Trump accused of a Felony in today's Southern District of New York Filing

originally posted by: Cassi3l
a reply to: dragonridr

And as for Russia its not illegal for them to assist in a presidential election.

It is indeed highly illegal for a compaign team to accept outside help from a foreign entity
Go look it up, educate yourself, then come back with something better ...

Wait, are we talking about British Intelligence and Christopher Steele here? Or are we still talking about Cohen?

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Cassi3l

Im guessing you dont know this but neither of those things are a crime. Trump can put as much money as he wants into his campaign.

That is incorrect. Contribution limits - Federal Electoral Comission

And as for Russia its not illegal for them to assist in a presidential election. The only thing that would be illegal is if they recieved something for doing so. So Unless Trump pays Putin in some way its not a crime.

[/quote]
Is a $50 million penthouse suite for Putin a type of payment?

[quote]And im willing to bet no money has been transferred from Trump to Putin. Because that would have came out by now

Umm, that is a major of what Mueller is investigating. Perhaps Trump doesn't want to release his tax records because they will incriminate him?

originally posted by: Cassi3l
a reply to: dragonridr

And as for Russia its not illegal for them to assist in a presidential election.

It is indeed highly illegal for a compaign team to accept outside help from a foreign entity
Go look it up, educate yourself, then come back with something better ...

It can’t POSSIBLY be highly illegal. Look, this is from an article about Glenn Simpson (as in, owner of Fusion GPS Glenn Simpson):

Simpson had spent a good chunk of his career as a journalist investigating the Clintons. In 1996, Simpson broke big stories about the flood of foreign money from China, Indonesia, and elsewhere that poured into Democratic Party coffers to boost Bill Clinton’s re-election campaign. In his first front-page piece on the subject, Simpson and co-author Jill Abramson wrote that the Asian cash flow highlights “a subject that doesn’t get much discussion: How foreign influence seeps into the American political system”.

More recently, Fusion GPS had tracked wealthy foreign donors who had pumped money into the Clinton Foundation in what looked to Simpson to be an effort to influence and win favours from Clinton’s State Department.

From the Financial Review

I think that must clearly prove that it's not illegal at all...

a reply to: chr0naut

There is no limit on a candidates personal funds. Even if the funds spent in this case could be said to have had an impact on the election, a candidate is allowed to spend funds on private matters as long as there is a valid private reason for the expenditure, REGARDLESS of any election impact.

There is nothing illegal about a foreign power getting involved in the election - the 'investigation' is to determine whether Russia interfered and committed illegal acts to influence the election. There is no evidence, or even much discussion anymore, on any coordination to influence the election between Trump and Moscow.

Perhaps you should be more concerned that the SC itself is invalid and was set up against the written legal code for the appointment of a special counsel. That doesn't seem to bother you at all.

It seems that liberals just keep trying to make up crimes whilst ignoring actual illegality when it suits.

a reply to: BlackJackal

Would coming out with stories for the sole purpose that person is running for election be considered influencing the election? Arrest those girls.

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: chr0naut

There is no limit on a candidates personal funds. Even if the funds spent in this case could be said to have had an impact on the election, a candidate is allowed to spend funds on private matters as long as there is a valid private reason for the expenditure, REGARDLESS of any election impact.

We weren't talking about personal funds, we were talking about limits on campaign contributions.

Why don't you quote animal control laws in Wisconsin, that would be equally irrelevant.

There is nothing illegal about a foreign power getting involved in the election - the 'investigation' is to determine whether Russia interfered and committed illegal acts to influence the election. There is no evidence, or even much discussion anymore, on any coordination to influence the election between Trump and Moscow.

What? Of course there is law to ensure free and fair elections and it is illegal for one state to influence the electoral process of another.

Foreign electoral intervention From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Perhaps you should be more concerned that the SC itself is invalid and was set up against the written legal code for the appointment of a special counsel. That doesn't seem to bother you at all.

The Special Counsel investigation was not set up illegally as Trump has claimed. That is another of Trump's lies.

It seems that liberals just keep trying to make up crimes - anything will do.

Trump's numerous false accusations against he Special Counsel clearly incriminate him in ongoing attempts to pervert the course of justice.

a reply to: chr0naut

1) We are talking about personal funds. Campaign finances were not used.

2) It is not illegal for one state to influence another states elections. News media, including state run media, as well as foreign govt officials form all over the world offer opinions on their preferred candidate and broadcast right into the US. So, quite clearly, foreign influence in an election is in no way illegal. It's illegal to financially contribute or break specific laws. There is no evidence of any money being passed to the campaign from Moscow or any other countries govt. and no evidence that the campaign worked with a foreign govt to help them break any laws.

3) The SC is illegal according to the statute. That is not Trump's claim - it is a fact. The actual statute says clearly that a crime has to have been committed in order for a SC to be appointed. Rod Rosenstein made it 100% clear when he set up the SC that there was no crime that had been determined. That is cut and dried and part of the historical record. Like I said, you seem not to care about the actual laws on the books when it suits.

§ 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.
The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and - (a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and (b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.

Rosenstein:

“In my capacity as acting attorney general I determined that it is in the public interest for me to exercise my authority and appoint a special counsel to assume responsibility for this matter,’’ Rosenstein said in a statement. “My decision is not a finding that crimes have been committed or that any prosecution is warranted. I have made no such determination. What I have determined is that based upon the unique circumstances the public interest requires me to place this investigation under the authority of a person who exercises a degree of independence from the normal chain of command.”

So, a criminal investigation was launched without a determination that a crime had been committed. You don't seem to care - or even understand the ramifications of that.

4) 'pervert' the course of justice'??? I'd say that the orders of magnitude greater number of false accusations by the media and the uninformed masses, of which you are clearly part, do far more damage to the course of justice. Thanks for making up another crime, though. Proved my point. Apparently the 1st amendment is now a crime. Who knew?

You can continue as long as you like trying to justify the ridiculous accusations of Russian collusion and make up crimes to your hearts content. However, bluster and uniformed ramblings do not constitute evidence.

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: chr0naut

1) We are talking about personal funds. Campaign finances were not used.

It is in the sentencing memo that campaign fraud was committed in the payment of hush money to "woman 2".

2) It is not illegal for one state to influence another states elections. News media form all over the world offer opinions on their preferred candidate and broadcast right into the US. It's illegal to financially contribute or break specific laws. There is no evidence of any money being passed to the campaign from Moscow or any other countries govt. and no evidence that the campaign worked with a foreign govt to help them break any laws.

Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3) The SC is illegal according to the statute. That is not Trump's claim - it is a fact. The actual statute says clearly that a crime has to have been committed in order for a SC to be appointed. Rod Rosenstein made it 100% clear when he set up the SC that there was no crime that had been determined. That is cut and dried and part of the historical record. Like I said, you seem not to care about the actual laws on the books when it suits.

The Department of Homeland Security and The Office of the Director of National Intelligence have both stated that Russia illegally interfered, by multiple methods, in the 2016 US elections.

4) 'pervert' the course of justice'??? I'd say that the orders of magnitude greater number of false accusations by the media and the uninformed masses, of which you are clearly part, do far more damage to the course of justice.

The courts are finding that it is the associates of Trump that are guilty and that Trump is also implicated. The general populace and the press are not trying to stop the legal process, Trump is.

You can continue as long as you like trying to justify the ridiculous accusations of Russian collusion and make up crimes to your hearts content. However, bluster and uniformed ramblings do not constitute evidence.

These people are being charged with real crimes, in real courts of law, with juries and judges. Several of the guilty have confessed. No-one is making-up crimes for which there have been convictions.

The document trail, fiscal accounts, sworn testimony, confessions of guilt and tax records do constitute evidence. So far, they incriminate Trump more than they exonerate him (although Trump is withholding his full tax records, probably because they are a smoking gun that will incriminate him).

a reply to: chr0naut

The sentencing document is not a legal finding. It is a prosecutors opinion. There was no trial. There will not be any case brought against Trump. As I have already pointed out, the rules for campaign finance permit the use of private funds to be spent on private matters regardless of whether they influence an election.

It does not matter what others have said about the veracity of the SC. The actual person appointing the SC made it clear that he had not determined a crime had been committed. Thus the creation of the SC was counter to the statute on the books.

No one has been found guilty of any crime relating to Russian collusion - or indeed any crime associated to Trump's campaign effort. the current conviction count relating to the actual issue of the 2016 election is 0.

You can try and muddy the waters, but the claim pushed daily by the media and their uninformed viewers/readers is that Trump colluded with Russia to influence the election. Those that made that claim carry the embarrassment of it. It will take a long time to wash the egg off the face. No amount of process crime or decades old crime unrelated to the campaign will change that.

Perhaps you could shortcut the discussion by listing the crimes Trump has committed and pay particular attention to listing the crimes related to collusion with Russia to influence the election - put those at the top as they would be the most pertinent in your list.

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: chr0naut

Perhaps you could shortcut the discussion by listing the crimes Trump has committed and pay particular attention to listing the crimes related to collusion with Russia to influence the election - put those at the top as they would be the most pertinent in your list.

Hmmm... Interesting that your request dried up the conversation for a while. I wonder what to make of that...?

a reply to: UKTruth

Thank you UKTruth for showing me what the new FOX NEWS/Q/RIGHT-WING CONSPIRACY NUTTERS talking points are going to be going forward in their attempts to minimize and deflect.

Also explains the explosion of Clinton stories Thursday and Friday morning.

a reply to: Rewey

No matter how much you think the Clinton case should be related to this case it never will be. No one is ever going to stand before a judge and say Hillary did blah blah blah so Trump is innocent.

Yep, if that is your best defense, good luck

a reply to: JinMI

His own volition? Why? Where did the money come from?
This was not Cohen acting on his own and you know it. We heard the taped phone call discussing it.
Get your head out of your behind.

Add that to the 30? Plus indictments on his foundation it looks like what we have known about the guy was all true. Of course the deplorables will surely be along shortly to give us the official faux news response. a reply to: BlackJackal

a reply to: highvein

true.

a reply to: RazorV66

You cant indict a sitting president remember. Thats why he will be impeached over this.

a reply to: RazorV66

Theres no facts there. The crime isnt boinking those bimbos who dont mind sleeping with a married man. The crime was paying them to not talk about it. That is where the payment to influence an election comes in.
Try to get that into your thick skull. You are the one denying the facts.

a reply to: six67seven

Umm did you forget the recorded phone calls? We already heard their conversation regarding this.

a reply to: scraedtosleep

Its misappropriation of campaign funds.

a reply to: JinMI

You won't find it because you are not looking for it. You're looking for a way to clear trump and make this not true.