So This Is Mueller's Case??

[gnadfly]

Where did Mueller indict Putin? For the last two years Trump/Putin collusion? Where is it?

[gfejunkie]

Originally Posted by garhkal

How is paying off 2 hookers, breaking campaign finance laws though?

Especially when campaign funds had nothing to do with it.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by garhkal

How is paying off 2 hookers, breaking campaign finance laws though?

That is an easy answer if you did a cusiory search.

Try "Trump campaign finance laws''

[rexdutchman]

we all know the "blintons" have been protected from the whitewater days, just saying , I just wonder what they have ( maybe they know what area 51 is really about) LOL

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

That is an easy answer if you did a cusiory search.

Try "Trump campaign finance laws''

A cursory Internet search reveals that Mueller's imaginary violations of campaign finance law are fantasy delusions, especially when one remembers how, in 2012, prosecutors failed to convict ex-Senator John R. Edwards in a far more evident case. Then there's Trump's long history of making similar payouts to women establishing for the record that this was business-as-usual for the Trump Organization: and not campaign-specific as required by law.

[nevergaveitathought]

the sad thing is

the trump issues, for the main, aren't legal ones, they are political

the secret surveillance and attempts at entrapment by the fbi on the trump campaign was political

the howling about "Russian collusion" was political

the special counsel appointment was all political

even the findings concerning the supposed "campaign finance violations" are political as to where they seem to be headed, for both obama and hellary had more egregious violations and they were handled administratively

this case is not appropriate for a criminal prosecution and should be an administrative matter

the reason is the people who think its criminal due to non reporting would accuse trump as damned if he did and damned if he didn't

in other words, if trump had originally paid these payments out of campaign funds and treated these payments as campaign payments and reported them as such, he would now be accused of making personal payments out of campaign funds

as it is now, they are accusing trump of making non reported campaign contributions for they claim the payments are campaign payments

so which is it, personal or campaign? these people would have it either way

and impeachment is a political act, unconcerned with and unconnected to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine and the charges give the dims a fig leaf of cover for the impeachment they have screamed about since the day trump was elected

so trump and the nation may face a tough upcoming year

[TheDaliLama]

A Polosi House. I say bring impeachment on.

The Dems have looked totally foolish since election nigh. Impeachment will only set their party back further.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

A cursory Internet search reveals that Mueller's imaginary violations of campaign finance law are fantasy delusions, especially when one remembers how, in 2012, prosecutors failed to convict ex-Senator John R. Edwards in a far more evident case. Then there's Trump's long history of making similar payouts to women establishing for the record that this was business-as-usual for the Trump Organization: and not campaign-specific as required by law.

https://www.justsecurity.org/60415/p...aw-violations/

You are comparing apples to oranges...Trumps payouts were much closer to an actual election.

Might I suggest you brush up on your Trump/Edwards comparisons.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

You are comparing apples to oranges...Trumps payouts were much closer to an actual election.

But then you just believe what you want to believe.

Trump's pay-outs were preceded by other pay-outs proving for a fact that such pay-outs are routine business for Trump, and not campaign specific as required by law. Mueller's fantasy delusion will be tossed out of court, with prejudice.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Trump's pay-outs were preceded by other pay-outs proving for a fact that such pay-outs are routine business for Trump, and not campaign specific as required by law. Mueller's fantasy delusion will be tossed out of court, with prejudice.

https://www.justsecurity.org/60415/p...aw-violations/

Read this or continue to spout nonsense about Trump/Edwards...

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

https://www.justsecurity.org/60415/p...aw-violations/

Read this or continue to spout nonsense about Trump/Edwards...

None of that changes the fact that prosecutors couldn't convict ex-Senator John R. Edwards in a far more evident case.

None of that changes the fact that Trump has a long history of making similar payouts to women establishing for the record that this was business-as-usual for the Trump Organization: and not campaign-specific as required by law.

None of that changes the fact that the prosecution would have to overcome those two substantial precedents to successfully prosecute a case: and they can't.

Hence, Mueller's fantasy delusion will be tossed out of court: with prejudice.

[themystic]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

A cursory Internet search reveals that Mueller's imaginary violations of campaign finance law are fantasy delusions, especially when one remembers how, in 2012, prosecutors failed to convict ex-Senator John R. Edwards in a far more evident case. Then there's Trump's long history of making similar payouts to women establishing for the record that this was business-as-usual for the Trump Organization: and not campaign-specific as required by law.

Trumps long history of women he payed off. Business as usual. My how your peoples principles have changed. He has also had to pay off the men he was involved with also. Its a well know fact in Swinger circles that Trump, swings from both sides of the plate

[gnadfly]

Where are the Putin indictments? For two years all we heard is "Putin/Trump". In order to have collusion you've got two have two people. Where are the Putin indictments?

[bamscram]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

A cursory Internet search reveals that Mueller's imaginary violations of campaign finance law are fantasy delusions, especially when one remembers how, in 2012, prosecutors failed to convict ex-Senator John R. Edwards in a far more evident case. Then there's Trump's long history of making similar payouts to women establishing for the record that this was business-as-usual for the Trump Organization: and not campaign-specific as required by law.

This is who is charging Trump not Mueller.


https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/andr...an-us-attorney

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by themystic

Trumps long history of women he payed off. Business as usual. My how your peoples principles have changed. He has also had to pay off the men he was involved with also. Its a well know fact in Swinger circles that Trump, swings from both sides of the plate

Isn't it terrible how far Slick Willie and hildebeest have lowered the bar. Trump is still above their level, however. And Mueller will not be able to overcome the fact that his cases are built on the fruit of the poisonous tree and the fact that Trump has paid other women on prior occasions to keep the peace -- meaning, Stormy Daniels was no special occasion.

Originally Posted by bamscram

This is who is charging Trump not Mueller.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/andr...an-us-attorney

It's Mueller's handiwork, no matter how you try to spin it.