Connect with us

Guns and Crime

Should Kavanaugh sue?

Published

on

Brett Kavanaugh is now a Supreme Court Justice, but the price he and his family have paid was steep. As he mentioned in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Kavanaugh’s life has been ruined in many ways. He no longer teaches. He will no longer coach sports teams. His family’s name has been tarnished.

Michael Avenatti, the attorney for Kavanaugh’s third accuser, Julie Swetnick, has challenged Kavanaugh to sue.

Defamation law attorney L. Lin Wood went on Fox News and gave the pros and cons of whether or not Kavanaugh should, indeed sue.

My Take

I hope he does. Chances are slim since it will take this circus to the next level, but for future incidents like this it would benefit America if he defended his reputation.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Guns and Crime

Alexander Acosta is the swamp

Published

on

Alexander Acosta is the swamp

Billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein served 13 months in prison. His deal brought no justice to his victims who were not even informed until after the deal was made. He was protected from federal prosecution and given every amenity possible during his stay in a private wing of his prison. All of this was made possible by Alexander Acosta, the current Labor Secretary in the Trump administration.

Epstein may have escaped justice, but Acosta should not be allowed to escape repercussions for his part in the Epstein deal. If the President ever really had intentions of draining the swamp, he should start by firing Acosta immediately.

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

The Russian investigation was never about Russia. It was cover to find dirt on the President.

Published

on

The Russian investigation was never about Russia It was cover to find dirt on the President

President Trump is almost certainly never going to be caught committing the types of crimes that initially prompted the Russia investigation led by special counsel Robert Mueller. That was never the goal of the investigation. It was a cover story concocted to give Mueller unimpeded access to the President and his staff.

As I’ve said on multiple occasions, the Russian collusion angle was simply an excuse to justify digging into the affairs of the President, his campaign staff, and everyone associated with them. They knew the chances of finding true collusion were slim, but they needed a reason to try to uncover potentially impeachable offenses. Now, Democrats and mainstream media think they’ve found them in the form of hush money paid to porn star Stormy Daniels and Playboy bunny Karen McDougal.

The sentencing recommendation documents for Michael Cohen, the President’s former attorney, revealed the investigation is now focused on proving that “Individual-1” ordered the hush money be paid to cover up affairs the President had with the two women. Many experts, including Trump supporters like Chris Christy and Andrew McCarthy, believe there’s a case that can be made against President Trump for campaign finance violations.

There are two questions that must be answered. Did candidate Trump order Michael Cohen to pay hush money? If he did, was it a violation of campaign finance laws?

The answer to the first one is almost certainly yes. It’s hard to imagine Cohen acting on his own. In fact, it’s ludicrous to think that Trump, who is known for micromanaging his affairs, would not be made aware of any threats or perceived threats of these women at the height of the campaign.

The second question has a murkier answer. Arguments can be made in both directions. Was it an effort to stifle potentially damaging revelations that could hurt the campaign? Yes. Was it a personal matter, in which case paying off people for their silence is not against the law? Yes.

The timing of the payoffs may be the best argument the prosecution will be able to make to demonstrate these were campaign finance violations. Because these would be considered damaging to the campaign, one can easily make the connection that they were intended to influence the outcome of the election. On the other hand, the argument can also be made that the threats came out because of the election, but the decision to pay hush money was a personal one. This could be easily corroborated if past payments were revealed.

The President has a sure-fire way to disprove campaign finance violations, but he won’t like it

http://noqreport.com/2018/12/09/president-sure-fire-way-disprove-campaign-finance-violations-wont-like/By showing past payoffs to women, the President can go with the story that he didn’t want to damage his marriage or business dealings. This play might hurt his reputation, but it would likely quash attempts to indict him.

This is all assuming there were past payoffs. If there weren’t, then it would be difficult for his defense to claim the two payoffs in question were not politically motivated.

It may not be the most elegant solution for the President, but if the investigation continues to build a case that he committed campaign finance violations, he may have no choice but to reveal past payoffs that show he’s immoral, but not a criminal.

If President Trump never paid hush money to women before announcing his candidacy, then he’s truly in a pickle. It’s hard to argue this was a personal issue devoid of political motivations because his past is checkered with scandals that mirror or even supersede such claims. Most damaging is the fact that he’s bragged about affairs in books he’s published.

The President’s opponents were willing to take him down regardless of the cost. That’s why they concocted the Russia collusion investigation in the first place. This whole mess stinks and will be a stain on our political system for years to come.

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

The President has a sure-fire way to disprove campaign finance violations, but he won’t like it

Published

on

The President has a sure-fire way to disprove campaign finance violations but he wont like it

As the President becomes more embroiled in Michael Cohen’s payoffs to porn star Stormy Daniels and Playboy bunny Karen McDougal, it’s becoming increasingly likely he will be indicted for campaign finance violations. While it’s unlikely this will affect his first term as President, it could mean charges are brought against him the moment he’s no longer in office. This could also add fuel to the fire for Democrats to win in 2020, as it would open the door for charges to be filed.

There’s a way the President can stop the charges before they’re filed, but it’s a step the President likely won’t want to take. If he has paid hush money to other women in the past, before he announced his run for President, he can demonstrate the hush money was paid to protect his personal reputation. If that’s the case, then this no longer falls under campaign finance laws.

It isn’t illegal to pay hush money to people.

The case that prosecutors will try to make is that then-candidate Trump ordered his attorney, Cohen, to facilitate payments to women whose stories could damage his chances of winning the 2016 presidential election. If they can prove that the President ordered the payoffs, they then have to prove the reason for the payoffs was to influence the election.

By showing past payoffs to women, the President can go with the story that he didn’t want to damage his marriage or business dealings. This play might hurt his reputation, but it would likely quash attempts to indict him.

This is all assuming there were past payoffs. If there weren’t, then it would be difficult for his defense to claim the two payoffs in question were not politically motivated.

It may not be the most elegant solution for the President, but if the investigation continues to build a case that he committed campaign finance violations, he may have no choice but to reveal past payoffs that show he’s immoral, but not a criminal.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report