Corruption
- Thread starter bkingUK
- Start date
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/n...anny-davis-blowing-huge-hole-cnns-trump-tower
Welp. So much for that one. Assume the campaign finance one will get put to bed as well. Sad.
Welp. So much for that one. Assume the campaign finance one will get put to bed as well. Sad.
Not by a long shot lol..... I guess the feds like handing out immunity out of the kindness of their hearts....
Jr is going to be indicted soon.....
I don't really care either way. But can what was said in that particular article be rebutted? It seems silly to discredit the basis of the article unless it is not factual just because of the source. I definitely get the questioning of sources, I do it as well. But if cnn posted an article about how NK is not cooperating with the agreement made during the summit and it is an undisputed fact, it would be silly for me to say, "cnn is left leaning and fake news", right?
Serious question because I've been out of town for work and haven't been paying attention, but none of this today has anything to do with Trump colluding with Russia?
I've always thought it was tax evasion and money laundering type of charges against Manafort, and the whole payoff to cover up the affairs? If I'm correct then it didn't really change anything imo. But, if there is anything against Trump colluding with Russia then this should make it easier on Mueller.
I've always thought it was tax evasion and money laundering type of charges against Manafort, and the whole payoff to cover up the affairs? If I'm correct then it didn't really change anything imo. But, if there is anything against Trump colluding with Russia then this should make it easier on Mueller.
If you watched the video, Cohen’s own lawyer made the claims that Cohen didn’t know if Trump knew of the Trump Tower meeting. But what would Cohen’s own lawyer know...
You understand that NO ONE has ever been prosecuted under the 18th century Logan Act, right?
You are right on the bold, and I'll clarify that I would encourage people to take it with a grain of salt b/c of the source -- to verify it through other sources -- not to dismiss it w/o consideration.
I do think such sources have betrayed our trust and do not deserve the benefit of the doubt, but neither should we write them off out of pocket.
This true. He hasn’t yet, but he has admitted to doing it.
You are making excuses to accept it. It’s most likely you accept it because you truly support it as long as it pokes the libs. It’s also likely accepting blame is the one thing Trump voters will never accept, no matter how much damage is done.
Patriots
No, he hasn’t. You’re jumping to a conclusion that hasn’t been proven. Again, he could have paid her off with his own funds and been just fine. Only way he’s gonna be in trouble is if he expressly designated campaign funds to pay her off. He didn’t admit that. I’m fine with seeing Trump in trouble if he actually broke the law. Unfortunately for you and other snowflakes, he hasn’t been charged with anything and nothing is certain on what happened. Yet, here you are, acting if it’s a certain thing when it’s far from the truth. Sucks for you, but you’re wrong at this point.
The source is irrelevant in this instance. The video, which was the main point of the link, was from CNN. I’m fairly positive they aren’t skewed to the right.
I think you might have this backward. If Trump reimbursed Cohen from his own pocket, that is perfectly legal. Cohen was employed as his lawyer. Paying legal fees is legal right? It is a stretch to consider those bimbo payments as part of the campaign, but even if they are, a candidate can pay as much of his own money as he wants toward his campaign with no campaign violations. (See Billy Clinton's payment of $850,000.)
Swalwell: We don't have enough evidence to impeach Trump - The Hill https://apple.news/Agx_II3vATIif__tkoJoi3Q
Right. We need to find out if Trump ordered the reimbursement out of campaign funds or his own pocket. If he wasn’t told by Cohen it was out of campaign fund, then he’s not committed any crime.
Yes, that's true.
But, let the Liberals have a ray of hope, it's been something earth shattering every week. Pure comedy!
Incorrect.
What we do know.
1. Cohen paid the money. (He says he was told to and that the purpose was to influence the election.)
2. Cohen was reimbursed.
3. While it is legal to donate to ones own campaign, donations as well as how the money was spent are required.
This is where the waters get muddy, but if you consider only Trumps own words, then it’s obvious he has either violated the law by not reporting the donation or by not reporting the expenditure, either literally or accurately.
He has said that he paid Cohen himself, calls it a legal fee to his lawyer. Did he report this legal fee? Did he report it accurately? Word is the fee was considered a retainer as well as profit for the attorney to cover expenses and taxes involved. This indicates he saw this as a simple legal expense and didn’t report it at all, as he felt it wasn’t a contribution to the campaign. This is fine, intent would need to be proven to show this was indeed tied to the campaign and if he had directed the payment and acknowledged it was prevent harm during the campaign, then that’s bad. He feels he has this covered but...
He has stated in the past that he knew nothing about the payment. This could only be true if he had not paid the money back. You can’t reimburse something you know nothing about. Trump maintains to this day that neither affair ever happened. This brings us to where we have to make a decision as there are only two outcomes available, he paid it back out of his own pocket and it had zero to do with the campaign, or the affairs never happened and he knew nothing about it.
He is lying, it’s either/or and they are both choices he has given you. If it didn’t violate campaign law, then you accept that your President is a man willing to cheat on his wife and lie about it, or you accept that your President cheated to gain an advantage in the campaign and then tried to cover it up.
I’ve said this before and I will say it again. The campaign finance violation, which is serious, won’t be what brings him down. It will be the conspiracy he and others have maintained trying to cover it up. I am also pretty it will be found that he and others in the campaign did in fact seek help in the election from some Russians, who of course were purposefully seeking to gain access to his campaign. This of course will lead to another obstruction charge as it’s obvious he has been trying to stop that from the beginning.
What I find odd is not much talk about tweets about cats like Manafort, Cohen, etc. Thid is a not so subtle way of affecting others actions, much like his tweets about US business that have real affect on public’s trading.
Either way, I know some will hunker down, but the long term damage being done is going to be a stain on the GOP for a decade. With the millennials pushing for Social Democracy, y’all need to think long and hard about what is really happening and what you are really wishing for.
How long did it take the Democrats to get over Hilary screening Bernie over?
That's how long it will take the GOP.
What does that have to do with anything I said? How many people have been charged with violating a law has nothing to do with whether or not it is okay to break said law.
And I never called for his prosecution to begin with, I just said he admitted to acts that are a textbook definition of a violation of the act.
Last edited:
That would be nice. I feel that it will never be the same now that the genie has been let out of the bottle.
Maybe I can add some clarity to this discussion. Since I seem to be able to post only once a day, I will need to make this comprehensive. The Logan Act has never been enforced, and one of the reasons is that it may be unconstitutional. The first amendment says the government may not restrict free speach, which is what the Logan Act does. It is not the hill you should pick to die on in any sort of debate.
Some might even consider Obama's comments in South Africa to be violations of the Logan Act, but I doubt anyone will pursue it. I might note that it is very common for presidential candidates to have dialog with foreign leaders prior to the election, all of which may be violations of the Act. What I'm saying here is this whole deal is a nothing burger, to quote a previous candidate.
Yup. Well said. It’s the same with the campaign finance stuff. Since Trump took office we have had countless anonymously sourced “bombshell” stories put out by the MSM. It seems like a large number of those “bombshells” turn out to be nothing at all. We’ve seen this movie play out before. The media goes nuts for a couple days, get proven their stories were at best misleading at worst flat out incorrect, and then we all move on. Nothing is going to change and it’s going to further erode what little confidence there is in the mainstream media and further prove they are completely unified in their hatred and opposition of Trump.
Also, I believe you can send a message to the mods and have the posting restriction lifted. I had to do it, too.
I really don’t care about the Logan act or Flynn. He was an idiot, probably helped get more access to the Trump team and as a high ranking military officer, that’s pretty bad.
As for the MSM, yeah it’s basically liberal, it is however not something I feel is out to get Trump. If anything, they helped him get elected with their none stop coverage of him. His act draws ratings, good or bad, and that sells commercials. Any news that is 24 hour news is going to be feeding you a lot of fluff. I am not sure which zingers you feel fell off the map, but the truth is, some serious allegations have been proven to be correct which each guilty plea or decision.
Back to my point, Trumps own words. What is it you tell yourself when you see him lie, you know he is lying, and the lie is an obvious attempt at either covering up, or attacking other parties and/or allied nations?
Look, Trump is obviously a shallow man when it comes to morality. He has cheated on several wives, he has bankrupted numerous small business owners in court, refusing to pay what he agreed to pay contractually, he has purposefully said some very vile things about numerous people, both politicians and private citizens, and he is clearly affecting stock prices with his tweets such as about Harley Davidson, Amazon, several airplane manufacturers, etc.
What was it that made the GOP abandon all of these moral values? Is the need to win and undo all that Obama had done so important that y’all decided if you have to ignore what is right to get that, you would gladly do it?
Final question. Where does the line get drawn? How far are you willing to let this go before you realize that the leg you once stood one is no longer there and your now no better than the other side?
For me, it’s simple to see what the next bombshell is going to be. If you want to know that Trump has done wrong or broke the law, just listen to him first off, deny he did it. Secondly, he says it wasn’t against the law, and lastly, he says Obama or Hildog did the same, but worse.
There was no added clarity though. He violated the law based on his own admission. Which is a fact. Once again, I didn't call for his prosecution.
And since Obama wasn't negotiating (ala Flynn's "Hey, don't react to these sanctions, and we will ease them once we are in power"), in what world could that be considered violating the Logan Act?. People are allowed to have opinions and express them to foreign countries, they are just not allowed to negotiate on behalf of the US Government (hint: Obama was not) unless they have the legal right do so. You are conflating situations that are not the same.
And once again I'm not calling for Flynn to be charged with the Logan Act. The Logan Act was only brought up because someone wanted to bury his head in the sand and say that no one around Trump has been caught colluding with Russia. Flynn admitted to doing just that. Even if that wasn't true, the investigation is still on going.
Speaking about someone's absolute innocence (while ignoring evidence of possible wrong doing) in a situation as a matter of fact before the investigation is done makes it clear some people are just rooting for their team to win, as opposed to wanting justice served.
Last edited:
Wrong. He admitted to the meeting. As to the content of the meeting and actual discussions taking place, you have zero clue. It's all generalized and certainly doesn't confirm he was negotiation on behalf of the US. Again, you're leaping to conclusions without anything to back it up. He didn't violate the Logan Act or else he would have been charged with it.
OT from corruption/collusion/Logan act.
But Trump's deal with Mexico is surely means for impeachment, no?
But Trump's deal with Mexico is surely means for impeachment, no?
Haven't had a chance to read more than a short blurb about it requiring more parts to be North American made to avoid import taxes. While I wouldn't implement such policy, why should it be grounds for impeachment?
(I'm not trying to be contrarian, just hoping you have more info on the matter than me.)
Other than a rich 14 year old boy and Arnold Schwarzenegger who the f--k bangs their maid?
Oh... I did some more reading.. This is meant to replace NAFTA instead of operating alongside it/addressing some shortcomings? Yeah... that will probably not be good.
We are pumping $1T/year in additional unfunded liabilities directly in to the US economy (unless of course you believe in the magical 4% year over year GDP growth). Of course the market is going to view that as favorable. Free money is never free. Just saying.
Still haven't had a chance to read up on the details at work, saw this on a Reddit thread
Doubt this is going to be a big deal at all if this dude is correct, at least in the short term. They have like a month to finalize the deal before the current Mexican President can no longer sign it from what I gathered, and Canada isn't even negotiating yet. Any faults with dude's logic?
Similar threads
