Walls are closing in on DJT.... *All of Trump Charged threads have been merged - post here*

[NavigatorII]

You REALLY don't understand what's happening hear at all. Good Lord your just making yourself look worse.

The timing of the bookkeeping, before or after the election, is totally irrelevant.

The hell it is. For one thing, NDAs are perfectly legitimate. And it has not one effing thing to do with an election, other than Daniels and her handlers tried to make it one. Would you want your wife to have seen the National Inquirer run a story about your shens, whether true or not? It's got jackshit to do with an election, but let's discuss some that do. Ashley's diary for starters, and Hunter's laptop for another. The FBI and media colluded together to cover those up prior to an election, so let's skip right to those things. Eesh.

 

[Illegal-shift]

I'm always hungover.

Now quit crawfishing and demonstrate your vastly superior intellect.

I gave you the answer in the last post above to the other dude.

 

[fatman76]

Look it up. The payment to Cohen and the Accounting ledger of "legal fees" happened in 2017. Trump won the 2016 election. IF you believe the crap that they are selling in NY, this was an illegal campaign contribution BECAUSE Trump ordered his accounting department to label it as legal fees to hide the fact that he had an affair because he was worried it would hurt is chance of winning the election< BUTTTTTTTTT, the election had already been won. SO ....

The problem is the book keeping issue is a state-level misdemeanor that wasn't a problem, a payment to a lawyer is a legal fee...had he classified it as a campaign expense they'd be going after him harder...THAT would have been a campaign finance violation (and it would have been much easier for Bragg to maintain this was election interference).

Illegal is such a cuck he has me on ignore, so you'll explain the ridiculous legal gymnastics Bragg is trying to play to him.

1000% he doesn't understand this.

If Bragg wins this case no politician will ever be able to file an NDA with anyone for any reason during a campaign, and the incentive to try to extort politicians to get them to drop out will increase exponentially. It's a terrifying precedent.

edit: The other think Illegal doesn't want to admit is it's been established that Trump knew nothing of the agreement that Cohen made...meaning he couldn't have intended to interfere with the election.

 

[BCSpell]

I'm always hungover.

Now quit crawfishing and demonstrate your vastly superior intellect.

He is going over his DEM talking Points to figure out which one he needs to use.

 

[LordofallSocks]

I gave you the answer in the last post above to the other dude.

You didn't answer the question.

Your assertion is that the agreement was reached before the election and therefore when the payment was made is irrelevant?

 

[RussellCasse]

I gave you the answer in the last post above to the other dude.

No you didn’t. But you are trying really hard to deflect for some reason.

 

[RussellCasse]

It’s too bad. Fresno even went out on a limb for @Illegal-shift as a supposed non partisan. Good for shifty for proving him wrong.

 

[Illegal-shift]

You didn't answer the question.

Your assertion is that the agreement was reached before the election and therefore when the payment was made is irrelevant?

Come on dude..... don't pull this shit like the other guys on here.....I said nothing about the timing of the payment. Of course THATS important. But that's NOT what the guy posted......he posted about the "bookkeeping" being after the election......which doesn't matter at all.

 

[NavigatorII]

Come on dude..... don't pull this shit like the other guys on here.....I said nothing about the timing of the payment. Of course THATS important. But that's NOT what the guy posted......he posted about the "bookkeeping" being after the election......which doesn't matter at all.

Apparently you just chose to ignore two different posters that completely blow your cute assumption right out of the water.

 

[NavigatorII]

You didn't answer the question.

Your assertion is that the agreement was reached before the election and therefore when the payment was made is irrelevant?

I guess you'll need to quote my post and Fatman's. Apparently "feelz" keep him from getting them hurt by having us on ignore. 😂

 

[RussellCasse]

Come on dude..... don't pull this shit like the other guys on here.....I said nothing about the timing of the payment. Of course THATS important. But that's NOT what the guy posted......he posted about the "bookkeeping" being after the election......which doesn't matter at all.

Does diddling ones own daughter in the shower matter at all? It’s apparent that it doesn’t to you.

 

[LordofallSocks]

Come on dude..... don't pull this shit like the other guys on here.....I said nothing about the timing of the payment. Of course THATS important. But that's NOT what the guy posted......he posted about the "bookkeeping" being after the election......which doesn't matter at all.

I am not a mind reader, so out with it.

What does matter in your opinion?

In your own words, what was untrue about statement that since payment was made after the election it's not interference?

 

[RussellCasse]

This will be inconvenient for shifty…

 

[NavigatorII]

I am not a mind reader, so out with it.

What does matter in your opinion?

In your own words, what was untrue about statement that since payment was made after the election it's not interference?

We are getting the Kal Treatment here. You can almost smell Google smoldering at the number of hits it's getting now. 😂

 

[fatman76]

This will be inconvenient for shifty…

View embedded media

#3 means case closed.

Someone can't intended to take an action if they didn't even know of the action.

The whole thing is so stupid.

 

[fatman76]

I guess you'll need to quote my post and Fatman's. Apparently "feelz" keep him from getting them hurt by having us on ignore. 😂

Pretty soon Illegal will just be left alone with his thoughts and MDF

 

[RussellCasse]

Pretty soon Illegal will just be left alone with his thoughts and MDF

Yep. A true non partisan. 🙄

 

[NavigatorII]

#3 means case closed.

Someone can't intended to take an action if they didn't even know of the action.

The whole thing is so stupid.

The whole case is absurd, on many levels. Timing, classification, and intent.

That's what happens when prosecutors manufacture bogus political persecutions. But hey, maybe Trump should have just bashed all of their cell phones and erased their data.

 

[fatman76]

The whole case is absurd, on many levels. Timing, classification, and intent.

That's what happens when prosecutors manufacture bogus political persecutions. But hey, maybe Trump should have just bashed all of their cell phones and erased their data.

Timing is the most absurd.

 

[Illegal-shift]

I am not a mind reader, so out with it.

What does matter in your opinion?

In your own words, what was untrue about statement that since payment was made after the election it's not interference?

OK, I think I have identified your confusion here. Dude was talking about the payment from Trump to Cohen and the accounting behind that being after the election......which doesn't matter at all. Which is why I called that out......it's ridiculous. That reimbursement being before or after the election is a complete non-issue.....which is why you don't see Trump's attorney's raising that argument. The only payment that needed to be made before the election was the payment to Daniels.....which DID happen before the election and both parties have conceded that - they have bank records. That is the payment which prevented the story getting out before the election and is the potential election interference. The payments to reimburse Cohen could have been made at any time after that, it didn't matter. That fact that they spread them out over a years time was simply more evidence of them trying to hide that fact that they were reimbursements......but Wieselbergs notes completely killed that charade.

So the dude above is either totally confused as to what is going on here OR is trying to confuse people who aren't paying that much attention....which has become a hallmark of Trump world.

 

[BillytheC]

OK, I think I have identified your confusion here. Dude was talking about the payment from Trump to Cohen and the accounting behind that being after the election......which doesn't matter at all. Which is why I called that out......it's ridiculous. That reimbursement being before or after the election is a complete non-issue.....which is why you don't see Trump's attorney's raising that argument. The only payment that needed to be made before the election was the payment to Daniels.....which DID happen before the election and both parties have conceded that - they have bank records. That is the payment which prevented the story getting out before the election and is the potential election interference. The payments to reimburse Cohen could have been made at any time after that, it didn't matter. That fact that they spread them out over a years time was simply more evidence of them trying to hide that fact that they were reimbursements......but Wieselbergs notes completely killed that charade.

So the dude above is either totally confused as to what is going on here OR is trying to confuse people who aren't paying that much attention....which has become a hallmark of Trump world.

TDS

 

[Illegal-shift]

TDS

Always the answer for those who can't think of a legitimate response.

 

[Capt Ron 1]

Always the answer for those who can't think of a legitimate response.

Says the PEDO supporter.....

 

[RussellCasse]

Always the answer for those who can't think of a legitimate response.

And yet you are silent on the now confirmed Ashley diary and its contents. Your TDS is skrong.

One has to be an absolute moron to fall for the fraud of a NY case. If you believe that to be election interference then what would you call paying a foreign entity to concoct a fake russian dossier? Be better.

 

[LordofallSocks]

OK, I think I have identified your confusion here. Dude was talking about the payment from Trump to Cohen and the accounting behind that being after the election......which doesn't matter at all. Which is why I called that out......it's ridiculous. That reimbursement being before or after the election is a complete non-issue.....which is why you don't see Trump's attorney's raising that argument. The only payment that needed to be made before the election was the payment to Daniels.....which DID happen before the election and both parties have conceded that - they have bank records. That is the payment which prevented the story getting out before the election and is the potential election interference. The payments to reimburse Cohen could have been made at any time after that, it didn't matter. That fact that they spread them out over a years time was simply more evidence of them trying to hide that fact that they were reimbursements......but Wieselbergs notes completely killed that charade.

So the dude above is either totally confused as to what is going on here OR is trying to confuse people who aren't paying that much attention....which has become a hallmark of Trump world.

See how well you do when you apply yourself?

My only issue know is who is "they," and when did "they" know this.

Which goes back to my post a few pages back where I stated what if Cohen disbursed campaign funds that he had access to without his clients knowledge.

Theoretically while an NDA is perfectly legal, there might be a case that such a document would prevent Daniels from taking information to the press, which is election interference no less than releasing misinformation to th^ press, like a fake intelligence dossier one had laying around.

Not a lawyer so I'm going to see how this plays out.

 

[NavigatorII]

Always the answer for those who can't think of a legitimate response.

You are a mental midget. Two of us have completely dismantled your argument. But you are a coward and put us on ignore.

😂 😂 😂 😂 🤡

 

[BCSpell]

OK, I think I have identified your confusion here. Dude was talking about the payment from Trump to Cohen and the accounting behind that being after the election......which doesn't matter at all. Which is why I called that out......it's ridiculous. That reimbursement being before or after the election is a complete non-issue.....which is why you don't see Trump's attorney's raising that argument. The only payment that needed to be made before the election was the payment to Daniels.....which DID happen before the election and both parties have conceded that - they have bank records. That is the payment which prevented the story getting out before the election and is the potential election interference. The payments to reimburse Cohen could have been made at any time after that, it didn't matter. That fact that they spread them out over a years time was simply more evidence of them trying to hide that fact that they were reimbursements......but Wieselbergs notes completely killed that charade.

So the dude above is either totally confused as to what is going on here OR is trying to confuse people who aren't paying that much attention....which has become a hallmark of Trump world.

No, the payment to Porn girl is not the issue. That is a perfectly legal transaction. You can pay people to stay quiet or to just go away. No law against that. The Prosecution is trying to make a crime by claiming the “repayment” to Cohen was an illegal campaign contribution BECAUSE they claim Trump had his accountants post it as legal payment so that it would not hurt his election. That payment happened AFTER the election.

 

[BCSpell]

No, the payment to Porn girl is not the issue. That is a perfectly legal transaction. You can pay people to stay quiet or to just go away. No law against that. The Prosecution is trying to make a crime by claiming the “repayment” to Cohen was an illegal campaign contribution BECAUSE they claim Trump had his accountants post it as legal payment so that it would not hurt his election. That payment happened AFTER the election.

And I got this from listening to Bongino, who always has the receipts.

 

[BillytheC]

Always the answer for those who can't think of a legitimate response.

I have a response I just did not think you were worth the time

 

[Illegal-shift]

No, the payment to Porn girl is not the issue. That is a perfectly legal transaction. You can pay people to stay quiet or to just go away. No law against that. The Prosecution is trying to make a crime by claiming the “repayment” to Cohen was an illegal campaign contribution BECAUSE they claim Trump had his accountants post it as legal payment so that it would not hurt his election. That payment happened AFTER the election.

Pretty much everything you said here is just flat wrong. You need to listen to different podcasts or something, your getting bad information.

 

[Illegal-shift]

I have a response I just did not think you were worth the time

Please stick to this and don't respond to anything I say going forward. I am not worth your time.

Thanks.

 

[Illegal-shift]

See how well you do when you apply yourself?

My only issue know is who is "they," and when did "they" know this.

Which goes back to my post a few pages back where I stated what if Cohen disbursed campaign funds that he had access to without his clients knowledge.

Theoretically while an NDA is perfectly legal, there might be a case that such a document would prevent Daniels from taking information to the press, which is election interference no less than releasing misinformation to th^ press, like a fake intelligence dossier one had laying around.

Not a lawyer so I'm going to see how this plays out.

There isn't any question as to where the money originally came from, Cohen gave them bank records showing the money coming from his home equity line.

Several area's of the evidence reflect that Trump knew about it. In addition to the "of course he did" common sense we should all have. Any of you guys going to pay out $430K to somebody without explanation?

 

[LordofallSocks]

There isn't any question as to where the money originally came from, Cohen gave them bank records showing the money coming from his home equity line.

Several area's of the evidence reflect that Trump knew about it. In addition to the "of course he did" common sense we should all have. Any of you guys going to pay out $430K to somebody without explanation?

im not going to take a loan to cover a billionaire client's ass either.

 

[Illegal-shift]

"If there is evidence that Cohen intended to influence the election by preventing voters from learning of Trump’s alleged affair, then the $130,000 payment is an illegal contribution — whether or not it was repaid.

Federal law states that a personal loan or “anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office is a contribution.” ( an individual is considered a campaign contribution — subject to the limits of individual donations to candidate committees. That limit was $2,700 per elecBank loans and lines of credit are treated differently under the law than individual loans or gifts.)

A loan from an individual is considered a campaign contribution — subject to the limits of individual donations to candidate committees. That limit was $2,700 per election in 2016, meaning that Cohen may have exceeded the limit by more than $127,000.

“A loan that exceeds the contribution limitations of 52 U.S.C. 30116 and 11 CFR part 110 shall be unlawful whether or not it is repaid,” according to the Federal Election Commission.

 

[Illegal-shift]

im not going to take a loan to cover a billionaire client's ass either.

Ya, I get that argument.......but I really don't think there is much of a dispute that Trump paid him back now. The argument is about the legality of the pieces......and if this is a big enough transgression to bring down a guy who might become president again. I would have to wrestle with that myself. As much as I dislike Trump, I respect the system (unlike Trump) and if he wins, he wins.

 

[LordofallSocks]

Ya, I get that argument.......but I really don't think there is much of a dispute that Trump paid him back now. The argument is about the legality of the pieces......and if this is a big enough transgression to bring down a guy who might become president again. I would have to wrestle with that myself. As much as I dislike Trump, I respect the system (unlike Trump) and if he wins, he wins.

I rather doubt Trump pays his own bills matter of fact he has a long history of refusing to pay his bills. Given the fact Cohen is a thief and 130k being a small amount of money for both billionaires and presidential candidates I think a case can and will be made that Cohen took it upon himself to fix a problem and then got his money back without his client being fully aware of what he was paying for.

Regardless I take a dim view of any former president being dragged into court for less than treason regardless of party.

 

[RussellCasse]

Please stick to this and don't respond to anything I say going forward. I am not worth your time.

Thanks.

You aren’t worth anyones time.

 

[RussellCasse]

"If there is evidence that Cohen intended to influence the election by preventing voters from learning of Trump’s alleged affair, then the $130,000 payment is an illegal contribution — whether or not it was repaid.

Federal law states that a personal loan or “anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office is a contribution.” ( an individual is considered a campaign contribution — subject to the limits of individual donations to candidate committees. That limit was $2,700 per elecBank loans and lines of credit are treated differently under the law than individual loans or gifts.)

A loan from an individual is considered a campaign contribution — subject to the limits of individual donations to candidate committees. That limit was $2,700 per election in 2016, meaning that Cohen may have exceeded the limit by more than $127,000.

“A loan that exceeds the contribution limitations of 52 U.S.C. 30116 and 11 CFR part 110 shall be unlawful whether or not it is repaid,” according to the Federal Election Commission.

Go ahead. Post the source. We both know why you won’t. Let me help you. Lol. NBCBayArea dot com. Great source. Just a tip, I know you spent hours scouring the web to back up your BS, but you might want to be more up to date than an article from 2018 from Gay Bay.

Fact Check: Stormy Daniels' Payment Q&A

In a series of early morning tweets on May 3, President Donald Trump acknowledged for the first time that he reimbursed his personal attorney for the $130,000 payment that was made to porn star Stormy Daniels. Still, there are many unanswered questions about the payment — which was made less...

www.nbcbayarea.com

Now, would you like to see how easily your BS is debunked? Just let me know. Pretty easy to dismantle the easily duped.

 

[fatman76]

OK, I think I have identified your confusion here. Dude was talking about the payment from Trump to Cohen and the accounting behind that being after the election......which doesn't matter at all. Which is why I called that out......it's ridiculous. That reimbursement being before or after the election is a complete non-issue.....which is why you don't see Trump's attorney's raising that argument. The only payment that needed to be made before the election was the payment to Daniels.....which DID happen before the election and both parties have conceded that - they have bank records. That is the payment which prevented the story getting out before the election and is the potential election interference. The payments to reimburse Cohen could have been made at any time after that, it didn't matter. That fact that they spread them out over a years time was simply more evidence of them trying to hide that fact that they were reimbursements......but Wieselbergs notes completely killed that charade.

So the dude above is either totally confused as to what is going on here OR is trying to confuse people who aren't paying that much attention....which has become a hallmark of Trump world.

If Trump is found guilty does that mean that ALL NDA’s signed by accusers would be illegal during an active campaign?

 

[RussellCasse]

If Trump is found guilty does that mean that ALL NDA’s signed by accusers would be illegal during an active campaign?

No. Just those related to Trump. We will only apply this stuff to him to “save Democracy”. While Destroying the Republic.