Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 126,711
- 98,397
- 3,635
That’s not the case involving his hush money to Stormy Daniels.
Trump has now been implicated in a federal crime
- Thread starter BWK
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #1,062
Lol! Are you jealous?
- Thread starter
- #1,064
Then you and Trump are in good company for each other.
- Thread starter
- #1,065
"Not lately?" So jealousy comes in spurts for you? Interesting!
- Thread starter
- #1,066
I asked you two questions. Can't you answer?How do you know that? Did you talk to Trump?Trump wasn't concerned about adulterous affairs swaying the religious right in the election. The hush money was to protect his personal spotless reputation.
Trump wasn't concerned about adulterous affairs swaying the religious right in the election.
Doesn't matter, it wasn't a campaign expense.
And by the way, prosecutors will charge it as a campaign finance crime/felony/expense because of the obvious. He needed to hide an affair weeks before the election, the money was not reported, it exceeded $2700 dollars, and it was reported to have come from stolen money out of his charity. Under federal law, an individual could not donate more than $2,700 directly to Trump’s primary or general election campaign in 2016. A $130,000 payment would far exceed that limit. Remember, Trump already lied about where the money came from. So for you to say it is not a campaign expense, is the joke of the day. Since Trump was lying, how in the hell do you know if it was an expense or not? Lol!
How do you know that?
Because it's not a campaign expense.
Why do you feel it is?
Under what guidelines do you draw your conclusion?
Lol! Because that tells us everything you idiot.He wasn't straight with the American people exposing his lies about the source of the money. If you don't know the source, how can you claim it is or isn't a campaign expense? Answer, you can't, which is why you are so full of shit.
You tell me? You are the one who said it wasn't an expense. Lol!
You still aren't answering the question. You making the claim doesn't make it so. How do you know the money paid to Daniels didn't come from the charitable foundation or the campaign? Which by the way, has been reported as essentially being a big source for campaign expenditures, which is illegal. And that is probably why prosecutors have labeled this a campaign financing felony.
Exposing your own stupid counter responses is all we need to know boss. Thanks! You just said nothing.
That doesn't tell me anything either. Lol! You seem to be at a loss there hot shot.
Based on my previous questions from this current post of mine, I'm still asking the same question for which you seem to be paralyzed to answer. Telling me "because it wasn't", is a losers way of saying I don't know.
Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 126,711
- 98,397
- 3,635
LOL
What does that have to do with your ignorance over campaign finance laws? It doesn’t matter if contributions come directly from the candidate or from elseware; if it’s of value to their campaign, it has to be reported.
And it matters not whose word you take. What matters is what the FEC does and what the House does.
- Thread starter
- #1,069
I never claimed to run in spurts. And by the way, for the guy who "grew up 40 years ago", who was it who brought up a "bromance" again?
- Thread starter
- #1,071
Otherwise known as following the money, the law, and the criminals. Don't you just love it?
Democrats and fake news .. almosts looking for used up sluts and porno lawyers to hump for bucks and political cheap shots ..
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
I asked you two questions. Can't you answer?
Under what guidelines do you draw your conclusion?
Lol! Because that tells us everything you idiot.
You tell me? You are the one who said it wasn't an expense. Lol!
You still aren't answering the question. You making the claim doesn't make it so. How do you know the money paid to Daniels didn't come from the charitable foundation or the campaign? Which by the way, has been reported as essentially being a big source for campaign expenditures, which is illegal. And that is probably why prosecutors have labeled this a campaign financing felony.
Exposing your own stupid counter responses is all we need to know boss. Thanks! You just said nothing.
That doesn't tell me anything either. Lol! You seem to be at a loss there hot shot.
Based on my previous questions from this current post of mine, I'm still asking the same question for which you seem to be paralyzed to answer. Telling me "because it wasn't", is a losers way of saying I don't know.
Based on my previous questions from this current post of mine, I'm still asking the same question for which you seem to be paralyzed to answer.
How is it a campaign expense?
Did it pay a campaign worker?
Pay for campaign ads?
Pay for transport to a campaign event?
Pay for campaign fundraising?
Paid out of campaign funds?
No?
Okay, not a campaign expense.
Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 126,711
- 98,397
- 3,635
Of course it was. Keeping a porn star from going public just 11 days before an election with her account of an affair with Trump was certainly a benefit to his campaign.
Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 126,711
- 98,397
- 3,635
What about him? I called him a piece of shit for cheating on his wife.
Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 126,711
- 98,397
- 3,635
Who were the Russians bribing? Almost all of the money came from Canadians.LOLOLToo late bub. Talk to the prosecutors. They are calling it a contribution due to the nature of the payment. IT was hidden and never reported, and Trump said he knew nothing about it, which he lied about. The prosecutors are calling it a felony.
Cohen paid her out of campaign funds?
Link?
The headline on the website Pravda
trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup,...
"Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World"
The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West.
The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers
and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling
much of the global uranium supply chain.
But the untold story behind that story is one that involves
not just the Russian president, but also a former American president
and a woman who would like to be the next one.
At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.
the sale gave the Russians control of
one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.
Since uranium is considered a strategic asset,
with implications for national security,
the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of
representatives from a number of United States government agencies.
Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show,
a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation.
Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation
to make four donations totaling $2.35 million.
Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons,
despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck
with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors.
Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.
And shortly after the Russians announced their intention
to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One,
Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech
from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin
that was promoting Uranium One stock.
September 2005:
Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining financier,
wins a major uranium deal in Kazakhstan for his company, UrAsia,
days after visiting the country with former President Bill Clinton.
2006:
Mr. Giustra donates $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation
February 2007:
UrAsia merges with a South African mining company
and assumes the name Uranium One.
In the next two months, the company expands into the United States.
June 2008:
Negotations begin for an investment in Uranium One
by the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom
2008-2010:
Uranium One and former UrAsia investors
make $8.65 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation.
Uranium One investors stand to profit on a Rosatom deal
June 2009:
Rosatom subsidiary ARMZ
takes a 17 percent ownership stake in Uranium One
2010-2011:
Investors give millions more in donations to the Clinton Foundation
June 2010:
Rosatom seeks majority ownership of Uranium One,
pending approval by the Committee on Foreign Investment
in the United States, of which the State Department is a member.
Rosatom says it does not plan to increase its stake in Uranium One
or to take the company private.
June 29, 2010:
Bill Clinton is paid $500,000 for a speech in Moscow
by a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin
that assigned a buy rating to Uranium One stock
October 2010:
Rosatom’s majority ownership approved by
Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.
January 2013:
Rosatom takes full control of Uranium One and takes it private
Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation
Now...I didn't even mention the millions of dollars
from Russian investors and government agencies,
given to a small, off shore company,
which Podesta sat on the Executive Board
Podesta failed to disclose, not only the money but,
his involvement in this company, which had a stake in the sale
Now...unless you and your ilk
are capable of pulling your heads out of your asses
and admitting whose REALLY guilty of criminal conduct....
THEN FUCK OFF!
COLLUSION... RUSSIA... TREASON... CORRUPTED
*********CLINTONS*********
How many times has this narrative been debunked?
Almost all of the donations from Giustra came before Hillary was Secretary of State and Bill collecting $500,000 for speech was in line with how much he was paid for other speeches, which went as high as $700,000.
Almost all of the donations from Giustra came before Hillary was Secretary of State
The Russians were bribing a sitting US Senator?
Aba Incieni
Gold Member
- Dec 13, 2017
- 8,910
- 1,282
- 290
Lying to a grand jury. Felony.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
And yet, not a campaign expense.
The New York Times published many, many articles which they thought were a benefit to the Hillary campaign, yet they didn't report a single one as a campaign contribution.
Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 126,711
- 98,397
- 3,635
Impeachment doesn’t require intent.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Who were the Russians bribing?
The junior Senator from New York.
Almost all of the money came from Canadians.
From business partners of Russians..
- Thread starter
- #1,080
If it benefits a campaign it most certainly benefits a candidate.I asked you two questions. Can't you answer?
Under what guidelines do you draw your conclusion?
Lol! Because that tells us everything you idiot.
You tell me? You are the one who said it wasn't an expense. Lol!
You still aren't answering the question. You making the claim doesn't make it so. How do you know the money paid to Daniels didn't come from the charitable foundation or the campaign? Which by the way, has been reported as essentially being a big source for campaign expenditures, which is illegal. And that is probably why prosecutors have labeled this a campaign financing felony.
Exposing your own stupid counter responses is all we need to know boss. Thanks! You just said nothing.
That doesn't tell me anything either. Lol! You seem to be at a loss there hot shot.
Based on my previous questions from this current post of mine, I'm still asking the same question for which you seem to be paralyzed to answer. Telling me "because it wasn't", is a losers way of saying I don't know.
Based on my previous questions from this current post of mine, I'm still asking the same question for which you seem to be paralyzed to answer.
How is it a campaign expense?
Did it pay a campaign worker?
Pay for campaign ads?
Pay for transport to a campaign event?
Pay for campaign fundraising?
Paid out of campaign funds?
No?
Okay, not a campaign expense.
And how did it do that? It used money from a charity, it didn't report the money that cheated the electorate out of a fair election, and it used measures to hide an affair that would have looked bad for the candidate.
The fact that it may or may not have paid campaign workers, ads, events, etc. is a useless distraction of an argument on your part. Illegal is one thing, your distraction is another.
Prosecutors are looking at all of that, and concluded that Trump conspired to commit a felony. You however, can't give us any intelligent reasons for why it is not an expense, other than to say it isn't. Which still tells us nothing.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Do You Have Experience In Nuclear Engineering? Check Out These Exciting New Job Openings In Iran- Started by Votto
- Replies: 0
-
The psychology of words: Is being called a king better than being called Hitler?
- Started by Votto
- Replies: 20
-
The Repercussions of Trump v. United States May Finally Be Hitting Roberts- Started by berg80
- Replies: 12
-
