Cont: Mueller Investigation pt3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ziggurat said:
And here's a countervailing opinion from another actual expert, former FEC chairman Bradley Smith:



If you prefer to believe Trevor Potter over Bradley Smith, fine. But this pretense that it's just wackjobs who think the personal use exemption comes into play here is just nonsense.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter who says it, the problem is still this part: "That’s why another part of the statute defines 'personal use' as any expenditure 'used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.' ” I see no reason to believe that is the case here.
 
acbytesla said:
The problem of course is it is close to impossible to argue that this was for personal use.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. It's quite easy. It's very common for people to try to keep affairs secret, whether or not they are political candidates. And Trump has been trying to keep Stormy quiet since 2011.
 
WilliamSeger said:
It doesn't matter who says it, the problem is still this part: "That’s why another part of the statute defines 'personal use' as any expenditure 'used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.' ” I see no reason to believe that is the case here.
Click to expand...

An argument from incredulity, then.
 
Ziggurat said:
Nonsense. It's quite easy. It's very common for people to try to keep affairs secret, whether or not they are political candidates. And Trump has been trying to keep Stormy quiet since 2011.
Click to expand...

Sorry, that dog won't hunt. Definitely not when you consider Cohen's statement and the timing of the payment.
 
acbytesla said:
Sorry, that dog won't hunt. Definitely not when you consider Cohen's statement and the timing of the payment.
Click to expand...

Cohen's statement doesn't mean much, coming as part of a plea deal. And the timing suggests that the benefit to the campaign was a consideration, but that doesn't suffice to rule out the personal use exception. A campaign can't pay for a haircut just because the haircut happened right before a debate to make him look good.
 
Ziggurat said:
Cohen's statement doesn't mean much, coming as part of a plea deal. And the timing suggests that the benefit to the campaign was a consideration, but that doesn't suffice to rule out the personal use exception. A campaign can't pay for a haircut just because the haircut happened right before a debate to make him look good.
Click to expand...

LMAO

You're engaged in special pleading.
 
Ziggurat said:
Cohen's statement doesn't mean much, coming as part of a plea deal. And the timing suggests that the benefit to the campaign was a consideration, but that doesn't suffice to rule out the personal use exception. A campaign can't pay for a haircut just because the haircut happened right before a debate to make him look good.
Click to expand...

What about David Pecker? Do you think he was give immunity because all he had to say was "The payments had nothing to do with the election. They were all "personal"?
The timing doesn't "suggest" that the benefit to the campaign was a consideration; it screams it was the reason.
 
Stacyhs said:
What about David Pecker? Do you think he was give immunity because all he had to say was "The payments had nothing to do with the election. They were all "personal"?
The timing doesn't "suggest" that the benefit to the campaign was a consideration; it screams it was the reason.
Click to expand...

First, there can be multiple reasons. One of the reasons being to benefit the campaign doesn't suffice. Second, in regards to Pecker, I don't know what he testified about, but it may well have been more about the tax evasion stuff. In terms of nailing Cohen, the other charges are much more significant.
 
Ziggurat said:
Nonsense. It's quite easy. It's very common for people to try to keep affairs secret, whether or not they are political candidates. And Trump has been trying to keep Stormy quiet since 2011.
Click to expand...

Why didn't he pay her in 2011 then? Answer, because back then, he didn't much care whether she said anything.

Why did he pay her in 2016? Answer, because he was running for president and he knew if her story came out it would affect his chances at the polls.

That timing makes it much more likely to be an illegal campaign expense than a simple personal use.

Ziggurat said:
Cohen's statement doesn't mean much, coming as part of a plea deal.
Click to expand...

If statements made as part of a plea deal don't mean much, why do prosecutors go to so much trouble to get them.

Additionally, the prosecutors made it clear that Cohen's statements aren't the only evidence they are holding. They also have documentary evidence to back Cohen's statements up. If, as seems likely, any of that documentary evidence is in the form of tape recordings (the FBI seized hundreds of them). If any of those implicate Dolt in his own words, he's going to be in deep doodoo,

What will it take for you to realize that the piece of crap you and your fellow countrymen have elected as your president, is a cheating, lying, racist, misogynistic criminal?
 
smartcooky said:
What will it take for you to realize that the piece of crap you and your fellow countrymen have elected as your president, is a cheating, lying, racist, misogynistic criminal?
Click to expand...


You left out homophobe. Shame on you. Don't ever let that happen again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom