HemiHauler
Well-Known Member
LOL, if the shoe fits ….. BOT.
Explosive Fox texts reveal Depths of election lies, viewers to be "Cousin Fu***"
- Thread starter StmarysCity79
- Start date
A "BOT" that stopped by my shop so I could look at some carburetor issues on his car. That kind of "BOT"?
The Nebish is incapable of providing cognizant comments to the conversation so everyone is a bot or stupid, The Nebish Alone is the TRUTH TELLER ....
HemiHauler
Well-Known Member
You have my sympathy.
Did he have to let you kick him in the nuts before you’d let him be your friend?
We have a couple of those here.
CPUSA
Well-Known Member
Did Gilligan make you do this?
And yet...he STILL doesn't want to be your friend....
Guess he's fickle at times...
StmarysCity79
Well-Known Member
Well i guess Newsmax hasn't covered it then but the crime of illegally using campaign funds to pay hush money to a porn star.
It's been well documented and one person has spent time in jail already for it.
Remember our wager.
and here's your sign.
Attachments
HemiHauler
Well-Known Member
Self portrait?
Still telling that lie
Liar .....
2018 letter shows Michael Cohen lying to feds about Stormy Daniels payment
The letter, obtained by The Post on Wednesday, emerged as the disbarred lawyer appeared poised to become the star witness in an unprecedented criminal case against his ex-boss, former President Donald Trump.In it, Cohen told the Federal Election Commission that he “used his own personal funds to facilitate a payment of $130,000 to Ms. Stephanie Clifford,” aka Daniels, in 2016.
“Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed Mr. Cohen for the payment directly or indirectly,” Cohen lawyer Stephen Ryan wrote on Feb. 8, 2018.
But a little more than six months later, Cohen changed his tune and copped a plea to a laundry list of federal crimes that included making an excessive campaign contribution to Trump, now 76, by paying Daniels to keep quiet about her alleged 2006 affair with him.
Attorney Robert Costello Says ‘Convicted Perjurer’ Michael Cohen Has No ‘Solid Evidence’
“But Michael Cohen is far from solid evidence,” added Costello. “This guy, by any prosectors’ standard—and I used to be deputy chief of the criminal division in the Southern District of New York—I wouldn’t have touched a guy like Michael Cohen, especially if he’s a convicted perjurer.”
Cohen pleaded guilty in 2018 to charges of tax evasion, making false statements to a federally insured bank, and campaign finance violations in connection with an alleged $130,000 payment to a lawyer representing adult actress Stormy Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford.
Cohen claims that Trump, during his 2016 presidential campaign, directed him to arrange the payment to Daniels as “hush money” in order to buy her silence after she claimed to have had an affair with Trump. The money was allegedly paid using campaign funds, a violation of campaign finance law.
Trump denies the affair and Costello’s claims and has called the grand jury probe into him a witchhunt. The former president has accused Bragg, a Democrat who was publicly criticized for declining to charge Trump last year, of prosecutorial misconduct.
Elsewhere on Monday, Costello told reporters that he’d handed over more than 300 emails involving his discussions with Cohen to prosecutors but that they had “cherry-picked” just six emails to question him about and that their context had been taken out of context in front of the jury.
Michael Cohen Pled Guilty to Something That Is Not a Crime
The Federal Election Campaign Act holds that an “expenditure” is any “purchase, payment, loan, advance, deposit or gift of money, or anything of value, for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office.” According to Cohen and the U.S. Attorney, the hush-money payments were, it appears, made in the hopes of preventing information from becoming public before the election, and hence were “for the purpose of influencing” the election. This means that, at a minimum, they had to be reported to the Federal Election Commission; further, if they were authorized by Mr. Trump, they would become, in the law’s parlance, “coordinated expenditures,” subject to limits on the amounts that could be spent. Since the lawful contribution limit is much lower than the payments made, and the payments were not reported, this looks like an open and shut case, right?
Well, no. Or at least not in the way some might presume. To the contrary, the law — following our common sense — tells us that the hush-money payments outlined by the U.S. Attorney are clearly not campaign expenditures. There is no violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act.
To reach the opposite conclusion, the U.S. Attorney is placing all his chips on the language “for the purpose of influencing an election.” Intuitively, however, we all know that such language cannot be read literally — if it were, virtually every political candidate of the past 45 years has been in near-constant violation. The candidate who thinks “I need to brush my teeth, shower, and put on a nice suit today in order to campaign effectively” is surely not required to report as campaign expenditures his purchases of toothpaste, soap, and clothing. When he eats his Wheaties — breakfast of champions, and surely one cannot campaign on an empty stomach — his cereal and milk are not campaign expenses. When he drives to his office to start making phone calls to supporters, his gas is not a campaign expense.
So what does it mean to be “for the purpose of influencing an[] election”? To understand this, we read the statutory language in conjunction other parts of the statute. Here the key is the statute’s prohibition on diverting campaign funds to “personal use.” This is a crucial distinction, because one of the primary factors separating campaign funds from personal funds is that the former must be spent on the candidate’s campaign, while the latter can be used to buy expensive vacations, cars, watches, furs, and such. The law defines “personal use” as spending “used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.” So a candidate may intend for good toothpaste and soap, a quality suit, and a healthy breakfast to positively influence his election, but none of those are campaign expenditures, because all of those purchases would typically be made irrespective of running for office. And even if the candidate might not have brushed his teeth quite so often or would have bought a cheaper suit absent the campaign, these purchases still address his underlying obligations of maintaining hygiene and dressing himself.
Memos from 2018-19 shake up Trump case: Cohen denied having incriminating evidence on hush money
"Cohen said he had no information against Trump," one memo summarizing attorney Robert Costello's interactions with Cohen stated. That memo, dated April 2019, recounted Costello's interview with federal prosecutors about conversations he and colleagues had with Cohen a year earlier.
Costello, a former federal prosecutor who has represented famous clients like George Steinbrenner, Leona Hemsley, Rudy Giuliani and Steve Bannon, told Just the News on Tuesday he provided Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office with more than 300 pages of emails, memos and texts chronicling his dealings with Cohen.
He said his documents showed Cohen took out a bank loan known as a HELOC — on his own — during the 2016 presidential election to pay Stormy Daniels $130,000 under a nondisclosure agreement so she would remain quiet about her alleged relationship with Trump. Cohen bragged he kept the situation quiet so that Melania Trump and Cohen's own wife wouldn't learn about it, Costello said in an interview on the John Solomon Reports podcast, recounting what he said Cohen told him back in 2018.
"He said," Costello recalled, "'I didn't believe the information, but I knew that this was a situation that would cause embarrassment. So I negotiated with this lawyer, and we worked out a an NDA ... for the payment of $130,000.'
"And I said, 'Did you get that money from Donald Trump?' 'No.' 'Did you get it from any Trump Organization?' 'No.'
"I said, 'Did you take that money out of your own savings or checking?' 'No.'
"I said, 'Well, how'd you get the money?' He said, 'I took out a HELOC loan.' 'Why would you take out a HELOC loan to cover something like this?' He said 'because I wanted to keep it secret. If I took money from my account, my wife would know about it. I didn't want my wife to know about it. I didn't want Melania Trump to know about it.' He said, 'That's why I did it that way.'"
CPUSA
Well-Known Member
Wanna guess why NewsMax hasn't covered it?
Bragg had to know that prepping a felony case against ex-President Donald Trump would bring a media circus. How did he not have his ducks in a row ahead of time?
Sources indicate he’s worried about Monday’s testimony from pro-Trump lawyer Robert Costello, who may have swayed enough jurors to put the case at risk.
Was the case so weak that one witness could make it fall apart?
The DA supposedly had his star witness, former Trump lawyer and proven liar Michael Cohen, ready to counter Costello’s claims — but it seems Costello surprised him with testimony Cohen couldn’t address.
At best, the case already suffered from relying on 1) Cohen and 2) an untested and complex legal argument, namely that Trump’s alleged misdemeanor offense of falsifying business records to conceal the payment to Daniels (via Cohen) becomes a felony as a federal campaign finance violation.
The US Justice Department, the Federal Election Commission and Bragg’s own predecessor, Cy Vance, all declined to pursue that campaign finance case — in part because Trump need only say he paid the hush money to protect his marriage, not his campaign.
Fumbling his Trump case, Alvin Bragg exposes his incompetence nationwide
Now the entire nation is learning what most New Yorkers already knew: Alvin Bragg just isn’t very good at his job.
nypost.com
Michael Cohen Is Already Undermining the Trump Prosecution
Late Thursday night, just hours after the news broke that the Manhattan district attorney’s office had obtained the indictment, Cohen decided this would be a great time to take advantage of the national spotlight and sit down for an interview with CNN’s Don Lemon and Alisyn Camerota. For several months, he has been interviewed by prosecutors and he’s testified before the grand jury about how Trump allegedly broke the law by directing Cohen to pay hush money to Stormy Daniels in 2016, which would likely make him a key witness against Trump at trial. Much of the CNN discussion entailed barely concealed gloating by Cohen, but at one point, he made clear what he had recently been hinting at: He believes he is not actually guilty of the federal-tax-evasion charges to which he pleaded guilty back in 2018.“I have continuously told the same story. I’ve been shouting for five years from the rooftop,” Cohen said. “The lies by the Southern District of New York against me for the tax evasion, I actually hope it comes out. I have all the documents to show. There was no tax evasion. I’ve never in my life tax evade[d]. I’ve never filed [a] late tax return. I’ve never been audited. I’ve never received, you know, letters from the IRS. I have never had an opportunity going in to meet with an agent, and none of this is accurate.”
As I first noted several days ago, this is a major problem for Cohen’s credibility as a cooperating witness, but before we return to that, let’s quickly review the record.
When Cohen pleaded guilty, the charges included five counts of federal tax evasion stemming from his failure to report millions of dollars in income from taxi medallions he owned, which, according to the Southern District of New York, resulted “in the avoidance of taxes of more than $1.4 million due to the IRS.” As a fundamental part of a guilty plea in the federal system, the defendant has to acknowledge that he is, in fact, guilty of all the offenses — both factually and legally — which is what Cohen purported to do in 2018.