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.

 

"Muh Campaign Finance"

page: 4
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Propagandalf
a reply to: UKTruth

Which brings us all full circle:

WHY WOULD A LAWYER PLEAD GUILTY TO A "NON-CRIME" AND GO TO PRISON FOR IT IF IT "ISNT" A CRIME???

edit on 13-12-2018 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJMSN

I seriously doubt he was much more than a full time fancy legal notary public. When a condo sold, they gave him the duty of crossing the T's and dotting the I's in all the legal documents.

Trump has been around far too long to use him for anything else.


Doubtful:


Michael Dean Cohen (born August 25, 1966) is an American attorney and convicted felon who worked as personal lawyer for Donald Trump from 2006 to 2018.

Cohen was a vice-president of The Trump Organization and a former counsel to Trump.[2] He previously served as co-president of Trump Entertainment and was a board member of the Eric Trump Foundation, a children's health charity.[3] From 2017 to 2018, Cohen was deputy finance chairman of the Republican National Committee.[4][5] en.wikipedia.org...(lawyer)

edit on 13-12-2018 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Propagandalf
a reply to: UKTruth

Which brings us all full circle:

WHY WOULD A LAWYER PLEAD GUILTY TO A "NON-CRIME" AND GO TO PRISON FOR IT IF IT "ISNT" A CRIME???


HE PLEAD GUILTY TO MAKING AN EXCESSIVE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION. IT WAS A PART OF HIS PLEA BARGAIN. BUT IT WASN'T A CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION.



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Here is another example of why laws were not broken...


the U.S. Attorney is placing all his chips on the language “for the purpose of influencing an election.” Intuitively, however, we all know that such language cannot be read literally — if it were, virtually every political candidate of the past 45 years has been in near-constant violation. The candidate who thinks “I need to brush my teeth, shower, and put on a nice suit today in order to campaign effectively” is surely not required to report as campaign expenditures his purchases of toothpaste, soap, and clothing. When he eats his Wheaties — breakfast of champions, and surely one cannot campaign on an empty stomach — his cereal and milk are not campaign expenses. When he drives to his office to start making phone calls to supporters, his gas is not a campaign expense.

So what does it mean to be “for the purpose of influencing an[] election”? To understand this, we read the statutory language in conjunction other parts of the statute. Here the key is the statute’s prohibition on diverting campaign funds to “personal use.” This is a crucial distinction, because one of the primary factors separating campaign funds from personal funds is that the former must be spent on the candidate’s campaign, while the latter can be used to buy expensive vacations, cars, watches, furs, and such. The law defines “personal use” as spending “used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.” So a candidate may intend for good toothpaste and soap, a quality suit, and a healthy breakfast to positively influence his election, but none of those are campaign expenditures, because all of those purchases would typically be made irrespective of running for office. And even if the candidate might not have brushed his teeth quite so often or would have bought a cheaper suit absent the campaign, these purchases still address his underlying obligations of maintaining hygiene and dressing himself.

To use a more pertinent example, imagine a wealthy entrepreneur who decides to run for office. Like many men and women with substantial business activities, at any one time there are likely several lawsuits pending against him personally, or against those various businesses. The candidate calls in his company attorney: “I want all outstanding lawsuits against our various enterprises settled.” His lawyer protests that the suits are without merit — the company should clearly win at trial, and he should protect his reputation of not settling meritless lawsuits. “I agree that these suits lack merit,” says our candidate, “but I don’t want them as a distraction during the campaign, and I don’t want to take the risk that the papers will use them to portray me as a heartless tycoon. Get them settled.”

The settlements in this hypothetical are made “for the purpose of influencing the election,” yet they are not “expenditures” under the Federal Election Campaign Act. Indeed, if they were, the candidate would have to pay for them with campaign funds. Thus, an unscrupulous but popular businessman could declare his candidacy, gather contributions from the public, use those contributions to settle various preexisting lawsuits, and then withdraw from the race. A nice trick!





edit on 13-12-2018 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Propagandalf

IF HE DIDNT BREAK ANY LAWS THEN WHY HAVE TO PLEA BARGAIN?



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Propagandalf

IF HE DIDNT BREAK ANY LAWS THEN WHY HAVE TO PLEA BARGAIN?


Am I Cohen or one of his lawyers?



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Propagandalf

IF HE DIDNT BREAK ANY LAWS THEN WHY HAVE TO PLEA BARGAIN?


Maybe if you bold it and make larger fonts with different colors we could read it better...lol. Why does all 9 judges on the SC not rule the same in all cases, most of the times they split, so the law is far from black or white.

What we typically see is a person is hit with a long list of crimes the prosecutor says they will go after. If the person admits to this one then we will put the rest under the table. We do not know all that he was told they would go after him on and as the direction this all has been going he could have been hit with a dozen of other unrelated offenses that could have gotten him many more years.

In the end we need to let it all play out, but once again they are creating a legal precedent that anything you spend private funds on during a campaign can be considered influencing a campaign...



edit on 13-12-2018 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Propagandalf

My impression is everyones still talking as if dude isnt already in jail.

He's in PRISON. A millionaire LAWYER in prison. For a lawyer to go down is MAJOR.



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

Not only did he go to prison, he also paid the court $2,000,000.

Let is all play out?

Its already game over. The end.

So now what I'm picking up on in here the argument is he broke a bunch of other laws, but not campaign stuff, and they "made" him plead guilty for the campaign stuff instead of other stuff?

FFS he paid $2,000,000 he ought to be able to get away with murder, practically, for that much money.



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Propagandalf

My impression is everyones still talking as if dude isnt already in jail.

He's in PRISON. A millionaire LAWYER in prison. For a lawyer to go down is MAJOR.


So if Trump says I did it because I didn't want my wife and son to find out and I didn't want my image tarnished how does that play into it all. That would be payment for personal reasons...Where buying a 10,000 suit to look better on his campaign can be seen as trying to influence a campaign...

Once you add the use of personal funds it really muddles the water down endless legal paths...



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Propagandalf

My impression is everyones still talking as if dude isnt already in jail.

He's in PRISON. A millionaire LAWYER in prison. For a lawyer to go down is MAJOR.


Yes, he is already in jail for a wide variety of crimes.


Robert Khuzami, Attorney for the United States, Acting Under Authority Conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 515, announced that MICHAEL COHEN was sentenced today to three years in prison for tax evasion, making false statements to a federally insured bank, and campaign finance violations. COHEN pled guilty on August 21, 2018, to an eight-count information before U.S. District Judge William H. Pauley III, who imposed today’s sentence. In a separate prosecution brought by the Special Counsel’s Office (“SCO”), COHEN pled guilty on November 29, 2018 to one count of making false statements to the U.S. Congress and was also sentenced on that case today, receiving a two-month concurrent sentence.


www.justice.gov...



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 05:52 PM
link   


As part of his sentencing, Cohen was also ordered to pay nearly $2 million in financial penalties.
www.gobankingrates.com...



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 05:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Let is all play out?

Its already game over. The end.

So now what I'm picking up on in here the argument is he broke a bunch of other laws, but not campaign stuff, and they "made" him plead guilty for the campaign stuff instead of other stuff?

FFS he paid $2,000,000 he ought to be able to get away with murder, practically, for that much money.


Its not over... if this goes to the SC it will be over turned...

This is a Pandora box just waiting to open...

Things don't make sense, many politicians that actually used campaign funds for private use get off with their hands slapped. I bet the 2 million was for tax evasion...he was a tax lawyer BTW...
edit on 13-12-2018 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 06:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Propagandalf

IF HE DIDNT BREAK ANY LAWS THEN WHY HAVE TO PLEA BARGAIN?


May I suggest that you check out the Innocence Project? There you will find scores if not hundreds of people who have have taken a plea bargain for a crime they didn't commit. You can also hear their various reasons for doing so.



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Propagandalf

Hahahahahahaha!!!!!

It's obvious this is the new Trump defense. Oops, I'm implicated in a crime, tell the sycophants that lick up all my # that it's not a crime, they will buy it.

I give Trump this, he understands how to manipulate the minds of morons.

Seriously though, you guys are taking the side of a documented liar over that of prosecutors in the SDNY that are not only republican but interviewed and appointed by Donald Trump himself. I guess the Democrats and the deep state got into the heads of people loyal to Trump himself.

What's next are you guys going to believe that Donald Trump's personal fixer of 12 years who had a prominent role in the 2016 campaign and on many high profile Trump organization projects is just a nobody that Trump only hired because he did him a favor. Oh, wait......

Anyone who believes this drivel is pathetic. Absolutely weak minded and moronic. You are being told what to believe and you aren't even fighting back.

What's worse, is that some of you actually think you are smart. Visiting this site is now just a real-world example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Dunning-Kruger



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal

Sorry, but your appeals to emotion and ridicule don't work on me.

If you're tired of contrary views, I'm sure there are some safe-havens of thought out there that will confirm your fantasies, and even pat you on the back while you're at it. Some even have applause signs just in case you forget to clap.



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 06:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Xtrozero

Not only did he go to prison, he also paid the court $2,000,000.

Let is all play out?

Its already game over. The end.

So now what I'm picking up on in here the argument is he broke a bunch of other laws, but not campaign stuff, and they "made" him plead guilty for the campaign stuff instead of other stuff?

FFS he paid $2,000,000 he ought to be able to get away with murder, practically, for that much money.


You are doing good work here, but it's a lost cause. The moment that these individuals decided to grab onto the Trump explanation it was over. Nothing will convince them otherwise at this point. You see, they desperately want something to fit their bias and this does it in spades. The deep state (even though the prosecutors were appointed by Trump) is out to get Trump anyway they can and this explanation of a none-crime fits their bias perfectly.

Honestly, there is no way to convince a person to follow logic if their opening argument is unhinged from reality. Just let it go, you can't convince someone who wants to believe a lie that they are believing in a lie, it is impossible. Consider the Hillary email subject. Even though it has been investigated twice already and nothing has come of it, it is still one of the most discussed subjects on this site. Then consider the Trump-Russia ties that are still being investigated. If those prove to be true and by all the evidence currently known to the public it sure appears to be heading in that direction, would be a MUCH worse issue. Yet, anytime Trump/Russia is brought up the majority of the users here want nothing more than to shut it down and call it fake news. However, when Hillary emails are brought up you would think it was the first news of Pearl Harbor or 9/11.

Bottom line is that their bias is far to strong to be overcome by anything so mundane as logic and reason. The only reason I am still here is hoping that there are at least a few not too far gone that will see the logic and reason and realize that they have been controlled.

But, the silver lining is that even though they are a majority on this site they only comprise between 27-30% of the population.



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlackJackal

Seriously though, you guys are taking the side of a documented liar over that of prosecutors in the SDNY that are not only republican but interviewed and appointed by Donald Trump himself.


Sources please.



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal

I knwo. I just watched the Hillary people do it for years.




posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Propagandalf

As I understand it, the hush money was deducted from campaign funds. It wasn't that the payment itself was illegal, it was the use of campaign funds as payment, without disclosure of the payment, that was illegal.

If the money was taken from the campaign funds, it should have been declared, but it wasn't. It was a sneaky 'off the books' use of campaign finances.




top topics



 
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join