Trump is the WWE and Mueller is The Undertaker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Oh man how did I miss this gem. There's only 1.8b Muslims in the entire world, what website is saying 2.5b people want Sharia Law? Are they saying 700m non-muslims want Sharia law too? Fuck me. No wonder you're worried.

---

Yeah I was talking bollocks, I just took another look at the page I was reading and I remembered those numbers wrong. Whatever, I literally went to bed after posting it. Still, you're doing what you really love to do... ignore the point that was being made, and instead make high pitched screeching noises over something that isn't right to distract from the bit you can't be bothered to respond to.

Let's try this. One third of the world subscribe to a religion that considers women inferior, and people are more concerned about whether numbers are accurate.

Christianity?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Christianity?

---

Ranks about 6 on the batshit scale, although some churches will certainly score higher.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Let's try this. One third of the world subscribe to a religion that considers women inferior, and people are more concerned about whether numbers are accurate.

---

Like I said, maybe take it to the xenophobia thread.

So now David Pecker, head publisher of the National Enquirer, has been given immunity in return for cooperating.

Wonder what he might have to say about things?

No worries, I'm sure he just wants to tell Mueller how irrefutably and objectively innocent Trump is.

No dummy, he already had immunity. thats how they got Cohen.

we are just hearing about it now.

this isnt some breaking news or juicy new development. Its just exculpatory background on a story that doesnt amount to much in the first place

Oh well, douchebag, it was news to me.

One more rat leaving the sinking ship.

Pecker didnt get immunity from Mueller.

Whats with the alternative facts dude?

Youve been reading too much fake news.

why are you even commenting on this when you clearly know so little about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Pecker didnt get immunity from Mueller.

Whats with the alternative facts dude?

Youve been reading too much fake news.

why are you even commenting on this when you clearly know so little about it.

---

Whatever you say, Fox News.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Like I said, maybe take it to the xenophobia thread.

---

Hating on religion is not xenophobia.

Hey poop, you want to call me something factual? Try "theophobe".

I mean you could try the politically charged "Islamophobe" but it only tells part of the story.

If hating on Islam is xenophobia, then so too is hating on Trump supporters. I mean, what's the difference? When I hate on Islam, even if it's for oppressing women, the left argue that I am insulting all Muslims and am therefore being racist. Well let's both play that game. When people hate on Trump supporters, they are being racist. Because Trump supporters are a race, every bit as much as batshitologists.

Hey, start whatever thread you want to call it. This is Trump/Mueller thread. So unless you think Mueller is a muslim I don't care.

Yeah, no off topic distractions.

Poop was just about to tell me exactly how "Trump is fucked"

haha off topic, good one.

Trump is fucked because he's an old man and is very probably closer to death than we are.

There's something for the left to cling on to... they'll all get to see him die, since they're all students who have no fucking idea how the real world works.

Niel DeGrasse Tyson was on the Joe Rogan Experience the other day and had some positive things to say about Space Force.

I'm not sure the current reality is up to the call, but he makes great points that the need is inevitable.

The only thing wrong with Space Force, is the name.

I defy anyone to watch this 30 minute rant and then claim this guy has his head on straight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lu_Hgw60Ns&t=1465s

I am the type of person who is convinced less by presentation and more by substance and results.

As one of the leading free thinkers of our time points out, within a given domain, the guys who (on average) present like they should not be successful yet are successful have (on average) greater competence than those in that same domain who present like is expected of the successful.

So you implying you were above most if not all of your peer students at college suggests what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

I am the type of person who is convinced less by presentation and more by substance and results.

As one of the leading free thinkers of our time points out, within a given domain, the guys who (on average) present like they should not be successful yet are successful have (on average) greater competence than those in that same domain who present like is expected of the successful.

---

Sounds like you're saying the best sign of competence is the appearance of incompetence. Well, on that criterion Trump is definitely extremely competent.

However, there's also a lot of people who present as incompetent because they actually are incompetent. And my guess is that's also how the electorate tends to view things, because their thinking just isn't on your level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

I am the type of person who is convinced less by presentation and more by substance and results.

---

The biggest irony here is that if there were ever a president who was all about presentation and not about substance, it is definitely Donald Trump.

Depends on your definition of substance. It might be a bit coagulated and smell like filet-o-fish, but it is a substance of sort.

idk how nobody has mentioned this, but Trump's weekend bookkeeper, who has only worked for him a very short time, and really, he didn't know him that well - Allen Weisselberg has been granted immunity. What this likely means is that Mueller is pulling a hold-my-beer on Gulliani's claim that the investigation has to wrap up by September 1st.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

idk how nobody has mentioned this, but Trump's weekend bookkeeper, who has only worked for him a very short time, and really, he didn't know him that well - Allen Weisselberg has been granted immunity. What this likely means is that Mueller is pulling a hold-my-beer on Gulliani's claim that the investigation has to wrap up by September 1st.

---

God you're just so DESPERATE!!!!!!!!

This is called "TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME"

First of all, Mueller has nothing to do with Weisselberg. AW was given immunity by the Southern District of New York. He was granted that in exchange for his testimony of what he knows regarding the tax evasions and bank frauds of one Michael Cohen.

So here you are getting your boner all tangled in your g string because someone connected to Trump had a business of his own, ran it like a criminal, and someone else, who also knows Trump, overheard some things and told the Prosecutor. You seem to think that represents the equivalent of Mueller loading the bases in the bottom of the 9th.

Ikr.

Everyone around Trump is either being charged, convicted, or granted immunity. But he's completely going to walk away from all this 'cause people who surround themselves with criminals are always irrevocably innocent.

I'm actually starting to think this whole Mueller thing is just Trump using 3D chess to drain the swamp.

Maybe he is innocent, and he's just doing what reasonably attractive women do... hang out with fat ugly girls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Maybe he is innocent, and he's just doing what reasonably attractive women do... hang out with fat ugly girls.

---

I'm a reasonably law-abiding person, and the number of criminals I hang with is precisely zero.

And by the way, those aren't just guys he has a beer with on the weekend; they're his employees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

I'm a reasonably law-abiding person, and the number of criminals I hang with is precisely zero.

---

"reasonably"

So you're admitting you're a criminal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Everyone around Trump is either being charged, convicted, or granted immunity. .

---

LOL, so?

Do you really think people voted for him thinking "nah, nothing like this will ever happen. The guy is so squeaky clean"

Like, it doesn't matter how much you whine "Trump is so bad!!", the answer will always be the same:

Quote:

---

"We know, and we STILL like him better than any democrat you can name. That's how bad the left has fucked up. That's how hard we are rejecting them. We'd rather have a foul mouth, sleazy, adultering, spaz for a president than have one more day of your dog shit policies. Any time you wanna have an open-minded debate about policy, we can go back to being reasonable. But if all you're gonna do is tell me how privileged and racist I am, then you can shut the fuck up and suffer for six more years. After that I expect your head will explode with shame when you realize that your Marxist rhetoric just got Hannity elected."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

"reasonably"

So you're admitting you're a criminal?

---

Yeah I parked on a double yellow line once.

Lock me up!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

LOL, so?

Do you really think people voted for him thinking "nah, nothing like this will ever happen. The guy is so squeaky clean"

---

Lol, "nothing like this".

Yea, I'm pretty sure the vast majority of those people weren't expecting scandal on this level.

Also, I don't care about 1/3 of the country who are morons and voted for him 'cause MAGA and will continue to vote for him regardless of what happens. My interest is in those who voted for him primarily because he wasn't Hillary.

And if your argument is that voters aren't swayed by corruption then why does every party make an issue out of corruption before every election?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Yea, I'm pretty sure the vast majority of those people weren't expecting scandal on this level.

---

On what level? You've yet to describe anything he's actually done that's scandalous. What crime is he guilty of? What's the proof? How many votes do you think he's lost?

Quote:

---

And if your argument is that voters aren't swayed by corruption then why does every party make an issue out of corruption before every election?

---

LOL, not every election. Just the ones that involve a Clinton. That's a lot of them, so maybe it just seems like its *every* election

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

On what level? You've yet to describe anything he's actually done that's scandalous. What crime is he guilty of? What's the proof? How many votes do you think he's lost?

---

Still clinging to that eh? I guess you don't see the writing on the wall there. Here's a clue: When Sammy the Bull and Jimmy the Snake get charged, and Billy Two Shoes and Bobby the Grime get immunity, it's not good news for the capo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

LOL, not every election. Just the ones that involve a Clinton. That's a lot of them, so maybe it just seems like its *every* election

---

So every election where corruption is an issue then? Ok well I guess you have nothing to worry about then.

Haha when it all goes down I guess Trump's line is going to be he didn't know about all the criminal shit going on around him.

Ironically, stupidity might be his best defense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Still clinging to that eh?

---

Well yeah. "innocence" is a pretty strong argument. Why wouldn't I cling to it?

Quote:

---

I guess you don't see the writing on the wall there. Here's a clue: When Sammy the Bull and Jimmy the Snake get charged, and Billy Two Shoes and Bobby the Grime get immunity, it's not good news for the capo.

---

Sammy the Bull got 5 years in prison after pleading guilty to NINETEEN murders. Trump really shouldn't be worried. Apparently NY has a "20 strikes and you're out" policy

Quote:

---

Ok well I guess you have nothing to worry about then.

---

Why would *I* have anything to worry about?

Am I under investigation? Have any of my criminal underlings been offered immunity? What exactly am I supposed to be "worried" about?

What emotional connection do you believe I have with Trump? In what ways do you think his fate is tied to my emotional stability?

Let's play a game here. How exactly would you describe my opinion of Trump?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Ironically, stupidity might be his best defense.

---

Trump actually has several credible and extremely robust defenses

1) I dont know campaign finance law, that's why I have a lawyer. If he fucked up, go talk to him.

2) I didn't pay these cunts to influence the election, I did it to keep a secret from my wife.

3) I paid Cohen back. I'm allowed to use my own money for any purpose I please.


Could you please just speculate what kind of evidence might exist that could undo any one of those defenses? I dont' even need a source here. Just let your imagination run wild and let me know what plausible scenario could occur where Trump is criminally implicated in the payments to porn stars. Any time you like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Let's play a game here. How exactly would you describe my opinion of Trump?

---

I'll make it even easier then. What letter-grade do you think that I would give Trump's presidency so far?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Well yeah. "innocence" is a pretty strong argument. Why wouldn't I cling to it?

---

Oh yea, I keep forgetting that the presumption of innonence lasts for all eternity in bananaworld.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Sammy the Bull got 5 years in prison after pleading guilty to NINETEEN murders. Trump really shouldn't be worried. Apparently NY has a "20 strikes and you're out" policy

---

How many years did John Gotti get? 'Cause that's the analogy here. Sorry if that went over your head, what with your low IQ and all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

In what ways do you think his fate is tied to my emotional stability?

---

God I hope it isn't. You're unstable enough already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

I'll make it even easier then. What letter-grade do you think that I would give Trump's presidency so far?

---

You really seem to want to talk about this. I sense a wall of text coming listing your views and judgments on all his actions to date.

If it makes you feel better, hey go ahead. I can't promise anyone will be interested enough to read it. But that's never stopped you before.

I was about to cite Mariano Rajoy as a bigger cunt leader than literally-Hitler, but it turns out he got booted out in a vote of no connfidence this year. Wonder why that wasn't all over the news? Perhaps that same week, Trump said something that offended someone.

Why weren't you all celebrating a fascist getting the boot, like you will if haircut gets impeached?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

1) I dont know campaign finance law, that's why I have a lawyer. If he fucked up, go talk to him.

---

I hope he picks this one. "I didn't know you couldn't murder your opponent and bury them in the desert. My lawyer told me it was ok, I swear!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

2) I didn't pay these cunts to influence the election, I did it to keep a secret from my wife.

---

"I also didn't want my wife to find out about the peepee tape, so that's why I'm Putin's bitch. Nothing to do with winning the election. "

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

3) I paid Cohen back. I'm allowed to use my own money for any purpose I please.

---

"...and if he and Weisselberg both have documents saying the money came from campaign funds, and both say that using campaign funds was my idea, I have no idea what that means. I'm just a simple country boy who got mixed up with the wrong people, Your Honor. Why this witch hunt? What about Hillary's emails?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I was about to cite Mariano Rajoy as a bigger cunt leader than literally-Hitler, but it turns out he got booted out in a vote of no connfidence this year. Wonder why that wasn't all over the news? Perhaps that same week, Trump said something that offended someone.

Why weren't you all celebrating a fascist getting the boot, like you will if haircut gets impeached?

---

I did. I just didn't post about it here because this is the Trump/Mueller thread, not the xenophobia/theophobia/parking violations/Spanish politics thread.

Quote:

---

I hope he picks this one. "I didn't know you couldn't murder your opponent and bury them in the desert. My lawyer told me it was ok, I swear!"

---

I love your debating strategy. We've gone from "I don't understand complex finance laws so I hire a lawyer to do it for me" to "I didn't know it's illegal to murder someone."

Also, if they buried them in the desert, then that would probably stand up in court as evidence you did indeed know it was illegal, since you are going to great lengths to dispose of the evidence. If you really thought it was ok to kill someone, you'd call the coroner or an undertaker, not drive to the desert with a spade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

I did. I just didn't post about it here because this is the Trump/Mueller thread, not the xenophobia/theophobia/parking violations/Spanish politics thread.

---

Oh, good for you. I'm glad we don't have to have an argument about granny-bashers.

To be fair, if you asked a lawyer if it's ok to kill someone, and that lawyer said yes, and you then asked the lawyer to do it, and he said OK, good chance the lawyer is in more shit than you. I mean, so long as you can prove you asked that very lawyer if your actions were lawful, and he said yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I love your debating strategy. We've gone from "I don't understand complex finance laws so I hire a lawyer to do it for me"

---

It's not hiring a lawyer that's a crime. It's ordering the lawyer to use campaign funds to make the payment - get that "ordering" - that is illegal.

See, the reason the lawyer and accountant are in shit is because they accepted that order and followed it when they should have quit instead.

No-one is going to believe the lawyer and accountant decided to break that law on their own, without telling their client. Why would they? They just loved Trump so much they wanted to put themselves in legal jeopardy to make him a little bit richer? lol, that story is never gonna fly in court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

To be fair, if you asked a lawyer if it's ok to kill someone, and that lawyer said yes, and you then asked the lawyer to do it, and he said OK, good chance the lawyer is in more shit than you. I mean, so long as you can prove you asked that very lawyer if your actions were lawful, and he said yes.

---

And what if he says 'no, murder is illegal' and you tell him to kill someone anyways. Are you in trouble then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

I hope he picks this one. "I didn't know you couldn't murder your opponent and bury them in the desert. My lawyer told me it was ok, I swear!"

---

Objection, ridiculous strawman.

Quote:

---

"I also didn't want my wife to find out about the peepee tape, so that's why I'm Putin's bitch. Nothing to do with winning the election. "

---

Objection: Assumes facts not in evidence. Also, a really sad false equivalency.

Quote:

---

"...and if he and Weisselberg both have documents saying the money came from campaign funds,

---

The US. Justice department has already refuted this. So, don't be going too far down that hypothetical road Mr. Demagogue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

It's not hiring a lawyer that's a crime. It's ordering the lawyer to use campaign funds to make the payment - get that "ordering" - that is illegal.

---

No, it's only a crime if the lawyer actually does it.

Quote:

---

See, the reason the lawyer and accountant are in shit is because they accepted that order and followed it when they should have quit instead.

---

the accountant is in exactly 0.0000 ounces of shit. And the lawyer is in shit because he didn't pay his own taxes.

Quote:

---

No-one is going to believe the lawyer and accountant decided to break that law on their own, without telling their client.

---

This is not an issue. Since no one is going to believe that they actually broke the law by paying off a porn star. The only person who is claiming that is Cohen. And he only started claiming that AFTER Bill Clinton's lawyer showed up and got 62 years off Cohen's sentence. Are these not salient facts in poopy-world?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Objection, ridiculous strawman.

---

Overruled. The point has clearly gone over the head of the low IQ counsel, Your Honor.

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse." Does that help the dopey counsel get it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Objection: Assumes facts not in evidence. Also, a really sad false equivalency.

---

Overruled. Again, the defense has no ability to read between the lines. The point is clearly that you cannot do illegal things and claim they were done for good reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

The US. Justice department has already refuted this. So, don't be going too far down that hypothetical road Mr. Demagogue.

---

No such refutation exists, Your Honor. Once again the low IQ defense is projecting his own low IQ tactics onto the prosecution

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

It's not hiring a lawyer that's a crime. It's ordering the lawyer to use campaign funds to make the payment - get that "ordering" - that is illegal.

---

Where did the bolded even come from?

is that what you think happened? Where are you getting that? There is no news source, no plea agreement, no on or off-record statements from anyone, anywhere that says "Trump ordered Cohen to take money from the campaign and use it to pay porn stars"

That wouldn't even be illegal

You're fucking deranged man. You don't even know what you're mad about!!!

You just heard some vague blurry media hissy fit about Trump, and now your imagination is just spewing out all kinds of diarrhea

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

No such refutation exists,

---

How would you even know? You get all your news from David Pakman

It does exist, and I've even posted it in this thread already. So you're retarded.

You don't even know what supposed infraction Trump even committed. You're just pooping things out of your brain and hoping theyre real.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

No, it's only a crime if the lawyer actually does it.

---

Really? Then all those people who got busted in stings trying to hire a hit man to kill their spouse better be let out of jail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

the accountant is in exactly 0.0000 ounces of shit. And the lawyer is in shit because he didn't pay his own taxes.

---

The accountant is in shit for the reasons I gave. Arguing 'no he isn't' is not a riposte.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

The only person who is claiming that is Cohen.

---

That we know of. So far. etc. etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

It does exist, and I've even posted it in this thread already.

---

Wrong. You posted a court document, moron. One that reported what a defendant said in his guilty plea. How in the world does that prove a document such as I described doesn't exist? Maybe in Fox News land it does, but your courts aren't made up of people who buy vests with 17 internal pockets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Where did the bolded even come from?

is that what you think happened? Where are you getting that? There is no news source, no plea agreement, no on or off-record statements from anyone, anywhere that says "Trump ordered Cohen to take money from the campaign and use it to pay porn stars"

That wouldn't even be illegal

---

Haha Cohen himself said it in his admission to the courts. Not surprised that little detail flew under the Fox News' radar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

"Trump ordered Cohen to take money from the campaign and use it to pay porn stars"

That wouldn't even be illegal

You're fucking deranged man.

---

Lol, good argument there. You must be taking lessons from Guiliani.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Haha Cohen himself said it in his admission to the courts. Not surprised that little detail flew under the Fox News' radar.

---

NO HE DIDN'T.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Wrong. You posted a court document, moron. .

---

I posted a statement from the Justice Department where they acknowledge that invoices exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Lol, good argument there. You must be taking lessons from Guiliani.

---

It's a GREAT argument. using campaign funds to influence an election is PERFECTLY REASONABLE.

That's not even the accusation here. You have no idea what you're even talking about.

It amazes me that you just heard a whisper of "trump guilty" and you went absolutely wild trying to just assume what crime he commimtted. It's HILARIOUS to me that you landed on something perfectly legal.

Let's recap that. You IMAGINED that Trump was guilty of doing something that is perfectly legal. You invented criminal malice and inserted it into a perfectly legal act and then convinced yourself that it was a crime just because you hate Trump. All the while you never actually bothered to gather a single fact, any one of which would have told you what the ACTUAL accusations are.

God that's so fucking DERANGED!!

I heard Trump uses his left hand to wipe his arse.

He's right handed.

What kind of monster is he?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

NO HE DIDN'T.

---

Go and read his entire admission, retard, not just the Fox News summary version. He clearly and unequivocably says "I admit to breaking the law in using campaign funds to pay off SD, at the order of "The Candidate"" Hence the reason people started using the term 'unindicted co-conspirator' to refer to Trump following that little speech in court.

You screaming in all caps that it didn't happen doesn't change the fact that it did, sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

It's a GREAT argument. using campaign funds to influence an election is PERFECTLY REASONABLE.

That's not even the accusation here. You have no idea what you're even talking about.

---

Lol, if you're gonna keep digging that hole you're gonna need a bigger shovel.

"It's not illegal to use campaign funds to bribe people, if it helps the campaign."

Just listen to your own idiocy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Go and read his entire admission, retard, not just the Fox News summary version. He clearly and unequivocably says "I admit to breaking the law in using campaign funds to pay off SD, at the order of "The Candidate""

---

Completely, totally, irrefutably, and shockingly false.

How long are you going to keep making this retarded claim?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Lol, if you're gonna keep digging that hole you're gonna need a bigger shovel.

"It's not illegal to use campaign funds to bribe people, if it helps the campaign."

Just listen to your own idiocy.

---

Bolded = FACT

Go ask Oskar to borrow some IQs and see if you can figure out what Cohen is actually accusing Trump of doing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

I posted a statement from the Justice Department where they acknowledge that invoices exist.

---

How do those invoices prove Trump's innocence? Is he gonna bring those to his own trial? I'd love to see that.

"Look judge, I have receipts!"

lolz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

How do those invoices prove Trump's innocence? Is he gonna bring those to his own trial? I'd love to see that.

"Look judge, I have receipts!"

lolz

---

If you're asking the question "Did Trump use his own money, or a donors, to pay off SD", then I would think that receipts would be an incredibly compelling piece of evidence that would answer that exact question beyond a reasonable doubt.

Is that not the case in retardoworld?

You just keep spinning your wheels here.

First, he wasn't using campaign funds to pay hookers off. It was his own money.

Now, you say if he did use campaign funds it's not illegal to do.

If it's not illegal, why start out denying it? Why is whether the money came from his pocket or from the campaign even relevant?

You really are a tard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Completely, totally, irrefutably, true.

I can't explain this without reference to Trump being guilty as sin, so Ima gonna claim it's a lie

---

fyp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

If you're asking the question "Did Trump use his own money, or a donors, to pay off SD", then I would think that receipts would be an incredibly compelling piece of evidence that would answer that exact question beyond a reasonable doubt.

Is that not the case in retardoworld?

---

Well now again you seem to think the source of the money is relevant.

I thought it didn't matter cause you're allowed to use campaign funds to bribe hookers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Why is whether the money came from his pocket or from the campaign even relevant?

---

It's not. You keep trying to make a distinction. Either of those are legal. Neither of those represent the accusations against Trump.

I'm gonna give you one more chance to go and get the actual facts here. Let me know when you've got your story straight.

What I'm getting is that despite it not being illegal to use campaign funds to pay off hookers, he still used his own funds.

Go Trump.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Well now again you seem to think the source of the money is relevant.

---

I didn't say that.

Quote:

---

I thought it didn't matter cause you're allowed to use campaign funds to bribe hookers.

---

You are.

Quote:

---

He (Cohen) told a judge in United States District Court in Manhattan that the payments to the women were made “in coordination with and at the direction of a candidate for federal office,” implicating the president in a federal crime.

“I participated in this conduct, which on my part took place in Manhattan, for the principal purpose of influencing the election” for president in 2016, Mr. Cohen said.

---

Wanna deny it a few more times? Maybe if you keep saying it, the courts will re-write those records for you.

Do you need me to translate that into retard-language for you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Wanna deny it a few more times? Maybe if you keep saying it, the courts will re-write those records for you.

---

Where in that statement does he say that he "used campaign funds"?

Tell me again why that would be illegal?

I can't tell if you're being stubborn, or stupid here. If you really have no fucking idea what you're talking about, then just tap-out, and I'll tell you. But if you wanna insist you've got your story straight, then I'm enjoying this spectacle/tantrum. Every second it continues just makes it so much more satisfying when you finally have to realize your own retardedness.

I'm pretty sure I saw Trump asking millions of people to vote for him.

If that's not an attempt to influence an election, I dunno what is.

Hey, when are you going to write that essay where you go on for several pages about how you're not really a Trump fan and why you only give him a B+?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Where in that statement does he say that he "used campaign funds"?

Tell me again why that would be illegal?

---

It wouldn't by your standards. Too bad you aren't the law.

Also,

Quote:

---

Mr. Cohen acknowledged the illegal payments while pleading guilty to breaking campaign finance laws

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Hey, when are you going to write that essay where you go on for several pages about how you're not really a Trump fan and why you only give him a B+?

---

Right after you tell me what Trump did wrong.

We've already established that using campaign money to bribe porn stars is totally legal. So what else ya got.

Quote:

---

Mr. Cohen acknowledged the illegal payments while pleading guilty to breaking campaign finance laws

---

And what does that tell us about the source of the money?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

I've already argued till my face is blue that using campaign money to bribe porn stars is totally legal. So obviously I got nothing.

---

you're right,there's no point going on with this.

Quote:

---

It wouldn't by your standards. Too bad you aren't the law.

---

It doesn't by my standards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poop

He clearly and unequivocably says "I admit to breaking the law in using campaign funds to pay off SD, at the order of "The Candidate""

---

You're claiming a direct quote, not some subjective paraphrased bollocks.

"Clearly and unequivocably" does not mean "in my opinion".

Now does he actually say "using campaign funds"?

Here it is explained for anyone who wants to understand it.

Quote:

---

Two counts that Michael Cohen plead guilty were for campaign finance violations: (a) for causing an illegal corporate contribution and (b) for an excessive personal campaign contribution for his payments to two women during the 2016 campaign.

United States campaign finance laws have been watered down by the Roberts Supreme Court since 2006, but there are a few pillars of campaign finance law that the Supreme Court has upheld again and again: (1) bans on corporations’ giving directly to federal candidates, (2) bans on foreigners’ spending in US elections, (3) the lawfulness of contribution limits and (4) the requirement that money going into and going out of federal campaign be fully disclosed.

Another fundamental requirement of campaign finance law is that campaign funds be used for legitimate campaign expenditures and not for personal use. The Cohen pleas on counts 7 and 8 appear to acknowledge his working with candidate Trump to violate federal campaign finance laws by violating two of those pillars (the corporate ban and the contribution limits), which aim to prevent corruption of the American political process.

---

If I cared enough, I'd want to see a full transcript of the court session so I could see what he actually said.

But I don't really care. I just want to know who's right out of you two.

The allegations being made by deranged members of the media are the following:

Quote:

---

Cohen himself, and Cohen through Pecker, paid off two porn stars to keep them quiet in advance of the election. That money represents a campaign contribution in excess of the maximum individual amount allowed.

---

No one said he "used campaign funds". That's a nefarious piece of demagoguery you've either been sold, or imagined yourself out of total derangement. Again, it would be AWESOME if he just used campaign funds. Cuz that would be totally fine.

If Cohen made the payments with Cohen's own money then that means that Cohen spent more than $2700 to help a campaign influence an election and that would be a crime. And if Trump knew about it, or conspired to have him do that, then that's also a crime.

Also, it should be noted that these allegations are being made ONLY in the media. There's no actual proof that any of this actually happened except the testimony of a man who just got 62 years knocked off his sentence while being represented by Lanny Davis.

Well according to banana (aka Fox News), Cohen didn't even break any laws by paying off those sluts using campaign funds, but for whatever reason he pled guilty to things that aren't even crimes.

It is a mind-bender I admit. I always thought you had to confess to an actual real crime that was on the books before you could get convicted for it.

You'll notice that congress isn't going ape-shit about this since it's quite obvious that the money that Cohen and Pecker spent was NOT a campaign donation. They already tried to prosecute John Edwards for this exact thing, and he was not convicted. There is such a thing as "the mistress loophole". Plus, we already know that there are invoices that show that Trump used his own money.

Every single story about this is a piece of demagogue trash that talks about "turmoil" and "allegations from Cohen" and wild media speculation about "impeachment potential" and blah blah blah blah. none of it ever says "we know Trump committed crime X because of evidence"

This will all blow over in a month when the midterms become more compelling news.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Well according to banana (aka Fox News), Cohen didn't even break any laws by paying off those sluts using campaign funds, but for whatever reason he pled guilty to things that aren't even crimes.

---

No one is accusing anyone of doing what's bolded. That allegation exists NOWHERE.

And if it did, it wouldn't be a crime.

banana is just basically repeating whatever he hears on Fox News. It's hilarious how many different angles their experts like Dershowitz keep coming up with to try to explain how Trump can magically squirm his way out of this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

banana is just basically repeating whatever he hears on Fox News.

---

No, I'm not. I'm asking you WHO says that Trump is in trouble for using campaign funds to pay porn stars. And WHO thinks that's a criminal act.

It's not Fox News. It's not CNN. It's not NBC. It's not the NY Times. It's not InfoWars. It's not TYT. It's not David Pakman. So....who then? Where did you get that idea?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

banana is just basically repeating whatever he hears on Fox News. It's hilarious how many different angles their experts like Dershowitz keep coming up with to try to explain how Trump can magically squirm his way out of this.

---

And then when the Trump Foundation shit starts heating up, he's gonna go off on another series of arguments he hears from Fox News about how none of the illegal things Trump did with THAT were really illegal, and what kinds of excuses he can use in court.

So let's recap.

Poop thinks that something legal, is illegal.

He thinks that it's illegal because he thinks Trump did it.

And he's repeated himself over a dozen times in this thread, digging himself into a deeper and deeper hole of moronic idiocy.

And rather than respond to challenges to find out what things actually are illegal, and what Trump actually did, he just kept digging the hole.

Is that everyone's understanding so far?

You get that now poop? Trump isn't being accused of "using campaign funds". He's being accused of something else entirely. Something completely different.

Would you like to debate the merits of that accusation? Or would you like to keep telling me that using campaign funds to influence an election is a brazen criminal act.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

No, I'm not. I'm asking you WHO says that Trump is in trouble for using campaign funds to pay porn stars. And WHO thinks that's a criminal act.

---

here you go buddy. And actually all of those media you mentioned above say much the same thing (except Fox of course). So suck it.

https://www.vox.com/2018/8/21/177655...-trump-mueller

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

...

---

Blah blah blah. Just read or watch something besides Fox News and stop claiming I'm the only one who is saying these things.

What you really mean is, this is the only place you ever go where anyone ever says anything bad about Trump, and it's your mission in life to argue with those people rather than evaluate your own cognitive dissonance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

here you go buddy. And actually all of those media you mentioned above say much the same thing (except Fox of course). So suck it.

https://www.vox.com/2018/8/21/177655...-trump-mueller

---

Where does it say "used campaign money improperly"?

All of this is 13 demagogues doing demagogue things. None of them cites an actual statue. none of them say what crime was committed, or who might be guilty of what, based on what evidence. It's all just a bunch of gleeful giddy schoolgirls clapping and going "Yay impeachment"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Blah blah blah. Just read or watch something besides Fox News and stop claiming I'm the only one who is saying these things.

What you really mean is, this is the only place you ever go where anyone ever says anything bad about Trump, and it's your mission in life to argue with those people rather than evaluate your own cognitive dissonance.

---

Ok. So can we just agree now. Trump isn't in trouble for "using campaign money to pay porn stars"

The media is alleging that Cohen used his own money to pay the porn stars, and that's an excessive contribution. << Do you get the difference between that and what you've been saying?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Where does it say "used campaign money improperly"?

All of this is 13 demagogues doing demagogue things. None of them cites an actual statue. none of them say what crime was committed, or who might be guilty of what, based on what evidence. It's all just a bunch of gleeful giddy schoolgirls clapping and going "Yay impeachment"

---

haha, cognitive dissonance at it's finest. I'm gonna enjoy the next few months.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Ok. So can we just agree now. Trump isn't in trouble for "using campaign money to pay porn stars"

The media is alleging that Cohen used his own money to pay the porn stars, and that's an excessive contribution. << Do you get the difference between that and what you've been saying?

---

I don't really care if some argument I make on the internet is legally precise or not. I'm not a lawyer or a judge in the case. The part that matters to me is that the orange clown goes down and you have to spend a few months telling us all how you were never really a big Trump fan anyways lol.