Speek softly and carry a big stick...
That was Teddy Roosevelt speaking and IMHO, Trump could learn a think or two from history...
The recent gyration of wall street is a prime example.
The Trump officials and the President should learn to keep their mouth shut and negotiate diligently in private. Only announce the results when it is reached. That is how diplomacy works.
The comments by twitter and off the cuff remarks tends to feed rumors and cause these up and down swings in the market.
Just shut up and do your job. - My advice to Trump and his minions.Well yeah. This has been the problem with Trump from day one. While he ran I wasn't keen on Trump, at all, because of his freakin' mouth. I'm still not keen on him. I do like some/many of the policies he espouses, and I'm very pleased to have him in office rather that Clinton. That said, he was a really, really poor choice for Republican nominee.
I will say that you defend his behavior until it might hit you in your portfolio. His style is either good or bad. If it's bad at one time it should be bad at all times.
That is not true in general. There are many people who behave badly and have done some great things... JFK and Nixon comes to mind.
I like you speak softly advice. Unfortunately, the personality type of our president will not be able to heed these words. One psychic foresaw some trouble in Trump completing his term...we'll see.
The vast majority of legal experts and constitutional scholars would agree with your psychic's scenario of the impostor sitting in our oval office having trouble completing his term: We've never experienced this unprecedented level of mega-corruption, ineptitude, insanity, betrayal of the USA and retardation from our oval office: UNREAL:
Perhaps, we will see. Politics has strange bedfellows.
One thing about Trump is he is not stupid.
Once he realized something is not working, I believe he will change.
At this point, he is beating the media.
They are going insane and that is just where Trump wants them.Not only is Bozo trump door knob stupid he shows many signs of being retarded and exhibits NO signs of having the ability to learn and no jackclee, he'll never change even when sucking bars behind concrete prison walls and that's where this betrayer needs to end up if we still have valid laws in this once great country and no again, he's not beating anyone but himself and his last remaining gullible detached from reality followers, beating them right into the dirt with his insane trade war and insane self destructive behavior:
His ratings are DOWN with a recent poll clocking him at a record low of 38% approval and record high of 60% disapproval: The midterms were a total rebuke of Bozo and his Russian controlled republican congress: And don't worry, "Squinty" Mike Pence who is essentially in hiding, must be in legal jeopardy as well after being the campaign transition chief:Well Jake, IF you were able to somehow make the fantasy impeachment reality, the new president would be good old "Squinty". Just think! Wouldn't that be loads of fun for the far left??
Well Hxprof, in the face of delusional denials from his last remaining followers, I've been predicting for a very long time that Donald would end up in prison and now everyone realizes this looks like the inevitable outcome for this ridiculously crazy and insane nightmare of an illegitimate presidency and believe it or not, we haven't even received the prosecutors evidence in its entirety on Obstruction, Abuse of Power, Conspiracy and Constitutional Crimes and everything else that might arise: Wait until those investigations are complete and then we just might see him leap from the roof of Trump Tower hand in hand with fake Christian "Squinty" Mike:
I'd like to say my prediction that Bozo Trump would end up in prison was the result of some sort of miraculous divine prognostication that only I could envision however, it was pretty easy for the average individual to foresee this given that for whatever mad narcissistic reason, he tends to commit what many legal experts consider serious illegal acts right in broad daylight and on his little twitter machine for the entire world to witness which makes it exceedingly easy to compile the evidence:
I've been wondering for a long time when the corrupt Christian would finally be implicated. I'm not sure it will happen, but it is looking more and more likely.
PP: Bozo Trump must be indicted by NY prosecutors because Michael Cohen was for the very same crimes, but "stubby's" indictment probably won't happen until Mueller's criminal investigation is concluded which should only result ih even MORE charges:
"Squinty" Mike was the chief transition jerk if I remember correctly which seems to indicate he knows an awful lot about critically important details related to the criminal investigations and given his fickle unholy relationship with GOD, he probably won't think twice about 'flipping' on Bozo and he may have already behind the scenes for all we know:"Bozo Trump must be indicted by NY prosecutors because Michael Cohen was for the very same crimes"
Do ya think we should indict him for DUI, possession with intent to deliver, jaywalking and grand theft, auto as well? After all, we can find someone, somewhere, that was indicted for the "very same crimes" - if that's all it takes let's do it! We can even include panhandling without a license, fishing without a permit, arson and running a red light, for someone, somewhere, has been not only indicted but actually found guilty of all of those.No, Bozo Trump should NOT be indicted for crimes he didn't commit ONLY for the serious federal crimes he's now listed in federal court documents as an "un-indicted co-conspirator and any and ALL additional crimes he's accused of in the future which given the incredibly unbelievable amount of damning evidence already gathered to this point, and the amount of NEW evidence documented almost daily from his bizarre unhinged twitter tizzies fits which only give our enemies a crystal clear 24/7 look inside his little disturbed mind, there should be many more down the pike:
This nightmare of a Bozo cult charade is FINALLY coming to an abrupt END in the REAL World and we all must Thank GOD for That: Every day we are forced to wake Up to another Trump induced horror show or betrayal and that's absolutely unsustainable and unacceptable, I'm just SHOCKED he's STILL polluting our oval office but the investigations must be concluded prior to indictments::You DO understand that a simple claim of malfeasance is not sufficient to indict someone for anything? If I claim you are an alien from Mars it is insufficient to have you arrested and subjected to a medical exam, for instance. (You're not really an alien, are you? In spite of your propensity for idiotic, sensationalist rhetoric that sounds as if it were taken strait from the Enquirer headlines?)
Never mind wilderness, for a moment there I forgot who I was talking to but just FYI, you really should read legitimate news like this:
"Michael Cohen's testimony implicates Trump as a co-conspirator in a crime to get elected, but what happens next is unclear"
https://www.businessinsider.com/michael … tor-2018-8
Wilderness, do you still not see a possible crime here, or does this all fall under the heading of "all politicians are guilty of something so I'm willing to let this slide?"
The specific charge here is that Trump directed hush money payments to two individuals using campaign funds in violation of campaign finance laws (pardon me if I didn't describe that exactly right). It's a crime.
I'm trying to figure out how this doesn't register with some people. I suppose you might believe that Michael Cohen is lying, but he's going to jail anyway, so I'm not sure what his motivation is to lie (other than getting back at Trump, I suppose).
I mean, it does seem pretty straight-forward that these two women were paid not to talk, but I suppose they could be lying as well.
Or is politics such a swamp that you and other Trump supporters just don't care? I can understand that too, I suppose.
I'll just say that I'm not sure that I would classify the crime as impeachable, but it's getting close.Conspiring to conceal facts from voters which could affect their decision in a covert attempt to steal the presidency is ABSOLUTELY an impeachable crime considering no crime is required to impeach a hostile to the USA, illegitimate oval office resident and nowhere in the constitution does it say a sitting president CANNOT be indicted which NY Prosecutors must do AFTER the Mueller investigation is concluded:
Wait until the Mueller investigation is complete and see how many MORE additional crimes were committed, these serious federal offenses can be predicted simply from reading and watching the mountain of PUBLIC Evidence, not counting the MOUNTAIN of Evidence Mueller's prosecutors have uncovered behind the scenes:
Bozo Trump is ABSOLUTELY going to prison if we still have laws it's just a matter of time:"I'm trying to figure out how this doesn't register with some people."
That's OK - I'm still trying to twist my brain around the apparent fact that many people here (including Jake) don't seem to understand that it is a possible crime, not one we know was committed.
"I mean, it does seem pretty straight-forward that these two women were paid not to talk, but I suppose they could be lying as well."
This might be a good example, for it is not illegal, not even a tiny bit, to mutually agree not to speak. It is done with most out-of-court settlements. Yet, somehow, it is considered a crime by many here, and a crime that Trump should receive prison time for.
Now, if that money came from donated campaign funds, and it can be shown that Donald Trump ordered it so, it would be different. But to date it is not - anyone (including Jake) that just assumes it WILL be shown true is making a serious logical and legal error.The money doesn't in any way have to come from donated campaign funds. It only has to be shown that the intent was to influence the election. If the intent were otherwise, Trump would have paid her off in 2011. That money could have come from Trump's piggy bank, and it would still be illegal because it wasn't reported. Unreported campaign contributions and those over contribution limits violate campaign finance law.
100.111 Gift, subscription, loan, advance or deposit of money.
a. A purchase, payment, distribution, loan (except for a loan made in accordance with 11 CFR 100.113 and 100.114), advance, deposit, or gift of money or anything of value, made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office is an expenditure.
https://www.fec.gov/regulations/100-111 … #100-111-aWilderness,
As far as I'm concerned, Jake is a troll and he's just making outlandish statements to aggravate those on the Right in the same way that those on the Right adopt conspiracy theories and make non-sensical statements about all sorts of things.
I don't expect you to hold him up as an example of those on the left and to recognize him for what he is. And frankly, I expect more from you. Responding to what he says is pointless because he just responds like he's writing for the National Inquirer.
This is just a rhetorical game, right? Nobody knows whether Trump committed a crime or not, but there does seem to be a large amount of circumstantial evidence that he did, so some people are concluding that he did because it fits into a larger pattern of behavior.
Are you serious in a conclusion that has the two women agreeing not to talk? Really? We know Stormy Daniels was paid $130k for something. To think Trump didn't know about it seems far-fetched, though possible, I guess. Given Rex Tillerson's recent revelation that Trump often wanted things and had to be told they were illegal speaks to the man's respect for the law, I think.
It is consistent with his actions that he wouldn't think violating a campaign finance law was something he had to be concerned about."As far as I'm concerned, Jake is a troll and he's just making outlandish statements to aggravate those on the Right"
Please don't misunderstand my statements responding to Jake. You are correct - in my estimation as well, Jake is naught but another troll stirring the pot and my responses are in a like vein, with little substance. Asking if Trump should be imprisoned for jaywalking because someone else did it cannot be taken seriously.
" there does seem to be a large amount of circumstantial evidence that he did, so some people are concluding that he did because it fits into a larger pattern of behavior"
Disagree. First, 10,000 tons of circumstantial evidence doesn't equal a pound of real, hard, factual evidence. And that's all we have at this point - innuendoes, suggestions, claims such as Jakes; just rants that point, not to a "larger pattern of behavior" because there is zero evidence of criminal activity, but to the desires of some to do and say anything, anything at all, that will denigrate and degrade the president. The desire to have something forcing Trump out of office has them almost literally frothing at the mouth, and it shows in the willingness to accept the most tenuous of connections as virtual proof of Trump's criminal activity.
Stormy: can you point to a single law anywhere that points to "hush money" contracts, or the fulfillment of them, being illegal? No? Now, show that Trump knew (and no guessing - it requires proof!) that the payment was coming out of campaign funds. Can't? Then quit insinuating that he is guilty without evidence of it.lol, now that's precious, an individual who calls himself or herself "crankalicious" is calling me a "Troll" and aggravater: Not true and he or she knows it: He just seems a little upset that I'm just not a passive little Trump follower who stands by in idle mode while a Russian sympathizer in the oval office systematically destroys a once great nation and who calls neo-white nationalists "fine people":
"I suppose you might believe that Michael Cohen is lying, but he's going to jail anyway, so I'm not sure what his motivation is to lie (other than getting back at Trump, I suppose)."
It's unclear to me what we actually know after Cohen gave his story, compared to what we knew beforehand. We knew the timing of the payoffs, but we had to assume they were private transactions (as Trump is claiming) rather than transactions made specifically to influence the elections. Cohen may have lied to get a lighter sentence; Mueller is "recommending" 4 years, but seeing as he's admitted to tax fraud, for which he could spend 30 years in jail, it's possible Mueller guaranteed him the lighter sentence if Cohen would tell him what he wanted to hear. Corrupt? Sure, but this kind of thing is done.
If Trump told Cohen to make the payments for the purpose of influencing the elections as Cohen asserts, then yes, that's against campaign finance laws. But here too, that's a really poor move (just as Mueller's would be), and every lawyer on Trump's team would be recommending, at the least, that he NOT make the payments for the purpose of influencing the election.
So one of two things may have happened: 1) Mueller made a deal with Cohen to get Cohen to say what Mueller wanted him to say in return for a lighter sentence. 2) Trump told Cohen to make the payments specifically for the purpose of influencing the election. In either case, someone, arguably, did something really stupid.Hi there Crankalicious,
I hope you will take this as a question, and not a defence, but ...
I have not heard -- yet -- that campaign funds were used to pay these women. To be clear, I don't know, but as yet all I have heard asserted is that the funds were to be paid back - personally, not out of campaign funds.
Didn't one of Cohen's recordings speak of whether they were to be paid by check or cash? And a check payment was stipulated?
If that is true, then that would also mean that the money used, (Cohen's home equity loan in one case??), could not be seen as a campaign "in kind" or "goods or services" donation.
Have I missed something, has Cohen's statements said they were paid out of campaign funds?
If campaign funds weren't used, and if the money paid was to be paid back and not viewed as a campaign contribution, isn't the worse valid charge one of paying hush money? A moral condemnation?
As a side note, has anything been reported that actual repayment to Cohen occurred?
Where does the campaign laws violation come into play?
It was a plus to read "possible" crimes instead of a concrete assertion of crimes committed.
GAEveryone is responding all at once. I'll just respond here, both to GA and Wilderness mostly.
I think everyone who hates Trump probably hopes he committed a crime or wants it to be that way but, if they're reasonably smart, hasn't concluded he committed a crime.
Do I believe he committed one? Based on the evidence, I believe it is highly likely for two reasons: the evidence that he has little regard for the law and that he has lied about the circumstances of these affairs over and over again.
I find it hard to believe that two, reasonable gentlemen such as yourselves, are willing to overlook his numerous lies on this subject and give him the benefit of the doubt that he didn't authorize the pay-offs. Further, and I can't say precisely where the crime is, but prosecutors seem to believe he violated campaign finance laws. Apparently, he had to disclose the payment.
Now, Trump, after saying he knew nothing about the payments, has said that the payments were made between private individuals.
His story certainly seems to change to suit the defense.Well I tried Crankiclicious. I did say I was not defending Trump, yet, it seems anything but agreement is a defense.
My comment wasn't intended to portray me as "over-looking" anything,
My only point was that I have not seen evidence of campaign law violations yet,
If the money is not repaid by Trump, (in Cohen's case, I think the other one, the "buying of the story" is a different matter), then maybe it could be viewed as a campaign contribution. *shrug I don't know.
That you believe he lied about this, (I agree), and that he has little regard for the law, (again I can agree), isn't pertinent to a charge of campaign laws violations.
As for your statement about what "prosecutors" say, well, that is what the media is saying. We don't really know what actual prosecutors are saying - yet.
GAFair enough. I'm saying that the evidence suggests it is likely that he committed a crime and that he's lying about it.
"Where does the campaign laws violation come into play?"
I'm no lawyer, and know nothing of campaign laws, but I have to wonder as well. One of the biggest uses of campaign funds is to pay someone to say something; is that really different than paying someone not to say something?
I also hear rumblings that it was illegal because it was intended to affect the election, but isn't that what the entire campaign, and all it's funding, is used for? To have an effect on the election outcome?"There is nothing illegal per se in making a non-disclosure agreement; they are quite common. The criminal law comes into play only if the non-disclosure payment is deemed a donation for purposes of influencing a political campaign.
Contributions such as Cohen made were limited in 2016 to a $2,700 donation, but there is no limit on a candidate’s spending. A candidate may spend unlimited amounts on the campaign, but the amounts spent must be reported to the Federal Election Commission.
The sentencing memo for Cohen argues that the hush money payments were not merely unreported. It states that Cohen and the Trump organization – the president’s company – went to great lengths to conceal them by fraudulent bookkeeping.
Equally significantly, Cohen was not charged with merely making illegal donations. He was charged in the first campaign finance count with causing a company to make illegal donations.
This was the offense centering on Playboy model Karen McDougal. It involves David Pecker, a longtime friend of the president and of Cohen. Pecker runs American Media, Inc., which controls the National Enquirer.
According to prosecutors, Pecker arranged with Cohen that the Enquirer would buy McDougal’s story for $150,000 and bury it. Although it was contemplated that Cohen would reimburse Pecker (and then be reimbursed by Trump), the reimbursement did not happen.
Cohen, therefore, pleaded guilty not to making his own excessive contribution but to causing a third party to make an illegal contribution.
Cohen says he was operating at Trump’s direction. Logically, then, if this is true and Cohen caused the third-party illegal contribution, so did the president.
Notably: prosecutors have given Pecker and another American Media executive, Dylan Howard, immunity from prosecution. Do you think prosecutors did that to tighten up the case against Cohen? I don’t.
As for the second campaign finance charge, that involves an illegal payment by Cohen – the $130,000 to Stephanie Clifford (who goes by the stage name “Stormy Daniels”). There are two things to bear in mind about it.
First, as we’ve just seen, it is a felony to cause another person to make an illegal contribution. Since, under the claim by prosecutors Trump was directing Cohen, Trump could be accused of having caused Cohen to make an illegal payment.
The fact that Trump could have made the payment himself without violating the law does not excuse allegedly causing Cohen to violate the law.
Trump’s point that he had no personal limit on spending is also undermined by the facts that (a) the payment was not reported, and (b) the purpose of the transaction was to distance him from the payment (which is why the non-disclosure agreement employs pseudonyms rather than referring to Trump and Clifford by name).
Second, the violation to which Cohen pleaded guilty is not merely making illegal expenditures; it also includes making such expenditures “in cooperation, consultation, or concert, with or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate.” (Section 30116(a)(7)(A) of the election laws)."
Andrew C. McCarthy/ Fox NewsUgh. Makes my head spin.
How can a payment from campaign funds be a "donation" to that same fund? Makes no sense to me.
Not reporting and bad bookkeeping - this I get.
McDougal - Again, cannot understand how a company paying hush money to another person is making a contribution. Sounds like legal shenanigans and word games to me. And like something a decent lawyer could get thrown out of a honest court.
Stormy: if Cohen made payments at Trumps direction, the seems to me it was not only legal (Trump can spend as he likes) but that Cohen was acting as Trumps representative just as the payroll clerk for Apple Computer does when (s)he writes a payroll check and signs it. And if the money spent was not out of the bank account of the campaign then there was no foul at all.
All too twisted for my puny mind to get around!McDougal - Again, cannot understand how a company paying hush money to another person is making a contribution.
If the company paid to help Trump, that payment served as an in-kind contribution to Trump’s presidential campaign, violating a ban on corporate donations to campaigns, prosecutors said.
If the payment was made on behalf/arranged by Trump, then it is a felony offense to conspire to make illegal contributions.
Stormy: if Cohen made payments at Trumps direction, the seems to me it was not only legal (Trump can spend as he likes) but that Cohen was acting as Trumps representative... And if the money spent was not out of the bank account of the campaign then there was no foul at all.
Again, "A candidate may spend unlimited amounts on the campaign, but the amounts spent must be reported to the Federal Election Commission", which he didn't."If the company paid to help Trump, that payment served as an in-kind contribution to Trump’s presidential campaign, violating a ban on corporate donations to campaigns, prosecutors said."
"https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/341849/speek-softly-and-carry-a-big-stick?page=2#post4049521" How is that gotten around?
"If the payment was made on behalf/arranged by Trump, then it is a felony offense to conspire to make illegal contributions."
If made on behalf then Trump cannot be liable. The campaign maybe, but not Trump. However, if Trump arranged it the he is obviously liable, as a co-conspirator if nothing else.
"Again, "A candidate may spend unlimited amounts on the campaign, but the amounts spent must be reported to the Federal Election Commission", which he didn't."
Yes, I got that. The payment may have been legal, but if not reported that is illegal. And if Trump knew both (payment was made AND not reported) then he is personally liable. I think.
Well, give me some time Wilderness. Maybe I can find something here to disagree with. ;-)
GAThe violation, as I understand it, is that it was not reported as a campaign contribution. All funds expended or services rendered to benefit a campaign must be reported as a contribution. If Donald Trump or Michael Cohen, either one, paid someone to remain silent in order to benefit Trump's campaign then the payment must be reported as a contribution. Hiding the payment or not reporting it is a campaign finance violation.
Edit: When I ran for local office, I was required to report the following:
--Expenditures of my own funds to benefit my campaign
--Cash donations from others
--Services rendered to benefit my campaign, even if they were donated (Example: Local DJ provided equipment, music and his personal services free of charge for a campaign rally. I reported it as a campaign contribution in the amount he would normally have charged for the service.)
--Products provided to benefit my campaign, even if they were donated (example: use of meeting room; signage; office supplies)
Get the idea?But that means if I don't like Clinton, all I have to do is spend a few thousand promoting her and suddenly it's an unreported campaign contribution to her and she's liable. While I can (maybe) understand the motive behind the rule (if it is one) it doesn't make sense.
That's right. Most campaign finance violations are inadvertent or minor and result only in fines. What Trump and Cohen did was neither inadvertent nor minor, and they both initially lied about it.
My opponent failed to report several items because he didn't bother to read and understand the rules. It was a small local election, but he was still fined for each offense.This is what bothers me. A lot. You're claiming Trump lied about the payment being from campaign funds and not being reported...but have zero evidence that is true.
That bothers me. More than the idea that there is a possibility Trump did something illegal as a politician. If we didn't have millions of other people travelling the same road it wouldn't, but we do. People from posters on FB to media to politicians in the halls of congress to judges sitting in a courtroom.Wilderness, it is a known fact that Cohen paid Stormy and did not report it as a campaign contribution. He admitted it in court. If doesn't matter if the money was his or Trump's. It doesn't matter if it was paid back or not. He committed a crime.
Cohen also swore under oath that he was directed to make the Stormy payment by Trump himself. Now, I realize that prosecutors would probably have to present additional evidence to corroborate that to get a conviction. It is likely that corroborating evidence was used to get Cohen to.pleas guilty.
This provides a straightforward explanation of all of it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … 9e78f5090d"Cohen also swore under oath that he was directed to make the Stormy payment by Trump himself."
Well, see, this is the part I have a real problem with. I understand that you wish, very strongly, to believe it, but what I've seen is no such thing. Comey says he was directed, yes, but by unspecified people, not by Trump.
Yet here you are: "directed to make the Stormy payment by Trump himself". You and millions more, simply because they want it to be true.
Even the Washington Post jumps on the bandwagon. They say "Cohen pleaded guilty to two campaign-finance-related charges in August, saying in court that he’d undertaken the actions at Trump’s behest.", but when they actually quote the report it becomes " he acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1."
So I have a problem with it. I understand you don't, but then you aren't looking for Truth with a capital T and questioning every claim that is made. You don't automatically doubt what you hear or see, unless it comes from "the right wingers" or Trump himself.
We can read that "from the context", where your comment is that we need corroborating evidence but that "It is likely that corroborating evidence was used to get Cohen to.pleas guilty.". In other words, you're positive there is more evidence without ever having heard of or seen any.Okay, wilderness, I said "likely" and you say I am "positive."
I honestly don't know what has happened to you. It has become increasingly difficult to have a discussion with you without you leaping to extremes and putting words in my mouth or twisting what I say.
Yes, I and pretty much everyone else think "Individual 1" is Trump. If it turns out it isn't you will prove to be one of the few who weren't fooled. On the other hand, when it turns out it is Trump, well, you figure it out.
I'm truly saddened by your posts here.
Yes, I get the idea PrettyPanther.
However, I am still not sure that if the transaction did not include campaign funds, and the initial payment was repaid without involving campaign funds, that it would fit the scenario you described.
It appears that the playmate "purchase" was prior to the heat of the campaign, so is it reasonable to categorize it with the Stormy payment?
If not, are the two instances different? Could it then boil down to the Stormy payment being the problematic one?
If so, as has been pointed out, what is the crime relative to paying her off to stop any negative impact on Trump's presidential campaign - as long as no campaign funds or donation scenarios were involved?
If you paid that DJ what he would have charged a normal event, would that have been a contribution to your own campaign because having the DJ benefitted your campaign?
In spite of the appearance of a facetious example; would the same thought apply if you brought a boombox from home and played CDs? Either way the crowd is entertained.
Would your provision of the CDs and boombox then be considered a contribution to benefit your campaign?
GA"If you paid that DJ what he would have charged a normal event, would that have been a contribution to your own campaign because having the DJ benefitted your campaign?" Yes.
"In spite of the appearance of a facetious example; would the same thought apply if you brought a boombox from home and played CDs? Either way the crowd is entertained.
Would your provision of the CDs and boombox then be considered a contribution to benefit your campaign?"
I think the answer is yes, but I am not sure. If I run again, I will use the opportunity to call and ask. I had a person at the Sec. Of State's office who I called several times with questions about reporting. Almost every time, she told me I must report. It seemed pretty ridiculous at times, but those are the rules.Well hell, if you do run again, let me know. I will sneak in and give you an illegal vote.
GA
The money doesn't in any way have to come from donated campaign funds. It only has to be shown that the intent was to influence the election. If the intent were otherwise, Trump would have paid her off in 2011. That money could have come from Trump's piggy bank, and it would still be illegal because it wasn't reported. Unreported campaign contributions and those over contribution limits violate campaign finance law.
100.111 Gift, subscription, loan, advance or deposit of money.
a. A purchase, payment, distribution, loan (except for a loan made in accordance with 11 CFR 100.113 and 100.114), advance, deposit, or gift of money or anything of value, made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office is an expenditure.
https://www.fec.gov/regulations/100-111 … #100-111-aCampaign finance abuses are rampant. Politics is a corrupt and dirty business. Investigating and punishing abusers are selective. Thst is why our justice system should not be politicized. Yet, under Obama administration, it has been and the IRS, and the EPA and the FBI have all been politicized. Not the whole agency but certainly at some of the senior positions. Lois Lerner at the IRS is one glaring example. She is retired and collecting a nice pension...her computer destroyed and emails missing and no consequences...where is the justice?
If we think along these lines, then maybe Trump should be a better politician. If it's a ruthless business with no justice then to be effective you must know how to avoid being investigated, prosecuted, etc. These matters are taking over his so called administration.
Maybe mouthing off about so many people involved with the top levels of government and politics is not the best way to be a politician. Maybe it's not the best way to lead, and he's reaping the consequences. Survival of the fittest, and Trump's not too fit for the role it seems.You're right - Trump was destined to be at least a partial failure in the political arena, having zero experience there and not truly understanding what he was about to face. And he still does not have the expertise to avoid political pitfalls like investigations.
It's why he was elected - because he is not a consummate politician, the likes of which Americans are totally fed up with. I sounds strange to hear someone saying that having that knowledge and ability, knowing how to game the system how to play dirty and get away with it, how to get around the law to gain power, is what we need in our leaders - most of us are completely disgusted with those qualities our politicians so often flaunt.Unfortunately, it takes a politician to be a politician. Just likes it takes a business person to run a business. It has from the beginning of time and whether people are disgusted, or not, that's not going to change. However, Trump took us to new found lows and he has absolutely no clue what he is doing. Trump was supposed to be the deal maker supreme. Ultimately, that's what politics is about, and being a jerk to everyone you want to deal with you is not a wise policy. Trump is not winning on any front right now. I thought it was about winning, not morals? If it were about morality Trump wouldn't be President. I keep hearing this from Trump supporters. You can't have it both ways and Trump is losing.
You don't hire a plumber because you don't like how your mechanic fixes your car. Oh well. maybe Americans do.You may be right. We may have so entrenched our politics into the mud that it is the only way to survive now. But that is not a reason to suggest that we elect only scum to lead us - people that can survive and prosper in that environment. Better that we have nothing but losers!
No, Trump isn't a "new found low". He just lets it hang out for all to see rather than hiding it away as the rest of them do. (He is also far from the wildest, most unconforming president we've ever had. Past history contains some real characters!)We should at least elect individuals who understand that they need to hire experts and listen to those experts. Trump is a failure.
America didn't entrench ourselves. Corruption is human nature. We can only try to keep it down and the commoners get what we can out of the system. We should not elect people who have never served others in their life..that's just my opinion of course.
It's the same game it's always been. Winning is winning and losing is losing right? Isn't that what Trump is all about? Winning at all costs? You all knew Trump was scum when you voted for him.
I've heard over and over from Trump supporters, including you Wilderness, that it's results that count not the morality of the person. Now that's different?
I would say it's less scummy to not come into a position kicking and screaming, name calling, making up facts like the biggest inauguration crowd ever, etc.
Oh, and let's not forget: " I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters."And just about EVERYTHING Bozo Trump "hangs out for everyone to see" is either evil, dark, racist, unholy, un-Christian, narcissistic, retarded, incoherent, inadequate, treacherous, obstructionist, abusive, insane, disturbed, mentally warped, destructive, inept, misogynist, neo-nationalist, fascist, untrue, false, fake, phony or a MEGA-Danger to our Democracy, and the World and our very survival:
The bright side ?? I'm now jubilantly satisfied that this incompetent, betrayer of our once great union will indeed be locked away in prison for a very very long time if he manages to escape the penalty of Capitol Punishment:
Related Discussions
- 75
Majority Say Biden Seeking to Jail Trump to Stop His Reelection
by Readmikenow 10 days ago
In our new national poll 56% of all voters think Biden really wants to stop Trump from winning by putting him in jail.Democratic constituencies also have a negative view of Biden's actions with African Americans at 41%, Hispanics at 53%, and women at 53% agreeing.Here are more findings of our poll...
- 397
Mr. Trump, a rally? Why Waco?
by Credence2 12 months ago
In regards to a political rally held by Donald Trump at the Waco, TX airport on Saturday, March 25th.For those who do not remember:"Between February 28 and April 19, 1993, federal agents, the U.S. military and Texas law enforcement laid siege to the compound of the Branch Davidians, a...
- 20
FBI opened an investigation into whether Trump was working for Russia.
by Randy Godwin 5 years ago
The NYT today reported the FBI launched an investigation into whether Trump was working on behalf of Russia after he fired James Comey. It isn't yet known what the investigation revealed nor if it's ended at this time.This in conjunction with the reports of Mueller looking to use Trump's public...
- 29
Our President, the Liar
by Allen Donald 5 years ago
Here's a recent tweet from President Trump:"Remember, Michael Cohen only became a RAT after the FBI did something that was absolutely unthinkable and unheard of until the witch hunt was illegally started. They BROKE INTO AN ATTORNEY'S OFFICE!"So, none of that is true. The investigation is...
- 10
The Only “National Emergency” Is That Our President Is An Idiot
by JAKE Earthshine 5 years ago
Don’t blame the messenger, I didn’t say it but guess who did? Yup, the whitest of white nationalist racists Ann Coulter apparently woke up from her fog bath and called Donald an idiot just the other day after he declared his FAKE Phony “National Emergency”: So I guess we’ve finally arrived at a...
- 11
Cohen sentenced to three years in prison
by IslandBites 5 years ago
President Donald Trump's former lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen, was sentenced Wednesday to three years in prison after saying he took "full responsibility" for his actions while at the same time blaming the President."I take full responsibility for each act that I pled guilty to:...