Question to resident "progressives" - what Cohen allegation was the most damning?

[Calimero]

I'd like to know so that I can debunk it publicly.


Max

[soccerfan777]

You wanna join your buddies in jail?

[reilloc]

Start with Cohen admitting paying Stormy Daniels.

LNC

[Calimero]

On Wednesday, February 27, 2019 at 11:50:06 PM UTC+1, reilloc wrote:
> Start with Cohen admitting paying Stormy Daniels.
>
> LNC

Is that illegal?


Max

[The Iceberg]

On Wednesday, 27 February 2019 22:50:06 UTC, reilloc wrote:
> Start with Cohen admitting paying Stormy Daniels.

HAHHAAAHAHHAHAHAHH! get over it young reilloc else you're going to be whinging about a nothingburger like that in 10 years when you are in your 30's! LOL

[Calimero]

First of all it is in no way clear that campaign finance laws prohibited Cohen to pay Stormy and the orange clown reimbursing him later. Who claims otherwise is a liar (CNN's Gloria Borger is a liar).

Second - even if, IF, it was a violation of campaign finance law you need criminal intent. Negligence is not enough here. And Cohen didn't claim that he told Trump that they were acting criminally; probably he didn't know it either (admitted to the crime to get a lower prison term for his more serious crimes). So Trump's defense might be "I didn't know that this was not allowed". Have fun to prove the contrary, Demmies ...

So according to Colly that was the bombshell, lol. He is a dimwit.
We have a big whopping nothingburger. You won't learn that on CNN of course.


Max

[reilloc]

Yes.

LNC

[bob]

On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 14:30:12 -0800 (PST), Calimero
<calim...@gmx.de> wrote:

>I'd like to know so that I can debunk it publicly.

since you asked, here it is:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/02/27/ann-coulter-hush-little-porn-star-dont-say-a-word/

"Neither the media nor Cohen seem to realize that Cohen wasn’t doing
anything illegal when he paid the “hush money.” (Just because Trump
thinks every Jewish lawyer is Roy Cohn doesn’t mean you have to, too,
New York Times.) Words like “hush money” and “porn star” make the
payments sound unsavory — especially to The New York Times, known
during the Clinton era as Defender of Inappropriate Presidential Sex —
but there’s nothing criminal about paying money to suppress
embarrassing information, even in the middle of a political campaign."


bob

[bob]

[bob]

attorneys have stated that the payment to stormy would have to have
been clearly for the election purpose, and the election purpose alone.

this is not only not provable, but false.

bob

[bob]

On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 14:30:12 -0800 (PST), Calimero
<calim...@gmx.de> wrote:

>I'd like to know so that I can debunk it publicly.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/02/27/ann-coulter-hush-little-porn-star-dont-say-a-word/

"I’d be more impressed if they got Trump on a jaywalking charge.
President Obama had to pay $375,000 in fines for actual campaign
violations during his 2008 run, and I don’t think we needed 16
prosecutors, half of Congress, and the entire media on the case.
The theory of Trump’s alleged campaign finance violation is that if
you’re running for office, all normal life expenses suddenly become
campaign-related. According to these neurotics, ANY money Trump or his
companies spent during the campaign is a potential campaign finance
expenditure. Paying your gardeners is a campaign expense — because who
would vote for a man who can’t even keep the hedges tidy at
Mar-a-Lago? If Trump had gone to the hospital for an appendectomy —
well, he got his appendix cut out because he feared that if he died of
appendicitis, he wouldn’t get the nomination. Luckily our laws aren’t
as insane as our media. For the hush money payments to be campaign
expenses, the government would have to prove:
1) Trump, with his fine legal mind, knew he was violating the law; and
2) He authorized the payments only because he was running for office.
So prosecutors have a fantastic case, provided they can get Trump to
admit on the stand, Oh no, I wasn’t worried that these allegations
would hurt my brand at all. I didn’t care about what my grandkids or
Melania would think. I had Cohen pay off a porn star for the sole
purpose of misleading the public into voting for me on the basis of my
character. Such an argument would be absurd with anyone, but we’re
talking about Donald Trump. He didn’t exactly hold himself out to the
voting public as a moral paragon.


bob

[jdeluise]

On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 19:22:25 -0500, bob wrote:

> this is not only not provable, but false.

How do you know it's false?

[bob]

because there are other obvious reasons:

1. not wanting your spouse to know.
2. not wanting your daughter to know.
3. not wanting your son to know.
4. preferring the TV networks don't know.

bob

[jdeluise]

On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 19:31:11 -0500, bob wrote:

> because there are other obvious reasons:
>
> 1. not wanting your spouse to know.
> 2. not wanting your daughter to know.
> 3. not wanting your son to know.
> 4. preferring the TV networks don't know.

Weird, even Trumpers say they knew he did stuff like this and didn't
care. You think these people in his inner circle don't know?

[bob]

you're talking about the voters. tat's not what i said. you're still
thinking in terms of "election."

i said his spouse and kids and TV network brass.

bob

[jdeluise]

On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 19:59:38 -0500, bob wrote:

> you're talking about the voters. tat's not what i said. you're still
> thinking in terms of "election."
>
> i said his spouse and kids and TV network brass.

cmon bob, how dumb do you think they are? :)

[Calimero]

That‘s the way it is.
Now back to Russia ...


Max

[jdeluise]

On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 18:24:31 -0800, Calimero wrote:
> That‘s the way it is.
> Now back to Russia ...

Let's not forget bob was a staunch Lance Armstrong defender too and
blamed the whole thing on jealous teammates.

[reilloc]

On 2/27/2019 4:30 PM, Calimero wrote:
> I'd like to know so that I can debunk it publicly.
>
>

It having been established that Cohen paid Stormy Daniels, next consider
that and how Trump repaid Cohen.

LNC

[Calimero]

It has been explained to you over and over again that this is no campaign finance law violation. And even it were one, that proving Trump‘s criminal intent would be nearly impossible.

So that‘s all you got?

Ah ha ha ha ....


Max

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 28/02/2019 2.31, bob wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 00:29:27 GMT, jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 19:22:25 -0500, bob wrote:
>>
>>> this is not only not provable, but false.
>>
>> How do you know it's false?
>
> because there are other obvious reasons:
>
> 1. not wanting your spouse to know.
> 2. not wanting your daughter to know.
> 3. not wanting your son to know.

This is what Giuliani would like you to believe. And you do.

> 4. preferring the TV networks don't know.

Bingo! Especially right before an election. Slow clocks are right
occasionally.

[Pelle Svanslös]

Where is the quote from? Did you write it yourself?

The quote is wrong in saying Cohen didn't do anything illegal. He was
charged and sentenced for an illegal campaign contribution. End of story.

Whether Trump is associated is not yet established. But very likely.

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 28/02/2019 2.20, bob wrote:

Oh, Breitbart. Shoulda known.

It's wrong.

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 28/02/2019 2.29, bob wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 14:30:12 -0800 (PST), Calimero
> <calim...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
>> I'd like to know so that I can debunk it publicly.
>
>
> https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/02/27/ann-coulter-hush-little-porn-star-dont-say-a-word/
>
> "I’d be more impressed if they got Trump on a jaywalking charge.
> President Obama had to pay $375,000 in fines for actual campaign
> violations during his 2008 run, and I don’t think we needed 16
> prosecutors, half of Congress, and the entire media on the case.

Just in case you chumps are drawing parallels ... Omama's campaign was a
civil offence, Cohen's campaign contribution is a criminal offence.

> The theory of Trump’s alleged campaign finance violation is that if
> you’re running for office, all normal life expenses suddenly become
> campaign-related. According to these neurotics, ANY money Trump or his
> companies spent during the campaign is a potential campaign finance
> expenditure.

Not just any. Only those that are designed to further his chances in an
election. No, boo. Payments to gardeners don't qualify.

> For the hush money payments to be campaign
> expenses, the government would have to prove:
> 1) Trump, with his fine legal mind, knew he was violating the law; and
> 2) He authorized the payments only because he was running for office.

This is true. Wow!

[reilloc]

https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5753323/5a-Check-Redacted-8-1-17.pdf

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/14728237/GettyImages_1127749022.jpg

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/27/18243009/michael-cohen-house-testimony-evidence-documents

LNC

[reilloc]

See, also,
https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5753324/5b-Check-Redacted-3-17-17.pdf

LNC

[Calimero]

What is this?


Max

[reilloc]

Proof of criminality. Trump, Don Jr., and Allen Weisselberg.

LNC

[Calimero]

What did they do?


Max

[reilloc]

Federal election crimes, unlawful use of charitable funds for private
purposes, authorizing the unlawful use of charitable funds for private
purposes, lying on federal expenditure disclosure forms, intentionally
making false statements to financial institutions for the purposes of
securing loans, among others.

LNC

[Calimero]

All that with those hush payments to Stormy?
Wow, that will be the end .... lol


Max

[The Iceberg]

it called common sense, know you thicko little demmies just cannot give an honest answer(as proven by bob by his open borders question) but most normal people(inc normal Democrats) understand it wasn't a "campaign contribution", you must really hate Trump to desperately pretend that's the reason. You really should get help or get over it, face it - Hillary LOST, Trump WON.

[The Iceberg]

Absolutely Nothing's going to happen, Pelle, get over it.

[The Iceberg]

Hey Pelle, NOTHING is going to happen, you can moan all you like. Hillary LOST.

[The Iceberg]

you must be soooo desperate and hate Trump sooo much for giving your Hillary a good and proper BEATING! it hilarious that you're meant to be "clever" wannabe lawyer yet you pretend this utter 'campaign contribution' rubbish! LOL

[bob]

it's one thing to have a suspicion, it's another thing to see it
broadcast in your face.

bob

[bob]

i never liked lance armstrong, and never defended his action. i simply
said he was caught because of jealous teammates. which is true.

bob

[bob]

can you believe pelle, deleting the original post and inserting his
opinion in there? lol desperate man.

bob

[bob]

On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 19:13:54 -0800 (PST), Calimero
<calim...@gmx.de> wrote:

>On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 4:02:22 AM UTC+1, reilloc wrote:
>> On 2/27/2019 4:30 PM, Calimero wrote:
>> > I'd like to know so that I can debunk it publicly.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> It having been established that Cohen paid Stormy Daniels, next consider
>> that and how Trump repaid Cohen.
>>
>> LNC
>
>

>It has been explained to you over and over again that this is no campaign finance law violation. And even it were one, that proving Trump壮 criminal intent would be nearly impossible.
>
>So that壮 all you got?

>
>Ah ha ha ha ....

this colly reminds me of a guy that no matter how many times the
attorneys in the office tell him they want cream in their coffee, he
fetches them cups with sugar. no tip for colly! lol

bob

[Calimero]

He doesn't understand why Cohen was convicted - among other, worse things - for a campaign finance violation and the tangerine genius could be innocent of said "crime".
Is beyond his limited grasp.

If that is all the Trump haters are up to (what happened to the "Russia collusion?) they are set for a rude awakening ....

Now I can't imagine how Trump could lose in 2020. The Demmie clown car turning left and left and left (reparations, lol!), the economy still strong, what can go wrong?


Max

[Hey Guys]

On Wednesday, February 27, 2019 at 7:20:17 PM UTC-5, bob wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 14:30:12 -0800 (PST), Calimero
> <calim...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> >I'd like to know so that I can debunk it publicly.
>

> since you asked, here it is:
> https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/02/27/ann-coulter-hush-little-porn-star-dont-say-a-word/
>
> "Neither the media nor Cohen seem to realize that Cohen wasn’t doing
> anything illegal when he paid the “hush money.” (Just because Trump
> thinks every Jewish lawyer is Roy Cohn doesn’t mean you have to, too,
> New York Times.) Words like “hush money” and “porn star” make the
> payments sound unsavory — especially to The New York Times, known
> during the Clinton era as Defender of Inappropriate Presidential Sex —
> but there’s nothing criminal about paying money to suppress
> embarrassing information, even in the middle of a political campaign."
>
>

> bob

You really treat Breitbart as a credible source? Sheesh.

[*skriptis]

Hey Guys <heyg...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

Can you point out to news where they lied?
--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[Pelle Svanslös]

First sentence in the above quote.

[*skriptis]

Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.los> Wrote in message:

No, that's just opinions. You can easily find lawyers and jurists
to claim that or this, depending on their views.


In the end, stuff like that is only determined finally in court.

[Pelle Svanslös]

Weak. A claim that is not true is a lie.

>
>
> In the end, stuff like that is only determined finally in court.

You're damn right, dimwit. Cohen has already had his time in court over
this. Next up: jailtime.

That's why the first sentence is a lie. Satisfied?

[*skriptis]

Find me a lawyer who didn't break the law and whom you couldn't
lock up if you really wanted?

You're a bizarre person Pelle. Here's why.

Clinton lied under oath and possibly raped women.
Bush faked intelligence data and evidence to start war to kill
people and create geopolitical mess in the middle
east.
Obama and Hillary continued, funded Islamic radicals to depose
secular regimes in the middle east etc.


And you want us to care if Trump paid his hooker? Like, as long as
he's doing good job, who cares? He's immensely superior to his
predecessors.

These are not 1880s. People don't care about that anymore.


Do you wanna link on historical presidential overreachs?

Probably not.

[Pelle Svanslös]

I can only answer questions as they're posed. An example of a Breitbart
lie is what you requested. I kindly gave you one. Case closed, chumpski.

If you think hookers, 1880s, and presidential over-reachs are relevant
to that ... All I can say is good luck in your focused endeavours.

[TT]

Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti 28.2.2019 klo 6:25:
> On 28/02/2019 2.20, bob wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 17:50:48 -0600, reilloc <rei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/27/2019 5:12 PM, Calimero wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2019 at 11:50:06 PM UTC+1, reilloc wrote:
>>>>> Start with Cohen admitting paying Stormy Daniels.
>>>>>
>>>>> LNC
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is that illegal?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes.

>>
>> "Neither the media nor Cohen seem to realize that Cohen wasn’t doing
>> anything illegal when he paid the “hush money.” (Just because Trump
>> thinks every Jewish lawyer is Roy Cohn doesn’t mean you have to, too,
>> New York Times.) Words like “hush money” and “porn star” make the
>> payments sound unsavory — especially to The New York Times, known
>> during the Clinton era as Defender of Inappropriate Presidential Sex —
>> but there’s nothing criminal about paying money to suppress
>> embarrassing information, even in the middle of a political campaign."
>>
>

> Where is the quote from? Did you write it yourself?
>

I noticed that too, seems like Bob is too embarrassed to admit his fake
news sources. Quick googling reveals that this is something Ann Coulter
wrote, LOL.

In a way, leaving out the source can be seen Bob's admission on bad
intent - he probably knows that the quote is wrong.


> The quote is wrong in saying Cohen didn't do anything illegal. He was
> charged and sentenced for an illegal campaign contribution. End of story.
>

Yes.

> Whether Trump is associated is not yet established. But very likely.

It is established, not just prosecuted yet.

[jdeluise]

On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 19:53:53 +0200, TT wrote:

> I noticed that too, seems like Bob is too embarrassed to admit his fake
> news sources. Quick googling reveals that this is something Ann Coulter
> wrote, LOL.

How embarrassing, Sawfish went on this multi-day angry rant at Pelle
about the content he posted which *had* links. Now both Sawfish *and*
bob have been caught posting stuff without any attribution to the
original content.

[TT]

Calimero kirjoitti 28.2.2019 klo 0:30:
> I'd like to know so that I can debunk it publicly.
>
>

> Max
>

-The smoking gun was Trump signed receipt of compensations to Cohen for
Stormy Daniels payment... which probably breaks several laws, campaign
finance law, bookkeeping rules etc.

-Then there were comments on increasing/decreasing Trump's wealth on
paper depending on occasion. Probably guilty of bank fraud, insurance
fraud and tax fraud.

-Stuff on Trump Foundation payments, breaking law for non-profit
charitable foundations.

-Comments that Trump knew everything what happened in his business,
nothing was done without Trump's approval... which can be used as an
argument on him knowing about Russia collusion. Also phone call from
Stone & Don Jr whispers.

-Cohen also told that there are ongoing investigations on SDNY which we
don't know about.

Too much stuff to remember all here... my favourite was perhaps
threatening to sue if Trump's schools would release his grades or SAT
scores - why on earth would a self-proclaimed genius want to do that...
hahahahaha

[TT]

Calimero kirjoitti 28.2.2019 klo 1:34:
> On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 12:24:42 AM UTC+1, The Iceberg wrote:

>> On Wednesday, 27 February 2019 22:50:06 UTC, reilloc wrote:
>>> Start with Cohen admitting paying Stormy Daniels.
>>

>> HAHHAAAHAHHAHAHAHH! get over it young reilloc else you're going to be whinging about a nothingburger like that in 10 years when you are in your 30's! LOL
>
>
> First of all it is in no way clear that campaign finance laws prohibited Cohen to pay Stormy and the orange clown reimbursing him later. Who claims otherwise is a liar (CNN's Gloria Borger is a liar).
>
> Second - even if, IF, it was a violation of campaign finance law you need criminal intent. Negligence is not enough here. And Cohen didn't claim that he told Trump that they were acting criminally; probably he didn't know it either (admitted to the crime to get a lower prison term for his more serious crimes). So Trump's defense might be "I didn't know that this was not allowed". Have fun to prove the contrary, Demmies ...
>
> So according to Colly that was the bombshell, lol. He is a dimwit.
> We have a big whopping nothingburger. You won't learn that on CNN of course.
>
>
> Max
>

So your defense is not that Trump is not guilty but that it would be
hard to prove that Trump understood what he was signing...

lol

[Calimero]

That doesn't mean he acted illegally.
Since you are not a lawyer and also quite a dumb guy you don't understand the difference.

>
> > Whether Trump is associated is not yet established. But very likely.
>
> It is established, not just prosecuted yet.

Let's assume that the hush payment was a violation of campaign finance law (it was not, most legal experts agree on that). But just let us assume that.

How do you prove that Trump KNEW that the hush-payment was illegal? Did Cohen testify that he told him (Cohen himself didn't think about it either apparently).

See, and there it all ends.

Back to Russia collusion. How's that going?
Indictments around the corner??


Max

[Calimero]

On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 7:18:23 PM UTC+1, TT wrote:
> Calimero kirjoitti 28.2.2019 klo 0:30:
> > I'd like to know so that I can debunk it publicly.
> >
> >
> > Max
> >
>
> -The smoking gun was Trump signed receipt of compensations to Cohen for
> Stormy Daniels payment... which probably breaks several laws, campaign
> finance law, bookkeeping rules etc.

"Probably"?
You mean like Trump "probably" colluded with bad Russians?

> -Then there were comments on increasing/decreasing Trump's wealth on
> paper depending on occasion. Probably guilty of bank fraud, insurance
> fraud and tax fraud.

"Comments", yeah ...

> -Stuff on Trump Foundation payments, breaking law for non-profit
> charitable foundations.

Stuffy stuff, yeah ...

> -Comments that Trump knew everything what happened in his business,
> nothing was done without Trump's approval...

Says who?
The convicted perjurer, the Demmies' star witness?
Ah ha ha ha ...

> which can be used as an
> argument on him knowing about Russia collusion. Also phone call from
> Stone & Don Jr whispers.

Wow, that is certainly easy to prove ...

> -Cohen also told that there are ongoing investigations on SDNY which we
> don't know about.

That is your last hope.
But as we know the SDNY is part of the DOJ where Barr just took over ...

> Too much stuff to remember all here... my favourite was perhaps
> threatening to sue if Trump's schools would release his grades or SAT
> scores - why on earth would a self-proclaimed genius want to do that...
> hahahahaha

Same reason as Obama.


Max

[TT]

bob kirjoitti 28.2.2019 klo 2:22:

> attorneys have stated that the payment to stormy would have to have
> been clearly for the election purpose, and the election purpose alone.

>
> this is not only not provable, but false.
>

> bob
>

Timing of the payment to Stormy Daniels refutes your point. Not to
mention that Cohen was sentenced already on breaking the campaign
finance law.

As a general question, how do you feel about a man having unprotected
sex with a pornstar while his wife is having a baby? WHAT SCUM!!!

[TT]

jdeluise kirjoitti 28.2.2019 klo 2:29:
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 19:22:25 -0500, bob wrote:
>

>> this is not only not provable, but false.
>

> How do you know it's false?
>

Cause Coulter says so.

[Calimero]

He signed a receipt of a reimbursement transaction after Cohen paid hush money to Stormy.
I think he understood that.

What is hard to prove is that he (maybe, maybe not) violated campaign finance law by "directing" (is that even proven?) Cohen to pay this Demmie hooker.

And even IF, IF, IF someone might be able to prove that - this is cheap change compared to the usual DemocRats' campaign finance violations under Obama and Hillary. So then Donny pays a fine and that is it.


Max

[Calimero]

On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 7:29:40 PM UTC+1, TT wrote:
> bob kirjoitti 28.2.2019 klo 2:22:
>
> > attorneys have stated that the payment to stormy would have to have
> > been clearly for the election purpose, and the election purpose alone.
> >
> > this is not only not provable, but false.
> >
> > bob
> >
>
> Timing of the payment to Stormy Daniels refutes your point. Not to
> mention that Cohen was sentenced already on breaking the campaign
> finance law.

Timing was because Stormy threatened to publish her "story" at that time. So he could pay her 2 years early or two years later.

> As a general question, how do you feel about a man having unprotected
> sex with a pornstar while his wife is having a baby? WHAT SCUM!!!

Unprotected?
Trump is a bad hombre, but not as bad as Bill Clinton and Crooked Hillary, revered until this day by bigoted Demmies.


Max

[TT]

Calimero kirjoitti 28.2.2019 klo 20:25:
> That doesn't mean he acted illegally.
> Since you are not a lawyer and also quite a dumb guy you don't understand the difference.

You're not certainly a lawyer yourself...

Look, Cohen was indicted (& convicted) for campaign finance law
violation which went through a Grand Jury.

[TT]

Calimero kirjoitti 28.2.2019 klo 20:38:
> On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 7:29:40 PM UTC+1, TT wrote:
>> bob kirjoitti 28.2.2019 klo 2:22:
>>
>>> attorneys have stated that the payment to stormy would have to have
>>> been clearly for the election purpose, and the election purpose alone.
>>>
>>> this is not only not provable, but false.
>>>
>>> bob
>>>
>>
>> Timing of the payment to Stormy Daniels refutes your point. Not to
>> mention that Cohen was sentenced already on breaking the campaign
>> finance law.
>
> Timing was because Stormy threatened to publish her "story" at that time. So he could pay her 2 years early or two years later.
>

Stormy had strong cards because it was under the election. If election
had no relevance then Stormy had no cause to demand it exactly then.

Cohen testified that they tought it would have been too much for the
campaign after previous allegations.

[Pelle Svanslös]

Trump knew about the Edwards case. Which is floated as a precedent. He
tweeted about it in 2012. He would be a complete fool if he didn't know
what it was actually about.

Which is possible though.

[TT]

Calimero kirjoitti 28.2.2019 klo 20:35:
> On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 7:24:46 PM UTC+1, TT wrote:
>> Calimero kirjoitti 28.2.2019 klo 1:34:
>>> On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 12:24:42 AM UTC+1, The Iceberg wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, 27 February 2019 22:50:06 UTC, reilloc wrote:
>>>>> Start with Cohen admitting paying Stormy Daniels.
>>>>
>>>> HAHHAAAHAHHAHAHAHH! get over it young reilloc else you're going to be whinging about a nothingburger like that in 10 years when you are in your 30's! LOL
>>>
>>>
>>> First of all it is in no way clear that campaign finance laws prohibited Cohen to pay Stormy and the orange clown reimbursing him later. Who claims otherwise is a liar (CNN's Gloria Borger is a liar).
>>>
>>> Second - even if, IF, it was a violation of campaign finance law you need criminal intent. Negligence is not enough here. And Cohen didn't claim that he told Trump that they were acting criminally; probably he didn't know it either (admitted to the crime to get a lower prison term for his more serious crimes). So Trump's defense might be "I didn't know that this was not allowed". Have fun to prove the contrary, Demmies ...
>>>
>>> So according to Colly that was the bombshell, lol. He is a dimwit.
>>> We have a big whopping nothingburger. You won't learn that on CNN of course.
>>>
>>>
>>> Max
>>>
>>
>> So your defense is not that Trump is not guilty but that it would be
>> hard to prove that Trump understood what he was signing...
>>
>> lol
>
>
> He signed a receipt of a reimbursement transaction after Cohen paid hush money to Stormy.
> I think he understood that.
>
> What is hard to prove is that he (maybe, maybe not) violated campaign finance law by "directing" (is that even proven?) Cohen to pay this Demmie hooker.
>

It's not hard to prove at all, it's a given that this was decided by Trump.

[Sawfish]

My understanding of Daniels is that she's not so much a porn star, as a
common prostitute who sometimes made porn films.

It's certainly no good to be caught fucking someone like that...

--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Life is a tragedy to those who feel, a comedy to those who think."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Calimero]

On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 7:39:27 PM UTC+1, TT wrote:
> Calimero kirjoitti 28.2.2019 klo 20:25:
> > That doesn't mean he acted illegally.
> > Since you are not a lawyer and also quite a dumb guy you don't understand the difference.
>
> You're not certainly a lawyer yourself...

Yes, I am.
And I know what "criminal intent" means and how difficult it is to prove in such cases.

> Look, Cohen was indicted (& convicted) for campaign finance law
> violation which went through a Grand Jury.

Cohen pleaded guilty. Do you think a Grand Jury will then think about it for hours or what?


Max

[Calimero]

On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 7:45:11 PM UTC+1, TT wrote:
> Calimero kirjoitti 28.2.2019 klo 20:38:
> > On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 7:29:40 PM UTC+1, TT wrote:
> >> bob kirjoitti 28.2.2019 klo 2:22:
> >>
> >>> attorneys have stated that the payment to stormy would have to have
> >>> been clearly for the election purpose, and the election purpose alone.
> >>>
> >>> this is not only not provable, but false.
> >>>
> >>> bob
> >>>
> >>
> >> Timing of the payment to Stormy Daniels refutes your point. Not to
> >> mention that Cohen was sentenced already on breaking the campaign
> >> finance law.
> >
> > Timing was because Stormy threatened to publish her "story" at that time. So he could pay her 2 years early or two years later.
> >
>
> Stormy had strong cards because it was under the election. If election
> had no relevance then Stormy had no cause to demand it exactly then.

Election had "relevance".
Same as buying nice suits as a candidate before an election to look good. Therefore campaign expenses in your opinion?

> Cohen testified that they tought it would have been too much for the
> campaign after previous allegations.
>

??


Max

[jdeluise]

On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 10:48:11 -0800, Sawfish wrote:

> My understanding of Daniels is that she's not so much a porn star, as a
> common prostitute who sometimes made porn films.
>
> It's certainly no good to be caught fucking someone like that...

So I guess you put in some time researching this, huh? Looking for places
to spend your Trump bux?

[TT]

Calimero kirjoitti 28.2.2019 klo 20:29:
> On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 7:18:23 PM UTC+1, TT wrote:
>> Calimero kirjoitti 28.2.2019 klo 0:30:
>>> I'd like to know so that I can debunk it publicly.
>>>
>>>
>>> Max
>>>
>>
>> -The smoking gun was Trump signed receipt of compensations to Cohen for
>> Stormy Daniels payment... which probably breaks several laws, campaign
>> finance law, bookkeeping rules etc.
>
> "Probably"?
> You mean like Trump "probably" colluded with bad Russians?
>
>

Breaks probably several laws, definitely those two I mentioned.

>> -Then there were comments on increasing/decreasing Trump's wealth on
>> paper depending on occasion. Probably guilty of bank fraud, insurance
>> fraud and tax fraud.
>
> "Comments", yeah ...
>

There is of course plenty of evidence. All of this leaves a paper trail.

How Trump’s $50m golf club became $1.4m when it came time to pay tax:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/12/donald-trump-briarcliff-manor-golf-course-tax

>> -Stuff on Trump Foundation payments, breaking law for non-profit
>> charitable foundations.
>
> Stuffy stuff, yeah ...
>

Benefiting from charity foundations is as low as it gets.

Let's not forget Trump bribing Florida attorney Pam Bondi with Trump
foundation money. Doesn't get worse than that.

>> -Comments that Trump knew everything what happened in his business,
>> nothing was done without Trump's approval...
>
> Says who?
> The convicted perjurer, the Demmies' star witness?
> Ah ha ha ha ...
>
>

Cohen, Bannon....everybody.

>> which can be used as an
>> argument on him knowing about Russia collusion. Also phone call from
>> Stone & Don Jr whispers.
>
> Wow, that is certainly easy to prove ...
>

Yes, that is almost impossible to prove.

>> -Cohen also told that there are ongoing investigations on SDNY which we
>> don't know about.
>
> That is your last hope.

Hardly last.

There is also Mueller investigation & several congressional
investigations & probably stuff on other states as well not only NY.

Trump may have to make a deal soon to avoid the fate of Manafort...
Resign just like Nixon & Spiro Agnew did.

> But as we know the SDNY is part of the DOJ where Barr just took over ...
>
>

Trump actually nominated the new district attorney for SDNY, to replace
Preet Bharara. He recused himself from investigations on Trump, lol. So
nothing to be done there for Barr.

>> Too much stuff to remember all here... my favourite was perhaps
>> threatening to sue if Trump's schools would release his grades or SAT
>> scores - why on earth would a self-proclaimed genius want to do that...
>> hahahahaha
>
> Same reason as Obama.
>
>
> Max
>

No...

Obama did nothing to keep these records from publicity (they are
actually protected by law), while Trump threatened a lawsuit.

Obama graduated magna cum laude from Harvard, which is very good.

[*skriptis]

TT <as...@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:

President should be patriotic, not excellent student.

Trump's fans don't care about Obama's grades.

[*skriptis]

Ok, good look with that.

I'm genuinely surprised you and some others here have so much
energy to post, think and deal with those absurdities, Cohen,
Stormy, KGB etc.

But I guess it means you really believe it?

Fine, I won't bother you. If you recall I don't participate in
those discussion as everything is simply made up so I would feel
like I'm wasting my time, it's like discussing game of thrones.
Pure fantasy.

If you want to talk general policies, open borders, world wars,
Trump's heroic role in saving the European civilisation, etc we
can try sometimes.

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 28/02/2019 21.11, TT wrote:
> Calimero kirjoitti 28.2.2019 klo 20:29:
>> On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 7:18:23 PM UTC+1, TT wrote:
>>> Calimero kirjoitti 28.2.2019 klo 0:30:
>>>> I'd like to know so that I can debunk it publicly.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Max
>>>>
>>>
>>> -The smoking gun was Trump signed receipt of compensations to Cohen for
>>> Stormy Daniels payment... which probably breaks several laws, campaign
>>> finance law, bookkeeping rules etc.
>>
>> "Probably"?
>> You mean like Trump "probably" colluded with bad Russians?
>>
>>
>
>
> Breaks probably several laws, definitely those two I mentioned.
>
>>> -Then there were comments on increasing/decreasing Trump's wealth on
>>> paper depending on occasion. Probably guilty of bank fraud, insurance
>>> fraud and tax fraud.
>>
>> "Comments", yeah ...
>>
>
> There is of course plenty of evidence. All of this leaves a paper trail.
>
> How Trump’s $50m golf club became $1.4m when it came time to pay tax:
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/12/donald-trump-briarcliff-manor-golf-course-tax
>

Is this the same golf plantation that had dozens of illegals as serfs?

[TT]

Lawyer lol.

GRAND JURY is something which decides whether one will be indicted, JURY
is something which decides whether they are guilty. Special counsel
(Mueller) uses Grand Jury to decide whether he can charge someone/something.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_jury

[reilloc]

On 2/28/2019 12:50 PM, Calimero wrote:
> On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 7:39:27 PM UTC+1, TT wrote:
>> Calimero kirjoitti 28.2.2019 klo 20:25:
>>> That doesn't mean he acted illegally.
>>> Since you are not a lawyer and also quite a dumb guy you don't understand the difference.
>>
>> You're not certainly a lawyer yourself...
>
> Yes, I am.

You're a what? Are you using voice recognition software to read posts to
you and you heard it say "liar?"

> And I know what "criminal intent" means and how difficult it is to prove in such cases.

That's even funnier. Intent is not required to be proved beyond *any*
doubt. Often, the proof of intent is reduced to raising the presumption
that an actor intended the consequences of his tortious or criminal act.
A liar wouldn't know this but lawyers do.

>
>
>> Look, Cohen was indicted (& convicted) for campaign finance law
>> violation which went through a Grand Jury.
>
> Cohen pleaded guilty. Do you think a Grand Jury will then think about it for hours or what?

You've moved from funny to just plain ignorantly uninformed. You think a
prosecutor goes to the grand jury and tells it that the subject being
investigated has already plead guilty? Wouldn't the jury ask the
prosecutor why he's wasting his time trying to indict somebody already
convicted?

Stick with being a soccer fan and Steffi jerker-offer.

LNC

[Calimero]

The SDNY is part of the DOJ.

>
> >> Too much stuff to remember all here... my favourite was perhaps
> >> threatening to sue if Trump's schools would release his grades or SAT
> >> scores - why on earth would a self-proclaimed genius want to do that...
> >> hahahahaha
> >
> > Same reason as Obama.
> >
> >
> > Max
> >
>
> No...
>
> Obama did nothing to keep these records from publicity (they are
> actually protected by law), while Trump threatened a lawsuit.
>

Because those records are protected by law.


Max

[Calimero]

No, our Swedish marxist faction (Schwanzlos, TT) is just trolling.
Colly is so dumb, he really believes all this CNN stuff.


Max

[TT]

President apparently nominates the DA, as Trump did. Anyway can't name
new one now, would be too obvious obstruction.

>>>> Too much stuff to remember all here... my favourite was perhaps
>>>> threatening to sue if Trump's schools would release his grades or SAT
>>>> scores - why on earth would a self-proclaimed genius want to do that...
>>>> hahahahaha
>>>
>>> Same reason as Obama.
>>>
>>>
>>> Max
>>>
>>
>> No...
>>
>> Obama did nothing to keep these records from publicity (they are
>> actually protected by law), while Trump threatened a lawsuit.
>>
>
> Because those records are protected by law.
>
>
> Max
>

So I told you. Yet Trump was so afraid that we'd know his SAT score that
he had to theaten a lawsuit. lol

[*skriptis]

TT <as...@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:

You think people in those massive rallies he holds and thousands
chanting, singing, experiencing patriotic joy etc, that they care
about his academic success 50 years ago?

You post funny stuff. You literally don't see the world in front
of your eyes.

[TT]

bob kirjoitti 28.2.2019 klo 2:29:
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 14:30:12 -0800 (PST), Calimero
> <calim...@gmx.de> wrote:
>

>> I'd like to know so that I can debunk it publicly.
>
>

> https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/02/27/ann-coulter-hush-little-porn-star-dont-say-a-word/
>
> "I’d be more impressed if they got Trump on a jaywalking charge.
> President Obama had to pay $375,000 in fines for actual campaign
> violations during his 2008 run, and I don’t think we needed 16
> prosecutors, half of Congress, and the entire media on the case.

Fake news. The cases are entirely different.

Obama's case was a civil case, and deemed not intentional - while Cohen
(& Trump) case was criminal case and definitely intentional.

https://www.snopes.com/news/2018/08/22/election-law-violations-compared-obama-2008-vs-trump-2016/

"Obama’s civil FEC infractions, while they resulted in a large fine, are
legally distinct from what Cohen pled guilty to, which is the
intentional commission of felonies intended to affect the outcome of a
federal election."

[TT]

reilloc kirjoitti 28.2.2019 klo 8:33:
> On 2/28/2019 12:14 AM, Calimero wrote:
>> On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 7:06:31 AM UTC+1, reilloc wrote:
>>> On 2/27/2019 11:51 PM, Calimero wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 6:31:40 AM UTC+1, reilloc wrote:
>>>>> On 2/27/2019 9:13 PM, Calimero wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 4:02:22 AM UTC+1, reilloc wrote:

>>>>>>> On 2/27/2019 4:30 PM, Calimero wrote:
>>>>>>>> I'd like to know so that I can debunk it publicly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> It having been established that Cohen paid Stormy Daniels, next
>>>>>>> consider
>>>>>>> that and how Trump repaid Cohen.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LNC
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It has been explained to you over and over again that this is no
>>>>>> campaign finance law violation. And even it were one, that proving
>>>>>> Trump‘s criminal intent would be nearly impossible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So that‘s all you got?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ah ha ha ha ....
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5753323/5a-Check-Redacted-8-1-17.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/14728237/GettyImages_1127749022.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/27/18243009/michael-cohen-house-testimony-evidence-documents
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> LNC
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What is this?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Proof of criminality. Trump, Don Jr., and Allen Weisselberg.
>>>
>>> LNC
>>
>>
>> What did they do?
>
> Federal election crimes, unlawful use of charitable funds for private
> purposes, authorizing the unlawful use of charitable funds for private
> purposes, lying on federal expenditure disclosure forms, intentionally
> making false statements to financial institutions for the purposes of
> securing loans, among others.
>
> LNC

Good post.

[TT]

Calimero kirjoitti 28.2.2019 klo 15:06:
> (what happened to the "Russia collusion?)

That's Mueller & Schiff jurisdisction.
Looks like proving it won't be necessary to get Trump into prison.

What happened to Trump's "negotiations" with Rocket Man & Nobel Peace Prize?

[TT]

That's not the point. The point is that Trump is afraid of his SAT
scores becoming public.

[*skriptis]

It's as if you said xy tennis players fears yz
tennis player.

Pure speculation. But ok. It's your fun, enjoy yourself.

[TT]

It's not speculation when Trump threatened a lawsuit.

[*skriptis]

So that proves he was scared? How?

I don't think, it's likely it was his spin as he's propaganda and
PR genius. He knows how to spin.

But even if he was scared, so what?


I mean...

[TT]

Obviously he doesn't want his SAT scores out. Feels rather desperate to
threaten with lawsuit on top of it being illegal.

> I don't think, it's likely it was his spin as he's propaganda and
> PR genius. He knows how to spin.
>

This became out in the open in Cohen hearing. Trump planned this? lol

> But even if he was scared, so what?
>
>
> I mean...
>
>
>

So what that the results are not very good obviously.

[Calimero]

And you know Trump's criminal intent from what?
See, and there it ends.


Max

[TT]

The way it was paid.

[Calimero]

And with want do you dream to get the tangerine genius into prison?

Admit it, you were and are very afraid that the orange clown might broker peace and denuclearization in Korea, right? That would be a nightmare for you are your ilk.


Max

[Calimero]

What way would have been the right one, dear world-class lawyer?


Max

[TT]

Calimero kirjoitti 28.2.2019 klo 23:25:
> On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 9:34:10 PM UTC+1, TT wrote:
>> Calimero kirjoitti 28.2.2019 klo 15:06:
>>> (what happened to the "Russia collusion?)
>>
>> That's Mueller & Schiff jurisdisction.
>> Looks like proving it won't be necessary to get Trump into prison.
>>
>> What happened to Trump's "negotiations" with Rocket Man & Nobel Peace Prize?
>
>
> And with want do you dream to get the tangerine genius into prison?
>

I think it's rather likely actually.

The past presidents/VP's have avoided this by resigning & making a deal.
Trump is probably too dumb to do that. He'll look good in orange jumpsuit.

> Admit it, you were and are very afraid that the orange clown might broker peace and denuclearization in Korea, right? That would be a nightmare for you are your ilk.
>
>
> Max
>

I never expected Trump could fix it, he doesn't understand how and what
to negotiate. This problem will be left to future presidents.

[TT]

Definitely not Cohen paying with fake LLC & then Trump paying back with
11 fake 35k reimbursements made to look like relating to some other
services.

[Calimero]

They did this so Stormy couldn't trace back the payment with documentary evidence.
Trump would have been an idiot if her had written a cheque for this Demmie slut. So this convoluted payment trail is in no way any proof for criminal intent, you dimwit.


Max

[TT]

Too dumb to answer back.

[Calimero]

I say the orange clown will never be charged with that.
Do you want to bet against it?


Max

[reilloc]

This is German-lawyer thinking, eh? Go out of your way to show you have
something to hide so nobody'll think you're trying to hide something.
Yes sir. No intent there.

Best line of the entire Cohen hearing: "Our colleagues aren't upset
because you lied to Congress for the president," Raskin said. "They're
upset because you've stopped lying to Congress for the president." (Rep.
Jamie Raskin, D-Md.)

Now, for more of that good old German law: In Germany, Family Pug Seized
And Sold On EBay To Cover Unpaid Debts

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/28/698900379/in-germany-family-pug-seized-and-sold-on-ebay-to-cover-unpaid-debts

"City workers in Germany have seized a family's pedigreed pet pug and
sold the animal over eBay to cover the debts of its owners, including an
unpaid dog tax."
*************************
"(Frank Merschhausm, spokesman for the city of Ahlen) denied reports
that city workers had considered seizing the wheelchair of a disabled
member of the household as another potentially valuable item for resale."

LNC

[Calimero]

German and US lawyer thinking is you have to prove a crime. Part of it is criminal intent.
I know that is seen different among US "progressives".

> Best line of the entire Cohen hearing: "Our colleagues aren't upset
> because you lied to Congress for the president," Raskin said. "They're
> upset because you've stopped lying to Congress for the president." (Rep.
> Jamie Raskin, D-Md.)

No, because the convicted liar now lies for the resistance in order to get a book deal and a CNN job. Wouldn't get that if he had nothing to tell.

> Now, for more of that good old German law: In Germany, Family Pug Seized
> And Sold On EBay To Cover Unpaid Debts
>
> https://www.npr.org/2019/02/28/698900379/in-germany-family-pug-seized-and-sold-on-ebay-to-cover-unpaid-debts
>
> "City workers in Germany have seized a family's pedigreed pet pug and
> sold the animal over eBay to cover the debts of its owners, including an
> unpaid dog tax."

The family had it coming. Better the dog than the family car.


Max

[The Iceberg]

hey reilloc you've been proved wrong and LOST every time you've been anti-Trump, NOTHING is going to happen here, don't you think it's time you stopped following your parents and considered voting Trump?

[The Iceberg]

On Thursday, 28 February 2019 18:46:52 UTC, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> On 28/02/2019 20.25, Calimero wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 6:53:44 PM UTC+1, TT wrote:
> >> Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti 28.2.2019 klo 6:25:
> >>> On 28/02/2019 2.20, bob wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 17:50:48 -0600, reilloc <rei...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 2/27/2019 5:12 PM, Calimero wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2019 at 11:50:06 PM UTC+1, reilloc wrote:
> >>>>>>> Start with Cohen admitting paying Stormy Daniels.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> LNC
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Is that illegal?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes.

> >>>>
> >>>> "Neither the media nor Cohen seem to realize that Cohen wasn’t doing
> >>>> anything illegal when he paid the “hush money.” (Just because Trump
> >>>> thinks every Jewish lawyer is Roy Cohn doesn’t mean you have to, too,
> >>>> New York Times.) Words like “hush money” and “porn star” make the
> >>>> payments sound unsavory — especially to The New York Times, known
> >>>> during the Clinton era as Defender of Inappropriate Presidential Sex —
> >>>> but there’s nothing criminal about paying money to suppress
> >>>> embarrassing information, even in the middle of a political campaign."
> >>>>
> >>>

> >>> Where is the quote from? Did you write it yourself?
> >>>
> >>
> >> I noticed that too, seems like Bob is too embarrassed to admit his fake
> >> news sources. Quick googling reveals that this is something Ann Coulter
> >> wrote, LOL.
> >>
> >> In a way, leaving out the source can be seen Bob's admission on bad
> >> intent - he probably knows that the quote is wrong.
> >>
> >>
> >>> The quote is wrong in saying Cohen didn't do anything illegal. He was
> >>> charged and sentenced for an illegal campaign contribution. End of story.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yes.

> >
> > That doesn't mean he acted illegally.
> > Since you are not a lawyer and also quite a dumb guy you don't understand the difference.
> >
> >>

> >>> Whether Trump is associated is not yet established. But very likely.
> >>
> >> It is established, not just prosecuted yet.
> >
> >
> > Let's assume that the hush payment was a violation of campaign finance law (it was not, most legal experts agree on that). But just let us assume that.
> >
> > How do you prove that Trump KNEW that the hush-payment was illegal?
>
> Trump knew about the Edwards case. Which is floated as a precedent. He
> tweeted about it in 2012. He would be a complete fool if he didn't know
> what it was actually about.
>
> Which is possible though.

LOL another NOTHING burger.

[The Iceberg]

On Thursday, 28 February 2019 18:35:50 UTC, Calimero wrote:
> On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 7:24:46 PM UTC+1, TT wrote:
> > Calimero kirjoitti 28.2.2019 klo 1:34:
> > > On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 12:24:42 AM UTC+1, The Iceberg wrote:

> > >> On Wednesday, 27 February 2019 22:50:06 UTC, reilloc wrote:
> > >>> Start with Cohen admitting paying Stormy Daniels.
> > >>

> > >> HAHHAAAHAHHAHAHAHH! get over it young reilloc else you're going to be whinging about a nothingburger like that in 10 years when you are in your 30's! LOL
> > >
> > >
> > > First of all it is in no way clear that campaign finance laws prohibited Cohen to pay Stormy and the orange clown reimbursing him later. Who claims otherwise is a liar (CNN's Gloria Borger is a liar).
> > >
> > > Second - even if, IF, it was a violation of campaign finance law you need criminal intent. Negligence is not enough here. And Cohen didn't claim that he told Trump that they were acting criminally; probably he didn't know it either (admitted to the crime to get a lower prison term for his more serious crimes). So Trump's defense might be "I didn't know that this was not allowed". Have fun to prove the contrary, Demmies ...
> > >
> > > So according to Colly that was the bombshell, lol. He is a dimwit.
> > > We have a big whopping nothingburger. You won't learn that on CNN of course.
> > >
> > >
> > > Max
> > >
> >
> > So your defense is not that Trump is not guilty but that it would be
> > hard to prove that Trump understood what he was signing...
> >
> > lol
>
>
> He signed a receipt of a reimbursement transaction after Cohen paid hush money to Stormy.
> I think he understood that.
>
> What is hard to prove is that he (maybe, maybe not) violated campaign finance law by "directing" (is that even proven?) Cohen to pay this Demmie hooker.
>
> And even IF, IF, IF someone might be able to prove that - this is cheap change compared to the usual DemocRats' campaign finance violations under Obama and Hillary. So then Donny pays a fine and that is it.

yes cos anyone with common sense knows it wasn't a campaign contribution, even the Hillary fan morons reilloc, jd and PWL know themselves it wasn't one, it hilarious asking them about it.

[The Iceberg]

yes but even the most pro-Hillary liars Pelle and colly won't admit to personally reckoning it was a campaign contribution, that is what's so funny. Trump's lawyers should just get them on the stand and the judge would dismiss the case in 10minutes.

[The Iceberg]

he won the Presidency, beating the biggest career politician in history after she spent over $1Billion campaigning and had the entire MSM on her side, that's a pretty good result.

[bob]

On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 18:00:05 GMT, jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 19:53:53 +0200, TT wrote:
>
>> I noticed that too, seems like Bob is too embarrassed to admit his fake
>> news sources. Quick googling reveals that this is something Ann Coulter
>> wrote, LOL.
>

>How embarrassing, Sawfish went on this multi-day angry rant at Pelle
>about the content he posted which *had* links. Now both Sawfish *and*
>bob have been caught posting stuff without any attribution to the
>original content.

i added the link in another post in this same thread, just forgot to
post it in this one.

my gosh you folks are touchy these days!

bob