Manafort pardon

[DaisyDuke]

Trump is not attacking the press any more than the previous 43 men who were president.

Trump is not performing any kind of retaliatory actions on private citizens.

There is no threat to democracy beyond rhetoric like yours that prohibits good people from ever wanting to run for office, which is why we ended up with a choice between Trump, Clinton, Stein, et al. There was not a single good choice on the list, because GOOD people are stopped from running by people like you. YOU are the threat to democracy, Sappy.

Really?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

When you start off with lies

Like you did when you said "nobody cares about Manafort or Cohen"? That's a flat out lie. If you don't want to engage is a discussion about it, don't. But you don't have to make stuff up to prove your point.

 

[PsyOps]

Cohen and Trump colluded to break federal election and campaign finance law. We have the audio

[video=youtube;C6Q6Ki1zDmA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6Q6Ki1zDmA[/video]

So here's your homework Sap... Find anywhere in the law that makes it a crime to pay of a candidate's own money to save his own election.

 

[This_person]

Really?

Really! Did you hear how Obama went after some of the media? Did you hear how Clinton blamed the media for her election losses? Ever read any of Lincoln's attacks on the media?

 

[This_person]

So here's your homework Sap... Find anywhere in the law that makes it a crime to pay of a candidate's own money to save his own election.

The argument, and it's not a horrible one, is that the money was paid as a way of keeping the story off the news and therefore is a campaign issue. Yes, he certainly can contribute to his own campaign, and do so via his lawyer as was done. However, the argument is that it should have been logged as such. By failing to report it as a campaign contribution, it could be considered a violation of campaign finance law.

Now, those seem to be the arguments.

Dershowitz's argument to the contrary are (let's just say "at least") as valid.

That's what we have courts for, to decide who is right in a given instance.

Problem is, you can't indict a sitting president. So, they either have to consider this a "high crime and misdemeanor" to impeach and try him, or, they have to wait until 2025 when someone else is president to determine who is right.

 

[PsyOps]

The argument, and it's not a horrible one, is that the money was paid as a way of keeping the story off the news and therefore is a campaign issue. Yes, he certainly can contribute to his own campaign, and do so via his lawyer as was done. However, the argument is that it should have been logged as such. By failing to report it as a campaign contribution, it could be considered a violation of campaign finance law.

Now, those seem to be the arguments.

Dershowitz's argument to the contrary are (let's just say "at least") as valid.

That's what we have courts for, to decide who is right in a given instance.

Problem is, you can't indict a sitting president. So, they either have to consider this a "high crime and misdemeanor" to impeach and try him, or, they have to wait until 2025 when someone else is president to determine who is right.

The challenge is out there... show the law/statute Trump violated. In order for it to get to a courtroom, it first must be proved that a law was allegedly violated.

 

[This_person]

The challenge is out there... show the law/statute Trump violated. In order for it to get to a courtroom, it first must be proved that a law was allegedly violated.

11 CFR 114.2 - Prohibitions on contributions, expenditures and electioneering communications.

Should be worth at least $50 fine.

 

[MiddleGround]

When you start off with lies or hallucinations...

How is that Amazon monopoly conspiracy coming along?

 

[PsyOps]

11 CFR 114.2 - Prohibitions on contributions, expenditures and electioneering communications.

Should be worth at least $50 fine.

I'll have to read it more thoroughly later, but a quick glace... it doesn't look like it forbids a candidate from contributing their own money in any way shape or form.

 

[Gilligan]

Really?

Really. Johnson, for example..or Nixon... However, the difference now is that Trump's attacks are always highly visible. The vast Twitterverse and interwebs were not around back in Nixon's day. ;-)

 

[vraiblonde]

Like you did when you said "nobody cares about Manafort or Cohen"? That's a flat out lie.

Oh look - it's AP "fact check".

"Nobody cares" is a figure of speech, Sport. Of course there will always be someone in the universe somewhere who cares, no matter the topic. When I say "nobody cares" I don't mean absolutely zero people care; I mean the vast majority of humans do not care.

Glad to be able to clear up our tricky American idioms for you. Welcome to the US and please enjoy your stay.

 

[This_person]

I'll have to read it more thoroughly later, but a quick glace... it doesn't look like it forbids a candidate from contributing their own money in any way shape or form.

They used campaign e-mail and locations for the dealings.

They also violated the reporting, but I don't know the actual law for that.

 

[DaisyDuke]

Really. Johnson, for example..or Nixon... However, the difference now is that Trump's attacks are always highly visible. The vast Twitterverse and interwebs were not around back in Nixon's day. ;-)

What?! Twitter wasn't around back then??

Fair enough. Still don't care for the guy.

 

[Gilligan]

What?! Twitter wasn't around back then??

Fair enough. Still don't care for the guy.

I'm almost old enough to remember when ole Alex invented the telephone, so.... ;-p

 

[DaisyDuke]

I'm almost old enough to remember when ole Alex invented the telephone, so.... ;-p

Trebek?!

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Oh look - it's AP "fact check".

"Nobody cares" is a figure of speech, Sport. Of course there will always be someone in the universe somewhere who cares, no matter the topic. When I say "nobody cares" I don't mean absolutely zero people care; I mean the vast majority of humans do not care.

Glad to be able to clear up our tricky American idioms for you. Welcome to the US and please enjoy your stay.

Let me remind you how this went.

At this point, who cares if he gets pardoned? It's within Trump's right to do so.

My issue is that Manafort is a part of the swamp. A well-known part of the Washington swamp and Trump chose to retain his services while at the same time claiming he would drain the swamp. If he does pardon Manafort, he's showing he's not serious about his campaign promises (as if he was to begin with).

You know, I'm beginning to think that they're all the swamp. I've said many times, sane people want no part of DC politics and the media assassination that goes along with it. Trump had to pick someone to fill these positions....who else was there? Plus I think all these guys - including Trump - have money shenanigans of some sort. I don't think you get to that level of wealth without fudging something.

What should disturb all of us - even you, Chris - is that this is indeed a political witch hunt. Why are they going after these piddly tax cheats and ignoring the Clintonistas? Hillary, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Barack Obama, the Podesta brothers.....not a peep. And what they are accused of is WAY more alarming than some bank fraud. So why no investigations?

The argument was that the people who elected Trump did so ignoring what the media told them to think. If Trump says what everyone was thinking, he didn't need a member of the swamp to lead his campaign. Trump, the same person who told all of American that he picks only the best of the best, chose this man for whatever reason and never vetted him (like some of his other picks for various positions). I'm with you that there are some crony people in Washington but the best way to start getting rid of them, which Trump voters said they wanted, is to not pardon them for their crimes. You can't expect your kids to change by telling them no, then letting them get away with it anyway.

The fact of the matter is, is it illegal or not? You can agree or disagree that the crimes don't amount to much but you're essentially arguing that a police officer comes to your home for an unrelated incident and finds drugs in plain view but should ignore it because it's no big deal. To quote "This_Person", don't agree with the law, change it. I personally don't think people should be cheating the system for their own personal gain in the way Manafort did, but perhaps I'm alone in my thinking.

Contrary to your belief, it does bother me that none of those you mentioned amounted to much in terms of investigations and/or charges being brought, but I'm not law enforcement. You're not law enforcement. I think it sucks when someone kills someone else and gets a case of "afluenza" and gets off easy (as an example). Our justice system is not fair, period. I argue this all the time relating to drugs and civil asset forefiture but no one bats an eye. One of Trump's guys is found guilty by a jury of his peers and now it's an issue?

Nobody cares about Paul Manafort or Michael Cohen. What they care about is the dark turn this "investigation" has taken, as it pertains to our government and what we've allowed it to become. It's clear that Mueller - more specifically, his directors and handlers - want Trump impeached and removed. It is Mueller's job to find something - anything - that will achieve that goal. The Lanny Davis involvement is just the cherry on the sundae because he can help avenge his girl, Hillary, who has never gotten over losing that election.

If we allow them to unseat the President we elected, that's the end of our democracy. At that point we will be no better than some third world #### hole where we no longer elect our officials; they are forced out at gunpoint.

You can scoff and say I'm being melodramatic if you want, but a quick trip through a history book will tell you that's how it happens.

Above you will see that you talk about how no one cares and the "dark turn" the investigation has taken because we allowed government to become something (and that something is prosecuting people who broke the law?)

Below, you will see that I acknowledge that part of your statement by telling you that we have the government we've asked for. I've fully addressed your comment here.

Mueller has every right to do what he's doing. For someone who argues the simplicity of not being arrested, you sure seem to be overlooking that ni this case. How often have you said, "don't want to go to jail, don't break the law"? It's a simple concept and had Manafort and Cohen not broken the law, they sure wouldn't be in this position, would they?

Republicans control Congress. They aren't going to impeach a sitting Republican President.

Let me remind you that all this sits squarely on the shoulders of everyone who has elected these people over the last few decades. We have this government solely because we, the people, made it so. "We" don't want someone who fights for liberty for everyone. "We" don't want someone who worries about the deficit. "We" want someone to "tell it like it is" and all the transgressions that come with it. "We" want someone willing to strip away basic tenants of our Constitution in the name of safety. "We" want a government-mandated healthcare system. "We" chose to give the government the power they have. "We" no longer exist to curtail the powers of the government. The basic foundation of this country should never have gotten us here, but it did, only because we made it so.

Are you hallucinating?

I said right in my very first sentence that nobody cares about Manafort and Cohen. It would behoove you to read next time before you respond to what the voices in your head tell you I posted.

For some reason, you bring up the "nobody cares about Manafort and Cohen" thing again. Even after specifically discussing all of what you brought up, you ask if I'm hallucinating?

I read it. Perhaps next time you can choose to respond to all of my post instead of the cherry-picked portion you personally don't agree with.

If no one cared, it wouldn't be news. You can pretend that this isn't a big deal and the only reason it's in the news is because it's some deep-state progbot ploy to unseat duly-elected Trump. I think if the roles were reversed and it were a Democrat in office, this forum would explode with rage about how corrupt and crony the President and the Democratic party is.

Partisan tribal politics is what you all want and preach and get all pissy when it happens.

Here is where I point out that you failed to discuss where I actually commented on the meat of your statement.

Like you did when you said "nobody cares about Manafort or Cohen"? That's a flat out lie. If you don't want to engage is a discussion about it, don't. But you don't have to make stuff up to prove your point.

Here's where I quoted you saying "when you start off with lies".

Oh look - it's AP "fact check".

"Nobody cares" is a figure of speech, Sport. Of course there will always be someone in the universe somewhere who cares, no matter the topic. When I say "nobody cares" I don't mean absolutely zero people care; I mean the vast majority of humans do not care.

Glad to be able to clear up our tricky American idioms for you. Welcome to the US and please enjoy your stay.

Now you've shifted the goal posts 150 yards and want to talk about your "figure of speech" and still peddle your made-up assertion that "the vast majority of humans do not care". I suppose now you'll argue that by "all humans" you actually do mean all humans on earth and tribes in the Amazon really don't care about this?

Remember that this started off with you whining that [the vast majority of humans] don't care about Manafort and Cohen. To which I disagreed by pointing out how it's in the news and being broadly discussed because it is, in fact, a big deal. I also stated that you can choose to agree with that or not. I addressed your comment about the government (that portion was specifically quoted by someone else in the thread, so at least some people are paying attention) to which you asked if I was hallucinating and cherry-picked one portion of my post, ignoring where I addressed your point. Now, you want to argue what you meant by "nobody cares" and ignore the glaringly obvious fact that your point was addressed. You just failed to follow up and now it's my fault for some reason.

 

[Midnightrider]

I'm surprised at you so-called "liberals". Normally how it works is that there is evidence of a crime, and it gets investigated. Our judicial system isn't supposed to go looking for crimes and dig until they find one.

Let's say federal investigators show up on your doorstep, demanding to go through your home and communications, because someone told them you did something bad, even though there was no evidence, only accusation. Or better yet, let's say they come shake you down because they suspect you of growing pot in your back yard, and in their digging they don't find any pot, but they do find an unpaid parking ticket from 10 years ago, and jail you until they can bring you to trial for it.

How about then? Is that how you think our system is supposed to work?

There has been plenty of evidence. That’s exactly why they started investigating:shrug:

[video=youtube;C6Q6Ki1zDmA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6Q6Ki1zDmA[/video]

So here's your homework Sap... Find anywhere in the law that makes it a crime to pay of a candidate's own money to save his own election.

Why would a judge allow a person to plead guilty to something that is not a crime?

 

[Midnightrider]

BTW, a trumper who was on the jury says that there was a lone holdout who kept manafort from being convicted on all counts. The Trumper, while being interviewed on Fox, says that while she really wanted manafort to be innocent, he was guilty.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...am-from-winning-conviction-on-all-counts.html

 

[PsyOps]

Why would a judge allow a person to plead guilty to something that is not a crime?

Did you watch the video? Dershowitz states Cohen violated the law, but Trump didn't. He is challenging anyone to state the law Trump violated. And given he has yet to be charged with any crime, I have no reason to believe he committed a crime at this point.

 

[MiddleGround]

Let me remind you how this went.








Above you will see that you talk about how no one cares and the "dark turn" the investigation has taken because we allowed government to become something (and that something is prosecuting people who broke the law?)

Below, you will see that I acknowledge that part of your statement by telling you that we have the government we've asked for. I've fully addressed your comment here.





For some reason, you bring up the "nobody cares about Manafort and Cohen" thing again. Even after specifically discussing all of what you brought up, you ask if I'm hallucinating?



Here is where I point out that you failed to discuss where I actually commented on the meat of your statement.



Here's where I quoted you saying "when you start off with lies".



Now you've shifted the goal posts 150 yards and want to talk about your "figure of speech" and still peddle your made-up assertion that "the vast majority of humans do not care". I suppose now you'll argue that by "all humans" you actually do mean all humans on earth and tribes in the Amazon really don't care about this?

Remember that this started off with you whining that [the vast majority of humans] don't care about Manafort and Cohen. To which I disagreed by pointing out how it's in the news and being broadly discussed because it is, in fact, a big deal. I also stated that you can choose to agree with that or not. I addressed your comment about the government (that portion was specifically quoted by someone else in the thread, so at least some people are paying attention) to which you asked if I was hallucinating and cherry-picked one portion of my post, ignoring where I addressed your point. Now, you want to argue what you meant by "nobody cares" and ignore the glaringly obvious fact that your point was addressed. You just failed to follow up and now it's my fault for some reason.

Thats a whole lot of work on your part for what amounts to be absolutely nothing (and you knew this) in return.

Remember.. when you do not agree and follow it is "I can't be held accountable if you do not understand the gibberish I wrote" or "I'm going to ignore you."