^^^ It's weird; because unlike Gary Gensler, Cohen actually performed legal services.... but then he threw himself under the bus. (Probably because he thought taking Trump with him would actually save him from the bus driver that was coming for him for other reasons... or else there's something else at play that is way over our heads).
I would even go as far as to say, in a manner of speaking, "opposition research" could qualify as a "legal expense" if you are hiring investigators to look into someone's background. I'm not even mad that they did that- What I'm mad about is that they didn't disclose the fact that the dossier was unverified and not meant for the public.
Campaign finance laws exist mostly to prevent the candidate from screwing their donors; not to scrutinize a candidates personal or business expenses. Technically ANY of a candidates personal or business expenses (including living expenses) could plausibly influence an election if scrutinized by the public- in which case all their personal expenses would be "campaign contributions".... but you can't can't use campaign money for personal or business expenses...
....so this is just retarded. If he would have given the money to his campaign; and then used campaign money for the "hush money" then they would have said he stole from his campaign to make personal/business expenses!!!!!
And the idea that the public had the right to know, or should have been informed of the fact that he made a non-disclosure deal with some tranny-looking whore so that she wouldn't sell a (plausibly un-true) story about him just utilizes the same twisted logic that literally EVERYTHING ELSE they do uses. FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.
STORMY DANIELS SCANDAL- a smutty chick, telling a smutty story for money. Wow. Really remarkable. No proof that it happened.
TAKE TRUMP OFF THE BALLOT SCHEME- Based on Trump being an "insurrectionist". Never convicted of insurrection.
NY TRIAL SCHEME- Charges dependent on the premise that he committed campaign fraud. Never convicted of campaign fraud.
I would even go as far as to say, in a manner of speaking, "opposition research" could qualify as a "legal expense" if you are hiring investigators to look into someone's background. I'm not even mad that they did that- What I'm mad about is that they didn't disclose the fact that the dossier was unverified and not meant for the public.
Campaign finance laws exist mostly to prevent the candidate from screwing their donors; not to scrutinize a candidates personal or business expenses. Technically ANY of a candidates personal or business expenses (including living expenses) could plausibly influence an election if scrutinized by the public- in which case all their personal expenses would be "campaign contributions".... but you can't can't use campaign money for personal or business expenses...
....so this is just retarded. If he would have given the money to his campaign; and then used campaign money for the "hush money" then they would have said he stole from his campaign to make personal/business expenses!!!!!
And the idea that the public had the right to know, or should have been informed of the fact that he made a non-disclosure deal with some tranny-looking whore so that she wouldn't sell a (plausibly un-true) story about him just utilizes the same twisted logic that literally EVERYTHING ELSE they do uses. FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.
STORMY DANIELS SCANDAL- a smutty chick, telling a smutty story for money. Wow. Really remarkable. No proof that it happened.
TAKE TRUMP OFF THE BALLOT SCHEME- Based on Trump being an "insurrectionist". Never convicted of insurrection.
NY TRIAL SCHEME- Charges dependent on the premise that he committed campaign fraud. Never convicted of campaign fraud.
-
1
- Show all
