• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Prosecutors Say Trump Directed Illegal Payments During Campaign

Now you're speaking about a specific case. Whether or not Trump broke this particular law is up for debate. Whether or not it's a crime at all is not.

This was clearly hidden, that's also not a fact that is challenged.

Yeah. I'm talking about this case. In this case if it wasn't a campaign contribution it didn't have to be disclosed. Or, if you prefer, it could remain "hidden". Most Trump payoffs to women are like that.
 
GOP voters are putting Chris Collins and Duncan Hunter back in office, and voted for a dead pimp in another state. I think they won't have a problem with Trump.
 
I don't see this as a "deeper descent." If you voted against someone purely out of hatred nursed over the course of two decades, you can justify pretty much any act of criminality or immorality.

There's a very good reason why Conservatives haven't answered one fundamental question for the past two years: "What would have to happen for you to withdraw support for Trump?" Their silence has itself always been the answer: there isn't anything Trump could do to lose their support.

So what they think is unimportant.

I see your point, but I still think there's a line that's crossed of you choose to continue supporting a sitting president who broke the law. I think that's when you cross the line of being a supporter and into the zealot zone.
 
I don't see this as a "deeper descent." If you voted against someone purely out of hatred nursed over the course of two decades, you can justify pretty much any act of criminality or immorality.

There's a very good reason why Conservatives haven't answered one fundamental question for the past two years: "What would have to happen for you to withdraw support for Trump?" Their silence has itself always been the answer: there isn't anything Trump could do to lose their support.

So what they think is unimportant.

This is a debate site, that kind of arrogance is unwarranted and frankly demonizing to discourage opposition. You don't want discussion, you think you should just tell us how it is and that's it. Good luck with that nonsense.
 
You two need to get a room.

Here's the thing that's really sticking in your craw and it's glorious to see how much it bothers you: This is the first time in our lives that a President's own DOJ, not just a special prosecutor, is pointing a finger directly at the President and saying he has directed a felony.
 
I read the law back in August when he took the plea.
That's when I posted the opinion of a prior FEC chairman that said what Trump did wasn't a campaign finance violation.
“My assessment would be that yes, Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to things that probably are not crimes,”
https://www.ntd.tv/2018/08/22/ex-trump-lawyer-cohen-pleads-guilty-in-deal-with-prosecutors-2/

Sigh.

Cohen borrowed $130,000 from his HELOC, washed it through a bogus corporation, paid Stormy Daniels. Then he went back to the Trump Organization, submits a bill for campaign expenses. He also submitted a $50,000 bill for campaign related IT expenses. The company then pays him $180,000, rounds it up so he breaks even on taxes (to $360,000), THEN kicks in a $60,000 bonus for $420,000. To disguise the nature of the payment - one massive payout in an illegal campaign contribution from Trump Organization - they break it up into multiple payments distributed over the year of $35,000 each. This is conspiracy, money laundering, campaign finance violations, fraud and, depending on the accounting, tax fraud.

You simply have no idea what you're talking about.
 
That's nice. Read the memorandum. If you choose not to, then whatever.

I told you.
I read the Law.
What you cited (30101) as a "momorandum" is actually the Law I was talking about.
And there's another part of the Law (30114) [USC03] 52 USC 30114: Use of contributed amounts for certain purposes that gives more detail about what to consider permitted or conversion.
You should read it and the opinion of the former FEC Chair ... If you choose not to, then whatever.
 
I see your point, but I still think there's a line that's crossed of you choose to continue supporting a sitting president who broke the law. I think that's when you cross the line of being a supporter and into the zealot zone.

That line was crossed when they voted for a person they knew to have cheated regular Americans out of nearly a quarter billion dollars with his university scam and bragged about committing sexual assault. Trump supporters knew exactly what they were getting, and in light of that none of us should have been surprised by everything that followed.
 
That's nice. Read the memorandum. If you choose not to, then whatever.

That just confirms what you said - that there is nothing Trump can do to stop his fans from supporting him.

Even if he is convicted and tossed in jail, his supporters will argue that it was not a real crime.
 
This is a debate site, that kind of arrogance is unwarranted and frankly demonizing to discourage opposition. You don't want discussion, you think you should just tell us how it is and that's it. Good luck with that nonsense.

What have trump supporters done to warrant their opinions mattering (aside from knowingly putting a criminal in office, of course)?
 
That just confirms what you said - that there is nothing Trump can do to stop his fans from supporting him.

Even if he is convicted and tossed in jail, his supporters will argue that it was not a real crime.

That and that this was a Democratic conspiracy.
 
Here is the problem: "Federal prosecutors said"

BIG PROBLEM: they are overwhelmingly democrat Federal prosecutors. EVERYBODY KNOWS you can't trust democrats. They only act on their unreasonable emotions. They HATE Trump and hate is an emotion. Lying and bringing up false charges on Trump are the actions they take as a direct result of their unreasonable emotions. When coupled with their criminal minded greed for power over the people they become a bit insane. Just watch leftie propaganda FAKE NEWS stations and you'll see your share of insane unhinged leftie propaganda flunkies foaming at the mouth like a rabies infected dog.
 
Yeah. I'm talking about this case. In this case if it wasn't a campaign contribution it didn't have to be disclosed. Or, if you prefer, it could remain "hidden". Most Trump payoffs to women are like that.

Yes, I agree.

Now, the claim "people in the know say this wasn't a campaign contribution" is just flak, because "people in the know" also say the opposite.
 
If trump doesn’t win a second term then his status protecting him from indictment comes to an end.

Trump warned us of what could happen if we had a president under Federal investigation. In 2020 how will voters feel about re-electing a President whose own Justice Department has determined is a criminal?



https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/07/...tion=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

If he doesn't win a second term, this all goes away. This about getting him out of office and nothing else.
 
Here is the problem: "Federal prosecutors said"

BIG PROBLEM: they are overwhelmingly democrat Federal prosecutors. EVERYBODY KNOWS you can't trust democrats. They only act on their unreasonable emotions. They HATE Trump and hate is an emotion. Lying and bringing up false charges on Trump are the actions they take as a direct result of their unreasonable emotions. When coupled with their criminal minded greed for power over the people they become a bit insane. Just watch leftie propaganda FAKE NEWS stations and you'll see your share of insane unhinged leftie propaganda flunkies foaming at the mouth like a rabies infected dog.

Liberals are driven by emotion! Listen to my extremely angry, barely-coherent tirade about how emotional they are! TURNIN THE FROGS GAY!!!
 
Here is the problem: "Federal prosecutors said"

BIG PROBLEM: they are overwhelmingly democrat Federal prosecutors. EVERYBODY KNOWS you can't trust democrats. They only act on their unreasonable emotions. They HATE Trump and hate is an emotion. Lying and bringing up false charges on Trump are the actions they take as a direct result of their unreasonable emotions. When coupled with their criminal minded greed for power over the people they become a bit insane. Just watch leftie propaganda FAKE NEWS stations and you'll see your share of insane unhinged leftie propaganda flunkies foaming at the mouth like a rabies infected dog.

If there is literally nothing that could convince you of the legitimacy of the DOJ's conclusions then you have removed yourself from serious discussion, which is fine by me.
 
if he broke the law, indict him while he is in office. a president is not above the law.

It is the justice departments policy not to indict a siting president.. that goes back to when Nixon was president. Mueller is a very 'by the book' person, and won't go against the DOJ's policies.
 
What have trump supporters done to warrant their opinions mattering (aside from knowingly putting a criminal in office, of course)?

Supported a Republican president at near 40% approval without wavering, is what they did, and it factually matters.

The Senate who lives and breathes on public party support, to do the will of the people who elected them, may choose to accept that support. It's a loophole. They can vote away criminal behavior with public support, it's as simple as that. They know it, you know it, and they feel no shame or ethical compunction to do to do otherwise. Just the opposite, they feel it's righteous and warranted and good for the nation. Senate didn't want to hear Garland, so they didn't, and they were rewarded, and their voters were rewarded. House didn't want to uncover what happened in the Russian interference in our election, so they didn't. And they won support for doing the will of the people.

Epstein and all his co-conspirators got immunity for child sex trafficking, likely hundreds of young girls...and he doesn't have the power of the presidency, nor does he have 40% public support. What do you think is really gonna happen?

They need to get hard evidence of multiple felonies, including obstruction, and likely conspiracy against the Untied States, to have a chance of getting him out of office, and that's entirely up to what actually happened, and what Mueller finds. Anything lesser may result in impeachment, with no removal. Which may be the right play to send a message, but think about where that leaves us.

Then we enter the next 2 years leading up to the 2020 election with a self-proclaimed, vindicated Trump, immune from prosecution, "cleared" by the Senate, and no Mueller investigation to slow him down, and this sort of behavior will have been rewarded in the biggest way. Rig elections, collude with Russia, break the law, gain support.

People thought he could shoot someone in the middle of the street and get away with it. That's not accurate, people were being too modest.
He can shoot someone in the middle of the street, and his support will *intensify*.
 
Yes, I agree.

Now, the claim "people in the know say this wasn't a campaign contribution" is just flak, because "people in the know" also say the opposite.

I agree. The liar left always say what aint - is, and what is - aint! hahaha
 
If there is literally nothing that could convince you of the legitimacy of the DOJ's conclusions then you have removed yourself from serious discussion, which is fine by me.

Do you actually believe you are providing serious discussion? hahaha
 
Yes, I agree.

Now, the claim "people in the know say this wasn't a campaign contribution" is just flak, because "people in the know" also say the opposite.

Yeah, they do disagree. That's why I was careful to use words like "if" and "appear". There's a a lot of conclusion jumping going around so it doesn't hurt to call attention to different opinions.
 
Ordering somebody to commit a federal crime is itself a federal crime. If you feel the laws are unfair then I suggest writing your congressman asking him to change the laws.

Problem is, there was no crime.
 
What have trump supporters done to warrant their opinions mattering (aside from knowingly putting a criminal in office, of course)?
Reverse the question. What have you done?

That is the point ; you don't get to screw people out of their opinion because of arrogant self righteousness.

To hell with your judgmental attitude. It's the antithesis of what you should be about.

To make sure you get it, it makes you sound like Trump at his worst.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
 
It has to be a campaign contribution first and foremost, and it has to also be hidden in order to be a crime.
Paying off women with your own money doesn't appear to be seen as a campaign contribution by people who know about such things.
Even if someone pleads guilty to it because he thinks that's what he did.

According to the former chairman of the FED, it's not a campaign contribution.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/29365/former-fec-chairman-mark-levin-stormy-daniels-jacob-airey

He said, “And the FEC standard for that is you can’t use your campaign money for personal use. What they mean by that is you can’t use that for something you’d have to pay anyway that’s not directly for your campaign. The question is, ‘is this really a campaign obligation?’”
 
Back
Top Bottom