sheeeit

That is not technically correct. First, the campaign had to know about the contribution and "accept" it. Or, they have to make the case that Cohen was an active agent of the campaign. Both will be very hard to prove, IMO. But it is not a slam dunk. They can also try and make a case that by Trump reimbursing Cohen that that act constituted the acceptance of the payment for the benefit of the campaign. The whole episode is shady but proving it to be illegal will be difficult. And, even if they prove it somehow, the only real penalty is to retroactively declare it and account for it and, possibly, return it.

So your theory is that back during the final weeks of the campaign that Cohen paid stormy $130K and then the trump org billed the trump campaign an equivalent amount of money ($130K). And then Trump funneled the money back to Cohen in $35K monthly installments after the fact? I suppose that is possible with this crew but I doubt it.

Your first paragraph is my whole point. I believe that there are records showing $35K monthly retainer payments to Cohen from trump that started sometime after the election. IMO, that is why Guillani talked about it. Their position is going to be that Cohen made the initial payment to Stormy without Trump's knowledge and without the campaign's knowledge. Trump and Cohen will try and say it was just a retainer for legal work and not connected to the Stormy payout. I think that is bs but I do not think that even if they now admit that it was essentially reimbursement for the payout that it was illegal. That was Guilliani's point.

Your capacity to post the same thing over and over and over is impressive. My take on the payments is that Cohen paid stormy off. I would guess that Trump knew but I think it will be impossible to prove that he knew or it will be a semantics game- Trump to Cohen "just deal with it" but I dont need to know the details. In that scenario, Trump can truthfully state that he did not know that a payment was made. My guess is that Guiliiani saw that there were retainer fees to Cohen from Trump and made the assumption that Mueller/Press/Public would interpret those retainer fees as reimbursement for Stormy so he decided to just go public with it because there wasn't anything illegal about it (assuming the payments were, in fact, from cohen personally and not the campaign). Obviously, if Cohen used campaign funds or was reimbursed from the campaign then there is trouble with FEC violations. Pretty sure the violations would be civil but who knows. The problem with the line of thinking that Cohen used campaign funds to pay Stormy or that the campaign paid Cohen back is that we already have the story out there about the retainer fees from Trump. If the campaign paid for the hush money or immediately reimbursed Cohen as some are suggesting, then why are there retainer fees to Cohen now? My guess is that Cohen made the payments from his own pocket. My guess is that when cohen initially said he was not reimbursed for the payment by trump or the campaign he could technically be correct. Trump can say he put him on retainer for legal advice. Of course it sounds sketchy and very well may be but I do not think it is illegal.

Lets at least be honest here, the only reason NBC retracted the statement was because they got caught. Comey has now twice (once in his congressional testimony and once in his interviews recently) said that at least 2 articles that supposedly used fbi peeps as sources were completely false. No retractions on those. When they report a fact (like this about wiretapping) they get continually burned. When they just report so and so said this, then there are no retractions because there isn't anyone to refute them. For instance, they write something like the potus talked about firing mueller. So who gets to fact check that? That is their common bs tactic these days. And how about this from the upstanding lawyer Avenatti. How is this going to be walked back or retracted? " Michael Avenatti, the lawyer for adult film actress Stormy Daniels, said on MSNBC Thursday he had knowledge that law enforcement intercepted text messages from President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen before the FBI raid of Cohen’s home, office and hotel room. The attorney, who filed a defamation lawsuit on behalf of Daniels, whose legal name is Stephanie Clifford, against Trump this week, was reacting to a new NBC News report that federal investigators had obtained a wiretap of Cohen’s phone lines. According to NBC, law enforcement intercepted at least one phone call between Cohen and the White House. The report said it was unclear how long the wiretap had been in place. “I don't think we're going to find out that this was confined just to email or voice wiretaps. My understanding is that they were also wiretapping text message communications for the weeks leading up to the FBI raids,” Avenatti said. Pressed on how he garnered the information, Avenatti responded: “I’m not speculating, that’s a fact." Avenatti said he believed intercepted communications gave investigators reason to believe that evidence could be destroyed if they didn’t move in and raid Cohen's properties. "I also think that it will ultimately be disclosed that during these wiretaps the FBI learned of means by which Michael Cohen and others were going to potentially destroy or spoliate evidence or documentation," Avenatti said. "That's what served as the predicate or the basis for them to be able to go in and get the warrant to search the home, the office and the hotel room of Michael Cohen." Anyone think that MSNBC is going to correct the Avenatti rant? Think Avenatti will just admit he made it all up? That perhaps when he said "I'm not speculating, that's a fact." that he was, in fact, speculating and talking right out of his ass. How is that Genie getting back in the bottle. I also love the Pods and Hugo narrative that this is Trumps people feeding bad info to the willing media to try and diffuse the actual news. That trumps people have been using the media and manipulating them. I mean even you guys would admit that reporters would only let a source burn them once right? yet you are suggesting this has been going on for a year. The smart ethical journalists just keep using these trump sources that keep burning them. And, now that trumps peeps are in tight with the media and acting as informants, they decided to blow their cover on a story about Cohen's phones being tapped which can, and was, easily proved wrong. The trump peeps worked really hard to get in a position to influence the media narrative and then blew it all away on a nothing story about cohen. Seems logical. The media has been using anonymous sources to drive ratings for a year and a half and you guys love it.

I used to think this was a bit, but there are actually people that truly believe that if Trump loses the election in 2020 that he won't leave office? That is past crazy to just plain retarded. As to the dinner, the WHC had to know what they were getting when they hired her. It didnt seem to me to be that brutal but it was just completely unfunny. I am sure it resonated with about 10% of the market but the other 90% just thought it was dumb.

Why so scared? You are convinced you know what is going on. I offered a simple wager. Dont be a pussy. Lets wager.

Our democracy as we know it is at stake! Burn her! She is a witch and a colluder!

Do you even have a clue how pathetic you come across when you post. You have never caught me in any lie. You accuse me of lying but never actually prove anything. But I am happy to publicly wager on my position. lets make a bet. If Mueller finds that Nataliya was a russian agent and was part of the russian conspiracy with the trump crew I will change my name on here to Pods is a Genius. If not, you change yours to Sheeeit is a Genius.

Lulz. tweetle dumb and tweetle dumber.

https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/russian-lawyer-who-met-with-kushner-don-jr-admits-to-being-an-informant-1221063235886 Nice job crazies. Through subtitles we are to believe she admitted to being a russian agent. She didnt. We have no idea what word she =said or how it translates in english. She gets after Engel in the end for accusing her of being dishonest. She is adamant that she never lied about anything to the HIC. They cut off her statement at the end. If the emails are real, all they really prove is that she worked on a case that had some govt involvement. She already admitted working in connection with the russian govt in her capacity as legal counsel for Prevezon. I predict this will go where every other crazy theory goes....nowhere. A 2 minute or so edited interview is the one that brings everyone down? Any of you wonder why no one with a brain is following up on this?

We shall see in the actual interview.

I have no care at all for Avenatti or his lies. I thought it was kind of funny to watch people figure out a way that trump paid for an abortion and a multimillionaire took the fall for it and the lawyer that represented the playboy model that had the abortion went along with the scam because...? It was completely preposterous. As for policy, I never really give much attention to anything that politicians say about it. The only thing that matters is their actual actions. Is your issue that the ACA is horrible but that it is even more horrible that trump could not fix it in his first year? At least they tried. Every potus from bush, clinton, bush, obama has promised to fix any number of things. Very few ever got fixed. I think the aca is terrible. I was hopeful it could get changed. So far it has not. Had trump lied about healthcare and then changed the law based on those lies and it made the situation worse, then of course I would be pissed. I am pissed that it did not get changed but I am still more pissed at the group that put it in place than the group that tried to change it.

You really need help. You have become as bad as the crazies at attributing things to people. Avenattis lie does not bother me more than trump lies. I really do not care about Avenatti at all. Other people started posting about his comments and started speculating that Trunmp paid for an abortion and that Broidy took the fall for it. It was insanely stupid. And, as usual, people ate it up just like he knew they would. Just like they do with all things trump. I as simply yanking your chain a little since you like to throw the liar thing out there all the time. I thought Avenatti was teed up for you. I have stated, multiple times, any number of things that I think trump should be impeached for. So far, none of those things have been proven. Gravity? You have no idea if the tax cuts will be effective or not. Healthcare? How about we scrutinize all of the promises made by Clinton, Bush and Obama before they were sworn in and see how many of them they actually did? Debt, deficit, immigration, taxation etc etc. I guess they all "flat out lied". They did. Your double standard is comical. Bottom line is that you called me, a random poster on a message board, a "lying liar" for posting information about HUD multifamily loans that someone requested and that was completely factual. So, apparently, my comments "bothered you MORE" than his. That is the fucking unhinged post trump world you live in. Fucking amazing.

Wow. You guys are really unstable. I was just poking fun at Brisket. I kind of liked the line "lying liar" (as opposed to truth telling liar?) Yes lying is generally bad. Yes the volume matters. As does the impact on me. Lying about the size of crowds or how many illegals are in the country or crime is rising or best potus ever do not really affect me. Lying about a healthcare plan that promised not to add even $1 to the deficit that caused my personal family health insurance to more than double and my dedictible to triple affects me more. Both are bad. Yes who tells the lies is important. If you are really asking me if Trump lies, then yes, repeatedly. As for Avenatti, here is what he said: “So, Mika, you are familiar with the fact that a week ago, Judge (Kimba) Wood ordered Michael Cohen’s attorneys to disclose all of his clients for the last three years,” Avenatti said, “and there were three clients listed — three clients listed. Do you recall which three?” Then he went on to speculate that Broidy was not an actual client. Of course that is a lie and Broidy was listed.

Do we think Brisket will now post that Avenatti is a “lying liar”.

All of the long term non traditional financing options for multifamily are non recourse. And even in the traditional banking markets (when you do a new project from scratch) the construction loan is interest only and recourse but when you have occupancy and the construction loan goes to permanent, they are non recourse. But there are very few traditional banks that get long term mortgages on multifamily because they are not as competitive. Life insurance companies and private money make up the biggest percentage of the market. Perhaps you guys are getting hung up on what we are talking about. The HUD programs for multifamily are different than those for single family housing. But HUD's multifamily program is just another option. No loan forgiveness. Nothing. Just an option. Same underwriting guidelines. In fact, tighter guidelines in some regions. I have been involved in 5 multifamily deals like this in the last 7 years. I am not sure why you guys are arguing with me. You can search all of this info on your own. Anyone of you can put a business plan together for multifamily and find out for yourselves. There are plenty of better options for financing of these projects. Especially for a guy with hannity's income/wealth. Apparently he liked the HUD terms more than the other ones. Most people do not.

The things you described above are not relatable to multifamily. When private equity groups, or wealthy individuals or Life insurance companies get involved in multifamily, they get the same terms as everyone else. Yes, In a deal like what Hannity did, HUD is just a competitor in the market like anyone else. Everyone has terms that are slightly different and every person looking for funding has different interests. HUD has many advantages, the biggest is the long term fixed rates. But the fees are higher than others, they require a mountain of paperwork, they take 12-18 months to close, they restrict owners getting cash back, they have penalties for early prepayment etc. There is a separate section of HUD that is for apartments with rent subsidies. I do not have any hands on experience with those types of projects and, I assume, there are beneficial terms to those deals.

Lulz. Is that a Mike Leach. Lets just disagree on what leeching is. I do not think any definition of leeching would include the supposed leecher paying high upfront fees and market based interest but they could have changed the whole dictionary while I was napping.

No you are being deliberately stupid. There is no contradiction at all. You are arguing that the "industry" is ONLY HUD and traditional banks. It is not. How is this hard for you to grasp. I will go slowly again. HUD has different terms than traditional banks. HUD does not have different terms from a myriad of other non traditional options for financing multifamily. HUD is not unique in the "industry" but they are unique from traditional banking that makes up a portion of the "industry". All of the non traditional financing sources for multifamily will give you equivalent terms to that of HUD. Otherwise, they would never get any business.

Seriously? Is this how you argue as a lawyer? I hope not. The market for financing is not, as you seem to argue/think, made up solely of traditional banks and HUD. There are a myriad of financing options in multifamily. There are advantages and disadvantages to all of them. Collectively, they make up the market. HUD, by no means, dominates the financing market for multifamily. You seem to be arguing that HUD offers better than market terms. If so, why don't they have all the business? This is just stupid. You asked a legitimate question about why someone would do a HUD loan that had higher up front fees and a market interest rate. I tried to explain why someone would go that route. What happened to you?

You are a strange cat sometimes. The terms you can get with HUD you can also get from other non-traditional sources of funding. Life insurance companies will fund multifamily, there are a ton of private equity groups that fund multifamily and any term is negotiable even in the traditional marketplace. Multifamily financing is kind of its own thing. But the terms you can get with HUD you can get other places. Simply because of HUD's terms, the industry has had to match them. So, yes, it is market. Getting a fixed rate is simply a hedge. Rates go up and down. There are penalties for refinancing a HUD loan early in most cases and typically not in traditional loans. I have no idea why Hannity used HUD, if he even did. People make decisions on financing for a variety of reasons. But the HUD loans are expensive upfront and the rates are market. The whole point is that this is a ridiculous example of people trying to make some idiotic point about tax payer money or welfare.

LOL. You probably need to check on things yourself. The SIC asked a lot of questions related to the Dossier, Nataliya did not bring it up. In fact, here is her direct quote on the Dossier "absolute nonsense."

Well I dont think I have ever seen his TV show and I have heard his radio show a handful of times but it has been a while. What I remember was that he just repeats his points over and over and is not funny or entertaining. I think any show/host that is virtually one sided in their approach/view is a tool and that doesnt interest me.

Not much, it is a question of risk. The biggest advantage to the HUD deals (and they are fee heavy) is that they will give you a fixed rate loan with a longer amortization than traditional banks. HUD will actually do 40 year ams and fix the rate for 25 years. Traditional lenders will be less expensive up front but will only fix the rate for 10 years or so and usually they will not do an am schedule over 20 years. With the HUD deal you give up cash up front to lock in todays interest rate. They are also assumable, but so are most traditional loans. if you are going to sell the asset in the next 5-7 years then HUD is nott he best option but if you intend to hold it long term, then HUD makes some sense.