor Potter, who says that what Cohen did broke the law. So explain to me why I should care more about what former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith thinks and should totally disregard what Trevor Potter says.

Trevor Potter, president of the Campaign Legal Center and a Republican former chairman of the FEC, wrote in The Washington Post

I would also repeat that if I believe you two and Mark Levin are to be believed, a group of Federal Prosecutors would have had to accept guilty pleas to crimes that were simply fabricated and not only that, a Federal Judge approved the deal as well.

So it's the word of an obese, nasally, hysterical talk show host and one former FEC chairman against the word of another former FEC Chairman, a US attorney, a team of Federal Prosecutors, a Federal Judge, and a group of defense attorneys.

Sometimes people just believe what they WANT to believe and have nothing rational to back it up.

First off the article cherrypicks the "rightwinger" Mark levin ignoring life long democrats making the same arguements, like Alan Dershowitz. So right off the bat im seeing this article as disingenuous

second and biggest ommission in this piece is the notion that an expenditure like this was made and influenced the election, and that is the only testto what makes it a campaign expendature. Like he didn't want his wife to know or to tarnish the company that bares his name. But the fact that is benefits the candidate in any way makes it a campaign expendature, that is simply wrong. Trevor Potter makes that case and cites the FEC rule of any contribution made to a candidacy is considered a campaign contribution and subject to the laws in the act, yet never acknowledges the personal expendature exemption. That is what is truely disingenuous and why he's wrong.

It pretends that personal exemptions and why they are different from campaign expenses doesn't doesnt exist.

how much do you think Hillary paid to upgrade her wardrobe during the campaign? 100,000 dollars? Who paid for that? It was only done to influence voters, so i guess she broke the same law lol. Time to indict.

see, i acknowledge you arguement and point out where you are wrong. You cite an article that ignores my point and pretends it doesn't exist.

i mean fuck, the phrase "personal expenditure exemption" appears NOWHERE and that is the enture arguement as to why the NDAs were not illegal. So "directly attacks their arguement"? No, it ignores it completely.

[Dr. Strangelove]

It's not a personal expenditure when someone else is making the damn payment to the pornstar to cover up your marital infidelities and you have FOUR PEOPLE willing to testify under oath that it was intended to influence the campaign and not just something that would've been done if Trump weren't a candidate. If Trump wishes to refute Cohen, Wesselberg, Pecker, and Howard, let him acquire some balls and testify under oath. Of course, he won't do that, because behind all his WWE-style posturing and false bravado, deep down, Captain Bone Spurs is a coward.

A bunch of prosecutors, a Federal judge, and the legal defense teams for all four men think you're wrong but you don't care. You'd rather trust that a fucking obese, radio host 1,000 miles away has a better grasp on the facts and the law than any of them. Oh and Bradley Smith doesn't actually know the facts of the case either.

You're wrong. The judge says your wrong. The defense attorneys say you're wrong. The prosecutors say you're wrong. Michael Cohen, David Pecker, and Allen Weisselberg say you're wrong. You're not a damn lawyer and have no legal training. You're relying solely upon Mark fucking Levin who hasn't practiced law in 3 decades and has zero personal knowledge about the facts of the case.

[AlabamAlum]

Calm down, DSL.

[AlabamAlum]

You need a stress pill, Dave?

[Kapture1]

It's not a personal expenditure when someone else is making the damn payment to the pornstar to cover up your marital infidelities and you have FOUR PEOPLE willing to testify under oath that it was intended to influence the campaign and not just something that would've been done if Trump weren't a candidate. If Trump wishes to refute Cohen, Wesselberg, Pecker, and Howard, let him acquire some balls and testify under oath. Of course, he won't do that, because behind all his WWE-style posturing and false bravado, deep down, Captain Bone Spurs is a coward.

A bunch of prosecutors, a Federal judge, and the legal defense teams for all four men think you're wrong but you don't care. You'd rather trust that a fucking obese, radio host 1,000 miles away has a better grasp on the facts and the law than any of them. Oh and Bradley Smith doesn't actually know the facts of the case either.

You're wrong. The judge says your wrong. The defense attorneys say you're wrong. The prosecutors say you're wrong. Michael Cohen, David Pecker, and Allen Weisselberg say you're wrong. You're not a damn lawyer and have no legal training. You're relying solely upon Mark fucking Levin who hasn't practiced law in 3 decades and has zero personal knowledge about the facts of the case.

Sure it is. I am willing to bet he paid off at least 100 women this way IN HIS PERSONAL LIFE.

the fact that these women used the exposure of the campaign itself to release their stories, thus the need to make these payments at that time doesnt make it a campaign expense.


you're wrong but lets not all act surprised at that.

[Kapture1]

DSL still doesnt understand that just because a prosecutor reads a law a certain way doesn't make it the fucking law. But i guess this is Soviet Russia now where plea deals implicate others, they carry the force of legal, adjudicated precedent against others that haven't been charged, or never will be.

btw a judge hasn't seen this yet, the sentencing is in December, but he is going to accept the plea. Plea deals are not always based on honest testimony from a defendant, but are accepted all the same. And Lanny Davis is a Clinton hack. Still doesn't make it a campaign expense.

[Kapture1]

Russia's puppet

[WingsFan]

. You need a stress pill, Dave?