goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: steve dave on August 22, 2018, 09:54:26 AM
-
https://twitter.com/justinjm1/status/1032227907849146368
:eek:
-
I bet the guy that was Bill Clinton's attorney back when I was in middle school was way worse
-
I just wanted to get onto the ground floor of a thread (great title, btw) that is sure to skyrocket to pinned status.
I'll go ahead and place a few markers while I'm at it:
First, a campaign paying off people with dirt to dish is not exactly groundbreaking. Nor would listing those payments as legal expenses. Nor is there any good legal authority that such payments would constitute "campaign contributions" (can't wait for all the creative arguments of those "legal experts" tho!). In short, this is going nowhere as a criminal matter for Trump.
Second, as a political matter, of course the Dems are going to use this as a basis to impeach Trump, but they were already going to impeach him anyway if they retake the House. They're either going to retake the House or not. If they make impeachment a central part of this fall campaign, I suspect that will not help them do so.
Third, this is why you hire reputable lawyers to do your dirty work. You think the Feds were ever going to raid the offices of Perkins Cole? The Clintons know how to do this right. Trump is straight up amateur hour when it comes to hiring attorneys. He'd better get serious.
Fourth, I'm really glad Stormy Daniels is back in the headlines. I really hope CNN gets back to giving Avenatti plenty of airtime and the Dems really embrace this whole hog. It's really gonna boost the favorability of the Dem party!
-
Nor is there any good legal authority that such payments would constitute "campaign contributions" (can't wait for all the creative arguments of those "legal experts" tho!).
us attorneys just charged a person for doing exactly that and the person pled guilty.
-
Nor is there any good legal authority that such payments would constitute "campaign contributions" (can't wait for all the creative arguments of those "legal experts" tho!).
us attorneys just charged a person for doing exactly that and the person pled guilty.
Yeah you know that doesn't actually mean anything, right? Appears the big squeeze was again some sort of tax fraud for a taxi business?! :lol:
-
i'm not an attorney. please explain to me why a prosecutor's decision to charge someone with a certain crime and the alleged criminal's decision to plead guilty to that crime does not indicate that the crime is a crime.
-
I just wanted to get onto the ground floor of a thread (great title, btw) that is sure to skyrocket to pinned status.
I'll go ahead and place a few markers while I'm at it:
First, a campaign paying off people with dirt to dish is not exactly groundbreaking. Nor would listing those payments as legal expenses. Nor is there any good legal authority that such payments would constitute "campaign contributions" (can't wait for all the creative arguments of those "legal experts" tho!). In short, this is going nowhere as a criminal matter for Trump.
Second, as a political matter, of course the Dems are going to use this as a basis to impeach Trump, but they were already going to impeach him anyway if they retake the House. They're either going to retake the House or not. If they make impeachment a central part of this fall campaign, I suspect that will not help them do so.
Third, this is why you hire reputable lawyers to do your dirty work. You think the Feds were ever going to raid the offices of Perkins Cole? The Clintons know how to do this right. Trump is straight up amateur hour when it comes to hiring attorneys. He'd better get serious.
Fourth, I'm really glad Stormy Daniels is back in the headlines. I really hope CNN gets back to giving Avenatti plenty of airtime and the Dems really embrace this whole hog. It's really gonna boost the favorability of the Dem party!
It's "Perkins Coie" bud.
-
Trump would be able to get better attorneys if he didn't have a reputation for not paying them. Rudy Giuliani is worse than a court-appointed attorney would be. I'd rather represent myself.
-
I bet the guy that was Bill Clinton's attorney back when I was in middle school was way worse
Once again this shitty take. The guy is quite literally working the TV circuit . . . today. Yet, you're going to try and play that card, Dug?
FFS
-
i'm not an attorney. please explain to me why a prosecutor's decision to charge someone with a certain crime and the alleged criminal's decision to plead guilty to that crime does not indicate that the crime is a crime.
KSUW believes in the sort of thing described below in the same way that he believes in principles that rich people should benefit more from tax cuts than the non-rich, including himself, should.
https://twitter.com/AdamSerwer/status/1032268471525154817
-
if you are constantly finding yourself in such social and legal jeopardy that you need to keep a "fixer" on retainer, you probably aren't fit to hold political office
-
I bet the guy that was Bill Clinton's attorney back when I was in middle school was way worse
Once again this shitty take. The guy is quite literally working the TV circuit . . . today. Yet, you're going to try and play that card, Dug?
FFS
Who are you talking about? I am not retired and cannot watch much news channel programming on weekdays.
-
I bet the guy that was Bill Clinton's attorney back when I was in middle school was way worse
Once again this shitty take. The guy is quite literally working the TV circuit . . . today. Yet, you're going to try and play that card, Dug?
FFS
Who are you talking about? I am not retired and cannot watch much news channel programming on weekdays.
They never talk about the news cycle on Twitter (Dugout Dickstone)
-
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/michael-cohen-donald-trump-pardon-trial-guilty-russia-investigation-a8502451.html?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&utm_source=reddit.com#Echobox=1534934741
What is the legal reasoning for refusing to accept a pardon? Is this like Mangino taking himself out of the running for a coaching job?
-
I bet the guy that was Bill Clinton's attorney back when I was in middle school was way worse
Once again this shitty take. The guy is quite literally working the TV circuit . . . today. Yet, you're going to try and play that card, Dug?
FFS
-
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/michael-cohen-donald-trump-pardon-trial-guilty-russia-investigation-a8502451.html?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&utm_source=reddit.com#Echobox=1534934741
What is the legal reasoning for refusing to accept a pardon? Is this like Mangino taking himself out of the running for a coaching job?
It isn't legal reasoning. This is all political. Cohen is being "represented" by Clinton-fixer Lanny Davis! The top priority for Lanny is to extract as much damage as he can from his client against Trump. Hence the "we don't want a pardon." This whole thing is a circus.
-
I bet the guy that was Bill Clinton's attorney back when I was in middle school was way worse
Once again this shitty take. The guy is quite literally working the TV circuit . . . today. Yet, you're going to try and play that card, Dug?
FFS
No one ever uses social media to talk about things being said on TV (Dug)
-
if you are constantly finding yourself in such social and legal jeopardy that you need to keep a "fixer" on retainer, you probably aren't fit to hold political office
I'm just quoting this for posterity. Literally every major Democrat politician - including Obama and the Clintons - had at least one if not multiple fixers. In fact, Clinton fixer Lanny Davis is now "representing" Trump's fixer! That is amazing. :lol:
-
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/michael-cohen-donald-trump-pardon-trial-guilty-russia-investigation-a8502451.html?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&utm_source=reddit.com#Echobox=1534934741
What is the legal reasoning for refusing to accept a pardon? Is this like Mangino taking himself out of the running for a coaching job?
It isn't legal reasoning. This is all political. Cohen is being "represented" by Clinton-fixer Lanny Davis! The top priority for Lanny is to extract as much damage as he can from his client against Trump. Hence the "we don't want a pardon." This whole thing is a circus.
I have a really hard time believing Michael Cohen is wiling to sit in prison to hurt Trump politically if there were a way he wouldn't have to.
-
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/michael-cohen-donald-trump-pardon-trial-guilty-russia-investigation-a8502451.html?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&utm_source=reddit.com#Echobox=1534934741
What is the legal reasoning for refusing to accept a pardon? Is this like Mangino taking himself out of the running for a coaching job?
It isn't legal reasoning. This is all political. Cohen is being "represented" by Clinton-fixer Lanny Davis! The top priority for Lanny is to extract as much damage as he can from his client against Trump. Hence the "we don't want a pardon." This whole thing is a circus.
I have a really hard time believing Michael Cohen is wiling to sit in prison to hurt Trump politically if there were a way he wouldn't have to.
This is just Lanny Davis posturing.
-
By the way, raise your hand if you're smarter than Alan Dershowitz. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/08/22/dershowitz_candidate_entitled_to_pay_hush_money_committed_no_election_crime.html (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/08/22/dershowitz_candidate_entitled_to_pay_hush_money_committed_no_election_crime.html)
As I said, Trump isn't in legal jeopardy. If Trump directed Cohen to pay the hush money, that isn't a campaign finance violation.
-
I guess we will see.
-
Alan Dershowitz is far too old to be a competent criminal attorney.
-
if you are constantly finding yourself in such social and legal jeopardy that you need to keep a "fixer" on retainer, you probably aren't fit to hold political office
I'm just quoting this for posterity. Literally every major Democrat politician - including Obama and the Clintons - had at least one if not multiple fixers. In fact, Clinton fixer Lanny Davis is now "representing" Trump's fixer! That is amazing. :lol:
what was the name of BHO's fixer?
-
By the way, raise your hand if you're smarter than Alan Dershowitz. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/08/22/dershowitz_candidate_entitled_to_pay_hush_money_committed_no_election_crime.html (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/08/22/dershowitz_candidate_entitled_to_pay_hush_money_committed_no_election_crime.html)
As I said, Trump isn't in legal jeopardy. If Trump directed Cohen to pay the hush money, that isn't a campaign finance violation.
:rolleyes:
Trump lives in legal jeopardy. Also, the payoff could absolutely be a campaign finance violation.
-
I bet the guy that was Bill Clinton's attorney back when I was in middle school was way worse
Once again this shitty take. The guy is quite literally working the TV circuit . . . today. Yet, you're going to try and play that card, Dug?
FFS
No one ever uses social media to talk about things being said on TV (Dug)
what account is best to follow for the latest in enraged old white dude news?
-
@realDonaldTrump is the best by far.
-
Interesting
https://twitter.com/DavidKris/status/1032339510762205184
-
https://twitter.com/AP/status/1032342891497246720
-
lol he's a busy guy!
-
the guy is a flipping machine
-
I’ve said it before, but Trump should be impeached for the simple reason that he is an idiot with terrible judgment in hiring and firing people to work for him. Even if it turns out that Trump had Cohen pay Putin $1 million to meddle in the US election, it still would only be the second or third biggest reason he should be impeached.
-
I’ve said it before, but Trump should be impeached for the simple reason that he is an idiot with terrible judgment in hiring and firing people to work for him. Even if it turns out that Trump had Cohen pay Putin $1 million to meddle in the US election, it still would only be the second or third biggest reason he should be impeached.
While i agree with you that Trump has shown poor judgment in hiring certain people, I hardly think that constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor. Doesn't seem like we should be setting that precedent.
-
I'd rather we don't set the precedent of normalizing a president that behaves like trump
-
I'd rather we don't set the precedent of normalizing a president that behaves like trump
Ok. And the good news is he's up for reelection in 2020. You lost in 2016 but you get another chance.
-
Low information voters, smdh
-
Low information voters, smdh
Gotcha, impeachment is a way to override those low information voters. Who knew Democrats were such fans of disenfranchising people?
-
Lol, impeaching criminal officials is now voter disenfranchisement.
These are the lengths the trump cult go to justify their unyielding devotion.
Goodness kdub :lol:
-
Lol, impeaching criminal officials is now voter disenfranchisement.
These are the lengths the trump cult go to justify their unyielding devotion.
Goodness kdub :lol:
Ok, so now you've reverted back to crimes. Find me an actual high crime and misdemeanor and I'll join you. So far we've got - at worst - a campaign finance violation, and even that seems unlikely.
-
https://twitter.com/jbendery/status/1032237846629965824
-
Politicians are partisan . . . news!
-
I’d say they could nab him for child endangerment.
-
I’ve said it before, but Trump should be impeached for the simple reason that he is an idiot with terrible judgment in hiring and firing people to work for him. Even if it turns out that Trump had Cohen pay Putin $1 million to meddle in the US election, it still would only be the second or third biggest reason he should be impeached.
Wait you think trump paid putin to throw the election?
-
The amount of republicans scrambling to defend and deflect for Trump is humiliating to my party and the few of us that are left not falling in line no matter what. I’m a man of principles, so I’ll stand firm. I’ll just be sad doing it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Love the combination of corruption and incompetence here. Definitely looking forward to many years of investigations into Trump Organization.
https://twitter.com/LeonHWolf/status/1032330033099100165
-
Debating about putting it in the Mollie Tibbetts thread, but I think this is a great piece that gets to the root of the issue
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/08/what-trumps-supporters-think-of-corruption/568147/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/08/what-trumps-supporters-think-of-corruption/568147/)
-
Debating about putting it in the Mollie Tibbetts thread, but I think this is a great piece that gets to the root of the issue
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/08/what-trumps-supporters-think-of-corruption/568147/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/08/what-trumps-supporters-think-of-corruption/568147/)
I didn't read the article but read the title. In my expert opinion, instead of reading a probably super long article, they don't think much about it at all, as long as it wasn't Hillary or the dems doing it, they are 100% fine with it.
-
https://twitter.com/jbendery/status/1032237846629965824
More middle school material :zzz:
-
Why don't we make fun of people who string tweet 1/x ???
That's enraged old tard stuff if I ever saw it
-
https://twitter.com/justinjm1/status/1032227907849146368
:eek:
This person doesn't know wtf they're talking about, ftr
-
I bet the guy that was Bill Clinton's attorney back when I was in middle school was way worse
Once again this shitty take. The guy is quite literally working the TV circuit . . . today. Yet, you're going to try and play that card, Dug?
FFS
Who are you talking about? I am not retired and cannot watch much news channel programming on weekdays.
They never talk about the news cycle on Twitter (Dugout Dickstone)
He's clearly testing a new boring retort to post ad nauseum, probably already posted some version of this a dozen times today
-
By the way, raise your hand if you're smarter than Alan Dershowitz. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/08/22/dershowitz_candidate_entitled_to_pay_hush_money_committed_no_election_crime.html (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/08/22/dershowitz_candidate_entitled_to_pay_hush_money_committed_no_election_crime.html)
As I said, Trump isn't in legal jeopardy. If Trump directed Cohen to pay the hush money, that isn't a campaign finance violation.
I don't think anyone think trump committed a campaign violation by donating to himself, or telling someone to donate to him (even though no money was actually donated to him, rather paid to an extortionist)
If they do, they are straight Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
-
https://twitter.com/frankfigliuzzi1/status/1032459417638330368?s=21
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I don't think anyone think trump committed a campaign violation by donating to himself, or telling someone to donate to him (even though no money was actually donated to him, rather paid to an extortionist)
If they do, they are straight Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
the only people i've seen that don't think he committed a campaign finance felony are you, ksu_w and alan dershowitz.
-
I don't think anyone think trump committed a campaign violation by donating to himself, or telling someone to donate to him (even though no money was actually donated to him, rather paid to an extortionist)
If they do, they are straight Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
the only people i've seen that don't think he committed a campaign finance felony are you, ksu_w and alan dershowitz.
Also Giuliani. A wise and sensible group of four, to be sure.
-
I don't think anyone think trump committed a campaign violation by donating to himself, or telling someone to donate to him (even though no money was actually donated to him, rather paid to an extortionist)
If they do, they are straight Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
the only people i've seen that don't think he committed a campaign finance felony are you, ksu_w and alan dershowitz.
I appreciate that I'm being mentioned in the same sentence as Alan Dershowitz. Big timing. This isn't really that hard to understand. If Trump spent his own money - that's not a campaign finance violation. If Cohen spent his money, and paying hush money is somehow construed as a campaign contribution, that's a campaign finance violation... by Cohen. Not Trump. The only place Trump potentially gets in trouble is if he used campaign funds to pay the hush money. I'm not seeing any evidence of that.
-
This isn't really that hard to understand. If Trump spent his own money - that's not a campaign finance violation. If Cohen spent his money, and paying hush money is somehow construed as a campaign contribution, that's a campaign finance violation... by Cohen. Not Trump. The only place Trump potentially gets in trouble is if he used campaign funds to pay the hush money. I'm not seeing any evidence of that.
https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1032310459292999680
-
I don't think anyone think trump committed a campaign violation by donating to himself, or telling someone to donate to him (even though no money was actually donated to him, rather paid to an extortionist)
If they do, they are straight Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
the only people i've seen that don't think he committed a campaign finance felony are you, ksu_w and alan dershowitz.
I appreciate that I'm being mentioned in the same sentence as Alan Dershowitz. Big timing. This isn't really that hard to understand. If Trump spent his own money - that's not a campaign finance violation. If Cohen spent his money, and paying hush money is somehow construed as a campaign contribution, that's a campaign finance violation... by Cohen. Not Trump. The only place Trump potentially gets in trouble is if he used campaign funds to pay the hush money. I'm not seeing any evidence of that.
Even if everything you say is true, it would be a crime if Trump knew about and/or directed Cohen to do what he did. That’s conspiracy.
-
https://twitter.com/colvinj/status/1032572646767124481
-
https://twitter.com/LisaDNews/status/1032586248374890496
Now claiming to have nothing to do with his own presidential campaign :lol:
-
c'mon dax #book
-
c'mon dax #book
Pushing hot buttons. :ROFL:
-
I don't think anyone think trump committed a campaign violation by donating to himself, or telling someone to donate to him (even though no money was actually donated to him, rather paid to an extortionist)
If they do, they are straight Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
the only people i've seen that don't think he committed a campaign finance felony are you, ksu_w and alan dershowitz.
I appreciate that I'm being mentioned in the same sentence as Alan Dershowitz. Big timing. This isn't really that hard to understand. If Trump spent his own money - that's not a campaign finance violation. If Cohen spent his money, and paying hush money is somehow construed as a campaign contribution, that's a campaign finance violation... by Cohen. Not Trump. The only place Trump potentially gets in trouble is if he used campaign funds to pay the hush money. I'm not seeing any evidence of that.
If it's done with the intent to influence the outcome of a public election, it counts as a campaign contribution. It doesn't matter whose money it was. And if it's qualified as a campaign contribution (and it was, because otherwise why spend this money two weeks after the ET tape and two weeks before before the election?) then certain rules have to be followed. And they were not.
-
Cutting a piece of tubing isn't a crime but if that piece of tubing is the brake fluid line on your neighbors car, then yeah, it's a crime.
Now substitute paying hush money to a mistress with cutting a piece of tubing and paying hush money to a mistress to avoid losing an presidential election with cutting the brake lines.
-
incredible mental gymnastics being done by rudy and some of our most valuable pit posters
-
Sure guys. If this is what you want to hang on your hat on, knock yourselves out. I’m sorry the whole Russia thing didn’t pan out for you. You’re now hoping to impeach the president for, at worst, a technical campaign finance violation, and even that is extremely suspect. And for what, to hush up something embarrassing but hardly illegal. A millionaire playboy behaving like a millionaire playboy.
Any rational, objective person would realize how absurd and nakedly political this play is, but I don’t expect you to be rational or objective. So run with it! Enjoy every tweeted twist and turn of this new earth shattering “worse than watergate” “now we’ve finally got him” scandal. I think you’re ultimately setting yourself up for disappointment, but you can ride this a while longer.
-
I didn't realize the mueller investigation had concluded.
-
KSUW, most posters ITT are just acknowledging that Trump probably broke federal laws as a candidate. You’re the one in make believe world pretending (1) it’s not against the law, and (2) WITCH HUNT.
Just act like a rational person for a second.
-
I mean, the fact that he committed a campaign finance felony in no way precludes that he colluded with a foreign government to steal information from his political rivals.
-
Sure guys. If this is what you want to hang on your hat on, knock yourselves out. I’m sorry the whole Russia thing didn’t pan out for you. You’re now hoping to impeach the president for, at worst, a technical campaign finance violation, and even that is extremely suspect. And for what, to hush up something embarrassing but hardly illegal. A millionaire playboy behaving like a millionaire playboy.
Any rational, objective person would realize how absurd and nakedly political this play is, but I don’t expect you to be rational or objective. So run with it! Enjoy every tweeted twist and turn of this new earth shattering “worse than watergate” “now we’ve finally got him” scandal. I think you’re ultimately setting yourself up for disappointment, but you can ride this a while longer.
I guess I'm confused; isn't prostitution and a "John" paying for it illegal. But wait, he's got money, so doesn't need to obey the laws. :dunno:
-
paid them to not talk about rough ridin' him, technically. not for rough ridin' him.
-
paid them to not talk about rough ridin' him, technically. not for rough ridin' him.
Doesn't change the fact she mumped him for cash; only a idiot would think otherwise.
-
paid them to not talk about rough ridin' him, technically. not for rough ridin' him.
although...he DID try to pay Stormy Daniels immediately after rough ridin' her. Don't remember about the other one.
-
Sure guys. If this is what you want to hang on your hat on, knock yourselves out. I’m sorry the whole Russia thing didn’t pan out for you. You’re now hoping to impeach the president for, at worst, a technical campaign finance violation, and even that is extremely suspect. And for what, to hush up something embarrassing but hardly illegal. A millionaire playboy behaving like a millionaire playboy.
Any rational, objective person would realize how absurd and nakedly political this play is, but I don’t expect you to be rational or objective. So run with it! Enjoy every tweeted twist and turn of this new earth shattering “worse than watergate” “now we’ve finally got him” scandal. I think you’re ultimately setting yourself up for disappointment, but you can ride this a while longer.
well you can abandon your religious stance then.
-
KSUW, most posters ITT are just acknowledging that Trump probably broke federal laws as a candidate. You’re the one in make believe world pretending (1) it’s not against the law, and (2) WITCH HUNT.
Just act like a rational person for a second.
I am. And as I have explained, the law is far from clear that paying these funds constituted a campaign contribution. Do you really want to contend that this was a campaign expense? If so, he could have used campaign funds to pay for it. I can’t even imagine the liberal head explosion if that happened. You are grasping at, at worst, a technical violation of ambiguous laws, and even that is a stretch.
www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/opinions/those-payments-to-mistresses-were-unseemly-that-doesnt-mean-they-were-illegal/2018/08/22/634acdf4-a63b-11e8-8fac-12e98c13528d_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/opinions/those-payments-to-mistresses-were-unseemly-that-doesnt-mean-they-were-illegal/2018/08/22/634acdf4-a63b-11e8-8fac-12e98c13528d_story.html)
-
Sure guys. If this is what you want to hang on your hat on, knock yourselves out. I’m sorry the whole Russia thing didn’t pan out for you. You’re now hoping to impeach the president for, at worst, a technical campaign finance violation, and even that is extremely suspect. And for what, to hush up something embarrassing but hardly illegal. A millionaire playboy behaving like a millionaire playboy.
Any rational, objective person would realize how absurd and nakedly political this play is, but I don’t expect you to be rational or objective. So run with it! Enjoy every tweeted twist and turn of this new earth shattering “worse than watergate” “now we’ve finally got him” scandal. I think you’re ultimately setting yourself up for disappointment, but you can ride this a while longer.
well you can abandon your religious stance then.
Beg pardon? Donald Trump holds a political office. I can support him based upon his policies regardless about how I feel about his personal morals or lack thereof. That’s just a silly cheap shot.
-
See, I don’t even know what you mean by “grasping.” Most people (including the guy they just convinced for it) think Trump broke the law. And we pretty much know what the liberal (and conservative) reaction would have been if Trump paid and disclosed the funds in accordance with federal law, because a lot worse has already come out about the intermingling and waste of funds from the Trump Foundation. Most people’s heads stayed intact.
-
Sure guys. If this is what you want to hang on your hat on, knock yourselves out. I’m sorry the whole Russia thing didn’t pan out for you. You’re now hoping to impeach the president for, at worst, a technical campaign finance violation, and even that is extremely suspect. And for what, to hush up something embarrassing but hardly illegal. A millionaire playboy behaving like a millionaire playboy.
Any rational, objective person would realize how absurd and nakedly political this play is, but I don’t expect you to be rational or objective. So run with it! Enjoy every tweeted twist and turn of this new earth shattering “worse than watergate” “now we’ve finally got him” scandal. I think you’re ultimately setting yourself up for disappointment, but you can ride this a while longer.
well you can abandon your religious stance then.
Beg pardon? Donald Trump holds a political office. I can support him based upon his policies regardless about how I feel about his personal morals or lack thereof. That’s just a silly cheap shot.
Fair enough. You would agree you forfeit any commentary on other officials based on their non-official behavior right?
-
He was really dumb for paying and trying to conceal Stormy. Perhaps not the exact names and dates, but everyone already knew he did that stuff. That lifestyle was already ignored or celebrated by supporters.
-
KSUW, most posters ITT are just acknowledging that Trump probably broke federal laws as a candidate. You’re the one in make believe world pretending (1) it’s not against the law, and (2) WITCH HUNT.
Just act like a rational person for a second.
I am. And as I have explained, the law is far from clear that paying these funds constituted a campaign contribution. Do you really want to contend that this was a campaign expense? If so, he could have used campaign funds to pay for it. I can’t even imagine the liberal head explosion if that happened. You are grasping at, at worst, a technical violation of ambiguous laws, and even that is a stretch.
www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/opinions/those-payments-to-mistresses-were-unseemly-that-doesnt-mean-they-were-illegal/2018/08/22/634acdf4-a63b-11e8-8fac-12e98c13528d_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/opinions/those-payments-to-mistresses-were-unseemly-that-doesnt-mean-they-were-illegal/2018/08/22/634acdf4-a63b-11e8-8fac-12e98c13528d_story.html)
This is fascinating. KSUW, what makes the law ambiguous in this case?
-
Also, related question - do you know why SuperPACs can collect accept huge donations from individuals while campaigns cannot?
-
Sure guys. If this is what you want to hang on your hat on, knock yourselves out. I’m sorry the whole Russia thing didn’t pan out for you. You’re now hoping to impeach the president for, at worst, a technical campaign finance violation, and even that is extremely suspect. And for what, to hush up something embarrassing but hardly illegal. A millionaire playboy behaving like a millionaire playboy.
Any rational, objective person would realize how absurd and nakedly political this play is, but I don’t expect you to be rational or objective. So run with it! Enjoy every tweeted twist and turn of this new earth shattering “worse than watergate” “now we’ve finally got him” scandal. I think you’re ultimately setting yourself up for disappointment, but you can ride this a while longer.
well you can abandon your religious stance then.
Beg pardon? Donald Trump holds a political office. I can support him based upon his policies regardless about how I feel about his personal morals or lack thereof. That’s just a silly cheap shot.
Yeah, he just represents me. Why would I care if he has any morals?
-
KSUW, most posters ITT are just acknowledging that Trump probably broke federal laws as a candidate. You’re the one in make believe world pretending (1) it’s not against the law, and (2) WITCH HUNT.
Just act like a rational person for a second.
I am. And as I have explained, the law is far from clear that paying these funds constituted a campaign contribution. Do you really want to contend that this was a campaign expense? If so, he could have used campaign funds to pay for it. I can’t even imagine the liberal head explosion if that happened. You are grasping at, at worst, a technical violation of ambiguous laws, and even that is a stretch.
www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/opinions/those-payments-to-mistresses-were-unseemly-that-doesnt-mean-they-were-illegal/2018/08/22/634acdf4-a63b-11e8-8fac-12e98c13528d_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/opinions/those-payments-to-mistresses-were-unseemly-that-doesnt-mean-they-were-illegal/2018/08/22/634acdf4-a63b-11e8-8fac-12e98c13528d_story.html)
This is fascinating. KSUW, what makes the law ambiguous in this case?
I am far from an expert on campaign finance. Nobody on this board is. But I can read the opinions of other experts who can acknowledge that the law is murky at best. You can start with the WaPo article I linked.
This thread has become the next Trump-Russia fever swamp. Have fun mucking about. I really, honestly don't care and I've already descended way too far into an issue that is so frankly unimportant. The Dems will take the house or they won't. And if they do, they'll start impeachment proceedings, and we'll see how that works out politically for them. This is all political. I see nothing even close to approaching a high crime or misdemeanor that would call into question my support for Trump. You don't either, not really, you don't care, and that's ok with me.
-
I do agree, impeachment is dumb for everyone. They won’t do it but they will act like they could. It’s better that way anyway
-
He was really dumb for paying and trying to conceal Stormy. Perhaps not the exact names and dates, but everyone already knew he did that stuff. That lifestyle was already ignored or celebrated by supporters.
Considering his narrow victory it may have played a big role in the overall election.
-
I like my President to bang babes I’d like to bang, it makes me feel gross when my President bangs trailer
Trash skanks, and I really am sicked out when they get rapey with middle aged gross outs
-
I like my President to bang babes I’d like to bang, it makes me feel gross when my President bangs trailer
Trash skanks, and I really am sicked out when they get rapey with middle aged gross outs
good trump voter bio here
-
I like my President to bang babes I’d like to bang, it makes me feel gross when my President bangs trailer
Trash skanks, and I really am sicked out when they get rapey with middle aged gross outs
good trump voter bio here
I wasn’t sure who you were so I checked out your Twitter in your tagline, it was a cornucopia of hot takes
:cheers:
That one where SBnation was hyping mississippi state, and you go “well for starters they suck” oh man
You just destroyed SBnation
-
Definitely looking forward to many years of investigations into Trump Organization.
https://twitter.com/cliffordlevy/status/1032801377486098432
-
https://twitter.com/RVAwonk/status/1032816868002811904
-
https://twitter.com/SteveKopack/status/1033002863314825216
:eek:
-
I like my President to bang babes I’d like to bang, it makes me feel gross when my President bangs trailer
Trash skanks, and I really am sicked out when they get rapey with middle aged gross outs
good trump voter bio here
https://twitter.com/SachaBaronCohen/status/1032672183536033793
-
:lol:
https://twitter.com/kaitlancollins/status/1033063828710457344
-
https://twitter.com/gabrielmalor/status/1032809171798904833
-
For real