- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
"Affecting the outcome of a federal election" tells us everything we need to know
Posted on 12/12/18 at 12:44 pm
Posted on 12/12/18 at 12:44 pm
1. The outcome is the Dems win.
Any other outcome had to be through nefarious and illegal means because the Dems were to win.
This is an actual charge against Cohen. It's only the actions of a non Democrat that are affecting the outcome... because the outcome is known.
If that was not true then all actions would be to "affect the outcome".
This is a coup.
Any other outcome had to be through nefarious and illegal means because the Dems were to win.
This is an actual charge against Cohen. It's only the actions of a non Democrat that are affecting the outcome... because the outcome is known.
If that was not true then all actions would be to "affect the outcome".
This is a coup.
8
Posted on 12/12/18 at 12:53 pm to CptBengal
I kinda heard this argument but didn't get the full context. They're saying a campaign contribution turned the tide of the election? How so?
Posted on 12/12/18 at 12:53 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
How so?
Bc Trump won.......that's all I got bc that's all I hear out of them
Posted on 12/12/18 at 12:56 pm to upgrayedd
I think it's because of the money given to Daniels and the other woman. While he does have the right to pay them off to protect his family, it was done during the 2016 campaign. While this could have just been a coincidence, there's also the argument that he paid them off to keep this from getting out to avoid bad press that would negatively impact his eventual successful campaign.
Posted on 12/12/18 at 12:58 pm to boomer16
Funny thing....I didn't know that was against the law. Because it isn't. Please cite the statute. They are making it up as they go.
Posted on 12/12/18 at 12:58 pm to upgrayedd
I could have read your question wrong, but that's one of the things I'm taking from this. I apologize if this isn't what you were talking about.
Posted on 12/12/18 at 1:13 pm to antibarner
quote:
Funny thing....I didn't know that was against the law. Because it isn't. Please cite the statute. They are making it up as they go.
The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as
amended, Title 52, United States Code, Section 3 0101, et seq. ,
Google is easy
Posted on 12/12/18 at 1:16 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
They're saying a campaign contribution turned the tide of the election? How so?
it's not the decisiveness but that it was for the purpose of influencing the outcome of the election (or at least that's what Cohen testified it was to do).
Posted on 12/12/18 at 1:16 pm to boomer16
quote:
I think it's because of the money given to Daniels and the other woman. While he does have the right to pay them off to protect his family, it was done during the 2016 campaign. While this could have just been a coincidence, there's also the argument that he paid them off to keep this from getting out to avoid bad press that would negatively impact his eventual successful campaign.
AMI just admitted their part in this conspiracy:
quote:
The Office also announced today that it has previously reached a non-prosecution agreement with AMI, in connection with AMI’s role in making the above-described $150,000 payment before the 2016 presidential election. As a part of the agreement, AMI admitted that it made the $150,000 payment in concert with a candidate’s presidential campaign, and in order to ensure that the woman did not publicize damaging allegations about the candidate before the 2016 presidential election. AMI further admitted that its principal purpose in making the payment was to suppress the woman’s story so as to prevent it from influencing the election.
Assuming AMI’s continued compliance with the agreement, the Office has agreed not to prosecute AMI for its role in that payment. The agreement also acknowledges, among other things, AMI’s acceptance of responsibility, its substantial and important assistance in this investigation, and its agreement to provide cooperation in the future and implement specific improvements to its internal compliance to prevent future violations of the federal campaign finance laws. These improvements include distributing written standards regarding federal election laws to its employees and conducting annual training concerning these standards.
Posted on 12/12/18 at 1:18 pm to 007tiger
That's a good point. Not just Cohen, but AMI too.
Looks like it's the Trump organization's time in the barrel next.
Looks like it's the Trump organization's time in the barrel next.
This post was edited on 12/12/18 at 1:19 pm
Posted on 12/12/18 at 1:18 pm to 007tiger
Funny how laws can be interpreted to go after some people and yet totally ignored for others.
Posted on 12/12/18 at 1:19 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
That's a good point. Not just Cohen, but AMI too.
Yup. It's everyone's word against Trump now. Trump is the target in this. If he weren't POTUS he'd be indicted.
Posted on 12/12/18 at 1:19 pm to 007tiger
quote:
If he weren't POTUS he'd be indicted.
Naw, it wouldn't even make news.Posted on 12/12/18 at 1:20 pm to SquatchDawg
quote:
Funny how laws can be interpreted to go after some people and yet totally ignored for others.
Yeah laws are interpreted to go after criminals. I'm not sure what your'e saying here.
This post was edited on 12/12/18 at 1:22 pm
Posted on 12/12/18 at 1:23 pm to Jbird
quote:
Naw, it wouldn't even make news.
Again, not sure what point you are even trying to make. Are you just trolling?
Posted on 12/12/18 at 1:25 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
They're saying a campaign contribution turned the tide of the election? How so?
This takes basic common sense.
Maybe people wouldn't have voted for someone who cheated on his wife with pornstars.
Therefore, using campaign contribution to pay hush money affected the outcome of the election. It's not hard stuff.
Posted on 12/12/18 at 1:26 pm to 007tiger
quote:If he wasn't Potus there would be no witch hunt.
Again, not sure what point you are even trying to make. Are you just trolling?
Posted on 12/12/18 at 1:26 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
Looks like it's the Trump organization's time in the barrel next.
Starting to look like it.
Gotta wonder what Weisselberg has told the grand jury.
Posted on 12/12/18 at 1:27 pm to LSUconvert
quote:
Maybe people wouldn't have voted for someone who cheated on his wife with pornstars.
Therefore, using campaign contribution to pay hush money affected the outcome of the election. It's not hard stuff.
Lol. Congress has a sluggish fund to pay people off with. Of taxpayer money.
Should they all go to jail?
Posted on 12/12/18 at 1:28 pm to CptBengal
quote:
Lol. Congress has a sluggish fund to pay people off with. Of taxpayer money.
But what about..!?!?!
Page 1 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News