Chomper Higgot Posted May 6, 2018 Share Posted May 6, 2018 19 minutes ago, pedro01 said: Incorrect. All that happened here is someone went through the documents filed and tried to find payments adding up to almost $130k. They ignored a whole bunch of other payments that takes the number way above that. If you look at the disbursements here: https://www.fec.gov/data/disbursements/?two_year_transaction_period=2016&data_type=processed&committee_id=C00580100&recipient_name=Trump+International&min_date=01%2F01%2F2015&max_date=12%2F31%2F2016 You can see there's loads of them. So finding some that equal $130k isn't a shock. What is a shock is that some people are naive enough to think it's some sort of smoking gun. The $129,999.72 was transferred in the few days (10 days) between Cohen setting up the company through which he paid Daniels and making the payment to Daniels. It wasn’t $129,999.72 picked out of thousands of transactions it was $129,999.72 paid within a very specific time frame. I told you, stop going to Fox for your news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedro01 Posted May 6, 2018 Share Posted May 6, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said: The $129,999.72 was transferred in the few days (10 days) between Cohen setting up the company through which he paid Daniels and making the payment to Daniels. It wasn’t $129,999.72 picked out of thousands of transactions it was $129,999.72 paid within a very specific time frame. I told you, stop going to Fox for your news. You mean this period of time? From the Federal Election Commission - not Fox, CNN or some kooky liberal site. And guess what - these also add up to almost $130k - also an coincidence 'cause it's a slightly different list from the one that caused this wild speculation over payments of $129999 - see how easy it is to do? Edited May 6, 2018 by pedro01 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 Randy Rainbow is back! Humor break -- 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 On 06/05/2018 at 1:56 PM, pedro01 said: You mean this period of time? From the Federal Election Commission - not Fox, CNN or some kooky liberal site. And guess what - these also add up to almost $130k - also an coincidence 'cause it's a slightly different list from the one that caused this wild speculation over payments of $129999 - see how easy it is to do? Let’s not argue about it, the FBI have a team working it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williet98248 Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 This whole thing is so ridiculous on both sides. Why should anyone care if Trump had an experience with a prostitute and paid her way too much money. SD is just doing it for the publicity because she needs the money. DT is known for this kind of behavior. He should have just said at the beginning, "Yah I did it, and I tried to pay her off as well. So what is your point?" The whole thing would have died immediately. As usual the cover up is worse than the crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Jingthing Posted May 8, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted May 8, 2018 2 minutes ago, williet98248 said: This whole thing is so ridiculous on both sides. Why should anyone care if Trump had an experience with a prostitute and paid her way too much money. SD is just doing it for the publicity because she needs the money. DT is known for this kind of behavior. He should have just said at the beginning, "Yah I did it, and I tried to pay her off as well. So what is your point?" The whole thing would have died immediately. As usual the cover up is worse than the crime. You're forgetting that the payoff was obviously related to his CAMPAIGN and it was not documented and accounted as such, which is VERY ILLEGAL. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 On 5/5/2018 at 4:09 PM, farcanell said: I think comey understood this requirement.... but someone “obstructed” his inquiry by taking away his powers to investigate. Are you seriously claiming that the head of the FBI was spending his time on an investigation? Perhaps nothing that happens in all 50 of the states of the USA is as important as attempting to prove Trump did something that hasn't been discovered after over a year by actual investigators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alocacoc Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 This whole thing is so ridiculous on both sides. Why should anyone care if Trump had an experience with a prostitute and paid her way too much money. SD is just doing it for the publicity because she needs the money. DT is known for this kind of behavior. He should have just said at the beginning, "Yah I did it, and I tried to pay her off as well. So what is your point?" The whole thing would have died immediately. As usual the cover up is worse than the crime.Maybe it's to deflect Democrats from creating a election program. If so, it works perfect. Sent from a so called Smartphone using an App. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 38 minutes ago, williet98248 said: This whole thing is so ridiculous on both sides. Why should anyone care if Trump had an experience with a prostitute and paid her way too much money. SD is just doing it for the publicity because she needs the money. DT is known for this kind of behavior. He should have just said at the beginning, "Yah I did it, and I tried to pay her off as well. So what is your point?" The whole thing would have died immediately. As usual the cover up is worse than the crime. I’m not at all convinced SD is in this for the money. I watched the interview in which she described being threatened while with her child. She came across as entirely credible, frightened and extremely angry. My take on her motives is she’s drawn a line at that threat, she’s now fighting back. This would explain why her lawyer has stated, his client wants full disclosure of Trump’s behavior, not a pay off. She’s one very angry women and I’m quite certain she knows Trump is an ineffectual wuss. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 8 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said: Are you seriously claiming that the head of the FBI was spending his time on an investigation? Perhaps nothing that happens in all 50 of the states of the USA is as important as attempting to prove Trump did something that hasn't been discovered after over a year by actual investigators. You have no idea what’s been discovered. Mueller has not yet issued his report. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 3 minutes ago, alocacoc said: Maybe it's to deflect Democrats from creating a election program. If so, it works perfect. Sent from a so called Smartphone using an App. Mid-terms! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said: You have no idea what’s been discovered. Mueller has not yet issued his report. His team leak like a shower head. If there had been anything there, we'd have heard about it long ago. As it is, they are reduced to banging up people on things that happened years before the campaign to try and extort information that might make it difficult for Trump. Even the judges are saying Mueller's investigations have strayed far from Russian collusion, as they have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Chomper Higgot Posted May 8, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted May 8, 2018 10 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said: His team leak like a shower head. If there had been anything there, we'd have heard about it long ago. As it is, they are reduced to banging up people on things that happened years before the campaign to try and extort information that might make it difficult for Trump. Even the judges are saying Mueller's investigations have strayed far from Russian collusion, as they have. Firstly Mueller’s team are not leaking like a shower head. Secondly, and I repeat, you have no idea what Mueller’s discovered, he’s not yet issued his report. But don’t worry, the report is coming. 2 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farcanell Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said: Are you seriously claiming that the head of the FBI was spending his time on an investigation? Perhaps nothing that happens in all 50 of the states of the USA is as important as attempting to prove Trump did something that hasn't been discovered after over a year by actual investigators. No... I’m claiming that comey , as a former NY attorney, and then director of the FBI, would know what evidence would be needed to proceed with further investigations in a case under his care/supervision... especially a high profile case involving the potus (hell... he would be derelict to not be completely aware of the facts of the case) mueller appears to agree with that, as the investigation is both ongoing, and being widened to consider obstruction of justice im also saying that this knowledge, that I am attributing to him, puts him in a better position on every part of the investigation, to develop a valid opinion to proceed, much more valid than that of the poster I was responding to.... and probably all posters here ( but hey, not nessesarily) and... he wrote a book about it all. Yes the book may be bs,.... but hey, no one has disproved his claims, as yet. That said, muellers widened scope might.... or it might validate Comey.... imo, the latter, and I hope that opens the trump administration up to all sorts of legal action, as only a dog would dismiss a senior public servant of Comeys standing, days before his retirement. there ya go... now... are you intimating Comey didn’t know about the levels of evidence needed to continue to pursue an investigation? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
attrayant Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said: His team leak like a shower head. What have they leaked? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FritsSikkink Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 Trump's lawyer, Mr. Cohen has done some shady deals during the last year according to Stormy's lawyer: https://www.dropbox.com/s/pskgpwr15r48tx5/Executive Summary.pdf?dl=0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted May 9, 2018 Share Posted May 9, 2018 Avenatti has just published evidence that Cohen was receiving and redirecting hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Russian oligarch with close ties to the Kremlin. The money was received and then distributed through the same account as that used to pay Danniels. Trump, Cohen, Giuliani and their illiberal supporters need yet another story. Avenatti and his client have it right - this will not stop until the American people are provided with full disclosure of Trump’s action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedro01 Posted May 9, 2018 Share Posted May 9, 2018 15 hours ago, Jingthing said: You're forgetting that the payoff was obviously related to his CAMPAIGN and it was not documented and accounted as such, which is VERY ILLEGAL. Wishful thinking. It was NOT a campaign expense. He had made similar payments before when not in a campaign and so can show it's normal business for him. Even if it was classed as a campaign contribution - that would not make it "VERY ILLEGAL" - it's a misdemeanour at best. It's not the coup excuse you are looking for. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted May 9, 2018 Share Posted May 9, 2018 14 hours ago, farcanell said: only a dog would dismiss a senior public servant of Comeys standing, days before his retirement. At least get your facts correct. That wasn't Comey. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Srikcir Posted May 9, 2018 Share Posted May 9, 2018 2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said: That wasn't Comey. He didn't say it was. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted May 9, 2018 Share Posted May 9, 2018 15 minutes ago, Srikcir said: He didn't say it was. He said "only a dog would dismiss a senior public servant of Comeys standing, days before his retirement.". That's clearly referring to Comey. Perhaps you can explain how it isn't referring to Comey, within the rules of English usage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Srikcir Posted May 9, 2018 Share Posted May 9, 2018 1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said: a senior public servant of Comeys standing Is not Deputy McCabe of Comey's standing? A bit cumbersome use of English language perhaps but meaning someone of the same stature (ie., 'importance or reputation gained by ability or achievement') of Comey. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farcanell Posted May 9, 2018 Share Posted May 9, 2018 3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said: At least get your facts correct. That wasn't Comey. lol.... my mistake... it wasn’t Donald dog who dismissed McCabe (Comeys right hand? I may be wrong in that)... he just gloated about it, calling it a great day for Republicans, or something like that. anyway... after some 200 words in that post, answering yours.... explaining why I believed Comey knows more about evidentiary requirements ( and McCabe, and mueller etc etc) than the poster I responded too, I asked a very simple question, in response to your first go.... which you failed to address.... and which really has no never mind about who fired who or when the question.... are you intimating that Comey did not know about the evidentiary requirement to continue to proceed with an investigation, under his supervision? (Or there about) The question was in response to this post.... (after I had, imho, satisfactorily answered your question... which is opposite in nature) 18 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said: Are you seriously claiming that the head of the FBI was spending his time on an investigation? Perhaps nothing that happens in all 50 of the states of the USA is as important as attempting to prove Trump did something that hasn't been discovered after over a year by actual investigators. But.... my one simple question was ignored, in favor of seeking and exploiting a non sequitur.... Hopefully my spelling doesn’t set of another tangential deflection, and you can focus instead on answering a simple question, as I did, without seeking possible ways to avoid the question NOTE, if, by saying I should get my facts right, then pulling that error as the reason, (vs anything from the text answering your question directly) you are accepting that everything else is factually correct, then that’s cool too. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 23 hours ago, Srikcir said: Is not Deputy McCabe of Comey's standing? A bit cumbersome use of English language perhaps but meaning someone of the same stature (ie., 'importance or reputation gained by ability or achievement') of Comey. No, McCabe was not of Comey's standing. I never even heard of him till he was in the poo for doing bad things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 20 hours ago, farcanell said: lol.... my mistake... it wasn’t Donald dog who dismissed McCabe (Comeys right hand? I may be wrong in that)... he just gloated about it, calling it a great day for Republicans, or something like that. anyway... after some 200 words in that post, answering yours.... explaining why I believed Comey knows more about evidentiary requirements ( and McCabe, and mueller etc etc) than the poster I responded too, I asked a very simple question, in response to your first go.... which you failed to address.... and which really has no never mind about who fired who or when the question.... are you intimating that Comey did not know about the evidentiary requirement to continue to proceed with an investigation, under his supervision? (Or there about) The question was in response to this post.... (after I had, imho, satisfactorily answered your question... which is opposite in nature) But.... my one simple question was ignored, in favor of seeking and exploiting a non sequitur.... Hopefully my spelling doesn’t set of another tangential deflection, and you can focus instead on answering a simple question, as I did, without seeking possible ways to avoid the question NOTE, if, by saying I should get my facts right, then pulling that error as the reason, (vs anything from the text answering your question directly) you are accepting that everything else is factually correct, then that’s cool too. I have no idea what you are asking. Perhaps you can reword your question more simply, as it's far too convoluted to know what you are actually talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said: No, McCabe was not of Comey's standing. I never even heard of him till he was in the poo for doing bad things. Your defence of Trump has slipped into arguments over those you are arguing getting a name wrong. Stop arguing over mistakes in discussions and go have a look at what Avenatti has reveal regarding large sums of money being funnelled to Cohen. (I got the names right). 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farcanell Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said: I have no idea what you are asking. Perhaps you can reword your question more simply, as it's far too convoluted to know what you are actually talking about. 21 hours ago, farcanell said: the question.... are you intimating that Comey did not know about the evidentiary requirement to continue to proceed with an investigation, under his supervision? (Or there about) There it’s is, for the third time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riclag Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 11 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said: Stop arguing over mistakes in discussions and go have a look at what Avenatti has reveal regarding large sums of money being funnelled to Cohen. Avenatti Accuses The Wrong Michael Cohens Of Making ‘Fraudulent’ Payments "But there is one problem with the document: two of the allegedly “fraudulent” payments were made to men named Michael Cohen who have no affiliation with Trump". Your knight in shinning Armour has some soft spots! http://dailycaller.com/2018/05/09/avenatti-michael-cohen-israel/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riclag Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 (edited) Treasury watchdog probing how Stormy Daniels lawyer got Cohen's bank records http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/386931-treasury-watchdog-probing-how-stormy-daniels-lawyer-got-cohens-bank The NY AG had aspirations of higher places possibly Senator or Congress. He'll have to go to the back of the line now. This Avenatti guy is investigating out of his scope ,Porn Actress payments. Maybe he will need a attorney soon . He could be the second one to go down in NY,since Giuliani came on Edited May 10, 2018 by riclag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
attrayant Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 Treasury watchdog probing how Stormy Daniels lawyer got Cohen's bank records Avenatti is representing Daniels in a civil suit against Cohen in California. He could have gotten them through simple discovery requests. He seems too sharp to make such an obvious blunder. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now