Hjem Falske nyheter Iflg. Trump-haterne «SNØRER NETTET SEG» ..nok en gang.

Iflg. Trump-haterne «SNØRER NETTET SEG» ..nok en gang.

Bildekolasj av faksimiler

Mark Levin, Bradley Smith (jusprofessor og tidligere medlem av valgkommisjonen), Scott Adams med flere, er slett ikke overbevist.

I gårsdagens Hannity Show – etter at Hannity stiller det betimelige spørsmål om hvordan påstander om samrøre mellom Trump-kampanjen og Russland har havnet over i påstander rundt utbetalinger til forsmådde kvinner – gir Levin sin vurdering av informasjonen rundt avtalen (såkalt Plea deal) mellom Donald Trump’s tidligere advokat, Michael Cohen og påtalemyndighetene.

Primært vedrørende påstander rundt utbetalinger til to kvinner for å ikke uttale seg om private forhold mellom dem og Trump (non-disclosure agreements):

MARK LEVIN: The general counsel [advokat] for the Clinton mob family, Lanny Davis, he had his client [Michael Cohen] plead to two counts of criminality that don’t exist. These campaign finance violations that all over TV, they’re saying implicates the president 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’s not the judge, he’s not the jury, we didn’t adjudicate anything, it never went to court.

[Number three] 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..

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 an election.
Yes mr. prosecutor, how stupid is your point, IT’S NOT A CRIME!

More; let’s say [a] 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 influence the election!
So what?
There are certain things you do that influence an election, that are legal,
certain things you do that influence an election that are illegal.

Let’s say a candidate gets a non-disclosure agreement from a disgruntled employee.. 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 [Michael Cohen] plead guilty to two offenses that aren’t offenses, that [but] the prosecutor insisted were offenses, that’s why he’s no good,  that is Michael Cohen against Donald Trump [?].

Donald Trump’s in the clear.

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

Now here’s my question; has the Southern District of New York ever paid money in a nondisclosure agreement with any of its employees? How about any US Attorney’s Office in the United States? How about the Department of Justice? How about any business? How about any union? How about the DNC? How about members of Congress?

It’s done all the time. [But] call it hush money ,and all of [a sudden]; «Hush money? Oh 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. Muller have left? ..he’s chasing the Manhattan madam. Who the hell’s the Manhattan madam? I don’t know, how he’s interviewing.. he’s dragging her in front of the grand jury. What’s next? The Manhattan Madame.. he’s got he’s got Manafort where he wants him on banking charges, he set up a few guys like Flynn who’s gotten in trouble, now they have Cohen.. what do they have? They have nothing!

I’ll tell you what they have; mr. Muller as a federal prosecutor is preparing his impeachment report, which is an unconstitutional activity. Mr. Muller is supposed to be non-political, he’s not supposed to be preparing impeachment reports.

Mr. Muller 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 show he said; «why do they take two or three weeks?«
I’ll tell you why they take two or three weeks; because mr. Muller has to consult mr. Rosenstein, his boss, to figure out what to do with this 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 site? 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 [Mueller] needs this interview to CREATE a crime against the President of the United States! This prosecutor.. well that’s pretty damn outrageous!



Lanny Davis.. he’s puts out a tweet today; «Today Cohen stood up and testified under oath that Donald Trump directed him to commit a crime..by making payments to two women for the principle purpose of influencing an election. If those payments were a crime from 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 into your corner with Hillary Clinton.


Jusprofessor Bradley Smith

Mark Levin baserer seg delvis på informasjon fra professor Smith som var medlem og formann av den føderale valgkommisjonen FEC (Federal Election Commission) mellom 2000 og 2005.

Levin hos Hannity: