Many people currently a part of my opposition, including President Obama & the Dems, have had campaign violations, in some cases for very large sums of money. These are civil cases. They paid a fine & settled. While no big deal, I did not commit a campaign violation!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 5, 2019
५ जानेवारी, २०१९
I didn't do it, but anyway, it's no big deal and Obama did it too.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
५९ टिप्पण्या:
The Democrats are using laws to undermine justice and the rule of law.
If they care about Russian collusion Hillary and Obama would both be in jail.
They don’t.
They just want power.
"while no big deal?"
huh?
Actually - Obama's campaign violations were a big deal.
Law is just another prog tool.
Trump enforces comparisons on the matter if you're going to talk about it.
At least one sailor prosecuted for taking a picture on his submarine tried the "Hillary did it too, and worse" defense. IIRC the judge said, Nope, doesn't work for the little man.
Trump is far from the little man. But substitute non-friend of the left and the same applies.
There’s different rules for lefties, Mr. President
JAORE said...
“At least one sailor prosecuted for taking a picture on his submarine tried the "Hillary did it too, and worse" defense. IIRC the judge said, Nope, doesn't work for the little man.“
The obviously lawless nature of the Democrats and the demand for different application of law based on party affiliation is the biggest problem in our country right now.
They are not here in good faith. You cannot have a country run on the rule of law when half the people in it only want to use the law to gain power over the other half.
They will have to be stopped.
There are civil and criminal campaign violations. Obama was sloppy with bookkeeping and was heavily fined for it. Making a payment in kind to the campaign without reporting it (especially if it was not directly Trump's personal money, and that point is still unclear), e.g., paying off a porn star and playboy model to not talk about alleged affairs, is a felony.
When democrats break laws, it's not big deal.
They are not here in good faith. You cannot have a country run on the rule of law when half the people in it only want to use the law to gain power over the other half.
So what are you getting at, campaign finance violations shouldn't be prosecuted at all? If you are really concerned about the unequal application of laws, then you would care that poor people, when confronted by the criminal (or even misdemeanor) justice system the deck is stacked against them.
And what is Hillary's alleged collusion with the Russians? Putin has already stated publicly that he wanted Trump to win.
When democrats break laws, it's not big deal.
Just because you make a statement, doesn't make it true.
According to von Spakovsky, who served two years on the FEC and is considered pretty sound on this stuff, Trump didn't criminally violate current law.
In fact, Obama's campaign did violate current law.
High on Pelosi's agenda is to reform current campaign finance law to make what Trump did illegal, so she says. But, ex post facto laws are unconstitutional. Doesn't this suggest Trump didn't criminally violate current law.
I'm having difficulty understanding why the Orange Man is Bad on this tweet. Inartful, sure. Coarse, well, ..., by the it-is-not-okay-to-call-MS-13-animals standard, yes. But, the guy didn't write for the law review. Giuliani's got his hands full.
Freder Frederson said... (in response to ) When democrats break laws, it's not big deal.
Just because you make a statement, doesn't make it true.
So, FF? are you saying it's NOT True? 'cause i heard from this guy:
Freder Frederson said...
Obama was sloppy with bookkeeping and was heavily fined for it
that a democrat, DID break a law, and that it wasn't a big deal. So, (at least) one of you are Full of it? Is it you? FF? Or is it you? FF?
Recently Freder was on these boards lying thru his teeth about every single finding and result of the Bundy Trial.
Every single finding.
Field Marshall Freder does this quite frequently hoping no obe actually looks up the facts.
Unfortunately for him and Inga and LLR Chuck and the other smear merchant lefties, the Althouse commentariat is quite a bit more sophisticated than LLR Chuck's crew over at Media Matters or MSNBC.
According to von Spakovsky, who served two years on the FEC and is considered pretty sound on this stuff, Trump didn't criminally violate current law.
Why don't you provide a link for this assertion. If you do that I will supply plenty of links to refute his argument and show how Trump may have committed a campaign law felony.
The salient facts are whether the payments were made for the purpose of influencing the campaign (i.e., if he weren't running for President he would have told the two accusers "go fuck yourselves, I'm not giving you a penny"). Even if he can maintain that bullshit argument, there is still the problem of where the money came from. Apparently, he was too cheap to use his own money and had Cohn make the payment the payment to Daniels and the national enquirer paid the other woman for her story and then buried. Whether or not he repaid either is unclear, and if he did repay them he still didn't report the contribution to the campaign or even if he did pay them directly out of his personal (not business or foundation) funds that may not be good enough.
that a democrat, DID break a law, and that it wasn't a big deal. So, (at least) one of you are Full of it? Is it you? FF? Or is it you? FF?
As I explained above (and apparently you can't get it through your thick skull), Obama's violations were civil in nature and his campaign paid a hefty fine.
The payment by Trump may violate the criminal portion of campaign finance law.
Too bad Simon isn't around any more. Even he could explain the difference between civil and criminal law to you.
A candidate meets up with a dozen friends on the campaign trail. They all eat together. No matter how the bill is handled, campaign finance laws are broken. That's a feature of the law not a bug
Trump paid hush money to a hooker. Never been done previously by a politician, especially a Democrat (not named Kennedy), right?
Ask Bill, Hillary, and current Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe about Yah-Lin "Charlie" Trie, and Johnny Chung if you want to see some 1st class campaign violations. Then check on how Clinton approved missile technology transfers to China for his domestic campaign donors who headed up Loral Space & Communications. Today, China is pointing missiles at us and landing probes on the dark side of the moon with stolen technology.
But Trump paid hush money to a hooker. While classless, it's not even in the same book as the Clintons and Obama taking boatloads of foreign money during their campaigns.
Freder Frederson said...
that a democrat, DID break a law, and that it wasn't a big deal.
As I explained above (and apparently you can't get it through your thick skull),
(that a democrat, DID break a law, and that it wasn't a big deal
yes FF, it Has got through my thick skull, that you KEEP explaining how (and i'm quoting):
"a democrat, DID break a law, and that it wasn't a big deal"
What Hasn't got through my thick skull is Why You keep repeating it?
Jaore,
I think PDJT pardoned the sailor
John Henry
If paying off women you want to shut up, so you get reelected, needs to be reported, all the Congress critters doing so with a slush fund of taxpayers money are guilty. Along with the speaker of the house that approved the payments.
"a democrat, DID break a law, and that it wasn't a big deal"
A large fine was paid, and that fact has been used by Trump to obfuscate the details of his alleged violation.
So I would say it was a big deal.
McCain and Obama both committed campaign violations.
So, did Clinton, but since he broke 20 other laws, no one remembers.
The late Jack Kemp committed one Campaign violation after another. No one said a word. He just paid the massive fines.
Notice how Mueller has dropped off the radar?
The Press doesn't need him anymore, now that Pelosi is speaker.
So I guess all the publications that didn't run stories on Lewinsky back in the day, should be in jail.
Rcocean: yeah. It's time to get comfortable when the great white submerges below the waves.
Mueller extended his DC grand jury for another 6 months. He filed late friday. I think the last day he could have gotten an extension.
"Actually - Obama's campaign violations were a big deal."
-- We'll never really know since he fired the IG investigating them and claimed the man was senile.
"Obama was sloppy with bookkeeping and was heavily fined for it. Making a payment in kind to the campaign without reporting it (especially if it was not directly Trump's personal money, and that point is still unclear), e.g., paying off a porn star and playboy model to not talk about alleged affairs, is a felony."
-- Actually, it is NOT a felony, as we saw Edwards and Clinton both do the same thing and not face criminal penalties. We also don't know if Obama was sloppy or did it deliberately, as one of the IGs who was investigating misuse of money was fired, and the investigation into why Obama's campaign removed online verification, etc. was hobbled by the administration. Considering they accepted payments from places openly listed as foreign and fictitious, "sloppy," is being deliberately over generous.
"Just because you make a statement, doesn't make it true."
-- Then how come Abedin, Clinton, Mills, their IT team and various other members of Clinton's campaign faced no penalties for lying to the FBI, while the one guy who the FBI agreed didn't lie to them IS facing charges for lying to them?
The problem is that -- sorry, yes -- favored members of the elite DO get preferential treatment from the people enforcing the laws. It is why Comey will never face criminal prosecution for stealing files from the government and distributing them to the news, despite admitting that he gave at least one classified document away.
"The salient facts are whether the payments were made for the purpose of influencing the campaign (i.e., if he weren't running for President he would have told the two accusers "go fuck yourselves, I'm not giving you a penny")."
-- If that's what you're using, then Obama should be in jail for accepting Germany's use of the Bradenburg gate in one of his campaign rallies since that was a gift from a foreign power directly meant to influence an election -- that is an obvious illegal foreign influence.
Also, it needs to be primarily for the purpose of -- we saw from Edwards (and Clinton before him), that even having the "don't want the wife to know" motivation, even with campaign funds!, you won't be charged or found guilty.
So, this is what we mean by different standards.
We'll never really know since he fired the IG investigating them and claimed the man was senile.
Liar. He did fire an inspector general who was investigating possible corruption in Americorps.
I knew you were lying because an IG would not typically investigate accusations of campaign fraud. That would be the FEC.
Right. Walpin was investigating just an Obama ally accused of misusing money involved with elections, not Obama himself. We'll split the hair, I guess, and say Obama's ethical issues with firing IGs was only indirectly related to his own political influence, not directly.
Blogger Freder Frederson said...
“There are civil and criminal campaign violations. Obama was sloppy with bookkeeping and was heavily fined for it. Making a payment in kind to the campaign without reporting it (especially if it was not directly Trump's personal money, and that point is still unclear), e.g., paying off a porn star and playboy model to not talk about alleged affairs, is a felony.”
Nope. Money ultimately came from Trump, and if Cohen wasn’t repaid (he apparently was), then he, not Trump is the campaign finance violated. Trump, as the candidate, could spend as much money as he wanted on the campaign. AND, for an expense to be a campaign expense, that must be the only use. Not just one of several, but the only one. That means that if Trump could show that there were other reasons for the expense (such as hiding the affair from his wife), it wasn’t a campaign expense. And guess what? Trump can show that he made such expenses before, which were clearly not for the purpose of running for elective office - because he wasn’t running for election at that time.
Some day, someone will go to jail for getting a hair cut and not declaring it as a campaign expenditure.
I don't know you all think the john edwards case helps your argument. Ed ward's was criminally charged and went to trial where he was found not guily
So you don't see how we think Edwards being found not guilty of the same accusation helps our case that what Trump did wasn't illegal?
Like... you don't see how if one person does something, and it was legal for them to do it, that it might mean it was... legal for someone else to do the same?
(And: If you think that one person doing X is legal, but another person in the same situation doing X is illegal... then... that's the *entire problem people are complaining about.*)
Freder Frederson:
It was no big deal, a civil matter, after Obama was actually proved to have broken the law.
Freder Frederson:
Trump committed criminal violations based on my wishes and hopes.
Me:
Man, that Freder Frederson fuck sure is motivated with his reasoning!
P.S.
The campaign finance laws were a terrible idea when that awful stooge, McCain, pushed for them way back when. Jackass W Bush was a stupid fuck for signing that travesty of a terrible law. Basically, all of the things that I said and wrote about those laws back then have come to pass. And further examples of how McCain and all the Bushes were big government Democrats in sheep's clothing.
I think SOME campaign finance law might be a good idea.
I just don't know what it should look like, so, eh.
Matthew Sablan: "Like... you don't see how if one person does something, and it was legal for them to do it, that it might mean it was... legal for someone else to do the same?"
Once you overlay the political parties a liar and willfully blind partisan like Freder Frederson makes sense.
As a Democrat, John Edwards' case offers no help to Republican Donald Trump.
Matthew Sablan:
It was guaranteed to be weaponized by the bureaucracy. So it cannot be a good idea for the minority (in government) to pass such laws. The laws are purely political weapons.
Nope. Money ultimately came from Trump, and if Cohen wasn’t repaid (he apparently was), then he, not Trump is the campaign finance violated. Trump, as the candidate, could spend as much money as he wanted on the campaign. AND, for an expense to be a campaign expense, that must be the only use. Not just one of several, but the only one. That means that if Trump could show that there were other reasons for the expense (such as hiding the affair from his wife), it wasn’t a campaign expense. And guess what? Trump can show that he made such expenses before, which were clearly not for the purpose of running for elective office - because he wasn’t running for election at that time.
Even if Cohen was ultimately repaid out of the personal account of Donald Trump (and I think you are more certain of it than the known facts support), the short term loan could be a campaign violation. Also, you are conveniently forgetting the involvement of the National Enquirer in the other payoff.
Even if it were Trump's personal funds, he didn't report it as a campaign expenditure, which is also a violation (but, granted, probably only a civil fine).
As for Trump's potentially valid affirmative defense of "I would have paid them regardless of whether I was running for president", that is a question of fact for the jury. And it is a good argument, one that Edwards succeeded with. Doesn't mean that what he did could not, in good faith, justify an indictment.
Like... you don't see how if one person does something, and it was legal for them to do it, that it might mean it was... legal for someone else to do the same?
You really have no idea how a criminal trial works, do you?
Next you'll be telling me that OJ didn't kill his wife and Ron Goldman. A "not guilty" verdict means that the government couldn't prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt (or hell, it can even mean that the jury thinks the government proved its case but that they just didn't want to find the person guilty). It doesn't mean the charge was invalid or even that the person did not commit it.
Now if we want to talk criminal campaign finance violations, we don’t have to look any further than his opponent, Crooked Hillary. A heavily documented complaint was made to the FEC arguing a massive scheme to commit campaign finance violations. They showed almost $100 million in illegal contributions. But it got stuck there. The FEC is supposed to have 6 members, 3 from each party. They are confirmed as pairs, one from each party. Currently there only 4 members. The Dems have failed, for a substantial period of time now, to nominate a replacement. A quorum (4 votes) is required to accept cases, which means that a single member can block cases by refusing to accept the case, as has apparently been the case. There is a provision in the law that the federal district court in DC can force the FEC to act. The suit to force them to act has been tied up there on a motion to dismiss for lack of standing since July. Of course, if the plaintiffs there don’t have standing, then that probably means that no one does (except maybe the DoJ), and the provision providing for suit against the FEC to force it to act is essentially a nullify.
Here is how the scheme worked. A Supreme Court case allows for single contributions for a joint campaign fund, which in this case included the DNC and 37-40 state parties. The state parties then transferred the money they received to the DNC, which then gave it to Clinton’s campaign. Thus, one person could almost legally contribute almost $100k to Clinton (double if married). It might have been marginally legal if checks had been flying around. But they mostly weren’t. Instead, all these transactions apparently just moved money from one account to another at the same bank. Turns out the 37-40 state parties, as well as the DNC, had authorized the Clinton campaign to make this sort of financial transactions for them. This allowed one person to make up to 41 transactions transferring money to the 40 committees, then 40 transactions sending the money back to the DNC, and finally 1 transaction to send it to the Clinton campaign, all sitting at his terminal, likely at Clinton headquarters in NYC. Already highly illegal, since these entities (DNC, 40 state parties, and the Clinton campaign) were acting in concert. But making it worse legally - apparently corners were cut, with them cutting the state parties out of the loop, and transferring the money straight from the joint campaign fund to either the DNC or the Clinton campaign. This was exposed because the state parties have to disclose their end of these transactions and didn’t - presumably because they didn’t know. After all, they weren’t going to keep any of the money anyway, so why bother keeping the bookkeeping straight and up to date? The FEC and DC District Court complaints have documented, in extensive spreadsheets, roughly $90 million in illegal transactions.
One of the big problems here is that the DNC was financially dependent upon the Clinton campaign for their daily operating expenses. Because of that, they had ceded control over their finances to the Clinton campaign. This made the DNC an alter ego for the Clinton campaign. And giving up control over these monies by the state Dem parties, made Clinton’s campaign their alter ego too. The result is that Crooked Hillary, numerous members of her campaign, the DNC chair, and the chairs of 40 state Dem parties all committed campaign finance violations.
Oh, and USA Preet Bahara in the SDNY sent fellow Indian American Dinesh D’Sousa to prison for five months for essentially an illegal $5k contribution to the losing Senate campaign of a classmate of his when they were at Dartmouth together. This was roughly 1/20,000 of what Crooked Hillary and her campaign have been documented to have done.
Matthew Sablan said...
So you don't see how we think Edwards being found not guilty of the same accusation helps our case that what Trump did wasn't illegal?
Edwards' case does NOT help Trump at all.
1. Edwards was indicted and tried, for what Trump claims wasn't a crime at all.
2. Edwards lucked out with his hung jury. He escaped by the skin of his fabulously-whitened teeth. I don't think that there is any skin left on those teeth.
3. The case against Trump is obviously and clearly stronger than the Edwards claim. The Trump case features:
a. A cooperating witness (Cohen); the Edwards case had no such witness because Bunny Mellon was incompetent to testify.
b. A far more direct relationship in time and proximity to the election.
c. Far less of an explanation of any alternative explanation for the payoff. (Apart from electioneering, that is.)
d. A paper (and digital) trail that did not exist with the Edwards case. Documenting the parties' (illegal) motivations, apart from the mere check-records of payments.
e. And the kicker, I think, may be that there could be audio recordings of Cohen, Trump, Pecker and others in which they are discussing the payoffs, which would have been a prosecutor's dream come true in the Edwards case.
d.
Bruce Hayden said...
Now if we want to talk criminal campaign finance violations, we don’t have to look any further than his opponent, Crooked Hillary...
Sounds to me like you are onto some high crimes and misdemeanors. I think you should write to your congressman about impeaching President Hillary Clinton. No, wait;...
Now if we want to talk criminal campaign finance violations, we don’t have to look any further than his opponent, Crooked Hillary.
Well, let's just change the subject.
Motivated reasoning and Chuck's tiny fake-lawdog-penis gets hard.
Not cool.
Let me add that the $90 million isn’t the amount laundered by this scheme by Crooked Hillary and her campaign, but the amount where they apparently cut corners and didn’t properly document the transactions. For example, the joint campaign fund might show $X being transferred to each of the state parties, and then later that day, or the next, $X coming back to the DNC for each of the state parties. But the state parties wouldn’t show these transactions in their own filings. Some have suggested that hundreds of millions, maybe the bulk of the $2 billion she raised, wase raised this way, where the paperwork was properly filed all around.
Did they every trace the hundred million dollars in unmarked donations?
paying off a porn star and playboy model to not talk about alleged affairs, is a felony. - Freder
That is the biggest, steaming pile of shit you've ever written. And you've written a lot of steaming piles.
That is the biggest, steaming pile of shit you've ever written. And you've written a lot of steaming piles.
Well if you selectively quote me and leave off the first half of the sentence where I described what the crime is, it sure sounds like a steaming pile of shit. But I was very careful to detail what the alleged crime is. Go back and read the post again and tell me what about it is incorrect.
You get an "F" for reading comprehension.
"Well, let's just change the subject."
My point was that going after Trump like this is the height of hypocrisy, with his opponent clearly violating campaign finance laws probably for at least 1,000x as much money.
The rubes (Chuck and Freder Frederson) are spun up by the porn images dancing in the heads.
Perp walks and frog marches are an odd fetish.
But some people elevate politics to unseemly levels.
When your respective moms find your respective socks, they will - each of them - be disgusted.
I keep imagining the fuss if Trump's campaign had paid off his mistresses and it had been declared as a campaign expense.
Leora,
That is an apt point that deserves repeating.
Trump would have been committing an campaign finance infraction - without doubt - had he paid from campaign funds.
That leaves the potential prosecutor's theory as: this information must be public and you cannot prevent the release. Preventing the release of information is a crime. That flies in the face of logic and the Constitution.
But Leftists of all stripes, including LLR fake lawyers, do not care.
Freder, paying people off to shut them up is what corporations with a brand image do on a daily basis, whether or not there is an election involved, much to the delight of Jesse Jackson.
"... paying off a porn star and playboy model to not talk about alleged affairs, is a felony."
I doubt it, but it probably is a crime to demand such payment.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा