• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Prosecutors unlikely to charge Trump Org executives

Atomic Kid said:
So with the bolded you just admitted that (and here we go again) there was "dual" purpose, not 'duel' purpose. Which one is a violation of FEC law because he was seeking to,protect his "image"(not imagine) So that right there is an admission of a violation regardless of how his wife feels about it.
Click to expand...
Your spelling is good but your reading comprehension SUCKS :lol: Again for a contribution to be a contribution in kind is has to be SOLELY for the campaign. The money given to Stormy Daniels had TWO purposes.

1. It protected Trump's image for the campaign.

BUT IT ALSO

2. Prevented Melanea and Trump's family from finding out about the affair and protected Trump's brand name.


Because the payment to Stormy Daniels was not solely for the purpose of the campaign its not a payment in kind. The SDNY likely understands that it isn't a payment in kind and that they have no case. So they aren't going to indict anyone.

Professor Smith added, “When the FEC wrote the regulation that says what constitutes campaign expenditures and what constitutes personal use, it rejected specifically the idea that a campaign expenditure was anything related to a campaign, and instead says it has to be something that exists only because of the campaign and solely for that reason.”
Click to expand...
 
sjmay said:
Only way to get the Kid to understand...and he still doesn't get it
Click to expand...
It doesn't help. Be reasonable and someone else may take notice.
 
SLC said:
Your spelling is good but your reading comprehension SUCKS :lol: Again for a contribution to be a contribution in kind is has to be SOLELY for the campaign. The money given to Stormy Daniels had TWO purposes.

1. It protected Trump's image for the campaign.

BUT IT ALSO

2. Prevented Melanea and Trump's family from finding out about the affair and protected Trump's brand name.


Because the payment to Stormy Daniels was not solely for the purpose of the campaign its not a payment in kind. The SDNY likely understands that it isn't a payment in kind and that they have no case. So they aren't going to indict anyone.
Click to expand...

Holy Christ! I can't believe that you just said "Melanea", instead of 'Melania' yet again. Damn man! You're an intellectual train wreck. Not much unlike #45. Do you want to keep going? Or do you want to persist until until you have not a shred of credibility left?
 
MovingPictures said:
Trump Org executives unlikely to be charged, sources say - CNNPolitics

This is very surprising to me. All of the evidence against the Trump Org was so damning. From the checks to the recorded calls, it appeared to be a slam dunk case. I'm going to guess that the SDNY decided that waiting to indict Trump in 2021 just wasn't practical, and would be too political for the office.

What this ought to tell Democrats is that investigating Trump to 'get' him is pointless. He's a rich elitist with the power of the Presidency, who for all pratical purposes IS above the law right now. The only way to end this is to go and beat him at the polls, and just send him back to NY.
Click to expand...

he is temporarily above the law, unfortunately.
 
Atomic Kid said:
What do you say we get back to basics here? "Dual" is basically'two things or acts. So we're debating about two acts here. And if one was illegal. Was not a crime committed?
Click to expand...
It one act. Paying Stormy Daniels it had a dual purpose and under THE LAW because of the dual purpose it WAS NOT illegal. So no crime.


Basically if Trump would have made the payment to conceal the affair even if there was no campaign the payment is not considered a payment in kind by FEC law. So sorry to dash your hopes but there was no crime according to FEC law.


And what is basically'two? Is it a new hyphenated word?
 
Atomic Kid said:
Holy Christ! I can't believe that you just said "Melanea", instead of 'Melania' yet again. Damn man! You're an intellectual train wreck. Not much unlike #45. Do you want to keep going? Or do you want to persist until until you have not a shred of credibility left?
Click to expand...

Are you stuttering now? :lol:

Its funny to see you becoming a spelling teacher but you seem unable to make an intelligent argument to prove Trump violated FEC law when he paid a NDA to prevent his wife and kids form discovering his affair with Stormy Daniels. :lol:

News Flash. I really don't care it my posts contain typos misspells and grammatical errors or repeated word like you just did. Its the internet not a term paper. :lol:
 
Atomic Kid said:
Well it just so happens that Donald Trump,was running for President and Stormy Daniels was threatening to blow his cover and go public just a mere few weeks before the election. And what makes you think that Trump really cares all that much about what Melania thinks? She wouldn't necessarily be able to derail his campaign but Stormy's story certainly could have.
Click to expand...
And Stormy Daniels could derail Trump's marriage. Do you pretend to know what Trump cares about and doesn't care about?
 
SLC said:
And Stormy Daniels could derail Trump's marriage. Do you pretend to know what Trump cares about and doesn't care about?
Click to expand...

No I don't. I think Mr Trump has made it abundantly clear that he doesn't really give a **** about Melania other than her acting some of promotional silent mannequin ('arm candy'). But the fact that Stormy Daniels was threatening to go public with their 'relationship' within a matter of days before the election on the heels of his 'grab them by the *****' Hollywood tonight tape certainly gabbed his attention. Which about he lied to the American people there afterwards.
 
SLC said:
Are you stuttering now? :lol:

Its funny to see you becoming a spelling teacher but you seem unable to make an intelligent argument to prove Trump violated FEC law when he paid a NDA to prevent his wife and kids form discovering his affair with Stormy Daniels. :lol:

News Flash. I really don't care it my posts contain typos misspells and grammatical errors or repeated word like you just did. Its the internet not a term paper. :lol:
Click to expand...

I know you don't. Just as much whether they contain any facts or logic or not.
 
Atomic Kid said:
I know you don't. Just as much whether they contain any facts or logic or not.
Click to expand...
And yet you can't refute the dual nature of the NDA to Daniels that makes it a legal payment and not an illegal payment in kind according to FEC law.
 
SLC said:
Your spelling is good but your reading comprehension SUCKS :lol: Again for a contribution to be a contribution in kind is has to be SOLELY for the campaign. The money given to Stormy Daniels had TWO purposes.

1. It protected Trump's image for the campaign.

BUT IT ALSO

2. Prevented Melanea and Trump's family from finding out about the affair and protected Trump's brand name.


Because the payment to Stormy Daniels was not solely for the purpose of the campaign its not a payment in kind. The SDNY likely understands that it isn't a payment in kind and that they have no case. So they aren't going to indict anyone.
Click to expand...
The one purpose that you've already coneded is all that's required for the law to have been broken.

Your argument could just as easily relieve Clinton of his false statements during the Lewinsky case, because, hey, they were ALSO done to keep his family from finding out.

I really hope you make these arguments to a judge some day.
 
SLC said:
And yet you can't refute the dual nature of the NDA to Daniels that makes it a legal payment and not an illegal payment in kind according to FEC law.
Click to expand...
You're pulling that legal defense out of thin air.

There is nothing in the law that states a crime that's purpose is of duel corrupt/person nature makes the action legal.
 
SLC said:
So you want investigation number 6? :lol:
Click to expand...
The investigations into Trump are in the dozens.

Let's add arithmetic to the number of skills you need to work on.
 
MovingPictures said:
The one purpose that you've already coneded is all that's required for the law to have been broken.
Click to expand...

No , not according to former FEC chairman and current FEC law professor.

Professor Smith added, “When the FEC wrote the regulation that says what constitutes campaign expenditures and what constitutes personal use, it rejected specifically the idea that a campaign expenditure was anything related to a campaign, and instead says it has to be something that exists only because of the campaign and solely for that reason.”
Click to expand...

Your argument could just as easily relieve Clinton of his false statements during the Lewinsky case, because, hey, they were ALSO done to keep his family from finding out.

I really hope you make these arguments to a judge some day.
Click to expand...
Apples to Oranges :lol: One is FEC law the other is perjury law. Two different laws. You are getting desperate. :lol:
 
Roadvirus said:
What's that noise I hear? Oh yeah...just Anti-Trumpers' heads exploding.

Better get the mop and bleach.
Click to expand...

Why?

It should be a pretty clean pop all things considered. Like a balloon, getting poked with a needle.
 
MovingPictures said:
Trump Org executives unlikely to be charged, sources say - CNNPolitics

This is very surprising to me. All of the evidence against the Trump Org was so damning. From the checks to the recorded calls, it appeared to be a slam dunk case. I'm going to guess that the SDNY decided that waiting to indict Trump in 2021 just wasn't practical, and would be too political for the office.

What this ought to tell Democrats is that investigating Trump to 'get' him is pointless. He's a rich elitist with the power of the Presidency, who for all pratical purposes IS above the law right now. The only way to end this is to go and beat him at the polls, and just send him back to NY.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. Seeing as they were trying to get him on something that, even with the evidence presented. Only barely exist.

I understand if they want to try, but more substance is needed to actually nail him with something. This is starting to look more an more like those calls for impeachment, after the Mueller report came out. Despite all that was said, no evidence actually existed for what they were trying to claim at the time.
 
MovingPictures said:
The investigations into Trump are in the dozens.

Let's add arithmetic to the number of skills you need to work on.
Click to expand...
And yet Trump is still the president and no impeachment hearing has started. :lol:
 
MovingPictures said:
You're pulling that legal defense out of thin air.

There is nothing in the law that states a crime that's purpose is of duel corrupt/person nature makes the action legal.
Click to expand...

Please pay attention. We are talking about FEC law. Professor Smith is a expert in FEC law and the former Chairman of the FEC. He was nominated for the position by a Democrat...Bill Clinton.


Professor Smith added, “When the FEC wrote the regulation that says what constitutes campaign expenditures and what constitutes personal use, it rejected specifically the idea that a campaign expenditure was anything related to a campaign, and instead says it has to be something that exists only because of the campaign and solely for that reason.”
Click to expand...
 
Atomic Kid said:
Why else do think he wants or needs to be re-elected so bad? If he thinks he has problems now, he hasn't seen nothing yet should he not be.
Click to expand...

There is a reason we say TDS'ers suffer from an over active imagination and are subject to wild and irrational speculation.
 
What signal and message does this send to people about bringing Donald Trump to justice?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom