It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rudy Giuliani Admits Trump Repaid Cohen

page: 9
38
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2018 @ 07:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: DoubleDNH

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
a reply to: burdman30ott6

This exonerates Cohen from any charges of using campaign $ illegally.

And I agree Stormy's lawyer is a total hack.


This does NOT exonerate him from campaign money. Guilianni clearly brought up the fact that this payment was made in an attempt to protect trump from the POLITICAL fallout (ie. his comments about what if this came out during the debate). If Cohen paid money to protect candidate/campaign trump, that would be an unreported, in-kind donation to his campaign which would be about 50x's higher than the legal allowable limit.


The limit does not apply to personal loans to the candidate, even if this was viewed as a campaign finance issue.
I really am beginning to symathise with deluded anti-Trumpers. Continually making mountains out of molehills due to sheer desperation only to be disappointed time and again. Stop beating yourself up.
edit on 4/5/2018 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 4 2018 @ 08:28 AM
link   
a reply to: DoubleDNH

Trump has been dealing with this since 2006 when stormy took a polygraph test.
This is far far outside the scope of anything to do with the 2016 electoral campaign.
www.fec.gov...-3-a-4


An election cycle shall begin on the first day following the date of the previous general election for the office or seat which the candidate seeks, unless contributions or expenditures are designated for another election cycle.

This event with stormy started well before trumps "election cycle" and in no way was an effort to influence the 2016 election.
And remember he doesn't have to prove it wasn't, if you want to charge him with violating the rule you have to prove he did.
Since he was dealing with this since 2006 you won't be able to do that.
The stormy narrative is dead; the fishing expedition that goes along with it is dead as well.



posted on May, 4 2018 @ 09:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: DoubleDNH

Trump has been dealing with this since 2006 when stormy took a polygraph test.
This is far far outside the scope of anything to do with the 2016 electoral campaign.
www.fec.gov...-3-a-4


An election cycle shall begin on the first day following the date of the previous general election for the office or seat which the candidate seeks, unless contributions or expenditures are designated for another election cycle.

This event with stormy started well before trumps "election cycle" and in no way was an effort to influence the 2016 election.
And remember he doesn't have to prove it wasn't, if you want to charge him with violating the rule you have to prove he did.
Since he was dealing with this since 2006 you won't be able to do that.
The stormy narrative is dead; the fishing expedition that goes along with it is dead as well.


You are correct that the incident in question with Stormy occurred long before the election, however the payoff was just before the election (presumably in a bid to keep her quite so no bad publicity would pop up just before the election).



posted on May, 4 2018 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

Oh so you admit this event for trump started long before the election?

As to the rest, good luck proving that as there is already evidence trump wanted no publicity on this WELL before the 2016 election cycle.



posted on May, 4 2018 @ 09:12 AM
link   
www.nbcnews.com...


"Long before Mr. Trump announced his candidacy for the presidency, Ms. Clifford passed a lie detector test confirming her relationship with Mr. Trump," Avenatti said. "Where are his test results claiming otherwise? Where are Mr. Cohen’s test results claiming otherwise? When this is over, the American people will know the truth about the relationship and the cover-up."

Even Avenatti has stated this event started LONG before the 2016 election cycle.
Good luck taking those statements back.



posted on May, 4 2018 @ 09:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: olaru12
I served and have family that were killed in Nam.

Thank you, and I am sorry for your loss, which was a loss for this entire nation. For whatever it is worth, I had relative who served in Korea and Vietnam, and through the lens of history, I can't say the Vietnam War was a good idea for this country in any way.


I'll never forgive Trump.

That's entirely your choice and your right.


As far as your whataboutism barb (there's an overused term that needs to have it's pecker stapled to "snowflakes" face and both of them tossed into the abyss, never to be heard again.) I disagree. It was simply stating a fact, an irony, if you will. Little different than what you've been doing today by bringing the draft issue into a couple of Trump threads. Yours is a tad more subtle "Oh, Republicans... you always ripped on draft dodgers, but whatabout Trump?" but it is still very much a whataboutism, so at least in Hell I see I'll be in good company. Do you want to sit a Lucifer's right hand, or his left? I'm fine either side...

ETA: Before abyss tossing, let's make it a three-way and hot glue "triggered" to whataboutism's ass while we're at it.


Absolutely stellar! Thank you for your service (to ATS)!




posted on May, 4 2018 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Loan? Please...



posted on May, 4 2018 @ 09:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UKTruth

Loan? Please...


In the context being utilized here, its not a loan. Its a service.

I have a PR firm that is given approval up to a certain dollar amount to do what they feel is needed to promote our business. So every month i get an invoice that has their base rate, plus any additional costs they run into along the way.

Same with our attorney. Every now and then i get an invoice for a service I wasn't really even aware was being performed. Its usually billable hours in the few hundred range...but same concept.

I'd imagine among billionaires, a service of that magnitude wouldn't be unheard of. Im aware of one billionaire who, when lacking liquidity, will have his attorney fund him while seeking ways to create liquidity as a service. He makes the call, his attorney (who is also an accountant) handles the details.



posted on May, 4 2018 @ 10:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Wayfarer

Oh so you admit this event for trump started long before the election?

As to the rest, good luck proving that as there is already evidence trump wanted no publicity on this WELL before the 2016 election cycle.


Uh, yes, I admit it, its literally the first sentence of my post you replied to..... I don't think I've ever denied that, so if you have reference for me doing so then feel free to call me out with that link and I'll eat crow.

The issue, as I'll reiterate again, is that Trump made the payoff during his campaign for presidency to keep Stormy quiet. As I've mentioned in another thread, since the money was paid during the campaign it very likely runs afoul of an FEC violation. The timing of the actual sex act is irrelevant to that violation, so there doesn't need to be any proving.

Perhaps I've misunderstood what you're angling at?



posted on May, 4 2018 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

According to the FEC, a payment is only a campaign expense if it would not have been made in the absence of a campaign. It does not even matter if Daniels would not have demanded the extortion money without the campaign. The question is, given the same circumstances, would Trump/Cohen have paid her off?

Based on the fact that Trump had an agreement with Cohen to reimburse for expenses like this and had Cohen on retainer long before the election, this payment was not a campaign contribution. In addition, wasn't there a Playboy bunny that he paid off in similar circumstances some years back? That establishes the fact that this event was not directly related to the campaign, but simply a semi-regular event in his life used to protect the Trump brand.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 4 2018 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

I posted this elsewhere it applies here as well,



TITLE 52—VOTING AND ELECTIONS Subtitle III—Federal Campaign Finance CHAPTER 301—FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS SUBCHAPTER I—DISCLOSURE OF FEDERAL CAMPAIGN FUNDS § 30101.
Definitions When used in this Act
(8)(A) The term ‘‘contribution’’ includes—
(B) The term ‘‘contribution’’ does not include—
(xiv) any loan of money derived from an advance on a candidate’s brokerage account, credit card, home equity line of credit, or other line of credit available to the candidate, if such loan is made in accordance with applicable law and under commercially reasonable terms and if the person making such loan makes loans derived from an advance on the candidate’s brokerage account, credit card, home equity line of credit, or other line of credit in the normal course of the person’s business.


The daniels repayment from trump to cohen was a loan from cohen to trump in the normal course of the persons business and not included in the definition of contribution in the CFR. Sorry the talking heads on tv dont tell people this, all you get from them is "it may be a violation". Well the cfr says it is not.



posted on May, 4 2018 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

No, in fact it clearly doesn't run afoul.



posted on May, 4 2018 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Apparently nothing happened here. Trump is back to saying he didn't know about a payment and saying Giuliani will be issuing a correction to the announcement he erromiously made all over Fox and friends yesterday.
This is just getting insane now.
Giuliani says there will be no daylight between me and trump. He paid Cohen back.
Trump says oh that's what that payment was for?
Then trump says payment? What payment?
Apparently the Vaudville team of Trump & Guiliani didn't get approval from the directors before introducing the new act and now are trying to say well he was new to the team. He wasn't briefed on all the details yet. He'll get his facts straight. You'd think that would be one of the first details they would cover. This is a circus. A side show and a disgrace. One lies the other swears to it.
edit on 542018 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2018 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Apparently nothing happened here. Trump is back to saying he didn't know about a payment and saying Giuliani will be issuing a correction to the announcement he erromiously made all over Fox and friends yesterday.
This is just getting insane now.
Giuliani says there will be no daylight between me and trump. He paid Cohen back.
Trump says oh that's what that payment was for.
Then trump says payment? What payment?
Apparently the Vaudville team of Trump & Guiliani didn't get approval from the directors before introducing the new act a d now are trying to say well he was He's to the team. He wasn't briefed on all the details. Your think that would be one of the first details they would cover. This is a circus. A side show and a disgrace. One lies the other swears to it.
. So essentially 'nothing to see here'? Colour me surprised; media whores drop their pants for free once again.



posted on May, 4 2018 @ 12:50 PM
link   
How many versions of this friggin story are there. If my kid was hemming and hawing and changing his story every time he told it he'd have been grounded for lying.
These guys... Let's just make another excuse. And anothet.



posted on May, 4 2018 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Jonjonj

Giuliani lied his ass off. Said trump knew about the payment made installments. Wasn't campaigns funds...shall I go on?
What in hell is going on here?



posted on May, 4 2018 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Jonjonj

Giuliani lied his ass off. Said trump knew about the payment made installments. Wasn't campaigns funds...shall I go on?
What in hell is going on here?
. OH FOR GOD'S SAKE!!!!! WE ALL KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON HERE!!!!!!! IT ISN'T WHAT YOU ARE SELLING!!!!! Is that clear enough?



posted on May, 4 2018 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Jonjonj

So why does the story keep changing? The truth doesn't change lol.



posted on May, 4 2018 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Jonjonj

So why does the story keep changing? The truth doesn't change lol.
Tell the media the truth doesn't change, good luck with that!



posted on May, 4 2018 @ 01:18 PM
link   
But what.about.Obama.!!

Obama campaign to pay $375,000 fine for omitting some donor’s names in 2008


President Obama’s campaign has agreed to pay a $375,000 fine to the Federal Election Commission, among the largest penalties in the agency’s history.

The fine was imposed after an audit of the campaign’s books showed that it failed to report the identities of donors who gave large checks in the weeks before the 2008 election, according to a copy of the agreement between the FEC and the president’s campaign.

The document shows that the Obama campaign failed to disclose the identities of donors responsible for $2 million in contributions in the weeks ahead of the election. The campaign also misreported the dates of $85 million in other contributions.


🤦👋



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join