Stay updated with breaking news from Wasn ta loan. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
What do we know about the source of the million $. we learned from the government and parnas attorney the million dollars was a loan from one of dmitri s lawyers. it was from a swiss lawyer. they had given, according to parnas lawyer a $1 million loan to parnas wife and it was a down payment for a home and personal experiences. % are taking issue with it saying it doesn t smell right. it doesn t pass the smell right. why would this lawyer give parnas wife a loan in that amount of money and then they said parnas was using it as though it wasn t a loan, just a payment, with no intention of paying this back. so prosecutors using this as just another example to say they don t really understand parnas source of financing, where his money is coming from. he they said they had to do a ....
Not disclosing loans and payments on his financial disclosure forms as president? you re to the worried about any of that? let s start with the 1001 issue. that can be construed a number of different ways, one of which it was just a vendor payment, it wasn t a loan, a vendor payment paid to his lawyer. and under the rules, right, you have a lawyer, lawyers get paid all the time. and lawyers get paid, and they charge for fees, they charge for expenses, they charge for a number of different things. that could be construed as a vendor payment, and could be interpreted by his lawyers, we don t know how his lawyers interpreted that provision and gave him advice relative to it. one at a time. don t flood the zone, one at a time, what do you think, laura coates. that s a big stretch. we re not talking about a reimbursement for a meal. we re talking about the idea of whether or not you tried to ....
That can be construed a number of different ways, one of which it was just a vendor payment, it wasn t a loan, a vendor payment paid to his lawyer. and under the rules, right, you have a lawyer, lawyers get paid all the time. and lawyers get paid, and they charge for fees, they charge for expenses, they charge for a number of different things. that could be construed as a vendor payment, and could be interpreted by his lawyers, we don t know how his lawyers interpreted that provision and gave him advice relative to it. one at a time. don t flood the zone, one at a time, what do you think, laura coates. that s a big stretch. we re not talking about a reimbursement for a meal. we re talking about the idea of whether or not you tried to circumvent campaign finance law. even if it were a loan, there would be no purpose of having campaign finance laws if all you had to do was wait until after ....
Engage. we are left confused. what rudy giuliani has tried to clean up is when he said imagine if this came out in the last debate with hillary clinton trying to clean up that it is not a finance violation and it is not a financial disclosure violation because he says it wasn t a loan. we ll leave that to the ethics lawyers. let s start with the credibility crisis. this is the president of the united states. he lied. standing on air force one which i would like to think is a symbol of democracy. this is certainly not the first time that the president has boldly stated something that is completely at odds with the facts that are obvious to anyone with eyes and ears. that is something that he does and something that he has always done as president and long before. i do think that it s not so much that he has the credibility to ....
I don t understand what s so kpli complicated about this unless you re trying to hide things. giuliani this morning said it s very clear that president trump hasn t violated any campaign finance laws over this payment. he said the payment would have been made regardless of the presidential campaign, and even if it had been campaign related it wasn t a loan or expenditure because the president reimbursed it. is that right? no, that s not right. rudy giuliani evidently doesn t he claims to not know the facts, but he most assuredly does not know campaign finance law. that s not campaign finance law. rudy giuliani seems to believe that if the payment was not made with campaign dollars that somehow there is no campaign finance violation. that s not the law. i think it s clear that, look, if this $130,000 reimbursement was all aboveboard and they weren t trying to hide anything or trying to skirt campaign finance law, then why didn t the president just write a check or send a wire for ....