Well folks, I’ve been absent from blogging a few days. I’ll discuss the reason in another post, but for now I want to share the news that
porn star Stormy Daniels (real name Stephanie
Clifford) has lost her defamation suit against President Trump.
The reason the Daniels loss is important is the actual
purpose for the suit was to embarrass President Trump and turn voters against
him, particularly female voters. Which was especially telling when her creepy
porn lawyer Michael Avenatti began drudging unreliable women that claim Justice
Kavanaugh sexually assaulted them.
A federal judge tossed out a
defamation lawsuit from porn star Stormy Daniels against President Donald Trump
on Monday, saying that words used by the president in a tweet directed at
Daniels constituted "'rhetorical hyperbole' normally associated with
politics and public discourse in the United States."
CNN noted that "Daniels sued Trump after he said Daniels' story of a man
threatening her not to come forward with her story of her alleged affair with
Trump was 'a total con job.'"
A sketch years later about a
nonexistent man. A total con job, playing the Fake News Media for Fools (but
they know it)! https://t.co/9Is7mHBFda
"The Court agrees with Mr.
Trump's argument because the tweet in question constitutes 'rhetorical
hyperbole' normally associated with politics and public discourse in the United
States," District Judge S. James Otero wrote. "The First Amendment
protects this type of rhetorical statement."
In a statement, Trump's attorney
Charles J. Harder said: "No amount of spin or commentary by Stormy Daniels
or her lawyer, Mr. Avenatti, can truthfully characterize today's ruling in any
way other than total victory for President Trump and total defeat for Stormy
Daniels."
Michael Avenatti hasn't been getting many wins lately. He
also brought forth some more than suspect clients who made accusations
against Brett Kavanaugh. However, this may be his biggest loss yet. Not only
did he lose, but he and his client now have to pay for the president's
attorneys fees.
Yesterday guilty verdicts came to light against Paul
Manafort and Michael Cohen, both have a connection to President Trump. If you
were paying attention to the Leftist MSM you would think blood was in the water
stirring a shark frenzy was erupting with bloodthirsty glee. They all believe
Trump association to guilty parties means Trump’s Administration is about to
come tumbling down.
The poor delusional Left are forgetting to report the guilty
verdicts have ZERO to do with collusion between Trump and Russia to manipulate
the 2016 election.
Manafort was found accused of 18 counts but the jury could
only agree on eight counts of guilt:
In a verdict announced at the same
hour as President Trump’s
longtime fixer pleaded guilty to other financial charges, Manafort was
convicted of filing a false tax return in each of the years from 2010 to 2014,
failing to report a foreign bank account in 2012, and two counts of bank fraud.
…
But the panel of six men and six
women deciding Manafort’s fate in Alexandria, Virginia, deadlocked on 10
counts. U.S. District Court Judge T.S. Ellis III declared a mistrial on those
charges.
…
The 10 deadlocked charges were
three instances of failing to file a foreign bank account in 2011, 2013 and
2014, two counts of bank fraud, and five counts of conspiracy to commit bank
fraud.
Michael Cohen chose a guilty plea deal rather than face a
jury:
… Cohen pled guilty to eight felonies. While the five
counts of failure to pay taxes on over $4 million in income are the most
consequential to him, most significant to the country are two counts of illegal
“in kind” campaign contributions. …
… The media narrative suggests that
these payments violate federal law because they were made to influence the
outcome of the election. That is not quite accurate. It was not illegal to
pay hush money to the two women — Karen McDougal and Stephanie Clifford
(a.k.a. “Stormy Daniels”). It was illegal for Michael Cohen to make in-kind
contributions (which is what these pay-offs were) in excess of the legal
limit. (Bold text by blog Editor)
So what’s the deal with the press? Why the shark-fest of
glee? Could it be because the Left is planting Fake News against Trump to stir-up
hatred to enhance future impeachment sentiment and plant more Dems in Congress
for such a proceeding?
Conservative author and radio-TV host Mark Levin
interviewed the former FEC Chairman on his show.
Professor Bradley Smith said
the payment Cohen pled guilty to DO NOT qualify as campaign violations.
Last night Mark Levin interviewed a former FEC Chairman who
explained why a hush money payment to Stormy Daniels cannot be considered an in
kind contribution to the Trump campaign, thus violating campaign finance law.
“When the FEC wrote the
regulation that says what constitutes campaign expenditures and what
constitutes personal use, it rejected specifically the idea that a campaign
expenditure was anything related to a campaign, and instead says it has to be
something that exists only because of the campaign and solely for that reason.”
Professor Bradley Smith wrote about this in
the Wall
Street Journal in April.
Shortly before the 2016
election, one of President Trump’s lawyers, Michael Cohen, arranged a $130,000
payment to the porn star in return for silence about a 2006 affair she claimed
to have had with Mr. Trump. (Both the president and Mr. Cohen have denied the
affair; Mr. Trump has said he did not know of the payment to Ms. Daniels until
this February.)
Not satisfied with an
old-fashioned sex scandal—perhaps because the president seems impervious to
that—some want to turn this into a violation of campaign-finance law. Trevor
Potter, a former member of the Federal Election Commission told “60 Minutes”
the payment was “a $130,000 in-kind contribution by Cohen to the Trump
campaign, which is about $126,500 above what he’s allowed to give.” The FBI
raided Mr. Cohen’s office, home and hotel room Monday. They reportedly seized
records related to the payment and are investigating possible violations of
campaign-finance laws.
But let’s remember a basic
principle of such laws: Not everything that might benefit a candidate is a
campaign expense.
Campaign-finance law aims to
prevent corruption. For this reason, the FEC has a longstanding ban on
“personal use” of campaign funds. Such use would give campaign contributions a
material value beyond helping to elect the candidate—the essence of a bribe.
FEC regulations explain that the
campaign cannot pay expenses that would exist “irrespective” of the campaign,
even if it might help win election. At the same time, obligations that would
not exist “but for” the campaign must be paid from campaign funds.
If paying hush money is a
campaign expense, a candidate would be required to make that payment with
campaign funds. How ironic, given that using campaign funds as
hush money was one of the articles of impeachment in the Watergate scandal,
which gave rise to modern campaign-finance law.
++++++++++++++++++
Fmr head of the FEC blows up
media narrative that Trump broke the law, by referring to the actual law
No sooner had Michael Cohen pleaded guilty than a
Democrat lawmaker called for a new investigation to determine if President
Donald Trump committed a crime.
Rep. Joaquin Castro accused Trump of being an
“unindicted co-conspirator” and called on Congress to launch a probe into
possible criminal action by the president.
“And now the question is what will the US Congress do about
that,” Castro, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said. “I
believe that the judiciary committee in both the House and the Senate should
open an investigation tomorrow morning.”
But conservative author and radio-TV host Mark Levin
provided a hard lesson in how the law actually works, noting how what the
president is accused of doing is not even illegal.
“I want to help the law professors, the constitutional
experts, the criminal defense lawyers, the former prosecutors and of course the
professors and I want to help them understand what the law is,” Levin
told Fox News’ Sean Hannity on Tuesday.
'Life, Liberty & Levin' host
Mark Levin says Lanny Davis had Michael Cohen plead guilty to two counts of
criminality that don't exist on 'Hannity'.
FOX News Channel (FNC) is a 24-hour
all-encompassing news service dedicated to delivering breaking news as well as
political and business news. The number one network in cable, FNC has been the
most watched television news channel for more than 15 years and according to a
Suffolk University/USA Today poll, is the most trusted television news source
in the country. Owned by 21st Century Fox, FNC is available in more than 90
million homes and dominates the cable news landscape, routinely notching the
top ten programs in the genre.]
The general counsel for the Clinton mob family Lanny Davis,
he had his client plead to two counts of criminality that don’t exist,” he
added. “It is a plea bargain between a prosecutor and 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.”
“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,” Levin argued, using an example to drive home his
point.
“Say a candidate had said we owe vendors a whole lot of
money. We have had disputes with them. But I want you to go ahead and pay them.
I’m a candidate, I don’t want the negative publicity. So he says to the private
lawyer, you pay them, I’ll reimburse you, get it done,” Levin explained. “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?”
The former head of the Federal Election Commission,
appearing on Levin’s show, also clarified how Cohen’s alleged “hush” payment to
porn star Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 election is not an in kind
contribution to the Trump campaign or a violation of campaign finance law.
VIDEO of Audio: Levin Lays Out a Case That There is no
Campaign Violation [SEE ABOVE in The Gateway Pundit post]
“When the FEC wrote the regulation that says what
constitutes campaign expenditures and what constitutes personal use, it
rejected specifically the idea that a campaign expenditure was anything related
to a campaign, and instead says it has to be something that exists only because
of the campaign and solely for that reason,” Professor Bradley Smith told
Levin Tuesday.
The expenditures alleged by Cohen, Smith explained, are not
violations of campaign finance law even though they “might incidentally benefit
your campaign,”
“The argument seems to be, and it hasn’t changed,” Levin
summed up, “is that, if I spend money to make myself look better, or to take
away negative issues in my private life, my business life, my employment life
and use my own money, then somehow that is a campaign contribution…which it is
not.”
____________________
Leftist Shark-fest over
Manafort-Cohen Guilt Verdicts-Pleas
Clem DeWitt takes on the Leftists desiring to impeach President
Trump for the constitutional violation of not liking POTUS. WAIT! There
is NO such clause in the U.S. Constitution!
Constitutional Sections Regarding Impeachment
Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5
The House of Representatives shall
chuse [sic] their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of
Impeachment.
Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 6
and 7
The Senate shall have the sole
Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on
Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried the Chief
Justice shall preside; And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence
of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgement in Cases of Impreachment
[sic] shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and
disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under
the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and
subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law.
Article 2, Section 4
The President, Vice President and all
Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on
Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and
Misdemeanors.
Most Democrats and their reliable, compliant, obedient Brown
Shirts that make up the bulk of the US press, are engaged in a relentless,
bloodless coup against President Donald Trump, Constitutionally elected by We
The People.
Before taking his Oath of Office, there were cries to Impeach Trump. Of course
the Constitution's 'Impeachment clause' only covers Officers of the
Constitution, not those in waiting. On the Floor of the People's House, Rep.
Green, D-TX, has led a circus that offers Impeachment articles against Trump,
articles that are not just outside the clause, they are particulars based on a
dislike of Trump and nothing less, or more. The Framers, intellectually light
years ahead of Trump's detractors, did not include personal dislikes for
removal from Office and this Republic is better for that wisdom. If Democrats
should prevail by some bastardization of the clause, the Constitution would
forever be subject to on-the-spot amendment, rendering it a catch all for
someone's pique, their angst, their politics.
Before the 2016 Election, daily we were treated to an accuser and another that
followed the next day and the day after the next with complaints that Trump had
engaged in sexual predation of a most unsavory nature. Led by Gloria Allred, a self-disgracing
lawyer who listens for ambulance sirens, great theater was made public with
Allred and an accuser complete with tears and tissues. After Trump was elected,
the tears and tissues evaporated as quickly as did the accusers. (Lisa Bloom,
Allred's daughter, would highlight the sequel with her client offering a
complaint against Judge Roy Moore, Republican Candidate from Alabama for the US
Senate. Tears and tissues were followed by evaporation. Allred and Bloom make
up the DNC's Criminal Investigation Division when it comes to Snidely Whiplash
Republicans)
Enter Stormy Daniels, latest darling of the Impeach Trump crowd. It should be
noted that whatever might have taken place between Trump and Daniels took place
before Trump became President. But, as steady as any drum beat, the Daniel's
story on most left leaning news organizations is front and center. In print, it
is above the fold, in the visual world, it leads off so-called newscasts. To
some minds vacant of understanding-knowing the Impeachment clause, Daniels is
the Impeachable offense that can take Trump down.
"Asked on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" whether Daniels had ever been
threatened with physical harm, Michael Avenatti (Daniel's lawyer) succinctly
replied, "Yes." (THE HILL). Of course Avenatti would not entertain
follow up questions, instead saying "people will have to tune in to '60
Minutes' on March 25," when CBS is scheduled to air an interview with
Daniels." (Yep, CBS, the network that gave us Rather and Mapes,
co-conspirators to bring down President George W. Bush) Will Avenatti reveal
the nature of a physical threat made against Daniels and by whom? Or is this a
page from the Allred-Bloom playbook of salaciousness fabricated by shadowy,
evaporating accusers?
Stay tuned as this Kabuki Theater of The Absurd continues day after day after
day and all because most Democrats and most in the US press dislike Trump to
the point of seeking to upend the Constitution if necessary to take down Trump.
