Tweet
Originally posted by Kung Wu
View Post
-
Because it was explicitly to benefit the campaign. They were protecting the campaign. That means it's a contribution. Stormy sought an NDA before this but they weren't interested, this only happened after the Access Hollywood tape. -
If they used private money to pay an accuser off, there is no way to claim this is a contribution.Originally posted by ShockCrazy View Post
He could just as easily be protecting his family. His personal reputation. His board positions on umpteen companies. His officer status on umpteen companies.
If Trump specifically directed Cohen to use campaign funds to pay her off ... well ... then you are on to something.
But if Cohen chose to use campaign funds to pay her off, without telling Trump that they were campaign funds and/or that the source of whatever funds he used would be illegal (even if paid back) ... well put Cohen behind bars for a lot more years than he already is. That would be a dirty lawyer, not a dirty client.
Anything other than Trump specifically telling Cohen to use campaign funds to pay off Stormy is dubious and just an attempt to get poop to stick to the wall.
Kung Wu say, man who read woman like book, prefer braille!Comment
-
That may be the way you would structure the law if you were starting from scratch. It is my understanding that is not how it is currently structured. It is my understanding that key question is whether it was for purposes of influencing the election. If it was, it has to be reported as a donation. This is why we've seen Trump saying it wasn't related to the campaign. Now, if Trump repaid it, the question relates to how it was repaid. For example, if Cohen pays it out in relation to the campaign, but Trump organization money paid Cohen back, that would raise other issues in relation to the campaign finance law.
Here's actually a pretty good discussion on some of the key issues: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ampaign-expen/
-
-
This is not correct at all. In John Edwards case, he specifically solicited donations from campaign contributors to pay off the mistress. He didn't use his own personal funds to pay her off. The lawyer weasels convinced the jury that those weren't "donations" and were gifts to help him out. Based on your post above, you are asserting that Trump was protecting his campaign and therefore that's a campaign contribution. However in Edwards case, he really was using campaign funds to pay the mistress off -- they just re-characterized the donations.Originally posted by ShockCrazy View PostKung Wu say, man who read woman like book, prefer braille!Comment
-
To come back to this... Edwards was not convicted because the weasel lawyers convinced the jury that they weren't donations for the purpose of benefiting the campaign. Cohen has admitted they were for the purpose of the campaign, which would likely be key evidence in a future proceeding.
But it's definitely a tough case because, like I said earlier, the key question is whether it was for the purpose of benefiting the campaign.
-
-
Actually it would be easy to prove it was for the campaign. Why didn't he seek an NDA after the afair in 2006? Why didn't he pursue one in 2011 before or after she gave an interview to a journalist about it? Or we can say somehow a man who thinks speculation and discussion of his sexual escapades makes him look good, suddenly decided he didn't want this disclosed any more, completely arbitrarily in 2016 and it had nothing to do with his candidacy for president and that it was in trouble after the Access Hollywood tape.Originally posted by Kung Wu View PostComment
-
Because she didn't threaten to go public with it.Originally posted by ShockCrazy View Post
Cohen DID threaten to sue the magazine if they went public with it. Cohen absolutely shut it down.Originally posted by ShockCrazy View Post
It wasn't arbitrary, she finally threatened to go public. SHE dictated the timing by trying to take advantage of him.Originally posted by ShockCrazy View Post
Kung Wu say, man who read woman like book, prefer braille!Comment
-
Ok then how do you explain Trump, Cohen and Pecker seeking to pursue McDougal's story at the same time? Totally a coincidence right? She hadn't threatened to go public. They sought her out to kill it. It only then leaked to the public when AMI didn't follow through on the other parts of the deal.Originally posted by Kung Wu View PostComment
-
Alright, I think many people on this board believe at least something similar to the above. Nearly all of it is just objectively false. I am sure this post is going to be longer than it needs to be, but it's incredibly important that people understand this.Originally posted by wufan View Post
Evidence was Flimsy
Presumably, the idea of this sentence is that the "evidence" to start the investigation was flimsy. As a starting point, we can't require investigations to have rock solid evidence before an investigation. The investigation must have sufficient support to justify an investigation (which I'll cover more later, and it certainly existed in this case), but that's it. An investigation is not a conviction. As compared to obtaining a conviction, starting an investigation should be relatively very easy.
Started by Opposition Research via a Foreign Citizen
So, this has two issues. The first is that it's just not true. The second is that it wouldn't really matter even if it were true.
As a baseline, it's just not true that the dossier started everything. Nunes released his memo which withheld a ton of information and really argued that the FBI abused its authority. But even that memo admits that "The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016." What actually happened is that Papadopoulos was a chatty-kathy and told an Australian diplomat that he knew Russia had political dirt on Clinton. Once emails were released, Australian officials to American officials. So, picture this, a campaign representative for Trump is bragging to Australian diplomats that Russia has dirt on Clinton... and then the dirt is released.
The grain of truth that has caused people to believe everything was started by the dossier relates to Carter Page. After all of the above stuff went down, the FBI and DOJ got a FISA warrant to look into Carter Page. Now, we don't know everything in the application because it is so heavily redacted. But let's assume it's primarily based on the dossier. The application specifically sets out that the information came from someone looking to discredit "Candidate #1." Everybody has biases. In criminal trials, it's incredibly unlikely that you have someone who doesn't have a bias. It's about weighing that bias and attempting to verify the information to the best of your abilities.
More importantly, and I've ranted about this before on here, it's incredibly easy to get a FISA warrant. Like 0.2% of all applications EVER have been denied. And maybe we should change that rule, but probably not just because it happens to relate to someone involved in Trump's campaign.
So at this point an investigation is ongoing. On May 9, 2017, Trump fires Comey. On May 11, 2017, Trump tells the world it was because of Russia. On May 17, 2017, Special Counsel is appointed.
TLDR: Papadopoulos's bragging actually started everything. Then there was a FISA warrant on Page, which is really easy to get. And finally, the special counsel wasn't actually appointed until Trump fired Comey and said it was because of the Russia investigation.
18 Months
Not to nitpick, but it's actually only been 15 months. This article is a little older at this point and obviously doesn't include the newest indictments, but it's a good explanation of how quickly this investigation is moving. It's unreal. Clinton's lasted more than 6 years. We're not even a year and a half in, and there have been so many indictments or convictions.
Unrelated Crimes
From a logical standpoint, you can't rely on unrelated crimes as proof that the initial investigation was invalid. If a cop is in a house and finds drugs, it absolutely matters whether or not the cop is there because he chased a murder suspect in the house or whether he threw a rock through the window to get a peek at what was going on. Finding the drugs does not suggest it was one or the other.
But, let me try to convince you that they're not even unrelated crimes. Read the order appointing the special counsel. It's for any links between the Russian government and individuals associated with Trump's campaign and any matters arising from the investigation. Let's go through some of them: (1) Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his conversations with Russian officials. (2) Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying about relationships he had with foreign nationals who he believed had close connections with senior Russian government officials. (3) 13 Russian nationals were indicted for interfering in the election. (4) 12 Russian officers were indicted for hacking the DNC's emails. (5) Gates pleaded guilty to certain crime, some of which related to hiding foreign assets and his time as a lobbyist for foreign governments. Those are all, almost entirely DIRECTLY part of the initial goal of the investigation.
Manafort was found guilty on financial crimes and mistrials were ordered on some of the other counts that related more to the Gates stuff. Cohen's is also somewhat "separate" in the sense that his doesn't appear to relate to Russian involvement at this point in time, but it would be very difficult not to look into. We don't have any of the private conversations that Mueller has had with (1)-(5) and people could absolutely be saying Cohen has all the evidence.
The Purpose - Final Points
Trump keeps calling it a witch hunt because he wants people to believe that it's totally unwarranted. His plan is working. People like you are falling for it. The fact is that this investigation is moving swiftly and it's been incredibly productive to date.
Trump's ultimate hope is that Mueller does not charge Trump himself. It's certainly a major legal question mark. Mueller might not ever make public his findings. If he gives it directly to Congress, Trump can withhold the findings or discredit the findings on the basis that it was always a witch hunt. Do not fall for the idea that it is a witch hunt before we know what the findings are.
If Trump withholds the findings or the findings are made public and they suggest bad acts on his part, I would hope people like you would be willing to stand against Trump at that point in time. If the findings are made public and they don't reveal any bad acts on Trump's part, I'll certainly be willing to accept them.
Comment
-
ShockerPrez - As we understand it today, he first learned it from an overseas professor with substantial connections to the Russian government. He learned it after finding out he was joining Trump's campaign. Papadopoulos knew the professor had met with Russian government officials immediately prior to meeting with Papadopoulos. And then Papadopoulos "repeatedly sought to use the professor's Russian connections in an effort to arrange a meeting between the Campaign and Russian government officials." This is all in the court pleadings: https://www.justice.gov/file/1007346/download -
I was about to post the exact same link. Also in that link is information that ties it all to the campaign at a high level because Clovis(National Campaign Co-Chair) encouraged him to pursue Russian contacts. -
It never says who it was. Interesting that all this dirt is originating from London. The dossier, this professor, etc. Be interested to know if the professor was connected to Steele.
I get that popodoplus was a dolt, but this stuff all stinks to high heaven as far as Im concerned.
Sounds more like popo was an easy mark to me.
-
-
I think what this all comes down to is that we all love a good conspiracy theory and this stuff is all tasty morsels.
I, for one, have my opinion and others have theirs. The right side doesn't trust Dems and the left don't trust Reps. I personally wish that this anal probe by mueller would just rush like a wildfire through all of Washington and clear all the rotten brush once and for all. But we know that will never happen. His investigation stops at the aisle, Im sure.
Anyway. New rules are again being written. We'll have numerous process crimes to prove the underlying claim of the investigation for those on the left. Those on the right will stand that there was no collusion. What I hope is that at some point, there will be a freaking answer.
"When life hands you lemons, make lemonade." Better have some sugar and water too, or else your lemonade will suck!Comment
-
I mean... there have been indictments, guilty pleas, and convictions. Maybe it's still "conspiracy theory" territory if you're all in on Trump orchestrating everything, but this isn't quite moon landing stuff here.
Also, Mueller's investigation is not political. They've referred an investigation into Podesta to the southern district of NY: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/01/tony...-referral.html. Mueller is a republican. He is not someone who, before May 2017, had ever been accused of being politically biased, let alone politically biased against republicans.
A much bigger conspiracy theory would be to believe that ALL of these convictions and guilty pleas are the result of a deep state attempt to overthrow Trump. That Mueller spent years as a republican in an effort to one day take Trump down from the inside. That ALL of these people with shady ties to Russia were plants by Clinton.
-
-
I don't get this, why would stop at the aisle? It requires some serious tinfoil. This isn't a partisan issue like Trump wants you to think. Mueller is a Republican, but he isn't interested in partisanship. He seeks to find and punish criminals. If he finds crimes of Democrats you can bet your ass he'll pursue charges. Anyone who opposes Trump isn't necessarily partisan and on the left. I certainly am not, it's just I can look at Trump for what he is and it's not a pretty sight.Originally posted by ShockerPrez View PostComment
-
Mueller may be a republican, but I believe every other member of his team is a Dem.
And what I meant by him stopping at the aisle, I meanthat he isnt going to look into Adam Shiff and his actions to pursue bogus 'compramat' with Russia, or other congressman and possible connections with Russia, etc, etc.
Basically, I just want to know who this professor is and how their relationship came to be. I think it is curious."When life hands you lemons, make lemonade." Better have some sugar and water too, or else your lemonade will suck!Comment
-
Google it. Why does it matter? Literally none of the crimes require the professor to actually have credible intel. Maybe he does maybe he doesn't. But Papadopoulos has pleaded guilty to a crime which said he reached out to the professor specifically because he believed the professor had connections and that he tried to set up further meetings with those connections.Originally posted by ShockerPrez View Post
You're just so entrenched in the idea that this is a witch hunt that you're trying to find anything wrong with what's being presented. You're looking for a pathway that aligns with what you already want to believe which is that Clinton is the actually guilty person, and she paid Steele and Steele hired people who infiltrated Trump's campaign and now the whole deep state is on this giant conspiracy.
It just doesn't matter who the professor is for these crimes.Comment
-
You don't think it's important if the professor, I'm pretty sure a woman by the way, was directed to approach poopa by a 3rd party and who that 3rd party is? I'll stipulate that poopa is guilty of pursuing it, but think its just curious how she comes into his life offering dirt right when he becomed part of the campaign. -
ShockerPrez, did you click on my link? The professor is a man. You're thinking of the female Russian national that is a woman. The pleading, which I linked earlier, specifically says Papadopoulos bragged about being a member of the campaign. The professor got very interested and said he had connections to Russian officials. When they met again, the Professor "brought with him a female Russian national" and was introduced as "a relative" of Putin.
I think it'd be interesting to know more about the professor, but I think it's wholly irrelevant for purposes of our "is this a witch hunt" conversation. The crimes do not require that we know who it is.
-
-
You don't know what you are talking about, they aren't all Democrats. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.2233ac73b467Originally posted by ShockerPrez View Post
What about Adam Schiff? I have no idea what you are talking about. Sounds very tinfoily.
Does it matter? Papadopoulos pursued Russian contacts with the blessing of the campaign. Even if he was a patsy, it was encouraged by the campaign staff. If he wasn't a patsy you wouldn't be ok with what happened but if he was no harm no foul? That makes no sense. They were willing to collaborate with Russians, lets pretend it was a setup, what does it matter? That still shows interest in working with a foreign government to undermine the election, if you are ok with it then I am frightened.Comment
-
I didn't see any registered republicans on that list.....
You should listen to the Adam Schiff recording with the russian comedians, its funny. Bogus, but he took it as seriously as poopalicious. So it should be investigated too. -
So if your not Republican your are obviously biased? This is stupid. If people could only be investigated by people who share the same beliefs we'd never have investigations.
I listened, I have no idea what your point is. Of course he took a call seriously. Why wouldn't he? He is a part of the investigation why wouldn't he investigate? He asked relevant questions, and asked for sources and provided the information both before and after the call to the FBI, so it has been investigated or looked at. You are reaaaaaally grasping at random straws.
-
-
If Trump walks into en establishment and buys a $10,000 suit with his own money, so that he looks fantastic on the campaign trail -- is that an illegal contribution?
I mean he bought it for the purpose of the campaign.Kung Wu say, man who read woman like book, prefer braille!Comment
-
I also think you don't understand something about campaign finance. Donald can buy anything he wants or pay for anything he wants for the purposes of his campaign, but it does need to be disclosed he bought it if it was for the campaign. This is to prevent shady work arounds to campaign giving. Candidates can contribute as much of their own wealth as they want to their campaign, but they can't use their person as an illegal way to funnel money to their campaign to exceed limits from other individuals or entities. -
Just saw your comment. He'd be in trouble because there are strict regulations about corporate spending on campaigns.
We have these rules for a reason. You may disagree with them, but they are the rules. We have decided as a society that we want campaign contributions to be at least somewhat regulated, and we want campaigns to have to thoroughly disclose contributions. If this was related to Trump's campaign, as Cohen says, there are very strict requirements in place in terms of reporting and who can make the expenditure, etc.
-
-
jdshock and ShockCrazy
Having some fun. Obviously the 4 non party affiliated members are nonpartisan. Balancing out the 13 democrats on the team.
And as for poppy, I just want to know why someone would falsely claim they have dirt when they don't. After all, that information is getting regurgitated by poppy started the whole thing.
I'll go back to my tinfoilery."When life hands you lemons, make lemonade." Better have some sugar and water too, or else your lemonade will suck!Comment
-
This is really the crux of the issue. The spirit of the campaign finance law has certainly not been broken. This law was designed to prevent hopeful politicians from having an unfair financial advantage due to a few wealthy interested parties. Donald Trump bankrolled his own election for Christ's sakes LMFAO. His puny attorney, whom he routinely reimbursed for expenses, was proactive in staving off a possible damaging political event for Donald - he was doing his freaking job! Meanwhile, The Donald was writing checks to the tune of 10 million a pop in order to keep his political machine rolling. Fast-forward to today; now we find ourselves arguing with Libtards, afflicted with full blown TDS fever about minutia - basically an I undotted, or a T uncrossed on the back of a campaign finance form. The whole thing is just hilarious, and blatantly witch huntish from an aerial view.Originally posted by Kung Wu View Post
Quick question: Why isn't anybody investigating the cinematic prostitute for blackmailing a sitting president? It's clear Trump didn't cut her a check out of the goodness of his heart.
T
...:cool:Comment
Comment