Paying people off to avoid a scandal is perfectly legal

[bripat9643]

I'm not sure why, but it seems the Democrats think that paying off a woman to be quiet about a scandal is somehow illegal. Well, it isn't.

Meanwhile, I'm wondering what any of this has to do with collusion with Russia...

Why would he payoff someone he has never had a relationship with, like he has repeatedly said....

So a tax cut is the equivalent of robbery?

Your post only shows how utterly deranged you psycho douchebag snowflakes have become.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You're insane to think a lawyer would plead guilty to a non-crime when all it would take to walk free is a motion to dismiss based on improper charges.

But then again, you have proven time and time again what a ******* moron you are.

It's a plea agreement, numskull. If he has an issue with the charges, he simply refuses to accept them. Those are his choices. He can't accept the plea and then complain it's improper.

That still does not explain why a lawyer would plead guilty to a non-crime when all it would take to walk free is a motion to dismiss based on improper charges.

And if it is a "non-crime" why is the statute that was broken listed in the plea agreement?

I just explained why he couldn't do that, but your skull is too thick for it to penetrate.

No, you claimed he could not do that, you did not explain why.

Why would anyone, especially most of all a trained lawyer, plead guilty to something that is not even a crime?

And how can it not be a crime if the statute he is accused of breaking is listed on the plea agreement? Did they just make up that part as well?

Yes, I did explain why, but it didn't penetrate your thick skull.

I know that this will be news to you, but "because I said so" is not an explanation.

Your desperation is getting laughable, hell I am almost starting to feel pity for you.

 

[Faun]

Contributions are monies paid into the campaign. Cohen paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to benefit the campaign. The was is gross excess of the federal contribution limits. The funds didn't come out of the campaign coffers. But from Cohen personally, at Trumps personal direction. Making your description of Cohen's payments as a campaign expense simply wrong.

Trump reimembursed Cohen AFTER the election. And it being Trump, of course it was done through fraud. Faked time lines, fraudulent invoices, faked work descriptions. And obviously without reporting any of it to the FEC.

All of which has been turned over to federal prosecutors and submitted to the court.

Cohen's money didn't go to Trump or the campaign, it went to finance the NDA.

IT went to immediately benefit the campaign. But came out of Cohen's pocket. Not the campaign's.

Thus, a campaign contribution. Not a campaign expense. You've literally got opposites confused with each other. You probably want to stop polishing that turd and just accept the fact that you used the wrong term.

Trump, not the campaign reimbursed Cohen, so how could Cohen's outlay been a contribution to the campaign, when the purpose it was used for wasn't a campaign expenditure? It was basically just a short term personal loan to Trump.

Trump reimbursed him after the election.....under fraudulent circumstances, as its Trump. So of course it involved fraud, lies, faked time lines, and false invoices.

Now for your 'short term loan' theory. Even by that logic, the short term loan was for the purpose of aiding his presidential campaign. And loans are subject to campaign contribution limits too. Says who? Says the FEC.

If any person, including a relative or friend of the candidate, gives or loans the candidate money “for the purpose of influencing any election for federal office,” the funds are not considered personal funds of the candidate even if they are given to the candidate directly. Instead, the gift or loan is considered a contribution from the donor to the campaign, subject to the per-election limit and reportable by the campaign. This is true even if the candidate uses the funds for personal living expenses while campaigning.

Personal loans from the candidate - FEC.gov

And of course, because its Trump none of this sizable transaction was reported to the FEC. It was all done through shell companies, using fake invoices and fraudulent time lines. With Trump trying backdate the reason for the payment from 2016, when the illegal campaign contribution was made to 2017.

And there's a paper trail for all of it. With Trump's own CFO now having an immunity deal. So we're likely to learn even more of the fraudulent and corrupt criminal practices within the Trump organization.

The NDA was executed in 2016, how could it have been considered a contribution in 2017?

.

How indeed.

And the deceit and fraud committed by Trump go further still. As when Trump reimbursed Cohen in 2017 for the illegal campaign contribution made in 2016......he also used a fraudulent description of work. With the faked invoices claiming it was for legal work Cohen did in February of 2017.

And the Feds have the entire paper trail now. Every last fraudulent scrap of it.

It was legal work. Cohen drew up the papers and had Stormy sign them.

It was more than legal work. It was a $130,000 campaign contribution that if unreported, is a violation of campaign finance laws which required it to be reported.

And again, to clarify for the forum's proven ******* moron, it's not the amount that he would be in legal trouble over, it's the hiding the contribution from the FEC that would do him in.

 

[Skylar]

IT went to immediately benefit the campaign. But came out of Cohen's pocket. Not the campaign's.

Thus, a campaign contribution. Not a campaign expense. You've literally got opposites confused with each other. You probably want to stop polishing that turd and just accept the fact that you used the wrong term.

Trump reimbursed him after the election.....under fraudulent circumstances, as its Trump. So of course it involved fraud, lies, faked time lines, and false invoices.

Now for your 'short term loan' theory. Even by that logic, the short term loan was for the purpose of aiding his presidential campaign. And loans are subject to campaign contribution limits too. Says who? Says the FEC.

And of course, because its Trump none of this sizable transaction was reported to the FEC. It was all done through shell companies, using fake invoices and fraudulent time lines. With Trump trying backdate the reason for the payment from 2016, when the illegal campaign contribution was made to 2017.

And there's a paper trail for all of it. With Trump's own CFO now having an immunity deal. So we're likely to learn even more of the fraudulent and corrupt criminal practices within the Trump organization.

The NDA was executed in 2016, how could it have been considered a contribution in 2017?

.

How indeed.

And the deceit and fraud committed by Trump go further still. As when Trump reimbursed Cohen in 2017 for the illegal campaign contribution made in 2016......he also used a fraudulent description of work. With the faked invoices claiming it was for legal work Cohen did in February of 2017.

And the Feds have the entire paper trail now. Every last fraudulent scrap of it.

It was legal work. Cohen drew up the papers and had Stormy sign them.

It was a campaign contribution made by Cohen himself. Says who? Says Cohen. And the prosecutors. And the judge.

You've literally got nothing but naked denial, Brit. And your willful ignorance isn't a legal standard.

What else have you got?

You're incapable of committing logic, so why should I bother trying to convince you with facts and logic? You'll continue to repeat your bogus premise no matter how many times it is debunked. That's what you do.

You're not using logic. You're using conspiracy and your own personal opinion as the law.

You've given us a batshit account of the judge in the case and the prosecutors are conspiring to break the law......because they are 'dims'. An acccusation backed by nothing.

You've given us your personal opinion which is contradicted by veteran judges, veteran prosecutors, the USC and Michael Cohen himself. Insisting that you know better than all of them.

You don't. Nothing about your argument is logical. Your entire argument is empty conspiracy batshit and hopeless denial.

What else have you got?

 

[Faun]

Saying it's a non-crime doesn't make it so - particularly when a statute says it is a crime.

Well, not in the real world, but in Trumplandia, I suppose a crime is whatever Trump says it is.

The fact that it's a non crime is what makes it a non crime. A crime isn't whatever Cohen blurts out because of a plea agreement. Meuller was the author of Cohen's plea agreement. That much is clear. All you psycho snowflakes behave as if Mueller is infallible.

You're insane to think a lawyer would plead guilty to a non-crime when all it would take to walk free is a motion to dismiss based on improper charges.

But then again, you have proven time and time again what a ******* moron you are.

It's a plea agreement, numskull. If he has an issue with the charges, he simply refuses to accept them. Those are his choices. He can't accept the plea and then complain it's improper.

******* moron, no lawyer is going to plead guilty to non-criminal charges. You're ******* insane.

A claim lacking any visible support. You're saying we should trust Cohen's lawyer, Lanny Davis, who was formerly the lawyer for the Clintons.

******* moron, I'm saying lawyers know the law. They're not as stupid as you as to risk going to jail by pleading guilty to something that's not even a crime. Especially when they can easily walk free with a simple motion to the court to dismiss such bogus chares if they're not rooted in an actual crime. You're completely batshit insane.

 

[bripat9643]

The fact that it's a non crime is what makes it a non crime. A crime isn't whatever Cohen blurts out because of a plea agreement. Meuller was the author of Cohen's plea agreement. That much is clear. All you psycho snowflakes behave as if Mueller is infallible.

You're insane to think a lawyer would plead guilty to a non-crime when all it would take to walk free is a motion to dismiss based on improper charges.

But then again, you have proven time and time again what a ******* moron you are.

It's a plea agreement, numskull. If he has an issue with the charges, he simply refuses to accept them. Those are his choices. He can't accept the plea and then complain it's improper.

******* moron, no lawyer is going to plead guilty to non-criminal charges. You're ******* insane.

A claim lacking any visible support. You're saying we should trust Cohen's lawyer, Lanny Davis, who was formerly the lawyer for the Clintons.

You even have this part wrong, Cohen's lawyer the did the plea agreement is Guy Petrillo, not Lanny Davis.

He may have filed the paper work. That's all we know. Lanny Davis is representing Cohen.

 

[Skylar]

Cohen's money didn't go to Trump or the campaign, it went to finance the NDA.

IT went to immediately benefit the campaign. But came out of Cohen's pocket. Not the campaign's.

Thus, a campaign contribution. Not a campaign expense. You've literally got opposites confused with each other. You probably want to stop polishing that turd and just accept the fact that you used the wrong term.

Trump, not the campaign reimbursed Cohen, so how could Cohen's outlay been a contribution to the campaign, when the purpose it was used for wasn't a campaign expenditure? It was basically just a short term personal loan to Trump.

Trump reimbursed him after the election.....under fraudulent circumstances, as its Trump. So of course it involved fraud, lies, faked time lines, and false invoices.

Now for your 'short term loan' theory. Even by that logic, the short term loan was for the purpose of aiding his presidential campaign. And loans are subject to campaign contribution limits too. Says who? Says the FEC.

If any person, including a relative or friend of the candidate, gives or loans the candidate money “for the purpose of influencing any election for federal office,” the funds are not considered personal funds of the candidate even if they are given to the candidate directly. Instead, the gift or loan is considered a contribution from the donor to the campaign, subject to the per-election limit and reportable by the campaign. This is true even if the candidate uses the funds for personal living expenses while campaigning.

Personal loans from the candidate - FEC.gov

And of course, because its Trump none of this sizable transaction was reported to the FEC. It was all done through shell companies, using fake invoices and fraudulent time lines. With Trump trying backdate the reason for the payment from 2016, when the illegal campaign contribution was made to 2017.

And there's a paper trail for all of it. With Trump's own CFO now having an immunity deal. So we're likely to learn even more of the fraudulent and corrupt criminal practices within the Trump organization.

The NDA was executed in 2016, how could it have been considered a contribution in 2017?

.

How indeed.

And the deceit and fraud committed by Trump go further still. As when Trump reimbursed Cohen in 2017 for the illegal campaign contribution made in 2016......he also used a fraudulent description of work. With the faked invoices claiming it was for legal work Cohen did in February of 2017.

And the Feds have the entire paper trail now. Every last fraudulent scrap of it.

It was legal work. Cohen drew up the papers and had Stormy sign them.

It was more than legal work. It was a $130,000 campaign contribution that if unreported, is a violation of campaign finance laws which required it to be reported.

And again, to clarify for the forum's proven ******* moron, it's not the amount that he would be in legal trouble over, it's the hiding the contribution from the FEC that would do him in.

Over $400,000 actually.

 

[Skylar]

You're insane to think a lawyer would plead guilty to a non-crime when all it would take to walk free is a motion to dismiss based on improper charges.

But then again, you have proven time and time again what a ******* moron you are.

It's a plea agreement, numskull. If he has an issue with the charges, he simply refuses to accept them. Those are his choices. He can't accept the plea and then complain it's improper.

******* moron, no lawyer is going to plead guilty to non-criminal charges. You're ******* insane.

A claim lacking any visible support. You're saying we should trust Cohen's lawyer, Lanny Davis, who was formerly the lawyer for the Clintons.

You even have this part wrong, Cohen's lawyer the did the plea agreement is Guy Petrillo, not Lanny Davis.

He may have filed the paper work. That's all we know. Lanny Davis is representing Cohen.

No such paper work was filed.

You're again countering facts and evidence with imagination.

 

[bripat9643]

The fact that it's a non crime is what makes it a non crime. A crime isn't whatever Cohen blurts out because of a plea agreement. Meuller was the author of Cohen's plea agreement. That much is clear. All you psycho snowflakes behave as if Mueller is infallible.

You're insane to think a lawyer would plead guilty to a non-crime when all it would take to walk free is a motion to dismiss based on improper charges.

But then again, you have proven time and time again what a ******* moron you are.

It's a plea agreement, numskull. If he has an issue with the charges, he simply refuses to accept them. Those are his choices. He can't accept the plea and then complain it's improper.

******* moron, no lawyer is going to plead guilty to non-criminal charges. You're ******* insane.

A claim lacking any visible support. You're saying we should trust Cohen's lawyer, Lanny Davis, who was formerly the lawyer for the Clintons.

******* moron, I'm saying lawyers know the law. They're not as stupid as you as to risk going to jail by pleading guilty to something that's not even a crime. Especially when they can easily walk free with a simple motion to the court to dismiss such bogus chares if they're not rooted in an actual crime. You're completely batshit insane.

You're also saying they never do anything dishonest or sleazy. Only an idiot would believe that, especially when you also claim that what Cohen did is dishonest and sleazy.

 

[OKTexas]

It's not a crime when 2 consenting adults screw each other..............Ethically........pretty shitty thing to do to your wife..........but it's not a crime.........

They had sex for future cashing in on doing so with Trump...........in Clinton's case they accused him of sexual abuse............Not hardly the same......Stormy bragged about it............didn't say he FORCED ME as was with Clinton............Big difference..........

You can say.........ehtically is it wrong .............yeah......I'd never cheat on my wife.........but legally...........your full of shit......

Now you judge me..........I see what I see...........I see an establishment ******* the entire country..........getting away with massive abuse of power........Obama was one of the dirtiest dang jerks I've seen in my lifetime..........You can try to say I KNOW NOTHING........about what happened with Federal Agencies then and I could care less .............too dang much went on for that excuse............

IRS targeting costing citizens millions in defense when they committed no crimes.............These same people were also targeted by the FBI, ATF and intel agencies..............because they disagree...............Those doing this are TRAITORS to the Republic............and these leftover assholes are the same ones that took part in it............

Same ones who gave Hillary a pass before she even testified..........same ones who got financial gain from the lobbies of the dirty political gang of Democraps.........

Tired of me saying this.........I don't care........you will continue to see these posts.

So you're saying the NDA wasn't a campaign expense? And a personal loan, not used for a campaign expense, is still a campaign contribution. Did I get your sentiment correct there?

.

Contributions are monies paid into the campaign. Cohen paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to benefit the campaign. The was is gross excess of the federal contribution limits. The funds didn't come out of the campaign coffers. But from Cohen personally, at Trumps personal direction. Making your description of Cohen's payments as a campaign expense simply wrong.

Trump reimembursed Cohen AFTER the election. And it being Trump, of course it was done through fraud. Faked time lines, fraudulent invoices, faked work descriptions. And obviously without reporting any of it to the FEC.

All of which has been turned over to federal prosecutors and submitted to the court.

Cohen's money didn't go to Trump or the campaign, it went to finance the NDA.

IT went to immediately benefit the campaign. But came out of Cohen's pocket. Not the campaign's.

Thus, a campaign contribution. Not a campaign expense. You've literally got opposites confused with each other. You probably want to stop polishing that turd and just accept the fact that you used the wrong term.

Trump, not the campaign reimbursed Cohen, so how could Cohen's outlay been a contribution to the campaign, when the purpose it was used for wasn't a campaign expenditure? It was basically just a short term personal loan to Trump.

Trump reimbursed him after the election.....under fraudulent circumstances, as its Trump. So of course it involved fraud, lies, faked time lines, and false invoices.

Now for your 'short term loan' theory. Even by that logic, the short term loan was for the purpose of aiding his presidential campaign. And loans are subject to campaign contribution limits too. Says who? Says the FEC.

If any person, including a relative or friend of the candidate, gives or loans the candidate money “for the purpose of influencing any election for federal office,” the funds are not considered personal funds of the candidate even if they are given to the candidate directly. Instead, the gift or loan is considered a contribution from the donor to the campaign, subject to the per-election limit and reportable by the campaign. This is true even if the candidate uses the funds for personal living expenses while campaigning.

Personal loans from the candidate - FEC.gov

And of course, because its Trump none of this sizable transaction was reported to the FEC. It was all done through shell companies, using fake invoices and fraudulent time lines. With Trump trying backdate the reason for the payment from 2016, when the illegal campaign contribution was made to 2017.

And there's a paper trail for all of it. With Trump's own CFO now having an immunity deal. So we're likely to learn even more of the fraudulent and corrupt criminal practices within the Trump organization.

The NDA was executed in 2016, how could it have been considered a contribution in 2017?

.

Trump paid Cohen back starting in January 2017.

You're not making sense, the money was spent in 2016.

.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You're insane to think a lawyer would plead guilty to a non-crime when all it would take to walk free is a motion to dismiss based on improper charges.

But then again, you have proven time and time again what a ******* moron you are.

It's a plea agreement, numskull. If he has an issue with the charges, he simply refuses to accept them. Those are his choices. He can't accept the plea and then complain it's improper.

******* moron, no lawyer is going to plead guilty to non-criminal charges. You're ******* insane.

A claim lacking any visible support. You're saying we should trust Cohen's lawyer, Lanny Davis, who was formerly the lawyer for the Clintons.

You even have this part wrong, Cohen's lawyer the did the plea agreement is Guy Petrillo, not Lanny Davis.

He may have filed the paper work. That's all we know. Lanny Davis is representing Cohen.

So is Gus, Cohen hired him back in June. Do try and keep up.

Lanny is new to the team and was not hired long enough ago to have had anything to do with the plea agreement.

 

[Faun]

LOLOL

******* moron, yes, the amount he paid Stormy IS different from him not reporting it.

You are unbelievably retarded to be incapable of comprehending the difference.

You're too far gone into insanity to waste time disputing your incoherent mutterings.

Watch me prove you're a ******* moron.....

You claim I said Trump's crime was based on how much he personally contributed his campaign....

Raving lunatic, no one is contending the amount he spent to silence a porn star is illegal.

Virtually every snowflake in this forum is arguing exactly that, including you.​

…. so either you can quote me saying the amount he gave is what violated the law or you prove I'm right when I point out you're a ******* moron.....

Choice is yours.....​

I'm not going down this road, asshole. Your favorite tactic is making a major issue out of some trivial fact.

LOLOL

No quote = you're a ******* moron, proven by your abject inability to prove the hallucination you posted on the forum.

What part of "I'm not going down this road" didn't you understand?

LOL

I understand fine that you can't actually quote me saying what you claim I said.

That you try to conceal your inability to prove your nutty claims under the cloak of non-interest only makes you look like an even bigger ******* moron and makes me laugh at you that much harder.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Contributions are monies paid into the campaign. Cohen paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to benefit the campaign. The was is gross excess of the federal contribution limits. The funds didn't come out of the campaign coffers. But from Cohen personally, at Trumps personal direction. Making your description of Cohen's payments as a campaign expense simply wrong.

Trump reimembursed Cohen AFTER the election. And it being Trump, of course it was done through fraud. Faked time lines, fraudulent invoices, faked work descriptions. And obviously without reporting any of it to the FEC.

All of which has been turned over to federal prosecutors and submitted to the court.

Cohen's money didn't go to Trump or the campaign, it went to finance the NDA.

IT went to immediately benefit the campaign. But came out of Cohen's pocket. Not the campaign's.

Thus, a campaign contribution. Not a campaign expense. You've literally got opposites confused with each other. You probably want to stop polishing that turd and just accept the fact that you used the wrong term.

Trump, not the campaign reimbursed Cohen, so how could Cohen's outlay been a contribution to the campaign, when the purpose it was used for wasn't a campaign expenditure? It was basically just a short term personal loan to Trump.

Trump reimbursed him after the election.....under fraudulent circumstances, as its Trump. So of course it involved fraud, lies, faked time lines, and false invoices.

Now for your 'short term loan' theory. Even by that logic, the short term loan was for the purpose of aiding his presidential campaign. And loans are subject to campaign contribution limits too. Says who? Says the FEC.

If any person, including a relative or friend of the candidate, gives or loans the candidate money “for the purpose of influencing any election for federal office,” the funds are not considered personal funds of the candidate even if they are given to the candidate directly. Instead, the gift or loan is considered a contribution from the donor to the campaign, subject to the per-election limit and reportable by the campaign. This is true even if the candidate uses the funds for personal living expenses while campaigning.

Personal loans from the candidate - FEC.gov

And of course, because its Trump none of this sizable transaction was reported to the FEC. It was all done through shell companies, using fake invoices and fraudulent time lines. With Trump trying backdate the reason for the payment from 2016, when the illegal campaign contribution was made to 2017.

And there's a paper trail for all of it. With Trump's own CFO now having an immunity deal. So we're likely to learn even more of the fraudulent and corrupt criminal practices within the Trump organization.

The NDA was executed in 2016, how could it have been considered a contribution in 2017?

.

Trump paid Cohen back starting in January 2017.

You're not making sense, the money was spent in 2016.

.

Yes, Cohen spent the money in 2016 in the heat of the campaign to influence the outcome of the campaign.

Glad we got that worked out.

 

[bripat9643]

It's a plea agreement, numskull. If he has an issue with the charges, he simply refuses to accept them. Those are his choices. He can't accept the plea and then complain it's improper.

******* moron, no lawyer is going to plead guilty to non-criminal charges. You're ******* insane.

A claim lacking any visible support. You're saying we should trust Cohen's lawyer, Lanny Davis, who was formerly the lawyer for the Clintons.

You even have this part wrong, Cohen's lawyer the did the plea agreement is Guy Petrillo, not Lanny Davis.

He may have filed the paper work. That's all we know. Lanny Davis is representing Cohen.

No such paper work was filed.

You're again countering facts and evidence with imagination.

I've already addressed all of your imbecile points. I'm done playing the "un huh, nuh uhn" game.

 

[Care4all]

The NDA during a campaign cycle without reporting it according to law, would have simply been a slap on the wrist fine....

1. But because Cohen, used false invoices to the Trump Organization/Foundation/Trust, claiming the expense was lawyer fees, instead of claiming it was for an NDA, the Trump Org committed tax FRAUD, by claiming the lawyer fee write off on their taxes....

2. Because another crime was committed along with the campaign finance non reporting malfeasance, it went from normally a misdemeanor or fine, to a felony....

Found in a raid that dragged them out of bed.....................in offices that were supposed to be clean...........

Only thing they were supposed to see was Russian evidence.............sure.........sure.........sure.....

Remember that discussion..........sure.........sure ..........sure...........

that's ALL another lie from your new orange tinted G-d, Cohen came out almost immediately and said it was a LIE, they treated him fairly, like a gentleman, not in the middle of the night but daytime hours, did not break in...

 

[bripat9643]

You're too far gone into insanity to waste time disputing your incoherent mutterings.

Watch me prove you're a ******* moron.....

You claim I said Trump's crime was based on how much he personally contributed his campaign....

Virtually every snowflake in this forum is arguing exactly that, including you.​

…. so either you can quote me saying the amount he gave is what violated the law or you prove I'm right when I point out you're a ******* moron.....

Choice is yours.....​

I'm not going down this road, asshole. Your favorite tactic is making a major issue out of some trivial fact.

LOLOL

No quote = you're a ******* moron, proven by your abject inability to prove the hallucination you posted on the forum.

What part of "I'm not going down this road" didn't you understand?

LOL

I understand fine that you can't actually quote me saying what you claim I said.

That you try to conceal your inability to prove your nutty claims under the cloak of non-interest only makes you look like an even bigger ******* moron and makes me laugh at you that much harder.

What part of "I'm not going down this road" didn't you understand?

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm not sure why, but it seems the Democrats think that paying off a woman to be quiet about a scandal is somehow illegal. Well, it isn't.

Meanwhile, I'm wondering what any of this has to do with collusion with Russia...

Paying money that somebody extorts from you is legal. Extortion, however, is illegal in all 50 states. I wonder why nobody is looking at women who extort money from men and/or is prosecuting them?

 

[Faun]

You're insane to think a lawyer would plead guilty to a non-crime when all it would take to walk free is a motion to dismiss based on improper charges.

But then again, you have proven time and time again what a ******* moron you are.

It's a plea agreement, numskull. If he has an issue with the charges, he simply refuses to accept them. Those are his choices. He can't accept the plea and then complain it's improper.

******* moron, no lawyer is going to plead guilty to non-criminal charges. You're ******* insane.

A claim lacking any visible support. You're saying we should trust Cohen's lawyer, Lanny Davis, who was formerly the lawyer for the Clintons.

******* moron, I'm saying lawyers know the law. They're not as stupid as you as to risk going to jail by pleading guilty to something that's not even a crime. Especially when they can easily walk free with a simple motion to the court to dismiss such bogus chares if they're not rooted in an actual crime. You're completely batshit insane.

You're also saying they never do anything dishonest or sleazy. Only an idiot would believe that, especially when you also claim that what Cohen did is dishonest and sleazy.

LOLOL

I never said that either. What a pity you're too insane to argue against what people actually say; that you have to make up what they say and then argue what you falsely ascribe to others.

 

[Skylar]

******* moron, no lawyer is going to plead guilty to non-criminal charges. You're ******* insane.

A claim lacking any visible support. You're saying we should trust Cohen's lawyer, Lanny Davis, who was formerly the lawyer for the Clintons.

You even have this part wrong, Cohen's lawyer the did the plea agreement is Guy Petrillo, not Lanny Davis.

He may have filed the paper work. That's all we know. Lanny Davis is representing Cohen.

No such paper work was filed.

You're again countering facts and evidence with imagination.

I've already addressed all of your imbecile points. I'm done playing the "un huh, nuh uhn" game.

With conspiracy and useless personal opinion.

Again, you 'insisting' that excessive campaign contributions aren't a crime doesn't magically change the U.S.C.. You making up a nonsense conspiracy theory that the Judge in Cohen's case and the federal prosecutors are all part of a plot doesn't change the law either.

You've got nothing but naked denial, imagination, and batshit conspiracy theories backed by nothing.

Is that really it? If so, that was easy.

 

[bripat9643]

ROFL! Oh yeah, now that's different!

LOLOL

******* moron, yes, the amount he paid Stormy IS different from him not reporting it.

You are unbelievably retarded to be incapable of comprehending the difference.

You're too far gone into insanity to waste time disputing your incoherent mutterings.

Watch me prove you're a ******* moron.....

You claim I said Trump's crime was based on how much he personally contributed his campaign....

Raving lunatic, no one is contending the amount he spent to silence a porn star is illegal.

Virtually every snowflake in this forum is arguing exactly that, including you.​

…. so either you can quote me saying the amount he gave is what violated the law or you prove I'm right when I point out you're a ******* moron.....

Choice is yours.....​

I'm not going down this road, asshole. Your favorite tactic is making a major issue out of some trivial fact.

LOLOL

No quote = you're a ******* moron, proven by your abject inability to prove the hallucination you posted on the forum.

No quote means what part of "I'm not going down this road" didn't you understand?