Trump had central role in hush money payments to women

[code1211]

Yeah I remember one gerrymandered district in Texas that from the south Dallas area down I35 on the Democrat side of the highway for over 50miles and ended up in another large very democrat neighborhood. When it was finally redistricted the Congressman that had held the seat didn't even run again.

Where we find politicians, we find corruption and self interest.

I seem to recall that BOTH political parties are comprised of politicians. Pretty much goes without saying.

This is about as surprising as finding baseball players on baseball teams.

 

[SLC]

Where we find politicians, we find corruption and self interest.

I seem to recall that BOTH political parties are comprised of politicians. Pretty much goes without saying.

This is about as surprising as finding baseball players on baseball teams.

Yep both sides have been accused of gerrymandering. I whish a non partisan computer program could be written to set district boundaries.

 

[Divine_Wind]

How could he? The rino Republicans in the Senate blocked his every move. John McCain holds the distinguishing honor of single handedly killing the Amendment to abolish Obamacare by voting against it. John McCain used to live in the swamp. No one except One knows where he is now.

Trump is excellent as a con man; he knows how to lie convincingly, he knows how to take credit for the work of others and he knows how to blame others for his own failures.

Unfortunately, all of those qualities are also what makes him a crappy leader. Sad.

 

[Deuce]

1. Non-disclosure agreements are perfectly legal, and

2. As long as Trump used his own money (or a "loan" from a "friend" repaid with his own money) it would be a real s-t-r-e-t-c-h to find a violation of campaign finance law.

Of course the "resistance" is always looking for any and every excuse to negate/delegitimize the results of the 2016 election. :coffeepap:

Undisclosed in-kind campaign donation in excess of limits.

 

[code1211]

Yep both sides have been accused of gerrymandering. I whish a non partisan computer program could be written to set district boundaries.

Computers are programmed by people.

I doubt you wish could ever come true.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Undisclosed in-kind campaign donation in excess of limits.

(sigh)

1. If we are talking about the Stormy Daniels non-disclosure agreement, so far what we know is that Cohen and Trump discussed the process, Cohen advanced a payment and was then repaid by Trump. The argument seems to be that this was a campaign expense, trying to hide something that might prove a negative if used as campaign dirt against Trump. That it was a loan in excess of allowable contributions for such expense.

2. Arguing for the case, then the person who violated the law was Cohen, who "contributed" his own money in excess of the limits. However, as Trump paid him back, the argument is that he accepted the excessive loan amount even temporarily, in violation of campaign finance rules. At WORST he would face a fine. (Recall, Obama failed to properly report over $2 million in donations and was fined $375,000. No one mentioned charges). https://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/obama-2008-campaign-fined-375000-085784

3. However, arguing against the case? Records should show that Cohen acting for Trump had processed several non-disclosure agreements over the course of his representation. This was during the years prior to the campaign. This would show that his recent actions were in keeping with his past efforts in legal representation, and NOT a special "campaign" activity. If that is the case then the "temporary loan" in expectation of being repaid was NOT a campaign expense but rather a legal expense billable to the client. Thus when Trump reimbursed his attorney for legal fees and costs, this process resulted in use his own money. So even if someone (Cohen for example) tried to tie this to the campaign, there is no limitation on the use of personal money for campaign expenses.

IMO this is just more TDS efforts to smear the President. Any and every possibility of mud throwing.

I'd say if this is pushed it is a weak case at best. Trump may end up being fined. Or the entire issue may be dismissed as a non-issue.

 

[Slavister]

Nest the Left will insist Trump was not born in the US. :doh

Anyone else find this statement hilarious coming from a Trumpkin?

 

[Divine_Wind]

Anyone else find this statement hilarious coming from a Trumpkin?

Yes, but I’m thoroughly amused by the current President and his fan club.

 

[Slavister]

I whish a non partisan computer program could be written to set district boundaries.

Hey I found something we agree on... It can easily enough be written of course. It's not a matter of ability to write it. It's a matter of political will to do it.

 

[Divine_Wind]

Hey I found something we agree on... It can easily enough be written of course. It's not a matter of ability to write it. It's a matter of political will to do it.

Anything created by man is inherently flawed. In this case, if it can be written, it can be hacked, abused or altered.

Do you really want to turn over all of your rights and those of everyone you know to an all-powerful entity which we can only trust is completely impartial but don’t really know?

 

[Slavister]

Anything created by man is inherently flawed. In this case, if it can be written, it can be hacked, abused or altered.

Do you really want to turn over all of your rights and those of everyone you know to an all-powerful entity which we can only trust is completely impartial but don’t really know?

Computer program can spit out exactly why it arrived at its conclusions. For example, it could simply be based on density of population (based on census) in different districts and a deterministic algorithm could then walk this density data set north-south and east-west to decide on the exact lines to evenly distribute the population within a district / state / whatever. Anyone who cares could then manually verify the results. The algorithm could be made public so anyone could write a program to obtain the same result given the same census dataset. In fact the lines could be adjusted for each election cycle based on the latest census results too.

 

[Deuce]

(sigh)

1. If we are talking about the Stormy Daniels non-disclosure agreement, so far what we know is that Cohen and Trump discussed the process, Cohen advanced a payment and was then repaid by Trump. The argument seems to be that this was a campaign expense, trying to hide something that might prove a negative if used as campaign dirt against Trump. That it was a loan in excess of allowable contributions for such expense.

2. Arguing for the case, then the person who violated the law was Cohen, who "contributed" his own money in excess of the limits. However, as Trump paid him back, the argument is that he accepted the excessive loan amount even temporarily, in violation of campaign finance rules. At WORST he would face a fine. (Recall, Obama failed to properly report over $2 million in donations and was fined $375,000. No one mentioned charges). https://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/obama-2008-campaign-fined-375000-085784

3. However, arguing against the case? Records should show that Cohen acting for Trump had processed several non-disclosure agreements over the course of his representation. This was during the years prior to the campaign. This would show that his recent actions were in keeping with his past efforts in legal representation, and NOT a special "campaign" activity. If that is the case then the "temporary loan" in expectation of being repaid was NOT a campaign expense but rather a legal expense billable to the client. Thus when Trump reimbursed his attorney for legal fees and costs, this process resulted in use his own money. So even if someone (Cohen for example) tried to tie this to the campaign, there is no limitation on the use of personal money for campaign expenses.

IMO this is just more TDS efforts to smear the President. Any and every possibility of mud throwing.

I'd say if this is pushed it is a weak case at best. Trump may end up being fined. Or the entire issue may be dismissed as a non-issue.

Not all campaign finance violations are equal. Saying Obama got a fine therefore Cohen would get a fine is inaccurate. The Obama campaign properly documented the donations. The rule broken was contributions in excess of a certain dollar value within a certain timeframe before the election had an additional reporting requirement that wasn't met. That's not the same thing at all as a conspiracy to hide campaign donations completely.

 

[Divine_Wind]

Not all campaign finance violations are equal. Saying Obama got a fine therefore Cohen would get a fine is inaccurate. The Obama campaign properly documented the donations. The rule broken was contributions in excess of a certain dollar value within a certain timeframe before the election had an additional reporting requirement that wasn't met. That's not the same thing at all as a conspiracy to hide campaign donations completely.

All excellent points.

Obviously there is a lot of politics in this so I'm curious if the Democrats are going to push hard on this now or drag it out for the 2020 election year.

 

[Deuce]

All excellent points.

Obviously there is a lot of politics in this so I'm curious if the Democrats are going to push hard on this now or drag it out for the 2020 election year.

I wonder if the Republicans are ever going to admit there are about four separate lines of independent problems with Trump, any of which are potentially impeachable by themselves... and actually look into them.

 

[Divine_Wind]

I wonder if the Republicans are ever going to admit there are about four separate lines of independent problems with Trump, any of which are potentially impeachable by themselves... and actually look into them.

I doubt they'd admit it even if they did. So what? You know the Republicans aren't going to initiate an impeachment. At best, they'd just stand clear.

 

[SLC]

I doubt they'd admit it even if they did So what? You know the Republicans aren't going to initiate an impeachment. At best, they'd just stand clear.

Want to bet a meal at Babe's that Trump will serve out his entire term as POTUS?

 

[Divine_Wind]

Want to bet a meal at Babe's that Trump will serve out his entire term as POTUS?

He probably will since a sitting President can't be indicted.

 

[SLC]

He probably will since a sitting President can't be indicted.

Oh if they found something bad they could successfully impeach him and remove him from office. I'm willing to bet there is no there there to any of these "burning issues".

 

[Divine_Wind]

Oh if they found something bad they could successfully impeach him and remove him from office. I'm willing to bet there is no there there to any of these "burning issues".

Clinton lied under oath and the Republicans didn’t impeach him. Why would they impeach Trump simply for being a deplorable scumbag?

 

[Deuce]

I doubt they'd admit it even if they did. So what? You know the Republicans aren't going to initiate an impeachment. At best, they'd just stand clear.

Yes, exactly. That's the underlying problem here. We could have video tape of Trump murdering a baby authenticated by Literally Jesus Christ Returning to Earth and they'd still not vote to convict him. They've invested too much in the rhetoric, they don't control their base anymore. They'd pay dearly for getting rid of him even if the country would benefit.

 

[Deuce]

Clinton lied under oath and the Republicans didn’t impeach him. Why would they impeach Trump simply for being a deplorable scumbag?

For committing multiple felonies, you mean?

 

[Divine_Wind]

For committing multiple felonies, you mean?

Just like Clinton did? Yes.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

3. However, arguing against the case? Records should show that Cohen acting for Trump had processed several non-disclosure agreements over the course of his representation. This was during the years prior to the campaign. This would show that his recent actions were in keeping with his past efforts in legal representation, and NOT a special "campaign" activity. If that is the case then the "temporary loan" in expectation of being repaid was NOT a campaign expense but rather a legal expense billable to the client. Thus when Trump reimbursed his attorney for legal fees and costs, this process resulted in use his own money. So even if someone (Cohen for example) tried to tie this to the campaign, there is no limitation on the use of personal money for campaign expenses.

1. This was already disproven by Cohen's pleading guilty and fingering Trump as an unindicted coconspirator in the felony.
2. They have Pecker, Weisselberg, and Cohen all on record explaining in painstaking detail Trump's involvement in this, specifically discussing it as a campaign matter.
3. They have Pecker on the record refusing to be involved in this payment given his concern about it being cited as a campaign finance violation, with Cohen and Trump going through with it anyways.
4. This is a felony.

IMO this is just more TDS efforts to smear the President. Any and every possibility of mud throwing.

The president was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in committing a felony and you think it's a "smear".

 

[LosAngelesAngel]

I see you're one of the dreamers... let us know how that works out for you. :lamo :lamo :lamo

~ No , not a dreamer. But I have been known to be sarcastic at times . `:wink:

 

[SLC]

Computers are programmed by people.

I doubt you wish could ever come true.

Well computer programmers come in Democrat and Republican flavors. A balanced team could come up with a method of redistricting that would apply equally to both parties.