Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Godlike Member
|
Post by AlaCowboy on Apr 26, 2024 14:47:17 GMT -5
The election interference continues. Adultery has consequences... It got JFK killed.
|
|
56-43-2* OVER FLORIDA. ALWAYS IN THE LEAD. THE CRYBABY LIZARDS WOULD ACCEPT THIS IF THEY WERE HONEST *2020 Is Negated By Covid-19 15 SEC CHAMPIONSHIPS FOR GEORGIA FLORIDA HAS ONLY 8 SEC CHAMPIONSHIPS BACK-TO-BACK NATIONAL CHAMPIONS 2021! 2022! FOUR NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS!
AMERICAN BY BIRTH. SOUTHERN BY THE GRACE OF GOD!!!
2017 GRAND DOUCHE AWARD WINNER
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Godlike Member
|
Post by AlaCowboy on Apr 26, 2024 14:50:34 GMT -5
Probably. But you just keep doing you, sport. Not to worry. I'll keep pointing out your moral and ethical depravity whenever I see it. You voted for an adulterer. You admitted you are morally and ethically depraved.
|
|
56-43-2* OVER FLORIDA. ALWAYS IN THE LEAD. THE CRYBABY LIZARDS WOULD ACCEPT THIS IF THEY WERE HONEST *2020 Is Negated By Covid-19 15 SEC CHAMPIONSHIPS FOR GEORGIA FLORIDA HAS ONLY 8 SEC CHAMPIONSHIPS BACK-TO-BACK NATIONAL CHAMPIONS 2021! 2022! FOUR NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS!
AMERICAN BY BIRTH. SOUTHERN BY THE GRACE OF GOD!!!
2017 GRAND DOUCHE AWARD WINNER
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Now THIS here...is a member
|
Post by canefan on Apr 26, 2024 14:53:54 GMT -5
Meanwhile, the trial continues, notwithstanding the opinion of Ms Strassel. Can you dispute anything written in the article?
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Apr 26, 2024 15:41:15 GMT -5
Meanwhile, the trial continues, notwithstanding the opinion of Ms Strassel. Can you dispute anything written in the article? Plenty. Start with her idea that somehow Cohen's payment to StormyD wasn't a campaign finance violation. That has already been adjudicated. It was a campaign finance violation.
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Now THIS here...is a member
|
Post by canefan on Apr 26, 2024 16:59:04 GMT -5
Can you dispute anything written in the article? Plenty. Start with her idea that somehow Cohen's payment to StormyD wasn't a campaign finance violation. That has already been adjudicated. It was a campaign finance violation. The DOJ looked at it and declined to charge. If Trump was the source of the money, how can it be an illegal contribution?
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Apr 26, 2024 18:01:31 GMT -5
Plenty. Start with her idea that somehow Cohen's payment to StormyD wasn't a campaign finance violation. That has already been adjudicated. It was a campaign finance violation. The DOJ looked at it and declined to charge. If Trump was the source of the money, how can it be an illegal contribution? What do you mean? Cohen was charged and pled guilty. Trump wasn't charged 1) because he was POTUS, and 2) because Trump instructed Barr to fire the US Attorney overseeing the case. Meanwhile, NY law doesn't require that Trump have been personally convicted of a crime to allege he covered up a crime, and he most certainly was covering up Cohen's crime, and AFAIK. that is all that is necessary. It was an illegal contribution because he had Cohen pay it, which was the violation. Had he cut a check directly to her and not falsified the accounting of it, I think you and Kim would be right and he wouldn't be in any trouble. But, as we know, that isn't how Trump rolls. As I said before, it ain't the crime, it's the coverup. In this case, he falsified the accounting, (Crime) to cover up a crime (Cohen's illegal payment, also a crime).
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Now THIS here...is a member
|
Post by canefan on Apr 26, 2024 20:25:26 GMT -5
The DOJ looked at it and declined to charge. If Trump was the source of the money, how can it be an illegal contribution? What do you mean? Cohen was charged and pled guilty. Trump wasn't charged 1) because he was POTUS, and 2) because Trump instructed Barr to fire the US Attorney overseeing the case. Meanwhile, NY law doesn't require that Trump have been personally convicted of a crime to allege he covered up a crime, and he most certainly was covering up Cohen's crime, and AFAIK. that is all that is necessary. It was an illegal contribution because he had Cohen pay it, which was the violation. Had he cut a check directly to her and not falsified the accounting of it, I think you and Kim would be right and he wouldn't be in any trouble. But, as we know, that isn't how Trump rolls. As I said before, it ain't the crime, it's the coverup. In this case, he falsified the accounting, (Crime) to cover up a crime (Cohen's illegal payment, also a crime). Bottom line though, if the money came from Trump, and this money, for whatever purpose it was, if it was paid to Cohen and then paid to Daniels, it cannot be a political contribution. There is just no way to spin that one.
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Apr 26, 2024 22:17:57 GMT -5
What do you mean? Cohen was charged and pled guilty. Trump wasn't charged 1) because he was POTUS, and 2) because Trump instructed Barr to fire the US Attorney overseeing the case. Meanwhile, NY law doesn't require that Trump have been personally convicted of a crime to allege he covered up a crime, and he most certainly was covering up Cohen's crime, and AFAIK. that is all that is necessary. It was an illegal contribution because he had Cohen pay it, which was the violation. Had he cut a check directly to her and not falsified the accounting of it, I think you and Kim would be right and he wouldn't be in any trouble. But, as we know, that isn't how Trump rolls. As I said before, it ain't the crime, it's the coverup. In this case, he falsified the accounting, (Crime) to cover up a crime (Cohen's illegal payment, also a crime). Bottom line though, if the money came from Trump, and this money, for whatever purpose it was, if it was paid to Cohen and then paid to Daniels, it cannot be a political contribution. There is just no way to spin that one. That is not how NY law sees it. As I said, had he just cut a check to her and on the books called it "Non-disclosure agreement with porn star I f-ed in Vegas", none of this would be happening. But he didn't.
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Now THIS here...is a member
|
Post by canefan on Apr 27, 2024 9:52:12 GMT -5
Bottom line though, if the money came from Trump, and this money, for whatever purpose it was, if it was paid to Cohen and then paid to Daniels, it cannot be a political contribution. There is just no way to spin that one. That is not how NY law sees it. As I said, had he just cut a check to her and on the books called it "Non-disclosure agreement with porn star I f-ed in Vegas", none of this would be happening. But he didn't. It might be more accurate to say this is not how Bragg sees it at this point. Using New York Election Law 17-152 is "a misdemeanor offense that prohibits “conspir[ing] to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means. During opening statements on April 22, prosecutor Matthew Colangelo emphasized the role of § 17-152 in the district attorney’s case, declaring, “This was a planned, coordinated long-running conspiracy to influence the 2016 election, to help Donald Trump get elected.” Senior Trial Counsel Joshua Steinglass further underlined the importance of the statute the following day, describing § 17-152 as “the primary crime that we have alleged” as an object offense. “The entire case is predicated on the idea that there was a conspiracy to influence the election in 2016,” Steinglass said. " First, the primary crime they are using is a misdemeanor, to allow them to go back and charge other misdemeanors that had already expired the statute of limitations. So they are focused on one payment, to Daniels, and call that a coordinated long-running conspiracy? It doesn't sound like it was long-running or a conspiracy. Two, if this is a violation, why wasn't Hillary charged when she logged her payments to have the Steele dossier created as legal expenses? Instead, she got a $30,000 fine to pay. How about Biden's campaign conspiracy to cover up Hunter's laptop? Certainly fits that they did so to influence the election. So look at that law. Isn't a campaign's job "to influence an election" in the first place? Throw in that non-disclosure payments are not illegal and what do you have? If you throw out all of Trump's denials and just say he is guilty of paying her off to keep her quiet. Boom. Not illegal. Are they doing so to influence the election? How can doing something that is not illegal violate this federal law? Why is a state AG the only one who wants to charge only one person, the presidential candidate for the opposite party of his, under a theory that has never been tried before, right before the presidential election? Seriously dude?
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Apr 27, 2024 12:08:40 GMT -5
That is not how NY law sees it. As I said, had he just cut a check to her and on the books called it "Non-disclosure agreement with porn star I f-ed in Vegas", none of this would be happening. But he didn't. It might be more accurate to say this is not how Bragg sees it at this point. Using New York Election Law 17-152 is "a misdemeanor offense that prohibits “conspir[ing] to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means. During opening statements on April 22, prosecutor Matthew Colangelo emphasized the role of § 17-152 in the district attorney’s case, declaring, “This was a planned, coordinated long-running conspiracy to influence the 2016 election, to help Donald Trump get elected.” Senior Trial Counsel Joshua Steinglass further underlined the importance of the statute the following day, describing § 17-152 as “the primary crime that we have alleged” as an object offense. “The entire case is predicated on the idea that there was a conspiracy to influence the election in 2016,” Steinglass said. " First, the primary crime they are using is a misdemeanor, to allow them to go back and charge other misdemeanors that had already expired the statute of limitations. So they are focused on one payment, to Daniels, and call that a coordinated long-running conspiracy? It doesn't sound like it was long-running or a conspiracy. Two, if this is a violation, why wasn't Hillary charged when she logged her payments to have the Steele dossier created as legal expenses? Instead, she got a $30,000 fine to pay. How about Biden's campaign conspiracy to cover up Hunter's laptop? Certainly fits that they did so to influence the election. So look at that law. Isn't a campaign's job "to influence an election" in the first place? Throw in that non-disclosure payments are not illegal and what do you have? If you throw out all of Trump's denials and just say he is guilty of paying her off to keep her quiet. Boom. Not illegal. Are they doing so to influence the election? How can doing something that is not illegal violate this federal law? Why is a state AG the only one who wants to charge only one person, the presidential candidate for the opposite party of his, under a theory that has never been tried before, right before the presidential election? Seriously dude? So we are in agreement. Trump's problem is not that Daniels was paid off, but that she was paid off illegally by Cohen in a manner that violated FEC contribution limit laws and, thereby activated state law 17-152. The fundamental difference in the Hillary analogy is that Steele was hired to produce tangible OPPO research and was paid for it. It is a legit expense, like hats or placards. Stormy did not do anything, so her payment wasn't for a real campaign expense. And I still think that if Trump cuts the check personally, Bragg has nothing more than the accounting misdemeanor and there is no trial.
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Now THIS here...is a member
|
Post by burninbush on Apr 27, 2024 12:45:04 GMT -5
How about Biden's campaign conspiracy to cover up Hunter's laptop? Certainly fits that they did so to influence the election. >>>> Canefan
+++++++++++++
Say what? How did Biden do that? The first anybody knew about the laptop was when he abandoned it at a repair shop -- who immediately published (copies of) it to every site that would take the offer. The best that I've heard was that a copy was not offered to Biden.
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Now THIS here...is a member
|
Post by canefan on Apr 27, 2024 14:55:35 GMT -5
It might be more accurate to say this is not how Bragg sees it at this point. Using New York Election Law 17-152 is "a misdemeanor offense that prohibits “conspir[ing] to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means. During opening statements on April 22, prosecutor Matthew Colangelo emphasized the role of § 17-152 in the district attorney’s case, declaring, “This was a planned, coordinated long-running conspiracy to influence the 2016 election, to help Donald Trump get elected.” Senior Trial Counsel Joshua Steinglass further underlined the importance of the statute the following day, describing § 17-152 as “the primary crime that we have alleged” as an object offense. “The entire case is predicated on the idea that there was a conspiracy to influence the election in 2016,” Steinglass said. " First, the primary crime they are using is a misdemeanor, to allow them to go back and charge other misdemeanors that had already expired the statute of limitations. So they are focused on one payment, to Daniels, and call that a coordinated long-running conspiracy? It doesn't sound like it was long-running or a conspiracy. Two, if this is a violation, why wasn't Hillary charged when she logged her payments to have the Steele dossier created as legal expenses? Instead, she got a $30,000 fine to pay. How about Biden's campaign conspiracy to cover up Hunter's laptop? Certainly fits that they did so to influence the election. So look at that law. Isn't a campaign's job "to influence an election" in the first place? Throw in that non-disclosure payments are not illegal and what do you have? If you throw out all of Trump's denials and just say he is guilty of paying her off to keep her quiet. Boom. Not illegal. Are they doing so to influence the election? How can doing something that is not illegal violate this federal law? Why is a state AG the only one who wants to charge only one person, the presidential candidate for the opposite party of his, under a theory that has never been tried before, right before the presidential election? Seriously dude? So we are in agreement. Trump's problem is not that Daniels was paid off, but that she was paid off illegally by Cohen in a manner that violated FEC contribution limit laws and, thereby activated state law 17-152. This is where it gets sticky. If he did pay her off, we know it came from Cohen, and from Cohen's account, it should have identified it as payment for a non-disclosure agreement. Now, Trump made many times the amount of payment to Daniels to Cohen, all identified as "legal expenses." Was repayment to Cohen included in the payments? If yes, it was a legal expense to Trump. And once again, payment for a non-disclosure agreement, while not exactly the height of morality, is not illegal. Perhaps Cohen entering the payment incorrectly is a violation, but that should be a simple misdemeanor. Trumps payments were reviewed by the feds and they chose not even to fine him. The fundamental difference in the Hillary analogy is that Steele was hired to produce tangible OPPO research and was paid for it. It is a legit expense, like hats or placards. Except she was fined $30K because it wasn't legit research. It was fabricated. They chose in this case to fine her, not prosecute for inaccurate bookkeeping. Stormy did not do anything, so her payment wasn't for a real campaign expense. And likewise, it cannot be an illegal campaign contribution.And I still think that if Trump cuts the check personally, Bragg has nothing more than the accounting misdemeanor and there is no trial. He would have found some other way to trump up the charge.
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Now THIS here...is a member
|
Post by canefan on Apr 27, 2024 15:18:10 GMT -5
How about Biden's campaign conspiracy to cover up Hunter's laptop? Certainly fits that they did so to influence the election. >>>> Canefan +++++++++++++ Say what? How did Biden do that? The first anybody knew about the laptop was when he abandoned it at a repair shop -- who immediately published (copies of) it to every site that would take the offer. The best that I've heard was that a copy was not offered to Biden. The scorecard is looking like a 20-inning game with 20-plus hits on each side at this point. I believe this was the story that led to the release of the famous letter signed by 50(?) former intelligence officers stating the story appeared to be Russian disinformation. And it turned out the letter was initiated by the Biden campaign and was not corroborated and the actual active intelligence agency said they could not verify it.
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Godlike Member
|
Post by oujour76 on Apr 27, 2024 16:36:33 GMT -5
So we are in agreement. Trump's problem is not that Daniels was paid off, but that she was paid off illegally by Cohen in a manner that violated FEC contribution limit laws and, thereby activated state law 17-152. This is where it gets sticky. If he did pay her off, we know it came from Cohen, and from Cohen's account, it should have identified it as payment for a non-disclosure agreement. Now, Trump made many times the amount of payment to Daniels to Cohen, all identified as "legal expenses." Was repayment to Cohen included in the payments? If yes, it was a legal expense to Trump. And once again, payment for a non-disclosure agreement, while not exactly the height of morality, is not illegal. Perhaps Cohen entering the payment incorrectly is a violation, but that should be a simple misdemeanor. Trumps payments were reviewed by the feds and they chose not even to fine him. The fundamental difference in the Hillary analogy is that Steele was hired to produce tangible OPPO research and was paid for it. It is a legit expense, like hats or placards. Except she was fined $30K because it wasn't legit research. It was fabricated. They chose in this case to fine her, not prosecute for inaccurate bookkeeping. Stormy did not do anything, so her payment wasn't for a real campaign expense. And likewise, it cannot be an illegal campaign contribution.And I still think that if Trump cuts the check personally, Bragg has nothing more than the accounting misdemeanor and there is no trial. He would have found some other way to trump up the charge.We’re in full agreement that the Bragg case is a load of crap. A misdemeanor posing as 34 felonies.
|
|
Full Season 2022 Douche Champion
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Godlike Member
|
Post by AlaCowboy on Apr 27, 2024 22:59:50 GMT -5
It might be more accurate to say this is not how Bragg sees it at this point. Using New York Election Law 17-152 is "a misdemeanor offense that prohibits “conspir[ing] to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means. During opening statements on April 22, prosecutor Matthew Colangelo emphasized the role of § 17-152 in the district attorney’s case, declaring, “This was a planned, coordinated long-running conspiracy to influence the 2016 election, to help Donald Trump get elected.” Senior Trial Counsel Joshua Steinglass further underlined the importance of the statute the following day, describing § 17-152 as “the primary crime that we have alleged” as an object offense. “The entire case is predicated on the idea that there was a conspiracy to influence the election in 2016,” Steinglass said. " First, the primary crime they are using is a misdemeanor, to allow them to go back and charge other misdemeanors that had already expired the statute of limitations. So they are focused on one payment, to Daniels, and call that a coordinated long-running conspiracy? It doesn't sound like it was long-running or a conspiracy. Two, if this is a violation, why wasn't Hillary charged when she logged her payments to have the Steele dossier created as legal expenses? Instead, she got a $30,000 fine to pay. How about Biden's campaign conspiracy to cover up Hunter's laptop? Certainly fits that they did so to influence the election. So look at that law. Isn't a campaign's job "to influence an election" in the first place? Throw in that non-disclosure payments are not illegal and what do you have? If you throw out all of Trump's denials and just say he is guilty of paying her off to keep her quiet. Boom. Not illegal. Are they doing so to influence the election? How can doing something that is not illegal violate this federal law? Why is a state AG the only one who wants to charge only one person, the presidential candidate for the opposite party of his, under a theory that has never been tried before, right before the presidential election? Seriously dude? So we are in agreement. Trump's problem is not that Daniels was paid off, but that she was paid off illegally by Cohen in a manner that violated FEC contribution limit laws and, thereby activated state law 17-152. The fundamental difference in the Hillary analogy is that Steele was hired to produce tangible OPPO research and was paid for it. It is a legit expense, like hats or placards. Stormy did not do anything, so her payment wasn't for a real campaign expense. And I still think that if Trump cuts the check personally, Bragg has nothing more than the accounting misdemeanor and there is no trial. If federal law supersedes state law, and Cohen was already prosecuted for the payoff on behalf of Trump, how does state law supersede federal law?
|
|
56-43-2* OVER FLORIDA. ALWAYS IN THE LEAD. THE CRYBABY LIZARDS WOULD ACCEPT THIS IF THEY WERE HONEST *2020 Is Negated By Covid-19 15 SEC CHAMPIONSHIPS FOR GEORGIA FLORIDA HAS ONLY 8 SEC CHAMPIONSHIPS BACK-TO-BACK NATIONAL CHAMPIONS 2021! 2022! FOUR NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS!
AMERICAN BY BIRTH. SOUTHERN BY THE GRACE OF GOD!!!
2017 GRAND DOUCHE AWARD WINNER
|