So This Is Mueller's Case??

[WTF]

Originally Posted by 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?

They are right next to the Whitewater indictments!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Trump has paid other women on prior occasions to keep the peace -- meaning, Stormy Daniels was no special occasion.


.

Who are all these other women and just how much was the payout?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

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

.

The Prosecution of John Edwards Versus the Case Against Trump
Cohen’s statements in court this week, if true, establish that Trump was personally involved in multiple violations of federal law and also severely undermine the viability of what I’ll call the “Edwards defense,” which Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani has already publicly asserted on Trump’s behalf.
Federal prosecutors charged 2008 Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards for allegedly orchestrating nearly $1 million in payments by two wealthy Edwards supporters to hide his pregnant mistress, Rielle Hunter, from public view in the latter half of 2007. The Department of Justice argued that the payments to his mistress Hunter constituted illegally large and unreported in-kind contributions to the Edwards campaign. Sound familiar? Edwards argued that the purpose of the payments was to hide his affair from his wife who was battling cancer at the time, not to hide his affair from voters. In other words, Edwards claimed the reason for the payments was personal and not political.
Some commentators claim Edwards was vindicated, and that his case shows that his alleged activities would not amount to a crime. That’s wrong. The jury was unable to reach a unanimous conclusion on five of six counts Edwards faced, and acquitted him on a count related to a payment made after he had dropped out of the presidential race. The law is still a strong one that regulates all federal elections. The failure of Edwards’ prosecution boils down to weaknesses in some of the claims the government made and evidence against him.
Indeed, Common Cause has alleged very similar violations of law by Trump in our DOJ and FEC complaints. Specifically, we allege that Trump violated federal law by receiving illegal contributions from Cohen and AMI in the form of payments made to McDougal and Daniels, and by failing to report these contributions to the FEC.
These campaign finance laws apply only to payments made “for the purpose of influencing an election,” a phrase that’s critical to the statutory definitions of “contribution” and “expenditure.” Several factual distinctions make the case against Trump stronger than was the case against Edwards, specifically with respect to any asserted “personal not political” defense.


3. Timing of the Payments and the Affairs
Third, the payments to Hunter on behalf of Edwards were made contemporaneously to the affair and the pregnancy—timing that arguably makes sense if the true purpose was to keep knowledge of the affair from Edwards’ wife. By contrast, the payments to both McDougal and Clifford were made a decade after the alleged affairs—timing that doesn’t make much sense if the purpose was to keep knowledge of the affairs from Mrs. Trump, but makes a lot of sense (combined with the proximity to the election) if the purpose was to keep the information from voters in order to influence the election.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

The Prosecution of John Edwards Versus the Case Against Trump
Cohen’s statements in court this week, if true, establish that Trump was personally involved in multiple violations of federal law and also severely undermine the viability of what I’ll call the “Edwards defense,” which Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani has already publicly asserted on Trump’s behalf.
Federal prosecutors charged 2008 Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards for allegedly orchestrating nearly $1 million in payments by two wealthy Edwards supporters to hide his pregnant mistress, Rielle Hunter, from public view in the latter half of 2007. The Department of Justice argued that the payments to his mistress Hunter constituted illegally large and unreported in-kind contributions to the Edwards campaign. Sound familiar? Edwards argued that the purpose of the payments was to hide his affair from his wife who was battling cancer at the time, not to hide his affair from voters. In other words, Edwards claimed the reason for the payments was personal and not political.
Some commentators claim Edwards was vindicated, and that his case shows that his alleged activities would not amount to a crime. That’s wrong. The jury was unable to reach a unanimous conclusion on five of six counts Edwards faced, and acquitted him on a count related to a payment made after he had dropped out of the presidential race. The law is still a strong one that regulates all federal elections. The failure of Edwards’ prosecution boils down to weaknesses in some of the claims the government made and evidence against him.
Indeed, Common Cause has alleged very similar violations of law by Trump in our DOJ and FEC complaints. Specifically, we allege that Trump violated federal law by receiving illegal contributions from Cohen and AMI in the form of payments made to McDougal and Daniels, and by failing to report these contributions to the FEC.
These campaign finance laws apply only to payments made “for the purpose of influencing an election,” a phrase that’s critical to the statutory definitions of “contribution” and “expenditure.” Several factual distinctions make the case against Trump stronger than was the case against Edwards, specifically with respect to any asserted “personal not political” defense.


3. Timing of the Payments and the Affairs
Third, the payments to Hunter on behalf of Edwards were made contemporaneously to the affair and the pregnancy—timing that arguably makes sense if the true purpose was to keep knowledge of the affair from Edwards’ wife. By contrast, the payments to both McDougal and Clifford were made a decade after the alleged affairs—timing that doesn’t make much sense if the purpose was to keep knowledge of the affairs from Mrs. Trump, but makes a lot of sense (combined with the proximity to the election) if the purpose was to keep the information from voters in order to influence the election.

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.

[bamscram]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

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.


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

Get it straight and quit blaming a good republican like Muller . You are the spin DR of the forum.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by bamscram

Get it straight and quit blaming a good republican like Muller . You are the spin DR of the forum.

Who the fuck is "Muller"? This thread is about a corrupt mutha fucker named Mueller who has a long history of persecuting the wrong people, e.g., the Whitey Bulger case , the anthrax case, etc.

[bamscram]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Who the fuck is "Muller"? This thread is about a corrupt mutha fucker named Mueller who has a long history of persecuting the wrong people, e.g., the Whitey Bulger case , the anthrax case, etc.

Never had a typo? Didn't think so. Get it straight on who is going after Trump , and quit whining.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by bamscram

Never had a typo? Didn't think so. Get it straight on who is going after Trump , and quit whining.

Pointing out substantive facts that are destined to torpedo Mueller's nonsense is "whining". Who is "Muller"? You didn't answer the question.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by WTF

Who are all these other women and just how much was the payout?

Did you just make that up?

I've seen no evidence of that, have you?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

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

.

You can keep repeating that lie but it will not make it true....

. Fear of Media ExposureFirst, in the Edwards prosecution, DOJ presented no evidence that Hunter was planning or threatening to speak to the press about her affair with Edwards. Edwards’ lawyers made a big deal out of this at trial, arguing that the payments were intended to keep news of Edwards’ affair from his very-ill wife, not from the voting public. By contrast, regarding the payments at issue in the Trump/Cohen matter, both McDougal and Clifford were in negotiation with national media outlets to sell the rights to their stories of affairs with Trump. McDougal and Clifford understood that the rapidly-approaching presidential general election gave them leverage over Trump. These facts are highly relevant to the motive and purpose of the payments.

[garhkal]

Originally Posted by gfejunkie

Especially when campaign funds had nothing to do with it.

Exactly. He used his own purse to pay them off. Ergo no campaign finance laws broken.

Originally Posted by 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?

Those indictments are in the mail..

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

Did you just make that up?

I've seen no evidence of that, have you?

Then you're not watching or reading substantive news.

Donald Trump's Long History of Paying for Silence

(The Atlantic)

Originally Posted by WTF

You can keep repeating that lie but it will not make it true....

. Fear of Media ExposureFirst, in the Edwards prosecution, DOJ presented no evidence that Hunter was planning or threatening to speak to the press about her affair with Edwards. Edwards’ lawyers made a big deal out of this at trial, arguing that the payments were intended to keep news of Edwards’ affair from his very-ill wife, not from the voting public. By contrast, regarding the payments at issue in the Trump/Cohen matter, both McDougal and Clifford were in negotiation with national media outlets to sell the rights to their stories of affairs with Trump. McDougal and Clifford understood that the rapidly-approaching presidential general election gave them leverage over Trump. These facts are highly relevant to the motive and purpose of the payments.

Yeah, I'll keep repeating it because it is true and factual:

Prosecutors couldn't convict ex-Senator John R. Edwards in a far more evident case.

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.

Prosecutors 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

Then you're not watching or reading substantive news.






Yeah, I'll keep repeating it because it is true and factual:

Prosecutors couldn't convict ex-Senator John R. Edwards in a far more evident case.

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.

Prosecutors 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.

You dont know your stuff IB. More fake news from the IB Express

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by themystic

You dont know your stuff IB. More fake news from the IB Express

I know Mueller's indictments are fruit of the poisonous tree, and that the there is no substantive case against Trump.

[themystic]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I know Mueller's indictments are fruit of the poisonous tree, and that the there is no substantive case against Trump.

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree. That sounds pretty Biblical. I know thats Trumps 2nd favorite book. Shame him and the Evangelicals are going to Hell