Corroborating Court Evidence Trump Violated Campaign Finance Law

[ThoughtCrimes]

Cohen's sentencing today confirmed in court documents that Trump violated Campaign Finance Law to pay off the two women suing him to keep them silent to avoid negatively impacting his campaign.
~~How Michael Cohen broke campaign finance law ~~

Less than an hour after that disclosure, it was announced on the news that AMI, the holding company owning the National Inquirer that bought the rights to those stories about the same women made a non-prosecution agreement with authorities in NYC for admitting they spiked the stories with Trump's "encouragement" of avoiding negatively impacting his campaign. ( This broke on TV and no link yet!)
Edit: Here's a link now:
~~ Trump Campaign Struck Early Deal to Kill Bad Stories, AMI Admits ~~

These two 'cases' corroborate the fact that Trump violated Campaign Finance Law and is on record in court documents and sentence agreements ON THE SAME BLOODY DAY!
EDIT: replaced 'instances' with 'cases'.

No Republican in the Senate can ignore this evidence when they get Articles of Impeachment from the House next January or February!

 

[miketx]

Show us your evidence parrot.

 

[g5000]

Show us your evidence parrot.

Stop stealing my material!

 

[Pete7469]

Show us your evidence parrot.

I'm sure he's looking...

 

[g5000]

Trump Campaign Struck Early Deal to Kill Bad Stories, AMI Admits


Under the non-prosecution agreement, the company admitted its purpose was to suppress the woman’s story and prevent it from influencing the election. The deal marks a change of allegiances for one of Trump’s biggest supporters. Pecker has been a close friend of Trump and gave positive coverage to his presidential campaign in the National Enquirer.

Pecker has been a key witness in the investigation of Cohen.

“As a part of the agreement, AMI admitted that it made the $150,000 payment in concert with a candidate’s presidential campaign, and in order to ensure that the woman did not publicize damaging allegations about the candidate before the 2016 presidential election,” the prosecutors wrote in a statement announcing the deal.

 

[blastoff]

It?

 

[iceberg]

Trump Campaign Struck Early Deal to Kill Bad Stories, AMI Admits


Under the non-prosecution agreement, the company admitted its purpose was to suppress the woman’s story and prevent it from influencing the election. The deal marks a change of allegiances for one of Trump’s biggest supporters. Pecker has been a close friend of Trump and gave positive coverage to his presidential campaign in the National Enquirer.

Pecker has been a key witness in the investigation of Cohen.

“As a part of the agreement, AMI admitted that it made the $150,000 payment in concert with a candidate’s presidential campaign, and in order to ensure that the woman did not publicize damaging allegations about the candidate before the 2016 presidential election,” the prosecutors wrote in a statement announcing the deal.

oh my fucking god - go look at what obama did to journalists who didn't flatter him before or after the election.

don't even try to sell me the horseshit this is improper when one side did it and the left defends it. this is why you got trump as a president.

 

[BluesLegend]

Breaking: John Edwards found NOT GUILTY of the same thing, poor libs another swing and a miss.

 

[ZZ PUPPS]

Show us your evidence parrot.

No evidence was presented, as there was no trial. Does the OP want a cracker? LOLOLOLOL

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Show us your evidence parrot.

No evidence was presented, as there was no trial. Does the OP want a cracker? LOLOLOLOL

It was a non-prosecution agreement...a plea deal with a COURT (no fucking trial required, MORON) who's RECORDS CORROBORATE other COURT RECORDS in Cohen's case SHOWING HIS GUILT OVER THE SAME MATTER WHICH DIRECTLY IMPLICATED and linked TRUMP to both YOU fucking idiot. Now go back to your flagon of Trump Piss!

 

[ZZ PUPPS]

Show us your evidence parrot.

No evidence was presented, as there was no trial. Does the OP want a cracker? LOLOLOLOL

It was a non-prosecution agreement...a plea deal with a COURT (no fucking trial required, MORON) who's RECORDS CORROBORATE other COURT RECORDS in Cohen's case SHOWING HIS GUILT OVER THE SAME MATTER WHICH DIRECTLY IMPLICATED and linked TRUMP to both YOU fucking idiot. Now go back to your flagon of Trump Piss!

Thanks for agreeing that no evidence was produced. Your main job was deck swabbie, wasn't it?

 

[OKTexas]

Cohen's sentencing today confirmed in court documents that Trump violated Campaign Finance Law to pay off the two women suing him to keep them silent to avoid negatively impacting his campaign.
~~How Michael Cohen broke campaign finance law ~~

Less than an hour after that disclosure, it was announced on the news that AMI, the holding company owning the National Inquirer that bought the rights to those stories about the same women made a non-prosecution agreement with authorities in NYC for admitting they spiked the stories with Trump's "encouragement" of avoiding negatively impacting his campaign. ( This broke on TV and no link yet!)
Edit: Here's a link now:
~~ Trump Campaign Struck Early Deal to Kill Bad Stories, AMI Admits ~~

These two instances corroborate the fact that Trump violated Campaign Finance Law and is on record in court documents and sentence agreements ON THE SAME BLOODY DAY!

No Republican in the Senate can ignore this evidence when they get Articles of Impeachment from the House next January or February!

Ya know what's funny as hell? I don't see anyone going after the congresscritters that used tax money to pay sexual harassment and other cases to protect their political careers. Wouldn't the same contribution limits and reporting requirements apply to those two faced fucks. And stupid assed pukes like the OP think this double standard is just peachy. God Damned commies.

.

 

[lantern2814]

Sorry libbies. John Edwards says you struck out again.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

All of you MORONS who did nothing but avoid addressing the point of the OP up to this point about 5.5 hours after it was posted and every effort to avoid the topic because it put the target on the Orange Clown's back and is HIGHLY likely to produce the first felony charge against the Orange Fat Ass, KNOW THIS.

This is just the FIRST instance, proving with corroborating evidence from two separate decisions in two Courts on the same day, that 'Individual Number 1' has been DIRECTLY linked to violating Campaign Finance Law. Also, Edwards' issue in 2011 NOTWITHSTANDING as non-related in the particulars of the actual legal substance and matter. But if you dumb asses want to believe Faux, Brietbart, InfoWars, et al, go ahead and toast you flagon of Trump Piss!

 

[Slyhunter]

All of you MORONS who did nothing but avoid addressing the point of the OP up to this point about 5.5 hours after it was posted and every effort to avoid the topic because it put the target on the Orange Clown's back and is HIGHLY likely to produce the first felony charge against the Orange Fat Ass, KNOW THIS.

This is just the FIRST instance, proving with corroborating evidence from two separate decisions in two Courts on the same day, that 'Individual Number 1' has been DIRECTLY linked to violating Campaign Finance Law. Also, Edwards' issue in 2011 NOTWITHSTANDING as non-related in the particulars of the actual legal substance and matter. But if you dumb asses want to believe Faux, Brietbart, InfoWars, et al, go ahead and toast you flagon of Trump Piss!

You have proof he used campaign money to pay those extortionists? I heard he used his own money, which is not illegal.

 

[lantern2814]

All of you MORONS who did nothing but avoid addressing the point of the OP up to this point about 5.5 hours after it was posted and every effort to avoid the topic because it put the target on the Orange Clown's back and is HIGHLY likely to produce the first felony charge against the Orange Fat Ass, KNOW THIS.

This is just the FIRST instance, proving with corroborating evidence from two separate decisions in two Courts on the same day, that 'Individual Number 1' has been DIRECTLY linked to violating Campaign Finance Law. Also, Edwards' issue in 2011 NOTWITHSTANDING as non-related in the particulars of the actual legal substance and matter. But if you dumb asses want to believe Faux, Brietbart, InfoWars, et al, go ahead and toast you flagon of Trump Piss!

Sorry MORON, the Edwards case is the LEGAL PRECEDENT here. Along with those Congressional payoffs to women to keep them quiet that you keep conveniently forgetting about. Now take your crying, lying ass back to CNN and MS13NBC. Failure number 500,000 and counting.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

All of you MORONS who did nothing but avoid addressing the point of the OP up to this point about 5.5 hours after it was posted and every effort to avoid the topic because it put the target on the Orange Clown's back and is HIGHLY likely to produce the first felony charge against the Orange Fat Ass, KNOW THIS.

This is just the FIRST instance, proving with corroborating evidence from two separate decisions in two Courts on the same day, that 'Individual Number 1' has been DIRECTLY linked to violating Campaign Finance Law. Also, Edwards' issue in 2011 NOTWITHSTANDING as non-related in the particulars of the actual legal substance and matter. But if you dumb asses want to believe Faux, Brietbart, InfoWars, et al, go ahead and toast you flagon of Trump Piss!

Sorry MORON, the Edwards case is the LEGAL PRECEDENT here. Along with those Congressional payoffs to women to keep them quiet that you keep conveniently forgetting about. Now take your crying, lying ass back to CNN and MS13NBC. Failure number 500,000 and counting.

Sorry MORON, the Edwards case is the LEGAL PRECEDENT here.

Well, you ignorant fuck, given Cohen was charged, plead guilty to the charge and the charge was included at sentencing as part of the punishment dished out for his violation of the law, doesn't that begin to tell you that the material facts in the Edwards case were different than those in Cohen dealing with the law? Oh, and Trump was the guy with the money being passed and noted in Cohen's case!

And if legal precedent was set with the Edwards case as you're claiming, cite exact precedent and the case which set the precedent or shut-the-fuck-up hotshot! Do you really believe all cases involving Campaign Finance Law come to Court with the same set of material facts and evidence, you fucking IDIOT!

 

[lantern2814]

All of you MORONS who did nothing but avoid addressing the point of the OP up to this point about 5.5 hours after it was posted and every effort to avoid the topic because it put the target on the Orange Clown's back and is HIGHLY likely to produce the first felony charge against the Orange Fat Ass, KNOW THIS.

This is just the FIRST instance, proving with corroborating evidence from two separate decisions in two Courts on the same day, that 'Individual Number 1' has been DIRECTLY linked to violating Campaign Finance Law. Also, Edwards' issue in 2011 NOTWITHSTANDING as non-related in the particulars of the actual legal substance and matter. But if you dumb asses want to believe Faux, Brietbart, InfoWars, et al, go ahead and toast you flagon of Trump Piss!

Sorry MORON, the Edwards case is the LEGAL PRECEDENT here. Along with those Congressional payoffs to women to keep them quiet that you keep conveniently forgetting about. Now take your crying, lying ass back to CNN and MS13NBC. Failure number 500,000 and counting.

Sorry MORON, the Edwards case is the LEGAL PRECEDENT here.

Well, you ignorant fuck, given Cohen was charged, plead guilty to the charge and the charge was included at sentencing as part of the punishment dished out for his violation of the law, doesn't that begin to tell you that the material facts in the Edwards case were different than those in Cohen dealing with the law? Oh, and Trump was the guy with the money being passed and noted in Cohen's case!

And if legal precedent was set with the Edwards case as you're claiming, cite exact precedent and the case which set the precedent or shut-the-fuck-up hotshot! Do you really believe all cases involving Campaign Finance Law come to Court with the same set of material facts and evidence, you fucking IDIOT!

Resorting to cursing because you just got schooled again? Poor form, even for a troll. The exact case would be the Edwards case (a literate person would have realized that). The FEDERAL DOJ found that paying money to women (in Edwards case housing, supporting, and keeping her quiet) was NOT a violation of campaign laws. In addition, this was TRUMP'S OWN MONEY, not strictly campaign cash. Since Trump and other rich men have historically done this, you have ZERO way to prove it was strictly for the election. Now you can STFU, impotent troll.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

All of you MORONS who did nothing but avoid addressing the point of the OP up to this point about 5.5 hours after it was posted and every effort to avoid the topic because it put the target on the Orange Clown's back and is HIGHLY likely to produce the first felony charge against the Orange Fat Ass, KNOW THIS.

This is just the FIRST instance, proving with corroborating evidence from two separate decisions in two Courts on the same day, that 'Individual Number 1' has been DIRECTLY linked to violating Campaign Finance Law. Also, Edwards' issue in 2011 NOTWITHSTANDING as non-related in the particulars of the actual legal substance and matter. But if you dumb asses want to believe Faux, Brietbart, InfoWars, et al, go ahead and toast you flagon of Trump Piss!

Sorry MORON, the Edwards case is the LEGAL PRECEDENT here. Along with those Congressional payoffs to women to keep them quiet that you keep conveniently forgetting about. Now take your crying, lying ass back to CNN and MS13NBC. Failure number 500,000 and counting.

Sorry MORON, the Edwards case is the LEGAL PRECEDENT here.

Well, you ignorant fuck, given Cohen was charged, plead guilty to the charge and the charge was included at sentencing as part of the punishment dished out for his violation of the law, doesn't that begin to tell you that the material facts in the Edwards case were different than those in Cohen dealing with the law? Oh, and Trump was the guy with the money being passed and noted in Cohen's case!

And if legal precedent was set with the Edwards case as you're claiming, cite exact precedent and the case which set the precedent or shut-the-fuck-up hotshot! Do you really believe all cases involving Campaign Finance Law come to Court with the same set of material facts and evidence, you fucking IDIOT!

Resorting to cursing because you just got schooled again? Poor form, even for a troll. The exact case would be the Edwards case (a literate person would have realized that). The FEDERAL DOJ found that paying money to women (in Edwards case housing, supporting, and keeping her quiet) was NOT a violation of campaign laws. In addition, this was TRUMP'S OWN MONEY, not strictly campaign cash. Since Trump and other rich men have historically done this, you have ZERO way to prove it was strictly for the election. Now you can STFU, impotent troll.

Resorting to cursing because you just got schooled again? Poor form, even for a troll. The exact case would be the Edwards case (a literate person would have realized that). The FEDERAL DOJ found that paying money to women (in Edwards case housing, supporting, and keeping her quiet) was NOT a violation of campaign laws. In addition, this was TRUMP'S OWN MONEY, not strictly campaign cash. Since Trump and other rich men have historically done this, you have ZERO way to prove it was strictly for the election. Now you can STFU, impotent troll.

I see and NOTE you can't cite either the case [such as Roe v. Wade, dummy] or the precedent [the text within the case record re: the "precedent"] regarding Edwards as you claimed existed as a show stopper allowing a bypass for the Orange Clown, you know like something another could lookup and read, but rather supply only a bullshit dodge & filler signifying nothing but a trapped lie that YOU exposed for those paying attention!

Don't like adult language returned when you insult another's intelligence with yet another redundant insulting LIE? I'll keep that in mind you fucking immature MORONIC child! BTW, what's the other handle you use on this board, fraud? Now piss off asswipe! You've got nothing of worth to "school" anyone above the age of 9!

 

[Slyhunter]

All of you MORONS who did nothing but avoid addressing the point of the OP up to this point about 5.5 hours after it was posted and every effort to avoid the topic because it put the target on the Orange Clown's back and is HIGHLY likely to produce the first felony charge against the Orange Fat Ass, KNOW THIS.

This is just the FIRST instance, proving with corroborating evidence from two separate decisions in two Courts on the same day, that 'Individual Number 1' has been DIRECTLY linked to violating Campaign Finance Law. Also, Edwards' issue in 2011 NOTWITHSTANDING as non-related in the particulars of the actual legal substance and matter. But if you dumb asses want to believe Faux, Brietbart, InfoWars, et al, go ahead and toast you flagon of Trump Piss!

Sorry MORON, the Edwards case is the LEGAL PRECEDENT here. Along with those Congressional payoffs to women to keep them quiet that you keep conveniently forgetting about. Now take your crying, lying ass back to CNN and MS13NBC. Failure number 500,000 and counting.

Sorry MORON, the Edwards case is the LEGAL PRECEDENT here.

Well, you ignorant fuck, given Cohen was charged, plead guilty to the charge and the charge was included at sentencing as part of the punishment dished out for his violation of the law, doesn't that begin to tell you that the material facts in the Edwards case were different than those in Cohen dealing with the law? Oh, and Trump was the guy with the money being passed and noted in Cohen's case!

And if legal precedent was set with the Edwards case as you're claiming, cite exact precedent and the case which set the precedent or shut-the-fuck-up hotshot! Do you really believe all cases involving Campaign Finance Law come to Court with the same set of material facts and evidence, you fucking IDIOT!

Resorting to cursing because you just got schooled again? Poor form, even for a troll. The exact case would be the Edwards case (a literate person would have realized that). The FEDERAL DOJ found that paying money to women (in Edwards case housing, supporting, and keeping her quiet) was NOT a violation of campaign laws. In addition, this was TRUMP'S OWN MONEY, not strictly campaign cash. Since Trump and other rich men have historically done this, you have ZERO way to prove it was strictly for the election. Now you can STFU, impotent troll.

Resorting to cursing because you just got schooled again? Poor form, even for a troll. The exact case would be the Edwards case (a literate person would have realized that). The FEDERAL DOJ found that paying money to women (in Edwards case housing, supporting, and keeping her quiet) was NOT a violation of campaign laws. In addition, this was TRUMP'S OWN MONEY, not strictly campaign cash. Since Trump and other rich men have historically done this, you have ZERO way to prove it was strictly for the election. Now you can STFU, impotent troll.

I see and NOTE you can't cite either the case [such as Roe v. Wade, dummy] or the precedent [the text within the case record re: the "precedent"] regarding Edwards as you claimed existed as a show stopper allowing a bypass for the Orange Clown, you know like something another could lookup and read, but rather supply only a bullshit dodge & filler signifying nothing but a trapped lie that YOU exposed for those paying attention!

Don't like adult language returned when you insult another's intelligence with yet another redundant insulting LIE? I'll keep that in mind you fucking immature MORONIC child! BTW, what's the other handle you use on this board, fraud? Now piss off asswipe! You've got nothing of worth to "school" anyone above the age of 9!

It isn't against the law to pay an extortionist money from your private funds.
Clinton did it, Edwards did it and you did nothing to them. You only care about having something to get Trump with. Edwards used public money. Clinton gave Monica a job to shut her up.