MeanMrMustard

Joined

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

Posts by MeanMrMustard

• 
  77

  Do You Condemn Anti-Semitism?

  by minimus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i do .

  for me , it’s a nobrainer!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  ...we need to talk about Donald Trump who called the NeoNazis in Charlottesville "very fine people".

  Sure, let’s talk about the fake news.
  
  
• 
  77

  Do You Condemn Anti-Semitism?

  by minimus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i do .

  for me , it’s a nobrainer!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  The Jewish conspiracy is bunk. Everyone knows that at the very tippy-top of it all sit the Kerfuffles.
• 
  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

  Let’s compare and contrast ...

  https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/ocasio-cortezs-chief-of-staff-ran-1m-slush-fund-by-diverting-campaign-cash-to-his-own-companies
  
• 
  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.) The FEC only deals with Civil Cases. It does not address Criminal Cases.

  This is true. If the FEC is after you, it’s a civil matter. They have direct jurisdiction over federal election civil matters. If the justice department is after you, then they would be seeking criminal charges. In the case of Trump, neither applies. It would be an impeachment proceeding originating from the House.
  

  But note: any of these bodies act on the same statutes. Most campaign violations *could* be pursued criminally, but they aren’t because it is very difficult to prove intent (more on intent this below).
  

  The FEC is the authority on how to apply the campaign finance statutes. This is why the previous video matters so much. In the event of an impeachment, the Senate would start to dig in, ask questions, review statutes, and attempt to make sense of all of this. They will inevitably come across the same language that you’ve been quoting. Obviously it can’t literally mean anything that “influences” an election. Otherwise, it would implicate every federal politician and news agency in existence, including them. This is a sure sign that the broad interpretation you have suggested is not correct. What would they do next (other than display to the American people their incompetence)? They would call the FEC and ask them how they make sense of these arcane laws.
  

  At that point it’s going to come out that there are *other parts of the statutes*, the same ones Smith was referencing, that lead to what the FEC use as their guidelines.
  

  And then... there you go. It will transform into a giant nothing burger when they realize if they consider this a campaign contribution, it means Trump should have paid with campaign funds. But if politicians should do that, then any politician (with all sorts of unsavory affairs) could run for office, settle their affairs with campaign funds, then simply withdraw. Not only that, but it basically means that non-disclosure agreements are illegal/useless for politicians because they have to disclose the non-disclosure agreement. Silly.
  

  Make no mistake: I would actually love the scenario above to play out. Incredible entertainment.
  

  And even if the FEC's bar for violations was that expenditures must "arise directly from the campaign" (which actually isn't the case at all) that's NOT the metric used for criminal liabilities.

  The former FEC chairman literally said that is the metric.
  

  The criminal code very much takes a persons intent into consideration - thus the specific inclusion of the language "for the purpose of influencing the election" in the definitions of "contribution" and "expenditure".

  You are conflating intent to influence the election with intent to commit a crime. A prosecutor will consider intent to commit a crime, although some statutes don’t require intent (like disclosing classified information). On the other hand, not all expenditures that help a campaign, even though there is “intent” to “influence” the election, are campaign expenditures. The example of whitening teeth, or buying an expensive suit, or paying off a former lover, etc.
  

  But even if there is a violation, it is very rare that it gets to a criminal level. You have to prove it was an intentional breaking of the law. That is the reason why most of these campaign violations are handled as a civil matter through the FEC, as was Obama’s offense. Go back to the video, time stamp 8:07. This exact topic is addressed.
  

  2.) Trump's Financial Disclosure Form he signed when taking office is in regards to HIS personal finances. Not the campaigns. His deliberate exclusion of the $130,000 he owed to Michael Cohen shows he was attempting to hide the payments made through Cohen and David Pecker's corporation American media.

  Right. His financial disclosure document shows income/revenue streams and debts. It would not list non-disclosure agreements. You can’t seriously expect a person to disclose a non-disclosure agreement in a public form, can you? If so, then your position effectively makes non-disclosure agreements illegal (or at least useless) for any federally elected office.
  

  Which, in turn, opens up a third avenue for prosecutors to pursue - conspiracy.

  You can be charged with robbing a bank. But if you do it with the help of other people - (regardless of success) you can also be charged with conspiracy to rob a bank. The same is true here.

  Also, you can eat goat testicles. But because that isn’t a crime, you can eat goat testicles with a bunch of people and it’s still not a crime. Even if you *thought* that eating goat testicles was a crime, and therefore told no one out of shame and fear, there still is no guilt. And if a prosecutor came along and found a member of your group (a lawyer, for example) that had committed some other horrible crime, and as a plea deal, offered a reduced sentence if only he would plead guilty to eating goat testicles, to serve three years, and as part of the deal testify how horrible of a bigoted testicles eater you are... well, you still wouldn’t be in trouble. At this point you might wise up, consult a goat testicle lawyer only to find your lawyer friend plead guilty to a non-crime. You might even tweet about it out of anger and amazement.
  

  PS: Your inclusion of "converted to salt taffy" was brilliant. It made laugh out loud.

  I was trying to think what Trump might want to do in his spare time. I cleared my mind, put on some polka music, and that seemed like the logical choice.
  
• 
  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”?