Looks like the hush payments came from the campaign donations

[piezoe]

Popular vote counts in urban centers do not win General Elections - you need to show up in rural and suburban areas.

The States choose the method of choosing their electors and therein lies the Achilles Heel of the Electoral College System. Naturally States in which one party controls the legislature will try and institute a method that assures their party wins all or a large fraction of the States electors. Not all States use the same method of selecting electors . But suffice it to say the choice is subject to heavy gerrymandering in states that choose electors according to congressional districts.

Here are excerpts found on Wiki from critiques of the electoral college (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)#Appointment_by_state_legislature)

Elections where the winning candidate loses the national popular vote typically result when the winner builds the requisite configuration of states (and thus captures their electoral votes) by small margins, but the losing candidate secures large voter margins in the remaining states.

The United States is the only country that elects a politically powerful president via an electoral college and the only one in which a candidate can become president without having obtained the highest number of votes in the sole or final round of popular voting.

 

[piezoe]

He never "admitted" to grabbing he said that is what you can do when you are famous.

Nevertheless I found his comment appaling and entertaining at the same time. Did you?

There is no evidence of money laundering by Trump

On the contrary, there is a mountain of circumstantial evidence, and he is soon going to be inundated with formal charges including money laundering and tax evasion. Just be patient; not stupid.

Your emoluments cases are petty and will amount to nothing against Trump. You think an emoluments infraction would equal impeachment?

I disagree with your opinion that the Emoluments cases are "petty". The Emolument violation charges are among the most serious he faces, as they charge him with violating his Oath, and by extension his sacred duty to the American People, and with violation of Constitutional Law. Anyone who thinks that clause was inserted into the Constitution for a petty reason is badly mistaken. I answered your specific question with regard to the Emolument suit in my long post above.

You all should stick to what is real.

Are the charges of the SDNY prosecutor real enough for you? If so, Trump is a felon. If they are not real enough for you, they are at least real enough for Mr. Michael Cohen, myself and the SDNY prosecutor, and Trump is a felon..
What about the civil charges of the NY Attorney General, a Ms Barbara Underwood*. Are those charges real enough for you?

I know you are smarter than Poindexter, so please don't force me to put you in the same category as Poindexter. The charges are there, and they are very real! And there are a lot more charges coming!**

_______
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Underwood ; https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/14/nyregion/trump-foundation-lawsuit-attorney-general.html

**There may be an opportunity coming up to test the waters and find out if a President can be indicted while in office. The law and Constitution are silent on this question. We have only non-judicial opinion so far.

 

[bone]

The States choose the method of choosing their electors and therein lies the Achilles Heel of the Electoral College System. Naturally States in which one party controls the legislature will try and institute a method that assures their party wins all or a large fraction of the States electors. Not all States use the same method of selecting electors . But suffice it to say the choice is subject to heavy gerrymandering in states that choose electors according to congressional districts.

Here are excerpts found on Wiki from critiques of the electoral college (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)#Appointment_by_state_legislature)

Elections where the winning candidate loses the national popular vote typically result when the winner builds the requisite configuration of states (and thus captures their electoral votes) by small margins, but the losing candidate secures large voter margins in the remaining states.

The United States is the only country that elects a politically powerful president via an electoral college and the only one in which a candidate can become president without having obtained the highest number of votes in the sole or final round of popular voting.

This excerpt perfectly explains why HRC lost the election - nearly all of her campaign stops were in deep blue States and Cities where she already held a sizeable polling lead. And of course she never even visited Wisconsin. No clear thinking person would say that HRC ran a good campaign. She took a great many things for granted. Couldn’t she have used those dozens of speeches in NYC and Los Angeles - where she already had secured the votes and fundraising; and put that time to better use in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin?

And Al Gore would have won the election of 2000 if he would have managed to win his home State of Tennessee. He never really campaigned there - but he was a Senator from Tennessee.

Showing up helps.

 

[piezoe]

This excerpt perfectly explains why HRC lost the election - nearly all of her campaign stops were in deep blue States and Cities where she already held a sizeable polling lead. And of course she never even visited Wisconsin. No clear thinking person would say that HRC ran a good campaign. She took a great many things for granted. Couldn’t she have used those dozens of speeches in NYC and Los Angeles - where she already had secured the votes and fundraising; and put that time to better use in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin?

And Al Gore would have won the election of 2000 if he would have managed to win his home State of Tennessee. He never really campaigned there - but he was a Senator from Tennessee.

Showing up helps.

agreed! Both parties should have learned a lesson from the last election. You've got to consider every possible way to get to 270 votes and you've got to consider every possible way your opposition could. You can't just say well this is the easiest and surest way for me to get to 270. I won't bother with the other States or what the other guy is doing.. You've got to put yourself in the opposition's shoes and ask how are they going to get to 270. Obviously they won't be winning the Same states you do. Therefore, what other States do you need to be worried about. Where else should you be campaigning hard. Trump/ manafort ran a smart campaign. Now someone needs to figure out how to do the same thing and stay out of jail.

 

[TJustice]

I found his comment crude. The guy reminds me of one of the lefties here on this board. Always telling others how great he is.
Trump is really a new york style liberal at heart.
He is a douche with money.

While Trump may be crooked and he may have laundered money, there has been not evidence produced by you or anyone else here showing it. If there is evidence it mostly like only surfaced with Cohen rolling. We have seen no leak of that nature.
So what evidence are you referencing. Circumstantial evidence shows Trump to have sold real estate and has a complicated asset protection structure.

I did not say his Oath of office was petty I said the charges were petty. Don't start playing gotcha in such a cheap manner. Paying for a hotel room may not even be a gift or title.
The charge is petty.

Trump is a felon? What SDNY charges are you talking about? I have not read anywhere Trump has been charged with a felony? You really are confused about the law. Do you know what a felony charge is? We don't even know if a sitting President can be charged with a crime. But they are not going to test a campaign violation charged as a felony against a sitting President. It would get kicked by the Sup Court in a nano second. Don't be silly. Wait to see if Mueller has anything.

Nevertheless I found his comment appaling and entertaining at the same time. Did you?

On the contrary, there is a mountain of circumstantial evidence, and he is soon going to be inundated with formal charges including money laundering and tax evasion. Just be patient; not stupid.

I disagree with your opinion that the Emoluments cases are "petty". The Emolument violation charges are among the most serious he faces, as they charge him with violating his Oath, and by extension his sacred duty to the American People, and with violation of Constitutional Law. Anyone who thinks that clause was inserted into the Constitution for a petty reason is badly mistaken. I answered your specific question with regard to the Emolument suit in my long post above.

Are the charges of the SDNY prosecutor real enough for you? If so, Trump is a felon. If they are not real enough for you, they are at least real enough for Mr. Michael Cohen, myself and the SDNY prosecutor, and Trump is a felon..
What about the civil charges of the NY Attorney General, a Ms Barbara Underwood*. Are those charges real enough for you?

I know you are smarter than Poindexter, so please don't force me to put you in the same category as Poindexter. The charges are there, and they are very real! And there are a lot more charges coming!**

_______
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Underwood ; https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/14/nyregion/trump-foundation-lawsuit-attorney-general.html

**There may be an opportunity coming up to test the waters and find out if a President can be indicted while in office. The law and Constitution are silent on this question. We have only non-judicial opinion so far.

 

[piezoe]

What SDNY charges are you talking about? I have not read anywhere Trump has been charged with a felony?

If you can pull up a copy of the Indictment of Cohen you will see that not only is Cohen charged, but "the candidate" is named as having directed Cohen to commit a felony. Cohen pleaded guilty to a felony. But of course "the candidate" was not indicted. This, in the language of prosecutors, makes Trump an un-indicted co-conspirator to a felony, and makes Trump, in the opinion of prosecutors, and in Cohen's opinion as well, a felon. This is a charge that Trump very likely will be indicted for after he is out of office, unless he is pardoned by his successor.

So what evidence are you referencing. Circumstantial evidence shows Trump to have sold real estate and has a complicated asset protection structure.

There are numerous public sources for the circumstantial evidence you seek. I'm going to give you a couple links (fascinating articles) but there are many more sources for the voluminous evidence that's out there.

Those who know about Trump's dealings came out of the cracks like a bunch of ravenous cockroaches once he became President. This makes anyone wonder why on Earth did he call attention to himself by running for President and bring down the limitless resources of the Federal government upon himself? Most likely this was due to his mental state of uncontrollable narcissism combined with Russian pressure. There can be no doubt that no totally sane person would have done what he's done!

We must remember that since the 1990s the Trump Organization has been almost entirely dependent on Russians for injection of new money. Mueller's team is bound to have connected loose ends and corroborated this mountain of circumstantial evidence I refer to with documents and depositions tying rampant, illegal money laundering to Trump. (The only way Trump will escape the inevitable is if he is shown in a court of law to have been brain dead since the mid 1980s.)

With regard to whether Trump has faithfully reported all his net taxable income on his tax returns, I suggest you draw your on conclusion. Mueller undoubtedly has copies, copies of returns which Trump has declared "off limits" to the special prosecutor -- Trump's naivety can at times be almost child like. Trump has refused to publicly release his returns because "they are under audit". This may be the only thing to escape Trump's pink, pursed, money-sucking lips that is entirely true since he began running for the Presidency.

Go here next: https://newrepublic.com/article/143...ses-dirty-money-international-crime-syndicate

I was going to give you several links, but the one above is a such a marvelous jumping off point, why bother. There are so many, probably hundreds at this point, publicly available sources to pursue you will have no trouble turning them up. Just turn your fingers loose and let them wander freely through the internet. You'll be amazed at all the crap our fat orange President has stepped in. And speaking of a 'jumping off point' , isn't the oval office on the second floor?

 

[piezoe]

I did not say his Oath of office was petty I said the charges were petty. Don't start playing gotcha in such a cheap manner. Paying for a hotel room may not even be a gift or title.
The charge is petty.

I wanted to separate my response to your remarks Re: the Emoluments suits from my response above, because I don't think there is any thing to debate here. I believe you've innocently misunderstood these suits and that we are really on the same page here.

"I did not say his Oath of office was petty... "​

Neither did I. So that's something we agree on.

"Paying for a hotel room may not even be a gift or title."​

True enough. It might, however, be an "...other thing of value."

I'm sure we agree on the reason for the "Emoluments" clause in our Constitution, and why it's important that our presidents not be allowed to violate it.

 

[bone]

Pull up a DOJ indictment link where TRUMP is directly named as a Defendant on US Government letterhead. You can’t.

I could give two shits about The New Republic or The Daily Beast or The Nation or any other rag for that matter.

 

[piezoe]

Pull up a DOJ indictment link where TRUMP is directly named as a Defendant on US Government letterhead. You can’t.

I could give two shits about The New Republic or The Daily Beast or The Nation or any other rag for that matter.

What about the Attorney General of New York, do you give "two shits" about her and her suit naming the Trump Foundation and its Board of Directors? (Hint: Donald is on the Board.)
I doubt Ms Underwood really cares whether you like her letterhead. ..

And what about the Federal Prosecutors in the Southern District of New York. Do you give "two shits" about them? (Hint: The "Candidate" is named as a co-conspirator in a felony, to which his fellow conspirator has already plead guilty. You just get one chance to guess who the candidate is.)
I don't think they care either.

Looks like there will be enough non-pardonable left-overs to arrange a short vacation for Trump once he is out of office. There is no golf course at the particular vacation spot I have in mind. But there is ping pong and courses in Plumbing. He could learn a trade! It could be a "learning vacation. "

 

[TJustice]

It was not me who changed the argument around, turned it into a strawman and then beat it.
You may be the one who did it innocently.

I wanted to separate my response to your remarks Re: the Emoluments suits from my response above, because I don't think there is any thing to debate here. I believe you've innocently misunderstood these suits and that we are really on the same page here.

"I did not say his Oath of office was petty... "​

Neither did I. So that's something we agree on.

"Paying for a hotel room may not even be a gift or title."​

True enough. It might, however, be an "...other thing of value."

I'm sure we agree on the reason for the "Emoluments" clause in our Constitution, and why it's important that our presidents not be allowed to violate it.