https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com...1523398987

For anyone whose curious

---

---

Collusion (between his campaign and Russia) is just one possible thing that they might pin on Trump.

There's also the possibility that Trump obstructed the investigation into collusion, and the possibility that Trump obstructed the investigations into Cohen and Manafort.

Then there's a high likelihood that Cohen testimony is correct and that he committed an illegal act at Trump's direction. Think about that for a minute.  You knew you weren't electing a choir boy, but, even after the Access Hollywood tape came out, this man was accused of having an affair with a porn star while his wife was pregnant, and he used campaign funds to attempt to pay hush money to her.  You might say, "well we knew what we were getting.  He doesn't hide his problems." No.  He wasn't being honest with you.  For all the public scandals he already had, the two divorces, the many affairs, Trump was still hiding things from you the voter, and making illegal payments to do it.

Finally there's a possibility that Trump himself has been dishonest with his tax returns and his foreign bank accounts.

1.) That's not true (bolded above).  U haven't been following along.  The money in question was michael Cohen's private funds and Trump organization corporate funds.  That's why the former chairman of the federal election commission confirmed that these payments do not qualify as campaign contributions.  

2.) 18 consecutive audits.

Neither of those things mean what you think they mean.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

1.) That's not true (bolded above).  U haven't been following along.  The money in question was michael Cohen's private funds and Trump organization corporate funds.  That's why the former chairman of the federal election commission confirmed that these payments do not qualify as campaign contributions.  

2.) 18 consecutive audits.

Neither of those things mean what you think they mean.

Which part is incorrect?

---

Neither of those things mean what you think they mean.

Which part is incorrect?

1) Here's a former chairman of the FEC saying that these payments ARE campaign contributions.  https://www.newsweek.com/trump-lawyer-mi...els-860084  I don't know which former chairman you're citing.  In any case, what the former chairman says is simply a very informed opinion.  Legally, only what the current chairman, and current prosecutors and judges say matters, but the opinion of this former chairman helps us predict what the opinion of the current ones will be or should be.

2) We don't have good information on how many times Trump has been audited, or what was found.  Those are all private matters that can only be disclosed by Trump.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Which part is incorrect?

1) Here's a former chairman of the FEC saying that these payments ARE campaign contributions.  https://www.newsweek.com/trump-lawyer-mi...els-860084  I don't know which former chairman you're citing.  In any case, what the former chairman says is simply a very informed opinion.  Legally, only what the current chairman, and current prosecutors and judges say matters, but the opinion of this former chairman helps us predict what the opinion of the current ones will be or should be.

2) We don't have good information on how many times Trump has been audited, or what was found.  Those are all private matters that can only be disclosed by Trump.

Bradley Smith.  I posted the article in this thread.  

Moreover step back and consider the logic.  It is not asserted that Michael Cohen accessed Trump's Campaign funds to arrange a payment.  It is asserted that he used his personal money and the position of the prosecutors is to reclassify that payment as a campaign EXPENSE to taint the transaction.  

The problem is, if that EXPENSE is in fact a bona fide campaign EXPENSE then Trump and Cohen could have used the money raised from campaign contributions instead of their OWN money.  

More importantly, the statute also requires specific intent to violate the law itself.  If a reasonable person, Bradley Smith quslifies, could have seen the payment as a personal or secondarily personal EXPENSE then that means there was no criminal intent even if the current FEC deemed the payments campaign contributions.  That's why this was a part of a grand plea agreement and not specifically these charges that are generally handled by the FEC with the possibility of a civil penalty not pre-Dawn raids.

---

1) Here's a former chairman of the FEC saying that these payments ARE campaign contributions.  https://www.newsweek.com/trump-lawyer-mi...els-860084  I don't know which former chairman you're citing.  In any case, what the former chairman says is simply a very informed opinion.  Legally, only what the current chairman, and current prosecutors and judges say matters, but the opinion of this former chairman helps us predict what the opinion of the current ones will be or should be.

2) We don't have good information on how many times Trump has been audited, or what was found.  Those are all private matters that can only be disclosed by Trump.

Bradley Smith.  I posted the article in this thread.  

Moreover step back and consider the logic.  It is not asserted that Michael Cohen accessed Trump's Campaign funds to arrange a payment.  It is asserted that he used his personal money and the position of the prosecutors is to reclassify that payment as a campaign EXPENSE to taint the transaction.  

The problem is, if that EXPENSE is in fact a bona fide campaign EXPENSE then Trump and Cohen could have used the money raised from campaign contributions instead of their OWN money.  

More importantly, the statute also requires specific intent to violate the law itself.  If a reasonable person, Bradley Smith quslifies, could have seen the payment as a personal or secondarily personal EXPENSE then that means there was no criminal intent even if the current FEC deemed the payments campaign contributions.  That's why this was a part of a grand plea agreement and not specifically these charges that are generally handled by the FEC with the possibility of a civil penalty not pre-Dawn raids.

---

Also Rosie odonell has ADMITTED to doing everything Cohen is accused of in a systemic way over many campaign cycles. Where's the no knock warrant.

The Clinton campaign failed to disclose 12 million dollars in.campaign fees to Perkins quoi. Where's the predawn raid. That money was used to pay a foreign agent (Christopher Steele big violation) to pay RUSSIAN SOURCES for the fraudulent DOSDIER.

---

Also Rosie odonell has ADMITTED to doing everything Cohen is accused of in a systemic way over many campaign cycles.  Where's the no knock warrant.  

The Clinton campaign failed to disclose 12 million dollars in.campaign fees to Perkins quoi.  Where's the predawn raid.  That money was used to pay a foreign agent (Christopher Steele big violation) to pay RUSSIAN SOURCES for the fraudulent DOSDIER.

Well, some Donkeys are more equal than Elephants.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

just some fine reading

ya' know... just the way it is...

oh this too

---

Also Rosie odonell has ADMITTED to doing everything Cohen is accused of in a systemic way over many campaign cycles.  Where's the no knock warrant.  

The Clinton campaign failed to disclose 12 million dollars in.campaign fees to Perkins quoi.  Where's the predawn raid.  That money was used to pay a foreign agent (Christopher Steele big violation) to pay RUSSIAN SOURCES for the fraudulent DOSDIER.

Rosie may have exceeded the individual donation cap by a few thousand. She did not give for a specific project on the campaign and doesn't appear to have had any direct influence or personal contact with the candidates.  It appears her money was intended to amplify that candidate's message, just like most contributions to most candidates 
Cohen exceeded the contribution limit by tens of thousands of dollars, and did it for a specific project of supressing a message.  
These are the kinds of things prosecutors think about in using their discretion to decide whom to prosecute.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Also Rosie odonell has ADMITTED to doing everything Cohen is accused of in a systemic way over many campaign cycles.  Where's the no knock warrant.  

The Clinton campaign failed to disclose 12 million dollars in.campaign fees to Perkins quoi.  Where's the predawn raid.  That money was used to pay a foreign agent (Christopher Steele big violation) to pay RUSSIAN SOURCES for the fraudulent DOSDIER.

Rosie may have exceeded the individual donation cap by a few thousand. She did not give for a specific project on the campaign and doesn't appear to have had any direct influence or personal contact with the candidates.  It appears her money was intended to amplify that candidate's message, just like most contributions to most candidates 
Cohen exceeded the contribution limit by tens of thousands of dollars, and did it for a specific project of supressing a message.  
These are the kinds of things prosecutors think about in using their discretion to decide whom to prosecute.

Lol, whatever. He paid a nuisance claim through an NDA as a business attorney would and does every damn day. This is political poppycock and it's sad to see so many people latching onto it as their last, best, great hope to impeach Donald Trump.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

1) Here's a former chairman of the FEC saying that these payments ARE campaign contributions.  https://www.newsweek.com/trump-lawyer-mi...els-860084  I don't know which former chairman you're citing.  In any case, what the former chairman says is simply a very informed opinion.  Legally, only what the current chairman, and current prosecutors and judges say matters, but the opinion of this former chairman helps us predict what the opinion of the current ones will be or should be.

2) We don't have good information on how many times Trump has been audited, or what was found.  Those are all private matters that can only be disclosed by Trump.

Bradley Smith.  I posted the article in this thread.  

Moreover step back and consider the logic.  It is not asserted that Michael Cohen accessed Trump's Campaign funds to arrange a payment.  It is asserted that he used his personal money and the position of the prosecutors is to reclassify that payment as a campaign EXPENSE to taint the transaction.  

The problem is, if that EXPENSE is in fact a bona fide campaign EXPENSE then Trump and Cohen could have used the money raised from campaign contributions instead of their OWN money.  

More importantly, the statute also requires specific intent to violate the law itself.  If a reasonable person, Bradley Smith quslifies, could have seen the payment as a personal or secondarily personal EXPENSE then that means there was no criminal intent even if the current FEC deemed the payments campaign contributions.  That's why this was a part of a grand plea agreement and not specifically these charges that are generally handled by the FEC with the possibility of a civil penalty not pre-Dawn raids.

If you think that Cohen was intending to use his own money to defend his much more wealthy friend, and that friend wasn't either coercing him or promising to pay him back later, I have beachfront property in Arizona to sell you.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Bradley Smith.  I posted the article in this thread.  

Moreover step back and consider the logic.  It is not asserted that Michael Cohen accessed Trump's Campaign funds to arrange a payment.  It is asserted that he used his personal money and the position of the prosecutors is to reclassify that payment as a campaign EXPENSE to taint the transaction.  

The problem is, if that EXPENSE is in fact a bona fide campaign EXPENSE then Trump and Cohen could have used the money raised from campaign contributions instead of their OWN money.  

More importantly, the statute also requires specific intent to violate the law itself.  If a reasonable person, Bradley Smith quslifies, could have seen the payment as a personal or secondarily personal EXPENSE then that means there was no criminal intent even if the current FEC deemed the payments campaign contributions.  That's why this was a part of a grand plea agreement and not specifically these charges that are generally handled by the FEC with the possibility of a civil penalty not pre-Dawn raids.

If you think that Cohen was intending to use his own money to defend his much more wealthy friend, and that friend wasn't either coercing him or promising to pay him back later, I have beachfront property in Arizona to sell you.

Keep trying Hillary.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

If you think that Cohen was intending to use his own money to defend his much more wealthy friend, and that friend wasn't either coercing him or promising to pay him back later, I have beachfront property in Arizona to sell you.

Keep trying Hillary.

Name calling is unbecoming. And 2016 was two years ago.  Our choice today is Trump or Pence.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Keep trying Hillary.

Name calling is unbecoming. And 2016 was two years ago.  Our choice today is Trump or Pence.

Lol, you misspelled Ford.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Keep trying Hillary.

Name calling is unbecoming. And 2016 was two years ago.  Our choice today is Trump or Pence.

I"m just wondering at what point the liberals will realize they really don't want Pence in office as POTUS. If Trump were to be thrown out of office it would be not too long after when they figure it out. Trump is a loudmouth fool (who has done some good, yes, but still a loudmouth fool) who isn't really a Republican out to take away all the things the liberals said he was going to do. Pence? That man is a hardcore neo-con Bible-thumping Republican who would throw everything the liberals have now back to the stone age. Specifically LGBTQ rights and anything else he perceives as "of the devil". 

I do not want that man in office more than I don't want Trump there. I may not agree with many of the LGBTQ views or whatever you want to call it, but equal rights means equal for all even if we don't agree with it.

---

Also Rosie odonell has ADMITTED to doing everything Cohen is accused of in a systemic way over many campaign cycles.  Where's the no knock warrant.  

The Clinton campaign failed to disclose 12 million dollars in.campaign fees to Perkins quoi.  Where's the predawn raid.  That money was used to pay a foreign agent (Christopher Steele big violation) to pay RUSSIAN SOURCES for the fraudulent DOSDIER.

Rosie may have exceeded the individual donation cap by a few thousand. She did not give for a specific project on the campaign and doesn't appear to have had any direct influence or personal contact with the candidates.  It appears her money was intended to amplify that candidate's message, just like most contributions to most candidates 
Cohen exceeded the contribution limit by tens of thousands of dollars, and did it for a specific project of supressing a message.  
These are the kinds of things prosecutors think about in using their discretion to decide whom to prosecute.

Rosie's conduct was a.) Systemic and over many campaign cycles b.) By her own admission she knew the individual limit and had criminal intent to exceed it using fraudulent means.  C.) Plain on it's face a contribution for the purpose of a SOLE CAMPSIGN EXPENSE.  As to amount ask Dinesh Dsouza.

Cohen's activity was a service as part of a pre-existing business relationship as part of a pre-existing dispute about activity that predated the campaign that had a reasonable alternative purpose that existed independent of the campaign itself.  

And again, if this was a plain face campaign EXPENSE, TRUMP SELF FINANCED MOST OF HIS CAMPAIGN.  he could have appointed cohen head of some committee on ndas or communications and created an account operable at his discretion to pay the expenses.  It was viewed as a non campaign EXPENSE and could have been structured as such.

---

Name calling is unbecoming. And 2016 was two years ago.  Our choice today is Trump or Pence.

I"m just wondering at what point the liberals will realize they really don't want Pence in office as POTUS. If Trump were to be thrown out of office it would be not too long after when they figure it out. Trump is a loudmouth fool (who has done some good, yes, but still a loudmouth fool) who isn't really a Republican out to take away all the things the liberals said he was going to do. Pence? That man is a hardcore neo-con Bible-thumping Republican who would throw everything the liberals have now back to the stone age. Specifically LGBTQ rights and anything else he perceives as "of the devil". 

I do not want that man in office more than I don't want Trump there. I may not agree with many of the LGBTQ views or whatever you want to call it, but equal rights means equal for all even if we don't agree with it.

Excellent point!  IF the liberal wing gets their wish they may regret it.  The anyone but Trump crowd is so narrow sighted they can't even perceive the unintended consequences.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

Name calling is unbecoming. And 2016 was two years ago.  Our choice today is Trump or Pence.

I"m just wondering at what point the liberals will realize they really don't want Pence in office as POTUS. If Trump were to be thrown out of office it would be not too long after when they figure it out. Trump is a loudmouth fool (who has done some good, yes, but still a loudmouth fool) who isn't really a Republican out to take away all the things the liberals said he was going to do. Pence? That man is a hardcore neo-con Bible-thumping Republican who would throw everything the liberals have now back to the stone age. Specifically LGBTQ rights and anything else he perceives as "of the devil". 

I do not want that man in office more than I don't want Trump there. I may not agree with many of the LGBTQ views or whatever you want to call it, but equal rights means equal for all even if we don't agree with it.

Wait... I thought Pence was a great guy? Several people on here applauded Pence as VP.....

---