BMX Bandit said:

---

Even with explaining his "point" he hasn't explained how SDNY going to indict a sitting president. Even Comey reiterated it can't be done.

This looks to be a "let me make a far fetched claim, so on the minuscule chance it happens in can look like a genius" move

---

I agree completely, I think it's 100% bluster, because Adam Schiff jumped on that narrative too quickly. I'm still waiting for his definitive proof of collusion he said on the record he possessed and was just timing the release.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Even with explaining his "point" he hasn't explained how SDNY going to indict a sitting president. Even Comey reiterated it can't be done.

This looks to be a "let me make a far fetched claim, so on the minuscule chance it happens in can look like a genius" move

---

I agree completely, I think it's 100% bluster, because Adam Schiff jumped on that narrative too quickly. I'm still waiting for his definitive proof of collusion he said on the record he possessed and was just timing the release.

---

It's all about giving the media something to talk about for days on end. We'll probably have a countdown clock appear on CNN soon.

Hell, KBTX spent more time on that than anything else last night. You could tell the anchor was reporting it with glee.

I'll defer to an expert in FEC laws, but if I understand what I read, if a campaign is found guilty of campaign funding violations it's the Campaign itself as an entity that is at fault not the candidate. It's generally civil as was said, and fines are passed out every election cycle going back decades.

If they take the Edwards approach it will be tough for many reasons, but here's something really key; at the time this was taking place pre- Primaries, Trump was 100% self funded at that point pre Iowa.

Does anybody think Trump has an ace up his sleeve he's going to pull out before the end of the year before the house flips over? He certainly doesn't seem to be worried about anything.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

I'll defer to an expert in FEC laws, but if I understand what I read, if a campaign is found guilty of campaign funding violations it's the Campaign itself as an entity that is at fault not the candidate. It's generally civil as was said, and fines are passed out every election cycle going back decades.

If they take the Edwards approach it will be tough for many reasons, but here's something really key; at the time this was taking place pre- Primaries, Trump was 100% self funded at that point pre Iowa.

---

IF Trump ordered Cohen to direct the illegal corporate contribution and IF Trump knew that violated campaign finance laws and did it violate those laws, then he would have personal criminal exposure.

note, there is a lot of "IF" on this, I'm just explaining the theory.

Needs to be noted that its entirely possible Cohen committed a crime and Trump didn't. Intention to violate the campaign finance law is a element. So Cohen could have done it solely to benefit the campaign and Trump ordered it done because he didn't want his family to know about it.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

I'll defer to an expert in FEC laws, but if I understand what I read, if a campaign is found guilty of campaign funding violations it's the Campaign itself as an entity that is at fault not the candidate. It's generally civil as was said, and fines are passed out every election cycle going back decades.

If they take the Edwards approach it will be tough for many reasons, but here's something really key; at the time this was taking place pre- Primaries, Trump was 100% self funded at that point pre Iowa.

---

I'm confused. Thought the Daniels payment was in fall 2016?

In reply to RockDoc:

Trump has no ace, up his sleeve or up his arse or anywhere else. He's flying by the seat of his pants and burning through staffers like a chain-smoker through a pack of cigs.

I don't think there is "collusion" only because that would require a thoughtful, calculated methodical approach to running a scheme to undermine your opponent. Trump is all gut and feel and when something doesn't go his way, he fires you, tweets a rant, or both.

He's got no real allies. And there is an army of DC, politically ambitious social climbers looking to be "the guy" that got Trump. That's why you have state attorney generals flirting with lawsuits and criminal proceedings in anything remotely related to Trump activities. They are all racing to be "the guy". It will never end until he is gone.

I agree with a lot of what you say but there are some things that makes me think he has something. He fired Comey and let the media fawn all over him. That includes a couple of people on here that performed internet fellatio on him. Then the leaks started coming out and Comey ends up looking like a complete moron including his most recent testimony.

Same with McCabe. Gets let go. Media love Jim and then it comes out he got fired for lying to investigators. It's almost like he wants the media to support these people just to have it explode in their face.

Quote:

---

So Trump didn't think a story about him banging pornstars would have a negative impact on his campaign?

---

Even if the answer is "yes, he did" that doesn't mean he committed a crime

I think it is entirely plausible he felt they would have a negative effect on him IN GENERAL, regardless of the existence of the presidential campaign. That is very arguable as the motivation, past any criminal standard anyways.

aggiehawg said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

I'll defer to an expert in FEC laws, but if I understand what I read, if a campaign is found guilty of campaign funding violations it's the Campaign itself as an entity that is at fault not the candidate. It's generally civil as was said, and fines are passed out every election cycle going back decades.

If they take the Edwards approach it will be tough for many reasons, but here's something really key; at the time this was taking place pre- Primaries, Trump was 100% self funded at that point pre Iowa.

---

I'm confused. Thought the Daniels payment was in fall 2016?

---

I may be off, I never really gave a crap about the whole Stormy show anyway. I could be confusing it with the other playboy girl McDougal ? or whatever her name was

MouthBQ98 said:

---

I think it is entirely plausible he felt they would have a negative effect on him IN GENERAL, regardless of the existence of the presidential campaign. That is very arguable as the motivation, past any criminal standard anyways.

---

Campaign finance experts agree.

The suit has been filed. Just maybe...
There is a short video of an exchange between Corsi & Carlson embedded in the article where Corsi explains what transpired with the Mueller Team.

I think the guy is throwing a bunch of Hail Marys but I like it. It makes for entertainment.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

I'll defer to an expert in FEC laws, but if I understand what I read, if a campaign is found guilty of campaign funding violations it's the Campaign itself as an entity that is at fault not the candidate. It's generally civil as was said, and fines are passed out every election cycle going back decades.

If they take the Edwards approach it will be tough for many reasons, but here's something really key; at the time this was taking place pre- Primaries, Trump was 100% self funded at that point pre Iowa.

---

I'm confused. Thought the Daniels payment was in fall 2016?

---

I may be off, I never really gave a crap about the whole Stormy show anyway. I could be confusing it with the other playboy girl McDougal ? or whatever her name was

---

Okay. The National Enquirer had the exclusive rights to McDougal's story and the discussion (from the conversation with Trump that Cohen taped) was about acquiring those rights from them. A transaction that never was consummated, IIRC.

aggiehawg said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

I'll defer to an expert in FEC laws, but if I understand what I read, if a campaign is found guilty of campaign funding violations it's the Campaign itself as an entity that is at fault not the candidate. It's generally civil as was said, and fines are passed out every election cycle going back decades.

If they take the Edwards approach it will be tough for many reasons, but here's something really key; at the time this was taking place pre- Primaries, Trump was 100% self funded at that point pre Iowa.

---

I'm confused. Thought the Daniels payment was in fall 2016?

---

I may be off, I never really gave a crap about the whole Stormy show anyway. I could be confusing it with the other playboy girl McDougal ? or whatever her name was

---

Okay. The National Enquirer had the exclusive rights to McDougal's story and the discussion (from the conversation with Trump that Cohen taped) was about acquiring those rights from them. A transaction that never was consummated, IIRC.

---

And until you just said that I couldn't recall what the deal was with her, but now I remember the audio tape and the muffled wording and all the discussion on if he used some certain word or in past tense or present terms or something or another, I had moved so far gone from that tabloid level nonsense I just wiped it out of memory, like with a cloth.

I still think this is just more white noise.

How many more twists and turns can this saga take?

Good Lord, this whole ordeal is mind numbing.

Errbody suein errbody. It's like some kind of swamp up there.

There's one deep diver on twitter that has Felix Satar funding dots traced to the RNC and Rudy Giuliani's campaign in 2008 and 2012.

Hadn't brought it here because it's so fringy at this point, but there is some legit sourcing

backintexas2013 said:

---

I think the guy is throwing a bunch of Hail Marys but I like it. It makes for entertainment.

---

This guy is a few short of a stack

Quote:

---

Nadler:

"Certainly it's an impeachable offense, even though the acts happened before he came into office, it was in furtherance of obtaining the office fraudulently."

---

leftcoastaggie said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

I'll defer to an expert in FEC laws, but if I understand what I read, if a campaign is found guilty of campaign funding violations it's the Campaign itself as an entity that is at fault not the candidate. It's generally civil as was said, and fines are passed out every election cycle going back decades.

If they take the Edwards approach it will be tough for many reasons, but here's something really key; at the time this was taking place pre- Primaries, Trump was 100% self funded at that point pre Iowa.

---

IF Trump ordered Cohen to direct the illegal corporate contribution and IF Trump knew that violated campaign finance laws and did it violate those laws, then he would have personal criminal exposure.

note, there is a lot of "IF" on this, I'm just explaining the theory.

Needs to be noted that its entirely possible Cohen committed a crime and Trump didn't. Intention to violate the campaign finance law is a element. So Cohen could have done it solely to benefit the campaign and Trump ordered it done because he didn't want his family to know about it.

---

So Trump didn't think a story about him banging pornstars would have a negative impact on his campaign?

---

I don't know. What I wonder prompted Obama to offer Rev Wright 150K to stop preaching until after the election?

Edit: Delete post.

drcrinum said:

---

Mueller's not going away anytime soon.

---

Huh?

BMX Bandit said:

---

Huh?

---

My bad. I didn't note the date. I thought it was something new as someone I follow just tweeted it out. Will edit & delete.

drcrinum said:

---

---

Libs in full on "GOT HIM!" over this, even though she has no connection to Trump.

They also think she will take down the NRA and its leaders arrested for "Russian collusion."

leftcoastaggie said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

I'll defer to an expert in FEC laws, but if I understand what I read, if a campaign is found guilty of campaign funding violations it's the Campaign itself as an entity that is at fault not the candidate. It's generally civil as was said, and fines are passed out every election cycle going back decades.

If they take the Edwards approach it will be tough for many reasons, but here's something really key; at the time this was taking place pre- Primaries, Trump was 100% self funded at that point pre Iowa.

---

IF Trump ordered Cohen to direct the illegal corporate contribution and IF Trump knew that violated campaign finance laws and did it violate those laws, then he would have personal criminal exposure.

note, there is a lot of "IF" on this, I'm just explaining the theory.

Needs to be noted that its entirely possible Cohen committed a crime and Trump didn't. Intention to violate the campaign finance law is a element. So Cohen could have done it solely to benefit the campaign and Trump ordered it done because he didn't want his family to know about it.

---

So Trump didn't think a story about him banging pornstars would have a negative impact on his campaign?

---

So Trump didn't think a story about him banging pornstars would have an negative impact on his personal life?

Just a curiosity tweet about a current guilty plea over political shenanigans that occurred in 2013. If you follow the thread (3 posts), it leads to followers/associates of Fethullah Gulen and involved potential oil/natural gas dealings that included Turkey. One wonders if Michael Flynn's footprints can be found hiding somewhere in the investigation. The politicians involved, who received substantial political donations, included some prominent people of both parties, including one of my 'favorites': Shelia Jackson Lee.

It appears obvious beyond a doubt that the entire Deep State and their chump hangar ons, for the last 21/2 years have been trying to " FRAME " Donald Trump . All the charges are dubious at best. The very good thing Trump has going for him, is that he can afford the best lawyers in the world that will slaughter Muellers team of angry sleazy Democrats including the knuckelheads in the SDNY etc. by the bushel !

Michael Berry on 740 AM on Houston is doing his whole afternoon show on Trump / Mueller investigation:

So far:
-Weak cases
-Trump never going to jail from anything that we've seen so far
-Trump Very likely will never Be convicted of anything that he seen so far unless there something new that comes out

He's doing a good job so far

SpreadsheetAg said:

---

Michael Berry on 740 AM on Houston is doing his whole afternoon show on Trump / Mueller investigation:

So far:
-Weak cases
-Trump never going to jail from anything that we've seen so far
-Trump Very likely will never Be convicted of anything that he seen so far unless there something new that comes out

He's doing a good job so far

---

Berry is doing a good job? Its shocking that he talked about someone other than himself, or his Redneck Orgy Club. I honestly cannot understand how that guy has a show still. He makes my head hurt.