Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[froot loops]

Its all appetizer to the big stuff. If that is all they had then it doesn't do much.

[hack]

IMO the only thing that would serve as a greater deterrent to future corruption than locking up Trump would be finding a few dozen high-level GOP folks complicit in a money-laundering/campaign-finance scandal. If it's just Trump, swamp creaters can comfort themselves that he was jsut an amateur and an outsider.

[froot loops]

Let's see what the Funky Cold Butina plea brings us this week.

[froot loops]

Congrats to Theresa May on surviving a no-confidence vote, the reward is the continued slog trying to find a solution to the Brexit quagmire.

[Kapture1]

Beat me to that...so it's probably more than just Cohen's word on saying Trump was involved. Probably testimony from both of the National Enquirer guys too.

still doesn't matter to what the law actually is. But I can post the link to the FEC to the exemptions for personal expenditures until I'm blue in the face and it won't matter.

[Kapture1]

did someone say Pecker?

rge9em0ozv321.jpg?width=576&auto=webp&s=c7889b4d701dd95ec3e0560d6e55ccc11e23d576.jpg

[Kapture1]

Congrats to Theresa May on surviving a no-confidence vote, the reward is the continued slog trying to find a solution to the Brexit quagmire.

Thatcher survived by like 54% and was so damaged from it resigned a few days later. I don't think she is in the clear yet.

[hack]

As usual, when there's a big Brexit move pending my UK client owes me a bunch of money. So of course this kicks the can down the road a few weeks. Brexit has probably cost me personally at least $5-6k in fucking currency losses.

[Dr. Strangelove]

still doesn't matter to what the law actually is. But I can post the link to the FEC to the exemptions for personal expenditures until I'm blue in the face and it won't matter.

lol...both Cohen and AMI (probably both Pecker and the other guy) explictly say in their statements that the hush money was paid out with the sole intent of influencing the election.

Guess what? I'm guessing the SDNY will ultimately be able to produce Weisselberg too who will testify, under oath, that the money was paid out by the Trump Org to influence the election.

Currently three people have said under oath that no, this was not a personal expenditure.

[Kapture1]

lol

[froot loops]

They are going to try and keep kicking the can down the road, there isn't a deal there that is palatable.

[Kapture1]

lol...both Cohen and AMI (probably both Pecker and the other guy) explictly say in their statements that the hush money was paid out with the sole intent of influencing the election.

Guess what? I'm guessing the SDNY will ultimately be able to produce Weisselberg too who will testify, under oath, that the money was paid out by the Trump Org to influence the election.

Currently three people have said under oath that no, this was not a personal expenditure.

and? that is still not the question of whether it influenced the election, or even if the intent was to solely influence the election. It is literally what you do not understand.

If I am a candidate, and I have a national tv debate, and I want to look good with the sole purpose of influencing voters and the election itself, I go out and spend 5,000 on a suit. or my company does for me. That is still not a campaign expense, even though the sole explicit purpose of the purchase was to influence the election.


the most important question that needs to be answered is not intent. it is whether Trump would have made the payments if there were no campaign. And the way to tell, is if Trump has ever bought the silence of any other women throughout his life as Brand protection, or so that his wife wouldn't find out.

[Kapture1]

Or if I don't want to be seen riding around in my Corvette because it would turn off lower income voters, and buy a late model Buick to drive while I am knocking on doors, campaigning. The money that was spend on the Buick TO INFLUENCE VOTERS AND THE ELECTION SOLELY is not a campaign expenditure.

[Dr. Strangelove]

and? that is still not the question of whether it influenced the election, or even if the intent was to solely influence the election. It is literally what you do not understand.

If I am a candidate, and I have a national tv debate, and I want to look good with the sole purpose of influencing voters and the election itself, I go out and spend 5,000 on a suit. or my company does for me. That is still not a campaign expense, even though the sole explicit purpose of the purchase was to influence the election.


the most important question that needs to be answered is not intent. it is whether Trump would have made the payments if there were no campaign. And the way to tell, is if Trump has ever bought the silence of any other women throughout his life as Brand protection, or so that his wife wouldn't find out.

You've been claiming that Cohen pled to imaginary crimes for months. Now it's clear that AMI also plead guilty to the exact same thing. Do you think The National Enquirer has lousy lawyers that advised their clients to commit perjury and admit to committing non-existent crimes? I'm betting Lanny Davis doesn't work for AMI.

I believe the facts of this case have also made clear that AMI and Trump didn't have the "catch & kill" agreement until he became a presidential candidate.

[Kapture1]

You've been claiming that Cohen pled to imaginary crimes for months. Now it's clear that AMI also plead guilty to the exact same thing. Do you think The National Enquirer has lousy lawyers that advised their clients to commit perjury and admit to committing non-existent crimes? I'm betting Lanny Davis doesn't work for AMI.

I believe the facts of this case have also made clear that AMI and Trump didn't have the "catch & kill" agreement until he became a presidential candidate.