Obama can't be prosecuted. You can thank Trump for that.

[Marener]

So you just discount it because it’s House Republicans ?

That and it’s contradicted by Mueller’s report and the Senate Intelligence Report and the CIA tradecraft analysis and the Durham report.

 

[Ret Old Man]

Obama can be prosecuted for anything he did after he left office, whether they were official acts or not. What he did before he left office, if criminal, is not an official act.

Presidential immunity covers official acts. SCOTUS ruled that presidents have absolute immunity for "Core official actions" but not for unofficial or private acts. A key distinction is that immunity does not cover actions taken before or outside of the president's official capacity, nor does it extend to "unofficial" acts.
If this is true and Obama's actions were outside of his official acts or functions, he is liable and if other individuals questioned or involved are subject to a prison sentence then they are likely to turn canary.

 

[Marener]

False business records are a misdemeanor. And “protecting his campaign” is not a crime.

Laundering money to hide campaign expenses is a crime.

At least you can admit Trump committed a crime. The only argument is whether it’s a misdemeanor or a felony.

 

[Lisa558]

Laundering money to hide campaign expenses is a crime.

At least you can admit Trump committed a crime. The only argument is whether it’s a misdemeanor or a felony.

No I didn’t. At most, it was a misdemeanor, and it expired.

Was he charged with “laundering money?” I don’t think so.

Regardless, paying some Ho to keep her mouth shut pales in comparison to fabricating a hoax to make it appear that your political opponent is an agent of the Communists.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Presidential immunity covers official acts. SCOTUS ruled that presidents have absolute immunity for "Core official actions" but not for unofficial or private acts. A key distinction is that immunity does not cover actions taken before or outside of the president's official capacity, nor does it extend to "unofficial" acts.
If this is true and Obama's actions were outside of his official acts or functions, he is liable and if other individuals questioned or involved are subject to a prison sentence then they are likely to turn canary.

That you for using 4 times as many word to say exactly what I said!

 

[Marener]

No I didn’t. At most, it was a misdemeanor, and it expired.

Was he charged with “laundering money?” I don’t think so.

Regardless, paying some Ho to keep her mouth shut pales in comparison to fabricating a hoax to make it appear that your political opponent is an agent of the Communists.

No, I didn’t mean money laundering by the legal definition but the scheme is largely the same.

The purpose was to hide the fact that he was spending money for his campaign but didn’t want to disclose it so he created false records to sneak the money to Cohen and spend the money at his direction.

These are actual crimes.

Your accusation that the Obama administration created a hoax has a big problem, in that the administration never said that Trump colluded with Russia.

As for creating hoaxes, I don’t know how you’re going to make that illegal without landing most of your party in jail. You guys love hoaxes.

 

[Marener]

If this is true and Obama's actions were outside of his official acts or functions, he is liable and if other individuals questioned or involved are subject to a prison sentence then they are likely to turn canary.

It’s pretty impossible to make any reasonable claim that Obama was acting privately here.

 

[Lisa558]

No, I didn’t mean money laundering by the legal definition but the scheme is largely the same.

You don’t mean it by the legal definition? But that is sorta kinda what he did? Sorry, bub, but you’ve got to meet the legal definition of something to be charged and convicted of of it.

The purpose was to hide the fact that he was spending money for his campaign but didn’t want to disclose it so he created false records to sneak the money to Cohen and spend the money at his direction.

That’s the purpose of a non-disclosure agreement: to keep something from being disclosed.

These are actual crimes.

And the false records were a misdemeanor - on the same level of the violation the illegals commit when they come into our country in violation of immigration laws. Yet THOSE people you keep insisting are innocent.

Your accusation that the Obama administration created a hoax has a big problem, in that the administration never said that Trump colluded with Russia.

They themselves didn’t have to say it. The created fake evidence and hid the truth, and let the leftist media run with it.

That is a crime.

As for creating hoaxes, I don’t know how you’re going to make that illegal without landing most of your party in jail. You guys love hoaxes.

Yeah, right. You Dems are one hoax after another.

 

[Marener]

You don’t mean it by the legal definition? But that is sorta kinda what he did? Sorry, bub, but you’ve got to meet the legal definition of something to be charged and convicted of of it.

I never said he should be charged and convicted for money laundering. I was using it in a colloquial sense because the concept is the same, to hide the origin of the money. The scheme was intending to hide the fact that it was Trump paying the NDA.

That’s the purpose of a non-disclosure agreement: to keep something from being disclosed.

All well and good, but when you're doing it for a campaign, it's a campaign expense and needs to be identified as such. The purpose of the scheme was to keep this off the books of the campaign.

And the false records were a misdemeanor - on the same level of the violation the illegals commit when they come into our country in violation of immigration laws. Yet THOSE people you keep insisting are innocent.

I don't claim their innocent, but I do claim that they shouldn't be prosecuted for it and that we should have a legal path to citizenship with amnesty.

They themselves didn’t have to say it. The created fake evidence and hid the truth, and let the leftist media run with it.

That is a crime.

There was no fake evidence created. That's a lie. A hoax if you will. There is no crime here. The "crime" in your eyes is saying something that you don't agree with. This isn't the first time you've decided that's a crime.

Yeah, right. You Dems are one hoax after another.

Gabbard's accusations are a hoax. You created a brand new hoax just this week. What was last week's hoax? That Trump's enemies created the Epstein list to embarrass him, right?

 

[DonGlock26]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Laundering money to hide campaign expenses is a crime.

At least you can admit Trump committed a crime. The only argument is whether it’s a misdemeanor or a felony.

NDAs aren't a campaign expense or a campaign contribution.
Nothing illegal, so nothing was laundered.
Paying a legal expense in 2017 doesn't help the campaign in 2016.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

All well and good, but when you're doing it for a campaign, it's a campaign expense and needs to be identified as such.

When the MSM buried the story of Hunter's laptop, they did it to help Biden's campaign.
Did they declare those campaign expenditures?

 

[Marener]

NDAs aren't a campaign expense or a campaign contribution.

They absolutely are if done because of the campaign.

And they were.

 

[Marener]

When the MSM buried the story of Hunter's laptop, they did it to help Biden's campaign.
Did they declare those campaign expenditures?

No, for several reasons. For one, it’s not an expenditure. Two, there was no coordination with the campaign.

Cohen spent money for the purposes of Trump’s campaign at his direction. That makes it a campaign expense.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They absolutely are if done because of the campaign.

And they were.

A positive story on Biden helped his campaign.

Did the paper report their contribution?

 

[Marener]

A positive story on Biden helped his campaign.

Did the paper report their contribution?

Nope. That’s speech. Speech is not a contribution.

 

[Lisa558]

I never said he should be charged and convicted for money laundering. I was using it in a colloquial sense because the concept is the same, to hide the origin of the money. The scheme was intending to hide the fact that it was Trump paying the NDA.

And it was determined to be a misdemeanor. Long expired.

You don’t get to claim someone is guilty of something, and then say but he didn’t actually do it according to the law.

All well and good, but when you're doing it for a campaign, it's a campaign expense and needs to be identified as such. The purpose of the scheme was to keep this off the books of the campaign.

That would defeat the purpose of a non-disclosure.

I don't claim their innocent, but I do claim that they shouldn't be prosecuted for it and that we should have a legal path to citizenship with amnesty.

But you were ready to send Trump to prison for something on the same level of violation.

There was no fake evidence created. That's a lie. A hoax if you will. There is no crime here. The "crime" in your eyes is saying something that you don't agree with. This isn't the first time you've decided that's a crime.

Of course there was. What do you think the Steel Dosier was?

And why did Obama coordinate the direction to suppress the findings of the initial analysts, since it didn’t show any guilt on Trump’s part, and then had his minions re-issue the lies?

Gabbard's accusations are a hoax. You created a brand new hoax just this week. What was last week's hoax? That Trump's enemies created the Epstein list to embarrass him, right?

No, what the Democrats did with the Russia hoax was a multi-million dollar, years-long hoax.

You people are the MASTERS of hoaxes, and lawfare against political opponents.

 

[Lisa558]

They absolutely are if done because of the campaign.

And they were.

He said it was done to protect his marriage.

And it was.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, for several reasons. For one, it’s not an expenditure. Two, there was no coordination with the campaign.

Cohen spent money for the purposes of Trump’s campaign at his direction. That makes it a campaign expense.

No, for several reasons. For one, it’s not an expenditure.

A newspaper spends money on salaries and websites and printers to produce something that helped a campaign.
That's a campaign contribution.

But that contribution that helps the campaign doesn't need to be reported.

All well and good, but when you're doing it for a campaign, it's a campaign expense and needs to be identified as such.

LOL!

The purpose of the scheme was to keep this off the books of the campaign.

Because putting an ad for the campaign in the paper is campaign spending and has to go on the books.
Putting a story for the campaign in the paper is the same as campaign spending (when you're doing it for a campaign).

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Marener]

And it was determined to be a misdemeanor. Long expired.

You don’t get to claim someone is guilty of something, and then say but he didn’t actually do it according to the law.

Campaign finance fraud was never a misdemeanor. The fraudulent business records were at a minimum a misdemeanor, so it's glad to see that you can admit Trump broke the law.

That would defeat the purpose of a non-disclosure.

Too bad, so sad. When you're running a campaign, your expenditures are legally required to be publicized. Doesn't change the fact that the NDA was a campaign expense.

But you were ready to send Trump to prison for something on the same level of violation.

Nope, because it was a felony.

Of course there was. What do you think the Steel Dosier was?

And why did Obama coordinate the direction to suppress the findings of the initial analysts, since it didn’t show any guilt on Trump’s part, and then had his minions re-issue the lies?

Notice how the Clinton campaign never used the Steele Dossier since they didn't find it credible.

No findings were "suppressed".

Obama's administration never accused Trump of any coordination.

The ICA was not a lie. They assessed based on the intelligence that Russia intended to help Trump and that was confirmed by further investigation over the course of years.

No, what the Democrats did with the Russia hoax was a multi-million dollar, years-long hoax.

You people are the MASTERS of hoaxes, and lawfare against political opponents.

All you do is whine about the same "hoax" from nearly a decade ago. Meanwhile, you guys have created literally hundreds of hoaxes in the intervening time frame.

As for "lawfare", that's exactly what Bondi and Gabbard are doing. Don't forget Durham's "lawfare" against Danchenko and Sussmann.