Trump inauguration spending 'under criminal

[ExpandMyMind]

Quote

Federal prosecutors have reportedly launched an investigation into Donald Trump’s inauguration spending to determine whether funds were misspent and major donors were offered access to the new administration in exchange for money. 

The president’s inaugural spending was shrouded in controversy when millions of dollars allegedly were not properly accounted for, potentially violating federal laws as the organisation behind the inauguration festivities was a registered nonprofit.

According to the Wall Street Journal, “The investigation partly arises out of materials seized in the federal probe of former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen’sbusiness dealings, according to people familiar with the matter."

Independent 

And from the Guardian last year, via a helpful Redditor:

The first time Trump paid attention to any of this was when he read about it in the newspaper. The story revealed that Trump’s very own transition team had raised several million dollars to pay the staff. The moment he saw it, Trump called Steve Bannon, the chief executive of his campaign, from his office on the 26th floor of Trump Tower, and told him to come immediately to his residence, many floors above. Bannon stepped off the elevator to find Christie seated on a sofa, being hollered at. Trump was apoplectic, yelling: You’re stealing my money! You’re stealing my ****ing money! What the **** is this?

Seeing Bannon, Trump turned on him and screamed: Why are you letting him steal my ****ing money? Bannon and Christie together set out to explain to Trump federal law. Months before the election, the law said, the nominees of the two major parties were expected to prepare to take control of the government. The government supplied them with office space in downtown DC, along with computers and rubbish bins and so on, but the campaigns paid their people. To which Trump replied: **** the law. I don’t give a **** about the law. I want my ****ing money. Bannon and Christie tried to explain that Trump couldn’t have both his money and a transition.

Shut it down, said Trump. Shut down the transition.

Guardian

[Robotic Jew]

I wonder what "but Obama" story they'll use to brush this one off.

[SHaYap]

Pay to play, Play to slay ....

~

[RoofGardener]

1 hour ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Independent 

And from the Guardian last year, via a helpful Redditor:

The first time Trump paid attention to any of this was when he read about it in the newspaper. The story revealed that Trump’s very own transition team had raised several million dollars to pay the staff. The moment he saw it, Trump called Steve Bannon, the chief executive of his campaign, from his office on the 26th floor of Trump Tower, and told him to come immediately to his residence, many floors above. Bannon stepped off the elevator to find Christie seated on a sofa, being hollered at. Trump was apoplectic, yelling: You’re stealing my money! You’re stealing my ****ing money! What the **** is this?

Seeing Bannon, Trump turned on him and screamed: Why are you letting him steal my ****ing money? Bannon and Christie together set out to explain to Trump federal law. Months before the election, the law said, the nominees of the two major parties were expected to prepare to take control of the government. The government supplied them with office space in downtown DC, along with computers and rubbish bins and so on, but the campaigns paid their people. To which Trump replied: **** the law. I don’t give a **** about the law. I want my ****ing money. Bannon and Christie tried to explain that Trump couldn’t have both his money and a transition.

Shut it down, said Trump. Shut down the transition.

Guardian

Yawn ? 

[preacherman76]

1 hour ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Independent 

And from the Guardian last year, via a helpful Redditor:

The first time Trump paid attention to any of this was when he read about it in the newspaper. The story revealed that Trump’s very own transition team had raised several million dollars to pay the staff. The moment he saw it, Trump called Steve Bannon, the chief executive of his campaign, from his office on the 26th floor of Trump Tower, and told him to come immediately to his residence, many floors above. Bannon stepped off the elevator to find Christie seated on a sofa, being hollered at. Trump was apoplectic, yelling: You’re stealing my money! You’re stealing my ****ing money! What the **** is this?

Seeing Bannon, Trump turned on him and screamed: Why are you letting him steal my ****ing money? Bannon and Christie together set out to explain to Trump federal law. Months before the election, the law said, the nominees of the two major parties were expected to prepare to take control of the government. The government supplied them with office space in downtown DC, along with computers and rubbish bins and so on, but the campaigns paid their people. To which Trump replied: **** the law. I don’t give a **** about the law. I want my ****ing money. Bannon and Christie tried to explain that Trump couldn’t have both his money and a transition.

Shut it down, said Trump. Shut down the transition.

Guardian

LOL smh my goodness, just stop.

[Farmer77]

I love how its gone from Trump is "the law and order to candidate" to  - welllll that law isnt really that important.

Good stuff guys keep it up

 

 

Edited December 14, 2018 by Farmer77

[ExpandMyMind]

15 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Yawn ? 

 

14 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

LOL smh my goodness, just stop.

Yeah, what's the point of reporting and discussing more evidence that the sitting President of the US is demonstrably a criminal.

All these crimes are just so boring. 

[Buzz_Light_Year]

14 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

 

Yeah, what's the point of reporting and discussing more evidence that the sitting President of the US is demonstrably a criminal.

All these crimes are just so boring. 

What I find boring is your TDS.

[RoofGardener]

20 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

 

Yeah, what's the point of reporting and discussing more evidence that the sitting President of the US is demonstrably a criminal.

All these crimes are just so boring. 

Ever heard of the boy that cried wolf, ExpandMyMind ? 

If Trump has indeed committed 'crimes', then where are the prosecutions ? 

[ExpandMyMind]

8 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Ever heard of the boy that cried wolf, ExpandMyMind ? 

If Trump has indeed committed 'crimes', then where are the prosecutions ? 

His lawyer was just prosecuted for crimes they committed together. Did you miss it?Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator. An actual proven criminal by his own Justice Department. Even the top FOX News legal expert has stated this live on air. It's a fact.

The Justice Department has a standing policy to not indict a sitting President. If not, Trump would already be heading to the cell next to Cohen's. And it seems that particular conspiracy crime was just the tip of the iceberg.

[ExpandMyMind]

19 minutes ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

What I find boring is your TDS.

I doubt that matters much, since you seem to already be asleep.

[preacherman76]

38 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

 

Yeah, what's the point of reporting and discussing more evidence that the sitting President of the US is demonstrably a criminal.

All these crimes are just so boring. 

Mmm because it’s ridiculous. Who quoted Trump saying that? Who is the source? What evidence is there that I should believe a single word of this trash? 

[RoofGardener]

7 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

His lawyer was just prosecuted for crimes they committed together. Did you miss it?Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator. An actual proven criminal by his own Justice Department. Even the top FOX News legal expert has stated this live on air. It's a fact.

The Justice Department has a standing policy to not indict a sitting President. If not, Trump would already be heading to the cell next to Cohen's. And it seems that particular conspiracy crime was just the tip of the iceberg.

You see, this is the kind of thing I find so annoying. The distortion of language. 

He is NOT an "actual proven criminal". He has not been tried in court by a jury of his peers. He is, therefore, NOT a "proven criminal". All that has happened is that accusations have been levelled against him. 

It is NOT "a fact". 

Until you stop making these hysterical claims, then.. well.... it's difficult to take your posts seriously ? 

[ExpandMyMind]

Just now, RoofGardener said:

You see, this is the kind of thing I find so annoying. The distortion of language. 

He is NOT an "actual proven criminal". He has not been tried in court by a jury of his peers. He is, therefore, NOT a "proven criminal". All that has happened is that accusations have been levelled against him. 

It is NOT "a fact". 

Until you stop making these hysterical claims, then.. well.... it's difficult to take your posts seriously ? 

The Justice Department disagrees.

[RoofGardener]

2 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

The Justice Department disagrees.

No ExpandMyMind, it does NOT disagree.

Or are you so wrapped up in your anti-Tump mindset that you no longer understand the difference between accusation and guilt ? 

Edited December 14, 2018 by RoofGardener

[ExpandMyMind]

21 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

No ExpandMyMind, it does NOT disagree.

Or are you so wrapped up in your anti-Tump mindset that you no longer understand the difference between accusation and guilt ? 

Actually, it does. You see, when they presented the case to the judge they stated explicitly that Cohen committed the crime at the direction of the President. They cannot just state this to a judge without providing completely unimpeachable evidence. Think, spacesuit in the vacuum of space levels of airtight. It would be a literal crime for them to make that claim in a court, to a judge, without absolute proof.

Personally, after the release of the tape Cohen already released of Trump discussing the payments, my money would be on more tapes combined with the testament of that guy from the Enquirer.

It's a fact. You can continue to deny it for as long as you wish, but that doesn't change the facts on the ground. And with the amount of investigations swirling around, I suspect those Deep State conspiracy theorists will finally get to see a swamp being drained.

Edited December 14, 2018 by ExpandMyMind

[RoofGardener]

1 minute ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Actually, it does. You see, when they presented the case to the judge they stated explicitly that Cohen committed the crime at the direction of the President. They cannot just state this to a judge without providing completely unimpeachable evidence to the judge. Think, spacesuit in the vacuum of space levels of airtight. It would be a literal crime for them to make that claim in a court, to a judge, without absolute proof.

Personally, after the release of the tape Cohen already released of Trump discussing the payments, my money would be on more tapes combined with the testament of that guy from the Enquirer.

It's a fact. You can continue to deny it for as long as you wish, but that doesn't change the facts on the ground. And with the amount of investigations swirling around, I suspect those Deep State conspiracy theorists will finally get to see a swamp being drained.

Has Trump been indicted, prosecuted, and found guilty by a jury ? 

Yes, or No ? 

[ExpandMyMind]

13 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Has Trump been indicted, prosecuted, and found guilty by a jury ? 

Yes, or No ? 

He doesn't have to be for us to know he's guilty. If you see someone kill someone else, is he any less guilty because he hasn't had his day in court? 

But don't worry. If Trump doesn't die first, he will be prosecuted and found guilty as soon as he leaves office. After which you will no doubt adopt some other method of defending him.

It's really quite ridiculous that, even with all the information available, you can actually attempt to deny reality. 

Edited December 14, 2018 by ExpandMyMind

[ExpandMyMind]

10 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Has Trump been indicted, prosecuted, and found guilty by a jury ? 

Yes, or No ? 

For clarity, here is what the judge stated on Fox (just saw that Tiggs posted this in the other thread):

For clarity on that, you would have had to wait a couple of hours until anchor Shepard Smith invited the reliably frank Judge Andrew Napolitano on his afternoon news hour to explain just how bad the day’s news was for Trump.

“We’ve learned that federal prosecutors here in New York City, not Bob Mueller and his team in Washington, D.C., career prosecutors here in New York City, have evidence that the president of the United States committed a felony by ordering and paying Michael Cohen to break the law,” the judicial analyst said. “How do we know that? They told that to a federal judge.”

“Under the rules, they can’t tell that to a federal judge unless they actually have that hardcore evidence,” he continued. “Under the rules, they can’t tell that to a federal judge unless they intend to do something with that evidence.”

But you're welcome to continue living in denial.

[Gromdor]

1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

You see, this is the kind of thing I find so annoying. The distortion of language. 

He is NOT an "actual proven criminal". He has not been tried in court by a jury of his peers. He is, therefore, NOT a "proven criminal". All that has happened is that accusations have been levelled against him. 

It is NOT "a fact". 

Until you stop making these hysterical claims, then.. well.... it's difficult to take your posts seriously ? 

By that logic, the US doesn't have an illegal alien problem.  Because they haven't gone through court with a jury of their peers.

[Gromdor]

3 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Independent 

And from the Guardian last year, via a helpful Redditor:

The first time Trump paid attention to any of this was when he read about it in the newspaper. The story revealed that Trump’s very own transition team had raised several million dollars to pay the staff. The moment he saw it, Trump called Steve Bannon, the chief executive of his campaign, from his office on the 26th floor of Trump Tower, and told him to come immediately to his residence, many floors above. Bannon stepped off the elevator to find Christie seated on a sofa, being hollered at. Trump was apoplectic, yelling: You’re stealing my money! You’re stealing my ****ing money! What the **** is this?

Seeing Bannon, Trump turned on him and screamed: Why are you letting him steal my ****ing money? Bannon and Christie together set out to explain to Trump federal law. Months before the election, the law said, the nominees of the two major parties were expected to prepare to take control of the government. The government supplied them with office space in downtown DC, along with computers and rubbish bins and so on, but the campaigns paid their people. To which Trump replied: **** the law. I don’t give a **** about the law. I want my ****ing money. Bannon and Christie tried to explain that Trump couldn’t have both his money and a transition.

Shut it down, said Trump. Shut down the transition.

Guardian

Reading a bit more into it, it seems to not be about Trump but his "best of the best" "handpicked" associates on the transition team that were stealing from the fund.  Trump was right to be indignant, but misunderstood who the money belongs to.

[Tiggs]

1 minute ago, RoofGardener said:

Has Trump been indicted, prosecuted, and found guilty by a jury ? 

Yes, or No ? 

No. And if he is indicted, then he deserves a fair trial.

That said -- I doubt any prosecution attempt would ever get that far, given that he can probably resign and get the newly-appointed President Pence to pardon him.

Meanwhile, back on topic:

Federal prosecutors are examining whether foreigners illegally funneled donations to President Trump’s inaugural committee and a pro-Trump super PAC in hopes of buying influence over American policy, according to people familiar with the inquiry.

The inquiry focuses on whether people from Middle Eastern nations — including Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates — used straw donors to disguise their donations to the two funds. Federal law prohibits foreign contributions to federal campaigns, political action committees and inaugural funds.

Source: The New York Times.

[RoofGardener]

1 hour ago, ExpandMyMind said:

He doesn't have to be for us to know he's guilty. If you see someone kill someone else, is he any less guilty because he hasn't had his day in court? 

But don't worry. If Trump doesn't die first, he will be prosecuted and found guilty as soon as he leaves office. After which you will no doubt adopt some other method of defending him.

It's really quite ridiculous that, even with all the information available, you can actually attempt to deny reality. 

AHHHHH.... you KNOW he's guilty ? No need for a trial. No need for presentation of evidence. No need for a jury. He's just "guilty"

So when you make statements like "It's a FACT that he's guilty", what you ACTUALLY mean is "I don't like him, so I WANT him to be guilty". 

Who's denying reality, ExpandMyMind ? It is YOU who is equating accusation with guilt, not me  

[ExpandMyMind]

Just now, RoofGardener said:

AHHHHH.... you KNOW he's guilty ? No need for a trial. No need for presentation of evidence. No need for a jury. He's just "guilty"

So when you make statements like "It's a FACT that he's guilty", what you ACTUALLY mean is "I don't like him, so I WANT him to be guilty". 

Who's denying reality, ExpandMyMind ? It is YOU who is equating accusation with guilt, not me  

Well, being a private citizen of a different country, and not being a member of the Justice Department, I have that freedom. 

Do you believe someone like Jimmy Saville is innocent or guilty? After all, he's been accused but never will have a trial. My point is that people can be obviously and undeniably guilty despite not having yet been prosecuted. This is blatantly one such example.

[RoofGardener]

7 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Well, being a private citizen of a different country, and not being a member of the Justice Department, I have that freedom. 

Do you believe someone like Jimmy Saville is innocent or guilty? After all, he's been accused but never will have a trial. My point is that people can be obviously and undeniably guilty despite not having yet been prosecuted. This is blatantly one such example.

'Tis a witch.. 'tis a witch.. burn it.. burn it.....