Prosecutors unlikely to charge Trump Org executives

[Atomic Kid]

Makes no difference because the payment had duel purpose. To protect his imagine during an election AND to prevent Melanea and His family for finding out about the affair. And to protect the Trump brand name.

Now read Professor Smith's quote slowly. You can mouth the words if you need to.

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.

 

[Atomic Kid]

And there you have it folks! :lol: When they turn into Spelling and Grammar teachers on the internet you know you have won your augment. Its like clock work. :lamo

Well I guess you're Just emulative of the fact that Texas has one of the lowest high school graduation rates in the entire country

 

[Atomic Kid]

And there you have it folks! :lol: When they turn into Spelling and Grammar teachers on the internet you know you have won your augment. Its like clock work. :lamo

:roll: OMG! It's "argument" not 'augment' . Do you really want to keep going with this?

 

[vesper]

It was never a "slam dunk". We kept on telling you that but you kept listening to Maddow and friends because they kept telling you what you wanted to hear. You're STILL looking for people to tell you what you want to hear and you're STILL shocked and amazed when Trump doesn't catch fire and burn.

These people have thrown everything they could possibly throw at Trump often using activist judges. Every time I turn around another lawsuit has been filed with a perfect judge shopped for the occasion. Well lately Trump has had some big wins. The House sued Trump for taking monies from other departments to build the wall. He won that one and since then 50 more miles of wall have been completed. Today he had another great win and it came from the 9th circus court of appeals of all courts. Trump's Justice Department has the right to cut off grants of money to those cities that practice sanctuary city policies unwilling to co-operate with federal law enforcement agencies. wooooohoooooo! We are talking about millions of dollars to these sanctuary cities. You know LA is a sanctuary city with a major rat problem. Experts are now predicting because a certain number of rats are carrying infectious diseases if not taken care of immediately it will start an epidemic. Nasty cases of these diseases are mounting. San Francisco is experiencing a major rat infestation over the last 5 years which brings with it infestations of fleas and bedbugs.. They too are a sanctuary city with a problem of human feces on the sidewalks, as well as a number of drug addicts and their used needles camping out on the sidewalks. They are spending millions to clean up the trash and poop. Unfortunately the poop and sometimes needles ends up in the storm drains when they call the fire department to power wash the area. They are just moving the health risks to the public from one area to another.

Then the oldest sanctuary city is Chicago. If ever there was a poster child for failed Democratic policies it is Chicago with Detroit coming in a close second.

 

[Airyaman]

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.

Two words: Bill Barr. He is basically Trump's new fixer.

 

[dobieg]

Which has not a thing to do with this case, but nice try anyway. Meanwhile the statute of limitations remains in effect and since Mr Trump is the owner and therefore the chief executive of the Trump Organization they could well be waiting till he is no longer President before proceeding and/or have another ongoing case that could be affected by this one that they don't want to jeopardize.

We must keep the DREAM alive!!

 

[sjmay]

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.

It's not a violation BECAUSE of the DUAL purpose......is it really this hard to understand?

 

[vesper]

Two words: Bill Barr. He is basically Trump's new fixer.

Bill Barr the new fixer? :lamo

 

[Airyaman]

Bill Barr the new fixer? :lamo

Well, he is covering up much bigger crimes than Cohen ever did, but he does have a better pedigree so...

 

[MauiMan]

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.

I wouldn’t count on anyone under Bill Barr’s control to pursue charges against the president, his organizations, or his family in any way. Trump got what he wanted.

 

[Atomic Kid]

It's not a violation BECAUSE of the DUAL purpose......is it really this hard to understand?

Well first of all it was DUEL, not DUAL that we were arguing about. But anyway if it's DUAL as in TWO different things. If ONE of those TWO things is illegal. Has not a crime been committed? Is that too abstract of a concept for you?

 

[sjmay]

Well first of all it was DUEL, not DUAL that we were arguing about. But anyway if it's DUAL as in TWO different things. If ONE of those TWO things is illegal. Has not a crime been committed? Is that too abstract of a concept for you?

Except....it's not.....you are literally ignoring what a former chair of the FEC said about campaign finance law.

The only way that it is a violation of the campaign finance is if it's SOLE PURPOSE, is to help the campaign....

Since you clearly admit that it had a DUAL purpose.....it's not a violation.

 

[Atomic Kid]

We must keep the DREAM alive!!

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.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Except....it's not.....you are literally ignoring what a former chair of the FEC said about campaign finance law.

The only way that it is a violation of the campaign finance is if it's SOLE PURPOSE, is to help the campaign....

Since you clearly admit that it had a DUAL purpose.....it's not a violation.

Well he's plainly wrong because there exists video/sound, court testimony and legal documentary evidence to the contrary.

 

[PLizzy]

I wouldn’t count on anyone under Bill Barr’s control to pursue charges against the president, his organizations, or his family in any way. Trump got what he wanted.

The next Democratic AG must investigate this adminstration.

 

[sjmay]

Well he's plainly wrong because there exists video/sound, court testimony and legal documentary evidence to the contrary.

I'm not sure you understand what SOLE purpose means,

Let me ask you this, do you think, if Donald Trump was not running for President, that he would have paid off Stormy Daniels to hide the affair from Melania?

 

[Phys251]

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.

Keep in mind that this is the federal investigation, not the State of New York, which shows no sign of stopping.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Except....it's not.....you are literally ignoring what a former chair of the FEC said about campaign finance law.

The only way that it is a violation of the campaign finance is if it's SOLE PURPOSE, is to help the campaign....

Since you clearly admit that it had a DUAL purpose.....it's not a violation.

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?

 

[sjmay]

What do you say we get back to basics here? "Dual" is basically'two things or acts. So you debating about two acts here. And if one was illegal. Was not a crime committed?

Holy crap.....

Ok...let's go back to basics,

The ONLY WAY IT'S A VIOLATION OF THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW.....is if the SOLE PURPOSE of the payment......related to the campaign.

IT DID NOT.

IT had ANOTHER PURPOSE OTHER THAN THE CAMPAIGN........

Therefore.....

It's not a violaton

 

[sjmay]

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?

To help you out, since you may have missed it, hell you definitely missed it,

This is what the FORMER FEC Chairman, and CURRENT FEC LAW PROFESSOR says about the campaign finance law.

"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.”

Please take note of the last phrase, INSTEAD SAYS IT HAS TO BE SOMETHING THAT ONLY EXISTS BECAUSE OF THE CAMPAIGN AND SOLELY FOR THAT REASON.

Paying Stormy Daniels could have been to protect the Trump Brand, protect his marriage, or both. It didn't exist SOLELY BECAUSE OF THE CAMPAIGN.

Hence....not a violation.

 

[Atomic Kid]

I'm not sure you understand what SOLE purpose means,

Let me ask you this, do you think, if Donald Trump was not running for President, that he would have paid off Stormy Daniels to hide the affair from Melania?

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.

 

[Atomic Kid]

To help you out, since you may have missed it, hell you definitely missed it,

This is what the FORMER FEC Chairman, and CURRENT FEC LAW PROFESSOR says about the campaign finance law.

"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.”

Please take note of the last phrase, INSTEAD SAYS IT HAS TO BE SOMETHING THAT ONLY EXISTS BECAUSE OF THE CAMPAIGN AND SOLELY FOR THAT REASON.

Paying Stormy Daniels could have been to protect the Trump Brand, protect his marriage, or both. It didn't exist SOLELY BECAUSE OF THE CAMPAIGN.

Hence....not a violation.

You're avoiding answering my question. If you do something with two purposes in mind and one of them is illegal. Have you not committed a crime?

 

[sjmay]

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.

Again, missing the point....

Read the post DIRECTLY AFTER the one you chose to quote

 

[sjmay]

You're avoiding answering my question. If you do something with two purposes in mind and one of them is illegal. Have you not committed a crime?

Not in this instance, no.

Because the LAW STATES, that the "violation" has to be of a SOLE PURPOSE for the campaign.

If you can't wrap your head around that, I don't think anyone can help you any further. Just put your head back in the sand.

 

[Jay59]

Holy crap.....

Ok...let's go back to basics,

The ONLY WAY IT'S A VIOLATION OF THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW.....is if the SOLE PURPOSE of the payment......related to the campaign.

IT DID NOT.

IT had ANOTHER PURPOSE OTHER THAN THE CAMPAIGN........

Therefore.....

It's not a violaton

Calm down. You've been shouting.