Someone get me a laughter .gif!

Does a legally approved enterprise still qualify as criminal? What a nothing sandwich.

It's not the fact that it's an enterprise that makes it criminal.

Then what makes this particular enterprise criminal? If he actually told some of those stories I wouldn't be so quick to call it an empty news story.

If nobody went to jail for the 2008 crash, then it's hallucinatory to think that shady real estate practices could sink someone years after the fact. Our system rewards shady business. I want to see him go down too but the fever pitch is annoying.

I certainly hope so, but it can be surprising how rarely real estate legislation aligns with what's ethical.

That particular story of "oh trust me, he's a really bad guy!" really is nothing more than gossip though unless he went on to substantiate his claims. Sorry rostasi.

I just watched a former FEC commissioner say that none of Trump's payments to Stormy or McDougal are campaign contributions and therefore not illegal.

This is why John Edwards should have gone to jail after that debacle with his mistress, because it ended up setting a precedent that's going to make it hard for the prosecutors to make their case against Trump even with the National Enquirer cooperating. Yeesh, what a ****storm.

Every decent person wants him in jail at least but after three years of got ‘ems unless he’s in cuffs it’s a non-story afaic. Yeah, people hate him. No ****. The truth is he will not be arrested because our law enforcement agencies are cowards. If he is was going down it would’ve been for obstruction of justice way back when he fired Comey. I remember you don’t think that was a crime, Frown, we don’t have to circle on that again. I agree it’s nothing and I agree even more vehemently with elph that he won’t be held accountable. It’s like a TV drama that’s written itself into a corner.

I'm not here to educate you on the complexities of campaign finance law, but this piece from Politico sums up most of my thoughts pretty well.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...ecution-223096

Maybe if you cared more about the argument being made (and the details of said argument) and less about who made it, you'd have the opportunity to make a good case.

It has already been established that Trump has a habit of paying off women + getting people to sign NDAs + squashing stories whether an election is going on or not. We know this because Stormy Daniels claimed she was threatened by a Trump Organization person about going public years before he ever ran for office. I bolded these things because they're very important in the context of campaign finance law.

Therefore, we have a clear track record of Trump using his own money and resources and people but being hands-off in regards to how any of it actually gets done...which is why Cohen going away for 3 years doesn't give prosecutors a strong case at all. All Trump has to do is claim ignorance about the finer details of campaign finance law and pin the whole thing on Cohen making bad decisions of his own volition rather than being directed.

Even with the National Enquirer cooperating, the bar is still extremely high if they want to prove intent. And that's because of the John Edwards case a few years ago, which despite various media outlets trying to minimize the relevance of that event....it is a clear precedent.

Even your fellow Communists over at Vice think it's a waste of time to go after Trump for similar reasons as shown in that Politico article, which is why 2020 is a better timeframe if you really want to walk that road. Vice - Everyone's Favorite Pot Brownie Enthusiasts