PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Lucifer on April 16, 2018, 04:41:26 AM
-
Excellent read!
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/04/15/special_prosecutorial_abuse_136813.html
So, he’s the victim, albeit not a very sympathetic one, right? Nope. The Justice Department reportedly seized Cohen’s files on the grounds that paying these women off in 2016 was some sort of election finance violation. That’s a legal theory so pedantic, so goofy, really, that one would think it came from Twitter -- or whatever online listserv replaced the notorious “journo-list” chatroom where liberal members of the media and Democratic Party operatives exchanged talking points. So let’s put this down there where the goats can get it: When a married man who is worth several billion dollars funnels a couple of hundred grand through his lawyer to two women threatening to rat him out for past indiscretions, that’s not a campaign contribution. That’s common sense.
-
The theory being advanced is that the payoff was an item of value which benefited the president and is therefore a de factor contribution to his campaign. They are wrong. Proof is that under their theory, an organization like MoveOn.org can hold a registration drive (clearly an item of value to a candidate), but a private citizen could not. BUT, MoveOn.org is a registered organization which is restricted in activities, which means they are proposing to restrict private citizens more than a 529 organization? No, they are wrong.
-
Let's be clear.
The special prosecutor, the DNC and their slaves in the media are dirty as a crack dealer in front of a junior high.
This is just more proof.
-
Sorry, I called this a long way back.
-
I listened to the former head of the FEC the other day comment on how the SC was trying to link a pay out in a NDA as a "campaign contribution" or say it violated election laws.
He said it was laughable on it's face and an extreme stretch to even try to link the two.
Here's where we are today: Mueller has nothing. He has searched everything, gone all over the world and found.....nothing. The latest side show with Cohen is just that, a side show and a distraction. Even trying to link Hannity is downright laughable.
18 months before the President was elected the dems, along with the establishment tried to dig dirt on the President, and they came up empty handed. Since the election the FBI and Mueller have tried to dig dirt on the President, and have failed. So far Mueller and Rosenstein have over stepped their jurisdiction in the Cohen raid and have trampled Attorney-Client privileged. This was a desperation move.
Rest assured they will gleam some nuggets from Cohens private, and privileged records to leak to the media during the mid terms and 2020 campaign.
-
Here is Andrew C. McCarthy's take from National Review:
Consequently, even before the raids, the court authorized the FBI and prosecutors to search various email accounts maintained by Cohen. While the government reports that “zero emails were exchanged [by Cohen] with President Trump,” the existence of this monitoring means prosecutors long ago had to implement procedures to safeguard the A-C privilege.
The raids, then, are almost beside the point. The investigation is apparently far along, a grand jury is considering evidence, and the revelation that the probe is largely unrelated to Cohen’s law practice makes sense since he doesn’t appear to have much of one.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/michael-cohen-raid-least-of-his-problems/
Essentially he's arguing that this may not be related to the Trump investigation at all but rather a separate investigation into Cohen. It's a good read and he discusses his dismay with the outing of Hannity as a client of Cohen's.
-
Sorry, I called this a long way back.
Called what? That the president might be guilty of something he apparently had no knowledge of? Cohen says the president did not know about the arrangement. I don't know what the president has said about it, I cannot recall anything.
My Leftie friends are trying to make this out to be like John Edwards. But the critical difference is that John Edwards had full knowledge of what was going on. Today the foam mouthed Democrats are insisting that the president "accepted" a campaign contribution even if he didn't know money was being spent on his behalf.
I think that's great - it means that any Democrat that we want to get rid of in the future, all we have to do is get someone to spend a lot of money on their behalf and not tell them all the details about it. It becomes a contribution-in-kind to their campaign and they get convicted of campaign fraud. I'm sure that isn't the atmosphere the Democrats are trying to create, but it is IS what they are accomplishing.
-
Sorry, I called this a long way back.
The great prognosticator of bullshit speaks again....
-
Called what?
That his hush money to his porn star squeeze could run afoul of campaign contribution statues. That's what prompted this whole thing, which by the way was authorized by a very recent Trump appointee. And if you want to tell me that his personal lawyer, working from a Trump campaign office using Trump campaign stationary did something unrelated to Trump's campaign, well good luck with that. Might work on a message board, but it won't go very far with judges or lawyers. Trump could well be in some deep do do over this. Sadly, once again it isn't the crime, but the cover up. If Trump had just let his porn start sing to her heart's content it wouldn't have mattered. We already knew about him and women, no one was even surprised at the revelation.
-
The great prognosticator of bullshit speaks again....
What goes: vroooom-schreech, vrooom-schreech, vroooom-schreech?
Number 7 at a flashing red light.
-
That his hush money to his porn star squeeze could run afoul of campaign contribution statues. That's what prompted this whole thing, which by the way was authorized by a very recent Trump appointee. And if you want to tell me that his personal lawyer, working from a Trump campaign office using Trump campaign stationary did something unrelated to Trump's campaign, well good luck with that. Might work on a message board, but it won't go very far with judges or lawyers. Trump could well be in some deep do do over this. Sadly, once again it isn't the crime, but the cover up. If Trump had just let his porn start sing to her heart's content it wouldn't have mattered. We already knew about him and women, no one was even surprised at the revelation.
You’re parroting liberal talking points, again, with no basis in reality.
A former head of the FEC stated trying to link what a personal attorney (Cohen) did in regards to a legal executed NDA to campaign finance is an impossible stretch.
Mueller has nothing and is attempting to bully a lawyer (yes, Cohen is a real attorney) into turning on his client. Mueller and Rosenstein have destroyed attorney-client privilege with their heavy handed gestapo tactics.
-
What goes: vroooom-schreech, vrooom-schreech, vroooom-schreech?
Number 7 at a flashing red light.
Steingar, you are one of the intellectually delayed.
You have such a gift for junior high level, ignorance.
It's got to be a progressive disease...
I bet you get embarrassed going to the toilet.
-
That his hush money to his porn star squeeze could run afoul of campaign contribution statues. That's what prompted this whole thing, which by the way was authorized by a very recent Trump appointee. And if you want to tell me that his personal lawyer, working from a Trump campaign office using Trump campaign stationary did something unrelated to Trump's campaign, well good luck with that. Might work on a message board, but it won't go very far with judges or lawyers. Trump could well be in some deep do do over this. Sadly, once again it isn't the crime, but the cover up. If Trump had just let his porn start sing to her heart's content it wouldn't have mattered. We already knew about him and women, no one was even surprised at the revelation.
"Coverup"
The NDA itself is not a coverup, it was a contract. If this is determined to have been a contribution in kind to the president's campaign, it is not a coverup, it is a campaign finance violation.
The fact is, you don't know the fact and you're just spouting hatred. I would have thought you better than this. And BTW, leave #7 alone to play with himself, it's what he likes best.
-
"Coverup"
A great example of a "coverup" is when you have a subpeano to turn over emails on a private server, emails that are property of the government and fall under the FOIA and were illegally detained. The coverup is when 33,000 of those emails were deleted, the server hard drive is bleach byte and personal devices are destroyed with hammers.
Oh, and BTW, that also falls under "obstruction of justice".
-
What do you say to Number 7 when he's dressed in a three piece suit?
The defendant may rise.
-
At least you two children have each other to lie to, make up bullshit and pretend to feel important, when you're really, REALLY impotent....