Trump tells yet ANOTHER lie regarding hush money paid to Daniels/Clifford

[Rudy Canoza]

Trump Says He Hasn't Changed His Story Regarding Payments To Porn Star

https://www.npr.org/2018/05/04/608464837/trump-says-he-hasnt-changed-his-story-regarding-payments-to-porn-star


Trump has, of course, changed his story. Now he has lied again about
not changing his story.

[Michael Ejercito]

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message news:uW%GC.72683$bS4....@fx01.iad...

>Trump Says He Hasn't Changed His Story Regarding Payments To Porn Star

In 1999, the Senate decisively settled of whether a President lying about
sex matters.


Michael


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 5/4/2018 10:25 AM, Michael Ejercito wrote:
>
>
> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:uW%GC.72683$bS4....@fx01.iad...
>
>> Trump Says He Hasn't Changed His Story Regarding Payments To Porn Star
>
>   In 1999, the Senate decisively settled of whether a President lying
> about sex matters.

I don't think that judgment included violating campaign finance laws.

[Winston_Smith]

On Fri, 4 May 2018 10:31:21 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>On 5/4/2018 10:25 AM, Michael Ejercito wrote:
>> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote
>>

>>> Trump Says He Hasn't Changed His Story Regarding Payments To Porn Star
>>
>>   In 1999, the Senate decisively settled of whether a President lying
>> about sex matters.
>
>I don't think that judgment included violating campaign finance laws.

Well, all they got Clinton on was a process crime. Obstruction of
justice because he lied under oath. Getting a blow job was never the
legal issue. It was the PR issue but not the legal.

He was set up the same way they are trying to set up Trump. A
technical crime resulting from merciless legal driving on a non-crime.

Still, in the end he walked away clean. The process crime BS just
doesn't cut it in the long run.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 5/4/2018 10:25 AM, Michael Ejercito wrote:
>
>

> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:uW%GC.72683$bS4....@fx01.iad...
>
>> Trump Says He Hasn't Changed His Story Regarding Payments To Porn Star
>
>   In 1999, the Senate decisively settled of whether a President lying
> about sex matters.

No.

In any case, the implication is not that Trump will necessarily face
legal consequences for anything connected to the porn star hush money
scandal, although he might well face some. The more important
implication is that being seen as a non-stop liar is politically
damaging to Trump, and that's a good thing.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 5/4/2018 11:48 AM, Winston_Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 4 May 2018 10:31:21 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>> On 5/4/2018 10:25 AM, Michael Ejercito wrote:
>>> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote
>>>
>>>> Trump Says He Hasn't Changed His Story Regarding Payments To Porn Star
>>>
>>>   In 1999, the Senate decisively settled of whether a President lying
>>> about sex matters.
>>
>> I don't think that judgment included violating campaign finance laws.
>
> Well, all they got Clinton on was a process crime. Obstruction of
> justice because he lied under oath. Getting a blow job was never the
> legal issue. It was the PR issue but not the legal.
>
> He was set up the same way they are trying to set up Trump.

Clinton was not "set up", nor is Trump being "set up".

Why don't you *grow* the fuck up, dotard?

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 4 May 2018 09:32:26 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
wrote:

Don't miss the news this evening. This is going to be juicy. We may
get to see Giulliani's head explode, while Trump imitates a gyroscope
with a stuck bearing.

--
Ed Huntress

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 5/4/2018 11:48 AM, Winston_Smith wrote:

Leaving aside that obstruction of justice is a serious crime, even if it
is a "process" crime, breaking campaign finance laws isn't a "process"
crime.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Fri, 4 May 2018 12:08:21 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
wrote:

>The more important
>implication is that being seen as a non-stop liar is politically
>damaging

Good thing you have no plans to run for office, then, huh?

[Scout]

"Josh Rosenbluth" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:pcil8r$id7$2...@josh.motzarella.org...

No, but it is utterly outside of the scope of what Mueller was tasked to
investigate.

Further the only reason Mueller seems at all interested in prosecuting is as
an attempt to blackmail someone into telling him what he wants to hear about
Trump whether it is the truth or not.

I bet Mueller could find Russian collusion if he bother to investigate
Hillary Clinton since she seems to be the source of the Russian collusion in
the 2016 election, specifically paying them to come up with that dossier.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

The payments to Daniels aren't be investigated by Mueller.

[Norman Rae]

On 5/4/2018 5:32 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>

Mr. Mueller isn't investigating any aspect of the Trump/Cohen/Clifford
mess. That is being investigated by the U.S. attorney for the Southern
District of New York. Try to keep up.

[NoBody]

On Fri, 4 May 2018 10:31:21 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <no...@nowhere.com>
wrote:

You're making a serious charge. Perhaps you should back up that
claim. Ensure you can show that such payments (if made) were
violations of those laws.

[NoBody]

As Judge Ellis alluded to just yesterday.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

I didn't make a charge. I merely noted it is *possible* that Trump
violated campaign finance laws, and thus Ejercito's argument (the issue
has been settled because this is necessarily only about lying about sex
matters) does not follow.

[Michael Ejercito]

"Josh Rosenbluth" wrote in message news:pcil8r$id7$2...@josh.motzarella.org...

And which campaign finance law was allegedly broken?

[Lee]

There has been a lot of commentary in the press by lawyers who are
familiar with campaign finance law that there likely were violations.
By whom depends on what eventually emerges as the truth. If Cohen
really did make the payment out of his own funds and Trump didn't know
about it, then Cohen violated the campaign contribution limit. If Trump
did know about it, then regardless of whether or not Trump reimbursed
Cohen, Trump filed false contribution reports, because they didn't
include the payment. Trump can contribute as much of his own money to
his campaign as he wishes, but he must report it, and the payment -
which clearly and indisputably was for the campaign - was never reported.

We're unlikely ever to know the truth, given that these clowns just keep
piling one lie atop another.

[Lee]

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 5/5/2018 9:02 AM, Michael Ejercito wrote:
>
>

It's possible Trump violated 52 U.S. Code § 30104(a)(6)(B)(iv)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30104

[Rudy Canoza]

Cohen likely violated 52 U.S. Code § 30116 (a)(1)(A)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30116

[NoBody]

On Sat, 5 May 2018 08:17:26 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <no...@nowhere.com>

Thank you for your clarification.

[Winston_Smith]

True but it's rarely more than a small fine and a stern warning not to
do it again.

The latest from Guliani is that Trump would have paid it to protect
his image whether or not he was running. Campaign finance law says if
there is any reasonable argument that an expenditure was personal,
it's OK.

Besides, paying a hooker to keep her trap shut is hardly "high crimes
and misdemeanors." Any president is immune to prosecution for more
petty crimes as long as they are in office. Mueller has to come up
with a HC/M if he wants anything before January 2021/2025.

[Norman Rae]

On 5/5/2018 8:40 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 4 May 2018 15:02:03 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>> On 5/4/2018 11:48 AM, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>> On Fri, 4 May 2018 10:31:21 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>> On 5/4/2018 10:25 AM, Michael Ejercito wrote:
>>>>> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>> Trump Says He Hasn't Changed His Story Regarding Payments To Porn Star
>>>>>
>>>>>   In 1999, the Senate decisively settled of whether a President lying
>>>>> about sex matters.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think that judgment included violating campaign finance laws.
>>>
>>> Well, all they got Clinton on was a process crime. Obstruction of
>>> justice because he lied under oath. Getting a blow job was never the
>>> legal issue. It was the PR issue but not the legal.
>>>
>>> He was set up the same way they are trying to set up Trump. A
>>> technical crime resulting from merciless legal driving on a non-crime.
>>>
>>> Still, in the end he walked away clean. The process crime BS just
>>> doesn't cut it in the long run.
>>
>> Leaving aside that obstruction of justice is a serious crime, even if it
>> is a "process" crime, breaking campaign finance laws isn't a "process"
>> crime.
>
> True but it's rarely more than a small fine and a

That, plus acting outside the scope of representation, will probably get
Cohen disbarred.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 5/5/2018 8:40 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 4 May 2018 15:02:03 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>> On 5/4/2018 11:48 AM, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>> On Fri, 4 May 2018 10:31:21 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>> On 5/4/2018 10:25 AM, Michael Ejercito wrote:
>>>>> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>> Trump Says He Hasn't Changed His Story Regarding Payments To Porn Star
>>>>>
>>>>>   In 1999, the Senate decisively settled of whether a President lying
>>>>> about sex matters.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think that judgment included violating campaign finance laws.
>>>
>>> Well, all they got Clinton on was a process crime. Obstruction of
>>> justice because he lied under oath. Getting a blow job was never the
>>> legal issue. It was the PR issue but not the legal.
>>>
>>> He was set up the same way they are trying to set up Trump. A
>>> technical crime resulting from merciless legal driving on a non-crime.
>>>
>>> Still, in the end he walked away clean. The process crime BS just
>>> doesn't cut it in the long run.
>>
>> Leaving aside that obstruction of justice is a serious crime, even if it
>> is a "process" crime, breaking campaign finance laws isn't a "process"
>> crime.
>
> True but it's rarely more than a small fine and a stern warning not to
> do it again.

Citation?

> The latest from Guliani is that Trump would have paid it to protect
> his image whether or not he was running. Campaign finance law says if
> there is any reasonable argument that an expenditure was personal,
> it's OK.

Citation?

> Besides, paying a hooker to keep her trap shut is hardly "high crimes
> and misdemeanors." Any president is immune to prosecution for more
> petty crimes as long as they are in office. Mueller has to come up
> with a HC/M if he wants anything before January 2021/2025.

Mueller isn't investigating the Daniels payment.

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

Why didn't the FBI look for Campaign finance law violations into Hillary
Clinton when she had so many crimes she was actually considered guilty
of committing and then deleting and tampering with the evidence.... and
she had all the accusations of buying dossiers and using the Clinton
foundation to launder money for her political career?

--
That's Karma

[Scout]

"Josh Rosenbluth" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message

news:pckhu6$omq$2...@josh.motzarella.org...

> On 5/5/2018 6:22 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 May 2018 10:31:21 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <no...@nowhere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/4/2018 10:25 AM, Michael Ejercito wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Rudy Canoza" wrote in message news:uW%GC.72683$bS4....@fx01.iad...
>>>>
>>>>> Trump Says He Hasn't Changed His Story Regarding Payments To Porn Star
>>>>
>>>> In 1999, the Senate decisively settled of whether a President lying
>>>> about sex matters.
>>>
>>> I don't think that judgment included violating campaign finance laws.
>>
>> You're making a serious charge. Perhaps you should back up that
>> claim. Ensure you can show that such payments (if made) were
>> violations of those laws.
>
> I didn't make a charge. I merely noted it is *possible* that Trump
> violated campaign finance laws,

Sure, and it's also possible he's an extraterrestrial intent on world
domination......but unless the possibility is reasonable probable and has
some creditable evidence to support it...then it's just a bunch of bullshit.

[Scout]

"#BeamMeUpScotty" <Not-...@ideocracy.gov> wrote in message
news:UZFHC.123563$br4....@fx34.iad...

And don't forget her Global Initiative which took in millions of dollar a
month from foreign contributors but when she lost the election suddenly the
"donations" all dried up to all but a small trickle.

Seems like a pay-to-play scheme with people able to buy Presidential
attention now at a discount price.

Then of course there is the $148 Million 'contribution' the the Foundation
shortly after the Uranium One deal was approved.

Again the timing is highly suggestive of a payoff.

Further we KNOW that Clinton paid the Russians through intermediates to
develop a scandalous dossier for political purposes and which can clearly be
shown to have an impact on American politics due to the ongoing
investigation that resulted PURELY from the dossier.

Yea, if the FBI won't look at Clinton, then they have lost all claims to
creditability given their uneven enforcement of the law.

[Scout]

"Josh Rosenbluth" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message

news:pckn0b$s31$1...@josh.motzarella.org...

A personal loan is a violation of 52USC30104?

repayments would indicate a loan....not a contribution.

[Scout]

"Lee" <claf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:LFkHC.116367$mS3.1...@fx04.iad...

Depends, if the payout was a campaign matter or a personal matter. Since the
money came out of his own pocket and apparently as a personal matter between
him and Mr. Trump. After all, you don't regularly pay back a campaign
contribution but you do pay back a personal loan. The fact that Mr. Trump
was making payments back to him long before this became know would clearly
indicate is was a matter of a personal loan, rather than any sort of
campaign contribution.

Of course, if you're just looking to find fault, then you will claim it's
whatever looks worse for Mr. Trump and screw the facts and evidence.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

A loan, yes. But, a loan can be a campaign contribution as defined in
52 U.S. Code § 30101(8)(A)(i):

"The term “contribution” includes— any gift, subscription, loan,
advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for
the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office.

[james g. keegan jr.]

On 5/7/2018 6:42 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>

There was no "loan" to Trump. Cohen allegedly made the payment to
Clifford without informing Trump. That's not a loan.

New York State bar rules prohibit lawyers advancing their own money for
a client, *particularly* without informing the client. If what Cohen
said is true, and of course it probably isn't, Cohen behaved unethically
and could be disbarred for it.

There is no doubt whatever that, regardless of the source of funds,
there was a campaign financing violation. If the funds originated with
Cohen, he violated a campaign contribution limit law. If the funds came
from Trump, then Trump violated a campaign contribution reporting law.
Both are serious crimes.

[Scout]

"Josh Rosenbluth" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message

news:pcr46p$gc3$1...@josh.motzarella.org...

So how much is the value of the DNC allowing Hillary to fix the national
nomination and was that properly reported as required by the law?

What is the value of the national nomination? I'm thinking it has to be
worth at least tens of millions.....

[Avenging Angel]

Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:uW%GC.72683$bS4.65283
@fx01.iad:

>
>

One can only hope for mass suicides when the bubble bursts.

You do realize that at least 2 judges are preparing to demolish the SC?

[Red Prepper]

On Fri, 04 May 2018 17:06:22 -0400, Ed Huntress
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
> Don't miss the news this evening. My cunt is going to be juicy.
You may
> get to see my cunt explode, while Rudy imitates a gyroscope
> with a stuck bearing when his head popsout from under my dress.


> --
> Ed Cuntdress

Glad I missed it.