206d
@Metal-Brain saidIF Trump had used campaign funds for the Daniel's payoff he probably would have been in the clear.
Paying hush money isn't the scandal here. Bill Clinton did that for Paula Jones.
It is using campaign funds that is the scandal, but that is not that unusual either.
https://nypost.com/2022/03/30/clinton-campaign-dnc-fined-by-fec-for-lying-about-steele-dossier-payments/
Although I have learned to expect partisan bias from you I think you should put things in persp ...[text shortened]... litics....unfortunately.
Will you try to hold democrats responsible when they do similar things?
He didn't. Instead he had Cohen make the payment for the benefit of the campaign violating the legal campaign contribution limit. Then, after the election was over, he reimbursed Cohen (as promised) from his personal funds falsely labeling the payments as part of a non-existent retainer for legal services in order to conceal the Federal contribution violation.
Another failed false "whataboutism".
206d
@no1marauder saidThe same thing Hillary and the DNC did with the Steele Dossier. She got a mere fine and so should Trump.
IF Trump had used campaign funds for the Daniel's payoff he probably would have been in the clear.
He didn't. Instead he had Cohen make the payment for the benefit of the campaign violating the legal campaign contribution limit. Then, after the election was over, he reimbursed Cohen (as promised) from his personal funds falsely labeling the payments as part of a non-ex ...[text shortened]... ices in order to conceal the Federal contribution violation.
Another failed false "whataboutism".
https://nypost.com/2022/03/30/clinton-campaign-dnc-fined-by-fec-for-lying-about-steele-dossier-payments/
The only difference is Trump paid off a porn actress instead of the Steele Dossier for law-fare against Trump. Actually, the law-fare is worse, isn't it?
@Metal-Brain saidNo they are not the "same thing" as just explained. If Trump's campaign had paid off Daniel's lawyer and then listed the payment in FEC filings as "legal expenses" it would have been a similar thing and would probably been just a fine.
The same thing Hillary and the DNC did with the Steele Dossier. She got a mere fine and so should Trump.
https://nypost.com/2022/03/30/clinton-campaign-dnc-fined-by-fec-for-lying-about-steele-dossier-payments/
The only difference is Trump paid off a porn actress instead of the Steele Dossier for law-fare against Trump. Actually, the law-fare is worse, isn't it?
But they didn't; Trump conspired with Cohen to have the latter make an illegal campaign contribution then reimbursed him with personal funds making false entries in business records to conceal the fact he was doing so.
That's a felony in New York as the jury found.
206d
@no1marauder said" If Trump's campaign had paid off Daniel's lawyer and then listed the payment in FEC filings as "legal expenses" it would have been a similar thing and would probably been just a fine."
No they are not the "same thing" as just explained. If Trump's campaign had paid off Daniel's lawyer and then listed the payment in FEC filings as "legal expenses" it would have been a similar thing and would probably been just a fine.
But they didn't; Trump conspired with Cohen to have the latter make an illegal campaign contribution then reimbursed him with personal ...[text shortened]... iness records to conceal the fact he was doing so.
That's a felony in New York as the jury found.
Wrong! That is what Trump did though his then lawyer Cohen.
Trump listed the payment in FEC filings as "legal expenses" to Cohen.
@Metal-Brain saidNo he didn't. In fact, when the story broke in 2018, he insisted the payments had nothing to do with the campaign.
" If Trump's campaign had paid off Daniel's lawyer and then listed the payment in FEC filings as "legal expenses" it would have been a similar thing and would probably been just a fine."
Wrong! That is what Trump did though his then lawyer Cohen.
Trump listed the payment in FEC filings as "legal expenses" to Cohen.
See entry for May 3, 2018 here:https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/donald-trump-stormy-daniels-indictment-investigation-timeline-manhattan-district-attorney/#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17182882406106&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com
206d
@no1marauder saidYes he did. Don't you think I watch the news you silly man.
No he didn't. In fact, when the story broke in 2018, he insisted the payments had nothing to do with the campaign.
You have no evidence to the contrary.
Cohen made the payment and Trump said he reimbursed Cohen for it. If you want to claim it was not from campaign funds that is fine, so what was he convicted for Sherlock?
Do some research dude.
206d
@Metal-Brain saidI just told you, idiot.
Yes he did. Don't you think I watch the news you silly man.
You have no evidence to the contrary.
Cohen made the payment and Trump said he reimbursed Cohen for it. If you want to claim it was not from campaign funds that is fine, so what was he convicted for Sherlock?
Do some research dude.
@no1marauder saidProve it you lying cad.
I just told you, idiot.
What is your source of information?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-discloses-reimbursement-to-michael-cohen-tied-to-stormy-daniels-payment-1526493667
"The money was listed in Trump's company records as "legal fees," which prosecutors suggest was part of an unlawful attempt to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential race. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, admits reimbursing the $130,000 hush money to Cohen but denies having an affair with Daniels."
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-hush-money-trial-michael-cohen-1892667
206d
@Metal-Brain saidTrump's business records concealed that the payments were for reimbursement; he even gave Cohen a 1099 for them ( a form which reports income).
Prove it you lying cad.
What is your source of information?
206d
@no1marauder saidStill no evidence to the contrary. You are still wrong.
Trump's business records concealed that the payments were for reimbursement; he even gave Cohen a 1099 for them ( a form which reports income).
You might want to stop beating on that dead horse.
@Metal-Brain saidLMAO! Evidence to the contrary that the payments weren't for "legal fees" but for reimbursement?
Still no evidence to the contrary. You are still wrong.
You might want to stop beating on that dead horse.
It's hard to imagine there could be any more since it includes documents spelling out the specific terms of the reimbursement (including doubling it to take taxes into account since Cohen would have to falsely declare it as income) and Trump's tweets admitting so.
The jury disagrees with your "assessment" which seems to be based on nothing considering you show very little knowledge of the case, the legal filings and the evidence presented at trial.
@no1marauder saidI never claimed that and you know it you liar. You are just a stubborn fool who is trying to do everything you can to possibly evade admitting you are wrong.
LMAO! Evidence to the contrary that the payments weren't for "legal fees" but for reimbursement?
It's hard to imagine there could be any more since it includes documents spelling out the specific terms of the reimbursement (including doubling it to take taxes into account since Cohen would have to falsely declare it as income) and Trump's tweets admitting so.
The ju ...[text shortened]... g you show very little knowledge of the case, the legal filings and the evidence presented at trial.
You are desperate to save face but it is too late. You have confirmed everything I said and vainly attempted to move the goal post several times. Only idiots would believe otherwise.