"I only hire the best"

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

I can brush a 3 course meal out of this bad boy
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hahaha!! Same here
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Does anyone have an example of an infraction that lead Mueller to eventually charge someone w/breaking the law?

[Nebe]

“Trumpanzees” !!!!!!!

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Don't forget about the timing which was clearly because of the fear that if it came out prior to the election it would impact the results.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

We will see what happens with this. Clearly it has our resident #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&s in a lather. I predict more whining will ensue when it becomes another nothing 🍔.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Zimmerman does not like to be portrayed as stupid even to the extent he will blame his device instead of owning said stupidity.

I love the irony of his post.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Zimmerman does not like to be portrayed as stupid even to the extent he will blame his device instead of owning said stupidity.

I love the irony of his post.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Awww, you got me. I am so stupid that I think the word uniformed means you lack information. Paul S clearly has a read on you. Are you getting frustrated Donny is going down? So frustrated that all you have left is spell checking for me. Sad...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Its funny to see we get the statement "We get the government we deserve"

then following that statement some go on to Minimize the POTUS behavior never taking ownership for who voted him or still support him religiously .. then say its the dems's fault he got elected

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Awww, you got me. I am so stupid that I think the word uniformed means you lack information. Paul S clearly has a read on you. Are you getting frustrated Donny is going down? So frustrated that all you have left is spell checking for me. Sad...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I just thought it was funny that you tried to knock somebody for being uninformed and you can’t even spell the word. And I enjoy pushing your buttons on occasion just for kicks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Jim, you are correct it's not a crime to write the check to the woman. The issue is that the timing was during the run up to the election. I think one month before the election. So if Trump wrote the check 3 years prior and prior to his announcing his candidacy there would not be a legal issue. I think also that part of the issue is they didn't declare it so it is a campaign finance violation. The same with the National Enquirer money. It is being viewed as a way to help the campaign but not being declared which is a campaign violation of some sort. I have no idea what would have happened if was the day after the election.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Jim, you are correct it's not a crime to write the check to the woman. The issue is that the timing was during the run up to the election. I think one month before the election. So if Trump wrote the check 3 years prior and prior to his announcing his candidacy there would not be a legal issue. I think also that part of the issue is they didn't declare it so it is a campaign finance violation. The same with the National Enquirer money. It is being viewed as a way to help the campaign but not being declared which is a campaign violation of some sort. I have no idea what would have happened if was the day after the election.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I guess that makes sense in the sense that he might have to declare all campaign-related expenses. But there's a good chance he would have done the same exact thing even if he wasn't running for POTUS, right? So does the criminal question come down to this...was it a campaign issue, or a personal (private issue)? How about if he pays his home electric bill with his own money. If he didn't pay it, that could become fodder for the press during the election, right? So does he have to declare the money he's using to pay his electric bill for his home, since you could argue that paying it, has an impact on the election?

I don't think it's rare for people who are (1) uber wealthy, and (2) devoid of morals, to pay hush money to people they wrong. If he used campaign money and didn't declare it, that seems pretty bad. If he used his own money to make a private issue go away, but part of his motivation was to avoid damaging his campaign...that doesn't seem like a big deal to me. At that level, at this point in history, there's almost no distinction between his personal matters and campaign matters. Especially for this guy.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I guess that makes sense in the sense that he might have to declare all campaign-related expenses. But there's a good chance he would have done the same exact thing even if he wasn't running for POTUS, right?

So when we wasn't running why didn't he? Ding ding ding

Also look at the timing of the hush money and his grab em debacle...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

So when we wasn't running why didn't he? Ding ding ding

Also look at the timing of the hush money and his grab em debacle...

So anything a candidate does to even potentially protect his image, must be declared. Again, that's almost everything.

I have no problem believing that part of the motivation for the payoff, was the election. But if he used his own money, then it looks like a nothingburger, with extra zilch on the side. If he used money to hire political consultants or to rent a campaign office, that's obvious campaign stuff.

Where's the line drawn between what's campaign-related, and what's personal business? EVERYTHING is potentially a campaign issue, especially with this guy.


This guy has done much, much worse.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

So when we wasn't running why didn't he? Ding ding ding

Also look at the timing of the hush money and his grab em debacle...

Is anyone saying he diverted campaign contributions to the payoff? Or is it accepted that he used his personal money?

[Pete F.]

Here is an explanation of what Cohen did and what he should have done, that I think is correct.
Trump is angry at Michael Cohen, of course, because Cohen just pleaded guilty to (among other things) making an illegal contribution to Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign by paying hush money to Stormy Daniels just before the election. Moreover, Cohen told the judge in the case that he did so “in coordination with and at the direction of” Trump.

Cohen’s actions were illegal because individuals may only contribute a limited amount of money or in-kind services to political campaigns. During the 2016 election, the maximum was $5,400. Cohen fraudulently obtained a home equity loan and then wired $130,000 of it to the lawyer representing Daniels on October 27, 2016.

What Trump certainly doesn’t understand, and what makes his tweet extra-wonderful, is that the problem with Cohen isn’t just that he (in Trump’s mind) betrayed Trump. It’s that Cohen is genuinely a terrible lawyer.

J.P. Morgan famously said, “I don’t know as I want a lawyer to tell me what I cannot do. I hire him to tell me how to do what I want to do.” But what Cohen managed to do was fail in both ways. He didn’t tell Trump that Trump couldn’t pay off Daniels using Cohen himself as a conduit — but he also failed to advise Trump that there was a way to do it that would have been totally legal.

Here’s how.

Donald Trump (and only Donald Trump) could legally donate an unlimited amount of money to his campaign, because he was the candidate. Therefore, he would have been in the clear if he had made an in-kind donation to his campaign by paying Daniels directly with his own money. He could also have used money raised by his campaign, including his own contributions, to pay Daniels. (Trump’s campaign took in a total of $333 million, with $66 million of that coming from Trump himself.)

In either case, Trump’s campaign would be required to disclose the expenditure. But according to the Federal Election Commission’s rules, campaign contributions and expenditures made after October 27, 2016 did not have to be disclosed until December 8. So if Trump could have put Daniels off just one more day, there would have been no public paper trail until a month after the election. And even then, the disclosed payment might not by itself expose the wrongdoing.

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Here is an explanation of what Cohen did and what he should have done, that I think is correct.
Trump is angry at Michael Cohen, of course, because Cohen just pleaded guilty to (among other things) making an illegal contribution to Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign by paying hush money to Stormy Daniels just before the election. Moreover, Cohen told the judge in the case that he did so “in coordination with and at the direction of” Trump.

Cohen’s actions were illegal because individuals may only contribute a limited amount of money or in-kind services to political campaigns. During the 2016 election, the maximum was $5,400. Cohen fraudulently obtained a home equity loan and then wired $130,000 of it to the lawyer representing Daniels on October 27, 2016.

What Trump certainly doesn’t understand, and what makes his tweet extra-wonderful, is that the problem with Cohen isn’t just that he (in Trump’s mind) betrayed Trump. It’s that Cohen is genuinely a terrible lawyer.

J.P. Morgan famously said, “I don’t know as I want a lawyer to tell me what I cannot do. I hire him to tell me how to do what I want to do.” But what Cohen managed to do was fail in both ways. He didn’t tell Trump that Trump couldn’t pay off Daniels using Cohen himself as a conduit — but he also failed to advise Trump that there was a way to do it that would have been totally legal.

Here’s how.

Donald Trump (and only Donald Trump) could legally donate an unlimited amount of money to his campaign, because he was the candidate. Therefore, he would have been in the clear if he had made an in-kind donation to his campaign by paying Daniels directly with his own money. He could also have used money raised by his campaign, including his own contributions, to pay Daniels. (Trump’s campaign took in a total of $333 million, with $66 million of that coming from Trump himself.)

In either case, Trump’s campaign would be required to disclose the expenditure. But according to the Federal Election Commission’s rules, campaign contributions and expenditures made after October 27, 2016 did not have to be disclosed until December 8. So if Trump could have put Daniels off just one more day, there would have been no public paper trail until a month after the election. And even then, the disclosed payment might not by itself expose the wrongdoing.

Why does your opinion matter here?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Why does your opinion matter here?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why does yours
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Jim, to answer your question it is a campaign Finance issue. Nothing to do with the legality of paying hush money which I'm sure happens all the time to various people. Now let's not forget that what happened between President Trump and Stormy Daniels is not illegal. If he was paying her hush money related to any illegal act that would be a different issue.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Jim, to answer your question it is a campaign Finance issue. Nothing to do with the legality of paying hush money which I'm sure happens all the time to various people. Now let's not forget that what happened between President Trump and Stormy Daniels is not illegal. If he was paying her hush money related to any illegal act that would be a different issue.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"it is a campaign Finance issue"

Then everything a candidate does, from the moment he declares to the moment the polls close, is a campaign issue.

"If he was paying her hush money related to any illegal act that would be a different issue."

Agreed. It would also be different if he used campaign money for the payoff. Is anyone suggesting he did?

What bothers m most is that he had an affair with a disgusting skank while he was married with kids. If he paid her off with his own money, I could care less that he didn't itemize that expense on a campaign form. If that's a crime, and an impeachable offense, he'll have to answer for it, especially if the democrats take the house. But on the spectrum of possible campaign finance fraud, that's about as benign as it gets. When I think of campaign fraud, I assume it's diverting campaign funds for personal use like the GOP representative Duncan Hunter just got indicted for, he and his wife committed an actual fraud and should go to prison. If Trump used his own money but didn't disclose it because it could possibly influence the campaign, then he has to disclose everything he does. Everything. Every move he makes, is a potential weapon to use against him. You can't ask him to disclose every move he makes.

[Pete F.]

No crime was committed till they tried to hide it.
Trump could have paid her himself or used campaign funds to pay her, either would have been legal.
Cohen could not pay it, nor could some corporate entity.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

No crime was committed till they tried to hide it.
Trump could have paid her himself or used campaign funds to pay her, either would have been legal.
Cohen could not pay it, nor could some corporate entity.

First, I heard it was a crime if the intent was to impact the election. Now it has to do with Cohen's role?

Trump could take campaign contributions, and use it to pay off his mistress, that's not fraud? That's a legit use of campaign contributions?

What does Cohen's role have to do, with determining whether or not it was a crime?

Not easy to follow...

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

First, I heard it was a crime if the intent was to impact the election. Now it has to do with Cohen's role?

Trump could take campaign contributions, and use it to pay off his mistress, that's not fraud? That's a legit use of campaign contributions?

What does Cohen's role have to do, with determining whether or not it was a crime?

Not easy to follow...

Donald Trump (and only Donald Trump) could legally donate an unlimited amount of money to his campaign, because he was the candidate. Therefore, he would have been in the clear if he had made an in-kind donation to his campaign by paying Daniels directly with his own money. He could also have used money raised by his campaign, including his own contributions, to pay Daniels. (Trump’s campaign took in a total of $333 million, with $66 million of that coming from Trump himself.)

[spence]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Donald Trump (and only Donald Trump) could legally donate an unlimited amount of money to his campaign, because he was the candidate. Therefore, he would have been in the clear if he had made an in-kind donation to his campaign by paying Daniels directly with his own money.

Even if Trump paid out of his own pocket he would still have to disclose it.

[PaulS]

Just read this elsewhere

Testifying under oath on Tuesday, Mr. Cohen said he arranged the payment “for the principal purpose of influencing the election,” and told the judge he knew at the time that he was doing so in violation of campaign finance laws.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Just read this elsewhere

Testifying under oath on Tuesday, Mr. Cohen said he arranged the payment “for the principal purpose of influencing the election,” and told the judge he knew at the time that he was doing so in violation of campaign finance laws.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The big open question is if the paper trail shows Trump understood it was a violation as well.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by spence

The big open question is if the paper trail shows Trump understood it was a violation as well.

What difference does it make if he knew it or not? A violation is a violation. Ignorance isn't a defense.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

What difference does it make if he knew it or not? A violation is a violation. Ignorance isn't a defense.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this is why the Clinton's have perfected and so frequently used the phrase ....."I don't recall"

[spence]

Originally Posted by PaulS

What difference does it make if he knew it or not? A violation is a violation. Ignorance isn't a defense.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

For Trump to be looking at a criminal vs civil complaint I believe he would have had to known what he was doing was illegal. Cohen's council seems to be pretty confident he did...we'll see.

[Pete F.]

I think being a crime or not is the reason Mueller dumped this on the Southern District of NY.
He's not really interested in a "it's not the crime, it's the coverup" issue.

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I think being a crime or not is the reason Mueller dumped this on the Southern District of NY.
He's not really interested in a "it's not the crime, it's the coverup" issue.

Baby needs new shewz
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device