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: 5
22
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

Sure, but the vast majority of those are people who could not afford a competent defence..not the case here.
The guy is guilty..get over it.




posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 06:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlackJackal
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


Dude... seek counseling?

I've been trained a little on mental health issues in the workplace and the signs...

You need help.

OH!!!

And your concerns are entirely justified, your emotional outburst makes complete sense and you are right... the world appears to be against you.

~backing up to get the tranquilizer gun~



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: diggindirt

Sure, but the vast majority of those are people who could not afford a competent defence..not the case here.
The guy is guilty..get over it.


He is entirely guilty, true.

Still no idea what it has to do with Trump though...

Care to link a law Trump violated here?




posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Propagandalf

Also, there's the bit that if a court of law charges and convicts you of a crime, then by definition it is a crime according to that court.

It's a done deed and a real crime. You can't just pretend that courts 'make stuff up' as Trump suggests.

There is established and recorded statutory law, a body of precedent and the decision of a judge, a jury or both, in accordance with legal procedure.

No amount of insistence that black is white will make it so.

edit on 13/12/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 06:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
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.


But it wasn’t a campaign expenditure. That’s the entire premise of Brian Smith.



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 06:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: chr0naut
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.


But it wasn’t a campaign expenditure. That’s the entire premise of Brian Smith.


If it wasn't a campaign expense, then campaign finances should not have been used, right? You see how that works?



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

I don't believe I mentioned Trump?



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 06:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: chr0naut
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.


But it wasn’t a campaign expenditure. That’s the entire premise of Brian Smith.


If it wasn't a campaign expense, then campaign finances should not have been used, right? You see how that works?


Your assumption is that he used campaign funds.



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 06:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: chr0naut
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.


But it wasn’t a campaign expenditure. That’s the entire premise of Brian Smith.


If it wasn't a campaign expense, then campaign finances should not have been used, right? You see how that works?

You keep saying he used campaign money. Cite?
Here is a cite from the former head of the Federal Election Comission who says it isn't a campaign contribution.

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



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 07:07 PM
link   
And from my site, take this: (emphasis mine)



JARRETT: No, it turns criminal law on its head. It's upside down. First of all, he pled guilty to a non-crime. People actually do that all the time in a plea bargain agreement in which, you know, the prosecutors say you're going to spend the next 50 years behind bars, but if you plead to what we want you to plead to, yes, we'll let you out in two or three years, you can have a life to see your kids and your wife.

So people oftentimes will plead guilty to things they didn't do or non- crimes because that's what prosecutors want them to do. I've always objected to flipping witnesses and so forth under pressure because it's nothing more than bribery and extortion. In this particular case, I talked to two or three different election law experts, one of which spent most of his career at the Department of Justice doing election law and he laughed and he said, "Cohen pled guilty to two non-crimes." He said, there's no possible way that what he did and what Trump did is criminal.



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 07:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Propagandalf
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.


Dude, I realized after about our second conversation that you are absolutely ecstatic being told what to believe. I don't believe there is anything in this world or the next that would undo your brainwashing. You're the type that constantly listens to right-wing talk radio with Rush and you can't wait for Hannity and Carlson at night and in between you fill up on infoWars and Brietbart. You are quick to believe any conspiracy theory, which this is, because you are that damn gullible. You have never once presented me with anything resembling a reasonable "contrary view". The best you have been able to muster are views that would make the unabomber embarrassed.

Here I am going to spell out how damn gullible you are to your face and I guarantee you will not get it. There is no way you have the brain power for it.

So in this case, the prosecutor was personally interviewed and appointed by Trump last year. They have been conducting this investigation since late last year. They have evidence to back up everything Cohen told them and they laid those crimes out in court.

Michael Cohen is also an attorney and has been practicing since 1992. He was represented by another lawyer, Lanny Davis, who has been practicing law since 1975. Additionally Lanny Davis ran for and was elected to political office in the 70's.

When the case against Cohen was first brought about Donald Trump was on record defending Michael Cohen, calling him a good man. However, once Michael Cohen decided to work with prosecutors BEFORE we knew what he told them Trump started distancing himself from Cohen and began downplaying any relationship he had with Michael Cohen. Until finally Trump said Cohen didn't do anything of note for the Trump organization and he was only hired because he did him a favor. Cohen worked for Trump for 12 years and even did speeches at campaign rallies, but if you are to believe the Trump story now, he was a nobody. I bet you believe that don't you? Do you like it when Trump tells you what to believe?

So, fast forward to this case. Neither Cohen or his attorney, who have both political and law experience, said anything about these charges not actually being crimes either now or even before he started working with the prosecutors. Wouldn't you think that before he started working with the prosecutors that he would have said "Hey, I'm a lawyer, I know what you are charging me with isn't a crime, that's BS". So neither he, nor his lawyer EVER presented any challenge to the charges. Not only did he never raise any issues with the charges he plead guilty to those charges even knowing it was going to put him in jail for 3-4 years. Don't you think that he would have at the very least attempted that defense if it was viable? Of course he would.

But instead, this is what you believe. Somehow, Clinton, the Democrats, evil Robert Mueller, and the Deep State either all together or some combination of them secretly brainwashed the prosecutors appointed by Trump to come up with false charges to fake crimes against Cohen that will incriminate Trump. Either that or even though Trump appointed those prosecutors at the SDNY were secretly plants by the Deep state that have lived their entire lives as Republicans but have been waiting for this moment to unleash their secret Democrat side. Oh and don't forget about the judge. The judge was also bribed to go along with this whole plan.

Even though that second option is absolutely ludicrous, that is the explanation you are buying into.



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal

Thanks for telling me what I believe. It would have been easier to just ask, but I guess mind reading comes second nature to you. For me, it’s just projection.

Sorry, but I will listen to one of the leading experts in campaign finance law before I even consider the nonsense you spout on the topic.



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: chr0naut
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.


But it wasn’t a campaign expenditure. That’s the entire premise of Brian Smith.


If it wasn't a campaign expense, then campaign finances should not have been used, right? You see how that works?

You keep saying he used campaign money. Cite?
Here is a cite from the former head of the Federal Election Comission who says it isn't a campaign contribution.


Cohen set up a shell company called Resolution Consultants LLC and took out home equity line of credit loan associated with that company. He fraudulently misrepresented his finances in establishing the loan.

He created a bank account called 'Essential Consultants' and drew down $131,000 from the HELOC loan.

Cohen then paid $131,000 from the 'Essential Consultants' account, to the attorney for Stormy Daniels.

Cohen then was reimbursed by the Trump organization but accounted the moneys paid to himself as 'campaign contributions' by the Trump organization.

This meant that on paper, the Trump Organization made a contributions in excess of what it was allowed under campaign rules and also that, as far as anyone was concerned at the time, the money came from campaign funds. He broke several laws in sequence to hide it from a simple audit.

Read the charge sheet

edit on 13/12/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 07:52 PM
link   
I've read the charges... and been listening to all the hub-bub surrounding this. My take:

Based on the financial charges Cohen pleaded guilty to, he's had a lifetime of using opportunities to profit outside the law. He made out like a bandit on the Stormy deal... I forget the exact figure, but he was repaid something like $450K for arranging a $130K payment? That tells me there may indeed be something to the rumors about the taxi medals he was accused of dealing in in the past, which were never mentioned in the charges. I wonder what else was not mentioned?

Based on Mueller's actions towards Papadopoulos and Flynn, it sounds exactly like a prosecutor trying to get dirt on someone higher up. It's a trick almost as old as prosecution itself. If you can't get evidence against the person you want, get those close to him, and promise them an easier sentence in exchange for their help. We know Mueller's team has indeed asked for lighter sentences after pressing charges on individuals connected to Trump, stating they had helped during the investigation. They also did this with Cohen.

So here's the way I see things happening: a couple of high-profile women see Trump running for President, and realize that this is a perfect opportunity to blackmail him. So they set up a deal with a publisher to tell "their story." Cohen finds out and tells Trump, who replies with "fix it." So Cohen does what he does best... he sets up some shell companies, negotiates a deal with Daniels, and then borrows $130K on a house to launder the payment. The private loan puts the money into the private realm and makes sure his companies are not immediately tied to the payments. At this point, it's just a loan as far as anyone knows, although technically it is "money laundering."

Then Cohen pays off Daniels and charges Trump the $130K for legal fees. But he doesn't charge him all at once, because that would look suspicious too. Instead he spreads the payments out over a few months. Trump at this point surely knows that Cohen is negotiating a deal to keep Daniels quiet, but since he would likely have done the same regardless of any election, Cohen tells him everything is legal. Trump believes him... he is a lawyer.

So Trump pays off Cohen and assumes the job is done, legally. Cohen is likely patting himself on the back for making a sweet little chunk of change. But then Avenatti convinces Daniels to come forward in violation of the NDA she signed, and she does, likely because she was told she could make more cash off of Trump. That exposes the one suspicious link left: the amount of Cohen's mortgage matches the payoff for that NDA. That catches Mueller's attention, and he hands off the information to the NYSD. They raid Cohen and seize all his records, passing information back to Mueller.

In the raid, they find plenty of evidence of Cohen's past crimes. So they bring Cohen in, set him under the bright lamp, ad explain that he's looking at enough charges to send him to jail for the rest of his natural life. Cohen gets scared and wants a deal. Sure! He can have a deal. He pleads guilty to a couple of serious crimes to make the raids look legit, and to a charge that can later on be tied to Trump: campaign finance violations. Oh, and he also has to implicate Trump.

Cohen takes the deal... he knows what all he is guilty of. 3 years and losing his license beats the heck out of life in prison.

In the meantime, Trump is under the impression that Cohen really has nothing that bad in his past... probably figured a few transgressions here and there, technicalities probably. Then he finds out Cohen is implicating him because he has this long history of criminal activity. What? So Trump makes his tweets about Cohen just trying to cover his butt... it's true, but Trump would likely have played his hand different had he known just what kind of scum he had been dealing with. He likely wouldn't have even dealt with him had he known... I don't know many people who advertise past criminal behavior to high-profile clients.

So now we see the end game... Mueller investigates anyone and everyone around Trump, and he looks until he can find someone with a storied past... easy enough to do no matter who you're investigating. He tries Flynn... not good enough. He tries Papadopoulos... no, not good enough. He sees Cohen... bingo! So he has the NYSD drop all but a few serious charges, add in a very flimsy charge to implicate Trump, get Cohen to plead guilty, and lo and behold there are no lawyers to argue against the flimsy charges and the judge accepts the deal because he is looking at someone facing major charges who is making what seems to be a reasonable deal.

Just in time for the 2019 House of Representatives to look at the charges, see the implications on Trump, and impeach him on charges that are not just not "infamous," but aren't really even violations! After all, they have the word of Cohen (who plead guilty to one count of lying under oath to Congress) to back them up. No matter; there's no court, no lawyers, in a House impeachment... only a majority of Democratic Representatives voting to overturn a legal democratic election.

This is going to backfire, though. When it does, the resulting pushback from the American people will be etched into the stone of history.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal

You've gone from misinformed to downright nasty.

Somethings changed for you. Got fired ?
Or has the Trump Denial Syndrome completely taken over?

You parrot the MSM lines in every thread and dare to tell other members that they are brainwased..

Your programing is seriously broken.



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 07:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: BlackJackal
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


Dude... seek counseling?

I've been trained a little on mental health issues in the workplace and the signs...

You need help.

OH!!!

And your concerns are entirely justified, your emotional outburst makes complete sense and you are right... the world appears to be against you.

~backing up to get the tranquilizer gun~


Like always, you miss the point lume. I don't want you to believe me, my opinion is just as useful as everyone else, in other words useless. However, I would like people to listen to facts over fiction, but that is a pipe dream around these parts.

Also, thanks for proving my earlier point about Dunning-Kruger. You think since you received an hour worth of PowerPoint slides that you are qualified enough to pick out mental illness.....



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
I've read the charges... and been listening to all the hub-bub surrounding this. My take:

Based on the financial charges Cohen pleaded guilty to, he's had a lifetime of using opportunities to profit outside the law. He made out like a bandit on the Stormy deal... I forget the exact figure, but he was repaid something like $450K for arranging a $130K payment? That tells me there may indeed be something to the rumors about the taxi medals he was accused of dealing in in the past, which were never mentioned in the charges. I wonder what else was not mentioned?

Based on Mueller's actions towards Papadopoulos and Flynn, it sounds exactly like a prosecutor trying to get dirt on someone higher up. It's a trick almost as old as prosecution itself. If you can't get evidence against the person you want, get those close to him, and promise them an easier sentence in exchange for their help. We know Mueller's team has indeed asked for lighter sentences after pressing charges on individuals connected to Trump, stating they had helped during the investigation. They also did this with Cohen.

So here's the way I see things happening: a couple of high-profile women see Trump running for President, and realize that this is a perfect opportunity to blackmail him. So they set up a deal with a publisher to tell "their story." Cohen finds out and tells Trump, who replies with "fix it." So Cohen does what he does best... he sets up some shell companies, negotiates a deal with Daniels, and then borrows $130K on a house to launder the payment. The private loan puts the money into the private realm and makes sure his companies are not immediately tied to the payments. At this point, it's just a loan as far as anyone knows, although technically it is "money laundering."

Then Cohen pays off Daniels and charges Trump the $130K for legal fees. But he doesn't charge him all at once, because that would look suspicious too. Instead he spreads the payments out over a few months. Trump at this point surely knows that Cohen is negotiating a deal to keep Daniels quiet, but since he would likely have done the same regardless of any election, Cohen tells him everything is legal. Trump believes him... he is a lawyer.

So Trump pays off Cohen and assumes the job is done, legally. Cohen is likely patting himself on the back for making a sweet little chunk of change. But then Avenatti convinces Daniels to come forward in violation of the NDA she signed, and she does, likely because she was told she could make more cash off of Trump. That exposes the one suspicious link left: the amount of Cohen's mortgage matches the payoff for that NDA. That catches Mueller's attention, and he hands off the information to the NYSD. They raid Cohen and seize all his records, passing information back to Mueller.

In the raid, they find plenty of evidence of Cohen's past crimes. So they bring Cohen in, set him under the bright lamp, ad explain that he's looking at enough charges to send him to jail for the rest of his natural life. Cohen gets scared and wants a deal. Sure! He can have a deal. He pleads guilty to a couple of serious crimes to make the raids look legit, and to a charge that can later on be tied to Trump: campaign finance violations. Oh, and he also has to implicate Trump.

Cohen takes the deal... he knows what all he is guilty of. 3 years and losing his license beats the heck out of life in prison.

In the meantime, Trump is under the impression that Cohen really has nothing that bad in his past... probably figured a few transgressions here and there, technicalities probably. Then he finds out Cohen is implicating him because he has this long history of criminal activity. What? So Trump makes his tweets about Cohen just trying to cover his butt... it's true, but Trump would likely have played his hand different had he known just what kind of scum he had been dealing with. He likely wouldn't have even dealt with him had he known... I don't know many people who advertise past criminal behavior to high-profile clients.

So now we see the end game... Mueller investigates anyone and everyone around Trump, and he looks until he can find someone with a storied past... easy enough to do no matter who you're investigating. He tries Flynn... not good enough. He tries Papadopoulos... no, not good enough. He sees Cohen... bingo! So he has the NYSD drop all but a few serious charges, add in a very flimsy charge to implicate Trump, get Cohen to plead guilty, and lo and behold there are no lawyers to argue against the flimsy charges and the judge accepts the deal because he is looking at someone facing major charges who is making what seems to be a reasonable deal.

Just in time for the 2019 House of Representatives to look at the charges, see the implications on Trump, and impeach him on charges that are not just not "infamous," but aren't really even violations! After all, they have the word of Cohen (who plead guilty to one count of lying under oath to Congress) to back them up. No matter; there's no court, no lawyers, in a House impeachment... only a majority of Democratic Representatives voting to overturn a legal democratic election.

This is going to backfire, though. When it does, the resulting pushback from the American people will be etched into the stone of history.

TheRedneck


I agree that this is the most likely chain of events but I cannot ultimately see Trump as the innocent.

There we differ but I respect your view.



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 08:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan




The question is, would he have made the payments even if he wasn't running for president?

It doesn't matter before he ran for President what matters is that he made hush money payments when he was running for the highest job in the land.

I find it sad that people don't see the problem with that.


Its hush money. So effing what. Do you think it should be illegal?

If you do, go get the opinions of your congressmen because they use our millions of dollars to pay hush money. Maybe you’d reassess.

Its not sad that people don’t see a problem with Trump paying hush money during a campaign. Its sad that you can’t spot the hypocrisy in this entire ordeal.

In the end, YOU PEOPLE arent going to get your way. TRUMP ISNT GOING ANYWHERE!!



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 08:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: samuelsson
a reply to: BlackJackal

You've gone from misinformed to downright nasty.

Somethings changed for you. Got fired ?
Or has the Trump Denial Syndrome completely taken over?

You parrot the MSM lines in every thread and dare to tell other members that they are brainwased..

Your programing is seriously broken.


Oh nothing has changed. This topic however is no place for logic or reason. It is completely based off refuting reality and replacing it with one that confirms a bias. Come on, Trump said it was not a crime therefore ONE pro-Trump guy writes an op-ed reiterating what Trump said. Then all the little sycophants fall in line.

This is based off the views of one Pro-Trump individual. ONE..... If I came to you with one guys op-ed that said Hillary's emails were completely legal you would RIGHTLY laugh my ass out of here. However, when it confirms your bias, it is the word of God.

When this all comes to a head and Trump is finally thrown down I would pay good money to see the reactions of the people in this thread. You guys have spent so long building up a fantasy world that it's really going to hurt when reality slaps you in the face.



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 08:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: six67seven

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan




The question is, would he have made the payments even if he wasn't running for president?

It doesn't matter before he ran for President what matters is that he made hush money payments when he was running for the highest job in the land.

I find it sad that people don't see the problem with that.


Its hush money. So effing what. Do you think it should be illegal?

If you do, go get the opinions of your congressmen because they use our millions of dollars to pay hush money. Maybe you’d reassess.

Its not sad that people don’t see a problem with Trump paying hush money during a campaign. Its sad that you can’t spot the hypocrisy in this entire ordeal.

In the end, YOU PEOPLE arent going to get your way. TRUMP ISNT GOING ANYWHERE!!


It's illegal because he paid the money out of his campaign account and then laundered the money through shell companies and accounts. It exceeded the limit that he was allowed to spend on a single transaction and the fact that he hid the payments that is why he broke the law. If he would have only paid Stormey Daniels $2700 (I think that is the right amount, not sure) and correctly reported what he was paying her for, he would have been completely legal.

No one forced him to do what he did.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join