AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709 
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 20, 2018 21:44:16 GMT -5
I haven't seen anything that qualifies you to instruct our readers, Paul. What you provide is viewed by our readers and their opinions are formed. Those readers may agree with you and they may not. Some choose not to even view what you offer. Thing is, you're not in the vaunted position of Royal Instructor so you can drop that line. "Some choose not to even view what you offer."........  No skin off my nose. I appreciate your honesty though. I assumed you were responding in ignorance- having not done one bit of homework. Now, I know for sure. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 13, 2024 23:40:45 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2018 23:38:16 GMT -5
Insults. Again, positive or negative. Both get the same result. Why bother?
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770 
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Feb 21, 2018 4:02:56 GMT -5
Who cares? That's past. This is present. It's 2018. The campaigns are old news; however, crimes that may involve those currently in office are, indeed, current. Clinton holds no office. Wait so what do you mean by this? Does it mean you don't want to know if our fed gov under one party spied on the opposition party without good cause? Or does it mean it's ok with you if they spied on the opposition without good cause? Or does it mean you have not seen enough evidence that they spied so forget about it. Yah, it's over but If we are all lucky we might even get to vote again someday. I'd like to see anything shady on either side brought into the light and corrected as needed . You know what they say about sunlight. I believe bodies will fall on both sides of the political aisle when this is all over; however, the ones I'm most concerned about are the ones that are currently in office - in control of this country. Hillary Clinton is not one of those. If she, or anyone else on either side falls because they've committed illegal acts, I won't shed a tear. Let them get what they deserve. Just get control of what's going on now and what could be causing damage to this country NOW. I'll worry about those who have no power to harm us at a later date. Like I said, I think there will be quite a few skeletons uncovered before we're through. I'm good with that, so we don't disagree. |
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 21, 2018 7:57:21 GMT -5
a black hole of emotional need that can never be satisfied? I heard today that Trump is hugely jealous of Obama, because of his popularity and the way his admin didn't keep shooting itself in the foot and ending up splashed across the headlines every damn day.
Makes sense, narcissists tend to lash out at people they are jealous of, and Trump has been tweeting nearly non stop since this weekend about how shitty Obama was. I heard he sleeps with a painting of Pres. Obama on the ceiling above his bed, and just lies there staring at it for hours, muttering to himself. I've also heard he claims the painting speaks to him, taunting him, warning him that Mueller is about to uncover his secret alliance with Pres. Putin. This is why he tweets so much at night. |
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 21, 2018 8:03:00 GMT -5
ibid.: On Sunday night, Joel Kaplan, the VP of Global Public Policy at Facebook, put out a statement saying “Nothing we found contradicts the Special Counsel’s indictments. Any suggestion otherwise is wrong.” Roughly translated, that meant, “We asked Rob Goldman to throw his phone in a river.”
[…] Later that day, Rob Goldman seemed to come to the same understanding, and posted internally at Facebook a message that read as follows: “I wanted to apologize for having tweeted my own view about Russian interference without having it reviewed by anyone internally. The tweets were my own personal view and not Facebook’s. I conveyed my view poorly. The Special Counsel has far more information about what happened [than] I do—so seeming to contradict his statements was a serious mistake on my part. Looks like he missed the memo. Poor guy.  |
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,734
|
Post by happyhoix on Feb 21, 2018 8:13:12 GMT -5
I heard today that Trump is hugely jealous of Obama, because of his popularity and the way his admin didn't keep shooting itself in the foot and ending up splashed across the headlines every damn day.
Makes sense, narcissists tend to lash out at people they are jealous of, and Trump has been tweeting nearly non stop since this weekend about how shitty Obama was. I heard he sleeps with a painting of Pres. Obama on the ceiling above his bed, and just lies there staring at it for hours, muttering to himself. I've also heard he claims the painting speaks to him, taunting him, warning him that Mueller is about to uncover his secret alliance with Pres. Putin. This is why he tweets so much at night. Sounds about right. |
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 21, 2018 8:21:53 GMT -5
I get it. You're willfully ignorant. That's why even as the Russia Collusion Delusion unwinds, the Mueller investigation implodes, and now 17 some odd high ranking federal government agents of the FBI, DOJ, and other agencies resign, are fired, or re-assigned-- you will be saying none of it happened because I posted it with a link to Breitbart. It's willful ignorance and intellectual laziness, but I've seen you make the same excuse. ymam.proboards.com/post/2705011/thread, for example: I'm convinced if it weren't for airports and hotel lobbies, CNN would be at #36. "Real" viewers have correctly reasoned that there's no point in watching news that's a non-stop stream of demonstrable lies. Why bother with fake news? CNN's viewership is so low, it's an honest and objective statement to say that it's not really a real channel anymore. I'll grant you this isn't the same thing as saying you won't even deign to confirm or debunk a CNN story, but it's a carbon copy of DJ's "99% bullshit source" argument. |
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,314
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Feb 21, 2018 8:38:10 GMT -5
"I get it. You're willfully ignorant. That's why even as the Russia Collusion Delusion unwinds, the Mueller investigation implodes, and now 17 some odd high ranking federal government agents of the FBI, DOJ, and other agencies resign, are fired, or re-assigned"
You have been willfully pushing the false narrative that this investigation is about Trump instead of Russian Collusion. Mueller has found crimes and charged people. You choose to see it as a Trump centric thing because that's what the RW echo chamber is pushing. That has never been the focus. It is sad that you and some don't realize that all the people leaving aren't leaving because they've done something wrong. They are leaving like many of the departures in this WH administration, because they no longer want to serve the people because they no longer want to work for this President. That's a big story too. This President has had the most churn of any President in any administration in memory, probably ever. And its mostly because he demands loyalty like a Family owned corporation honcho instead of President of the United States. He can't get the best and brightest because of his insecurities. So he is left with power hungry people who want to use him like Ryan or sycophants. He even alienates huge portions of industry leaders in committees he sets up who don't even last a year. Lots of churn is a sign of a bad executive. |
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,314
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Feb 21, 2018 8:50:48 GMT -5
Insults. Again, positive or negative. Both get the same result. Why bother? Depends on the day. It does tell me what the RW echo chamber believes and what narratives they push. The rhetoric has also gotten very Trumpian, pushing opinions as facts.
For example, many people attend rallies based on what they are for. I bet very few vet who organizes it which is why apparently the Russians were able to snare both Trump supporters and non Trump supporters when they set up rallies. Michael Moore can't be a Russian enabler unless he is shown to knowingly act on their behalf versus showing up for the advertised cause.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 21, 2018 9:13:24 GMT -5
You have been willfully pushing the false narrative that this investigation is about Trump instead of Russian Collusion. Mueller has found crimes and charged people. You choose to see it as a Trump centric thing because that's what the RW echo chamber is pushing. That has never been the focus.It's been the persistent focus of the media and the Democratic leadership from the start. If the investigation doesn't turn up actionable dirt on Pres. Trump, or at least strong evidence of shady undertakings that can be leveraged against him, it's an exercise in futility. Nobody knows who these lesser actors (Mr. Manafort, Mr. Gates, et al.) are aside from their connections to Pres. Trump. They're indistinguishable from a thousand other men accused of white-collar crime in any given year. Watch any newscast, any talking head panel, any interview with a Democratic lawmaker, and whether through speculation, insinuation, or reason, their singular focus is to tie any wrongdoing to Pres. Trump. For good reason. This investigation has monopolized your national news for 16 months. If all that comes out of it is a few convictions for false statements and shady business deals by defunct campaign men, and Pres. Trump and the WH leadership are left untouched, it will mean literally millions of journalistic manhours sunk into a scandal whose outcome is less consequential than Martha Stewart's conviction for insider trading. I'll grant you most P/CE regulars have hedged their bets with "Let's just see what comes out; and if it's Trump-related, so be it," but for the US media and the American left generally, it's about Pres. Trump and senior members of his administration (in particular, Mr. Kushner and Mr. Trump Jr.) by proxy. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 13, 2024 23:40:45 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2018 9:42:01 GMT -5
Maybe because that is what Trump has made it.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,314
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Feb 21, 2018 9:53:12 GMT -5
You have been willfully pushing the false narrative that this investigation is about Trump instead of Russian Collusion. Mueller has found crimes and charged people. You choose to see it as a Trump centric thing because that's what the RW echo chamber is pushing. That has never been the focus.It's been the persistent focus of the media and the Democratic leadership from the start. If the investigation doesn't turn up actionable dirt on Pres. Trump, or at least strong evidence of shady undertakings that can be leveraged against him, it's an exercise in futility. Nobody knows who these lesser actors (Mr. Manafort, Mr. Gates, et al.) are aside from their connections to Pres. Trump. They're indistinguishable from a thousand other men accused of white-collar crime in any given year. Watch any newscast, any talking head panel, any interview with a Democratic lawmaker, and whether through speculation, insinuation, or reason, their singular focus is to tie any wrongdoing to Pres. Trump. For good reason. This investigation has monopolized your national news for 16 months. If all that comes out of it is a few convictions for false statements and shady business deals by defunct campaign men, and Pres. Trump and the WH leadership are left untouched, it will mean literally millions of journalistic manhours sunk into a scandal whose outcome is less consequential than Martha Stewart's conviction for insider trading. I'll grant you most P/CE regulars have hedged their bets with "Let's just see what comes out; and if it's Trump-related, so be it," but for the US media and the American left generally, it's about Pres. Trump and senior members of his administration (in particular, Mr. Kushner and Mr. Trump Jr.) by proxy. I think the investigation's focus is the important one, not what the media or anyone else wants it to be. Or to restate, the investigation's focus is Russian collusion. What other people want it to be about or want to be discovered is hopes, dreams, and talking points.
Tons of RW media and blog hours were sunk into Benghazi. It didn't amount to convictions like they wanted, but it did give them followers for their narrative. Kushner and Trump Jr. do have explaining to do. Given one admitted they were looking for dirt on Clinton from some Russians, it seems hard to believe they will come out clean on this, but the laws and provable evidence will determine what happens to them if anything. Trump doesn't need to be indicted in collusion for this to hurt him. Even he knows that. Hence the irrational tweets and continuing BS storm.
|
|
dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on Feb 21, 2018 10:09:52 GMT -5
Insults. Again, positive or negative. Both get the same result. Why bother? Possible better then physical altercation.. |
|
dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on Feb 21, 2018 10:21:00 GMT -5
I get it. You're willfully ignorant. That's why even as the Russia Collusion Delusion unwinds, the Mueller investigation implodes, and now 17 some odd high ranking federal government agents of the FBI, DOJ, and other agencies resign, are fired, or re-assigned-- you will be saying none of it happened because I posted it with a link to Breitbart. It's willful ignorance and intellectual laziness, but I've seen you make the same excuse. ymam.proboards.com/post/2705011/thread, for example: I'm convinced if it weren't for airports and hotel lobbies, CNN would be at #36. "Real" viewers have correctly reasoned that there's no point in watching news that's a non-stop stream of demonstrable lies. Why bother with fake news? CNN's viewership is so low, it's an honest and objective statement to say that it's not really a real channel anymore. I'll grant you this isn't the same thing as saying you won't even deign to confirm or debunk a CNN story, but it's a carbon copy of DJ's "99% bullshit source" argument. Regarding his thoughts regarding CNN...it seems there are other ideas regarding their demise and standing in the media field...Preety updated ..January.. ---------------------------------------------- "For January 2018, CNN Digital continued its winning streak, registering more multiplatform visitors, mobile visitors, video starts and a greater social reach than any other news outlet for the month. For Internet nostalgia enthusiasts, CNN also beat Fox News in page views. Reports to the contrary are bananas." ======================= to read complete article click on link below... cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2018/02/16/cnn-digital-ratings-traffic-january-2018-number-one/================================= There is also the field of trust...which media outlet is the most and least trusted in being truthful in what they present to the public as news...Seems CNN was rated #1 in truthful reporting...Fox least trusted.....Hey, just saying...just presenting what is out there...don't kill the messenger....Well when messenger is just about all ways just offering propaganda that may be .... --------------------------------------------- www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/30/which-news-organization-is-the-most-trusted-the-answer-is-complicated/ |
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,734
|
Post by happyhoix on Feb 21, 2018 10:46:14 GMT -5
You have been willfully pushing the false narrative that this investigation is about Trump instead of Russian Collusion. Mueller has found crimes and charged people. You choose to see it as a Trump centric thing because that's what the RW echo chamber is pushing. That has never been the focus.It's been the persistent focus of the media and the Democratic leadership from the start. If the investigation doesn't turn up actionable dirt on Pres. Trump, or at least strong evidence of shady undertakings that can be leveraged against him, it's an exercise in futility. Nobody knows who these lesser actors (Mr. Manafort, Mr. Gates, et al.) are aside from their connections to Pres. Trump. They're indistinguishable from a thousand other men accused of white-collar crime in any given year. Watch any newscast, any talking head panel, any interview with a Democratic lawmaker, and whether through speculation, insinuation, or reason, their singular focus is to tie any wrongdoing to Pres. Trump. For good reason. This investigation has monopolized your national news for 16 months. If all that comes out of it is a few convictions for false statements and shady business deals by defunct campaign men, and Pres. Trump and the WH leadership are left untouched, it will mean literally millions of journalistic manhours sunk into a scandal whose outcome is less consequential than Martha Stewart's conviction for insider trading.I'll grant you most P/CE regulars have hedged their bets with "Let's just see what comes out; and if it's Trump-related, so be it," but for the US media and the American left generally, it's about Pres. Trump and senior members of his administration (in particular, Mr. Kushner and Mr. Trump Jr.) by proxy. The nature of political scandals is one side tries to milk it for every bit of political mud slinging that they can. They typically drag on for years and end up with countless findings that are viewed as bombshells by one side and insignificant by the other.
Think Whitewater, Bengazhi! and the rest.
Politicians could tamp things down, wait quietly until the commissions make their findings, take actions (or admit there is nothing actionable) and then move on, never mentioning it again, but that is not how politics work in our country, or probably any other country, even Canada. Always a lot of journalistic man hours extended, usually not finding much.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 21, 2018 14:28:04 GMT -5
You have been willfully pushing the false narrative that this investigation is about Trump instead of Russian Collusion. Mueller has found crimes and charged people. You choose to see it as a Trump centric thing because that's what the RW echo chamber is pushing. That has never been the focus.It's been the persistent focus of the media and the Democratic leadership from the start. If the investigation doesn't turn up actionable dirt on Pres. Trump, or at least strong evidence of shady undertakings that can be leveraged against him, it's an exercise in futility. Nobody knows who these lesser actors (Mr. Manafort, Mr. Gates, et al.) are aside from their connections to Pres. Trump. They're indistinguishable from a thousand other men accused of white-collar crime in any given year. Watch any newscast, any talking head panel, any interview with a Democratic lawmaker, and whether through speculation, insinuation, or reason, their singular focus is to tie any wrongdoing to Pres. Trump. For good reason. This investigation has monopolized your national news for 16 months. If all that comes out of it is a few convictions for false statements and shady business deals by defunct campaign men, and Pres. Trump and the WH leadership are left untouched, it will mean literally millions of journalistic manhours sunk into a scandal whose outcome is less consequential than Martha Stewart's conviction for insider trading. I'll grant you most P/CE regulars have hedged their bets with "Let's just see what comes out; and if it's Trump-related, so be it," but for the US media and the American left generally, it's about Pres. Trump and senior members of his administration (in particular, Mr. Kushner and Mr. Trump Jr.) by proxy. It's actually a little more nuanced than even that-- the impression was deliberately created that these 13 Russian trolls were arrested for things having to do with "election meddling". But some have astutely observed: |
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,734
|
Post by happyhoix on Feb 21, 2018 16:57:01 GMT -5
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,314
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Feb 21, 2018 17:09:38 GMT -5
"He did not indict them for violating 52 U.S.C. §30121 (contributions and donations by foreign nationals). The question is, why not?""
Let's give the author a word problem since he apparently needs help understanding the difference between donating directly to a campaign and paying for a service.
Trump goes to Kentucky Fried Chicken and buys a meal. He is served by a foreigner here on a temporary VISA. Please explain why Trump does not have to count this as a campaign contribution and worry about violating 52 U.S.C. §30121 ? |
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 21, 2018 21:36:36 GMT -5
"He did not indict them for violating 52 U.S.C. §30121 (contributions and donations by foreign nationals). The question is, why not?""
Let's give the author a word problem since he apparently needs help understanding the difference between donating directly to a campaign and paying for a service.
Trump goes to Kentucky Fried Chicken and buys a meal. He is served by a foreigner here on a temporary VISA. Please explain why Trump does not have to count this as a campaign contribution and worry about violating 52 U.S.C. §30121 ? happy just finished telling me there's a chance Pres. Trump's hush money to his mistresses could be deemed a "campaign expense" by a US judge. In light of such insanity, don't you think it prudent to at least look up whether Mr. Steele had to register somewhere in order to legally perform opposition research for Ms. Clinton's campaign? If there is such a requirement (which makes no sense, but seeing as 'making sense' isn't of any particular concern to the US justice system), and Mr. Steele failed to meet it, he and his employers would be in hot water, would they not? |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 13, 2024 23:40:45 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2018 22:07:27 GMT -5
So, if you gave money to the Republican party, then you helped pay for Trump's hookers so he could cheat on his pregnant wife? Wow.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 21, 2018 22:33:21 GMT -5
So, if you gave money to the Republican party, then you helped pay for Trump's hookers so he could cheat on his pregnant wife? Wow. He apparently paid for it out of his own pocket. And only the tabloids seem to think Ms. Trump is pregnant. Neither fact makes his adultery less reprehensible, but if the law considers hush money a "campaign expense" that needs to be declared to the FEC, the judge presiding over the case might as well trade in his robes for a clown costume. |
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,654
|
Post by tallguy on Feb 21, 2018 22:49:55 GMT -5
So, if you gave money to the Republican party, then you helped pay for Trump's hookers so he could cheat on his pregnant wife? Wow. He apparently paid for it out of his own pocket. And only the tabloids seem to think Ms. Trump is pregnant.Neither fact makes his adultery less reprehensible, but if the law considers hush money a "campaign expense" that needs to be declared to the FEC, the judge presiding over the case might as well trade in his robes for a clown costume. The payment was hush money for an affair in 2006, supposedly while Ms. Trump was pregnant. It was not for a recent affair, although there have reportedly been others more recent. |
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 22, 2018 9:16:26 GMT -5
He apparently paid for it out of his own pocket. And only the tabloids seem to think Ms. Trump is pregnant.Neither fact makes his adultery less reprehensible, but if the law considers hush money a "campaign expense" that needs to be declared to the FEC, the judge presiding over the case might as well trade in his robes for a clown costume. The payment was hush money for an affair in 2006, supposedly while Ms. Trump was pregnant. It was not for a recent affair, although there have reportedly been others more recent. Ah. So she was using his election bid as an opportunity to extort him. Can you even imagine this going into a courtroom? "Mr. President, you are charged with violating section A123 of the Federal Elections Act by failing to disclose extortion monies paid to your ex-mistress in your November 2016 FEC filing..." Says the judge, moments before he honks his nose and squirts water from the flower on his lapel. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 13, 2024 23:40:45 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2018 9:22:24 GMT -5
No. They paid her not to talk as a benefit to his campaign. See how it’s a campaign contribution....
Honestly though... you’d think someone so opinionated would gather at least a few facts first...
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 22, 2018 11:36:00 GMT -5
No. They paid her not to talk as a benefit to his campaign. See how it’s a campaign contribution.... The sole "benefit to his campaign" is that it prevents damage to his reputation. If it qualifies, this would mean payment for anything that prevents damage to a candidate's reputation must be registered as a "campaign expense" with the FEC, no matter how unrelated to the campaign. Pay your gardener to keep your estate from turning into an overgrown : campaign expense. Buy a new tanning bed to bronze that skin: campaign expense. Donate 1,000 copies of your latest book to the local university: campaign expense. Bleach your e-mail server: campaign expense. Beam me up.  |
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,654
|
Post by tallguy on Feb 22, 2018 12:30:36 GMT -5
The payment was hush money for an affair in 2006, supposedly while Ms. Trump was pregnant. It was not for a recent affair, although there have reportedly been others more recent.
So she was using his election bid as an opportunity to extort him.
Can you even imagine this going into a courtroom? "Mr. President, you are charged with violating section A123 of the Federal Elections Act by failing to disclose extortion monies paid to your ex-mistress in your November 2016 FEC filing..." Says the judge, moments before he honks his nose and squirts water from the flower on his lapel. Damn, Virgil, do you EVER actually look for the facts any more if it's a subject you can spin? You are becoming almost as unreadable as, uh, some other people here. She did an interview in 2011 which detailed the encounters, but to the best of my knowledge it was never released though rumors had circulated for years. Either Michael Cohen or the Trump campaign approached her to negotiate payment for her to not speak about it before the 2016 election. I recall reading that someone (I think a FOX News reporter) had the story about the payment back in October but FOX chose not to go with it. The Wall Street Journal reported the story in January. She did not attempt to extort Trump. They approached her because of the long-standing rumors. And she did subsequently deny the affair in accordance with the non-disclosure agreement. The story came out. Cohen confirmed the payment. Daniels now contends that such admission negates the non-disclosure agreement. Whether the payment is an illegal campaign contribution is one that can be argued. Here is an article by a Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School that addresses the matter far better than I could. His contention is that it likely does qualify. He also notes that the same question regarding similar payments was at the heart of a multi-count felony indictment of Senator John Edwards in 2011 and other cases (personal use of campaign funds though not the same type of payments) against others. |
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,314
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Feb 22, 2018 13:52:02 GMT -5
No. They paid her not to talk as a benefit to his campaign. See how it’s a campaign contribution.... The sole "benefit to his campaign" is that it prevents damage to his reputation. If it qualifies, this would mean payment for anything that prevents damage to a candidate's reputation must be registered as a "campaign expense" with the FEC, no matter how unrelated to the campaign. Pay your gardener to keep your estate from turning into an overgrown : campaign expense. Buy a new tanning bed to bronze that skin: campaign expense. Donate 1,000 copies of your latest book to the local university: campaign expense. Bleach your e-mail server: campaign expense. Beam me up. I don't know the campaign laws and I suspect most of us posting do not as well. Plus you have the legal interpretation aspect. I don't know how realistic the claim is this could be considered a campaign expense. It is true that these payments were only made because of the campaign. That's easy to prove. No payments shortly after the affair, just years after when there were concerns in the campaign.
How damaging this is? IDK.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 22, 2018 17:22:04 GMT -5
Here is an article by a Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School that addresses the matter far better than I could. Read the whole thing. Just... beam me up. Shoot the US justice system. Put it out of its misery, and beam me up, Scotty. There's no intelligent life left on this planet. If this is what the Democrats try to use to bring the man down... gooooooooooooooood night, Democrats. |
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,654
|
Post by tallguy on Feb 22, 2018 17:48:03 GMT -5
Here is an article by a Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School that addresses the matter far better than I could. Read the whole thing. Just... beam me up. Shoot the US justice system. Put it out of its misery, and beam me up, Scotty. There's no intelligent life left on this planet. If this is what the Democrats try to use to bring the man down... gooooooooooooooood night, Democrats. Another useless response. This is about campaign finance law violations. How is that an indictment of the entire U.S. justice system? And again (as with the Daniels affair and Mueller), how do you get to the idea that "this is what the Democrats try to use to bring the man down"? The complaint was filed by a non-partisan watchdog group committed to eliminating corruption in elections and campaign finance. For someone who enjoys pontificating in such a dismissive manner you sure tend to conflate a lot of issues out of ignorance. There are a number of people here of whom I do not expect better. I have been up to now loath to consider you one of them. Have I been wrong? |
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 22, 2018 19:29:31 GMT -5
Read the whole thing. Just... beam me up. Shoot the US justice system. Put it out of its misery, and beam me up, Scotty. There's no intelligent life left on this planet. If this is what the Democrats try to use to bring the man down... gooooooooooooooood night, Democrats. Another useless response. This is about campaign finance law violations. How is that an indictment of the entire U.S. justice system? And again (as with the Daniels affair and Mueller), how do you get to the idea that "this is what the Democrats try to use to bring the man down"? The complaint was filed by a non-partisan watchdog group committed to eliminating corruption in elections and campaign finance. For someone who enjoys pontificating in such a dismissive manner you sure tend to conflate a lot of issues out of ignorance. There are a number of people here of whom I do not expect better. I have been up to now loath to consider you one of them. Have I been wrong? Another useless response. Damn, Tall, do you EVER actually start a post with anything other than an ad hominem? You are becoming almost as unreadable as, uh, some other people here. For someone who enjoys pontificating in such a dismissive manner you sure tend to make a lot of demands for members to remove harmless parodies. There are a number of people here of whom I do not expect better. I have been up to now loath to consider you one of them. Have I been wrong? In fact, you're so accustomed to proclaiming how ignorant and clueless other members are, it makes me wonder why your critics will care the next time you complain about a parody.  With this preamble out of the way... I'm aware a "non-partisan watchdog group" is responsible for filing the complaint. Assuming the judge is high on wood varnish, the complaint could make it beyond a summary dismissal, even as far as a conviction, at which point (and assuming the conviction and appeals are resolved sometime before January 2096), the case can go one of two ways: i) the Democrats insist on a fair sentence, which impacts Pres. Trump's presidency, or ii) Pres. Trump gets off with the customary slap on the wrist enjoyed by the politically well-connected in America. I believe it would be a particularly grave mistake for the Democrats (or, I suppose, Pres. Trump's enemies in the GOP or the "deep state") to pursue avenue i. We find ourselves in a serendipitous situation where two wrongs--namely, the shameless abuse of election laws for political persecution, and the US courts' pathological inability to punish the rich and powerful for wrongdoing--combine to make a right. ... provided no powerful group (e.g. the federal Democrats) gets it in their head that righting the second wrong in furtherance of the first wrong is a good idea. It will not end well for them. But onto the good news: My indictment of the US justice system as a whole was premature. To be sure, my lack of faith in your courts is founded on countless bad precedents, nonsensical laws, miscarriages of justice, and mind-blowingly stupid decisions handed down over the past 20 years, but... based on the dismissal of the charges against Mr. Edwards, it appears some few sane judges yet remain. It may yet come to pass that one such diamond in the rough says to "Common Cause": "I'm afraid I'm not an idiot, and I'll chew glass before I let you make a mockery of our election laws. Please get out of my sight and get real jobs." What a triumph that day will be, should it come to pass. On that day, I shall say, "Belay that order, Scotty! I see a patch of intelligent life here! Clinging desperately to survival on the border of an all-consuming wasteland." You've filled me with hope, Tall. Thank you for precious hope!  |
|
