Lordy, there are more tapes

[piezoe]

I will agree the civil suit regarding the foundation has some legal legs to stand on. The emoluments civil suit is weak both in grounds and precedence.

It should be noted these are civil actions — there are no “charges”.

Yes, of course you are right. The emoluments suit, and I think there were originally three, and one was withdrawn or thrown out, and I believe there are two now (maybe?). The one in the news had to do with a challenge from the DOJ with regard to whether bribery had to be involved. The court said no. What is interesting in these first ever emolument suits , so far as I can tell, is that we are getting a better , or at least a court approved definition of "emolument" out of it. The suit in question has passed the first hurdle and I think has legs. Mr. Trump is vulnerable on his Washington, D.C. Hotel which belongs to the government (is that right?), so of course the lease agreement would include the standard clause that the leasee my not work for the Government. We know, of course that Trump doesn't work for the government. He works for himself and golfs for the government. But I'm not sure the court will see it that way.

"Emolument" is a fine word. Maybe we should use it more. "But Dad, how do you expect me to get by on an emolument of only five bucks a week! I'll be in the sixth grade next year! I need at least ten a week."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-ruling/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.605e1548c284

 

[vanzandt]

Cuomo had an expert clean up the audio and check the meta data and he confirms that indeed the conversation Trump and Cohen had was cut short and another audio spliced together right after. If the convo asserts Trump making the payment in cash, then the WH leaked it.

None of this makes any sense to me.
Why would the WH leak it?

 

[Cuddles]

None of this makes any sense to me.
Why would the WH leak it?

Honestly, I had a brain fart. I had read/heard such rumors of them leaking it, but I don't see how they'd have gotten a hold of it unless already in some "discovery" phase where the prosecution hands evidence to the defense.

I think all they did was waive privilege. If Giuliani had access to the tape (and I don't see how they would've), then editing out more incriminating audio would make sense. I suppose it makes more sense that those w/access to it (Cohen, etc....) would edit out audio that "exonerates" Trump.

 

[Cuddles]

Another GWB garbage prediction he "never made" "'cuz I'm no Trumper"

Please cite the law where it is a felony. Yes, the exact section of law.

Your assertion about a law is nonsense.

As usual you are making up crap again.

Let's get to the bottom line. You endlessly accuse others of lying. I simply post a link where a paper is referenced as "peer reviewed" and you are relentlessly abusive for months calling me a liar simply because I posted the text of an article without making any assertions or endorsement of the content.

I have never promoted "Hillary Arkancide" and have only provided factual information about Voter Fraud.

Yet once again here you are caught lying. You are personally asserting that it is a felony for a candidate to purchase the silence of someone during the election. It is not. There is no law anywhere in the U.S. defining this as a felony -- as usual this is just a figment in your mind that lives in an alternate fantasy universe -- more wildly exaggerated claims not based in fact.

I just want to document this instance of you lying once again -- so it can be referenced by others as yet another example of your behavior when you are abusive to others & accuse them of not being truthful.

Once again you are caught lying. Knowing very well there is no such law and you will never find a reference to it. You simply make up your own "facts" while claiming others are liars.

I am glad that everyone will bookmark this thread as an example of your continually hypocrisy for reference.