- 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.
- Trump understands intricacies of campaign finance laws, old testimony reveals
- Trump Testimony From Decades Ago Indicates Knowledge of Campaign-Finance Laws
- Sworn statements by President Trump dating back several decades indicate he has a deep understanding of campaign-finance laws, legal experts say, which could be critical if investigators ever pursue a case against him over his alleged direction of hush-money payments in the 2016 campaign.
Trump’s statements were made as part of a 2000 regulatory investigation into his casino company and in 1988 testimony for a government-integrity commission. They contrast with the portrayal by some of the president’s allies that he is a political novice with little understanding of campaign-finance laws and therefore couldn’t be charged with violating them.
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.
Lock him up!!!
- 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.
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.
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:
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.
This, figuratively (maybe literally too) is apparently the extent to which you'll go to defend Trump...whatever...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...
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:
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.
- 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.
- I don't much care which structural line you had in mind, but it's pretty clear one of them is what drove your remark:
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.
...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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?