Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2018 12:03:29 GMT -6
Federal prosecutors disagree. We can believe federal prosecutors or a guy on the internet that doesn't even know where Barack Obama was born. Well, I do have the advantage of actually READING the law, and studying case history and the comments of former Federal FEC officials, all of who point out nothing illegal has transpired. You might want to ask John Edwards how this works, and he didn't even use his own money. 1.) Knowledge of the hush-payments: both claim they had no knowledge of the hush-payments. However, evidence shows trump had knowledge of the payments before they were made: a. Cohen's testimony: Cohen has testified that trump knew about the hush-payments and the campaign finance violations were at the directive of trump b. Cohen's recording of trump talking about making the hush-payments c. trump admitted payments were made to the women d. AMI David Pecker testified that trump knew about the payments prior to them being made. "trump was in the room" On the other hand, it could not be established in court that Edwards had any knowledge of the payments made buy Bunny Melons 2.) Timing of the hush-payments a. hush-payments made to Edwards love-interest were made long before Edwards campaign began b. hush-payments made to trump's "whores" were made during the election c. hush-payments were made after "Access Hollywood story" 3.) Threat of exposure about the affairs a. there was no threat to Edwards by his love-interest to disclose the affair b. trump's sexual flings did threaten to go public about the affairs: In 2011, trump's sexual partners did threaten to go public about the affairs. No hush-payments were offered or made. However, in 2016, trump's sex partners again threatened to go public the affairs, and hush-payments were made. The difference between 2011 and 2016 was the election. 4.) Intention of the hush-payments: both claim they did not want their wives to find out about the affairs. Edward claimed he did not want his wife to find out about the affair. The payments were also claimed to support baby expenses. However, the judge presiding in the Edwards case ruled as a matter of law that a payment made to a candidate's extramarital sex partner is a campaign contribution if one of the reasons for the payment is made is to influence the election. Moreover, additional evidence has been provided to demonstrate the purpose of trump's hush-payments were campaign and election related with the intent to influence the election. a. Cohen's testimony; Cohen also contacted members of the trump campaign about the matter b. AMI's David Pecker testimony c. Alan Weisselberg d. members of trump campaign testimony In addition, Karen McDougal has provided evidence (testimony) some of the hush-payments came from AMI. AMI has admitted it had made illegal payment to influence the election. The use of corporate funds to contribute to a presidential campaign is questionable at best; it has been illegal for decades. Moreover, Cohen testified he worked in coordination and at the direction of trump to commit crimes. Worse of all, SDNY and OSC sentencing recommendations for Cohen implicated trump for campaign finance violations, indicating the likelihood of future indictments against trump. |
|
|
|
Post by rachelsalterego1 on Dec 15, 2018 17:04:55 GMT -6
Why aren't the Socialists/Libs raising holy hell over little Adam Schitt paying a 19 year old boy 400K for sexual harassment with taxpayer money? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2018 17:55:51 GMT -6
Why aren't the Socialists/Libs raising holy hell over little Adam Schitt paying a 19 year old boy 400K for sexual harassment with taxpayer money? I would guess no one, regardless of political party, is raising hell because your post is garbage and would better serve the National Enquirer. Is that where you found the story? I'm wondering, which political party do you claim to be affiliated? |
|
|
|
Post by rachelsalterego1 on Dec 15, 2018 18:27:37 GMT -6
I would guess no one, regardless of political party, is raising hell because your post is garbage and would better serve the National Enquirer. Is that where you found the story? I'm wondering, which political party do you claim to be affiliated? So you have no idea that there was a Congressional "slush fund" that members of Congress have used to pay off people? www.cnn.com/2017/11/16/politics/settlements-congress-sexual-harassment/index.html |
|
|
|
Post by northsider on Dec 15, 2018 18:56:58 GMT -6
I would guess no one, regardless of political party, is raising hell because your post is garbage and would better serve the National Enquirer. Is that where you found the story? I'm wondering, which political party do you claim to be affiliated? So you have no idea that there was a Congressional "slush fund" that members of Congress have used to pay off people? www.cnn.com/2017/11/16/politics/settlements-congress-sexual-harassment/index.htmlI was aware of the fund. Could you provide a link to the story about Schiff? |
|
|
|
Post by rachelsalterego1 on Dec 15, 2018 20:55:52 GMT -6
Not my job to teach you how to research.
|
|
|
|
Post by northsider on Dec 15, 2018 21:59:00 GMT -6
Not my job to teach you how to research. I hardly consider the Q twitter account research. |
|
|
|
Post by OutlawwithaSnipeSniper on Dec 15, 2018 22:42:37 GMT -6
Well, I do have the advantage of actually READING the law, and studying case history and the comments of former Federal FEC officials, all of who point out nothing illegal has transpired. You might want to ask John Edwards how this works, and he didn't even use his own money. 1.) Knowledge of the hush-payments: both claim they had no knowledge of the hush-payments. However, evidence shows trump had knowledge of the payments before they were made: a. Cohen's testimony: Cohen has testified that trump knew about the hush-payments and the campaign finance violations were at the directive of trump b. Cohen's recording of trump talking about making the hush-payments c. trump admitted payments were made to the women d. AMI David Pecker testified that trump knew about the payments prior to them being made. "trump was in the room" On the other hand, it could not be established in court that Edwards had any knowledge of the payments made buy Bunny Melons 2.) Timing of the hush-payments a. hush-payments made to Edwards love-interest were made long before Edwards campaign began b. hush-payments made to trump's "whores" were made during the election c. hush-payments were made after "Access Hollywood story" 3.) Threat of exposure about the affairs a. there was no threat to Edwards by his love-interest to disclose the affair b. trump's sexual flings did threaten to go public about the affairs: In 2011, trump's sexual partners did threaten to go public about the affairs. No hush-payments were offered or made. However, in 2016, trump's sex partners again threatened to go public the affairs, and hush-payments were made. The difference between 2011 and 2016 was the election. 4.) Intention of the hush-payments: both claim they did not want their wives to find out about the affairs. Edward claimed he did not want his wife to find out about the affair. The payments were also claimed to support baby expenses. However, the judge presiding in the Edwards case ruled as a matter of law that a payment made to a candidate's extramarital sex partner is a campaign contribution if one of the reasons for the payment is made is to influence the election. Moreover, additional evidence has been provided to demonstrate the purpose of trump's hush-payments were campaign and election related with the intent to influence the election. a. Cohen's testimony; Cohen also contacted members of the trump campaign about the matter b. AMI's David Pecker testimony c. Alan Weisselberg d. members of trump campaign testimony In addition, Karen McDougal has provided evidence (testimony) some of the hush-payments came from AMI. AMI has admitted it had made illegal payment to influence the election. The use of corporate funds to contribute to a presidential campaign is questionable at best; it has been illegal for decades. Moreover, Cohen testified he worked in coordination and at the direction of trump to commit crimes. Worse of all, SDNY and OSC sentencing recommendations for Cohen implicated trump for campaign finance violations, indicating the likelihood of future indictments against trump. After all that typing or pasting, you still ignore the fact that it was NOT ILLEGAL! Go ahead, try and charge him........ want to bet about it? |
|
|
|
Post by octavarium on Dec 15, 2018 23:00:42 GMT -6
Differences between trump and John Edwards1.) Knowledge of the hush-payments: both claim they had no knowledge of the hush-payments. However, evidence shows trump had knowledge of the payments before they were made: a. Cohen's testimony: Cohen has testified that trump knew about the hush-payments and the campaign finance violations were at the directive of trump b. Cohen's recording of trump talking about making the hush-payments c. trump admitted payments were made to the women d. AMI David Pecker testified that trump knew about the payments prior to them being made. "trump was in the room" On the other hand, it could not be established in court that Edwards had any knowledge of the payments made buy Bunny Melons 2.) Timing of the hush-payments a. hush-payments made to Edwards love-interest were made long before Edwards campaign began b. hush-payments made to trump's "whores" were made during the election c. hush-payments were made after "Access Hollywood story" 3.) Threat of exposure about the affairs a. there was no threat to Edwards by his love-interest to disclose the affair b. trump's sexual flings did threaten to go public about the affairs: In 2011, trump's sexual partners did threaten to go public about the affairs. No hush-payments were offered or made. However, in 2016, trump's sex partners again threatened to go public the affairs, and hush-payments were made. The difference between 2011 and 2016 was the election. 4.) Intention of the hush-payments: both claim they did not want their wives to find out about the affairs. Edward claimed he did not want his wife to find out about the affair. The payments were also claimed to support baby expenses. However, the judge presiding in the Edwards case ruled as a matter of law that a payment made to a candidate's extramarital sex partner is a campaign contribution if one of the reasons for the payment is made is to influence the election. Moreover, additional evidence has been provided to demonstrate the purpose of trump's hush-payments were campaign and election related with the intent to influence the election. a. Cohen's testimony; Cohen also contacted members of the trump campaign about the matter b. AMI's David Pecker testimony c. Alan Weisselberg d. members of trump campaign testimony In addition, Karen McDougal has provided evidence (testimony) some of the hush-payments came from AMI. AMI has admitted it had made illegal payment to influence the election. The use of corporate funds to contribute to a presidential campaign is questionable at best; it has been illegal for decades. Moreover, Cohen testified he worked in coordination and at the direction of trump to commit crimes. Worse of all, SDNY and OSC sentencing recommendations for Cohen implicated trump for campaign finance violations, indicating the likelihood of future indictments against trump. After all that typing or pasting, you still ignore the fact that it was NOT ILLEGAL!Go ahead, try and charge him........ want to bet about it? Yet Micheal Cohen is going to prison for it. Do you think SDNY saying that Cohen acted at the direction of Individual 1 is based only on what he says or do you think they have corroborating evidence? |
|
|
|
Post by octavarium on Dec 15, 2018 23:03:54 GMT -6
You studied case law, right?
You should realize how foolish your argument is.
But then again you are foolish enough to be led around by Ayn Rand and people that told you Barack Obama wasn't born in Hawaii.
|
|
|
|
Post by rachelsalterego1 on Dec 15, 2018 23:44:19 GMT -6
Bringing up a Democratic LARP such as Q to discredit?
Nice try.
|
|
|
|
Post by octavarium on Dec 16, 2018 0:27:29 GMT -6
Bringing up a Democratic LARP such as Q to discredit? Nice try. Who first mentioned "Q" on this forum, troll? |
|
|
|
Post by octavarium on Dec 16, 2018 0:39:14 GMT -6
You never bought into that crap but yet you spewed it on here until called out. Now it was the Democrats all along.
Snipe got played for the sucker he is.
You're just a troll.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2018 5:09:21 GMT -6
After all that typing or pasting, you still ignore the fact that it was NOT ILLEGAL! Go ahead, try and charge him........ want to bet about it? trump violated campaign finance law: 52 USC subsection 30101: Disclosure of Federal Campaign Funds Period of Limitations is 5 years. |
|
|
|
Post by soutsider on Dec 16, 2018 18:51:33 GMT -6
Not my job to teach you how to research. Actually,what that means is you just like to spout nonsense. |
|
