Michael Cohen will testify to House Oversight Feb 7 about his work for Trump

[blackangst1]

From the FEC under foreign nationals-

https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates...-taking-receipts/who-can-and-cant-contribute/

A campaign contribution is anything of value, dirt on one's opponent being precisely that.

I'm not talking about campaign finance. I'm talking about collusion.

 

[blackangst1]

Guilt by association? Huh? I’m not sure what you’re talking about.



Federal prosecutors in SDNY clearly already believe that they have sufficient evidence of this as they have said as much in court filings.

Republicans won’t convict him in the senate because they have put tribal identity before their oaths of office and the good of the country.

I don’t give a shit about hating him, I just don’t want a felon for a president.

I don't either but until he's convicted, even by the house, he's not.

 

[fskimospy]

Last I checked getting info on a political opponent isnt collusion.

You should check again because it is. Your mistake is trying to apply an economics definition to a national security issue. It simply does not apply. There is no criminal statute that defines collusion, it would be conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to violate campaign finance statutes, etc. So if we are talking about legal definitions we shouldn’t even be saying ‘collusion’ at all. We should be talking about specific criminal statutes.

If we are using collusion in the colloquial sense then, as we should be, secretly meeting with representatives of the Russian government in order for them to contribute dirt on your political opponent would be obvious collusion.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't either but until he's convicted, even by the house, he's not.

Then no president will ever be a felon while in office regardless of the number of felonies they commit.

This is silliness, come on.

 

[blackangst1]

You should check again because it is. Your mistake is trying to apply an economics definition to a national security issue. It simply does not apply. There is no criminal statute that defines collusion, it would be conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to violate campaign finance statutes, etc. So if we are talking about legal definitions we shouldn’t even be saying ‘collusion’ at all. We should be talking about specific criminal statutes.

If we are using collusion in the colloquial sense then, as we should be, secretly meeting with representatives of the Russian government in order for them to contribute dirt on your political opponent would be obvious collusion.

Can you source a law that supports your view?

 

[blackangst1]

Then no president will ever be a felon while in office regardless of the number of felonies they commit.

This is silliness, come on.

Clinton was a felon so that's not true.

 

[fskimospy]

Can you source a law that supports your view?

I’m unclear of what you’re asking for. Are you asking what statutes the Trump Tower meeting would violate? If so, sure, conspiracy to defraud the United States would be one.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_against_the_United_States

It would also violate the Federal Election Campaign act which prohibits contributions by foreign governments. Here’s a good article by a former White House counsel on it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-dossier-likely-didnt/?utm_term=.8e74d2588d3a

 

[fskimospy]

Clinton was a felon so that's not true.

He was never convicted so by your standard he was not.

 

[blackangst1]

I’m unclear of what you’re asking for. Are you asking what statutes the Trump Tower meeting would violate? If so, sure, conspiracy to defraud the United States would be one.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_against_the_United_States

It would also violate the Federal Election Campaign act which prohibits contributions by foreign governments. Here’s a good article by a former White House counsel on it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-dossier-likely-didnt/?utm_term=.8e74d2588d3a

Thanks. I'll look at these in more detail.

The second appears to be campaign finance violations which I think we already have

 

[fskimospy]

Thanks. I'll look at these in more detail.

The second appears to be campaign finance violations which I think we already have

They are campaign finance violations that come from the campaign’s collusion with Russia at the Trump Tower meeting.

 

[umbrella39]

It should be painfully clear to anyone with a shred of integrity that no amount of proof at this point is going to change the oft persecuted white conservative mind about Trump. These Pavlovian fucks have heard their dinner bells so many times the past two years that the Lies are now Truth.

Anyone who presents any information that puts their King and Saviour Trump in a bad light is summarily dismissed as a deep State operative. He could literally kill someone on live TV in Times Square and all these fucks would say is ah... Never happened, gun free zone... etc... etc... etc...

Nope. After all this is over I really think the snowflakes are going to need their own country. There is no rehabilitation for their brain defects and quite frankly I don't want to live near any one of them... I feel safer nestled amongst the Sharia loving Muslims in Dearborn than I do walking down the street in Hillsdale.

 

[blackangst1]

He was never convicted so by your standard he was not.

I guess you're right. But I would take an impeachment by the house as good (for collusion).

 

[blackangst1]

They are campaign finance violations that come from the campaign’s collusion with Russia at the Trump Tower meeting.

There was no collision no matter how many times you tell yourself it is

We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[kage69]

Well we'll see. One thing we DO know is Cohen has proven himself a liar. Wouldn't surprise me to see purgery charges after this hearing settles down.

I disagree, I think charges over vomiting and diarrhea would be quite surprising.

I can see it now...

kage: dude there's a spellchecker built into the page
blackangst: no there isn't
kage: it's right there, look for the red shit
blackangst: well I'll care about it when people read it
kage:


fin

 

[fskimospy]

There was no collision no matter how many times you tell yourself it is

We'll have to agree to disagree.

If you want to say that Trump’s eldest son, son in law, and campaign chairman secretly meeting with representatives of the Russian government so that the Russians could help Trump win the election isn’t collusion...uhmmm...what?

How does that make any sense?

 

[interchange]

I have stated earlier we'll see what the New York AG does when he's out of office, and I've also said if he's convicted, our Justice system works. I'm the meantime, I refuse too participate in this circle jerk of wrap up smears that's going on

Simple enough?

No. You are suggesting at the same time he ought to be convicted and that he is being smeared. I can't reconcile that.

But even worse is the inherent idea that him committing felony campaign finance violations in order to influence himself being elected president is a matter we the public should not care about until he's finished his term in office. How much cheating ought someone be able to commit to become president before it becomes an issue worthy of investigating whether they should remain president?

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm not talking about campaign finance. I'm talking about collusion.

The law says that candidates may not accept anything of value from foreign nationals as a campaign contribution. Political dirt obviously has value. Talking points built around that dirt also have value, particularly when they're built on big data & algorithms. The Russians have been doing what Cambridge Analytica was doing in their own special way, figuring out how to put their message into American minds. Having Trump do it for them & backing the play was pure genius.

 

[blackangst1]

If you want to say that Trump’s eldest son, son in law, and campaign chairman secretly meeting with representatives of the Russian government so that the Russians could help Trump win the election isn’t collusion...uhmmm...what?

How does that make any sense?

I've posted what I believe to be there definition of collusion. And I didn't just pull it out of my ass. None of that fits.

 

[blackangst1]

The law says that candidates may not accept anything of value from foreign nationals as a campaign contribution. Political dirt obviously has value. Talking points built around that dirt also have value, particularly when they're built on big data & algorithms. The Russians have been doing what Cambridge Analytica was doing in their own special way, figuring out how to put their message into American minds. Having Trump do it for them & backing the play was pure genius.

Great. Finance campaign violations. I've acknowledged that.

 

[fskimospy]

I've posted what I believe to be there definition of collusion. And I didn't just pull it out of my ass. None of that fits.

Yes and applying that definition makes no sense to this case. It’s a nonsensical idea.

Since there is no criminal statute of ‘collusion’ it doesn’t even matter. What we should really be talking about is the criminal statute of conspiracy, which this meeting absolutely satisfies.

 

[fskimospy]

Great. Finance campaign violations. I've acknowledged that.

Campaign finance violations committed in the course of a criminal conspiracy with the Russian government.

 

[blackangst1]

No. You are suggesting at the same time he ought to be convicted and that he is being smeared. I can't reconcile that.

But even worse is the inherent idea that him committing felony campaign finance violations in order to influence himself being elected president is a matter we the public should not care about until he's finished his term in office. How much cheating ought someone be able to commit to become president before it becomes an issue worthy of investigating whether they should remain president?

How about this asshat. If the Dems won't hold impeachment hearings, which as of today they don't intend to, it can only mean one of two things. One, they know this is all just a wrap up smears and there's no evidence to proceed.... Or second, despite their theories and rhetoric they actually support Trump behind closed doors.

Whichever you're comfortable with is fine with me.

 

[blackangst1]

Yes and applying that definition makes no sense to this case. It’s a nonsensical idea.

Since there is no criminal statute of ‘collusion’ it doesn’t even matter. What we should really be talking about is the criminal statute of conspiracy, which this meeting absolutely satisfies.

Then contact your congressperson and tell them to impeach.

 

[fskimospy]

How about this asshat. If the Dems won't hold impeachment hearings, which as of today they don't intend to, it can only mean one of two things. One, they know this is all just a wrap up smears and there's no evidence to proceed.... Or second, despite their theories and rhetoric they actually support Trump behind closed doors.

Whichever you're comfortable with is fine with me.

Or the third, obvious answer, which is that they know Trump won’t be convicted in the senate and they don’t think it’s politically smart to impeach him if they can’t remove him.

I personally think they should impeach him anyway and force Republicans to take a stand with an obvious felon. America needs to see how corrupt the Republican Party has become.

 

[fskimospy]

Then contact your congressperson and tell them to impeach.

I’m sure my congressman will vote to impeach when the time comes so I’m not worried about that.

You’ll very likely see that federal law enforcement agrees with me too. I fully expect Don Jr to be indicted before this all is over.