web analytics

Just background.

By Patrick Van Roy On January 13th, 2019

First off I want to say I can’t stand Judge Jeanine Piro she’s a clone of my maternal aunt Rita who god rest her soul I loved dearly, but was a typical highly educated south philly whop broad. Fun and crazy as hell but they’ll rip your eyeballs out and play marbles with them.

The Person she’s talking to however is Representative Jim Jordan. The Head of the Freedom Caucus in the House the only group in office I give any real backing to.

If you want the side you’re not hearing in other words what republicans actually feel and will tell you themselves, you’ll listen to what he says. He speaks for more people than you think.

103 Responses to “Just background.”

  1. Pat, is this from Maggie Haberman of the NYT correct? :

    https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1084274236045312000

  2. Funny how Pat thinks every one who talks whack a doodle double speak, speaks for the majority

  3. Trump has been witness tampering for some time now

    And very few Republicans are calling him on it. He is dumping tractor trailer loads of cyanide into the swamp, and they all think it’s great

    Hi from London

  4. From one of the comments Phantom:

    @realDonaldTrump just made a public threat towards the family of a witness that will be testifying against him. Holy shit…

  5. lol. these comments are so ridiculous. you have lost your minds.

  6. Trump now urging prosecutors to investigate @MichaelCohen212’s father again. Jeanine asks for the name of the father in law. This is a really stunning way for the president to target a private citizen

    Is that correct Patty?

  7. The Cult needs to get their story straight

    Please stop being so demanding, And asking them to think for themselves

  8. Paul and Phantom, I can’t get interested in the type of baloney fed to you by the MSM. It just goes on and on and doesn’t really address any actual news. I already know NYT hates Trump and I already know you think the Orange Man Bad.

  9. Last night Pirro had a question for Trump:

    “I’m going to ask you, are you now or have you ever worked for Russia, Mr. President?” Ms. Pirro asked.

    “I think it’s the most insulting thing I’ve ever been asked,” he answered.”

    He could have easily said “no” but did not. It is tantamount to admitting being a Russian agent. It confirms what many suspect. Now, what is to be done about it?

  10. New Yorker: that is ridiculous.

    Trump Derangement Syndrome = twisting normal English into pretzel shaped nonsense to “prove” incorrect notions.

    See “fact checking” of Trump’s speech the other night about the Southern border for further examples.

  11. Trump has said- numerous times – that there was no collusion with the Russians during the Presidential campaign.

    And that’s it, people! all the Russian collusion stuff is conspiracy theory at best, and at worst, an organized attempt to over turn the election of our President.

  12. “Trump has said- numerous times – that there was no collusion with the Russians during the Presidential campaign.” And, Trump is well known for telling the truth. BTW, it is not just during the campaign but up to the present.

    Why did Trump not simply say “no”? Instead he utters some irrelevant drivel.

  13. Why did Trump not simply say “no”? Instead he utters some irrelevant drivel.

    Here’s the transcript of Trump’s response NY’er :

    https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1084463782359957504

    Note that he doesn’t say ‘no’.

  14. https://dailystormer.name/there-is-still-no-proof-that-the-evil-jew-ruth-bader-ginsburg-is-alive/

    All the people are asking for is proof that this evil bitch has not descended into the pits of hell. This is not an unreasonable request. At minimum, Chief Justice John Roberts could demand Ginsburg be filmed holding the current edition of a prominent newspaper. Sort of like what captors do to their kidnapped hostages when they need to offer proof of life. Of course, if she were alive and fully capable of performing her court duties, she would be physically showing up at court as her job requires.

    I reckon that there was a vacancy when the Stephen Hawking hoax was unsustainable, and The Ginsborg will be the follow-up. Whatever it takes to stop Trump nominating an American to the SCOTUS.

    Right now, in various locations in the US, around 12 – 15 middle-aged women are being primed to have ‘recollections’ of having been groped at school by an as-yet unnamed 16-year-old male.

  15. Paul McMahon

    Thanks. In his drivel he states that the FBI found nothing. The FBI investigation had to be approved by the Department of Justice which requires a high degree of evidence for approval, especially for investigation of a president. The FBI had to have something hard on Trump which was passed on to Mueller and that is not yet public.

  16. Patty

    There was collusion

    The only question is was there a crime

  17. Phantom, still in London? You’re missing some good football stateside!

  18. NFL Playoff games would normally be widely available in the pubs, But this time around, I screwed up
    Am staying at a place in Kensington where none of the ( excellent ) Pubs nearby had the games on

    The usual endless soccer 🙂

  19. There is zero evidence of collusion, Phantom. Turn off CNN.

  20. Progressives in the US are pathetic.

  21. https://www.politicususa.com/2019/01/13/proof-of-collusion-trump-campaign-had-100-contacts-with-russians.html

  22. Politicususa…… what a frigging rag. When I look at the sources you pull from it explains why you’re so ignorant of anything but tripe.

    Phantom, on January 13th, 2019 at 11:59 PM Said: Edit Comment
    Patty

    There was collusion

    The only question is was there a crime

    2 questions

    1) What is the crime of Collusion?

    Seriously what statute, what are the penalties, how do you commit the crime.

    2) Explain when, where, and how Trump violated this imaginary crime.

    Jim Jordan had a lot of good information for you in that clip, rather than read spin from wackjob sources like the ones you sight you could hear actual statement from one of the caucus heads and know exactly what the post is about. At least what the politician actually said and oh I don’t discuss it…..

    Stay in London.

  23. Phantom, on January 13th, 2019 at 11:59 PM Said:
    Patty
    There was collusion
    The only question is was there a crime

  24. 2 questions

    1) What is the crime of Collusion?

    Seriously what statute, what are the penalties, how do you commit the crime.

    2) Explain when, where, and how Trump violated this imaginary crime.

  25. Phantom, on January 13th, 2019 at 11:59 PM Said:
    Patty
    There was collusion
    The only question is was there a crime

    ( You are arguing with yourself )

  26. Anyone who thinks they will learn something from the Pirro show hasn’t learned anything from life itself.

  27. yes because if you don’t read the NYT or watch CNN your stupid…. but if you do you’ll be super smart and elect people like De Blasio and Ms Cortez…. roflmao

    Alright Phantom you don’t believe collusion is a crime, but you do believe it took place…. so what took place?

  28. That’s not what I said

    Cheers

  29. cheers… oh I get it you’ll fight with a woman, but when it comes to another man who will demand actual answers from you….. it cheers.

    wuss

  30. eeeww I know you can read USA today and get good objective reporting with paragraphs like this in in their stories……

    As Obama becomes even more of an elder statesman, his fame could rank right up there with Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and Theodore Roosevelt and become bipartisan, said Brinkley, a professor at Rice University in Texas.

  31. Your president collided with the criminal Putin, An enemy of the United States

    And you dead Enders own that. You are fine with it. You will always defend it

    Perhaps not illegal, definitely unethical And borderline treasonous

  32. I don’t think people who don’t read the NYT or CNN are stupid. I can’t say the same thing about people who write “your stupid”.

  33. Your president collided with the criminal Putin, An enemy of the United States

    And you dead Enders own that.

    How did he collide with him…. did he hit him with a golf cart?

    Name one piece of collusion.

  34. you are stupid Mahons…. educated, but severely stupid.

    No matter how well you spell…… although I did have to point out your spelling mistake in your last post just like Phantoms misspelling in his last comment….. what’s the matter no secretaries to proof read?

  35. “Name one piece of collusion.”

    You mean like Paul Manafort’s links with the GRU?

  36. They have no evidence of Trump colluding.

    Manafort’s links are irrelevant.

    You can listen to MSM scream “collusion” all you want – but like the other propaganda attempts “Trump’s unstable!” “Trump is lazy!” “Trump is a liar” “Trump doesn’t really want to be President!” “Trump will start a nuclear war!” “Trump will crash the economy” on and on and on and on.

    Damn, it would be nice if the opposition party were actually in good faith.

  37. Every thing is irrelevant when you want it to be irrelevant. As to whether or not it is actually relevant I believe that is for Robert Mueller and, after that, a jury of Donald Trump’s peers to determine.

    “Damn, it would be nice if the opposition party were actually in good faith.”

    When was the last time that happened?

  38. Their eyes and their brains are completely shot

  39. You mean like Paul Manafort’s links with the GRU?

    and has anything involving manafort been connected to trump?

    I have seen multiple connections of manafort and the podesta bros, but so far no Trump.

  40. Phantom, on January 14th, 2019 at 3:46 PM Said: Edit Comment
    Their eyes and their brains are completely shot

    No just the opposite, show my eyes some evidence and my brain will work it into his prosecution…. so far they haven’t shown shit, but hey bubble boy is convinced.

  41. You present nothing Phantom….. You’ve been asked a million times to make your case against Trump other than your personal feelings. You can’t produce one thing he has done wrong as a candidate or President.

    Yet when anyone questions you on your lack of evidence even innuendo you spin deflect or run away. While condemning anyone that doesn’t hold your point of view.

    You don’t have the knowledge nor intelligence to make a logical case against him. Your lack of ever doing so when asked to proves it.

    Obama was a corrupt wanna be dictator and the clintons are guilty of treason and violations of the rico act….. I can cite incidences of actions and the Laws they violated. I have done so several times.

    You lack the talent to come up with one cohesive charge with an incident and a violated law against Trump. Of course it would require creativity because since he has done nothing you would have to fabricate it… which is way beyond your gifts.

  42. If they had anything on Trump, it would have been presented by now. It’s time to shut down this open ended witch hunt. Maybe Mueller should go vacation in P.R. with his Dem buddies.

  43. Charles – Mueller is a decorated combat Marine and a Republican with decades of highly respected public service. Are you really suggesting he is conducting a partisan witchhunt?

  44. Mahons, I’m suggesting that the open ended nature of the investigation lends itself to mischief. What ever happened to probable cause, or the nature of the warrant, where the government had to show exactly what they were looking for?

    To my mind, the Mueller investigation is a solution desperately seeking a problem.

  45. “What ever happened to probable cause, or the nature of the warrant, where the government had to show exactly what they were looking for?”

    Are you telling me that before a police investigation can begin the police must show probable cause? They must have probable cause. They don’t have to show it.

    There have been investigations in the past into criminal behaviour that have lasted years, decades maybe, before the target of the investigation was even informed.

  46. Charles – these types of investigations can take years, Muellers has already led to convictions. So far no court has to my knowledge found any mischief in his actions. So I again ask you, is it your claim he is engaging in a witchhunt?

  47. Charles

    You’re too good a man to be making stories for this bum at this point

    Cmon

  48. So I again ask you, is it your claim he is engaging in a witchhunt?

    A definition would be helpful here. By “witch hunt” I mean having carte blanche to investigate the President and his associates to find ANYTHING the can that is illegal. If that were done to you or me, alter boys that we are, I’m sure they could find something untoward.

    Do you think I am misinformed (as may be the case) as to the nature of the investigation?

  49. Phantom, I don’t think the president is a bum. Quite the opposite. He may be a bull in the china closet. but I support his policies.

    For instance, you yourself support border security even though you are a Never-Trumper. Try to separate your dislike of the President personally with your agreement with his policies.

  50. “By “witch hunt” I mean having carte blanche to investigate the President and his associates to find ANYTHING the can that is illegal.”

    By definition a witch hunt is any attempt to find evidence of something that doesn’t exist. ie finding evidence that the woman is in fact a witch. So any investigation set up to reach a predetermined outcome regardless of the evidence would be a witch hunt.

    The process you describe (which I don’t agree is what is happening) would probably be more accurately described as a fishing expedition – something that isn’t exactly without precedent in American law enforcement.

  51. Charles – an investigator like Mueller has a broad scope (as authorized by AG and statute) but not cart blanche. Mueller has not been given cart blanche and I am curious to know where you think he has overstepped his authority.

  52. The Mueller investigation is based on the Steel Dossier and Fraudulent Fisa Warrants manufactured by Yates, McCabe. Comey, and Lynch.

    Now they have found crimes with Cohen and Manafort nothing though that involve Trump.

    The whole investigation is fruit from the poisoned tree and needs to be all thrown out.

    They falsified evidence for warrants 4 times. Everybody involved in the FISA warrants needs to go to jail for sedition and every crime Mueller has found should be tossed.

  53. “Now they have found crimes with Cohen and Manafort nothing though that involve Trump.”

    I wouldn’t agree with that. Cohen has stated that he committed his crimes at the instruction of Donald Trump. If that is true, and can be verified, then they likely have Trump dead to rights.

    It is also not true to suggest that the FISA warrants were fraudulent.

  54. Charles

    A bum and a thief ( he is both ) can still advocate some good policies

    A good person can advocate bad policies

  55. The process you describe (which I don’t agree is what is happening) would probably be more accurately described as a fishing expedition

    Seamus, that’s it! A fishing expedition more accurately describes the situation.

    I am curious to know where you think he has overstepped his authority.

    Mahons, it’s not that I think he has overstepped his authority, nay, but has been given too much authority. I don’t like the concept of special prosecutor. I didn’t like it under Nixon, nor now.

  56. I wouldn’t agree with that. Cohen has stated that he committed his crimes at the instruction of Donald Trump. If that is true, and can be verified, then they likely have Trump dead to rights.

    What they are calling “crimes” Trump ordered him to pay off the hookers.

    Congress has and active fund that has shelled out Millions of taxpayer dollars to do the same thing…. so if those two charges are a real crime I want the books of the fund opened to the public and every official that has used the fund made public and prosecuted.

  57. “What they are calling “crimes” Trump ordered him to pay off the hookers.”

    No that Trump made a campaign contribution to his own campaign and then didn’t declare it to the FEC.

    “Congress has and active fund that has shelled out Millions of taxpayer dollars to do the same thing….”

    And I’m sure the details of which are all public. It isn’t below the table. I’m sure all claims are public record. It is to help prevent nuisance suits.

  58. No that Trump made a campaign contribution to his own campaign and then didn’t declare it to the FEC.

    Those “Contributions” are the two payments to the hookers…….. They claim hush money is a campaign contribution.

    That’s what makes the fund important all those payments are the FEC violations and no they are sealed records in the fund to protect the innocent of course.

  59. ” They claim hush money is a campaign contribution.”

    Yes because it was hush money paid to prevent embarrassing stories coming out during an election.

    “That’s what makes the fund important all those payments are the FEC violations and no they are sealed records in the fund to protect the innocent of course.”

    Not necessarily. If it was done purely to prevent harm during an election then it would be – as long as the details are secret. I imgaine the details are not secret.

  60. Additionally the use of the Congressional fund is made legal by law. It is expressly legal. It was passed via statute – the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995.

  61. Not necessarily. If it was done purely to prevent harm during an election then it would be – as long as the details are secret. I imagine the details are not secret.

    Which exactly what the fund does. It’s hush money for sexual harassment, and every payment agreement is sealed.

    Each of those “sealed” payments is Election Material … things the public need to know.

  62. “It’s hush money for sexual harassment, and every payment agreement is sealed.”

    It’s not. It may be in some cases, but not universally. Before 1995 Congressmen weren’t subject to workplace regulations – on various things including sexual harassment. But isn’t just used for sexual harassment cases.

    And change the law. What they are doing is not illegal. If what Trump is alleged to have done is true then that is illegal. The two are not dissimilar. It is just one is illegal and one is not.

  63. Also two Democrats proposed legislation last term to change that Act. To make these things more public, and to remove the taxpayer from the situation. The bill didn’t pass.

  64. But you guys said that he was the holy swamp drainer guy

  65. Apologies, the a watered down version (which does include ending of anonymity for the Congressmen involved but not ending the taxpayer funding for it) did pass last session. Trump signed it just before Christmas.

    So the fund is still there but claims will no longer be confidential.

  66. I’m guessing the “Member and Employee Training and Oversight On Congress Act” or METOO Congress Act was deemed to political a title. So it was renamed the more accurate but less exciting “Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 Reform Act”.

  67. but all the previous ones still are confidential.

  68. Phantom, on January 14th, 2019 at 5:46 PM Said: Edit Comment
    But you guys said that he was the holy swamp drainer guy

    I said he was a demented Carny Barker, but so far he’s done a great job.

  69. “but all the previous ones still are confidential.”

    There is probably a legal argument to suggest that the Congressmen probably agreed to settle on the requirement of anonymity (and they could argue they would have fought the case had it not be anonymous). So its moving the goalposts after the game has been played.

  70. oh of course total anonymity, but if someone really wanted to pursue it they could force the books open on the basis of fraud.

    They used tax payer money…. that’s where FOIA gets involved, but no one is welling to crack open that can.

  71. The law specifically allows for it. It is expressly written in such a way. Thus there is likely no fraud or ability for an FOI to uncover it. Because what is being done is not only legal but is being done in the very way the law envisaged.

    Its a bad law – and thankfully has now been changed – but it was the law.

    What Trump (allegedly) did was contrary to law. The two behaviours are the same (in fact Trump’s is likely better as the cases we know about all seem to be completely consensual) but the two actions are not the same in that one is legal (the Congressional Accountability Act) and one was not (illegal campaign contributions).

  72. FOIA in theory unseals anything that a tax dollar was spent on. It was designed to thwart just such laws written by the crooks to protect the crooks… It would take a ton of requests, court orders, redacted, then unredacted versions…. years of bull

    but unless it’s military or black ops FOIA is the peoples right to know what every penny of taxpayer money was spent on.

    no one on either side want that slush fund audited.

  73. Trump also used his own money….

  74. I think you latched on to the problem. As you say unless it is military or black ops it the Freedom of Information should apply. You put in your own exemptions. So when you start putting in your exemptions, and other people put in theirs, you get a Freedom of Information Act that isn’t worth shit.

  75. FWIW, I don’t believe Trump colluded with Russians to win the election. I simply don’t see why he would or what he would gain from such behaviour. I say this as someone who cannot have any knowledge of what he may or may not have done and I say it as someone who is not a Trump supporter at all, but I do think as far as Trump himdelf is concerned the Mueller investigation will find nothing because there is nothing there.

  76. “Trump also used his own money….”

    True. But he also used his own money illegally.

  77. Colm,

    I’m not so sure. Its a bit of a Nixon type idea. Why would Nixon do Watergate? Why would he spy on the Democrats when he was going to beat them handily anyway?

    Nixon cheated, even when he didn’t need to.

    Now Trump was in a far more complicated contest. So if Nixon could cheat when he didn’t need to then I can easily see Trump doing it when he may have needed to.

  78. True. But he also used his own money illegally.

    not illegal not even against FEC regs. It’s sop.

    and the two exceptions I cite are the only two that are written in the law to protect methods and sources.

  79. “not illegal not even against FEC regs”

    If Cohen’s claims are true then Trump’s actions are illegal by FEC regulations.

    “and the two exceptions I cite are the only two that are written in the law to protect methods and sources.”

    And the anonymity in the Congressional cases was also written into law. It comes a question at what point does Law A overrule Law B.

  80. FOIA is supposed to trump everything except provable national security assets.

    They work for us, it’s our money not theirs.

    According to the FEC a candidate can do exactly what he did, they do it in almost every election. Seriously.

  81. it’s also a violations of the records act.

  82. “According to the FEC a candidate can do exactly what he did, they do it in almost every election. Seriously.”

    A candidate can make a donation to his own campaign without informing the FEC?

  83. Trump’s campaign manager passed confidential internal polling data to a Russian connected to Russian security agencies. If Trump did not know he should have known. That is just one instance of likely conspiracy/collusion of Trump with Russians. The general public does not know all the details but it is likely US law enforcement has full back-up based on recent court filings.

  84. a candidate can pay hush money and it can’t be considered a campaign contribution even if it was to silence someone while they were running.

    That’s how they wrote the FEC reg, there is no crime here at all.

  85. https://goo.gl/images/vW7ajM

  86. NYr it has yet to be shown what was transferred and why….. could be the smoking gun. It could also be related to 100 other things manfort was involved in with the Podesta’s about the ukraine with russia…. you don’t know and neither does anyone else.

  87. “a candidate can pay hush money and it can’t be considered a campaign contribution even if it was to silence someone while they were running.”

    That is simply not true. Show me one politician that has been able to do so?

  88. they do it all the time… they get a friendly paper to write a story and pay the person for the exclusive and not to run it. The campaign finance laws were written by the politicians to give them every loop hole possible. If they can show any tie to their private life in any manner they can declare the expense non campaign related. Protecting their personal reputation falls under that.

    Plus Trump setup the first payment to the playboy bunny in 2014 long before he even announced.

    The reason the government fund is sealed and changed is because they were using tax payer money to do for sitting candidates what challengers were paying for out of their pocket.

  89. “they get a friendly paper to write a story and pay the person for the exclusive and not to run it.”

    And you have evidence of it. Show me one politician who has done this, where it is provable, who has not been investigated by the FEC?

    “Plus Trump setup the first payment to the playboy bunny in 2014 long before he even announced.”

    Yes. And likely those payments were perfectly legal. The ones he did in 2016 were not.

  90. wrong….

    I’ll find you something, but it’s common knowledge and common practice.

  91. “I’ll find you something, but it’s common knowledge and common practice.”

    Which means finding it should be pretty easy.

  92. I can’t recall another candidate doing this which is odd if it happens all the time.
    That being said I’m not sure that Trump’s payments, altough creepy, were really criminal. There is at least a colorable defense that they were not.

  93. You can’t recall because the Old Grey Ho doesn’t print the news……

    and no Seamus since the money is paid to SILENCE someone or a story they really aren’t that easy to pull.

  94. Bradley Smith, a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, is chairman of the Institute for Free Speech and a visiting fellow in the James Madison Program at Princeton.

    If a candidate for public office decided to settle a private lawsuit to get it out of the news before Election Day, would that be a campaign expenditure? If a business owner ran for political office and decided to pay bonuses to his employees, in the hope that he would get good press and boost his stock as a candidate, would that be a campaign expenditure, payable from campaign funds?

    Under the theory that then-candidate Donald Trump’s personal attorney Michael Cohen violated campaign finance laws by arranging hush-money payments to women accusing Trump of affairs, the answer would seem to be yes. We should probably think twice before accepting that answer.

    The U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York has extracted a guilty plea from Cohen for “knowingly and willfully” violating campaign finance laws by arranging for payments to two women accusing Trump of extramarital affairs. Cohen admitted he did so under the direction of “a candidate” — obviously referencing Trump — to “influence” an election. Cohen was facing multiple tax and fraud charges that could have landed him in jail for the rest of his life, even if he beat the campaign finance allegations. By pleading guilty, he limits his jail time to just a few years.

    However, regardless of what Cohen agreed to in a plea bargain, hush-money payments to mistresses are not really campaign expenditures. It is true that “contribution” and “expenditure” are defined in the Federal Election Campaign Act as anything “for the purpose of influencing any election,” and it may have been intended and hoped that paying hush money would serve that end. The problem is that almost anything a candidate does can be interpreted as intended to “influence an election,” from buying a good watch to make sure he gets to places on time, to getting a massage so that he feels fit for the campaign trail, to buying a new suit so that he looks good on a debate stage. Yet having campaign donors pay for personal luxuries — such as expensive watches, massages and Brooks Brothers suits — seems more like bribery than funding campaign speech.

    That’s why another part of the statute defines “personal use” as any expenditure “used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.” These may not be paid with campaign funds, even though the candidate might benefit from the expenditure. Not every expense that might benefit a candidate is an obligation that exists solely because the person is a candidate.

    Suppose, for example, that Trump had told his lawyers, “Look, these complaints about Trump University have no merit, but they embarrass me as a candidate. Get them settled.” Are the settlements thus “campaign expenses”? The obvious answer is no, even though the payments were intended to benefit Trump as a candidate.

    If the opposite were true and they were considered campaign expenses, then not only could Trump pay them with campaign funds, but also he would be required to pay these business expenses from campaign funds. Is that what campaign donations are for?

    But let’s go in that direction. Suppose Trump had used campaign funds to pay off these women. Does anyone much doubt that many of the same people now after Trump for using corporate funds, and not reporting them as campaign expenditures, would then be claiming that Trump had illegally diverted campaign funds to “personal use”? Or that federal prosecutors would not have sought a guilty plea from Cohen on that count? And that gets us to a troubling nub of campaign finance laws: Too often, you can get your target coming or going.

    Yes, those payments were unseemly, but unseemliness doesn’t make something illegal. At the very least, the law is murky about whether paying hush money to a mistress is a “campaign expense” or a personal expense. In such circumstances, we would not usually expect prosecutors to charge the individuals with a “knowing and willful” violation, leading to criminal charges and possible jail time. A civil fine would be the normal response.
    But Cohen is not the normal defendant, and prosecutors almost certainly squeezed him to plead guilty on these charges, in part, for the purpose of building a case for possible criminal or impeachment charges against the president, or even, daresay, “influencing the reelection” of Trump.

    Laws, once stretched from their limited language and proper purpose, are difficult to pound back into shape. We should proceed with caution here.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/those-payments-to-mistresses-were-unseemly-that-doesnt-mean-they-were-illegal/2018/08/22/634acdf4-a63b-11e8-8fac-12e98c13528d_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.44a050f8d557

  95. Well Patrick you advised you would find some examples. I suppose that will be after you help OJ find the real killers.

  96. read the Wapo article counselor

  97. The article does not reveal a single example of what you suggested is common. I think the person who needs to read the article is you.

  98. everyone of these falls into this campaign finance charge……

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/11/16/20-year-list-of-annualized-congressional-harassment-settlements/

  99. The article verifies what I said about the finance laws, but I know that’s beyond your grasp……

  100. No they dont.

    The article is an opinion piece that you parroted. It doesn’t verify what you’ve written.

    Again, it shouldn’t provoke your antagonism just asking you to back up what you said was common.

  101. http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title52-section30101&num=0&edition=prelim

    Your supposedly a lawyer…… read the reg summary I found what it’s covered under can you….?

  102. Here’s another article Which since it proves me correct you can dismiss, but explains it well.

    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/08/in_case_you_forgot__congress_paid_17_million_in_hush_money_to_protect_politicians.html

    For all those Democrats and the MSM seeking to use Michael Cohen’s plea deal to implicate President Trump in the alleged crime confessed to by Cohen, don’t forget to use the precedent set by the highly respected institution we call the Congress of the United States of America when you make arguments that Donald Trump was trying to influence an election with a payment to silence his accusers.

    The following is a list of articles from major news outlets with short excerpts written about members of Congress paying “secret settlements” for everything from sexual harassment to who knows what else – because we really don’t know “what else” they did. It’s a secret.

    The secrecy, or can we say cover-up, is meant to protect the identity of the elected officials involved who need to silence their accusers. You know, just in case the information might become public and affect their positions in Congress or – wait for it – the outcomes of their next elections.

    Sexual harassment fund exposes Congress

  103. ot

    a good article by a democrat about the FBI and Mueller probe.

    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/mark-penn-fbi-trump-russia-investigation-shows-deep-state-was-worse-than-we-thought