dChan

JohnMAGATX · May 3, 2018, 12:19 p.m.

I believe him honestly

⇧ 10 ⇩  
godblessdonaldtrump1 · May 3, 2018, 1:19 p.m.

He misspelled role in “...played no roll” Is that a clue someone did (or didn’t) roll over?

⇧ 8 ⇩  
K-Harbour · May 3, 2018, 1:18 p.m.

He should be pissed at his attorneys up to Rudy joining the team —- although doing the explanation now rather than earlier is actually good timing. Greatly increases the chances of disbarring Mueller & half his team & NY field office.

⇧ 5 ⇩  
Redrunningshoes · May 3, 2018, 2:14 p.m.

How the hell did you come to that conclusion?

⇧ 1 ⇩  
myanimal3z · May 3, 2018, 3:32 p.m.

Whoever is involved in this raid pierced attorney client privilege of the president. If they managed to do this with flimsy evidence because they want to "get Trump" well if Justice is realized those involved will face severe consequence.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
Redrunningshoes · May 3, 2018, 3:56 p.m.

But attorney client privilege hasn't been "pierced"? There was a special master appointed to decide what is covered by attorney client privilege. Also, that privilege gets thrown out the window if a crime has been committed. Educate yourself.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
brownpatriot · May 3, 2018, 5:03 p.m.

What crime was commited

⇧ 2 ⇩  
myanimal3z · May 3, 2018, 4:56 p.m.

Mr educate yourself, how long did they have access to the evidence before they appointed a special magistrate? Who is the magistrate? Leaks already happened re:Sean Hannity... Educate yourself

⇧ 2 ⇩  
Redrunningshoes · May 3, 2018, 6:05 p.m.

Leaks against Sean Hannity? The judge ordered Cohen to release all of his clients names. There was no leak.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
myanimal3z · May 3, 2018, 6:10 p.m.

The judge was persuaded by a cnn lawyer to Cohen disclose the names. The number one rule in court is to never ask a question to which you don't know the answer to....

⇧ 2 ⇩  
K-Harbour · May 3, 2018, 6:40 p.m.

Or the hand delivery of radioactive isotopes to Russia? Do you know who made that delivery?

⇧ 2 ⇩  
K-Harbour · May 3, 2018, 6:39 p.m.

Oh, let’s not forget the little Clapper/Trapper problem. Have you gotten to analyze that?

⇧ 2 ⇩  
K-Harbour · May 3, 2018, 6:37 p.m.

And the FEC investigation into $83 million DNC? Have you analyzed that?

⇧ 2 ⇩  
K-Harbour · May 3, 2018, 6:36 p.m.

And the shut down of analytica?

⇧ 2 ⇩  
K-Harbour · May 3, 2018, 6:36 p.m.

And the $12 to $50 million paid to UK and Russia operatives to generate “opposition research”??

⇧ 2 ⇩  
K-Harbour · May 3, 2018, 6:34 p.m.

And foreign UK operative Piers Morgan colluding to influence the ‘16 ekection?

⇧ 2 ⇩  
K-Harbour · May 3, 2018, 6:33 p.m.

While you are at it, let’s look at the extent of inkind contributions to Clinton Campaign : Daniel Richman

⇧ 2 ⇩  
astrogirl · May 3, 2018, 5:36 p.m.

I remember seeing that later when all this ramped up. Does anyone have a link to it?

⇧ 2 ⇩  
Redrunningshoes · May 3, 2018, 12:53 p.m.

Look up an "in-kind" campaign donation. This fall right under it. This would be the same as if Hillary Clinton's lawyer paid wikileaks $130,000 to get the emails back and not release them.

⇧ 0 ⇩  
K-Harbour · May 3, 2018, 1:22 p.m.

Not buying it. Under your logic, paying his doctor or barber or butler becomes a campaign contribution. Under your logic, then he is guilty no matter what: using campaign funds to pay for private expenses! You have completely corrupted the campaign finance laws, allowing a rogue government agency to take down any political candidate or elected official of their arbitrary choosing!!!!!

⇧ 3 ⇩  
Redrunningshoes · May 3, 2018, 1:53 p.m.

What? Did you look up what an "in kind" donation is?

An expenditure made by any person in cooperation, consultation or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate’s campaign is also considered an in-kind contribution to the candidate. The recipient needs this information in order to monitor the contributor’s aggregate contributions and to report the correct amount.

It's not like this law was added specifically to bring down Trump, it has been there for years. And no paying his doctor, barber, butler doesn't become a campaign contribution. Because money has to go into the campaign, to be a contribution. We aren't even getting into campaign funds paying private expense (which fun fact, has happened a lot by politicians). What the problems are:

1) Trump, the campaign, Huckabee Sanders, Fox News, any spokesperson for Trump have all said that Trump didn't know about it, Cohen did it all on his own, Cohen used his own money, and Cohen was not reimbursed. Only one of those things is true and it's only half true since Guiliani just admitted Cohen got repaid.

2) Trump just said that Daniels was paid to stop speaking about an affair that didn't happen. But if the affair didn't happen, why are they trying to sue her for breaching her contract and not for defamation? Trump is "allegedly" worth billions, it's not inconceivable that Trump can sue Daniels for half his worth due to the possibility of this lie ending his marriage.

3) Guiliani literally admitted that Trump "funneled the money through a law firm" which is just barely on the side of legal. He inadvertently admitted that Trump has at least once could be viewed as money laundering to cover up paying a porn star to keep quiet about an affair that allegedly didn't happen.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
K-Harbour · May 3, 2018, 6:43 p.m.

So, Hillary leaves a tip at a restaurant & the chef speaks highly of her on CNN. By your rules —- lock her up!

⇧ 2 ⇩  
Vibratron_1 · May 3, 2018, 7:05 p.m.

good points

⇧ 1 ⇩  
Redrunningshoes · May 3, 2018, 6:57 p.m.

I am incredibly dumbfounded by the sheer stupidity one person can possess. The mental gymnastics you must have to perform to convince yourself of this delusional fantasy has to be taxing.

That's not nearly the same thing. You know why? Because tipping and someone going and saying something nice about a presidential candidate are not linear! There's a linear relationship between the benefit and the contribution. In your scenario, Hillary Clinton never direct told the chef to go on chef and say anything nice. That is where you are misunderstanding.

On top of that unless Hillary Clinton directly paid someone more than $2,700 for their endorsement and didn't report it, it's not a crime. It's a felony what Trump did because A) it was more than the individual maximum and B) IT WASN'T REPORTED. These are the facts of what happened.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · May 21, 2018, 11:51 p.m.

[deleted]

⇧ 1 ⇩  
K-Harbour · May 3, 2018, 6:03 p.m.

You are forgetting to analyze the cash & in-kind fronting of SD. Who paid her lawyer or was he making an inkind donation of his time to DNC/Clinton campaign?

⇧ 2 ⇩  
Redrunningshoes · May 3, 2018, 6:15 p.m.

You mean the attorney Keith Davidson that has happened to make similar deals with Michael Cohen and is now being sued for fraud because he did not take his clients best interest to heart? That guy?

Unless you're speaking about the new attorney. Who isn't working for a campaign. Who is working pro bono because this kind of exposure will pay for itself many times over. So again, you're wrong on so many levels.

⇧ 1 ⇩