44 thoughts on “News/Politics 8-22-18

  1. Yawn.

    Like I said yesterday, when Obama did it, nobody batted an eye. Now that Cohen and Trump might have (not proven) it’s the worse thing ever. Trump is accused of an amount of a couple hundred thousand, Obama was nearly 2 million. Remember the outrage when Obama did it?

    Me neither.

    If not for their double standard, they’d have none at all.

    And fines, nothing more. If this is all they have on Trump, they still have nothing.


    “BARACK OBAMA’S presidential campaign has been fined $375,000 by the Federal Election Commission for violating federal disclosure laws, Politico reports.

    An FEC audit of Obama for America’s 2008 records found the committee failed to disclose millions of dollars in contributions and dragged its feet in refunding millions more in excess contributions.

    The resulting fine, one of the largest ever handed down by the FEC, is the result of a failure to disclose or improperly disclosing thousands of contributions to Obama for America during the then-senator’s 2008 presidential run, documents show.”


  2. Don’t change much?

    How about doesn’t change a thing.


    “#TheResistance thinks they got him.

    The convictions of Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen are it. Trump’s gonna go.

    Not so fast.

    The Manafort conviction doesn’t even tangentially involve Trump or the Trump campaign in any wrongdoing. Manafort was prosecuted because he made the wrong life decision to affiliate with the Trump campaign to help manage the anticipated convention floor flight. But for that decision, Manafort never would have been targeted by prosecutors on charges previously ignored by federal investigators. That Manafort was prosecuted because he knew Trump does not implicate Trump in the wrongdoing.

    The Michael Cohen plea deal is potentially more problematic. Cohen said he made the payments to buy the silence of two women with the knowledge and at the direction of a federal candidate (Trump). That contradicts Cohen prior versions. But assuming it’s provable, it’s not clear that the payments were illegal. The issue is whether they constituted unreported campaign contributions, which is not a slam dunk for prosecutors. In the plea deal the issue was not litigated – Cohen agreed to it because the prosecution had him on more serious tax and fraud charges, so adding in the campaign finance issues was at no cost to Cohen.

    John Hinderaker summed it up well:

    It is not illegal to pay someone to remain silent. The theory here is that the money paid to Clifford was an illegal campaign contribution. Since Cohen says he made the payment to Clifford at Trump’s direction, Mueller is trying to ensnare Trump in that “crime.” To my knowledge, there is no legal authority on whether paying a woman to keep her mouth shut constitutes a campaign contribution. It strikes me as a foolish interpretation of the law, and forcing Cohen to plead guilty to the “crime” of paying off Ms. Clifford doesn’t transform it into a crime.

    The reason none of this will hurt Trump is that it’s all baked into the cake.”

    All fluff, no stuff.


  3. Here’s the Hinderaker piece….


    “As Paul said, the Manafort charges had nothing to do with Donald Trump, nothing to do with the 2016 election, and nothing to do with Russian participation in the 2016 election. So Bob Mueller could only have brought the case in order to put pressure on Manafort to come up with some “dirt” on Mueller’s target, President Trump. As far as we know, Manafort has no dirt to give.

    Meanwhile, and almost simultaneously, former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to a series of offenses. Mostly, the counts relate to tax evasion. The only politically significant counts, as I understand it, relate to Cohen’s role in paying off Stephanie Clifford (“Stormy Daniels”) to keep quiet about her sexual encounter with Trump.

    It is not illegal to pay someone to remain silent. The theory here is that the money paid to Clifford was an illegal campaign contribution. Since Cohen says he made the payment to Clifford at Trump’s direction, Mueller is trying to ensnare Trump in that “crime.” To my knowledge, there is no legal authority on whether paying a woman to keep her mouth shut constitutes a campaign contribution. It strikes me as a foolish interpretation of the law, and forcing Cohen to plead guilty to the “crime” of paying off Ms. Clifford doesn’t transform it into a crime.

    None of this would be happening, of course, but for Bob Mueller’s effort to drive President Trump from office on behalf of his de facto client, the Democratic Party. In a nauseating bit of hypocrisy, Deputy U.S. attorney Robert Khuzami said today that “The essence of what this case is about is justice, and that is an equal playing field for all persons in the eyes of the law….” Equal justice has nothing to do with this prosecution. Michael Cohen was targeted solely because he was Trump’s personal lawyer, and enforcement of campaign finance law is anything but equal. Just ask Dinesh D’Souza.

    As we and others have said many times, what is going on in the courts is mostly theater–unless, of course, you are Paul Manafort or Michael Cohen. President Trump can’t be indicted, so legal niceties are not very material. The Mueller Switch Project has three objectives: 1) furnish House Democrats (assuming they take the majority in November) with ammunition to impeach the President; 2) help the Democrats to win the midterm elections; and 3) make President Trump’s re-election less likely in 2020.

    Today’s legal developments unquestionably represent a step forward for the Democrats on all three fronts. But in principle, there is no reason why they should change the landscape. Manafort’s conviction has nothing to do with Trump. And no matter how Mueller may try to dress it up with talk about campaign finance–which voters don’t care about, anyway–the Cohen plea simply confirms what we already knew–that Trump tried to keep Stephanie Clifford quiet. That may be a big deal to Melania, I can’t speak for her. But I doubt that it is a big deal to a significant number of voters, and I doubt that tomorrow’s headlines will move the needle on the midterm election.”


  4. Why there’s no crime on Trump’s part.


    “The media is in a frenzy louder than feeding time at the zoo over the guilty pleas by Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign manager, and Michael Cohen, Trump’s (former) personal lawyer. Manafort’s plea was unrelated to Trump. Cohen pleaded to tax evasion (also unrelated to Trump), but also two counts of working with Trump to violate campaign finance laws.

    As an attorney I can tell you, pretty definitively, that Trump has violated no campaign laws.

    Cohen’s plea deal states that Cohen violated campaign finance laws by making payments to one of Trump’s alleged mistresses, “Stormy Daniels”, and made payments to the National Enquirer to compensate the Enquirer for paying off another of Trump’s alleged mistresses. Cohen, in turn was reimbursed by Trump for these expenses, so Trump was the ultimate source of the money for these payments.

    The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, Title 52, United States Code Section 30101 states in part that individuals are limited to making donations of $2,700 to presidential candidates. Cohen is accused of spending money in violation of the Act. Although Cohen spent more than $2,700 on behalf of Trump, he was reimbursed by Trump, so Trump was ultimately spending money on himself, and there is no limit on how much a person may spend on their own presidential campaign, so this section does not apply.

    The Campaign Act also prohibits corporations from contributing directly to presidential campaigns. Cohen set up dummy corporations to make the payments and pled to making improper corporate donations. But again, although the money technically came from corporations, ultimately, all the money came from Donald Trump, so again these limitations do not apply.

    But more importantly, this was not a campaign expenditure at all. Constitutional scholar Mark Levin has interviewed former Federal Election Commission Chairman Bradley Smith repeatedly on his show over the past year, and Smith has made the point that “dual use” expenditures are not “campaign expenditures” under the meaning of the Act.

    What are campaign expenditures? Payments for advertising, consultants, rallies, transportation, polling, and get out the vote efforts, of course. But has anyone ever reported payments to a mistress as campaign expenditure? Almost certainly not.

    That’s because any expenditure is not an expenditure simply because it may incidentally benefit a campaign. It must be an expenditure whose only purpose is to benefit a campaign. So if a candidate for office buys an American car, or gets his teeth whitened, these are things that can benefit his campaign, but are not campaign expenditures because they also have personal benefits.

    Payments to President Trump’s alleged mistresses to stay silent certainly benefitted his campaign. But they also served the purpose of not embarrassing the President’s family. There clearly was a dual use to the payments, therefore they were not “campaign expenditures” under the act. If they were, then everything a candidate spent money on during the course of a campaign, whether of a personal nature or not, would have to be reported as a campaign expenditure. Does a candidate eat during a campaign? Well, if so that benefits his campaign and so must be an expenditure! Do you see how ridiculous this can become?”



  5. Bret Stephens and the NYTimes, wrong again.


    “While Donald Trump was not named, there was little doubt that the reference was to the payments made by Michael Cohen to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougall on Trump’s behalf.

    Within a matter of minutes, the always vigilant mainstream media began immediately calling Trump a criminal and beating the drums for impeachment. The justification: if Cohen was guilty of breaking the law so, therefore, was Donald Trump. Brett Stephens, the resident “conservative” at the New York Times tweeted:

    “I’ve been skeptical about the wisdom and merit of impeachment. Cohen’s guilty plea changes all that. The president is clearly guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. He should resign his office or be impeached and removed from office.”

    That sentiment was mirrored by many other denizens of the anti-Trump media.

    But what law was broken? As Cohen agreed to a guilty plea, it was the federal prosecutor that enumerated, with Cohen’s attorney’s concurrence, what he would plead guilty to and which laws he violated. In the case of the so-called campaign contribution on behalf of Donald Trump, per Bradley Smith former Chairman of the Federal Election Committee, these payments do not constitute an in-kind campaign contribution.”

    Keep trying…..


  6. For a long time Seth Abramson has been claiming Trump conspired and/or colluded with Russia while many of us surmised that Trump simply moronically framed himself. I am not yet willing to concede that I was wrong and Abramson was right, but I am getting closer to that admission. Here is Abramson’s analysis of Davis’ allegations in a thread. By the way the Washington Post has now run a story on the matter.


  7. This little fellow gets a pardon:


  8. And this little fellow gets none:


  9. Oh I see.

    The Clinton flunky Davis says so, so it must be true…. 🙄

    While all this fluff and no stuff has brought Ricky out of retirement, it won’t help remove Trump from office.


  10. I was waiting to see how the pro Trump narrative would shape up and no real surprises,

    1) unlike one of AJ’s quotes, Manafort did not plea, he was found guilty on 8 counts and a split decision on the other 10. He was acquitted on none. This is not a “mixed” verdict. White collar international crimes are notoriously difficult to convict yet a jury did convict him. He was either blantly guilty or the prosecutor was brilliant. Previously AJ posted how inept the prosecution was so I am going with former.

    2) Manafort is a sleazy corrupt political fixer bordering on treasonous. Trump said he only hires the best people……or maybe this is his way of exposing the swamp.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. 3) Cohen was not prosecuted by Mueller. Mueller merely passed info to an ADA who ran the case. Its this fact which has Trump’s worried.

    4) Cohen obviously lied at some point. However, only 10% of his documents were deemed protected by privilege. The other 90% probably gave prosecutors a clear view of the truth.

    5) Cohen paid Daniels at the direction and coordination of Trump. Nothing illegal here but the question is where did 130k originate from? Was it Trump’s own money or was it from campaign account? The latter is a crime or in the very least a finance violation. Many suspect Trump is not as wealthy as he claims. I suspect he’s also organizationally challenged. Two things which make me suspect corruption. Tracing the money trail will be on the ADA’s agenda. I wonder if that means a subpoena of his tax records?

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Cohen’s plea deal is prosecutor’s attempt to set up Trump. Justice has nothing to do with any of this. It’s all politics.


    “Here we go, from Russia with love to campaign finance with love.

    Why was Michael Cohen investigated? Because the “Steele dossier” had him making secret trips to meet with Russians that never happened, so his business dealings got a thorough scrubbing and, in the process, he fell into the special counsel’s Manafort bin — the bin reserved for squeezing until the juice comes out. And now we are back to 1998 all over again, with presidents and presidential candidates covering up their alleged marital misdeeds and prosecutors trying to turn legal acts into illegal ones by inventing new crimes.

    The plot to get President Trump out of office thickens, as Cohen obviously was his own mini-crime syndicate and decided that his betrayals of Trump meant he would be better served turning on his old boss to cut the best deal with prosecutors he could rather than holding out and getting the full Manafort treatment. That was clear the minute he hired attorney Lanny Davis, who doesn’t try cases and did past work for Hillary Clinton. Cohen had recorded his client, trying to entrap him, sold information about Trump (while acting as his lawyer) to corporations for millions of dollars, and didn’t pay taxes on millions.

    The sweetener for the prosecutors, of course, was getting Cohen to plead guilty to campaign violations that were not campaign violations. Money paid to people who come out of the woodwork and shake down people under threat of revealing bad sexual stories are not legitimate campaign expenditures. They are personal expenditures. That is true for both candidates we like and candidates we don’t. Just imagine if candidates used campaign funds instead of their own money to pay folks like Stormy Daniels to keep quiet about affairs; they would get indicted for misuse of campaign funds for personal purposes and for tax evasion.
    There appear to be two payments involved in this unusual plea — Cohen pleaded guilty to a campaign violation for having “coordinated” the American Media Inc. payment to Karen McDougal for her story, not for actually making the payment. So he is pleading guilty over a corporate contribution he did not make.”

    “The usual procedures here would be for the FEC to investigate complaints and sort through these murky laws to determine if these kinds of payments are personal in nature or more properly classified as campaign expenditures. And, on the Daniels’ payment that was made and reimbursed by Trump, it is again a question of whether that was made for personal reasons (especially since they have been trying since 2011 to obtain agreement). Just because it would be helpful to the campaign does not convert it to a campaign expenditure. Think of a candidate with bad teeth who had dental work done to look better for the campaign; his campaign still could not pay for it because it’s a personal expenditure.

    Contrast what is going on here with the treatment of the millions of dollars paid to a Democratic law firm which, in turn, paid out money to political research firm Fusion GPS and British ex-spy Christopher Steele without listing them on any campaign expenditure form — despite crystal-clear laws and regulations that the ultimate beneficiaries of the funds must be listed. This rule was even tightened recently. There is no question that hiring spies to do oppo research in Russia is a campaign expenditure, and yet, no prosecutorial raids have been sprung on the law firm, Fusion GPS or Steele. Reason: It does not “get” Trump.”


  13. HRW,

    1. Every one knows Manafort was convicted on 8 of 10, a mistrial on the rest (and he has another trial starting soon on state charges). Who said otherwise?

    2. Manafort is a sleazy corrupt political fixer, I totally agree. He learned from campaigning for Reagan and Dole, where he worked prior. Trump actually thought he was getting someone good, with a great resume. Once he found out otherwise, he cut him lose. All of his problems now have nothing to do with Trump, and his crimes seem to be known for quite some time by authorities, and yet he wasn’t prosecuted until a decade later? Politics. Plain and simple.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. 7) The somebody else did it is the ultimate diversion. My students use it all the time. And I will use the same analogy I use with them. “If I’m driving 80mph in a 55 zone and am pulled over, will the policeman let me off if I point out everyone drives 80mph. No he won’t.” I really don’t care what Obama’s organization did in 2008 and it doesn’t exempt Trump from the rules. Although i will note Obama’s was an organizational error, I doubt he was paying off a porn star.

    8) The Cohen case was handled by an ADA as opposed to a special counsel. And I’m sure the Southern District of NY will continue to be the lead. The besmirching of Mueller might have been a wasted exercise. Trump supporters have previously any investigation should be done through the regular process, now will they seek to delegitimize the judicial process?

    9) The Republican party in their defense of Trump has attempted to delegitimize the justice dept, the FBI, and the special counsel. I also think with the refusal to appoint Garland and the soon to be 2 appointments by a tainted president, the Supreme Court will lack some legitimacy.

    10) overall there’s no question Trump is a corruptible sleazeball. He associates with not the best people and in turn those who associate with him will be tainted. Has the entire Republican party including social conservatives crossed the Rubicon or is there something to salvage?

    Finally apply the golden rule, if this was Obama’s or Clinton’s record what would you say/do?

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Manafort
    If you want to taint Reagan with Manafort’s taint, please do. It helps my theory the decline of America began with Reagan.

    One of your articles claim he pled and yesterday you mentioned it was just 8 of 18. This ia an attempt to minimize a convincing verdict esp considering the topic.

    This goes to Trump’s judgment and due diligence. Can he be trusted to appoint a dog catcher let alone a Supreme Court justice? Is his association far deeper? Both were heavily involved with Russian oligarchs.
    At this point who is tainted who would be a good question?


  16. The question arising in the Cohen mess is simple. Where did Trump get the money to pay Cohen. It has been asserted that it pays to be a primary candidate. You get your campaign fully funded, a book deal, and probably an appt for being a gracious loser. Trump probably had that intention when he ran….and what he did with funds should be interesting, not thinking he wiuld


  17. Would win. As i said the money trail is the next step which probably includes his taxes.

    At that point I will need to buy more ketchup chips, rye whiskey and ginger ale to enjoy the show

    Liked by 1 person

  18. HRW, It is important that you post paragraphs like the first @11:26 every so often. When The Cult is dissolved and Dear Leader is retired, we will have to go back to disagreeing on most things.

    However, our alliance is more than one of convenience. It is based on commitment to truth and the rule of law. I look forward to debating healthcare with you again once the current hilarious crisis is over.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. Ricky, why wait until “the current hilarious crisis is over”? Nothing stops you from debating healthcare now.

    What happened to your retirement?


  20. Kevin, During Watergate and during Monica Lewinsky, nothing much happened on legislative matters. The same will probably be true during the next two years.

    If the Dems win the House and the Senate, they may push through an expansion of Obamacare or Medicare. Trump might sign such bills if he is still in office. He will do so to try to save his skin rather than for policy reasons.

    It really doesn’t make much sense to debate policy until the Republicans have a leader who is willing to understand policy and speak honestly and intelligently to the American people. Who knows when that will happen again? If Trump is removed or defeated, will The Cult turn to Ivanka?


  21. Like

  22. Well if all are equal under the law, Trump shouldn’t have nothing to worry about.

    After all, Hillary and Barry did it, and the FEC did nothing. Wouldn’t want the appearance of a double standard, right? If Dems are upset, they can sue too.


    “The Hillary Clinton Campaign and the Democratic National Committee allegedly used state chapters as strawmen to launder as much as $84 million in an effort to circumvent campaign donation limits, and the Federal Election Commission ignored complaints exposing the practice, a lawsuit filed Monday claims.
    The Committee to Defend the President (CDP), a political action committee formally known as Stop Hillary PAC, filed its complaint with the FEC in December 2017 with the claims that the Hillary Victory Fund (HVF) solicited cash from big-name donors, and allegedly sent that money through state chapters and back to the DNC before ending up with the Clinton campaign.

    As first reported by Fox News at the time, the CDP alleges in its complaint that about $84 million was funneled illegally from the DNC through state party chapters and back into the war chest of the Clinton campaign. The political action committee claims that even though the FEC acknowledged receipt of the complaint and claimed that an investigation would be conducted, the needle has barely moved.

    “The Clinton machine has escaped accountability for its illegal practices for far too long,” Ted Harvey, CDP chairman, said to Fox News. “After months of review, the FEC has refused to address the Clintons’ $84 million money laundering scheme that violated several campaign finance laws.”


  23. Levin weighs in.


    “Cohen pled guilty Tuesday to charges of campaign finance violations, tax evasion, and false statements to a financial institution. He alleges that candidate Trump directed him to make hush payments to women whom Trump had affairs with to buy their silence during the presidential election. Levin argued that these payments don’t qualify as campaign finance violations and that Cohen’s lawyer, Lanny Davis, convinced his client to plead guilty to criminal offenses that aren’t criminal.

    “I wanna help the law professors, the constitutional experts, the criminal defense lawyers, the former prosecutors, and of course the professors, I wanna help them understand what the law is,” Levin said. “The general counsel for the Clinton mob family, Lanny Davis, he had his client plead to two counts of criminality that don’t exist.”

    “Just because a prosecutor says that somebody violated a campaign law doesn’t make it so. He’s not the judge; he’s not the jury,” Levin said. “We didn’t adjudicate anything. It never went to court.”

    Levin explained that a campaign expenditure under U.S. campaign finance law is an expenditure “solely for campaign activity.” He argued that any supposed reimbursement Trump paid to Cohen with his own money after Cohen paid off Stormy Daniels or any other woman who slept with the president is “perfectly legal.”

    “A candidate who spends his own money, or even corporate money, for an event that occurred not as a result of the campaign — it is not a campaign expenditure,” he said.”


  24. Ah the difference a little time makes…..

    Trump is consistent…..

    From 2012 when Edwards was the issue.


    Lanny Davis as well, but back then even he thought it was a stretch. But he supported it to help his candidate, just like he does now to try and hurt one he doesn’t. Just politics.


    “And how about what Lanny Davis, Michael Cohen’s attorney, thought of Edwards? Back in 2011 — when Edwards was still considered a threat to his preferred candidate, Hillary Clinton — Davis wrote for the HuffPost that a case against Edwards should go forward:

    At first blush, the decision to indict former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) for conspiracy to accept illegal campaign contributions, given the facts and circumstances, seems like a stretch, to say the least.”



  25. And the “experts” are coming out….

    Remember my highway stop analogy….just because Clinton might have been doling 80mph doesn’t mean Trump gets a free pass for the same offence. The police pulled Trump over. You may argue it was a biased traffic stop and African Americans everywhere will smile.

    A pro Trump lodged a complaint with the FEC. Yeah the FEC will drop all other inquiries and address their concerns first. I think legislative and judicial inquiries will go first. Back of the line is where they are

    Despite the various little technical details, the origin of the 130K is an issue. If it was used to buy silence and was from campaign funds, there’s a problem. In addition, Cohen’s lawyer would not have him plead to a guilty to a criminal offense that wasn’t a criminal offense. The law society would holding a review quickly then


  26. Re: a mention of Melania’s bow in that National Post piece – Why is it called a “p___y bow”? I’ve heard that before in relation to another outfit of hers. Those bows used to be quite popular.


  27. Aj; is that your answer to 330, 331, 427 or all three.
    — when you say “but Hilary …” you are scrapping the bottom as you no longer defend Trump rather you make him the equivalent of someone you thought should have been charged, convicted and jailed.


  28. That would be 427.

    The point, and you know it, is that if it wasn’t a crime for Sanders, Hillary, and Barry, then it isn’t now either.


  29. Ricky,

    Issa says the Duncan indictment is suspect and the prosecutor guilty of misconduct.More prosecutions for the sake of politics.


    “Retiring Rep. Darrell Issa, R-California, is accusing the U.S. attorney’s office of “political misconduct” for indicting Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-California, now that it is likely too late to remove Hunter from the ballot.

    Hunter was indicted Tuesday for allegedly spending about $250,000 in campaign funds on personal trips and items and for filing false reports to the Federal Election Commission. In a phone conversation Tuesday, Issa indicated to CBS News that if there were some way for Hunter to be replaced on the ballot, Issa might be open to serving as that replacement. “I’m not really interested in remaining in Congress,” he told CBS News, but “I would have to look at it and say, would I serve two more years just so we don’t lose the majority because we lost that seat?”

    Issa, who represents the neighboring 49th congressional district, is not seeking re-election and is set to retire from Congress at the end of this term after nearly 20 years in office.

    Issa says he finds the timing of the Hunter indictment suspicious, given that it was issued after the California primary had taken place. Under the state’s “jungle” primary system, the top two candidates — regardless of party — proceed to the general election, making it difficult to replace a candidate on the ballot, should that individual drop out after advancing from the primary to the November election. Hunter, the incumbent in the 50th Congressional District, attracted the most votes, and Democrat Ammar Campa-Najjar also advanced.

    “I believe that the assistant U.S. attorney has totally screwed us….I believe that this is political misconduct by the assistant U.S. attorney, and I believe it simply because all deadlines, as far as I know, as far as I’ve been told, have passed,” Issa said. “So now you have an accusation that could sink anyone, when in fact, this same information…I didn’t see anything that hasn’t been there for years.” (It’s not clear whether Issa was referring to a different federal prosecutor in the Southern District of California or to Braverman.)

    He accused Braverman of holding back the indictment since last year, if not longer.

    “I don’t know how you make any kind of sense other than he sat on it for most of three years and certainly the last year,” Issa said. “As far as I know, we’ve got no legal way for Duncan to get off the ballot and somebody else to get on. As far as I know that’s where we stand.””


  30. Hrw is right about one thing, experts are weighing in, and they agree with me.


    “Dershowitz claimed nearly every candidate who runs for president violates election laws in one way or another and said it shouldn’t be considered an impeachable offense.

    “If somebody else pays the money in order to influence the outcome of the election, it is technically perhaps a violation of the election laws,” he continued. “Every administration violates the election laws. Every candidate violates the election laws when they run for president. Usually, they pay a fine or something like that happens.”

    “Here they’re trying to elevate this into an impeachable offense or a felony against the president,” Dershowitz concluded. “This is the beginning of a story that will unravel over time, but it’s not nearly as deadly lethal as some have portrayed it as being.””


  31. Thanks, HRW. I don’t know why I didn’t think to look it up myself.

    Phew! So, it’s a pussycat bow. I thought it was the other kind of. . .well, you know.

    Liked by 1 person

  32. Aj My 427 link was meant as a semi humorous interlude to the serious debate on whether campaign finance laws were violated to pay off porn stars……excuse me while I go to the store for ketchup chips.

    Liked by 1 person

  33. This thread deals with criminal law elements in the campaign finance law.


  34. Hahahaha! 🙂

    This is great.


    “Lanny Davis, the attorney for Michael Cohen, hit the morning news shows Wednesday to pitch a GoFundMe page for his client, but the domain name to the site redirected users to President Trump’s site.

    People trying to access the site, michaelcohentruth.com, an address Davis gave out redirected visitors to DonaldJTrump.com where a headline said: “Together, we are rebuilding our nation” with a “contribute” box.

    The Trump page also included the four tweets Trump posted on Wednesday that addressed Cohen’s guilty pleas and the federal conviction of his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.