MeanMrMustard

Joined

• started 67 topics
• posted 3,909 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by MeanMrMustard

• 
  61

  Michael Cohen... sleazebag or patriot?

  by Queequeg in

  1. social
  2. current

  so, what do you think?

  .

  fwiw, i say sleazebag....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  @minimus: Orange man bad.
• 
  61

  Michael Cohen... sleazebag or patriot?

  by Queequeg in

  1. social
  2. current

  so, what do you think?

  .

  fwiw, i say sleazebag....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  1.) We know there are recordings that show these donations were made with the specific intent to influence the election. This is from Michael Cohen's charging document, "Cohen deceived the voting public by hiding alleged facts that he believed would have had a substantial effect on the election, after making the payment to [Daniels], and after [Trump] was elected President, Cohen privately bragged to friends and reporters, including in recorded conversations, that he had made the payment to spare [Trump] from damaging press and embarrassment.”

  I’m sorry, but if you listened to the former FEC chairman, you must not have understood. Intent doesn’t matter here. For it to be considered a campaign contribution, the expense must *arise directly from the campaign*. (See time marker 3:15 in the video). That is the objective measure used by the FEC. Toothpaste wouldn’t arise from the campaign, even if you started purchasing really expensive extra whitening kind to help “influence” your chances (you really “intend” for it to help). In other words, if it arises from your personal obligations (like sleeping with a hooker), then solve it from your personal finances. It could help the election, yes. You might *intend* for it to help. It doesn’t matter.
  

  Another way to look at it: if you think that this was a campaign expenditure, then it would REQUIRE Trump to pay with campaign funds. Are you willing to keep going with that line?
  

  2.) When Trump falsified his Financial Disclosure Form it was both a.) illegal in its own right and b.) demonstrated a consciousness of guilt. The reason Trump was hiding the payments is because he knew the unreported payments made via Cohen and American Media were illegal.

  He didn’t falsify the form. The expenditures should have been paid from his personal resources, as this was not an obligation that arose out of the campaign directly. The event in question preceded the candidacy. And he can enter into a non disclosure agreement regarding that event, even if it helps his election chances, even if he intends it to, without it being a campaign expense. He would be in trouble IF he used campaign funds. But he didn’t do that.
  

  Keeping with the tooth analogy provided by the former FEC chairman, if someone paid $100k for you to get dental work done while you're running for office - that, by itself, may not be a campaign finance violation. However, if the person explicitly says "I'm doing this to help you win the election" and you don't report it as a campaign expenditure and you go out of your way to falsify your Financial Disclosure Form - then prosecutors are going to have a slam dunk case against you. This is the position Trump is presently in. And is also why they were able to slap a campaign felony charge on Michael Cohen.

  First, your example is flawed. If you wanted it to be accurate, it would be Trump paying for his own dental work. It doesn’t matter if his lawyer pays first and the lawyer get reimbursed. It doesn’t matter if Trump routes the funds through several shell companies, back again, through the depths of hell, converted it to salt taffy, rolled in it, converted it back to cash, stuck it up a goats ass, and then finally gifted the goat to the porn star. None of this matters.
  

  Second, this is a repeating pattern. The Democrats think they found something, make a big fuss, and then as time passes, it dies away. It has to - if they impeach over this, then it will eventually lead to a Senate trial where FEC officials, like Smith, are bound to testify.
  

  
  
• 
  61

  Michael Cohen... sleazebag or patriot?

  by Queequeg in

  1. social
  2. current

  so, what do you think?

  .

  fwiw, i say sleazebag....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  It doesn't have to come from a campaign account for it to be illegal. It just has to be "any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office" that is over $2,000 and/or is not reported. Trump's reimbursement to Cohen breaks this in both regards.

  This is incorrect. Just a little tiny bit of critical thought and you might see why. Everything “influences” an election. The entire MSM provides loads more “influence” (spending millions to do so). Are those “in-kind” contributions?

  Again, reference the former FEC chairman Bradley Smith. To be a campaign contribution, it must be something that can ONLY arise from a campaign obligation. Stuff like renting an office space, printing flyers, etc. Politicians, when first running for office, often enter into non-disclosure agreements and settlements for all sorts of things. This is NOT illegal. You think it is because you are drinking the coolaid.

  Not that I am a fan of Fox News... but in this case they have the most direct and concise clip of this issue. This is a former FEC chairman for goodness sakes. And if you don’t like this source, fine. Just search his name on YouTube and you will find other outlets with the same result.

  https://youtu.be/q8ral5sNLi8
  
• 
  61

  Michael Cohen... sleazebag or patriot?

  by Queequeg in

  1. social
  2. current

  so, what do you think?

  .

  fwiw, i say sleazebag....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  Is it worth pointing out that what Donald Trump did wasn’t a crime? Is it worth posting all the references to the former FEC chairman saying it was NOT a campaign expenditure?

  Around we go... weeeee

  You would think that the Democrats would at least notice the pattern of “Donald Trump did XYZ REEEE!”, then time passes, then everyone realizes it’s a nothing burger. I mean as a matter of sheer strategy at least.
  
• 
  17

  If you prepaid $2100.00 in taxes, Uncle Sam could refund you $9987.00

  by Hecce in

  1. social
  2. current

  there was a little bit of discussion on another thread about the results of the recent tax changes in usa.

  i decided to compare whether or not the changes were favoring the lower-income class versus the middle class.

  the family that i inputted into the system was a married couple with four minor dependents, their income was $44000.00 annually and they paid $2100.00 in taxes during the year.. after completing the calculations, this family is getting a refund of $9981.00; the bulk of it are earned income credit $2191.00 and additional child credit $5600.00.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  I would be considered “middle class”, and I am getting back a lot of money. Also, my withholding is a bit less. My refund is partially coming from a bonus my company gave to all employees near the middle of 2018. It was widely celebrated until everyone realized that the actual amount coming to them was about half of their announced bonus amount - the federal and state bonus taxes will bleed away about 50% off the top. That sort of over-taxation shakes out at the end of the year resulting in a larger refund.

  In general, I try to shoot for a smaller refund by adjusting my withholding. It is better to get more of your money throughout the year instead of loaning it to the government.
• 
  38

  If The Mueller Report Doesn’t Prove Trump Colluded With The Russians They Will Still Claim Trump Is Guilty!

  by minimus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  it’s already happening.

  they just can’t move on..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  But accepting money and bluff information from a foreign country (Russia + oligarchs) …isn´t that a crime in the US?

  When did Trump ‘accept money ... from a foreign country’? What in the world is “bluff information”?
  
  
• 
  97

  Removing Mr. Trump from office.....

  by mikeflood in

  1. social
  2. current

  former fbi deputy director mccabe confirms: there were discussions within the department of justice about invoking 25 th amendment to remove trump from office.... .

  i mean the us democracy isn't a third world country, a least the people involved should be reprimanded, they acted like trying a coup d'etat..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  So the fact that the US has greater than 100% turnout in certain counties is a screaming red flag..

  I found the county-by-county breakdown of the 2018 midterms in Texas to be odd as well. It’s normal to have big cities turn blue. But on the border?

  
  
  
• 
  97

  Removing Mr. Trump from office.....

  by mikeflood in

  1. social
  2. current

  former fbi deputy director mccabe confirms: there were discussions within the department of justice about invoking 25 th amendment to remove trump from office.... .

  i mean the us democracy isn't a third world country, a least the people involved should be reprimanded, they acted like trying a coup d'etat..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  I feel about racism as a judge once said about pornography, "I know it when I see it". And sadly,I I see it too often.

  Riiiiggght. If you recognize porn with the same reliability that you recognize racism, I suspect you often jack off to a picture of a cinder block.
  
  
• 
  97

  Removing Mr. Trump from office.....

  by mikeflood in

  1. social
  2. current

  former fbi deputy director mccabe confirms: there were discussions within the department of justice about invoking 25 th amendment to remove trump from office.... .

  i mean the us democracy isn't a third world country, a least the people involved should be reprimanded, they acted like trying a coup d'etat..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  @redvip2000: You are skating really close to the edge of Morph’s Law. You are almost there! One more post, maybe...
• 
  97

  Removing Mr. Trump from office.....

  by mikeflood in

  1. social
  2. current

  former fbi deputy director mccabe confirms: there were discussions within the department of justice about invoking 25 th amendment to remove trump from office.... .

  i mean the us democracy isn't a third world country, a least the people involved should be reprimanded, they acted like trying a coup d'etat..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  @Della:

  ...due to being compromised mentally/physically,...

  True, but only in the sense that the President can’t discharge his duties. If you asked the left if Trump is “mentally compromised”, the answer would be ‘yes’. Does that mean he should be removed? No, because they consider anyone that doesn’t agree with them to be mentally compromised.

  Also, “physically compromised” would only mean in the sense of discharging the presidential duties. After all, I don’t think you would agree that a man in a wheelchair can’t be President, right?

  We have to be careful not to bring in weasel words that reduce “fitness for office” to “positions I agree with”. I’m not saying you are doing this, but the details matter.

  conflicts of interest,

  What do you mean here? This is too vague.

  or illegal/unconstitutional actions.

  No, I disagree here. Impeachment is meant to take care of this scenario, not the 25th Amendment. In other words, if the President shot a man in the face, murdered a man, you wouldn’t invoke the 25th Amendment. Rather, you would impeach.