re: What did Trump mean with these tweets?

quote:

---

But, you were unmistakably scared of Omicron when it arrived and people laughed at you for it.

---

Wut

I celebrated the weaker strain

That version did more to fight covid than any vaccine or treatment

Do you have a post I made that said anything opposing that if omicron was has weak as it was supposed to be that it would be good?

SFP, this is a shitshow all around. Who knows what to believe in any of this.

First Clifford says she was paid, gets Avenatti to go out and produce a stink, Michael Cohen lands in jail as a result albeit on charges tangential to the whole thing.

You have Trump saying yes it happened but my name was never in this. A DA saying that Trump was involved but then you have Avenatti and Clifford saying that what they alleged in 2018 did not happen that way....meanwhile Avenatti goes to jail for shaking down Nike but also apparently ripping off Clifford.

Then you have Cohen's lawyer producing a waiver and spills the beans on his former client. On top of this you have now a letter from Clifford (Daniels) saying no money changed hands and this was all Michael Cohen and Cohen did this without the knowledge of his client and without direction .

So what you have as a result currently is Trump's lawyer on jail and Cillford's (Daniels) lawyer in jail. A DA trying to resurrect a zombie dog of a case, Trump on a fundraising bonanza and a lot of people scratching their heads thinking WTF.

This is so byzantine that the Byzantines become thankful that the Turks came in and just ended it all.

quote:

---

1. Stormy Daniels was paid

2. Michael Cohen was reimbursed for this payment (via "monthly retainer")

---

And? If campaign funds were not involved, what is the problem?

End result is that Trump raises funds from his supporters .

quote:

---

I get that you think this is a genuine debate.. a debate worth having. But you are not trying to debate, or pick through to the truth, or even engage with other posters. You are arguing for your own vanity.

---

Ad hom. Nice and rational.

quote:

---

The sad part is, you are arguing on behalf of:
A convicted, disbarred, perjurer

---

I am not

quote:

---

A retired porn star and stripper

---

I am not

quote:

---

Julie fricking Swetnick's convicted fraudster lawyer who is also now in jail.

---

I am not

quote:

---

A local Soros acolyte DA trying to make political hay with a case no one else on earth will touch.

---

I am not

This is exactly the "living in reality" stuff this thread was meant to discuss.

quote:

---

yet you cant allow yourself to consider the possibility that they are just running another scam?

---

Sure it's possible, but it doesn't really make any sense, given what we know and what has been stated.

It's possible Joe Biden reimbursed Cohen, too. Doesn't seem very likely, though.

quote:

---

They are all lying and changing stories so much that it doesnt mattter what's true. You can no longer prosecute a case.

---

I mean if he tries to prosecute, it will be based in documentary evidence b/c testimonial evidence clearly is not credible on all sides.

quote:

---

And Trump didn't pay her. Cohen did. Trump paid Cohen. The "so what" is the whole flimsy basis for the NY prosecution.

---

Isn’t that what happened to John Edwards….paid hush money (not illegal) but used campaign funds (is illegal) ?

quote:

---

Isn’t that what happened to John Edwards….paid hush money (not illegal) but used campaign funds (is illegal) ?

---

This part has been somewhat litigated and should not apply to Trump. All the statements/letters from 2018 were about this particular issue (campaign finance) and the feds did not prosecute.

quote:

---

I just want to know what the "there, there" is supposed to be. Presume the following to be true:
1. Cohen paid Daniels as consideration for her signing the NDA.

2. Trump Org. reimbursed Cohen for said consideration payment.

3. No campaign funds were used, either in Cohen's payment to Daniels, or in Trump Org.'s reimbursement payment.

What is it that would run afoul of the law? Business records or otherwise.

---

The reimbursement was $130k

The allegations are they hid this 1:1 by making payments in other amounts over multiple transactions. That would the theoretical violation of the business records law.

Or, in another way, assuming the above statement is true about the multiple payments in different amounts, if you looked at the books of the corporation, you couldn't accurately account for the $130k reimbursement. It would be hidden and, theoretically, fraud.

That's just for the misdemeanor, which is likely tolled.

To get the felony requires more work, but the fact that Cohen was already convicted for a campaign finance violation means they could argue that crime has been established with the conviction. If they made this argument, any campaign finance violation by Trump (which has all but been dismissed) wouldn't matter.