The Tremendous Trump Thread - Første periode (Les førstepost)

[delfin]

Justice Department lawyer Bruce Ohr, frequently targeted by President Trump, was told Russia had 'Trump over a barrel'

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/31/lawyer-was-told-russia-had-trump-over-a-barrel.html

"Senior Justice Department lawyer Bruce Ohr says that he was told two years ago that Russian intelligence believed it had Donald Trump "over a barrel," according to multiple people familiar with the encounter."

 

Dette er i headlines i nyhetskanaler fredag kveld. 

Bruce Ohr er også blant Trumps seneste mål for diskreditering, slik han også har gjort mye for å prøve å diskreditere andre med noen tilknytning til Muellers granskning eller dens forløper under Comey. Det later ikke til at Trump skiller mellom reell eller innbilt tilknytning til granskningen, og han har de siste dagene omtalt selve granskningen som ulovlig, og dermed Mueller som kriminell. 

 

Hvem var det som sa dette til Bruce Ohr? Var det kanskje en utenlandsk agent, betalt av Hillary?

 

Du glemte å nevne at Bruce Ohr har avgitt forklaring som er forskjellig fra f.eks. Lisa Page, som betyr at en av dem lyver...men det er en annen sak.

[xRun]

Hvem var det som sa dette til Bruce Ohr? Var det kanskje en utenlandsk agent, betalt av Hillary?

 

Du glemte å nevne at Bruce Ohr har avgitt forklaring som er forskjellig fra f.eks. Lisa Page, som betyr at en av dem lyver...men det er en annen sak.

Det er en link til saken om hva som er kjent at Ohr sa bak lukkede dører i en høring denne uken, dersom en vil unngå å spørre om informasjon som allerede er tilgjengelig. Det er også velkjent via daglige repetisjoner på twitter og ellers at Trump og hans støttespillere i kongressen, som ofte lekker selektivt fra lukkede høringer når de mener det hjelper dem, har et alternativt perspektiv på alle de involverte. Dem om det.

[delfin]

Det er en link til saken om hva som er kjent at Ohr sa bak lukkede dører i en høring denne uken, dersom en vil unngå å spørre om informasjon som allerede er tilgjengelig. Det er også velkjent via daglige repetisjoner på twitter og ellers at Trump og hans støttespillere i kongressen, som ofte lekker selektivt fra lukkede høringer når de mener det hjelper dem, har et alternativt perspektiv på alle de involverte. Dem om det.

 

Jeg spurte om hvem kilden til "informasjonen" var, og om det var en utelandsk agent, leid inn av Hillary og gjengen?

 

Igjen, ganske relevant, dersom det f.eks. var Steele, som det var...

 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/28/bruce-ohr-to-lawmakers-fbi-doubts-credibility-of-a/

 

 

 

Bruce Ohr to lawmakers: FBI doubts credibility of anti-Trump dossier

 

Snedig at du ikke nevner dette. Og hva med at enten Ohr eller Page lyver? Han motsier også det Comey har sagt, og Strzok.

 

http://www.investmentwatchblog.com/doj-bruce-ohr-testimony-contradicts-fbi-james-comey-strzok-on-steele-dossier-to-probe-trump/

[xRun]

Jeg spurte om hvem kilden til "informasjonen" var, og om det var en utelandsk agent, leid inn av Hillary og gjengen?

 

Igjen, ganske relevant, dersom det f.eks. var Steele, som det var...

 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/28/bruce-ohr-to-lawmakers-fbi-doubts-credibility-of-a/

 

 

Snedig at du ikke nevner dette. Og hva med at enten Ohr eller Page lyver? Han motsier også det Comey har sagt, og Strzok.

 

http://www.investmentwatchblog.com/doj-bruce-ohr-testimony-contradicts-fbi-james-comey-strzok-on-steele-dossier-to-probe-trump/

Ikke snedighet overhodet, Steele er nevnt i artikkelen, linken er i teksten du selv siterte. Og igjen; Trump og hans supporteres alternative perspektiv på de involverte er velkjent.

[delfin]

Ikke snedighet overhodet, Steele er nevnt i artikkelen, linken er i teksten du selv siterte. Og igjen; Trump og hans supporteres alternative perspektiv på de involverte er velkjent.

 

Å nevne dette uten å si at kilden er en løgner er vel .. "noe misvisende"? Man kan kanskje si at oppsummeringen er på grensen til "fake news". I realiteten har den samme kjeltringen som har laget et falskt "dossier" også løyet til Ohr...

 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/08/31/kimberley-strassel-bruce-ohr-warned-fbi-that-steele-had-credibility-problems-bureau-forged-ahead-anyway.html

 

Hva tenker du om hvem som lyver? Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr, Comey, eller alle sammen?

 

 

To believe most media descriptions of Justice Department lawyer Bruce Ohr, he is a nonentity, unworthy of the attention President Trump has given him. This is remarkable, given that Mr. Ohr spent Tuesday confirming for Congress its worst suspicions about the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s abuse of its surveillance and sourcing rules.

 

If Mr. Ohr is only now under the spotlight, it’s because it has taken so much effort to unpack his role in the FBI’s 2016 investigation of the Trump campaign. Over the past year, congressional investigators found out that Mr. Ohr’s wife, Nellie, worked for Fusion GPS, the opposition-research firm that gave its infamous dossier, funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign, to the FBI. They then discovered that Mr. Ohr had numerous interactions of his own with Fusion chief Glenn Simpson and dossier author Christopher Steele, and that he passed on information from these talks to the bureau. So the G-men were being fed the dossier allegations from both the outside and the inside.

 

This week’s news is that Mr. Ohr’s deliveries to the FBI came with a caveat. Congress already knew that Mr. Ohr had been aware of Mr. Steele’s political biases. In notes Mr. Ohr took of a September 2016 conversation with Mr. Steele, he wrote that the dossier author “was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.” Congressional sources tell me that Mr. Ohr revealed Tuesday that he verbally warned the FBI that its source had a credibility problem, alerting the bureau to Mr. Steele’s leanings and motives. He also informed the bureau that Mrs. Ohr was working for Fusion and contributing to the dossier project.

Endret 1. september 2018 av pappkake

[xRun]

Å nevne dette uten å si at kilden er en løgner er vel .. "noe misvisende"? Man kan kanskje si at oppsummeringen er på grensen til "fake news". I realiteten har den samme kjeltringen som har laget et falskt "dossier" også løyet til Ohr...

 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/08/31/kimberley-strassel-bruce-ohr-warned-fbi-that-steele-had-credibility-problems-bureau-forged-ahead-anyway.html

 

Hva tenker du om hvem som lyver? Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr, Comey, eller alle sammen?

Igjen: Trumps og hans supporteres alternative perspektiv er velkjent. At noen Trump og hans supportere ønsker å diskreditere av politiske årsaker påstås å være en løgner, betyr ikke at det er konstatert at dette er tilfellet, selv om en hører det via Fox eller deres opinionblogg. Det er et perspektiv. Jeg forstår at supportere skulle ønske alle delte deres perspektiv. Dem om det.

[xRun]

Update vedr. 

 

Siste:

En lobbyist ved navn Sam Patten har erklært seg straffeskyldig i en redusert tiltale for å ha unnlatt å ha registrert seg som utenlandsk lobbyist, og arrangert kjøp av biletter til Trumps innsettelse for $50 000, som ble betalt av rike russere og ukrainere. Pr. definisjon er betalingen for disse billettene et pengebidrag til innsettelseskommiteen for en amerikansk president, og ulovlig for utlendinger å gjøre.
Patten, som har tilknytning til samme ukrainske parti Manafort var tilknyttet gjennom sitt arbeid for Viktor Yanukovych, skal også ha gått med på å bli et samarbeidende vitne, og har fått påtaleunnlatelse for å ha avgitt falsk forklaring til føderale myndigheter.

Lobbyist Pleads Guilty to Steering Foreign Funds to Trump Inaugural
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/31/us/politics/patten-fara-manafort.html
"WASHINGTON — An American lobbyist who worked with Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs pleaded guilty on Friday to failing to register as an agent of a foreign power and disclosed to prosecutors that he helped a Russian political operative and a Ukranian businessman illegally purchase four tickets to President Trump’s inauguration."
"The lobbyist, Sam Patten, also agreed to cooperate with prosecutors as part of his plea agreement. He could provide prosecutors insight into a range of activity and individuals relevant to the special counsel investigation, as well as connections between Mr. Trump, his associates and Russia."
"Foreigners are not allowed to contribute any money to the organization that runs presidential inaugurations. According to federal documents, Mr. Patten misled the Intelligence Committee several times and intentionally withheld documents that could have revealed the foreign purchase of the tickets."

...

 

Sam Patten har en bredere befatning med Trump-kampanjen, Manafort og Steve Bannon enn omtalt i saken over.
Washington Post omtaler deler av dette i sin artikkel vedr. hans skyldigerklæring fredag.

American political consultant admits foreign money was funneled to Trump inaugural
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/washington-consultant-for-ukraine-party-set-to-plead-guilty-to-violating-lobbyist-disclosure-law/2018/08/31/172cf2c8-ad23-11e8-a8d7-0f63ab8b1370_story.html?utm_term=.8fa119de3d8f
"An American political consultant who is cooperating with federal prosecutors admitted in court Friday that he steered $50,000 from a Ukrainian politician to Donald Trump’s inaugural committee — the first public confirmation that illegal foreign money was used to help fund the January 2017 event.
W. Samuel Patten, 47, pleaded guilty Friday to failing to register as a foreign lobbyist while working on behalf of a Ukrainian political party. He says he was helped by a Russian national who has been linked to Russian intelligence by U.S. prosecutors and who was also an associate of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.

As part of his plea deal, Patten agreed to assist prosecutors, including special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, who is investigating whether Trump’s campaign coordinated with Russia during the 2016 campaign.
Mueller has been probing whether foreign money flowed into the coffers of Trump’s inaugural committee, which raised more than $100 million, and Patten’s plea offers the first clear evidence that it occurred." Endret 1. september 2018 av xRun

[delfin]

Igjen: Trumps og hans supporteres alternative perspektiv er velkjent. At noen Trump og hans supportere ønsker å diskreditere av politiske årsaker påstås å være en løgner, betyr ikke at det er konstatert at dette er tilfellet, selv om en hører det via Fox eller deres opinionblogg. Det er et perspektiv. Jeg forstår at supportere skulle ønske alle delte deres perspektiv. Dem om det.

 

“In the first hour of testimony, and it’s either Bruce Ohr is lying or Glenn Simpson is lying,” Gaetz told reporters Tuesday, continuing “in another circumstance, it’s either Bruce Ohr is lying, or Lisa Page is lying.”

 

Gaetz was supported later by Issa, who confirmed the Ohr discrepancy with Simpson’s testimony and said, “There’s also some ambiguity between Ohr and Lisa Page. We will have to go back to the loop to find out which one of them is able to change their story or face perjury.”

 

 

Begge to er politikere og var tilstede i kongressen under begge høringene. Du kaller dem løgnere? På hvilket grunnlag?

 

Newly released Department of Justice records appear to conflict with testimony that Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson gave to Congress in 2017 about the timeline of his interactions with top DOJ official Bruce Ohr.

 

Simpson claimed in testimony to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on Nov. 14 that he did not have contact with any FBI or DOJ officials regarding the infamous Steele dossier until after the 2016 election. But Ohr’s emails, which have been provided to Congress, show that he and Simpson were in contact as early as August 2016.

 

 

Når du uttaler deg slik, så bør du kunne backe det opp litt bedre enn det du gjør (ingenting). 

 

Å si at "noen" fortalte Ohr at Trump *** er rimelig uredelig, når du helt sikkert vet at det var Steele som sa det, en diskreditert utenlandsk agent betalt av Hillary og DNC.

 

https://dailycaller.com/2018/08/10/glenn-simpson-bruce-ohr/

Endret 1. september 2018 av pappkake

[xRun]

 

 

Begge to er politikere og var tilstede i kongressen under begge høringene. Du kaller dem løgnere? På hvilket grunnlag?

 

 

Jeg har merket meg at du er temmelig faktaresistent, men når du uttaler deg slik, så bør du kunne backe det opp litt bedre enn det du gjør (ingenting).

 

Å si at "noen" fortalte Ohr at Trump *** er rimelig uredelig, når du helt sikkert vet at det var Steele som sa det, en diskreditert utenlandsk agent betalt av Hillary og DNC.

 

https://dailycaller.com/2018/08/10/glenn-simpson-bruce-ohr/

 

Du er naturligvis hjertelig velkommen til å mene og kommentere hva du måtte ønske.

[delfin]

Siste:

 

Etter Ohrs skandaløse vitnemål for kongressen, vil de også avhøre kona hans.

 

https://saraacarter.com/breaking-day-after-ohrs-testimony-congress-seeks-to-question-his-wife/

 

 

Numerous congressional sources are telling SaraACarter.com that after Department of Justice official Bruce Ohr’s explosive closed-door testimony on Tuesday, lawmakers are gearing up to call his wife, Nellie Ohr, in for questioning regarding her work with the now-embattled research firm, Fusion GPS. Congress is also seeking access to Bruce Ohr’s text messages and emails with top FBI officials.

 

Fusion GPS was founded by former Wall Street Journal reporter Glenn Simpson and hired by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton campaign to investigate alleged ties between President Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia.

 

Nellie Ohr, a Russia expert who was hired by Fusion GPS in 2016 to investigate the Trump campaign, received multiple large sum payments from the research firm, according to a U.S. official, with direct knowledge of the payments.

 

The payments from the DNC and Clinton campaign were made through the law firm Perkins Coie, which represented both clients. The research firm also hired former British spy Christopher Steele, who was friends with the Ohrs and who compiled the now infamous and unverified anti-Trump dossier. Steele was not only paid by Fusion GPS for his work but according to documents obtained by Judicial Watch, he was also being paid by the FBI from Jan. 1. 2016 to Nov. 1, 2016.

 

The U.S. official did not disclose the amount of money paid to Bruce Ohr’s wife through Simpson’s firm, but said it “was not chump change, that much I can say.”

 

The Washington Post first published in 2017 that the DNC and Clinton campaign paid for the research firm’s service to investigate the alleged Trump campaign’s ties with Russia. According to the Post, the Clinton campaign paid the law firm $5.6 million in legal fees from June 2015 to December 2016, according to campaign finance records. On top of that, the DNC paid Perkins Coie $3.6 million, which was labeled in their disclosures as “legal and compliance consulting” since November 2015. So far, Congress has not disclosed the exact amount that Fusion GPS, or those involved, received for the research.

[delfin]

Ohrs vitnemål tyder på at andre vitner (Page, Simpson, Comey) har løyet til kongressen.

 

 

Lawmakers who questioned Justice Department (DOJ) official Bruce Ohr on Aug. 28 say there are significant discrepancies between what they learned from Ohr and prior testimonies given by former FBI attorney Lisa Page and Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson, suggesting that at least one among them may have lied to Congress.

Ohr, Simpson, and Page are among a group of key witnesses who have been interviewed by the House Judiciary and Government Oversight committees as part of an investigation of FBI and DOJ actions before and after the 2016 election.

Ohr entered the spotlight relatively late after his text messages, emails, and notes revealed that he was in regular contact with Simpson and former British spy Christopher Steele, the author of the infamous anti-Trump dossier produced for Fusion GPS. After the FBI terminated Steele as a source for leaking to the media, Ohr became the foreign spy’s conduit for funneling information to the bureau. Ohr also met with Page and her then-FBI colleague Peter Strzok.

The factual differences in the testimonies are significant because of potential perjury charges against one or more of the central figures in the investigation or the possibility that a witness may have to walk back their prior answers to Congress, leading lawmakers closer to the truth.

“In the first hour of testimony, it became very clear that there are a number of factual conflicts. Either Bruce Ohr is lying or Glenn Simpson is lying, and in another circumstance, either Bruce Ohr is lying or Lisa Page is lying,” Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) told reporters on Capitol Hill on Aug. 28.

[kvakse]

det var Steele som sa det, en diskreditert utenlandsk agent betalt av Hillary og DNC.

Jeg tror du mener en høyt respektert Russland-ekspert og tidligere agent, betalt av republikanske støttespillere og senere demokratiske støttespillere og som fortsatte å jobbe gratis på grunn av funnenes alvorlige karakter.

[ikek]

pappkake lever i ekkokammeret og sluker for fote alt negativt om Clinton, Obama, andre og offentlige ansatte i sin støtte til Turmp. Uavhengig av virkelighetsgrad. Trist at kritisk refleksjon er slik mangelvare i dagens samfunn; hos enkelte.

 

Karakterdrapene på Steele og nå Ohr fra Trump og hans leir er handlinger med økende grad av desperasjon. Legg til Trumps økte negative trykk mot mediene så virker det enda tydeligere.

 

Det virker som Trump i økende grad prøver å påvirke "the court of public opinion" samtidig som han legger uanstendig press på andre som f.eks høyesterettsjustisiarius. Dette i forkant av mellomvalget i november. Som på en måte kan anses som et valg om flertall til riksrett. Til tross for at det er republikanerne som er mer opptatt av riksrett enn demokrater. Det tenkes også at Mueller ikke ønsker å påvirke mellomvalget og vil gi sin rapport til kongressen over nyåret.

 

Det absurde med de påstandene Trump kommer med mot Sessions, Mueller, Ohr etc. er at de er offentlige ansatte som presidenten enten kan si opp direkte eller gjennom andre statsansatte. Artig at han bitcher så mye om Ohr og fortsatt lar mannen gjøre sin jobb i justice department!

 

Fra et utenifra ståsted virker det som Trump føler trykket og frykter resultatene. Litt spesielt iom at uføret han har skaffet seg virker å være mye selvlagd gjennom hans personlighet. Legg så til hans, muligens, mindre etiske, kanskje lovstridige, business tilærming så er det kanskje egnet å påstå at det å søke presidentmakten var noe dumt.

[jjkoggan]

Hvis Mueller ikke tar en pause før mellomvalget og republikanerne taper mellomvalget det hjelper Trump i 2020. Det blir klar bevis for hans støttere for en deep state heksejakt !

[xRun]

Sen. John McCains siste reise fortsetter i dag med kortesje til Vietnam-monumentet og minnetjeneste i National Cathedral i Washington DC, før hans begravelse søndag på US Naval Academy i Annapolis, MD.

"Saturday, Sept. 1: At 8:30 a.m., there will be a wreath-laying ceremony at the Vietnam War Memorial. At 10 a.m., the national memorial service will be held in a private ceremony at Washington National Cathedral. The day will include tributes by McCain's daughter Meghan and son Jimmy, Pres. George W. Bush, Pres. Barack Obama, Sen. Joe Lieberman and Henry Kissinger. There will be readings by his daughter Sidney, Sen. Kelly Ayotte and Sen. Lindsey Graham. Renee Fleming will perform "Danny Boy." Among the 15 pallbearers are former Vice President Joe Biden, actor Warren Beatty and former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Sunday, Sep. 2: The family will travel to his final resting place in Annapolis. At 2 p.m. there will be a private ceremony at the U.S. Naval Academy. Senator Lindsey Graham and General David Petraeus will pay tribute."
https://abc7news.com/politics/mccain-funeral-us-capitol-ceremony-scheduled-for-friday/4058756/
 
Live dekning av kortesjen og lokalene i nyhetskanaler, og via YT.

https://www.cbsnews.com/live/

Endret 1. september 2018 av xRun

[delfin]

Michael Cohen and Trump did NOT violate campaign finance law – despite Cohen's guilty plea

 

 

Despite the guilty plea he entered Aug. 21 to charges of campaign finance law violations, it appears that President Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, did not actually violate the Federal Election Campaign Act.  

This is extraordinarily important, because if Cohen didn’t violate campaign finance law when he acted on Trump’s behalf, that means that Trump didn’t violate campaign finance law either – despite claims by the president’s opponents and many in the media that the president was an “unindicted co-conspirator” and broke the law along with Cohen.

“Equal justice under law” is a phrase engraved on the front of the U.S. Supreme Court building, but the Justice Department sometimes fails spectacularly to live up to this ideal. This is illustrated by the way it aggressively targeted Cohen for alleged campaign finance law violations – but gave everyone in Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign a “get out of jail free card” for such violations.

It is hard to continue to have faith in the objectivity of the Justice Department in the face of what seems like politically driven prosecution decisions to throw the book at Cohen – and implicate President Trump in allegedly illegal conduct – while ignoring clear lawbreaking by the Clinton campaign.

No one is questioning the legitimacy of the guilty pleas Cohen entered Aug. 21 in federal court to six tax evasion and bank fraud charges. But those charges have nothing to do with President Trump. They involve Cohen’s failure to report over $4 million in income from work with taxi companies, along with several hundred thousand dollars in other income, to the Internal Revenue Service.

But you have to wonder about the legal advice Cohen received when he pleaded guilty on the same day to two violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act – the law that governs the financing of federal elections campaigns. Many election law experts, including former commissioners on the Federal Election Commission (FEC), say his conduct, however sleazy, didn’t violate the law. 

I’m one of those former commissioners and I’m also a former Justice Department attorney. Based on my experience serving in government and now as a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, it appears to me that Cohen was innocent of the campaign finance law violations.

The law Cohen pleaded guilty to violating bans campaign contributions by banks, corporations and labor unions. It also limits the amount that an individual can contribute to a candidate. During the 2016 election cycle, that limit was $2,700.

Civil violations of the law are enforced by the FEC. Criminal violations of the law are enforced by the Justice Department. A civil violation becomes a criminal violation when someone intentionally and knowingly violates the law.

Here’s how the Federal Election Campaign Act works: For the rules, contribution limits, and reporting requirements of law to apply to an expenditure, it has to be made “for the purpose of influencing” a federal election. But such a broad definition could cover anything on which a candidate spends money.

As former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith says, that could include “buying a good watch to make sure he gets to places on time, to getting a massage so that he feels fit for the campaign trail, to buying a new suit so that he looks good on a debate stage.”

So the campaign finance law specifies that such personal expenses are not considered campaign-related expenses even though they might “influence” the election outcome.

Personal expenses are defined as “any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.” That would include expenses such as clothing purchases, home mortgages, etc.

Cohen pleaded guilty to “willfully causing an unlawful corporate contribution” and making “an excessive campaign contribution” according to the agreement sent to Cohen’s lawyer by the Acting U.S. Attorney, Robert Khuzami on Aug. 21. The contributions are defined as hush-money payments Cohen arranged to two women who claimed they had affairs with Trump years before the 2016 election.

According to Cohen’s guilty plea he made one payment of $130,000 directly to porn star Stormy Daniels (whose real name is Stephanie Clifford) and was reimbursed by Trump or a Trump corporate entity.

Also according to Cohen’s plea, another payment of $150,000 was made by the National Enquirer to former Playboy model Karen McDougal for the rights to her story alleging she had a months-long affair with Trump. The tabloid, run by Trump friend David Pecker, never published the story.

The key question in determining whether Cohen broke the campaign finance law is: Were the payments to Daniels and McDougal personal expenses or campaign-related expenses?

Many legal experts don’t believe such payments are campaign-related. Wealthy celebrities are faced with these types of embarrassing claims all the time, and often pay nuisance settlements (even if they are not running for office) to avoid bad publicity.

The Justice Department only prosecuted someone for a campaign finance law violation like the one Cohen pleaded guilty to on one occasion and the department lost its case – despite having stronger evidence.

The previous prosecution took place in 2012 and targeted a former Democratic vice presidential nominee, presidential candidate and senator, John Edwards. The Justice Department argued that $1 million paid by campaign contributors to Edward’s mistress – who was working for his presidential campaign – was a campaign-related expense. Prosecutors said the contribution exceeded the legal limit and should have been reported.

The government was unsuccessful in its claim that these payments were intended to “influence the election” by hiding Edwards’ affair when he was seeking the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008. Edwards was acquitted on one charge and a mistrial was declared on five other counts.

At his trial, Edwards’ lawyers sent a letter to the Justice Department telling the government that in the opinion of two former FEC chairmen – Scott Thomas and Ron Lenhard – the payments to Edwards’s mistress were “not a campaign-related expense and could not be lawfully paid by the campaign or reimbursed by the campaign.”

It is illegal under the Federal Election Campaign Act to use campaign funds to pay the personal expenses of a candidate. As former FEC chairman Smith points out, if Trump had used campaign funds to pay off Daniels and McDougal, does anyone doubt that “the same people now after Trump for using corporate funds, and not reporting them as campaign expenditures, would then be claiming that Trump had illegally diverted campaign funds to ‘personal use’?”

I have little doubt that President Trump’s opponents would be urging the same U.S. Attorney’s Office to prosecute the Trump campaign for using campaign funds to pay off this personal obligation.

Smith says that “at the very least, the law is murky about whether paying hush money to a mistress is a ‘campaign expense’ or a personal expense.”

So what does this all mean?

It means that experts disagree on whether Cohen’s actions violated the campaign finance law, and some former commissioners at the agency charged with enforcing the law don’t think payments to a mistress fall within the purview of the law.

In addition, another expert on the campaign finance law and a former FEC attorney, Craig Engle, pointed out to me that the payment the National Enquirer made to buy the rights to McDougal’s story also cannot possibly constitute a prohibited corporate campaign finance violation.

The Federal Election Campaign Act contains a broad media exemption that applies to “any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication” unless it is owned by a candidate. Since there is nothing illegal about the National Enquirer buying the story rights, Cohen’s urging the publication to do so can’t be illegal.

Pecker, the head of the company that publishes the National Enquirer, has reportedly been granted immunity for his testimony on this – despite the fact that under that exemption, he can’t legitimately be charged with a campaign finance law violation, no matter what the U.S. Attorney’s Office is telling him.

Now let’s turn to the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. In August 2015, the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) entered into a memorandum of understanding that essentially handed over the operation of the DNC to the Clinton campaign.

This gave the Clinton campaign control over the finances, activities and expenditures of the DNC, including more than $84 million raised by the DNC and state Democratic parties.

Cleta Mitchell, one of the foremost campaign finance lawyers in Washington, calls this a “massive scheme to completely evade the legal contribution limits to the Clinton campaign” and the “greatest campaign-finance scandal in history.”

This comes on top of the misreporting by the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and their law firm of the payment to Fusion GPS for opposition research against Trump by former British spy Christopher Steele. This research started the investigation by the FBI and later Special Counsel Robert Mueller of Russia’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and possible cooperation between Russia and the Trump campaign to help Trump win the election.

The Clinton campaign payment to Fusion GPS was falsely reported to the FEC as “legal fees,” with no mention of who it was paid to or what the actual purpose was – a straight-out violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act.

So what gives? Why is the same U.S. Attorney’s Office ignoring the potential massive violation of campaign finance law by the Clinton campaign, yet lowering the hammer on Cohen for questionable conduct that does not seem to actually violate the law? And why are Justice Department lawyers wasting time pursuing these non-campaign finance violations against other individuals?

The conclusion seems unavoidable: Cohen was targeted for prosecution because he was Donald Trump’s lawyer, and Hillary Clinton’s campaign got off scot-free because she was Trump’s opponent. What we have here is unequal justice under law, based on politics.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/08/31/michael-cohen-and-trump-did-not-violate-campaign-finance-law-despite-cohens-guilty-plea.html

[delfin]

Ohr admits FBI intentionally deceived FISA court
 

https://www.wnd.com/2018/08/ohr-admits-fbi-intentionally-deceived-fisa-court/#C21AVEV58f0BCYC5.99

 

 

The former top Justice Department official at the center of the anti-Trump dossier scandal, Bruce Ohr, testified that the FBI was aware when it submitted the dossier as evidence to obtain a warrant to spy on the Trump campaign that the document’s author was biased against Trump and that Ohr’s wife worked for the company that produced it.

 

That information, however, was withheld from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, which granted warrants to conduct surveillance on Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page.

 

The new revelations come from congressional sources with direct knowledge of the closed-door deposition Tuesday who spoke to investigative reporter Sara Carter.

 

Republican House members who questioned Ohr, including Reps. Mark Meadows of North Carolina, Jim Jordan of Ohio and Darrell Issa of California, provided further information.

 

Meadows said Ohr confirmed in his interview that after the FBI terminated its relationship with dossier author Christopher Steele for leaking to the media, the bureau “privately reengaged with him and continued receiving his info.”

 

“This was after suggesting to the American public they had cut Steele off,” Meadows said in a tweet.

 

The FBI dropped Steele as a source in November 2016, but the Obama administration maintained contact with Steele by using Ohr as a back channel.

[jjkoggan]

Michael Cohen and Trump did NOT violate campaign finance law – despite Cohen's guilty plea

 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/08/31/michael-cohen-and-trump-did-not-violate-campaign-finance-law-despite-cohens-guilty-plea.html

Fakta eller meninger?

[delfin]

Fakta eller meninger?

 

Det er en "opinion", altså en mening, men det er ikke hvem som helst som mener det... det er jurister og folk som har vært høyt oppe i FEC, blant annet Bradley Smith, som er tidligere "chair" der og ekspert på området. Det er også satt en viss presedens med en tidligere sak...

 

 

As former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith says, that could include “buying a good watch to make sure he gets to places on time, to getting a massage so that he feels fit for the campaign trail, to buying a new suit so that he looks good on a debate stage.”

 

...

 

Many legal experts don’t believe such payments are campaign-related. Wealthy celebrities are faced with these types of embarrassing claims all the time, and often pay nuisance settlements (even if they are not running for office) to avoid bad publicity.

 

The Justice Department only prosecuted someone for a campaign finance law violation like the one Cohen pleaded guilty to on one occasion and the department lost its case – despite having stronger evidence.

 

The previous prosecution took place in 2012 and targeted a former Democratic vice presidential nominee, presidential candidate and senator, John Edwards. The Justice Department argued that $1 million paid by campaign contributors to Edward’s mistress – who was working for his presidential campaign – was a campaign-related expense. Prosecutors said the contribution exceeded the legal limit and should have been reported.

 

The government was unsuccessful in its claim that these payments were intended to “influence the election” by hiding Edwards’ affair when he was seeking the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008. Edwards was acquitted on one charge and a mistrial was declared on five other counts.

 

At his trial, Edwards’ lawyers sent a letter to the Justice Department telling the government that in the opinion of two former FEC chairmen – Scott Thomas and Ron Lenhard – the payments to Edwards’s mistress were “not a campaign-related expense and could not be lawfully paid by the campaign or reimbursed by the campaign.”

 

...

 

As former FEC chairman Smith points out, if Trump had used campaign funds to pay off Daniels and McDougal, does anyone doubt that “the same people now after Trump for using corporate funds, and not reporting them as campaign expenditures, would then be claiming that Trump had illegally diverted campaign funds to ‘personal use’?”

 

Så det er altså meningen til ikke mindre enn tre forskjellige eksperter på området, som har ledet FEC, som er det organet som skal overse slikt.

 

Man kan vel kanskje si at det er som om tre tidligere topper i justisdepartementet sa noe lignende i Norge. Om du vil kalle de en "mening" eller "fakta" blir vel litt opp til deg.

[Red Frostraven]

Det er få her som tror, eller håper, at den fillesaken kommer til å felle Trump.

 

Det er snøen toppen av toppen av isfjellet.

 

Oooog jeg vil bare, igjen, minne om at det ikke er collusion Trump eventuelt blir tiltalt for.

 

Trump og co har pushet på "collusion", nettopp fordi det ikke vil bli et punkt i tiltalen, akkurat for å kunne rope 'bloody murder' ved en eventuell tiltale for konspirasjon.

 

Litt som å svare "jeg lånte ikke penger" når du blir anklaget for tyveri, og konstant påstå at du er anklaget for å låne penger - for så å reagere kraftig ved tiltale om tyveri; "Det var jo snakk om lån?!"

 

Det er ikke snakk om collusion.

 

Hvis han samarbeidet med Russland, så er det snakk om, ikke en konspirasjonsteori, men en konspirasjon mot det amerikanske folk og den amerikanske stat, av Trump og folk fra andre statsmakten.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/30/giuliani-is-right-collusion-isnt-a-crime-but-that-wont-help-trump.html

 

...

 

Bare.

Du vet at trumpettene kommer til å reagere med "collusion is not a crime" , selv om det aldri har vært nevnt av FBI.

Endret 1. september 2018 av Red Frostraven