• 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!

Former Federal Election Commission (FEC) Chairman explains why Trump did not break law

zimmer said:
You have zero idea what you’re talking about.

Let’s go through this so the non-thinking/misinformed can understand.

A private citizen wants to run for office. He has:

1. A court case.

2. Wants a new car.

3. Has someone he wants to shut up. Non-disclosure agreement.

4. Wants to join a certain club.

To...

Eliminate loose ends, or improve his image in the eyes of the voters.

He can do this regardless of cost... so long as he does not take it out of campaign funds.

End of story.

End of Circle Fest.

Back to the depressing reality that you’ve been misinformed again.

PS. Stormy Daniels could get her ass sued off for violating the contract.
Click to expand...

Your premise is wrong. Sorry it just is. You want to disconnect the funding from the campaign just because you want to. There is no reason to pay the porn star and the playmate other than the existing campaign. If there was a reason to pay them outside of the existing campaign they would have been paid long ago. Both McDougal and Daniels were dating Trump in 2006, ten years before the campaign! Suddenly months before the election they get paid off. In fact the proximity of the payments if far closer to the campaign than the actual relationships......months vs ten years! In fact in Daniels case, one month vs ten years! Plus Cohen has already admitted why the payments were made. So you have it wrong...

Folks can keep raising arguments that sound logical but they fall apart because they are built on foundation of poorly poured concrete. So they fall apart right from the foundation.
 
jnug said:
Your premise is wrong. Sorry it just is. You want to disconnect the funding from the campaign just because you want to. There is no reason to pay the porn star and the playmate other than the existing campaign. If there was a reason to pay them outside of the existing campaign they would have been paid long ago. Both McDougal and Daniels were dating Trump in 2006, ten years before the campaign! Suddenly months before the election they get paid off. In fact the proximity of the payments if far closer to the campaign than the actual relationships......months vs ten years! In fact in Daniels case, one month vs ten years! Plus Cohen has already admitted why the payments were made. So you have it wrong...

Folks can keep raising arguments that sound logical but they fall apart because they are built on foundation of poorly poured concrete. So they fall apart right from the foundation.
Click to expand...

No. The premise is that the Trump campaign would have been shaken to the core had it been learned that Trump had cheated on his wives. Tough to see how that that would have bothered the 'cult.'
 
Its a question of mitigation: the Justice dept has traditionally not seen this kind of stuff as felonious. Pay a fine and be done with it.
 
Hush payments to protect a candidate are illegal, as is the monetary size of said payments.
 
zimmer said:
A retarded argument...

1. The memo is Justice Dept. Law... the first written during Nixon’s time, the other during Clinton’s.

2. Mueller must comply with Justice Dept. rules.

View attachment 67238663
Click to expand...

Watch the video I gave. It's not law, it's an opinion, and an old one at that.

Whether or not Mueller will follow it, no one knows.
 
zimmer said:
ROTFLOL... tell me genius... why did Mueller admit he could not indict Trump?
Click to expand...
Please supply the document or the video where Mueller ( not Guiliani ) admits he cannot indict Trump.
Why is not permitted?

Think...

Because you would have Leftists indicting Presidents all the time. There is only one President, and he has bigger things to do than answer to petty attacks from hack politicians.

Make sense?
Click to expand...
No, your comment is incompetent. He never admitted it. Bold is false, vacuous claim. Bold and blue is absurd. Trump spends 1/3 of his time at Mar-A-Lago, plus, it flies in the face of the long held concept upon which American Jurisprudence is derived that no man is about the law. Indictments from the DOJ are not "hack politicians".
[...]
Click to expand...
 
Athanasius68 said:
Its a question of mitigation: the Justice dept has traditionally not seen this kind of stuff as felonious. Pay a fine and be done with it.
Click to expand...

Except in cases where a felony was committed. That is why Obama's dalliance was settled. Rare for sure. But its rare to have somebody as corrupt and stupid as Donald as the target.
 
Last edited:
Athanasius68 said:
No. The premise is that the Trump campaign would have been shaken to the core had it been learned that Trump had cheated on his wives. Tough to see how that that would have bothered the 'cult.'
Click to expand...

No not the Trump core but some percentage of the total Electorate. The world does not revolve around the trump cult and whether or not they would be shaken to the core. The Cult is about to find out how few Trump voters are part of the Cult.
 
Rogue Valley said:
Hush payments to protect a candidate are illegal, as is the monetary size of said payments.
Click to expand...

Most specifically it is important (since Trump stuck his foot in his mouth again today) to distinguish between campaign funds or maybe campaign financing and "The Trump Campaign Fund".

Trump is claiming today that since the money did not come from "The Trump Campaign Fund" its all good. The exact opposite it true. If Trump simply wanted to payoff the porn star and the playmate and the money was pulled from The Trump Campaign Fund, moneys recorded as such there would be no legal issues at all. Then Trump would have to deal with the political issue of why this hush money was paid and to whom because it would be out in the open. All legal but out in the open.

Instead what actually happened is that specific Campaign Donations were made for these hush money payoffs. They breech the size limitations by a wide margin and were not recorded. So Trump hoped to get the political benefit from paying off the porn star and the playmate regardless of breaking legal barriers and we now have Michael Cohen saying under oath that Donald directed him to do it and that they both had knowledge of criminal intent.
 
jnug said:
Most specifically it is important (since Trump stuck his foot in his mouth again today) to distinguish between campaign funds or maybe campaign financing and "The Trump Campaign Fund".

Trump is claiming today that since the money did not come from "The Trump Campaign Fund" its all good. The exact opposite it true. If Trump simply wanted to payoff the porn star and the playmate and the money was pulled from The Trump Campaign Fund, moneys recorded as such there would be no legal issues at all. Then Trump would have to deal with the political issue of why this hush money was paid and to whom because it would be out in the open. All legal but out in the open.

Instead what actually happened is that specific Campaign Donations were made for these hush money payoffs. They breech the size limitations by a wide margin and were not recorded. So Trump hoped to get the political benefit from paying off the porn star and the playmate regardless of breaking legal barriers and we now have Michael Cohen saying under oath that Donald directed him to do it and that they both had knowledge of criminal intent.
Click to expand...

Yeah...how about you Trump haters get yourselves on the same sheet of music before you try to tell everyone else what the song is.

Don't know about others, but I'll wait.
 
Mycroft said:
Yeah...how about you Trump haters get yourselves on the same sheet of music before you try to tell everyone else what the song is.

Don't know about others, but I'll wait.
Click to expand...

Everybody is welcome to read my posts. They do not represent a bandwagon. They are a means to understand what actually happens and a means to deal with the fog of nonsense many posters put up in an effort to do exactly what Trump tries to do, confuse the issues beyond all recognition.
 
jnug said:
Everybody is welcome to read my posts. They do not represent a bandwagon. They are a means to understand what actually happens and a means to deal with the fog of nonsense many posters put up in an effort to do exactly what Trump tries to do, confuse the issues beyond all recognition.
Click to expand...

http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/403072-did-president-trump-violate-campaign-finance-laws
The problem is your wrong.
The bigger problem is that you refuse to just admit your wrong.

A few things are clear. A candidate is free to contribute to his or her own campaign. It also is not criminal for a candidate to pay hush money to women whose disclosures might endanger his campaign. So if candidate Trump paid hush money to his two accusers, there would be no violation of any campaign or other laws.

Failure to report all campaign contributions is fairly common in political campaigns. Moreover, the offense is committed not by the candidate but, rather, by the campaign and is generally subject to a fine. Though it is wrong, it certainly is not the kind of high crime and misdemeanor that could serve as the basis for a constitutionally authorized impeachment and removal of a duly elected president.

There you go. In a nutshell.
But not that you actually care.
 
ludin said:
http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/403072-did-president-trump-violate-campaign-finance-laws
The problem is your wrong.
The bigger problem is that you refuse to just admit your wrong.

A few things are clear. A candidate is free to contribute to his or her own campaign. It also is not criminal for a candidate to pay hush money to women whose disclosures might endanger his campaign. So if candidate Trump paid hush money to his two accusers, there would be no violation of any campaign or other laws.

Failure to report all campaign contributions is fairly common in political campaigns. Moreover, the offense is committed not by the candidate but, rather, by the campaign and is generally subject to a fine. Though it is wrong, it certainly is not the kind of high crime and misdemeanor that could serve as the basis for a constitutionally authorized impeachment and removal of a duly elected president.

There you go. In a nutshell.
But not that you actually care.
Click to expand...

I do care and you miss the point.

A candidate is free to contribute to his or her own campaign. However Cohen making the expenditures and then being reimbursed for them amounts to a value in the form of a loan to the campaign. In addition the size of the Campaign Donation Cohen made exceeded the size limitations for a Donation and was not recorded as an Election Campaign Donation. In addition Cohen has stated in front of a judge and under oath that this was criminal activity and that both he and Trump knew they were engaged in a criminal activity and did it with criminal intent.

Failure to report is fairly common. Doing it with criminal intent is not!

Moreover, the offense is committed not by the candidate but, rather, by the campaign and is generally subject to a fine. Though it is wrong, it certainly is not the kind of high crime and misdemeanor that could serve as the basis for a constitutionally authorized impeachment and removal of a duly elected president.


I would agree with your contribution copied in bold except to point out that it does not apply to this particular case because of the criminal intent aspect of Messrs. Trump and Cohen. Whether you want to blame the "Campaign" or not is irrelevant since Trump himself was represented as one of the two parties engaged in this criminal activity with criminal intent. Are you going argue that Trump was not part of his own campaign?

So lets see, in short order we have dealt with the absurd argument that these were not campaign related hush money payments and we have dealt with what would appear to be an opposing but equally flawed argument that they were campaign related but entirely fine.

There you go, in a nutshell.
 
jnug said:
I do care and you miss the point.

A candidate is free to contribute to his or her own campaign. However Cohen making the expenditures and then being reimbursed for them amounts to a value in the form of a loan to the campaign. In addition the size of the Campaign Donation Cohen made exceeded the size limitations for a Donation and was not recorded as an Election Campaign Donation. In addition Cohen has stated in front of a judge and under oath that this was criminal activity and that both he and Trump knew they were engaged in a criminal activity and did it with criminal intent.

Failure to report is fairly common. Doing it with criminal intent is not!

Moreover, the offense is committed not by the candidate but, rather, by the campaign and is generally subject to a fine. Though it is wrong, it certainly is not the kind of high crime and misdemeanor that could serve as the basis for a constitutionally authorized impeachment and removal of a duly elected president.


I would agree with your contribution copied in bold except to point out that it does not apply to this particular case because of the criminal intent aspect of Messrs. Trump and Cohen. Whether you want to blame the "Campaign" or not is irrelevant since Trump himself was represented as one of the two parties engaged in this criminal activity with criminal intent. Are you going argue that Trump was not part of his own campaign?

So lets see, in short order we have dealt with the absurd argument that these were not campaign related hush money payments and we have dealt with what would appear to be an opposing but equally flawed argument that they were campaign related but entirely fine.

There you go, in a nutshell.
Click to expand...

Read the article. It says you are wrong. It spelled it out quit clear.
You are ignoring fact because it gets in the way of your trump hate.

Yes in a nut shell you are wrong.
If you don't like that one.

From one of the top legal mind out there.
He says you are wrong.

Dershowitz: Trump 'more correct than his critics are' with claims about Daniels, McDougal payments | Fox News

There you go 2 credible sources say you are 100% wrong.
Not that you care you will now triple down.
 
ludin said:
Read the article. It says you are wrong. It spelled it out quit clear.
You are ignoring fact because it gets in the way of your trump hate.

Yes in a nut shell you are wrong.
If you don't like that one.

From one of the top legal mind out there.
He says you are wrong.

Dershowitz: Trump 'more correct than his critics are' with claims about Daniels, McDougal payments | Fox News

There you go 2 credible sources say you are 100% wrong.
Not that you care you will now triple down.
Click to expand...

Read it...its fine as far as it goes but the author clearly states its his opinion and he is welcome to it. As for Dersh, he has turned into a media slut whose entire legal life now is wrapped up in a giant conspiracy theory that all prosecutions are wrong. They are all corrupt. They are all, every one of them improper. You have to be lucky enough to catch Dersh when he feels challenged and turns into a heaving mass of anger and rage to understand where he is coming from. But once you have seen it his legal opinion becomes entirely tarnished by it.

Also AMI chief Pecker is now talking to prosecutors about Trump and Trump campaign members and their involvement in the McDougal payment, both the concept of it, the timing of it, the nature of it. So while Trump represents his Campaign I am not ruling out the likelihood that other members of the Trump campaign were also involved.
 
Last edited:
jnug said:
Except in cases where a felony was committed. That is why Obama's dalliance was settled. Rare for sure. But its rare to have somebody as corrupt and stupid as Donald as the target.
Click to expand...

Its the SAME law. Obana's dalliance was a felony as well.
 
jnug said:
Everybody is welcome to read my posts. They do not represent a bandwagon. They are a means to understand what actually happens and a means to deal with the fog of nonsense many posters put up in an effort to do exactly what Trump tries to do, confuse the issues beyond all recognition.
Click to expand...

Trying to deal with the fog of nonsense by blowing smoke up people's ass means I'll be waiting for a long time.
 
jnug said:
Read it...its fine as far as it goes but the author clearly states it is his opinion
Click to expand...


Yes it is. And Mueller has a different opinion. And since Mueller is a prosecutor, he is in the position to actually execute his opinion.

Which goes back now to Giulliani's comment earlier this week:
The truth is not the truth.
Which simply means, in the context spoken, lawyers duke it out over the law.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Its the SAME law. Obana's dalliance was a felony as well.
Click to expand...

The difference is criminal intent. It is easy as pie to understand the difference. If you don't get it, you simply don't want to get it.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Yes it is. And Mueller has a different opinion. And since Mueller is a prosecutor, he is in the position to actually execute his opinion.

Which goes back now to Giulliani's comment earlier this week:
The truth is not the truth.
Which simply means, in the context spoken, lawyers duke it out over the law.
Click to expand...

Prosecutors don't act on their opinion. They act on what they can prove in a court of law. The reason so many Federal Prosecutions end in either guilty pleas or guilty verdicts is because Federal Prosecutors go into court with what they can prove. Congress acts on a different set of standards, "high crimes and misdemeanors" which is not the same standard.

This staggering ability for some on the Right to treat what is a prosecutorial process like it was sitting on bar stool with a beer in front of them pontificating is a laughable absurdity and maybe the surest sign of how far we have fallen.
 
Mycroft said:
Trying to deal with the fog of nonsense by blowing smoke up people's ass means I'll be waiting for a long time.
Click to expand...

Wrong again.

You have danced around like a bee flitting from flower to flower...once one of your arguments is proven nonsense you flit to another in your own every shrinking circle. I have been consistent from the start because the foundation I stand upon is sound.
 
jnug said:
The difference is criminal intent. It is easy as pie to understand the difference. If you don't get it, you simply don't want to get it.
Click to expand...

The Obama Admin did not prosecute the Obama campaign-- i know, shocking right?-- so there was no examination of criminal intent by the campaign.
 
jnug said:
Read it...its fine as far as it goes but the author clearly states its his opinion and he is welcome to it. As for Dersh, he has turned into a media slut whose entire legal life now is wrapped up in a giant conspiracy theory that all prosecutions are wrong. They are all corrupt. They are all, every one of them improper. You have to be lucky enough to catch Dersh when he feels challenged and turns into a heaving mass of anger and rage to understand where he is coming from. But once you have seen it his legal opinion becomes entirely tarnished by it.

Also AMI chief Pecker is now talking to prosecutors about Trump and Trump campaign members and their involvement in the McDougal payment, both the concept of it, the timing of it, the nature of it. So while Trump represents his Campaign I am not ruling out the likelihood that other members of the Trump campaign were also involved.
Click to expand...

thanks for tripling down.
i knew you couldn't admit that you were wrong even when a lawyer says you are wrong.
clear signs of several stages of TDS.
 
jnug said:
Prosecutors don't act on their opinion. They act on what they can prove in a court of law. The reason so many Federal Prosecutions end in either guilty pleas or guilty verdicts is because Federal Prosecutors go into court with what they can prove. Congress acts on a different set of standards, "high crimes and misdemeanors" which is not the same standard.

This staggering ability for some on the Right to treat what is a prosecutorial process like it was sitting on bar stool with a beer in front of them pontificating is a laughable absurdity and maybe the surest sign of how far we have fallen.
Click to expand...

Of course prosecutors act on their opinion. Dershowitz has a different opinion of the law. Were he the prosecutor with the same set of facts, he is saying he would judge that no law had been broken.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom