Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Right before the campaign, is what matters, plus the fact it wasn't reported, and his tax returns would be turned over in a case like that.ttps://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/07/26/anderson-cooper-trump-cohen-tapes-kth-sot-vpx.cnn
People, at some point, Republicans are going to have to deal with Trump and this "massive" web of deceit, lies, and criminal activity that has taken over the well being of this country. Trump is simply not worth sacrificing 250 years of Constitutional government and the rule of law.
And now, with this additional evidence that couldn't have been more crystal clear in this audio tape of Trump and Cohen, some of their key quotes were as follows: This is Trump; "what financing". Then Cohen after Trump said this, "we'll have to pay". Then Trump said after that, "in cash". Then Cohen said, "no,no, no,no,no". The only way one could not have heard that audio as clear as it was, is if you were either Helen Keller, Rudy Giuliani, or simply someone who isn't interested in the truth. Those are the three options. Now that I have listened to it over and over, the relevant parts to that tape were crystal clear.
And also, to be clear, what was said is an implication of illegal campaign finance violations, weeks before an election to hide an affair, that showed intent to do so.And it doesn't even matter that any money ever changed hands. That's the beauty of this case. This shows a conspiracy to gain an edge or thing of value in an election, that would have directly hurt Trump if exposed. The legal liability in this one tape is huge.
OAN was reporting that a Dem presidential candidate (don't recall the name but I'm sure one can look it up) a few years ago did the exact same thing (pay for the story rights scheme) and he wasn't busted for campaign finance violations on it.
Also, IF Trump has been paying them off for "decades", as is being reported, then the prosecution will be hard pressed to prove it was "related to the campaign" "this time" which means, no campaign finance violation.
We'll see if it disappears from the news shortly as no doubt the MSM is frothing at the mouth to find out if their Impeach 45 campaign can use it or not.
Not sure how you got that out of thin air, but paying or not paying, right before an election, or years ago is irrelevant to this crime. It was AMI who originally paid for the story through Cohen, didn't report it, then Cohen tried to buy it back with Trump's knowledge. They buy a story to hide from the public. And in this case, Cohen was making arrangements to buy it back a few weeks before the election, to make sure it wouldn't hurt Trump with his chances to win. And the tape reveals Trump has full knowledge of it. It's the part where they didn't report the sale on the tax returns that will nail them, while discussing buying it back on tape.Right before the campaign, is what matters, plus the fact it wasn't reported, and his tax returns would be turned over in a case like that.ttps://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/07/26/anderson-cooper-trump-cohen-tapes-kth-sot-vpx.cnn
People, at some point, Republicans are going to have to deal with Trump and this "massive" web of deceit, lies, and criminal activity that has taken over the well being of this country. Trump is simply not worth sacrificing 250 years of Constitutional government and the rule of law.
And now, with this additional evidence that couldn't have been more crystal clear in this audio tape of Trump and Cohen, some of their key quotes were as follows: This is Trump; "what financing". Then Cohen after Trump said this, "we'll have to pay". Then Trump said after that, "in cash". Then Cohen said, "no,no, no,no,no". The only way one could not have heard that audio as clear as it was, is if you were either Helen Keller, Rudy Giuliani, or simply someone who isn't interested in the truth. Those are the three options. Now that I have listened to it over and over, the relevant parts to that tape were crystal clear.
And also, to be clear, what was said is an implication of illegal campaign finance violations, weeks before an election to hide an affair, that showed intent to do so.And it doesn't even matter that any money ever changed hands. That's the beauty of this case. This shows a conspiracy to gain an edge or thing of value in an election, that would have directly hurt Trump if exposed. The legal liability in this one tape is huge.
OAN was reporting that a Dem presidential candidate (don't recall the name but I'm sure one can look it up) a few years ago did the exact same thing (pay for the story rights scheme) and he wasn't busted for campaign finance violations on it.
Also, IF Trump has been paying them off for "decades", as is being reported, then the prosecution will be hard pressed to prove it was "related to the campaign" "this time" which means, no campaign finance violation.
We'll see if it disappears from the news shortly as no doubt the MSM is frothing at the mouth to find out if their Impeach 45 campaign can use it or not.
Nope. IF he has a history of doing this /before/ he considered being a candidate then the argument that he was hiding this shit because of the campaign falls flat. Can't call it a campaign expense if he's been doing it for years and years - and frankly given his history on TV and in the spot light, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he's been buying the stories for decades lol
Not sure how you got that out of thin air, but paying or not paying, right before an election, or years ago is irrelevant to this crime. It was AMI who originally paid for the story through Cohen, didn't report it, then Cohen tried to buy it back with Trump's knowledge. They buy a story to hide from the public. And in this case, Cohen was making arrangements to buy it back a few weeks before the election, to make sure it wouldn't hurt Trump with his chances to win. And the tape reveals Trump has full knowledge of it. This is a very easy case to prove. It's the part where they didn't report the sale on the tax returns that will nail them, while discussing buying it back on tape.Right before the campaign, is what matters, plus the fact it wasn't reported, and his tax returns would be turned over in a case like that.ttps://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/07/26/anderson-cooper-trump-cohen-tapes-kth-sot-vpx.cnn
People, at some point, Republicans are going to have to deal with Trump and this "massive" web of deceit, lies, and criminal activity that has taken over the well being of this country. Trump is simply not worth sacrificing 250 years of Constitutional government and the rule of law.
And now, with this additional evidence that couldn't have been more crystal clear in this audio tape of Trump and Cohen, some of their key quotes were as follows: This is Trump; "what financing". Then Cohen after Trump said this, "we'll have to pay". Then Trump said after that, "in cash". Then Cohen said, "no,no, no,no,no". The only way one could not have heard that audio as clear as it was, is if you were either Helen Keller, Rudy Giuliani, or simply someone who isn't interested in the truth. Those are the three options. Now that I have listened to it over and over, the relevant parts to that tape were crystal clear.
And also, to be clear, what was said is an implication of illegal campaign finance violations, weeks before an election to hide an affair, that showed intent to do so.And it doesn't even matter that any money ever changed hands. That's the beauty of this case. This shows a conspiracy to gain an edge or thing of value in an election, that would have directly hurt Trump if exposed. The legal liability in this one tape is huge.
OAN was reporting that a Dem presidential candidate (don't recall the name but I'm sure one can look it up) a few years ago did the exact same thing (pay for the story rights scheme) and he wasn't busted for campaign finance violations on it.
Also, IF Trump has been paying them off for "decades", as is being reported, then the prosecution will be hard pressed to prove it was "related to the campaign" "this time" which means, no campaign finance violation.
We'll see if it disappears from the news shortly as no doubt the MSM is frothing at the mouth to find out if their Impeach 45 campaign can use it or not.
Nope. IF he has a history of doing this /before/ he considered being a candidate then the argument that he was hiding this shit because of the campaign falls flat. Can't call it a campaign expense if he's been doing it for years and years - and frankly given his history on TV and in the spot light, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he's been buying the stories for decades lol
Pretty easy case to solve if you ask me. You sell something, anything, never report that sale, then try to buy it back, getting that information on tape, proves you were avoiding paying for it on your taxes. That's a federal offense.
Your argument makes no sense, for the simple reason they knew that the Mcdougal story needed to be resurrected in order to keep it quiet again. Because Mcdougal never got her part of the original deal to begin with. Meaning, she was shafted by the original deal. Therefore, it became brand new when Cohen attempted to buy it back. And why was that? Because of the very good chance that the story would resurface during the campaign.That is why it was a thing of urgency. And, they were resurrecting a bad deal to begin with, because it was never disclosed on the tax returns.Not sure how you got that out of thin air, but paying or not paying, right before an election, or years ago is irrelevant to this crime. It was AMI who originally paid for the story through Cohen, didn't report it, then Cohen tried to buy it back with Trump's knowledge. They buy a story to hide from the public. And in this case, Cohen was making arrangements to buy it back a few weeks before the election, to make sure it wouldn't hurt Trump with his chances to win. And the tape reveals Trump has full knowledge of it. This is a very easy case to prove. It's the part where they didn't report the sale on the tax returns that will nail them, while discussing buying it back on tape.Right before the campaign, is what matters, plus the fact it wasn't reported, and his tax returns would be turned over in a case like that.ttps://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/07/26/anderson-cooper-trump-cohen-tapes-kth-sot-vpx.cnn
People, at some point, Republicans are going to have to deal with Trump and this "massive" web of deceit, lies, and criminal activity that has taken over the well being of this country. Trump is simply not worth sacrificing 250 years of Constitutional government and the rule of law.
And now, with this additional evidence that couldn't have been more crystal clear in this audio tape of Trump and Cohen, some of their key quotes were as follows: This is Trump; "what financing". Then Cohen after Trump said this, "we'll have to pay". Then Trump said after that, "in cash". Then Cohen said, "no,no, no,no,no". The only way one could not have heard that audio as clear as it was, is if you were either Helen Keller, Rudy Giuliani, or simply someone who isn't interested in the truth. Those are the three options. Now that I have listened to it over and over, the relevant parts to that tape were crystal clear.
And also, to be clear, what was said is an implication of illegal campaign finance violations, weeks before an election to hide an affair, that showed intent to do so.And it doesn't even matter that any money ever changed hands. That's the beauty of this case. This shows a conspiracy to gain an edge or thing of value in an election, that would have directly hurt Trump if exposed. The legal liability in this one tape is huge.
OAN was reporting that a Dem presidential candidate (don't recall the name but I'm sure one can look it up) a few years ago did the exact same thing (pay for the story rights scheme) and he wasn't busted for campaign finance violations on it.
Also, IF Trump has been paying them off for "decades", as is being reported, then the prosecution will be hard pressed to prove it was "related to the campaign" "this time" which means, no campaign finance violation.
We'll see if it disappears from the news shortly as no doubt the MSM is frothing at the mouth to find out if their Impeach 45 campaign can use it or not.
Nope. IF he has a history of doing this /before/ he considered being a candidate then the argument that he was hiding this shit because of the campaign falls flat. Can't call it a campaign expense if he's been doing it for years and years - and frankly given his history on TV and in the spot light, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he's been buying the stories for decades lol
Pretty easy case to solve if you ask me. You sell something, anything, never report that sale, then try to buy it back, getting that information on tape, proves you were avoiding paying for it on your taxes. That's a federal offense.
No the argument of "it's a campaign finance" is that it would be paid specifically because of the campaign, if it's been done in the past, unrelated to a campaign, then it can't be easily related to "oh it's because of his campaign"
It's rather like saying that not reporting buying a tank of gas at the Tesoro was "a campaign finance violation" - it's not when it's "course of business" expenses - which one doesn't have to report as a "contribution" because it's not.
Ya'll want to push the case, go for it, but your going to be on real shaky ground if this is something he's done in the past - and I personally do believe the reports that he's done it in the past. You can also address the D;s VP and Presidential candidate John Edwards who did basically the exact same shit and was let off the hook despite being actually indited on possible campaign finance violations to the tune of 6 charges - he got not guilty on one, the rest were dropped by the DOJ. You will be seriously HARD pressed to push Trump's alledged single case through, especially when Trump has supposedly done this many times in the past.
Your argument makes no sense, for the simple reason they knew that the Mcdougal story needed to be resurrected in order to keep it quiet again. Because Mcdougal never got her part of the original deal to begin with. Meaning, she was shafted by the original deal. Therefore, it became brand new when Cohen attempted to buy it back. And why was that? Because of the very good chance that the story would resurface during the campaign.That is why it was a thing of urgency. And, they were resurrecting a bad deal to begin with, because it was never disclosed on the tax returns.Not sure how you got that out of thin air, but paying or not paying, right before an election, or years ago is irrelevant to this crime. It was AMI who originally paid for the story through Cohen, didn't report it, then Cohen tried to buy it back with Trump's knowledge. They buy a story to hide from the public. And in this case, Cohen was making arrangements to buy it back a few weeks before the election, to make sure it wouldn't hurt Trump with his chances to win. And the tape reveals Trump has full knowledge of it. This is a very easy case to prove. It's the part where they didn't report the sale on the tax returns that will nail them, while discussing buying it back on tape.Right before the campaign, is what matters, plus the fact it wasn't reported, and his tax returns would be turned over in a case like that.OAN was reporting that a Dem presidential candidate (don't recall the name but I'm sure one can look it up) a few years ago did the exact same thing (pay for the story rights scheme) and he wasn't busted for campaign finance violations on it.
Also, IF Trump has been paying them off for "decades", as is being reported, then the prosecution will be hard pressed to prove it was "related to the campaign" "this time" which means, no campaign finance violation.
We'll see if it disappears from the news shortly as no doubt the MSM is frothing at the mouth to find out if their Impeach 45 campaign can use it or not.
Nope. IF he has a history of doing this /before/ he considered being a candidate then the argument that he was hiding this shit because of the campaign falls flat. Can't call it a campaign expense if he's been doing it for years and years - and frankly given his history on TV and in the spot light, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he's been buying the stories for decades lol
Pretty easy case to solve if you ask me. You sell something, anything, never report that sale, then try to buy it back, getting that information on tape, proves you were avoiding paying for it on your taxes. That's a federal offense.
No the argument of "it's a campaign finance" is that it would be paid specifically because of the campaign, if it's been done in the past, unrelated to a campaign, then it can't be easily related to "oh it's because of his campaign"
It's rather like saying that not reporting buying a tank of gas at the Tesoro was "a campaign finance violation" - it's not when it's "course of business" expenses - which one doesn't have to report as a "contribution" because it's not.
Ya'll want to push the case, go for it, but your going to be on real shaky ground if this is something he's done in the past - and I personally do believe the reports that he's done it in the past. You can also address the D;s VP and Presidential candidate John Edwards who did basically the exact same shit and was let off the hook despite being actually indited on possible campaign finance violations to the tune of 6 charges - he got not guilty on one, the rest were dropped by the DOJ. You will be seriously HARD pressed to push Trump's alledged single case through, especially when Trump has supposedly done this many times in the past.
True, but Republicans don't care about any of that.ttps://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/07/26/anderson-cooper-trump-cohen-tapes-kth-sot-vpx.cnn
People, at some point, Republicans are going to have to deal with Trump and this "massive" web of deceit, lies, and criminal activity that has taken over the well being of this country. Trump is simply not worth sacrificing 250 years of Constitutional government and the rule of law.
And now, with this additional evidence that couldn't have been more crystal clear in this audio tape of Trump and Cohen, some of their key quotes were as follows: This is Trump; "what financing". Then Cohen after Trump said this, "we'll have to pay". Then Trump said after that, "in cash". Then Cohen said, "no,no, no,no,no". The only way one could not have heard that audio as clear as it was, is if you were either Helen Keller, Rudy Giuliani, or simply someone who isn't interested in the truth. Those are the three options. Now that I have listened to it over and over, the relevant parts to that tape were crystal clear.
And also, to be clear, what was said is an implication of illegal campaign finance violations, weeks before an election to hide an affair, that showed intent to do so.And it doesn't even matter that any money ever changed hands. That's the beauty of this case. This shows a conspiracy to gain an edge or thing of value in an election, that would have directly hurt Trump if exposed. The legal liability in this one tape is huge.
And if decent human beings want their country back, it will require the fight of their lives. The well being of our families are at stake here against an insane party, that has abandoned their own country, for a criminal enterprise.True, but Republicans don't care about any of that.ttps://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/07/26/anderson-cooper-trump-cohen-tapes-kth-sot-vpx.cnn
People, at some point, Republicans are going to have to deal with Trump and this "massive" web of deceit, lies, and criminal activity that has taken over the well being of this country. Trump is simply not worth sacrificing 250 years of Constitutional government and the rule of law.
And now, with this additional evidence that couldn't have been more crystal clear in this audio tape of Trump and Cohen, some of their key quotes were as follows: This is Trump; "what financing". Then Cohen after Trump said this, "we'll have to pay". Then Trump said after that, "in cash". Then Cohen said, "no,no, no,no,no". The only way one could not have heard that audio as clear as it was, is if you were either Helen Keller, Rudy Giuliani, or simply someone who isn't interested in the truth. Those are the three options. Now that I have listened to it over and over, the relevant parts to that tape were crystal clear.
And also, to be clear, what was said is an implication of illegal campaign finance violations, weeks before an election to hide an affair, that showed intent to do so.And it doesn't even matter that any money ever changed hands. That's the beauty of this case. This shows a conspiracy to gain an edge or thing of value in an election, that would have directly hurt Trump if exposed. The legal liability in this one tape is huge.
Most conservatives will blindly defend any Republican president no matter how wrong, reprehensible, and unfit to be president.
I did address Edwards. He wasn't elected. Big difference. Trump got away with his crime, so far.Your argument makes no sense, for the simple reason they knew that the Mcdougal story needed to be resurrected in order to keep it quiet again. Because Mcdougal never got her part of the original deal to begin with. Meaning, she was shafted by the original deal. Therefore, it became brand new when Cohen attempted to buy it back. And why was that? Because of the very good chance that the story would resurface during the campaign.That is why it was a thing of urgency. And, they were resurrecting a bad deal to begin with, because it was never disclosed on the tax returns.Not sure how you got that out of thin air, but paying or not paying, right before an election, or years ago is irrelevant to this crime. It was AMI who originally paid for the story through Cohen, didn't report it, then Cohen tried to buy it back with Trump's knowledge. They buy a story to hide from the public. And in this case, Cohen was making arrangements to buy it back a few weeks before the election, to make sure it wouldn't hurt Trump with his chances to win. And the tape reveals Trump has full knowledge of it. This is a very easy case to prove. It's the part where they didn't report the sale on the tax returns that will nail them, while discussing buying it back on tape.Right before the campaign, is what matters, plus the fact it wasn't reported, and his tax returns would be turned over in a case like that.
Nope. IF he has a history of doing this /before/ he considered being a candidate then the argument that he was hiding this shit because of the campaign falls flat. Can't call it a campaign expense if he's been doing it for years and years - and frankly given his history on TV and in the spot light, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he's been buying the stories for decades lol
Pretty easy case to solve if you ask me. You sell something, anything, never report that sale, then try to buy it back, getting that information on tape, proves you were avoiding paying for it on your taxes. That's a federal offense.
No the argument of "it's a campaign finance" is that it would be paid specifically because of the campaign, if it's been done in the past, unrelated to a campaign, then it can't be easily related to "oh it's because of his campaign"
It's rather like saying that not reporting buying a tank of gas at the Tesoro was "a campaign finance violation" - it's not when it's "course of business" expenses - which one doesn't have to report as a "contribution" because it's not.
Ya'll want to push the case, go for it, but your going to be on real shaky ground if this is something he's done in the past - and I personally do believe the reports that he's done it in the past. You can also address the D;s VP and Presidential candidate John Edwards who did basically the exact same shit and was let off the hook despite being actually indited on possible campaign finance violations to the tune of 6 charges - he got not guilty on one, the rest were dropped by the DOJ. You will be seriously HARD pressed to push Trump's alledged single case through, especially when Trump has supposedly done this many times in the past.
Cohen already admitted he did it himself without Trump's knowledge, now what?
Almost your entire statement is based on what you think Trump was thinking, that doesn't fly in court. IF Trump has paid off floozies in the past, before playing politics, it shoots the entire theory that supports your case - that they only did it because of the campaign. Again, I believe the reports that Trump has done this many many times in the past (before he ran for president and shit)
I notice that you failed to address John Edwards...
Look, anyone in business, and that includes farmers, knows that sometimes you gotta spend some money to make money. Or a better statement is sometimes you have to take risks to get ahead; and ultimately most businessmen also know that it's usually worth it to take the risk, than to not take it.
Trump's goal is actually 0 tariffs on either side, your media likes to leave that shit out in their attempt to lead you around by the nose. Either way, /we/ have all the fucking power, we're the biggest market on the planet. NO nation can go without us, period. Trump is leveraging tariffs in an attempt to get a more lucrative and fair deal overseas for American businesses, most businesses get it, even if they're not so keen on tariffs in principle (aka they're free market capitalists.)
And yea, he's trying to protect our vulnerable smaller farmers from the game, because they can't ride such a gamble out as easily as the big farms can. He actually gives a shit about them, they notice that even if you folks don't.
Look, anyone in business, and that includes farmers, knows that sometimes you gotta spend some money to make money. Or a better statement is sometimes you have to take risks to get ahead; and ultimately most businessmen also know that it's usually worth it to take the risk, than to not take it.
Trump's goal is actually 0 tariffs on either side, your media likes to leave that shit out in their attempt to lead you around by the nose. Either way, /we/ have all the fucking power, we're the biggest market on the planet. NO nation can go without us, period. Trump is leveraging tariffs in an attempt to get a more lucrative and fair deal overseas for American businesses, most businesses get it, even if they're not so keen on tariffs in principle (aka they're free market capitalists.)
And yea, he's trying to protect our vulnerable smaller farmers from the game, because they can't ride such a gamble out as easily as the big farms can. He actually gives a shit about them, they notice that even if you folks don't.
Why then are most economist against Trump's trade war?
Trump is all about jobs but his trade war could hurt job growth
A trade war will inevitably hurt America’s companies
Arthur Laffer says trade war would spell "disaster" for U.S. economy - CBS News
The US is on track to lose its trade war against China, economist Stephen Roach says
You folks can't be that uninformed, but I guess you are. The story for the affair in 2006 was bought by the parent company of the National Enquirer from Mcdougal for the purpose of not letting the story get out. The National Enquirer David Pecker was another fixer for Trump. But Trump and Cohen decided to buy it back from National Enquirer, out of the advise of Cohen to protect Trump. He would have to open up a company through Trump's accountant Allen Weisselberg. But the payment for the story was never made.Lol! Paying her or not paying her hush money, won't be the case made. The conspiracy to hide an affair weeks before the election through a company and not reporting it, will be the major liability, because it was supposed to help Trump bypass the electorate knowing anything about this, which would have hurt him in the general. That didn't happen, so he violated campaign finance laws. Money or no money, it's totally irrelevant.I think nothing will happen. If Hillary can have thousands of classified emails on a unclassifed server that was accessed by Russia and disclosed by whats his face stuck in the consulate and not have charges brought against her, Trump will slide through easily about never having paid a woman hush money.
What liberals don't even understand is its not against the law to pay a woman hush money. It's not against the law to pay her in cash or check. So all this is much tadoo about nothing.
That didn't even make any fucking sense. Hide an affair weeks before an election through a company? The affair was from 2006, dumbass. What company? WTF are you smoking?
Such a shallow, elementary, radical strategy to such a complex problem.Yes, Trump's tariffs will cause temporary pain. But that's what it will take to bring these other countries around for better overall trade practices with the USA. As they say, temporary pain for long term gain.
That's like telling someone with a strep throat "don't take the shot because it will really hurt." Yea, like living with strep is better than the short term pain of the shot in the butt that will cure the problem.
