A lot of people use attorneys to pay things. escpecially when legal documents are a part of it. We don’t even know if Cohan billed Trump, called Trump or what. Now as for the legalities of it being an illegal campaign expenditure. uphill battle in a conviction. Like we are talking Mt Everast. Remember, same charges were brought against Gary Heart and he wasn’t convicted. Only other case like it I’m aware of.
That’s why he turned control of the company over to other family members. He did so shortly after becoming president. Shouldn’t need to see records before campaign or after he turned control over to someone else.
But I’ve been assured that the majority want congress to have the taxes. This doesn’t reflect that AND it’s a left leaning source. You don’t find it surprising at all huh?
His Tax Refunds have everything to do with financial obligations and those who curry favor with him. Its the public’s right to know whose pocket the President is in.
Cherry picking what lamestream media they choose to believe
It’s not a right but a law.
“Shall furnish”
Allan
Yes we do know that Cohen billed Trump and that Trump even paid. In one instance writing a check from his business that he has supposedly distanced himself from while he is President.
The argument that… well setting up an anonymous LLC in Delaware in order to hide payments to a porn star that the President had sex with right after the First Lady gave birth to their son might not technically be illegal… is really shaky ground to start on.
And it only gets shakier from there.
1 Like
If he has turned over control to family members, them why is he writing checks from that business to pay off Cohen while serving as President?
Maybe… he lied about distancing himself from the business?
Trump would never lie… now would he?
1 Like
In answering the questions in written form and averting a sit down
That’s exactly what his lawyers argued when they asserted executive privelhe and forced a question format rather than an interview or sworn testimony.
What are they investigating?
It’s 300 pages long!
Unless you can cite the statement in the transcript that backs up your claim, you are just making it up.
I haven’t even brought up whether it was a legal campaign disclosure. That’s a total separate issue.
But we do know that the hush money was funneled through Cohen and was billed as legal fees. There’s plenty of documentation for that.
They hacked us. And it seems they had free access to Hillary’s secret basement server. But no crime there. Right?
There’s never been evidence her personal server was hacked.
Which is quite different from the DNC hack.
Just because you ignore the evidence or cherry pick your sources does not mean there is no evidence.
Yeah. Anonymous sources reported to Fox News, breaking days before the election that have never been backed up by any corroborating reporting or intelligence reports (and there have been numerous) two and a half years later.
Is that supposed to be “evidence”?
The FBI found a Hillary file in Romania. There is “evidence” here. If you should chose to look.
Russian sponsored Zero Hedge? 
Fine. I just educated myself.
18 U.S. Code § 1924. Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
prev next
(a)
Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.
(b)
For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).
(c)
In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.
(Added Pub. L. 103–359, title VIII, § 808(a), Oct. 14, 1994, 108 Stat. 3453; amended Pub. L. 107–273, div. B, title IV, § 4002(d)(1)(C)(i), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1809; Pub. L. 115–118, title II, § 202, Jan. 19, 2018, 132 Stat. 19.)
What documents did Clinton “knowingly” remove? Where did she remove them from?
Did she have the “intent” to retain those documents?
