• 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!

So much for the notion that Trump didn't know campaign finance laws "inside out"

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
In some recent thread (I think it was this one, Whadda you know? Donald Trump was right..., but I'm not sure), another member, a Trumpkin (sycophant) endeavored to argue that Trump may not have known that the Daniels/McDougal campaign contributions were illegal. Well, that proposition just went down the tubes.

Trump knew exactly what he was doing and that it was illegal, which means he intended to do what he did regardless of its legality.

Additionally, Trump, during his interview with Larry King, stated, "I think nobody knows more about campaign finance that I do."


Why does this matter? It matters because knowing vs. not knowing is a key discriminant in determining the nature of one's culpability for campaign finance violations.
  • Violations borne of ignorance are handled as civil matters.
  • Violations borne of willful intent (i.e., one knows one is breaking the law) are handled as criminal matters.
Lock him up!!!
 
Last edited:

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,405
Reaction score
21,574
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
In some recent thread (I think it was this one, Whadda you know? Donald Trump was right..., but I'm not sure), another member, a Trumpkin (sycophant) endeavored to argue that Trump may not have known that the Daniels/McDougal campaign contributions were illegal. Well, that proposition just went down the tubes.

Trump knew exactly what he was doing and that it was illegal, which means he intended to do what he did regardless of its legality.

Additionally, Trump, during his interview with Larry King, stated, "I think nobody knows more about campaign finance that I do."


Why does this matter? It matters because knowing vs. not knowing is a key discriminant in determining the nature of one's culpability for campaign finance violations.
  • Violations borne of ignorance are handled as civil matters.
  • Violations borne of willful intent (i.e., one knows one is breaking the law) are handled as criminal matters.
Lock him up!!!

The problem with this line of reasoning is that almost no one appears to understand the "intricacies" of campaign-finance laws, as we have seen with even FEC chairs and lawyers arguing about what is and what is not a campaign finance violation. Here are just a few recent examples:

https://ijr.com/former-fec-chairman-cohen-trump-didnt-break-law/

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politic...-and-trump-didnt-violate-campaign-finance-law

https://www.theacru.org/2018/12/11/...n-finance-laws-and-neither-did-the-president/

It seems that interpretation of campaign finance laws can be molded to suit, depending on ones political viewpoint.

IMO any honest Judge when faced with charges based on such allegations should rule the laws being applied as truly void for vagueness.

IMO this desperate attempt to twist these NDA's paid to women who were SELLING their stories, not revealing them to the public via professional news agencies (who either don't pay, or won't pay as much as blackmail can get), is simply another twisted push at justification by those who feel the 2016 election was "stolen" and they want to make it all right again.
 
Last edited:

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The problem with this line of reasoning is that almost no one appears to understand the "intricacies" of campaign-finance laws, as we have seen with even FEC chairs and lawyers arguing about what is and what is not a campaign finance violation. Here are just a few recent examples:

https://ijr.com/former-fec-chairman-cohen-trump-didnt-break-law/

Not Guilty? Former FEC Commissioner Says Cohen and Trump Didn't Violate Campaign Finance Law | CBN News

https://www.theacru.org/2018/12/11/...n-finance-laws-and-neither-did-the-president/

It seems that interpretation of campaign finance laws can be molded to suit, depending on ones political viewpoint.

IMO any honest Judge when faced with charges based on such allegations should rule the laws being applied as truly void for vagueness.

IMO this desperate attempt to twist these NDA's paid to women who were SELLING their stories, not revealing them to the public via professional news agencies (who either don't pay, or won't pay as much as blackmail can get), is simply another twisted push at justification by those who feel the 2016 election was "stolen" and they want to make it all right again.

Red:


giphy.gif




 

Hawkeye10

Buttermilk Man
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
45,404
Reaction score
11,744
Location
Olympia Wa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The problem with this line of reasoning is that almost no one appears to understand the "intricacies" of campaign-finance laws, as we have seen with even FEC chairs and lawyers arguing about what is and what is not a campaign finance violation. Here are just a few recent examples:

https://ijr.com/former-fec-chairman-cohen-trump-didnt-break-law/

Not Guilty? Former FEC Commissioner Says Cohen and Trump Didn't Violate Campaign Finance Law | CBN News

https://www.theacru.org/2018/12/11/...n-finance-laws-and-neither-did-the-president/

It seems that interpretation of campaign finance laws can be molded to suit, depending on ones political viewpoint.

IMO any honest Judge when faced with charges based on such allegations should rule the laws being applied as truly void for vagueness.

IMO this desperate attempt to twist these NDA's paid to women who were SELLING their stories, not revealing them to the public via professional news agencies (who either don't pay, or won't pay as much as blackmail can get), is simply another twisted push at justification by those who feel the 2016 election was "stolen" and they want to make it all right again.

It is just like though not as bad as with tax law. You will not find very many Trump haters honest about this though, because THAT WOULD NOT BE PRODUCTIVE.

Some will even be dicks.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,405
Reaction score
21,574
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Red:

What "almost no one appears to know" is beside the point. Trump made the claim that he's one of the few who who do know.

Strange...according to many he is a pathological liar, and/or delusional, and/or ill-informed, or at very least a braggart.

Yet in THIS instance you prefer to believe him?

Is this Hypocrisy? Confusion? Or just selective bias?

You tell me. :coffeepap:
 
Last edited:

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Strange...according to many he is a pathological liar, delusional, or at least a braggart.

Yet in THIS instance you prefer to believe him?

Is this Hypocrisy? Confusion? Or just selective bias?

You tell me. :coffeepap:
This, figuratively (maybe literally too) is apparently the extent to which you'll go to defend Trump...whatever...

a5cef613c8e8c3dba66158982ac33762.jpg


3855793A00000578-3789528-image-a-55_1473875308045.jpg


Whether I believe him or not really doesn't matter. What matters legally, which is the context of my OP, is that he said it. Now, unless one can show the man has "lost his mind" or was then "out of his mind," that he made the claim is all that'll matter as goes prosecuting his offense.
 
Last edited:

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,405
Reaction score
21,574
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
This, figuratively (maybe literally too) is apparently the extent to which you'll go to defend Trump...whatever...

Whether I believe him or not really doesn't matter. What matters legally, which is the context of my OP, is that he said it. Now, unless one can show the man has "lost his mind" or was then "out of his mind," that he made the claim is all that'll matter as goes prosecuting his offense.

So no valid response? :shrug:

Then I accept your surrender. :coffeepap:
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So no valid response? :shrug:

Then I accept your surrender. :coffeepap:

I'm not going to respond substantively to an unsound line of argument.

I showed the illogic of your remarks.

That's all I have so to say.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,405
Reaction score
21,574
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I'm not going to respond substantively to an unsound line of argument.

I showed the illogic of your remarks.

That's all I have so to say.

Well, not much to really say then as I pointed out.

But you also said this:

Above all else, Trump is horrible because he's a liar who lies so often and about so many things, great and small, that his word cannot be relied upon.

and this:

...Trump's/the WH's insouciance about lying might be because doing so is SOP, perhaps even de rigueur, with Trump for as Giuliani implicitly acknowledged, Trump has changed his story four or five times.
So, what person would you have and trust as your employee, friend, leader, associate, or veritable strangers who simply has no concern that you lie to them or who lies to you? Do you welcome into your realm liars? Do you clamor to exculpate, defend and ingratiate yourself with liars?

I pointed out correctly that you consider Trump a liar, and in your own words "his word cannot be relied upon."

Yet you argue "Trump says he knows campaign finance law" because in this case it suits your narrative?

When you make absolute statements about his lack of honesty as I have just shown you've done, even you should realize an argument that he is telling the truth when it suits your purposes is a strange idea indeed.

Hence my valid questions...Hypocrisy? Confusion? Or just selective bias?

I think your responses give us some clues as to the which is which. :coffeepap:
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom