What in the hell are you talking about? This was a piece about a DEMOCRATIC lawyer calling this case an embarrassment. |
Is he Democratic like Dershowitz? You magas put so much emphasis on this stuff as if it proves your arguments. It doesn’t, for one thing (although good to know you put more stock in what a Democrat says and thinks) and for another, this court case shows what blackmail can make a person do. |
lol sure. If you are on fox you are a paid to produce fake news. |
Help me understand the difference here...... The Clinton Campaign and the DNC paid for the dossier and listed it as "attorney fees." The FEC investigated, found that they were in violation of campaign finance laws and fined the campaign and the DNC. https://www.axios.com/2022/03/30/fec-clinton-dnc-steele-dossier-funding The same FEC investigated the Trump campaign and dropped the investigation. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/06/us/politics/trump-michael-cohen-fec.html So, now, Trump is being criminally charged for an infraction that he supposedly made when Clinton was simply fined? Explain this, please. |
Clinton didn’t have her business falsify records to cover up the payment. |
Her campaign did!!!!! |
It is pretty simple. Pecker/AMI, Michael Cohen, and the Trump Organization made illegal campaign contributions for the benefit of Trump's campaign that were not reported by them or by the Trump campaign as campaign contributions or expenditures. They were illegal contributions and they were illegally covered-up. As you said, the Clinton campaign and the DNC reported their payments as campaign expenses on their campaign finance reports. The payments were legal campaign expenses and did not involve illegal contributions. The feds did not drop the investigation of the Trump contributions. They went after Pecker and Cohen but let Trump skate by as an unindicted co-conspirator because his DOJ protected him. |
Well Trump has immunity. |
You don't get it. The crimes with Trump were using his business, not his campaign (a) to pay for campaign expenses and (b) to fraudulently claim that the business was paying Cohen for business-related legal expenses rather than illegally reimbursing him for making illegal campaign contributions. Clinton's campaign paid legal campaign expenses with campaign money. The FEC was badgered into making a case about the Clinton campaign reporting the payments as campaign legal expenses rather than as opposition research expenses. It is a stupid point that is never prosecuted. The payments were legal, unlike in Trump's case. The Clinton campaign decided that it wasn't worth the cost of fighting over the description, so the they agreed to pay an $8,000 fine. |
They reported it as "attorney fees" when it had nothing to do with attorneys. They falsely represented the payments - in an effort to cover them up. That is why the Clinton campaign and the DNC were fined over $100,000. $113,000 to be exact. The FEC absolutely did drop the investigation of the Trump campaign WRT the "hush money" payments. Read the article linked above. And, hush money payments and NDAs are absolutely LEGAL, despite what the prosecutors will try to tell you. The only reason Bragg brought the case was because of the temper tantrum by Pomerantz, who has quite the reputation himself.....
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/manhattan-da-ex-prosecutor-trade-barbs-prosecuting-trump-rcna69599 |