$130,000

Your Virginia Tech Politics and Religion source
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
133743Hokie
Posts: 11220
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am

Re: $130,000

Post by 133743Hokie »

HooFighter wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:so what, again, how is any of what they took usable? attorney-client privilege, never mind that even if Trump was banging some washed up pron star 12 YEARS AGO nobody gives a crap. As for the $130k, Trump can spend his cash anyway he wants to, don't you agree?
You know a judge would have had to sign off on a search warrant. Just imagine the amount of probable cause evidence they would have to present in this particular case.

And attorney-client privilege, well....
The attorney-client privilege does not apply when a client consults a lawyer for the purpose of furthering an illegal or fraudulent act. United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 563 (1989); In re Antitrust Grand Jury, 805 F.2d 155, 162 (6th Cir. 1986); In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum, 773 F.2d 204, 206 (8th Cir. 1985); United States v. Horvath, 731 F.2d 557, 562 (8th Cir. 1984); cf. Clark v. United States, 289 U.S. 1, 13-14 (1933). The so-called “crime-fraud exception” removes the protection of the attorney-client privilege for communications concerning contemplated or continuing crimes or frauds. This exception encompasses criminal and fraudulent conduct based on action as well as inaction.
And I thought the $130K came from his good buddy Michael Cohen? If so, that's an illegal campaign donation. If not, it's at least money laundering.
Except there has to be a known violation and then specific records can be admissible . You can't grab everything and have a "disinterested party (FBI)" pour thru them to see what you find that might make a case. I'm surprised the bar association and ACLU aren't going nuts over this.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: $130,000

Post by awesome guy »

133743Hokie wrote:
HooFighter wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:so what, again, how is any of what they took usable? attorney-client privilege, never mind that even if Trump was banging some washed up pron star 12 YEARS AGO nobody gives a crap. As for the $130k, Trump can spend his cash anyway he wants to, don't you agree?
You know a judge would have had to sign off on a search warrant. Just imagine the amount of probable cause evidence they would have to present in this particular case.

And attorney-client privilege, well....
The attorney-client privilege does not apply when a client consults a lawyer for the purpose of furthering an illegal or fraudulent act. United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 563 (1989); In re Antitrust Grand Jury, 805 F.2d 155, 162 (6th Cir. 1986); In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum, 773 F.2d 204, 206 (8th Cir. 1985); United States v. Horvath, 731 F.2d 557, 562 (8th Cir. 1984); cf. Clark v. United States, 289 U.S. 1, 13-14 (1933). The so-called “crime-fraud exception” removes the protection of the attorney-client privilege for communications concerning contemplated or continuing crimes or frauds. This exception encompasses criminal and fraudulent conduct based on action as well as inaction.
And I thought the $130K came from his good buddy Michael Cohen? If so, that's an illegal campaign donation. If not, it's at least money laundering.
Except there has to be a known violation and then specific records can be admissible . You can't grab everything and have a "disinterested party (FBI)" pour thru them to see what you find that might make a case. I'm surprised the bar association and ACLU aren't going nuts over this.
Yep. Dershowitz is calling them out on this. It's hilarious watching The Unusuals all of a sudden taking an extremely aggressive position on investigations.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
User avatar
UpstateSCHokie
Posts: 11907
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:31 pm

Re: $130,000

Post by UpstateSCHokie »

133743Hokie wrote: Except there has to be a known violation and then specific records can be admissible . You can't grab everything and have a "disinterested party (FBI)" pour thru them to see what you find that might make a case. I'm surprised the bar association and ACLU aren't going nuts over this.
As is Alan Dershowitz:
You know, if this were — the shoe were on the other foot, if this were Hillary Clinton being investigated, and they went into her lawyer’s office, the ACLU would be on every television station in America jumping up and down. The deafening silence of the ACLU and civil libertarians about the intrusion into the lawyer-client confidentiality is really appalling.”
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2018/04/ ... relations/

However, I am not surprised. Its long been known that the ACLU is a partisan organization.
Image

“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” ― Voltaire (1694 – 1778)
HokieFanDC
Posts: 18547
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: $130,000

Post by HokieFanDC »

133743Hokie wrote:
HooFighter wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:so what, again, how is any of what they took usable? attorney-client privilege, never mind that even if Trump was banging some washed up pron star 12 YEARS AGO nobody gives a crap. As for the $130k, Trump can spend his cash anyway he wants to, don't you agree?
You know a judge would have had to sign off on a search warrant. Just imagine the amount of probable cause evidence they would have to present in this particular case.

And attorney-client privilege, well....
The attorney-client privilege does not apply when a client consults a lawyer for the purpose of furthering an illegal or fraudulent act. United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 563 (1989); In re Antitrust Grand Jury, 805 F.2d 155, 162 (6th Cir. 1986); In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum, 773 F.2d 204, 206 (8th Cir. 1985); United States v. Horvath, 731 F.2d 557, 562 (8th Cir. 1984); cf. Clark v. United States, 289 U.S. 1, 13-14 (1933). The so-called “crime-fraud exception” removes the protection of the attorney-client privilege for communications concerning contemplated or continuing crimes or frauds. This exception encompasses criminal and fraudulent conduct based on action as well as inaction.
And I thought the $130K came from his good buddy Michael Cohen? If so, that's an illegal campaign donation. If not, it's at least money laundering.
Except there has to be a known violation and then specific records can be admissible . You can't grab everything and have a "disinterested party (FBI)" pour thru them to see what you find that might make a case. I'm surprised the bar association and ACLU aren't going nuts over this.
That's the one place where it gets interesting. Raiding the office over a payment seems excessive. We do know that the bank reported suspicious activity of some sort. And there would have to be probable cause on a violation, which I'm guessing there was.
You can also get search warrants if there is some evidence of or reason to believe, that documents and communications are getting destroyed.
The Sessions appointed Trump supporter isn't going to sign off on a flimsy search warrant.
cwtcr hokie
Posts: 13399
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm

Re: $130,000

Post by cwtcr hokie »

HooFighter wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:so what, again, how is any of what they took usable? attorney-client privilege, never mind that even if Trump was banging some washed up pron star 12 YEARS AGO nobody gives a crap. As for the $130k, Trump can spend his cash anyway he wants to, don't you agree?
You know a judge would have had to sign off on a search warrant. Just imagine the amount of probable cause evidence they would have to present in this particular case.

And attorney-client privilege, well....
The attorney-client privilege does not apply when a client consults a lawyer for the purpose of furthering an illegal or fraudulent act. United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 563 (1989); In re Antitrust Grand Jury, 805 F.2d 155, 162 (6th Cir. 1986); In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum, 773 F.2d 204, 206 (8th Cir. 1985); United States v. Horvath, 731 F.2d 557, 562 (8th Cir. 1984); cf. Clark v. United States, 289 U.S. 1, 13-14 (1933). The so-called “crime-fraud exception” removes the protection of the attorney-client privilege for communications concerning contemplated or continuing crimes or frauds. This exception encompasses criminal and fraudulent conduct based on action as well as inaction.
And I thought the $130K came from his good buddy Michael Cohen? If so, that's an illegal campaign donation. If not, it's at least money laundering.
actually wrong on both counts, if it did come from trump he can spend his money however he wants to, your ASSUMPTION is it comes from campaign funds. IF it came from Cohen as is reported then it is a big nothing.
cwtcr hokie
Posts: 13399
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm

Re: $130,000

Post by cwtcr hokie »

HooFighter wrote:"Leftist deep state"
check your facts, Berman had recused himself from the raid and had ZERO to do with signing off on it, shockingly they found some judge that signed off on it.... hmmmm... yea, prob hard to find a judge that has TDS.
133743Hokie
Posts: 11220
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am

Re: $130,000

Post by 133743Hokie »

cwtcr hokie wrote:
HooFighter wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:so what, again, how is any of what they took usable? attorney-client privilege, never mind that even if Trump was banging some washed up pron star 12 YEARS AGO nobody gives a crap. As for the $130k, Trump can spend his cash anyway he wants to, don't you agree?
You know a judge would have had to sign off on a search warrant. Just imagine the amount of probable cause evidence they would have to present in this particular case.

And attorney-client privilege, well....
The attorney-client privilege does not apply when a client consults a lawyer for the purpose of furthering an illegal or fraudulent act. United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 563 (1989); In re Antitrust Grand Jury, 805 F.2d 155, 162 (6th Cir. 1986); In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum, 773 F.2d 204, 206 (8th Cir. 1985); United States v. Horvath, 731 F.2d 557, 562 (8th Cir. 1984); cf. Clark v. United States, 289 U.S. 1, 13-14 (1933). The so-called “crime-fraud exception” removes the protection of the attorney-client privilege for communications concerning contemplated or continuing crimes or frauds. This exception encompasses criminal and fraudulent conduct based on action as well as inaction.
And I thought the $130K came from his good buddy Michael Cohen? If so, that's an illegal campaign donation. If not, it's at least money laundering.
actually wrong on both counts, if it did come from trump he can spend his money however he wants to, your ASSUMPTION is it comes from campaign funds. IF it came from Cohen as is reported then it is a big nothing.
Apparently it was funded by a HELO that Cohen took out.
cwtcr hokie
Posts: 13399
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm

Re: $130,000

Post by cwtcr hokie »

133743Hokie wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
HooFighter wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:so what, again, how is any of what they took usable? attorney-client privilege, never mind that even if Trump was banging some washed up pron star 12 YEARS AGO nobody gives a crap. As for the $130k, Trump can spend his cash anyway he wants to, don't you agree?
You know a judge would have had to sign off on a search warrant. Just imagine the amount of probable cause evidence they would have to present in this particular case.

And attorney-client privilege, well....
The attorney-client privilege does not apply when a client consults a lawyer for the purpose of furthering an illegal or fraudulent act. United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 563 (1989); In re Antitrust Grand Jury, 805 F.2d 155, 162 (6th Cir. 1986); In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum, 773 F.2d 204, 206 (8th Cir. 1985); United States v. Horvath, 731 F.2d 557, 562 (8th Cir. 1984); cf. Clark v. United States, 289 U.S. 1, 13-14 (1933). The so-called “crime-fraud exception” removes the protection of the attorney-client privilege for communications concerning contemplated or continuing crimes or frauds. This exception encompasses criminal and fraudulent conduct based on action as well as inaction.
And I thought the $130K came from his good buddy Michael Cohen? If so, that's an illegal campaign donation. If not, it's at least money laundering.
actually wrong on both counts, if it did come from trump he can spend his money however he wants to, your ASSUMPTION is it comes from campaign funds. IF it came from Cohen as is reported then it is a big nothing.
Apparently it was funded by a HELO that Cohen took out.

that is what I heard also, crazy times
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: $130,000

Post by ip_law-hokie »

cwtcr hokie wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
HooFighter wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:so what, again, how is any of what they took usable? attorney-client privilege, never mind that even if Trump was banging some washed up pron star 12 YEARS AGO nobody gives a crap. As for the $130k, Trump can spend his cash anyway he wants to, don't you agree?
You know a judge would have had to sign off on a search warrant. Just imagine the amount of probable cause evidence they would have to present in this particular case.

And attorney-client privilege, well....
The attorney-client privilege does not apply when a client consults a lawyer for the purpose of furthering an illegal or fraudulent act. United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 563 (1989); In re Antitrust Grand Jury, 805 F.2d 155, 162 (6th Cir. 1986); In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum, 773 F.2d 204, 206 (8th Cir. 1985); United States v. Horvath, 731 F.2d 557, 562 (8th Cir. 1984); cf. Clark v. United States, 289 U.S. 1, 13-14 (1933). The so-called “crime-fraud exception” removes the protection of the attorney-client privilege for communications concerning contemplated or continuing crimes or frauds. This exception encompasses criminal and fraudulent conduct based on action as well as inaction.
And I thought the $130K came from his good buddy Michael Cohen? If so, that's an illegal campaign donation. If not, it's at least money laundering.
actually wrong on both counts, if it did come from trump he can spend his money however he wants to, your ASSUMPTION is it comes from campaign funds. IF it came from Cohen as is reported then it is a big nothing.
Apparently it was funded by a HELO that Cohen took out.

that is what I heard also, crazy times
Lawyers taking out home equity loans on behalf of their client, without their clients knowledge, sounds like a big ol Nothingburger to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
cwtcr hokie
Posts: 13399
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm

Re: $130,000

Post by cwtcr hokie »

ip_law-hokie wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
HooFighter wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:so what, again, how is any of what they took usable? attorney-client privilege, never mind that even if Trump was banging some washed up pron star 12 YEARS AGO nobody gives a crap. As for the $130k, Trump can spend his cash anyway he wants to, don't you agree?
You know a judge would have had to sign off on a search warrant. Just imagine the amount of probable cause evidence they would have to present in this particular case.

And attorney-client privilege, well....
The attorney-client privilege does not apply when a client consults a lawyer for the purpose of furthering an illegal or fraudulent act. United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 563 (1989); In re Antitrust Grand Jury, 805 F.2d 155, 162 (6th Cir. 1986); In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum, 773 F.2d 204, 206 (8th Cir. 1985); United States v. Horvath, 731 F.2d 557, 562 (8th Cir. 1984); cf. Clark v. United States, 289 U.S. 1, 13-14 (1933). The so-called “crime-fraud exception” removes the protection of the attorney-client privilege for communications concerning contemplated or continuing crimes or frauds. This exception encompasses criminal and fraudulent conduct based on action as well as inaction.
And I thought the $130K came from his good buddy Michael Cohen? If so, that's an illegal campaign donation. If not, it's at least money laundering.
actually wrong on both counts, if it did come from trump he can spend his money however he wants to, your ASSUMPTION is it comes from campaign funds. IF it came from Cohen as is reported then it is a big nothing.
Apparently it was funded by a HELO that Cohen took out.

that is what I heard also, crazy times
Lawyers taking out home equity loans on behalf of their client, without their clients knowledge, sounds like a big ol Nothingburger to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
the guy can take out any loan he wants to on his own real estate, as anyone else can also. I know you rent a 1,200 sf apt but those of us that own real estate can do whatever we want with it.
Bernie!!!
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: $130,000

Post by ip_law-hokie »

cwtcr hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
HooFighter wrote: You know a judge would have had to sign off on a search warrant. Just imagine the amount of probable cause evidence they would have to present in this particular case.

And attorney-client privilege, well....
And I thought the $130K came from his good buddy Michael Cohen? If so, that's an illegal campaign donation. If not, it's at least money laundering.
actually wrong on both counts, if it did come from trump he can spend his money however he wants to, your ASSUMPTION is it comes from campaign funds. IF it came from Cohen as is reported then it is a big nothing.
Apparently it was funded by a HELO that Cohen took out.

that is what I heard also, crazy times
Lawyers taking out home equity loans on behalf of their client, without their clients knowledge, sounds like a big ol Nothingburger to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
the guy can take out any loan he wants to on his own real estate, as anyone else can also. I know you rent a 1,200 sf apt but those of us that own real estate can do whatever we want with it.
Bernie!!!
Yep. I see it all the time in my practice.

I have a 10K line is credit and I fire off checks all the time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
nolanvt
Posts: 13116
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:01 pm
Alma Mater: Marshall Univ.

Re: $130,000

Post by nolanvt »

Morning, UWS. Today, let’s not talk about how Rudy corroborated Stormy Daniels’ account and how his client probably violated campaign finance law. Now, let’s go have ourselves a day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fully vaccinated, still not dead
User avatar
UpstateSCHokie
Posts: 11907
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:31 pm

Re: $130,000

Post by UpstateSCHokie »

nolanvt wrote:Morning, UWS. Today, let’s not talk about how Rudy corroborated Stormy Daniels’ account and how his client probably violated campaign finance law. Now, let’s go have ourselves a day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Relaying the buzz from left wing blogs again I see. If you actually watched the interview, then you'd know he did no such thing. But if you prefer to get 2nd hand info from far left loons, then carry on.
Image

“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” ― Voltaire (1694 – 1778)
133743Hokie
Posts: 11220
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am

Re: $130,000

Post by 133743Hokie »

nolanvt wrote:Morning, UWS. Today, let’s not talk about how Rudy corroborated Stormy Daniels’ account and how his client probably violated campaign finance law. Now, let’s go have ourselves a day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
How does writing a personal check violate campaign finance laws? Just curious.
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: $130,000

Post by ip_law-hokie »

133743Hokie wrote:
nolanvt wrote:Morning, UWS. Today, let’s not talk about how Rudy corroborated Stormy Daniels’ account and how his client probably violated campaign finance law. Now, let’s go have ourselves a day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
How does writing a personal check violate campaign finance laws? Just curious.
Does the pathological lying ever bother the Trump supporter?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: $130,000

Post by awesome guy »

133743Hokie wrote:
nolanvt wrote:Morning, UWS. Today, let’s not talk about how Rudy corroborated Stormy Daniels’ account and how his client probably violated campaign finance law. Now, let’s go have ourselves a day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
How does writing a personal check violate campaign finance laws? Just curious.
Annnnnnd you're out of Nolan's depth.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
User avatar
UpstateSCHokie
Posts: 11907
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:31 pm

Re: $130,000

Post by UpstateSCHokie »

ip_law-hokie wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
nolanvt wrote:Morning, UWS. Today, let’s not talk about how Rudy corroborated Stormy Daniels’ account and how his client probably violated campaign finance law. Now, let’s go have ourselves a day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
How does writing a personal check violate campaign finance laws? Just curious.
Does the pathological lying ever bother the Trump supporter?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Did the "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" lie ever bother you?
Image

“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” ― Voltaire (1694 – 1778)
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: $130,000

Post by ip_law-hokie »

UpstateSCHokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
nolanvt wrote:Morning, UWS. Today, let’s not talk about how Rudy corroborated Stormy Daniels’ account and how his client probably violated campaign finance law. Now, let’s go have ourselves a day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
How does writing a personal check violate campaign finance laws? Just curious.
Does the pathological lying ever bother the Trump supporter?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Did the "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" lie ever bother you?
I have my same doctor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
Mcl3 Hokie
Posts: 1477
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:50 pm

Re: $130,000

Post by Mcl3 Hokie »

All this tells me is that you're covered by private insurance through work, and not by Obamacare.
ip_law-hokie wrote:
UpstateSCHokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
nolanvt wrote:Morning, UWS. Today, let’s not talk about how Rudy corroborated Stormy Daniels’ account and how his client probably violated campaign finance law. Now, let’s go have ourselves a day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
How does writing a personal check violate campaign finance laws? Just curious.
Does the pathological lying ever bother the Trump supporter?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Did the "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" lie ever bother you?
I have my same doctor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: $130,000

Post by ip_law-hokie »

Mcl3 Hokie wrote:All this tells me is that you're covered by private insurance through work, and not by Obamacare.
ip_law-hokie wrote:
UpstateSCHokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
nolanvt wrote:Morning, UWS. Today, let’s not talk about how Rudy corroborated Stormy Daniels’ account and how his client probably violated campaign finance law. Now, let’s go have ourselves a day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
How does writing a personal check violate campaign finance laws? Just curious.
Does the pathological lying ever bother the Trump supporter?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Did the "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" lie ever bother you?
I have my same doctor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
OK. Carry on TDB.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: $130,000

Post by awesome guy »

ip_law-hokie wrote:
UpstateSCHokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
nolanvt wrote:Morning, UWS. Today, let’s not talk about how Rudy corroborated Stormy Daniels’ account and how his client probably violated campaign finance law. Now, let’s go have ourselves a day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
How does writing a personal check violate campaign finance laws? Just curious.
Does the pathological lying ever bother the Trump supporter?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Did the "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" lie ever bother you?
I have my same doctor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You're dodging the question.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
User avatar
UpstateSCHokie
Posts: 11907
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:31 pm

Re: $130,000

Post by UpstateSCHokie »

ip_law-hokie wrote:
UpstateSCHokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
nolanvt wrote:Morning, UWS. Today, let’s not talk about how Rudy corroborated Stormy Daniels’ account and how his client probably violated campaign finance law. Now, let’s go have ourselves a day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
How does writing a personal check violate campaign finance laws? Just curious.
Does the pathological lying ever bother the Trump supporter?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Did the "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" lie ever bother you?
I have my same doctor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So then by your own logic, none of us should care about a lie unless it impacts us personally. Got it.
Image

“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” ― Voltaire (1694 – 1778)
133743Hokie
Posts: 11220
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am

Re: $130,000

Post by 133743Hokie »

ip_law-hokie wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
nolanvt wrote:Morning, UWS. Today, let’s not talk about how Rudy corroborated Stormy Daniels’ account and how his client probably violated campaign finance law. Now, let’s go have ourselves a day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
How does writing a personal check violate campaign finance laws? Just curious.
Does the pathological lying ever bother the Trump supporter?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes, his lying bothers me as much as other politicians and prior presidents does/did? But again, what has he done that is illegal? Because he's crass does that mean he's held to a higher standard? What are the rules?
User avatar
RiverguyVT
Posts: 30268
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:30 pm

Re: $130,000

Post by RiverguyVT »

ip_law-hokie wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
nolanvt wrote:Morning, UWS. Today, let’s not talk about how Rudy corroborated Stormy Daniels’ account and how his client probably violated campaign finance law. Now, let’s go have ourselves a day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
How does writing a personal check violate campaign finance laws? Just curious.
Does the pathological lying ever bother the Trump supporter?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sure!
I see myself as less of a Trump supporter (hey, let’s be honest here...the guy is weird, at best; crazy at worst) than a supporter of the body politic that will move the ball in an ideologically conservative direction. I like advance of ideas, not people. Nation of laws, not men, and all that Jazz. Thus, I’m pulling for trump to be successful in most of his efforts; I’m not pulling for trump to be lionized.

This, I think, is where left and right diverge. Left likes their rulers, no matter what. The right is quicker to jettison someone on ideology. This dovetails into the thinking vs feeling dichotomy between left right.

People will let me down almost every time. Ideas, rarely.
So I put (the dead dog) on her doorstep!
Salute the Marines
Soon we'll have planes that fly 22000 mph
"#PedoPete" = Hunter's name for his dad.
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: $130,000

Post by ip_law-hokie »

awesome guy wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
UpstateSCHokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
nolanvt wrote:Morning, UWS. Today, let’s not talk about how Rudy corroborated Stormy Daniels’ account and how his client probably violated campaign finance law. Now, let’s go have ourselves a day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
How does writing a personal check violate campaign finance laws? Just curious.
Does the pathological lying ever bother the Trump supporter?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Did the "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" lie ever bother you?
I have my same doctor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You're dodging the question.
I’m dodging the question used to dodge the question by answering it?

And I think most can see a difference in being wrong about what will happen in the future, and telling bold-faced, undeniable lies about past events. After a while, I would think that I was being played as a fool.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
Post Reply