Politics And Current Events

[CBear3]

Because Congress wasn't money laundering. It's being paid according to 1995 law to settle harassment claims while members are in office. It's basically if Congress was a corporation and this is their legal defense fund so as to not defame the corporation.

Where as you've got Cohen ostensibly working for the campaign but being paid from the Trump Org. It's shifting a large sum of money from one entity to the other to get away from having it reported as a campaign expense.

Are they the same practically? Sort of. The Congressional fund is paying off legal settlements in a case of wrong doing to save their image and prevent a court battle. Trump is paying to silence a story that involved no wrong doing and no legal matter. He's doing it for the same reason, to save face.

So they're both trying to prevent damage to their image, but one is being done according to law and the other is either wildly throwing money around with total disregard to law or is being done specifically to shield the activity.

We can argue the screwed uppedness of the 1995 Congressional Harassment law, but the Law and Order President still needs to follow laws.

[AuthorTony]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... c01e70e448

[grunthy]

Because Congress wasn't money laundering. It's being paid according to 1995 law to settle harassment claims while members are in office. It's basically if Congress was a corporation and this is their legal defense fund so as to not defame the corporation.

Where as you've got Cohen ostensibly working for the campaign but being paid from the Trump Org. It's shifting a large sum of money from one entity to the other to get away from having it reported as a campaign expense.

Are they the same practically? Sort of. The Congressional fund is paying off legal settlements in a case of wrong doing to save their image and prevent a court battle. Trump is paying to silence a story that involved no wrong doing and no legal matter. He's doing it for the same reason, to save face.

So they're both trying to prevent damage to their image, but one is being done according to law and the other is either wildly throwing money around with total disregard to law or is being done specifically to shield the activity.

We can argue the screwed uppedness of the 1995 Congressional Harassment law, but the Law and Order President still needs to follow laws.

Yes congress is laundering money, they just created a “law” to cover themselves.

[tifosi77]

Gotta love that she's pictured with a CZ.

Tactical.... always tactical.

[Troy Loney]

No one is laundering money. Laundering money is making illegally obtained funds appear legal.

By all means, please change the way congress handles sexual harassment claims. That would probably go a long way to stopping congressman from harassing their subordinates.

This whole discussion is apples and oranges, but that's what you get when you engage with certain folks on here.

[grunthy]

No one is laundering money. Laundering money is making illegally obtained funds appear legal.

By all means, please change the way congress handles sexual harassment claims. That would probably go a long way to stopping congressman from harassing their subordinates.

This whole discussion is apples and oranges, but that's what you get when you engage with certain folks on here.

Cbear is the one that brought up money laundering.


It’s obvious some of you don’t like to be pushed back on. You only like to have like minded people affirm your opinions.

[count2infinity]

In your opinion...

[dodint]

That's certainly why I'm here; everyone always agrees with my hot takes.

[tifosi77]

"How the hell is it any different for the possible 100+ people sitting in congress right now with their NDAs that they don’t disclose?"

Can we please get a citation for this? Are these agreements related to employment/internships, or are they for matters outside the office? Is there consideration involved? If so, under what terms?

[count2infinity]

That's certainly why I'm here; everyone always agrees with my hot takes.

Hey... you said you had grunty on your ignore list. You're obviously obsessed with him, since you can't not look at his posts.

[Willie Kool]

I think you all learned a valuable lesson, so I’ll leave these words of wisdom:

Please disengage.

[grunthy]

"How the hell is it any different for the possible 100+ people sitting in congress right now with their NDAs that they don’t disclose?"

Can we please get a citation for this? Are these agreements related to employment/internships, or are they for matters outside the office? Is there consideration involved? If so, under what terms?

When was this money paid out?

According to a report from the Office of Compliance, more than $17 million has been paid out in settlements over a period of 20 years -- 1997 to 2017.

How many settlements have there been?

According to the OOC data released Thursday, there have been 268 settlements. On Wednesday, Rep. Jackie Speier, the California Democrat who unveiled a bill to reform the OOC, announced at a news conference Wednesday that there had been 260 settlements. The previous tally did not include settlements paid in 2015, 2016 and 2017.

From a CNN article.

[grunthy]

I think you all learned a valuable lesson, so I’ll leave these words of wisdom:

Please disengage.

How’s your Venezuelan paradise doing?

[Willie Kool]

Go **** yourself...

[Troy Loney]

Apples to Oranges comparison confirmed.

[Viva la Ben]

Hemp to the rescue!
Farm Bill Compromise Reached With SNAP Changes Out, Industrial Hemp In
https://www.npr.org/2018/12/11/67345315 ... al-hemp-in

[grunthy]

Apples to Oranges comparison confirmed.

Not at all. But keep thinking that.

[dodint]

That's certainly why I'm here; everyone always agrees with my hot takes.

Hey... you said you had grunty on your ignore list. You're obviously obsessed with him, since you can't not look at his posts.

I'm protecting both of us. I've configured the system to the point that I have to consent to each of his posts. No one to blame but myself now.

[tifosi77]

"How the hell is it any different for the possible 100+ people sitting in congress right now with their NDAs that they don’t disclose?"

Can we please get a citation for this? Are these agreements related to employment/internships, or are they for matters outside the office? Is there consideration involved? If so, under what terms?

When was this money paid out?

According to a report from the Office of Compliance, more than $17 million has been paid out in settlements over a period of 20 years -- 1997 to 2017.

How many settlements have there been?

According to the OOC data released Thursday, there have been 268 settlements. On Wednesday, Rep. Jackie Speier, the California Democrat who unveiled a bill to reform the OOC, announced at a news conference Wednesday that there had been 260 settlements. The previous tally did not include settlements paid in 2015, 2016 and 2017.

From a CNN article.

Oh, yes yes yes, I remember this now.

F**k 'em. I hope all these incidents have a 10,000,000 Lumens light shone on them, and that the accused face a public consequence if they are shown to have violated the law or ethics rules.

There are myriad reasons why most if not all of these payments fall under the 'smarmy people being smarmy' category, rather than the 'campaign finance violation' category. Many of them appear to be in response to a claim brought forward by the aggrieved party, rather than any proactive action taken by the member of Congress or their representatives. The payments also seem to almost all be in response to a claim of damages, rather than an offer of consideration in exchange for silence, although silence is certainly expected in the performance of the NDA. (That is the "N-D" part, after all) That means almost by definition it should not be regarded in the context of a campaign, or rather that there's an added measure of proof required to show a direct connection to the campaign.

Remember that part of the successful defense John Edwards was able to mount was that the elapsed time between the relationship and the hush payment was so close that Edwards was able to show that the payment was in fact intended solely to shield his family from knowledge of the relationship. Conversely, he was also able to claim that the time between the agreement and payment was so far out from the next election, that there is no possible way that the payment could be construed as a means to impact the outcome of the election. Neither of those defenses are necessarily applicable to any of these Congressional agreements, and they are certainly not applicable in the cases of the payments Trump made that are at the center of the SDNY case.

If, however, any of those Congressional agreements and payments can be shown to have satisfied the requirements of a campaign finance law violation, then I'll reiterate my earlier statement and say f**k 'em. I don't know what US Attorneys offices are in question in all these various cases, but they have presumably looked into it.

[Troy Loney]

Apples to Oranges comparison confirmed.

Not at all. But keep thinking that.

You are conflating the concept of unfair treatment under the law with a criticism of the NDAs that congressional interns (and staff?) sign. No sound reasoning person agrees with how congress handles harassment settlements. So you are trying to frame it that Trump critics support congress silencing their harassment victims because we hate Trump. A truly remarkable mental achievement.

[grunthy]

Apples to Oranges comparison confirmed.

Not at all. But keep thinking that.

You are conflating the concept of unfair treatment under the law with a criticism of the NDAs that congressional interns (and staff?) sign. No sound reasoning person agrees with how congress handles harassment settlements. So you are trying to frame it that Trump critics support congress silencing their harassment victims because we hate Trump. A truly remarkable mental achievement.

[Troy Loney]

I don't care. Again, ask the SDNY why they are prosecuting Cohen and pursuing Trump on this when he's doing way worse stuff.

You don’t care that laws in the country only apply to certain people?

[grunthy]

I don't care. Again, ask the SDNY why they are prosecuting Cohen and pursuing Trump on this when he's doing way worse stuff.

You don’t care that laws in the country only apply to certain people?

That’s called asking a general question based on your comment of “I don’t care.”

[Troy Loney]

So essentially, your point is, why are some things against the law when others aren't. And because other bad stuff isn't against the law, why should we hold someone accountable for breaking the law.

It took a while to confirm that this was your argument. We waste too much time here confirming that your arguments should be dismissed.

[grunthy]

So essentially, your point is, why are some things against the law when others aren't. And because other bad stuff isn't against the law, why should we hold someone accountable for breaking the law.

It took a while to confirm that this was your argument. We waste too much time here confirming that your arguments should be dismissed.

My argument is that everyone should be held accountable if you break the law. Also that people like to say “oh I’m against that, and it shouldn’t be done, but it isn’t against the law.”, and then not care about it enough to fight against it. People should fight just as hard against shady law circumvention as much as they fight against law breaking. It shouldn’t matter who or what did the act.