Tugger wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

The intent question is meant more for, did Trump intend this to be a payment to protect his marriage, personal life and business. Or was it intended to protect him politically.

No doubt the two are intertwined. Though it could be said that, after the access hollywood tape, promiscuous behavior did not influence the electorate enough to cause him to lose the election. And so therefore the perceived value to Trump was in protecting his marriage.

Though you could also argue that Trump has a history of such behavior and that his current wife was probably aware in some form and thus of no value personally. And so the opposite could be true.

But good luck proving anything in court without specific evidence stating otherwise. Would basically need it straight from the horse's mouth in a recording. Which Cohen may have. May not have. We shall see.

I don't interpret it as you have at all. Trump only care about Trump and his business. And at the time his business was to get elected. He was wanting the Access Hollywood thing released and he in no way wanted this and all the other dalliances he has had to come to light. So this was strictly to influence the election and his chance to be President.

Tugg

Tugg, I missed where I said what side I interpreted it as in that quote I even gave both sides there.

That's the problem with public image stuff. For instance, Bill Clinton's payment to Paula Jones may have been when he was already in office. But no doubt, had that information gotten out it would have influenced policy and his future campaign for a second term.

The John Edwards case provides a decent judicial view into this. It is difficult to separate the two. Everything you do in your personal life - once you become a public servant - influences your public persona. For instance, imagine being Nancy Pelosi and walking into Chic-fil-a to order a sandwich. She'd be labeled a hypocrite and vilified on twitter. At least for a day until she issued some apology and what not.

casinterest wrote:

. Rumor has it , you can drive drunk into a bay, leave a girl to die, and still have a long career in politics.

Only if you are a rich democrat.

Mike Drop

casinterest wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

I don't know about all of you. I do know one thing. I'm never running for office and never going to work on a campaign for someone else.

I like to think I've lived a pretty squeaky clean life but who knows what kind of crimes I may have committed unknowingly

I think if your crimes are less than banging a porn star while your 3rd wife sits at home and nurses your 5th child. and declaring bankruptcy multiple times as a "successful " business person, you have a fairly decent chance.

Rumor has it , you can drive drunk into a bay, leave a girl to die, and still have a long career in politics.

Too soon?

Also banging a porn star and declaring bankruptcy probably seems like a pittance to what Grover Cleveland did in 1874 to Halpin.

Not trying to deflect or anything

MassAppeal wrote:

seb146 wrote:

MassAppeal wrote:

Many do. Many don't feel he's a representative of the party.

You clearly don't understand how politics works. Its mostly about power and ability to enact an agenda which is something you cannot do when you're actively fighting another branch of government which the President is.

I've looked through your posting history and its fairly clear you're more interested in name-calling and blind vitriol aimed at anyone who disagrees with you so I'm not sure what this will accomplish other than a redirection from you. Everyone needs to look at the big picture here and don't get lost in the weeds of anger.

"Name calling and blind vitriol"? Examples, please. Or are you talking about where I am careful to separate the "party before country" racist "Nobama" bloc in the Republican party by calling them "righties"? Or where I state that racists and white nationalists vote Republican? You mean "facts"?

What "agenda" has this man enacted? Tax cuts for the very wealthy that has and will continue to add to the debt and deficit. That's all I can see. Oh, and erasing Obama's legacy. That's about it. Sorry if calling out the double standard and hatred from your side is offensive to you. Sorry that making factual statements is offensive to you.

We are still waiting for him to release his tax returns and still waiting for his health care replacement that would be cheaper and better.

Well, you launched right into accusing me of being a conservative Trump supporter based on zero evidence what so ever.

You defend him. You give him the benefit of the doubt and question the patriotism of anyone who even thinks about questioning him. That is not a personal attack, but, rather, exactly how the MAGA crew work

Don't mistake your lack of understanding political mathematics for a political attack. The use of language like you have does nothing but make you look a bit unhinged but like I said your post history speaks for itself. I suspect I'm speaking to a bit of a wall here.

You assume so much about me. First, you assume that, because I do not jump to his defense in less than a second, I do not understand politics. Because I ask questions and call him and his followers out on mistakes, you call me unhinged and cite my post history. Sorry (not sorry) I have a history. Sorry (not sorry) I have a stand. Sorry (not sorry) I have a track record. It is you, sir, who are the wall. Nothing at all will ever change your mind. You honestly believe this man is the greatest leader of the United States ever based on his words alone. I see his actions and the actions of his followers and believe he is dangerous.

It seems like you take offense at me separating Republicans from righties. Separating patriotism from blind allegiance. Calling out bad behavior. I gave you a chance. And you proved me right. We are done. Good night.

trpmb6 wrote:

Tugger wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

The intent question is meant more for, did Trump intend this to be a payment to protect his marriage, personal life and business. Or was it intended to protect him politically.

No doubt the two are intertwined. Though it could be said that, after the access hollywood tape, promiscuous behavior did not influence the electorate enough to cause him to lose the election. And so therefore the perceived value to Trump was in protecting his marriage.

Though you could also argue that Trump has a history of such behavior and that his current wife was probably aware in some form and thus of no value personally. And so the opposite could be true.

But good luck proving anything in court without specific evidence stating otherwise. Would basically need it straight from the horse's mouth in a recording. Which Cohen may have. May not have. We shall see.

I don't interpret it as you have at all. Trump only care about Trump and his business. And at the time his business was to get elected. He was wanting the Access Hollywood thing released and he in no way wanted this and all the other dalliances he has had to come to light. So this was strictly to influence the election and his chance to be President.

Tugg

Tugg, I missed where I said what side I interpreted it as in that quote I even gave both sides there.

That's the problem with public image stuff. For instance, Bill Clinton's payment to Paula Jones may have been when he was already in office. But no doubt, had that information gotten out it would have influenced policy and his future campaign for a second term.

The John Edwards case provides a decent judicial view into this. It is difficult to separate the two. Everything you do in your personal life - once you become a public servant - influences your public persona. For instance, imagine being Nancy Pelosi and walking into Chic-fil-a to order a sandwich. She'd be labeled a hypocrite and vilified on twitter. At least for a day until she issued some apology and what not.

You are throwing around a lot of names, but look at the details. Which account did Clinton pay Jones? I mean, was it funneled from a campaign account to a shell corporation to Jones? Oh, wait, no.... That payment was an out-of-court settlement, an not a bribe to keep her quiet during the campaign. The law suit went on while Clinton was a sitting president. He paid while he was still in office.

The Democratic party seemed to learn from all that and turned their back on John Edwards. And Anthony Wiener. And Al Franken. While Republicans cry and whine about "but Clinton!" when any of their politicians are caught cheating, forgive them, and hold them on a pedestal because "but Clinton!"

Righties scream and cry and complain about the Democrats double standard but, when looking at the actual facts, it is the Republicans who have a problem with double standards. If John Edwards and Anthony Wiener are elected president and vice president, Republicans no longer have any right to cry and whine and complain about womanizers and liars in office and men who treat women like garbage. Republicans forgive and forget and elect with gusto. Republicans have no right to complain when Democrats do the exact same thing anymore.

I do think some people are a little too quick to jump to conclusions about people before actually getting any information. Case in point, the antifa crowd that attacked a fellow like-minded protestor - simply because he was carrying an American Flag

seb146 wrote:

You are throwing around a lot of names, but look at the details. Which account did Clinton pay Jones? I mean, was it funneled from a campaign account to a shell corporation to Jones? Oh, wait, no.... That payment was an out-of-court settlement, an not a bribe to keep her quiet during the campaign. The law suit went on while Clinton was a sitting president. He paid while he was still in office.

I'm glad you understand the difference. So if it turns out that Trump paid this out of his own pocket you'll forgive him? As I've said here before, if Trump paid using campaign money and it was not reported that is a violation. I think I'm consistent on this.

The Democratic party seemed to learn from all that and turned their back on John Edwards. And Anthony Wiener. And Al Franken. While Republicans cry and whine about "but Clinton!" when any of their politicians are caught cheating, forgive them, and hold them on a pedestal because "but Clinton!"

I don't really care about infidelity. Just like I don't care about what any other two consenting adults do (unless it ends up being my wife involved and then well that's a matter between her and myself). What I do care about is the law. What Anthony Wiener broke the law. Al Franken broke the law. John Edwards was acquitted (on the charge relevant here). So far Trump hasn't been charged with anything. And I haven't seen any evidence of other allegations against Trump (like we had with Wiener and Franken).

Not going to address your last paragraph, it's just conjecture.

seb146 wrote:

MassAppeal wrote:

seb146 wrote:

"Name calling and blind vitriol"? Examples, please. Or are you talking about where I am careful to separate the "party before country" racist "Nobama" bloc in the Republican party by calling them "righties"? Or where I state that racists and white nationalists vote Republican? You mean "facts"?

What "agenda" has this man enacted? Tax cuts for the very wealthy that has and will continue to add to the debt and deficit. That's all I can see. Oh, and erasing Obama's legacy. That's about it. Sorry if calling out the double standard and hatred from your side is offensive to you. Sorry that making factual statements is offensive to you.

We are still waiting for him to release his tax returns and still waiting for his health care replacement that would be cheaper and better.

Well, you launched right into accusing me of being a conservative Trump supporter based on zero evidence what so ever.

You defend him. You give him the benefit of the doubt and question the patriotism of anyone who even thinks about questioning him. That is not a personal attack, but, rather, exactly how the MAGA crew work

Don't mistake your lack of understanding political mathematics for a political attack. The use of language like you have does nothing but make you look a bit unhinged but like I said your post history speaks for itself. I suspect I'm speaking to a bit of a wall here.

You assume so much about me. First, you assume that, because I do not jump to his defense in less than a second, I do not understand politics. Because I ask questions and call him and his followers out on mistakes, you call me unhinged and cite my post history. Sorry (not sorry) I have a history. Sorry (not sorry) I have a stand. Sorry (not sorry) I have a track record. It is you, sir, who are the wall. Nothing at all will ever change your mind. You honestly believe this man is the greatest leader of the United States ever based on his words alone. I see his actions and the actions of his followers and believe he is dangerous.

It seems like you take offense at me separating Republicans from righties. Separating patriotism from blind allegiance. Calling out bad behavior. I gave you a chance. And you proved me right. We are done. Good night.

Where have I defended him in any way what so ever? Is stating policy and information about the mathematical makeup of congress support?

You stated hes going to be impeached and its a possiblity when there are no indications of that at all. No senators have called for impeachment. No matter how the midterms turn out the votes are not there. This is just a fact. This is not me supporting Trump its stating fact. I want the man gone. I want the Democrats to win big in November. I want the Republican party to suffer greatly. (You will ignore this part)

You have shown through your posts a general lack of awareness about the big picture of federal politics. You talk about being hypocrites and phony and bad politicians but that doesn't mean a thing. Every single person on planet Earth knows politicians are liars, crooks, cheats and terrible people. Yet you keep saying this like you're telling everyone what we already know. What most people are able to do, you not withstanding, is understand that this is the nature of high-level politics. Wagging your finger and calling people names doesn't do anything. It shows a lack of deep thought into the political realities. You're not interested in actually learning anything and that's a big problem with discourse today. I just wanted to discuss the math involved.

I don't support Trump (you will ignore this).
I hope the Democrats win massively in November (you will also ignore this)
I think the Trump presidency has been a terrible waste of time and just about everything about is against my beliefs (you will ignore this too)
I voted for and supported Democrats right down the line in August primaries (This, too, will be ignored by you)

Once again, let me state that talking about policy in logical, calm manners does not mean one supports the policy being discussed. Most people with some intellectual ability can do this. You should try to, too. But we all know you wont because bashing and name calling is the way you get your satisfaction.

trpmb6 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

You are throwing around a lot of names, but look at the details. Which account did Clinton pay Jones? I mean, was it funneled from a campaign account to a shell corporation to Jones? Oh, wait, no.... That payment was an out-of-court settlement, an not a bribe to keep her quiet during the campaign. The law suit went on while Clinton was a sitting president. He paid while he was still in office.

I'm glad you understand the difference. So if it turns out that Trump paid this out of his own pocket you'll forgive him? As I've said here before, if Trump paid using campaign money and it was not reported that is a violation. I think I'm consistent on this.

The Republican party went on and on for decades about being family friendly and family values and sanctity of marriage. The Democratic party really does not care what consenting adults do behind closed doors. What is wrong with holding the "family values" party accountable for their not family values candidates?

It is looking more and more the bribes were paid from campaign money. It is starting to be spun with the classic "both sides do it so let's just ignore this one" line. Republicans demand that Democrats be held to an impossibly high standard, why can't Republicans be held to the same impossibly high standard?

trpmb6 wrote:

The Democratic party seemed to learn from all that and turned their back on John Edwards. And Anthony Wiener. And Al Franken. While Republicans cry and whine about "but Clinton!" when any of their politicians are caught cheating, forgive them, and hold them on a pedestal because "but Clinton!"

I don't really care about infidelity. Just like I don't care about what any other two consenting adults do (unless it ends up being my wife involved and then well that's a matter between her and myself). What I do care about is the law. What Anthony Wiener broke the law. Al Franken broke the law. John Edwards was acquitted (on the charge relevant here). So far Trump hasn't been charged with anything. And I haven't seen any evidence of other allegations against Trump (like we had with Wiener and Franken).

Not going to address your last paragraph, it's just conjecture.

How did Al Franken break the law? What was he tried for?

Republicans are fixated on "infidelity is a non starter so get rid of all Democrats who cheat on their wives!" but refuse to hold themselves to the same standard. The leader of the party, for starters. Newt Gingrich, also. Roy Moore. But, let's just forget the Republican double standard and focus on:

This is an active and ongoing investigation that the orange man allegedly (more than likely) paid out of campaign dollars to keep two women quiet. And that, quite likely, a foreign government has a sexual dossier on him that may possibly include at least one minor.

If Trey Gowdy and the Republicans believed "we are making smoke so there must be fire" with regard to Hillary, why not apply that across the board? Or accepting the fact that Hillary is innocent of everything because nothing has been proven? Apply the same standard across the board.

EDIT:

You probably have not seen any allegations against the orange golfer-in-chief because you are not paying attention. Remember he walked in on naked teen aged girls at the Miss Teen USA pageant. He has said he would date his daughter. He has talked about women as objects and would "grab 'em by the pu*sy." He cheated on all his wives. Why is it outside the realm of possibility that he would pay hush money to women he cheated with?

trpmb6 wrote:

I don't know about all of you. I do know one thing. I'm never running for office and never going to work on a campaign for someone else.

I like to think I've lived a pretty squeaky clean life but who knows what kind of crimes I may have committed unknowingly

Pretty solid chance you're not a narcissistic idiot going from one self induced crisis to the next, mopped up by a cabal of questionable characters who--turns out!--will flip on you for less prison time....

...but if you are, then go for it! You'll probably win.

seb146 wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

You are throwing around a lot of names, but look at the details. Which account did Clinton pay Jones? I mean, was it funneled from a campaign account to a shell corporation to Jones? Oh, wait, no.... That payment was an out-of-court settlement, an not a bribe to keep her quiet during the campaign. The law suit went on while Clinton was a sitting president. He paid while he was still in office.

I'm glad you understand the difference. So if it turns out that Trump paid this out of his own pocket you'll forgive him? As I've said here before, if Trump paid using campaign money and it was not reported that is a violation. I think I'm consistent on this.

The Republican party went on and on for decades about being family friendly and family values and sanctity of marriage. The Democratic party really does not care what consenting adults do behind closed doors. What is wrong with holding the "family values" party accountable for their not family values candidates?

It is looking more and more the bribes were paid from campaign money. It is starting to be spun with the classic "both sides do it so let's just ignore this one" line. Republicans demand that Democrats be held to an impossibly high standard, why can't Republicans be held to the same impossibly high standard?

trpmb6 wrote:

The Democratic party seemed to learn from all that and turned their back on John Edwards. And Anthony Wiener. And Al Franken. While Republicans cry and whine about "but Clinton!" when any of their politicians are caught cheating, forgive them, and hold them on a pedestal because "but Clinton!"

I don't really care about infidelity. Just like I don't care about what any other two consenting adults do (unless it ends up being my wife involved and then well that's a matter between her and myself). What I do care about is the law. What Anthony Wiener broke the law. Al Franken broke the law. John Edwards was acquitted (on the charge relevant here). So far Trump hasn't been charged with anything. And I haven't seen any evidence of other allegations against Trump (like we had with Wiener and Franken).

Not going to address your last paragraph, it's just conjecture.

How did Al Franken break the law? What was he tried for?

Republicans are fixated on "infidelity is a non starter so get rid of all Democrats who cheat on their wives!" but refuse to hold themselves to the same standard. The leader of the party, for starters. Newt Gingrich, also. Roy Moore. But, let's just forget the Republican double standard and focus on:

This is an active and ongoing investigation that the orange man allegedly (more than likely) paid out of campaign dollars to keep two women quiet. And that, quite likely, a foreign government has a sexual dossier on him that may possibly include at least one minor.

If Trey Gowdy and the Republicans believed "we are making smoke so there must be fire" with regard to Hillary, why not apply that across the board? Or accepting the fact that Hillary is innocent of everything because nothing has been proven? Apply the same standard across the board.

EDIT:

You probably have not seen any allegations against the orange golfer-in-chief because you are not paying attention. Remember he walked in on naked teen aged girls at the Miss Teen USA pageant. He has said he would date his daughter. He has talked about women as objects and would "grab 'em by the pu*sy." He cheated on all his wives. Why is it outside the realm of possibility that he would pay hush money to women he cheated with?

Franken got a raw deal I don't care for him personally what he did in my opinion was playing around but in todays climate you can't do even that now. I didn't want Franken pushed out over that. But you liberals are like pit bulls you will grasp at anything to hang Trump this is my problem with all of you. Look I have a lot of issues with Trump but you liberals are relentless I can see why he hates you all. I admit he brings a lot of problems on himself but come on look at CNN and MSNBC it is 24/7 Cohen and Manifort you don't think the MSM has it out for him?

stratosphere wrote:

seb146 wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

I'm glad you understand the difference. So if it turns out that Trump paid this out of his own pocket you'll forgive him? As I've said here before, if Trump paid using campaign money and it was not reported that is a violation. I think I'm consistent on this.

The Republican party went on and on for decades about being family friendly and family values and sanctity of marriage. The Democratic party really does not care what consenting adults do behind closed doors. What is wrong with holding the "family values" party accountable for their not family values candidates?

It is looking more and more the bribes were paid from campaign money. It is starting to be spun with the classic "both sides do it so let's just ignore this one" line. Republicans demand that Democrats be held to an impossibly high standard, why can't Republicans be held to the same impossibly high standard?

trpmb6 wrote:

I don't really care about infidelity. Just like I don't care about what any other two consenting adults do (unless it ends up being my wife involved and then well that's a matter between her and myself). What I do care about is the law. What Anthony Wiener broke the law. Al Franken broke the law. John Edwards was acquitted (on the charge relevant here). So far Trump hasn't been charged with anything. And I haven't seen any evidence of other allegations against Trump (like we had with Wiener and Franken).

Not going to address your last paragraph, it's just conjecture.

How did Al Franken break the law? What was he tried for?

Republicans are fixated on "infidelity is a non starter so get rid of all Democrats who cheat on their wives!" but refuse to hold themselves to the same standard. The leader of the party, for starters. Newt Gingrich, also. Roy Moore. But, let's just forget the Republican double standard and focus on:

This is an active and ongoing investigation that the orange man allegedly (more than likely) paid out of campaign dollars to keep two women quiet. And that, quite likely, a foreign government has a sexual dossier on him that may possibly include at least one minor.

If Trey Gowdy and the Republicans believed "we are making smoke so there must be fire" with regard to Hillary, why not apply that across the board? Or accepting the fact that Hillary is innocent of everything because nothing has been proven? Apply the same standard across the board.

EDIT:

You probably have not seen any allegations against the orange golfer-in-chief because you are not paying attention. Remember he walked in on naked teen aged girls at the Miss Teen USA pageant. He has said he would date his daughter. He has talked about women as objects and would "grab 'em by the pu*sy." He cheated on all his wives. Why is it outside the realm of possibility that he would pay hush money to women he cheated with?

Franken got a raw deal I don't care for him personally what he did in my opinion was playing around but in todays climate you can't do even that now. I didn't want Franken pushed out over that. But you liberals are like pit bulls you will grasp at anything to hang Trump this is my problem with all of you. Look I have a lot of issues with Trump but you liberals are relentless I can see why he hates you all. I admit he brings a lot of problems on himself but come on look at CNN and MSNBC it is 24/7 Cohen and Manifort you don't think the MSM has it out for him?

When did this MSM start? It seems like Fox News created this hostile atmosphere which has evolved into MSM and Conservative.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/er ... 6b783ccd37

An answer to the question above.

stratosphere wrote:

seb146 wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

I'm glad you understand the difference. So if it turns out that Trump paid this out of his own pocket you'll forgive him? As I've said here before, if Trump paid using campaign money and it was not reported that is a violation. I think I'm consistent on this.

The Republican party went on and on for decades about being family friendly and family values and sanctity of marriage. The Democratic party really does not care what consenting adults do behind closed doors. What is wrong with holding the "family values" party accountable for their not family values candidates?

It is looking more and more the bribes were paid from campaign money. It is starting to be spun with the classic "both sides do it so let's just ignore this one" line. Republicans demand that Democrats be held to an impossibly high standard, why can't Republicans be held to the same impossibly high standard?

trpmb6 wrote:

I don't really care about infidelity. Just like I don't care about what any other two consenting adults do (unless it ends up being my wife involved and then well that's a matter between her and myself). What I do care about is the law. What Anthony Wiener broke the law. Al Franken broke the law. John Edwards was acquitted (on the charge relevant here). So far Trump hasn't been charged with anything. And I haven't seen any evidence of other allegations against Trump (like we had with Wiener and Franken).

Not going to address your last paragraph, it's just conjecture.

How did Al Franken break the law? What was he tried for?

Republicans are fixated on "infidelity is a non starter so get rid of all Democrats who cheat on their wives!" but refuse to hold themselves to the same standard. The leader of the party, for starters. Newt Gingrich, also. Roy Moore. But, let's just forget the Republican double standard and focus on:

This is an active and ongoing investigation that the orange man allegedly (more than likely) paid out of campaign dollars to keep two women quiet. And that, quite likely, a foreign government has a sexual dossier on him that may possibly include at least one minor.

If Trey Gowdy and the Republicans believed "we are making smoke so there must be fire" with regard to Hillary, why not apply that across the board? Or accepting the fact that Hillary is innocent of everything because nothing has been proven? Apply the same standard across the board.

EDIT:

You probably have not seen any allegations against the orange golfer-in-chief because you are not paying attention. Remember he walked in on naked teen aged girls at the Miss Teen USA pageant. He has said he would date his daughter. He has talked about women as objects and would "grab 'em by the pu*sy." He cheated on all his wives. Why is it outside the realm of possibility that he would pay hush money to women he cheated with?

Franken got a raw deal I don't care for him personally what he did in my opinion was playing around but in todays climate you can't do even that now. I didn't want Franken pushed out over that. But you liberals are like pit bulls you will grasp at anything to hang Trump this is my problem with all of you. Look I have a lot of issues with Trump but you liberals are relentless I can see why he hates you all. I admit he brings a lot of problems on himself but come on look at CNN and MSNBC it is 24/7 Cohen and Manifort you don't think the MSM has it out for him?

Hows about Republicans hold their own officials to the same impossibly high standards they hold Democrats to? Franken had one stupid "frat boy" pic and a forced kiss and he was ousted because Republicans (fueled by Fox/MSM) demanded it. I know the only reason was so Republicans could get that seat and continue to balloon the deficit and debt but still, hold your own accountable so you all will not look like massive hypocrites.

EA CO AS wrote:

Quoting very liberal, Clinton-supporting, Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz:

[i]A candidate is free to contribute to his or her own campaign.

So I guess when he wrote that he was unaware of Trump not giving the money to the campaign. Or deliberately ignored it.
The candidate is free to contribute as much as they like to *their campaign*, if they are transparent about it. Not telling their lawyer to set up a shell cooperation to pay out money gotten via bank fraud and reimbursed them via paying fake invoices.

Best regards
Thomas

Bottom line, this is Trump’s new reality quite likely until his death. He’s used the brightest spotlight in the world and Twitter to insult every possible person and government institution there is...incessantly 24 hours a day and with extreme prejudice and vulgarity. All the while idolizing the worst imaginable tyrants as the new ideal for his GOP core. I don’t believe there’s any kind of organized Deep State unless it was the one that used to exist in the Cloak Room to “get shit done”. But I wouldn’t be very surprised if there isn’t one coalescing now to put a stop to Trump’s special brand of madness and destruction. His Trump Organization CFO just flipped to the NY State AG and his Foundation is also being investigated as the conduit for illegal payments made to two prostitutes he was fucking while Melania was at home taking care of their newborn son.

But Bill right? And Hillary? They were pursued by the GOP for over 20 years. Investigated ad nauseum for any conceivable crime GOP, FBI, and DOJinvestigators could find. And all they could come up with was Bill’s lie under oath about having extramarital consensual sex with an adult. The pursuit of Donald Trump has really just started and already it’s yielded some 18 indictments, 5 plea bargains and one guity verdict. It is a stunning achievement by Mueller so far and there is oh so long to go yet. Not just right now but at the state level for a decade to come at minimum. Trump will be financially dismantled and in the end he will bear sole responsibility for his downfall. When you take one too many shits on the Constitution and side with a Grade A scumbag like Putin over your own government, yeah, I bet a Deep State just woke up and trained its collective eye on Donald. He deserves every minute of hell he lives through from here on out and his time in office cannot end soon enough.

wingman wrote:

I bet a Deep State just woke up and trained its collective eye on Donald.

"Deep state" is just code for government employees taking their oath serious and actually serving country, law and constitution first, instead of playing favor for favor.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

Quoting very liberal, Clinton-supporting, Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz:

[i]A candidate is free to contribute to his or her own campaign.

So I guess when he wrote that he was unaware of Trump not giving the money to the campaign. Or deliberately ignored it.
The candidate is free to contribute as much as they like to *their campaign*, if they are transparent about it. Not telling their lawyer to set up a shell cooperation to pay out money gotten via bank fraud and reimbursed them via paying fake invoices.

Best regards
Thomas

Technical question:

Can the average American file a FOIA request to see campaign transactions and associated information?

So now it's being reported that Cohen in fact did not know about the Trump tower meeting. Lanny Davis lied to CNN about Cohen knowing ahead of time about the meeting. In a segment with Anderson Cooper via Buzzfeed:

The host pressed Davis on a statement issued by Sens. Richard Burr and Mark Warner of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The statement said that Cohen had told the committee in a sworn testimony that he learned of the Trump Tower meeting when it was reported in July of last year. Cooper asked how Cohen’s statement to the committee could be true if he also had prior knowledge of Trump’s awareness of the meeting.

Davis responded that Cohen did not have any knowledge that Trump knew about the meeting. Davis has since told multiple outlets, including BuzzFeed News, that the Cohen camp could not seek to correct the CNN story at the time because it was in the midst of a criminal investigation.

But Davis’s media tour set in motion his outing as a confirming source for other outlets following the Trump Tower story. Davis said he should have been much more clear to reporters that he did not personally know the information was accurate. “I’m glad to take ownership of the mistake. Now I’m taking the heat, and it’s justified,” Davis told BuzzFeed News.

Multiple other news organizations (washington post / CBS / NBC) are also reporting on this.

From the Washington Post:

“I should have been more clear — including with you — that I could not independently confirm what happened,” Davis told The Post of the claim, adding: “I regret my error.”

Davis also backed off his claim, this time made on the record, that Cohen has information suggesting that Trump knew in advance about Russian hacking of Democrats’ emails in 2016. “I am not sure,” Davis said. “There’s a possibility that is the case. But I am not sure.”

So a lot of what was reported earlier in this thread were outright falsehoods or at the very least misrepresentations.

As the post continues:

This episode has to make everyone involved wonder whether his claims are all they’re made out to be -- up to and including his claim that Trump knew about the hush-money payments beforehand. Regardless of how you want all of this to shake out, it’s best to base a case around people who won’t undermine it. Cohen wasn’t a fantastic witness before; he’s a worse one now.

Start with a slimey lawyer and it doesn't matter how good you try to dress him up. He's still a slimey lawyer.

What also troubles me with this is that CNN allowed Davis to be an anonymous source for their July 27th story, as well as being allowed to provide a "no comment" public statement on it. That's just outright misleading and pretty damn unethical.

trpmb6 wrote:

So now it's being reported that Cohen in fact did not know about the Trump tower meeting. Lanny Davis lied to CNN about Cohen knowing ahead of time about the meeting. In a segment with Anderson Cooper via Buzzfeed:

The host pressed Davis on a statement issued by Sens. Richard Burr and Mark Warner of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The statement said that Cohen had told the committee in a sworn testimony that he learned of the Trump Tower meeting when it was reported in July of last year. Cooper asked how Cohen’s statement to the committee could be true if he also had prior knowledge of Trump’s awareness of the meeting.

Davis responded that Cohen did not have any knowledge that Trump knew about the meeting. Davis has since told multiple outlets, including BuzzFeed News, that the Cohen camp could not seek to correct the CNN story at the time because it was in the midst of a criminal investigation.

But Davis’s media tour set in motion his outing as a confirming source for other outlets following the Trump Tower story. Davis said he should have been much more clear to reporters that he did not personally know the information was accurate. “I’m glad to take ownership of the mistake. Now I’m taking the heat, and it’s justified,” Davis told BuzzFeed News.

Multiple other news organizations (washington post / CBS / NBC) are also reporting on this.

From the Washington Post:

“I should have been more clear — including with you — that I could not independently confirm what happened,” Davis told The Post of the claim, adding: “I regret my error.”

Davis also backed off his claim, this time made on the record, that Cohen has information suggesting that Trump knew in advance about Russian hacking of Democrats’ emails in 2016. “I am not sure,” Davis said. “There’s a possibility that is the case. But I am not sure.”

So a lot of what was reported earlier in this thread were outright falsehoods or at the very least misrepresentations.

As the post continues:

This episode has to make everyone involved wonder whether his claims are all they’re made out to be -- up to and including his claim that Trump knew about the hush-money payments beforehand. Regardless of how you want all of this to shake out, it’s best to base a case around people who won’t undermine it. Cohen wasn’t a fantastic witness before; he’s a worse one now.

Start with a slimey lawyer and it doesn't matter how good you try to dress him up. He's still a slimey lawyer.

What also troubles me with this is that CNN allowed Davis to be an anonymous source for their July 27th story, as well as being allowed to provide a "no comment" public statement on it. That's just outright misleading and pretty damn unethical.

All that was done was that the lawyer mispoke about what he could confirm. Without a tape, I doubt you could confirm the conversation about the russian tower. However, with tapes you can confirm that porn humper Trump was in on the payments.

It's more than just that. The reason Senators Burr and Warner reached out was because they knew Cohen was looking at perjury. He told them he knew nothing about it on the record.

trpmb6 wrote:

It's more than just that. The reason Senators Burr and Warner reached out was because they knew Cohen was looking at perjury. He told them he knew nothing about it on the record.

Correct, and that was over a year ago, We need to see whether there is confirmation or not, and that is why Burr and Warren asked to have Cohen come in again. We will see what comes out of that.

trpmb6 wrote:

It's more than just that. The reason Senators Burr and Warner reached out was because they knew Cohen was looking at perjury. He told them he knew nothing about it on the record.

And facts have changed since then. Remember that the original meeting was allegedly set up to discuss adoption of Russian children, which is illegal.

https://www.cnn.com/2012/12/28/world/eu ... index.html

Here is a "who's who" of the Russian meeting

https://www.businessinsider.com/who-els ... us-group-8

Two statements jump out at me:

1. The meeting "needed to happen"
2. "...to get dirt on Hillary..."

https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/s ... a-trump-c/

trpmb6 wrote:

Michael Cohen has reached a plea deal with NY prosecutors. Could face 3-5 years on bank fraud, tax evasion and campaign finance violations.

I'm sure none of you hear care about the first two so I'll skip to the campaign finance violations. They stem from the payments to stormy daniels and karen mcdougal. The payments are viewed as a campaign finance violation because of the benefit the trump campaign would receive in not being made public and because Trump did not make the payments himself.

Faces up to 3-5 years and quite a bit of fines. Appears in court today at 4pm for arraignment.

What, if any, impact this has on the special counsel investigation is yet to be seen. Since Cohen was handed off by mueller's team to the manhattan office it's possible they didn't think Cohen had much to offer.

Federal judge dismisses Stormy Daniels' defamation lawsuit against Trump

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/15/politics ... index.html

In addition to dismissing the lawsuit, Otero ruled Trump is entitled to attorney's fees.

Trump's attorney Charles J. Harder said in a statement to CNN, "No amount of spin or commentary by Stormy Daniels or her lawyer, Mr. Avenatti, can truthfully characterize today's ruling in any way other than total victory for President Trump and total defeat for Stormy Daniels."
"The amount of the award for President Trump's attorneys' fees will be determined at a later date," Harder added.

So much Winning ! ! !

Definitely big time winning, DF.

Where does the appeal get heard for this Republican appointed Judge's decision.?

DIRECTFLT wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

Michael Cohen has reached a plea deal with NY prosecutors. Could face 3-5 years on bank fraud, tax evasion and campaign finance violations.

I'm sure none of you hear care about the first two so I'll skip to the campaign finance violations. They stem from the payments to stormy daniels and karen mcdougal. The payments are viewed as a campaign finance violation because of the benefit the trump campaign would receive in not being made public and because Trump did not make the payments himself.

Faces up to 3-5 years and quite a bit of fines. Appears in court today at 4pm for arraignment.

What, if any, impact this has on the special counsel investigation is yet to be seen. Since Cohen was handed off by mueller's team to the manhattan office it's possible they didn't think Cohen had much to offer.

Federal judge dismisses Stormy Daniels' defamation lawsuit against Trump

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/15/politics ... index.html

In addition to dismissing the lawsuit, Otero ruled Trump is entitled to attorney's fees.

Trump's attorney Charles J. Harder said in a statement to CNN, "No amount of spin or commentary by Stormy Daniels or her lawyer, Mr. Avenatti, can truthfully characterize today's ruling in any way other than total victory for President Trump and total defeat for Stormy Daniels."
"The amount of the award for President Trump's attorneys' fees will be determined at a later date," Harder added.

So much Winning ! ! !

Based on Stormy's tweet today, Trump has a lot of shortcoming to explain.

This should be an epic hyperbole battle for such a small winner.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Federal judge dismisses Stormy Daniels' defamation lawsuit against Trump

And then he called her "horse face", which is hilarious seeing as he paid a ton of money to sleep with that "horse face". He reminds us every day why the evanglicals dropped to their knees to bob for his mushroom--he's just like them!

MaverickM11 wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Federal judge dismisses Stormy Daniels' defamation lawsuit against Trump

And then he called her "horse face", which is hilarious seeing as he paid a ton of money to sleep with that "horse face".!

Maybe he is a horse-fucker and paid that much to be on top for once..... and hence it was an endearment?

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Federal judge dismisses Stormy Daniels' defamation lawsuit against Trump

And then he called her "horse face", which is hilarious seeing as he paid a ton of money to sleep with that "horse face".!

Maybe he is a horse-fucker and paid that much to be on top for once..... and hence it was an endearment?

Best regards
Thomas

Trump on top? That must demand hazard pay wages.

jetero wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

And then he called her "horse face", which is hilarious seeing as he paid a ton of money to sleep with that "horse face".!

Maybe he is a horse-fucker and paid that much to be on top for once..... and hence it was an endearment?

Best regards
Thomas

Trump on top? That must demand hazard pay wages.

130k is a steep asking price in that business....

Funny thing, by his own admission Trump is a horse-fucker then I guess...

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Funny thing, by his own admission Trump is a horse-fucker then I guess...

Best regards
Thomas

As a general rule, whatever Trump and his supporters accuse others of doing in secret, Trump is doing/has done out in the open, repeatedly

MaverickM11 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Funny thing, by his own admission Trump is a horse-fucker then I guess...

Best regards
Thomas

As a general rule, whatever Trump and his supporters accuse others of doing in secret, Trump is doing/has done out in the open, repeatedly

Masters of projection ...