The Left Make Giuliani & POTUS Trump Guilty with Campaign Finance Violation Before Facts are Known.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The only posts that contain the words "claim Giuliani and POTUS Trump must be guilty" are yours.

Does that make you a DHUNDUNDAAA Lefty?

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Wrong again Phage.

Your source doesn't say anyone, including the president can be impeached after leaving office. Each of the answers is quite vague on the matter. Mostly saying, "what's the point?"

Since impeachment is the only process by which a person can be barred from holding office in the future, it's conceivably possible that Congress could pursue impeachment if they felt this was a necessary punishment. If this ever happened, the courts might have to decide whether it was legal.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Lumenari

I'm not sure why Hillary isn't in jail ... Mr. Twump pwomised and all ... and we all know he always delivers, MAGA.

You really should get your facts straight ... the FEC has no jurisdiction in 52 USC §  30121. I realize all this must be confusing.

I was addressing the two different things that the left is pushing right now as far as campaign violations.

I listed both.

AS far as the charge here, Trump never spent the funds... they were put in a separate fund so that they could be investigated because it looked shady.

So are you saying he should be charged for not accepting the money?

Just wondering, since the story seems to change every day with y'all and it's hard to keep up.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Lumenari

PFFfft ... "one side follows the law" ...

That's a good one ... I didn't know there was going to be a comedy portion.

I'm predicting you're going to have a very unhappy Christmas...

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

when lefties like yourself still believe that Hillary won,

She got more popular votes, so yes, she "won."

By whose process ?
Yours ?

a reply to: Lumenari

Point to me on the website where information is considered a thing of value.

You show me the law you are talking about.

Show me where information is *not* a thing of value. A law.

§30121. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
(a) Prohibition

It shall be unlawful for-

(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-

(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;

(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or

(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

Contribution of money *or* thing of value.

Where does the law say information is *not* a thing of value?

Link

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

when lefties like yourself still believe that Hillary won,

She got more popular votes, so yes, she "won."

By whose process ?
Yours ?

Reality.

originally posted by: Liquesence

It's not "freely given" if it's coerced. Or if it's implicit or explicit that there are conditions or consequences to receiving it.

Or if it's conditioned on money.

Humm, so again... You are claiming that in July 2019 the POTUS bribed the Ukranians, even though we have the transcript of the call and nowhere does he coerced, or forced them for that information.

Not only that, but the Ukranians were trying to give the Trump administration the evidence of corruption since 2018 FREELY and you want to continue claiming the POTUS had to coerce them in July 2019?...

By John Solomon, opinion contributor — 04/07/19 07:30 AM EDT



Ukrainian law enforcement officials believe they have evidence of wrongdoing by American Democrats and their allies in Kiev, ranging from 2016 election interference to obstructing criminal probes. But, they say, they’ve been thwarted in trying to get the Trump Justice Department to act.

Kostiantyn Kulyk, deputy head of the Prosecutor General’s International Legal Cooperation Department, told me he and other senior law enforcement officials tried unsuccessfully since last year to get visas from the U.S. Embassy in Kiev to deliver their evidence to Washington.

“We were supposed to share this information during a working trip to the United States,” Kulyk told me in a wide-ranging interview. “However, the [U.S.] ambassador blocked us from obtaining a visa. She didn’t explicitly deny our visa, but also didn’t give it to us.”
...

Ukrainian to US prosecutors: Why don't you want our evidence on Democrats?

That U.S. ambassador whom tried to stop the Ukranian authorities from bringing evidence of the DNC/Obama/Biden corruption had been given her job by Obama, and her name is Marie Yovanovitch. The same Yovanovich that the Trump administration had to remove because she was/is part of the swamp and was trying to stop the Ukranian authorities from bringing the evidence of the DNC/Obama/Biden corruption to the U.S.

a reply to: thedigirati

Does it matter when they said it? They are saying that regardless of facts which haven't been presented yet, they will acquit Trump.

Why don't you tell me what fallacy you think I've committed in stating a bare fact. Are you saying it's false equivalence?

The charge was using Congressional power for purely political purposes ... are you saying that it's wrong when the Democrats do it but okie-dokie when Republicans do the SAME thing?

Maybe think on this one a bit more ...

a reply to: Lumenari

Now now, don't sidestep and try to inject nonsense ... were you confused as other posters seem to be about the difference between the FEC and the Federal Judicial system? Between criminal and civil law? If you were just tell us.

We'll understand.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

and her name is Marie Yovanovitch.

She's the one who spent 10 hours talking to Congress today. Right?
Maybe someone asked her about that.

originally posted by: Phage

Your source doesn't say anyone, including the president can be impeached after leaving office. Each of the answers is quite vague on the matter. Mostly saying, "what's the point?"

The point is you, the left, know that Trump would win more so if your left-wing media and deep state actors didn't try to use LIES to stop him from becoming POTUS again. The point is, POTUS Trump has brought jobs back that Obama himself claimed "were not coming back" and later he claimed "those jobs came back because of me (Obama)."

The point is none of you, the left, wanted Trump for POTUS and instead you all have been using lies, from the Russians none-the-less, to depose the duly elected POTUS, and none of you want him as POTUS again in 2020 despite the fact that the nation is better because of Trump.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Humm, so again... You are claiming that in July 2019 the POTUS bribed the Ukranians

Where did I say that?

even though we have the transcript of the call and nowhere does he coerced, or forced them for that information

He conditioned military aid on political dirt. Fact. The WH released the summary. Don't play stupid or try to spin it.

The article you quoted and linked is an opinion piece. Opinion.

Pay attention.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

despite the fact that the nation is better because of Trump.

You are welcome to your opinion, but I thought the point was illegal campaign contributions.

a reply to: Phage

BTW Phage, the thread is about the FACT that the left-wing media have already ruled that Giuliani and POTUS Trump are once again guilty BEFORE the evidence was even presented in a non-biased court.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Campaign Finance Violations are not a big deal. A "civil" infraction vs. criminal.

Barack Hussein Obama paid a $375,000 fine and nobody noticed or cared.

Obama Paid Biggest C.V. Fine Ever: www.politico.com...

Where'd you go CWM? Your "side" needs a boost.

I think it may have to do with "false equivalents" or something. Or maybe rabid ignorance.

Hard to say.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse
All the propaganda and brainwashing currently going on in the media I find to be very despicable and disgusting. Left, right, center, pick you poison, it’s all garbage in, garbage out anymore.

What I find to be even more disappointing though, is the lack of acknowledgement that the general public has in realizing we’re being taken for a ride. The deceit and manipulation has become so blatantly apparent, especially in the MSM, yet, a very large portion of the general public seems oblivious to it all and I’m talking about people that I always thought to be of reasonable intelligence and capable of critical thinking.

If there’s anything that I’ve learned as of recent, it’s that a lot of people aren’t as smart as I’d given them credit for in the past. I read stuff posted here and often think how in the eff did they ever come to that conclusion, it certainly wasn’t from any proper form of deductive reasoning I don’t think. I wish more people would start questioning the info that’s being fed to us instead of taking it as gospel. Sadly, the media has become our worst enemy.

a reply to: mtnshredder

You are 100% right, but those people don't see through their own hypocrisy and double standards.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: mtnshredder

You are 100% right, but those people don't see through their own hypocrisy and double standards.

What bittersweet irony ...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

BTW Phage, the thread is about the FACT that the left-wing media have already ruled that Giuliani and POTUS Trump are once again guilty BEFORE the evidence was even presented in a non-biased court.

I haven't seen that Trump has been implicated in connection with the arrests in any media, including the article linked in your OP. But the article does provide some details about the indictment. And it seems Barr approved of the investigation.