If you're going to advertise asking one question, ask only one question please.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, now this is the question, if either or both did just exactly the same things as donald trump #45 has done, would you all be covering up for them like you do for donald ??
Probably not, because I'm a Republican. It's not my job to cover for the opponent.
If they stopped any investigations into their lives like donald has, if they lied to the US like donald has, if they said it was OK for a foreign country to help in their campaign to get them elected, do I need to go on ?? Now answer these questions truthfully ??
Obama influenced the FBI so, despite doing an "investigation", they wouldn't charge Hillary. Hell, some WikiLeaks guy found evidence the FBI didn't.
Obama lied to the US for 8 years as president and another during his campaign (not to mention he's still lying).
Hillary used foreign countries to help in her campaign.
Meanwhile, Obama/Hillary used the DOJ to try to influence an election with illegal surveillance of Trump. Then he denied it and it was later admitted by the FBI. It's funny how all of the stuff Obama laughed off ended up true after all.
I'm sure the answer I will get is that donald hasn't done any of those things, or Hillary/Obama made him do it, it's all their fault...
Well Dan, I still only want to know one answer to my one questions, if Hillary or Obama had done what donald has done, would you cons be defending them like you do donald ?? Cons on this board still always want to answer this question with still pointing fingers at Hillary/Obama ?? It can be answered by a simple yes or no !!!
As far as I know, President Trump has not done anything that has raised to the level of a crime.
That is still dodging the question, I asked if Hillary or Obama would have done the same things donald has done while in office would you have thought it was OK ??
What "things" are you referring to that President Trump has done while in office that should be so offensive to me?
As far as I know, President Trump has not done anything that has raised to the level of a crime.
He has murdered the Kings English. Does that count?
Or the time he lied about illegally paying off hookers with campaign funds.
He surely doesn't have the tact of some past politicians. I'll give you that. Not a crime.
As far as I know, Trump never lied about paying off women with campaign funds. There has been zero evidence presented that suggests that Trump specifically ordered that the hush money be paid with campaign funds.
As far as I know, President Trump has not done anything that has raised to the level of a crime.
He has murdered the Kings English. Does that count?
Or the time he lied about illegally paying off hookers with campaign funds.
He surely doesn't have the tact of some past politicians. I'll give you that. Not a crime.
As far as I know, Trump never lied about paying off women with campaign funds. There has been zero evidence presented that suggests that Trump specifically ordered that the hush money be paid with campaign funds.
It doesn't have to be paid with campaign funds. It amounted to a campaign contribution because it was a significant amount that was paid which politically benefitted a presidential campaign.
It would be like if i said "Hey, normally my facility costs $135,000 to rent out, but i'm such a fan of yours that i'm going to lower the price to $5,000 for you to host your event". Even though i didn't pay him $130,000, it was an in kind contribution and you're not allowed to do that.
You are welcome to recall my posts when it becomes that i'm proven wrong as long as we judge it on the merits of what we knew to be true at the time it was posted.
As far as I know, President Trump has not done anything that has raised to the level of a crime.
He has murdered the Kings English. Does that count?
Or the time he lied about illegally paying off hookers with campaign funds.
He surely doesn't have the tact of some past politicians. I'll give you that. Not a crime.
As far as I know, Trump never lied about paying off women with campaign funds. There has been zero evidence presented that suggests that Trump specifically ordered that the hush money be paid with campaign funds.
It doesn't have to be paid with campaign funds. It amounted to a campaign contribution because it was a significant amount that was paid which politically benefitted a presidential campaign.
It would be like if i said "Hey, normally my facility costs $135,000 to rent out, but i'm such a fan of yours that i'm going to lower the price to $5,000 for you to host your event". Even though i didn't pay him $130,000, it was an in kind contribution and you're not allowed to do that.
You're confusing two completely different legal premises. There is no law against a person paying another person to keep them from disclosing a legal activity. If the check came from Donald J. Trump and not Donald J. Trump for President, there is nothing illegal that has occurred. If the money came from campaign funds, the only way that Trump could be charged is if it could be proven that he ordered the payment to come from campaign funds.
It doesn't have to be paid with campaign funds. It amounted to a campaign contribution because it was a significant amount that was paid which politically benefitted a presidential campaign.
It would be like if i said "Hey, normally my facility costs $135,000 to rent out, but i'm such a fan of yours that i'm going to lower the price to $5,000 for you to host your event". Even though i didn't pay him $130,000, it was an in kind contribution and you're not allowed to do that.
You're confusing two completely different legal premises. There is no law against a person paying another person to keep them from disclosing a legal activity. If the check came from Donald J. Trump and not Donald J. Trump for President, there is nothing illegal that has occurred. If the money came from campaign funds, the only way that Trump could be charged is if it could be proven that he ordered the payment to come from campaign funds.
Except that the payment was politically motivated and occurred shortly before an election. That makes it a form of a political contribution to the campaign, or an in kind donation.
Somebody is already in prison over it, i don't know what you want me to tell you
You are welcome to recall my posts when it becomes that i'm proven wrong as long as we judge it on the merits of what we knew to be true at the time it was posted.
It doesn't have to be paid with campaign funds. It amounted to a campaign contribution because it was a significant amount that was paid which politically benefitted a presidential campaign.
It would be like if i said "Hey, normally my facility costs $135,000 to rent out, but i'm such a fan of yours that i'm going to lower the price to $5,000 for you to host your event". Even though i didn't pay him $130,000, it was an in kind contribution and you're not allowed to do that.
You're confusing two completely different legal premises. There is no law against a person paying another person to keep them from disclosing a legal activity. If the check came from Donald J. Trump and not Donald J. Trump for President, there is nothing illegal that has occurred. If the money came from campaign funds, the only way that Trump could be charged is if it could be proven that he ordered the payment to come from campaign funds.
Except that the payment was politically motivated and occurred shortly before an election. That makes it a form of a political contribution to the campaign, or an in kind donation.
Somebody is already in prison over it, i don't know what you want me to tell you
He is in prison because HE ordered the money to be taken from campaign funds. If that order did not come from Trump, there's no case. The money coming from political campaign funds is what caused it to be illegal and the person who authorized that is in jail. Jesus, do you need me to actually teach you the law?
By the way, while you're trying to pin Trump on something that hasn't been proven, Congress still has a slush fund to legally make these hush payments for incumbents with YOUR TAX DOLLARS. I don't hear anyone complaining about that.
It doesn't have to be paid with campaign funds. It amounted to a campaign contribution because it was a significant amount that was paid which politically benefitted a presidential campaign.
It would be like if i said "Hey, normally my facility costs $135,000 to rent out, but i'm such a fan of yours that i'm going to lower the price to $5,000 for you to host your event". Even though i didn't pay him $130,000, it was an in kind contribution and you're not allowed to do that.
You're confusing two completely different legal premises. There is no law against a person paying another person to keep them from disclosing a legal activity. If the check came from Donald J. Trump and not Donald J. Trump for President, there is nothing illegal that has occurred. If the money came from campaign funds, the only way that Trump could be charged is if it could be proven that he ordered the payment to come from campaign funds.
Except that the payment was politically motivated and occurred shortly before an election. That makes it a form of a political contribution to the campaign, or an in kind donation.
Somebody is already in prison over it, i don't know what you want me to tell you
He is in prison because HE ordered the money to be taken from campaign funds. If that order did not come from Trump, there's no case. The money coming from political campaign funds is what caused it to be illegal and the person who authorized that is in jail. Jesus, do you need me to actually teach you the law?
... but the money didn't come from the campaign. It came from a loan he took out against his house and was funneled through an LLC he set up for the transaction. Trump reimbursed him personally. It didn't involve any campaign money. That's also why they tried to spin the story that the payment to stormy daniels was not politically motivated, but rather was aimed at saving Trump's marriage.
If that were true, it wouldn't have been a campaign finance violation. However, the timing of the payment being so close to an election makes it reasonable that the payment was made to protect his campaign and this was a donation in-kind that was not disclosed to the FEC.
Jesus yourself. You are clearly mistaken, which is fine, but don't be a dick while you're the mistaken one
You are welcome to recall my posts when it becomes that i'm proven wrong as long as we judge it on the merits of what we knew to be true at the time it was posted.
