ADVERTISEMENT

*NSFLefties* Lanny Davis blew it, Trump in the clear

HeupelsThirdChin

Four-Star Recruit
Jul 23, 2018
355
216
43
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
www.daddy.com
TRIGGER WARNING: Contains actual knowledge of the law, Winning, severe thunderstorms on anti-Trump Parade



Partial Transcript:

HANNITY: All right, Mark, I mean, there are some lessons here. I agree that you shouldn’t lie to the FBI. Everyone agrees with that. I also agree that you should pay your taxes. I also agree that you better not lie on a bank loan application. Mark, how did we get from Russia and that this is it after nearly, we are almost at 500 days.

LEVIN: All right. I want to address Michael Cohen. How did we get to that? I want to help the law professors, the constitutional experts, the criminal defense lawyers, the former prosecutors and of course, the professors. I want to help them understand what the law is.

The general counsel for the Clinton mob family, Lanny Davis, he had his client pleaded two counts of criminality that don’t exist. These campaign finance violations that is all over TV, they are saying implicates the president of the United States directly.

First, let’s back up. It is a guilty plea. It is a plea bargain between a prosecutor and a criminal. A criminal who doesn’t want to spend the rest of his life in prison. That is not precedent. That applies only to that specific case. Nobody cites plea bargains for precedent. That’s number one.

Number two, just because a prosecutor says that somebody violated a campaign law doesn’t make it so. He is not the judge. He is not the jury. We didn’t adjudicate anything. It never went to court. That’s number two.

A campaign expenditure under our federal campaign laws is an expenditure solely for campaign activity. A candidate who spends his own money or even corporate money for an event that occurred not as a result of the campaign, it is not a campaign expenditure.

Let me give a few examples to help people understand this, especially the American people. Let’s say, I wrote these down. Let’s say a candidate had said we owe vendors a whole lot of money. We’ve had disputes with them. But I want you to go ahead and pay them. I’m a candidate, I don’t want all this negative publicity.

So he says to his private lawyer, you pay them, I’ll reimburse you, get it done. Is that illegal? It’s perfectly legal.

Yet according to the prosecution of the Southern District of New York it’s paid at the direction of the candidate to influence the election. Yes, Mr. Prosecutor, how stupid is your point? It’s not a crime.

More, let’s say that this candidate settles a lawsuit that was initiated before he becomes a candidate. And he says to his personal lawyer, I want you to pay, settle that lawsuit. You can use my corporate funds, my private funds, whatever it is. That is perfectly legal, too.

The prosecutor would say, but that influenced the election. So what? There are certain things you do that influence an election that are legal and certain things you do to influence an election that are illegal.

Let’s say a candidate gets a non-disclosure agreement from a disgruntled employee, and he wants to quiet that disgruntled employee as he goes into the election. He pays the funds out of his pocket or through his corporation. Perfectly legal.

Nothing here was spent out of the campaign. Nothing was done with the campaign or to the campaign. This is exactly what the federal law is.

And Mr. Lanny Davis had his client plead guilty to two offenses that aren’t offenses that the prosecutor insisted were offenses. That’s why he is no good. That is Michael Cohen against Donald Trump.

Donald Trump is in the clear. Let’s say Donald Trump even directed Michael Cohen to make payments in non-disclosure agreements. So what? He is allowed to do that.

Now, here’s my question. Has the Southern District of New York ever paid money in a non-disclosure agreement with any of its employees? How about any U.S. attorney’s office in the United States? How about the Department of Justice? How about any business?

HANNITY: Or Congress.

LEVIN: How about any union? How about the DNC? How about a member of Congress? It’s done all the time. It is all hush money. And all of this hush money, they can’t pay hush money. Well, it is hush money. It’s legal. It’s a contract. It’s done all the time.

Now, what does Mr. Mueller have left? It’s worked. He is chasing the Manhattan madam. Who the hell is the Manhattan madam? I don’t know. And how is he interviewing? He is dragging her in front of the grand jury.

What’s next? The Manhattan madam. He’s got — he’s got Manafort where he wants him on banking charges, he set up a few guys like Flynn who has gotten in trouble. Now they have Cohen. What do they have? They have nothing. I’ll tell you what they have.

Mr. Mueller as a federal prosecutor is preparing his impeachment report which is an unconstitutional activity. Mr. Mueller is supposed to be non-political. He is not supposed to preparing impeachment report.

Mr. Mueller, I told you before, you can’t indict a sitting president. I told you that 15 months ago. Now you figured it out. You and Rosenstein figured it out. Now you and Rosenstein are trying to figure out what to do with the subpoena.

You see, Sean, Giuliani was on your show the other day or somebody’s show and said why do they take two or three weeks? I’ll tell you why they take two or three weeks. Because Mr. Mueller has to consult Mr. Rosenstein, his boss, to figure out what to do with the subpoena.

I’ll tell you what happens when they issue that subpoena. The president of the United States takes it all the way to the Supreme Court. And what does he cite? Department of Justice memos. What else does he cite? The Constitution of the United States.

So this is going to be an impeachment battle in the end. The president of the United States if he doesn’t get involved in the perjury trap — think about that. They don’t have a crime. He needs this interview to create a crime against the president of the United States. This prosecutor.

Well, that’s pretty damn outrageous. So, in any event, I want the news media to understand. You know what took place in the Southern District of New York? Nothing that matters. Zippo.

HANNITY: You know what, Mark?

LEVIN: There was no violation of the federal campaign laws. Lanny Davis blew it. Lanny Davis — Lanny Davis he puts out a tweet today. “Today, Cohen stood up and testified under oath that Donald Trump directed him to commit a crime.”

You are a dummy, Lanny.

“By making payments to two women for the principal purpose of influencing an election. If those payments were a crime for Michael Cohen then why wouldn’t they be a crime for Donald Trump?”

They weren’t a crime for Michael Cohen. He screwed himself. And they’re not a crime for Donald Trump either. Now move along and go back into your corner with Hillary Clinton.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
TRIGGER WARNING: Contains actual knowledge of the law, Winning, severe thunderstorms on anti-Trump Parade



Partial Transcript:

HANNITY: All right, Mark, I mean, there are some lessons here. I agree that you shouldn’t lie to the FBI. Everyone agrees with that. I also agree that you should pay your taxes. I also agree that you better not lie on a bank loan application. Mark, how did we get from Russia and that this is it after nearly, we are almost at 500 days.

LEVIN: All right. I want to address Michael Cohen. How did we get to that? I want to help the law professors, the constitutional experts, the criminal defense lawyers, the former prosecutors and of course, the professors. I want to help them understand what the law is.

The general counsel for the Clinton mob family, Lanny Davis, he had his client pleaded two counts of criminality that don’t exist. These campaign finance violations that is all over TV, they are saying implicates the president of the United States directly.

First, let’s back up. It is a guilty plea. It is a plea bargain between a prosecutor and a criminal. A criminal who doesn’t want to spend the rest of his life in prison. That is not precedent. That applies only to that specific case. Nobody cites plea bargains for precedent. That’s number one.

Number two, just because a prosecutor says that somebody violated a campaign law doesn’t make it so. He is not the judge. He is not the jury. We didn’t adjudicate anything. It never went to court. That’s number two.

A campaign expenditure under our federal campaign laws is an expenditure solely for campaign activity. A candidate who spends his own money or even corporate money for an event that occurred not as a result of the campaign, it is not a campaign expenditure.

Let me give a few examples to help people understand this, especially the American people. Let’s say, I wrote these down. Let’s say a candidate had said we owe vendors a whole lot of money. We’ve had disputes with them. But I want you to go ahead and pay them. I’m a candidate, I don’t want all this negative publicity.

So he says to his private lawyer, you pay them, I’ll reimburse you, get it done. Is that illegal? It’s perfectly legal.

Yet according to the prosecution of the Southern District of New York it’s paid at the direction of the candidate to influence the election. Yes, Mr. Prosecutor, how stupid is your point? It’s not a crime.

More, let’s say that this candidate settles a lawsuit that was initiated before he becomes a candidate. And he says to his personal lawyer, I want you to pay, settle that lawsuit. You can use my corporate funds, my private funds, whatever it is. That is perfectly legal, too.

The prosecutor would say, but that influenced the election. So what? There are certain things you do that influence an election that are legal and certain things you do to influence an election that are illegal.

Let’s say a candidate gets a non-disclosure agreement from a disgruntled employee, and he wants to quiet that disgruntled employee as he goes into the election. He pays the funds out of his pocket or through his corporation. Perfectly legal.

Nothing here was spent out of the campaign. Nothing was done with the campaign or to the campaign. This is exactly what the federal law is.

And Mr. Lanny Davis had his client plead guilty to two offenses that aren’t offenses that the prosecutor insisted were offenses. That’s why he is no good. That is Michael Cohen against Donald Trump.

Donald Trump is in the clear. Let’s say Donald Trump even directed Michael Cohen to make payments in non-disclosure agreements. So what? He is allowed to do that.

Now, here’s my question. Has the Southern District of New York ever paid money in a non-disclosure agreement with any of its employees? How about any U.S. attorney’s office in the United States? How about the Department of Justice? How about any business?

HANNITY: Or Congress.

LEVIN: How about any union? How about the DNC? How about a member of Congress? It’s done all the time. It is all hush money. And all of this hush money, they can’t pay hush money. Well, it is hush money. It’s legal. It’s a contract. It’s done all the time.

Now, what does Mr. Mueller have left? It’s worked. He is chasing the Manhattan madam. Who the hell is the Manhattan madam? I don’t know. And how is he interviewing? He is dragging her in front of the grand jury.

What’s next? The Manhattan madam. He’s got — he’s got Manafort where he wants him on banking charges, he set up a few guys like Flynn who has gotten in trouble. Now they have Cohen. What do they have? They have nothing. I’ll tell you what they have.

Mr. Mueller as a federal prosecutor is preparing his impeachment report which is an unconstitutional activity. Mr. Mueller is supposed to be non-political. He is not supposed to preparing impeachment report.

Mr. Mueller, I told you before, you can’t indict a sitting president. I told you that 15 months ago. Now you figured it out. You and Rosenstein figured it out. Now you and Rosenstein are trying to figure out what to do with the subpoena.

You see, Sean, Giuliani was on your show the other day or somebody’s show and said why do they take two or three weeks? I’ll tell you why they take two or three weeks. Because Mr. Mueller has to consult Mr. Rosenstein, his boss, to figure out what to do with the subpoena.

I’ll tell you what happens when they issue that subpoena. The president of the United States takes it all the way to the Supreme Court. And what does he cite? Department of Justice memos. What else does he cite? The Constitution of the United States.

So this is going to be an impeachment battle in the end. The president of the United States if he doesn’t get involved in the perjury trap — think about that. They don’t have a crime. He needs this interview to create a crime against the president of the United States. This prosecutor.

Well, that’s pretty damn outrageous. So, in any event, I want the news media to understand. You know what took place in the Southern District of New York? Nothing that matters. Zippo.

HANNITY: You know what, Mark?

LEVIN: There was no violation of the federal campaign laws. Lanny Davis blew it. Lanny Davis — Lanny Davis he puts out a tweet today. “Today, Cohen stood up and testified under oath that Donald Trump directed him to commit a crime.”

You are a dummy, Lanny.

“By making payments to two women for the principal purpose of influencing an election. If those payments were a crime for Michael Cohen then why wouldn’t they be a crime for Donald Trump?”

They weren’t a crime for Michael Cohen. He screwed himself. And they’re not a crime for Donald Trump either. Now move along and go back into your corner with Hillary Clinton.
"Clinton Mob Family"

Seems like balanced reporting that should be taken seriously.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bluechip12
Well it seemed simple to me before I saw this video. Campaign finance is not a felony and the libs are trying to make it that. Smoky out, this is nothing more than a reason for dems to try impeachment if they win the house. Their problem will be the Obama’s campaign finance crimes dwarf Trumps.
 
Well it seemed simple to me before I saw this video. Campaign finance is not a felony and the libs are trying to make it that. Smoky out, this is nothing more than a reason for dems to try impeachment if they win the house. Their problem will be the Obama’s campaign finance crimes dwarf Trumps.
Lol
 
85, you posted your daily "whiny little bitch about how mean Democrats are" thread under your wrong screen name.
 
85, you posted your daily "whiny little bitch about how mean Democrats are" thread under your wrong screen name.
Get back to your hentai :joy::joy::joy:
IMG_0595.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
I guess it is unanimous, Heupel is hands down the worst new poster. Posting NSFW shit in here. GTFO you inbred piece of shit. @Brandon can we clean up the cooler with all the new racists and garbage appearing?
 
It's like clockwork for you.

1) you post some insane inbred bullshit
2) I call you out on the bullshit
3) you change the subject and post a completely unrelated ad hominem.
4) you are still obsessively posting about me
5) you remain my inbred BITCH
 
Intimidating rape victims at 6:40


Seems like solid family values to the lefties!

FC has already admitted that he has 0 fuks that Bill Clinton raped her and that HRC and everyone around them has spent the past 40 years victim shaming and discrediting her. FC has also admitted that he views absolute fact that Bill Clinton rode on a pedophile's private jet 26 times as "conspiracy".

But he's VERY VERY CONCERNED that Trump entered into an NDA with a porn star whom had consensual sex with him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
FC has already admitted that he has 0 fuks that Bill Clinton raped her and that HRC and everyone around them has spent the past 40 years victim shaming and discrediting her. FC has also admitted that he views absolute fact that Bill Clinton rode on a pedophile's private jet 26 times as "conspiracy".

But he's VERY VERY CONCERNED that Trump entered into an NDA with a porn star whom had consensual sex with him.
None of this is true.

If Bill Clinton raped someone that's awful and he should be punished like everyone else. That's not the reality of the situation though, for the same reason the two dozen sexual abuse allegations against Trump are going no where, it's impossible to prove and politicians are easy targets.

I have no problem with germaphobe Trump raw dogging a porn star and entering into an NDA. Campaign finance laws are there for a reason and it's a violation to do it the way he did it.

But I don't think it's impeachable. I think as weeks go by and more and more people are indicted you're going to get to a point where the campaign finance laws broken are just a footnote. Cohen already has indicated that he has info on Trump conspiring with Russia to commit crimes against America and Trump knows that's a problem.
 
None of this is true.

If Bill Clinton raped someone that's awful and he should be punished like everyone else. That's not the reality of the situation though, for the same reason the two dozen sexual abuse allegations against Trump are going no where, it's impossible to prove and politicians are easy targets.

I have no problem with germaphobe Trump raw dogging a porn star and entering into an NDA. Campaign finance laws are there for a reason and it's a violation to do it the way he did it.

But I don't think it's impeachable. I think as weeks go by and more and more people are indicted you're going to get to a point where the campaign finance laws broken are just a footnote. Cohen already has indicated that he has info on Trump conspiring with Russia to commit crimes against America and Trump knows that's a problem.

Cliff notes: blah blah blah rape is soooo hard to prove and therefore my willfull ignorance is OK, blah blah blah TRUMP IS GOING DOWN CUZ OF COHEN LOL!!

Unreal dude. You have done everything possible to convince yourself that Clinton raping a woman is just heresy and HRC shaming that woman is a cliff note, just so you can get your rocks off on believing that Trump will be whisked from office to undo the 2016 election.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HeupelsThirdChin
Cliff notes: blah blah blah rape is soooo hard to prove and therefore my willfull ignorance is OK, blah blah blah TRUMP IS GOING DOWN CUZ OF COHEN LOL!!

Unreal dude. You have done everything possible to convince yourself that Clinton raping a woman is just heresy and HRC shaming that woman is a cliff note, just so you can get your rocks off on believing that Trump will be whisked from office to undo the 2016 election.
LMAO he's already building in an excuse when it turns out to be nothing
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFKnight85
Why I didn't vote for Hillary Clinton and reject the left.
anti white anti cis identity politics
Male bashing
White hate
Socialism
Intolerance of anything but their agenda
Christian bashing
Corruption
Lying
Fascism
Manipulation
Race baiting
Riots
Violence
Vandalism
Feminazis
blm terrorists
 
LOL - lost me at "actual knowledge of the law" and Mark Levin. Please. He's a talking head. So is Hannity.
Mark Levin graduated with a J.D. from Temple Law, is a Constitutional lawyer, is the president of the Landmark Legal Foundation and has active briefs in state and federal Supreme Courts. I'd say he has sufficient bona fides to qualify as an expert opinion.
 
Lanny Davis is now in a "who is lying to the American public" conundrum with CNN. Apparently Lanny Davis is saying that he was CNN's source back in July that suggested that Trump knew about the Trump Tower Russia meeting before it happened. When CNN ran with it, they specifically said that Lanny Davis did not comment on the allegation. So, which is true? Is Lanny Davis lying or was CNN lying. Incidentally, Davis has now backed down from the claim that Trump had prior knowledge.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/...rt-stated-he-declined-to-comment/#more-258542
 
Last edited:
Mark Levin graduated with a J.D. from Temple Law, is a Constitutional lawyer, is the president of the Landmark Legal Foundation and has active briefs in state and federal Supreme Courts. I'd say he has sufficient bona fides to qualify as an expert opinion.
He is a lawyer, yes. He is also a kook who espouses fringe theories and loses a lot in court.
 
He is a lawyer, yes. He is also a kook who espouses fringe theories and loses a lot in court.
Sure, but that definition applies to a number of celebrity attorneys that write books as a main part of their income stream. As for losing a lot, that applies to a good number of Constitutional lawyers and Attorneys General. That doesn’t mean they don’t know the law.
 
Sure, but that definition applies to a number of celebrity attorneys that write books as a main part of their income stream. As for losing a lot, that applies to a good number of Constitutional lawyers and Attorneys General. That doesn’t mean they don’t know the law.
Actually, it does. If they knew the law, they wouldn't lose as much. I mean, one of the Landmark Legal Foundation's claim to fame is that they once nominated Rush Limbaugh for the Nobel Peace Prize. Such a worthy cause. His Foundation exists largely to pay him an enormous salary. He's a blowhard.
 
Actually, it does. If they knew the law, they wouldn't lose as much. I mean, one of the Landmark Legal Foundation's claim to fame is that they once nominated Rush Limbaugh for the Nobel Peace Prize. Such a worthy cause. His Foundation exists largely to pay him an enormous salary. He's a blowhard.
Apparently Levin is not the President of Landmark anymore. That Foundation does utilize 2/3 if it’s spending on executive salaries, but is that all that unusual in a legal non-profit with limited that specializes in awareness and filing amicus briefs? I’m sure I could look it up, but why bother. Point is, he may be a blowhard but you’d be all for him if he was blowing your direction.

But since you have an issue with his knowledge of the law, why don’t you tell us where he is wrong in his opinion above?
 
Actually, it does. If they knew the law, they wouldn't lose as much. I mean, one of the Landmark Legal Foundation's claim to fame is that they once nominated Rush Limbaugh for the Nobel Peace Prize. Such a worthy cause. His Foundation exists largely to pay him an enormous salary. He's a blowhard.

This has nothing to do with your initial claim. You asserted that Mark Levin doesn't know squat about constitutional law; you were then proven absolutely wrong and his credentials were presented.

Now you're onto simply insulting him and claiming that hosting a talk show has somehow eroded his knowledge of the Constitution.

Meh.
 
Apparently Levin is not the President of Landmark anymore. That Foundation does utilize 2/3 if it’s spending on executive salaries, but is that all that unusual in a legal non-profit with limited that specializes in awareness and filing amicus briefs? I’m sure I could look it up, but why bother. Point is, he may be a blowhard but you’d be all for him if he was blowing your direction.

But since you have an issue with his knowledge of the law, why don’t you tell us where he is wrong in his opinion above?
This is what Levin said:
he had his client pleaded two counts of criminality that don’t exist.
So Levin is saying that the client plead guilty to a crime that isn't a crime? Ummm...then why plead guilty? It's a crime. Just because he disagrees with the degree of criminality doesn't make it not a crime. You can't plead guilty to something that isn't a crime. That's stupid.

This has nothing to do with your initial claim. You asserted that Mark Levin doesn't know squat about constitutional law; you were then proven absolutely wrong and his credentials were presented.

Now you're onto simply insulting him and claiming that hosting a talk show has somehow eroded his knowledge of the Constitution.

Meh.
Actually, this case has zero to do with constitutional law. It's a series of violations of Federal laws, and Federal campaign finance laws, but nothing about the Constitution. And in that regard, I never once said Levin doesn't know anything about the Constitution. Once again, you read things that aren't there.
 
This is what Levin said:

So Levin is saying that the client plead guilty to a crime that isn't a crime? Ummm...then why plead guilty? It's a crime. Just because he disagrees with the degree of criminality doesn't make it not a crime. You can't plead guilty to something that isn't a crime. That's stupid.


Actually, this case has zero to do with constitutional law. It's a series of violations of Federal laws, and Federal campaign finance laws, but nothing about the Constitution. And in that regard, I never once said Levin doesn't know anything about the Constitution. Once again, you read things that aren't there.
Never said this had to do with Constitutional law. I stated that Levin was a Constitutional lawyer. You conflated the two.
 
This is what Levin said:

So Levin is saying that the client plead guilty to a crime that isn't a crime? Ummm...then why plead guilty? It's a crime. Just because he disagrees with the degree of criminality doesn't make it not a crime. You can't plead guilty to something that isn't a crime. That's stupid.


Actually, this case has zero to do with constitutional law. It's a series of violations of Federal laws, and Federal campaign finance laws, but nothing about the Constitution. And in that regard, I never once said Levin doesn't know anything about the Constitution. Once again, you read things that aren't there.

Of course they can. This Mueller circus has absolutely no oversight and no one to reign them in; they most likely asserted to Cohen that certain things were a crime when they weren't, or that they could establish them as a crime if need be. Mueller is someone with a mountain of power and no one to answer to within the bubble of his "special counsel". It's a perverse, punch drunk power play that shouldn't exist or be granted by Congress.
 
Of course they can. This Mueller circus has absolutely no oversight and no one to reign them in; they most likely asserted to Cohen that certain things were a crime when they weren't, or that they could establish them as a crime if need be. Mueller is someone with a mountain of power and no one to answer to within the bubble of his "special counsel". It's a perverse, punch drunk power play that shouldn't exist or be granted by Congress.
Sessions is a pussy.
 
This is what Levin said:

So Levin is saying that the client plead guilty to a crime that isn't a crime? Ummm...then why plead guilty? It's a crime. Just because he disagrees with the degree of criminality doesn't make it not a crime. You can't plead guilty to something that isn't a crime. That's stupid.


Actually, this case has zero to do with constitutional law. It's a series of violations of Federal laws, and Federal campaign finance laws, but nothing about the Constitution. And in that regard, I never once said Levin doesn't know anything about the Constitution. Once again, you read things that aren't there.
I’ve seen other legal experts, such as John Hinderaker and William Jacobson, make the same claim about the campaign finance pleas. Cohen was on the hook for far more substantial charges, so copping to those is free to him. But it is a significant visual for the prosecution because it gives the appearance of Trump impropriety.

Except that paying someone to keep quiet about a legal activity is not a crime. It would be tough for the prosecution to prove that the payments were a campaign finance violation. In getting Cohen to cop to those payments being crimes, whether they were or weren’t, they never have to litigate the matter and can claim a victory that really has no substance.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT