{theconservativetreehouse.com} ~ Tick-tock-bombshell club member John Solomon drops an explosive statement on Sean Hannity... Oddly, there’s a factual part of his statement CTH agrees with; and a structural part of the background that is almost certain never to reach sunlight. First, the substance: […] “In May of 2017 there was a document identified to a small number of people in the United States government. It’s in the possession of the Defense Intelligence Agency. For eighteen months there’s been an effort to resist declassifying that document; I know that that document contains extraordinary exculpatory information about General Flynn. I don’t believe the president has ever been told about the existence of this document. One lawmaker discovered it, but was thwarted by the Defense Intelligence Agency in his efforts to disclose it. I think we should all ask for that declassification; get that out; it may enlighten the judge; it will certainly enlighten the American public.” From the time-frame disclosed we can reasonably infer what this document is; at least what background surrounds it. ♦“In May of 2017”… The document is likely part of an intelligence product that was produced for President scumbag/liar-nObama’s Daily Briefing (PDB), and contains unmasking information likely done by Susan Rice on Michael Flynn as a surveillance target. ♦“One Lawmaker discovered it”… You might remember way back in March 2017 when HPSCI Chairman Devin Nunes was taken to the White House SCIF by then white house official Ezra Cohen-Watnick; and that began a series of cascading events... https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/12/14/john-solomon-drops-a-tick-tock-bombshell-dia-holds-documents-that-can-exonerate-flynn/
The Justice Department announced an agreement with America Media Inc. (AMI), the parent company of National Inquirer, in which AMI claims it worked “in concert with” Trump’s campaign to kill a story about one of Trump’s now-infamous affairs], in order to conceal “damaging allegations about the candidate before the 2016 presidential election.”
The problem for Trump is that prosecutors now have two witnesses — both his former attorney Michael Cohen and AMI — claiming he knew the payoffs would support his campaign. If Trump directed and paid Cohen to make payments for the specific purpose of supporting his campaign and did not report the payment, that would constitute a felony. Notably, such felonious knowledge related to unreported campaign benefits are common in federal campaigns, and it is rarely prosecuted.
In his defense, Trump declared, “I never directed Michael Cohen to break the law,” and proving he did is a high bar for prosecutors.
Regarding the question of illegality, Hans von Spakovsky argues, “FECA (52 U.S.C. 30114 (b)(2)) specifically says that campaign-related expenses do not include any expenditures ‘used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.’” He further adds, “These payments were relatively small given Trump’s net worth — the kind of nuisance settlement that celebrities often make to protect their reputations, especially when faced with claims that will cost far more to defend than making a quick payoff without all of the bad publicity that usually accompanies such cases. Given Trump’s celebrity status, the potential liability to these women existed ‘irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.’”
There are two glaring examples that prove beneficial for Trump’s defense should charges be filed.
First, Recall, that the Justice Department failed to convict former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards on campaign finance violations when he ran for president in 2008, and that case is instructive. Edwards was tried on six felony charges after taking $1 million from two wealthy donors and using it to conceal his relationship with his mistress, Rielle Hunter. He faced up to 30 years in prison if he was convicted on all counts.
Regarding Edwards’ acquittal of those charges, Melanie Sloan, executive director for a campaign finance watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, declared, “As noted by nearly every campaign finance lawyer who considered the matter, this was a lousy case.”
And how did the Leftmedia respond at the time? The New York Times noted it was “a case that had no precedent.” The Washington Post observed: “At the time, an array of legal experts, including former prosecutors, questioned the wisdom of bringing the charges against Edwards, saying it was an aggressive interpretation of campaign finance laws.” The Los Angeles Times reported, “The case was unprecedented; no major political candidate has been charged with campaign finance corruption for attempts to hide a mistress…” Even MSNBC’s Chris Matthews insisted, “This John Edwards trial, this was a waste of time, money and public attention.”
And Barack scumbag/liar-nObama was fined $375,000 for almost $2 million in campaign contribution “irregularities.” No demand for felony convictions or his impeachment.
But there is no chance that Trump will be exonerated of wrongdoing, as Democrats and their hostile Leftmedia propagandists are anxious for impeachment fodder. They will pull out every stop to advance these charges. ~The Patriot Post
Comments
Bonnie
thats their game plan. the they say that the more they believe it will become true.
let em they have nothing they know it let em keep making fools of themself