Rigged for Hillary wrote:Trump has more black support than any other GOP POTUS in modern history. The racist argument is a non-starter.
I KNOW you're not nearly stupid enough to believe that. What motivates you to write such lies?
Hillary!
Emails!
Squirrel!
Folks, I've been trying without success to find out exactly which campaign-finance law Cohen admits breaking.
Can someone please tell me the specific regulation that he broke?
Much obliged!
Little help? wrote:
Folks, I've been trying without success to find out exactly which campaign-finance law Cohen admits breaking.
0/10
Little help? wrote:
Folks, I've been trying without success to find out exactly which campaign-finance law Cohen admits breaking.
Can someone please tell me the specific regulation that he broke?
Much obliged!
I’ve been saying all along that Trump may not have any culpability in the Cohen campaign finance violation admission. Trump can simply claim his intention was to protect his family, simply his privacy or other. IF any entity was to charge the POTUS, they would need to PROVE intentionality to influence the election. That sounds simple, but without a written or taped admission, I don’t see that happening.
Impeachment won’t happen in a republican congress unless there is hardcore Russian collusion evidence. Otherwise it will devolve into partisan accusations.
Flagpole wrote:
The law is the law. Sometimes people with "half a brain" don't understand the law. I could pull up examples all day of agreements that accepting a pardon is an assumption of guilt. You are right about a lot of things, but you are wrong about this. Burdick v. United States is clear.
It's definitely not the law. I defy you to find a single statute that says accepting a pardon is an assumption of guilt. Whether or not Burdick even applies here is an open question. One obscure dictum in a single case from 1912 does not make it the law. There are plenty of expert legal minds that agree with me.
But since neither of us is actually a lawyer, I'll make this my last post on the subject. Feel free to have the last word.
XY wrote:
... but without a written or taped admission, I don’t see that happening..
That is not required to out a criminal away. So, 0/10.
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
Here's the Thing wrote:
Here's the truly weird thing for me.
OK, so everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY, knows that Trump is a pathological liar, an ignoramus, a dictator wannabe, a racist, sexist pig, a narcissist of the most profound order who cares about one thing and one thing only - Donald Trump.
Even the Trumpettes know this although they won't say it.
Now, if you are cursed with genes that compel you to love authoritarians you really haven't much choice but to want all this messy rule of law crap and voting and free press nonsense . . . you want it all to go away so you can have your daddy figure telling you how wonderful you are while you slobber all over his ass 24 hours a day.
Strangely, I can accept that. I know you don't really have any choice but to want some tough guy to take care of you and simplify life for you. So, you sell your soul to have the king that you so desperately need. Sad. But weirdly understandable.
Now I said that I can accept that. I mean, if this king wannabe was truly a genius. Or was a masterful orator (MLK). Or perhaps just seriously competent (think Putin). But Trump? Trump? He is none of these things. If one met him on the street one would simply wish to steer clear. And if one were obligated to shake his hand for politeness sake, one would undoubtedly then want to rush home and take a shower to get the yuck off. Trump?!? is your hero? Your knight in shining armor???
It is one thing to sell your soul for a pile of gold.
But you have sold your soul for a steaming pile of sh!t.
That is the part that is truly beyond comprehension to me.
Trump has more black support than any other GOP POTUS in modern history. The racist argument is a non-starter. Trump has cheated on his wives, big F'n deal & so did almost every other POTUS since George Washington. You voted for Crooked Hillary and what a disgusting POS she is. I look forward to your liberal head exploding until Trump completes his second full term.
M-A-G-A!!!
Mueller never
Clownpole forever
Here's the thing. You have sold your soul for a steaming pile of sh!t.
Surely your soul should have been worth more than that!
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
Trump has more black support than any other GOP POTUS in modern history.
We've already exposed your lie about that. Give it up.
Little help? wrote:
Folks, I've been trying without success to find out exactly which campaign-finance law Cohen admits breaking.
Can someone please tell me the specific regulation that he broke?
Much obliged!
You can read the indictment yourself.
Fat hurts wrote:
Little help? wrote:
Folks, I've been trying without success to find out exactly which campaign-finance law Cohen admits breaking.
Can someone please tell me the specific regulation that he broke?
Much obliged!
You can read the indictment yourself.
Which the poster will never do. The post is a troll by a Trumper. A very weak attempt to deflect.
Um, yeah, well, OK... wrote:
Flagpole wrote:Melber IS a lawyer.
I'm sure you don't think that's a solid basis for holding your opinion... because "a lawyer" said it to be true, it must be true...?
I can think of some lawyers I wouldn't necessarily believe all the time. Quickly, off the top of my head, Dershowitz, Cohen, Giuliani....
This topic isn't interesting enough for me to respond beyond this one last time, so this will be it for me on this.
I didn't say you had to believe him because he is a lawyer. I just stated that he is a lawyer. If you watch the video I posted, he pulls out the quote from the case that shows that you are admitting guilt if you accept a pardon.
Burdick v. United States is actually one of two cases that addressed this issue, but this one came most recently and is more definitive. SCOTUS ruled.
You can go research it yourself. Right now that is the decision. If someone wants to challenge it legally someday they can, but as we sit here today, if you accept a pardon, guilt is assumed.
"A pardon carries an imputation of guilt and that acceptance carries a confession of guilt."
The Burdick case had to do with the fact that he didn't have to accept a pardon if he didn't want to. A pardon can not be thrust upon someone...not a living person. The person must accept the pardon with all the conditions therein, and that acceptance "carries a confession of guilt".
I am right about this issue. I am much more interested in Trump and his demise though than I am in discussing this tangential topic any further, so I will not. I am right.
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
Trump has more black support than any other GOP POTUS in modern history.
He got 8% of the black vote.
Why even bring this up as a positive Trump talking point?
Are you just trying to emphasize how bad Republicans in general at having black support?
Fat hurts wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
The law is the law. Sometimes people with "half a brain" don't understand the law. I could pull up examples all day of agreements that accepting a pardon is an assumption of guilt. You are right about a lot of things, but you are wrong about this. Burdick v. United States is clear.
It's definitely not the law. I defy you to find a single statute that says accepting a pardon is an assumption of guilt. Whether or not Burdick even applies here is an open question. One obscure dictum in a single case from 1912 does not make it the law. There are plenty of expert legal minds that agree with me.
But since neither of us is actually a lawyer, I'll make this my last post on the subject. Feel free to have the last word.
Since Fat hurts started this by calling me out on something I was right about, I WILL respond to him.
It was 1915 by the way, not 1912. Perhaps you don't have the rest of it right either.
President Ford used the Burdick v. United States case to justify pardoning Nixon!
The SCOTUS ruled. There is no SCOTUS decision that overturns that decision.
Sorry Fat hurts, but you are wrong. SOME legal minds might agree with you (I haven't seen any evidence of that), but that's only because you have dissenting views on ANY case. Sometimes a court case comes up down the line that challenges a case and then IT becomes the defining one.
As we sit today, if you accept a pardon, you are admitting guilt.
"A pardon carries an imputation of guilt and that acceptance carries a confession of guilt."
You can reject a pardon if you so choose.
That can not be more clear, and Ford used that to rationalize pardoning Nixon, because Ford felt ok with it because it didn't remove guilt from Nixon.
Make darn sure you are right in the future before calling me out, because I am hardly ever wrong, and I am not wrong here.
Time to steer this ship back on track to something that I am also right about and will be proven right about...
Mueller is coming.
The clown is done.
Flagpole wrote:
"A pardon carries an imputation of guilt and that acceptance carries a confession of guilt."
How does this work when the pardon is issued with the explicit rational that the party is innocent and/or was unjustly convicted?
Fat hurts wrote:
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
Trump has more black support than any other GOP POTUS in modern history.
We've already exposed your lie about that. Give it up.
Wrong again, Facts hurt. The NAACP poll had Trump.black approval at 21%. Black unemployment is at multi-year lows.
Little help? wrote:
Folks, I've been trying without success to find out exactly which campaign-finance law Cohen admits breaking.
Can someone please tell me the specific regulation that he broke?
Much obliged!
Bank Fraud
Multiple counts of tax evasion - 5 counts
Felony Campaign Finance Law violation - to making an excessive campaign contribution and causing an unlawful corporate contribution during the 2016 election cycle
Note: Campaign contributions over a certain dollar amount need to be reported. Basically speaking, if it is determined the amounts are accidentally not reported, then that is not a felony. If it is determined that not reporting the contributions was purposeful, then that's a felony.
Directed involvement wrote:
The Fokus wrote:
I'm also not sure there ever will be any direct evidence of whatever is defined as "collusion" and that issue will likely fall on whatever side of the political spectrum one happens to fall.
You have no clue what you are typing about. It smells of desperation. Directing others to do your dirty deeds is "direct" evidence of involvement. Trump is the leader in a conspiracy to steal an election. Now, give it up on the "collusion" is not a crime game. Criminal conspiracy to subvert an election is more than enough to send Trump to jail.
Maybe. After he's out of office.
Flagpole wrote:
The Fokus wrote:
All of what you post is correct but all of it, to this point, is probably not impeachable as it all appears to have occurred prior to Trump taking office. I'm also not sure there ever will be any direct evidence of whatever is defined as "collusion" and that issue will likely fall on whatever side of the political spectrum one happens to fall.
Mueller's report is unlikely to be kind to Trump. My guess is a lot of what is mentioned in the above post will be part of it along with potentially more by the time the report is given to Rosenstein. However all it will be is a report.
Those who don't want Trump to continue as President have one choice and that is to vote him out. He will not be impeached. The Cohen revelation yesterday is an issue but it is not the game changer too many people believe it to be. The entire SC investigation still remains one that will ultimately be a political issue of which the Republicans will not support any major sanctioning of the President. The only real game changer will be somehow moving out of a political issue or have the situation become so bad for incumbent Republicans in terms of their own political survival that they have to force Trump out. I don't see the latter happening at all.
So, while one board dope continues to chant "he's done. he's done" and another board dope continues to post "is not. is not" nothing has really changed.
Wow...you don't know what you're talking about.
Cohen has said Trump was a co-conspirator and even the director of two felonies that directly violate campaign finance laws.
He has obstructed justice openly.
He has admitted to conspiracy with regard to Don Jr., and Mueller for sure has proof that Trump knew about the TT meeting ahead of time.
We also have the Emoluments clause case out there, the look into Trump Foundation case out there, very likely bank fraud and wire fraud and if Cohen is to be believed, a hacking charge.
Clinton was impeached for far less. Nixon wasn't as bad, and he would have been impeached and convicted, so he resigned.
I'm no dope brother. I am the great predictor, and I will be proven right.
You are like a lot of people who don't believe anything has changed until the conviction is sealed. Lots of dominoes to fall, but that first one has been pushed, and they will all fall.
Mueller is coming.
The clown is done, and we shall see who is the dope on that one. Tip...it won't be me.
Right. And all of your points will be in the report. The report will not charge Trump with anything. It then becomes a political football. The Democrats will not have the votes to convict on an impeachment. Therefore the only way Trump is removed from office is by being voted out.
The Fokus wrote:
Directed involvement wrote:
You have no clue what you are typing about. It smells of desperation. Directing others to do your dirty deeds is "direct" evidence of involvement. Trump is the leader in a conspiracy to steal an election. Now, give it up on the "collusion" is not a crime game. Criminal conspiracy to subvert an election is more than enough to send Trump to jail.
Maybe. After he's out of office.
Sorry, but your Trump was not elected dictator. He is subject to laws of the US.