Campaign Finance Violation

[tres borrachos]

It hit 'like'. But I do know people who really are decent people but who are staying all in because of abortion. I said it snarkily and cynically. But there are some people whom I still respect who I know mean well, and they live generous God-fearing lives, and still they're laying down with the mangy, destructive, anti-American orange dog to save the unborn children.

Your post is an insult to mangy orange dogs.

 

[jonny5]

I always care if someone is breaking the law. It doesn't matter who is doing it, and I can't imagine how any decent person can justify it by pointing at someone else. Maybe rethink your position?

You may care, most everyone else doesnt. They care about WINNING. Im not pointing at anyone else, so maybe rethink your position.

 

[jonny5]

Speak for yourself, please. I care about the law. So does everyone I know. If you don't care about the law, that's fine, but you don't get to attribute your feelings to everyone else.

How many people do you know voted for Obama who dropped a bomb on an american citizen without due process? Or Bush who put our military in harms way without congressional approval? The list of laws broken by both parties, presidents, congress, and the courts are long. And yet, I bet everyone you know keeps re-electing them.

 

[Luckyone]

When using ones own money, how does that work?

The threshold legal question is whether the payments were made to keep Trump’s marriage together (for personal reasons) or to keep the campaign together (for political reasons). Payments made “for the purpose of influencing” a federal election are covered by federal campaign finance law. Payments made for personal reasons are not.

According to Cohen, both of these payments were made to influence the election; he told us so in open court.

But we don’t even have to believe Cohen. There is plenty of other evidence to suggest that these payments were made to keep Trump’s political aspirations alive. For one thing, Cohen made the payment to Stormy Daniels mere weeks before the election. Trump’s current personal attorney, Rudy Guilianni, made the implications of this payment and its timing clear on national television. “Imagine if that [the allegation] came out on Oct. 15, 2016, in the middle of the last debate with Hillary Clinton,” he told “Fox & Friends” in May.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-likely-violated-federal-election-laws-regarding-michael-cohen-s-ncna935771

 

[Luckyone]

Grasping at straws?

Ridiculous post. The law is the law and breaking it is a reason to go to jail. Trump evidently broke the law by paying off those 2 very public accusations just before the election. If it wasn't because Trump is POTUS, he would already have been indicted. The only reason he has not been indicted is because he cannot be indicted as President. Cohen is going to spend time in jail (probably about 4 years) for it and Trump is the person that actually told him to do it, meaning that Trump would likely spend more time in jail and is more guilty of it than Cohen.

As such, there is no grasping at straws here. This was a clear case of the law being broken for the personal benefit of Trump.

 

[Luckyone]

How many people do you know voted for Obama who dropped a bomb on an american citizen without due process? Or Bush who put our military in harms way without congressional approval? The list of laws broken by both parties, presidents, congress, and the courts are long. And yet, I bet everyone you know keeps re-electing them.

It does say a lot about the state of our nation, doesn't it.

This was a country that was built by our forefathers to be a lawful country based on laws and that has disappeared and now with Trump even the possibility of an autocracy or even a Dictatorship looms. And the Trump supporters keep supporting him.

We have gone from the top of the pile to the bottom. Sad.

 

[NotreDame]

It is becoming evident that Trump is guilty of a Campaign Finance Violation given that his affairs with Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal happened in 2006 but the payments to them were made in 2016, strongly suggesting that they were done exclusively as an illegal campaign contribution to prevent Trump from losing the election.

This is especially true given than Stormy Daniels first made her accusation in 2012 but the payment to her was not made until 2016, suggesting it was to shut her up right before the election.

This time discrepancy is clearly evident that this was not a payoff to keep the information away from Melania but to keep the information away from the American public just prior to the election.

For the past 2 years it did not seem that this event would be the death knell of Trump but it is fast becoming an impossible-to-get-by obstacle.

This is not my legal sandbox, but from what I have read from some lawyers and law professors, they are debating, among other things, the question of whether Trump would have made this payment or these payments even if he had not been a candidate. Apparently, if Trump would have made these payments if he were not a candidate, then there is not a violation of campaign finance laws.

 

[NotreDame]

Criminal intent. Ordering a Federal crime to be carried out and making structured payments through multiple shell companies. Also, what indication do you have that Obama was in any way responsible for or even aware of those violations?

If you are referencing campaign finance laws, a pivotal issue is whether Trump would have made these payments even if here not a candidate. If so, apparently, Trump did not violate the campaign finance laws by payments to Daniels and McDougal.

 

[Cardinal]

If you are referencing campaign finance laws, a pivotal issue is whether Trump would have made these payments even if here not a candidate. If so, apparently, Trump did not violate the campaign finance laws by payments to Daniels and McDougal.

That argument doesn't work because the NDA's were drafted right around the election long after the affairs happened. It also doesn't work because if they were legal then the use of multiple shell companies would have been an unnecessary waste of time.

There is no way in which the issue can be framed to make it look legitimate.

 

[Grokmaster]

That argument doesn't work because the NDA's were drafted right around the election long after the affairs happened. It also doesn't work because if they were legal then the use of multiple shell companies would have been an unnecessary waste of time.

There is no way in which the issue can be framed to make it look legitimate.

They were made WHEN THE THREATS TO SLANDER HIM were made.

 

[Cardinal]

They were made WHEN THE THREATS TO SLANDER HIM were made.

Oh dear, that's a crime you're describing right there. Has Trump made any allegations and pursued any legal motions to take Daniels and McDougal to task for their crimes?

 

[NotreDame]

That argument doesn't work because the NDA's were drafted right around the election long after the affairs happened. It also doesn't work because if they were legal then the use of multiple shell companies would have been an unnecessary waste of time.

There is no way in which the issue can be framed to make it look legitimate.

Not necessarily...Trump, as a candidate, may still legitimately worry that since he is a candidate, any possible dirt about him will be sought after and possibly disclosed. So, seeking to preclude any harm to his marriage, personal life, family, and or reputation, he has the payments made. That would not be illegal.

The shell companies tell me very little about the issue of whether he would have made these payments even if he were not a candidate.

To be sure, I am not contesting Trump is innocent. The information is certainly incriminating but I also know the legal experts in this area are very divided as to whether Trump violated campaign finance law.

 

[Cardinal]

Not necessarily...Trump, as a candidate, may still legitimately worry that since he is a candidate, any possible dirt about him will be sought after and possibly disclosed. So, seeking to preclude any harm to his marriage, personal life, family, and or reputation, he has the payments made. That would not be illegal.

You literally just described a campaign payment.

The shell companies tell me very little about the issue of whether he would have made these payments even if he were not a candidate.

It should tell you the extraordinary lengths he went to in order to hide those payments.

To be sure, I am not contesting Trump is innocent. The information is certainly incriminating but I also know the legal experts in this area are very divided as to whether Trump violated campaign finance law.

Right now, the only "legal professionals" I'm aware of who are contesting the illegality of those payments is Dershowitz and Giuliani.

 

[NotreDame]

You literally just described a campaign payment.



It should tell you the extraordinary lengths he went to in order to hide those payments.



Right now, the only "legal professionals" I'm aware of who are contesting the illegality of those payments is Dershowitz and Giuliani.

You literally just described a campaign payment.

Not the way I framed it, no I did not.

It should tell you the extraordinary lengths he went to in order to hide those payments.

Which is not criminal and goes to his desire to avoid embarrassing his family.

 

[Cardinal]

Not the way I framed it, no I did not.



Which is not criminal and goes to his desire to avoid embarrassing his family.

Regardless of how you intended to frame it, you described the elements that made it a campaign payment.

 

[NotreDame]

Regardless of how you intended to frame it, you described the elements that made it a campaign payment.

Nope. I did not.

 

[ttwtt78640]

You literally just described a campaign payment.



It should tell you the extraordinary lengths he went to in order to hide those payments.



Right now, the only "legal professionals" I'm aware of who are contesting the illegality of those payments is Dershowitz and Giuliani.

At least you are calling them payments, as in expenses paid by the campaign, and not campaign contributions.

 

[sangha]

Not necessarily...Trump, as a candidate, may still legitimately worry that since he is a candidate, any possible dirt about him will be sought after and possibly disclosed. So, seeking to preclude any harm to his marriage, personal life, family, and or reputation, he has the payments made. That would not be illegal.

The shell companies tell me very little about the issue of whether he would have made these payments even if he were not a candidate.

To be sure, I am not contesting Trump is innocent. The information is certainly incriminating but I also know the legal experts in this area are very divided as to whether Trump violated campaign finance law.

Umm, Trump agreed to pay McDougal years earlier but then reneged on it. But suddenly, when he ran for office, he decided he needed to pay.

So we already know that he would not make those payments if he were not a candidate because that is exactly what he did not do

 

[Cardinal]

At least you are calling them payments, as in expenses paid by the campaign, and not campaign contributions.

A distinction without a difference.

 

[Cardinal]

Nope. I did not.

Your words:

"Trump, as a candidate, may still legitimately worry that since he is a candidate, any possible dirt about him will be sought after and possibly disclosed."

I.E. a campaign payment.

 

[ttwtt78640]

A distinction without a difference.

Nope - if you are running for office then you can contribute as much as you wish to your own campaign but if I contribute money to your campaign (even if you later pay me back) then I must abide by the legal individual campaign contribution limit. What is illegal for Cohen may be perfectly legal for Trump.

 

[WCH]

The threshold legal question is whether the payments were made to keep Trump’s marriage together (for personal reasons) or to keep the campaign together (for political reasons). Payments made “for the purpose of influencing” a federal election are covered by federal campaign finance law. Payments made for personal reasons are not.

According to Cohen, both of these payments were made to influence the election; he told us so in open court.

But we don’t even have to believe Cohen. There is plenty of other evidence to suggest that these payments were made to keep Trump’s political aspirations alive. For one thing, Cohen made the payment to Stormy Daniels mere weeks before the election. Trump’s current personal attorney, Rudy Guilianni, made the implications of this payment and its timing clear on national television. “Imagine if that [the allegation] came out on Oct. 15, 2016, in the middle of the last debate with Hillary Clinton,” he told “Fox & Friends” in May.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-likely-violated-federal-election-laws-regarding-michael-cohen-s-ncna935771

"According to Cohen".... there's your sign.

He's giving in to Mueller's extortion attempts.

 

[sangha]

Nope - if you are running for office then you can contribute as much as you wish to your own campaign but if I contribute money to your campaign (even if you later pay me back) then I must abide by the legal individual campaign contribution limit. What is illegal for Cohen may be perfectly legal for Trump.

Deliberately not reporting payments or contributions is a crime, regardless of where the money came from.

 

[maxparrish]

Grasping at straws?

Ridiculous post. The law is the law and breaking it is a reason to go to jail. Trump evidently broke the law by paying off those 2 very public accusations just before the election. If it wasn't because Trump is POTUS, he would already have been indicted. The only reason he has not been indicted is because he cannot be indicted as President. Cohen is going to spend time in jail (probably about 4 years) for it and Trump is the person that actually told him to do it, meaning that Trump would likely spend more time in jail and is more guilty of it than Cohen.

As such, there is no grasping at straws here. This was a clear case of the law being broken for the personal benefit of Trump.

There are many aspects to this investigation that is evident, first and foremost being that Mueller intentionally inflated the investigation far beyond that of Russian collusion in regards to election activities. Once Mueller decided Manafort's conduct of many years prior to the election was to be re-investigated (in prior years the FBI had wire-tapped him more than once, apparently finding nothing actionable) we all knew the original purpose had changed to "get Trump's associates and then Trump because of who they are". The motive was so transparent that Rod Rosenstein had to create the paperwork in August of 2017 to RETROACTIVELY expand and justify Mueller's conduct that had already taken place.

And it is evident that because there is no substantive "collusion" with the Russians, Mueller raided Trump's attorney's office as a direct assault on Trump's personal (and lurid) history and his business.

So now that investigation has zero point zero relevance to is original purpose, the anti-Trump hysterics are "indicting a ham sandwich", using lawfare to achieve political ends. So let's look at this latest transparently political ploy:

1) It's not a criminal campaign finance law violation to pay for anything campaign related using your own funds. To the degree that Cohen paid the money for Trump (re Stormy Daniels), as his attorney he merely floated an expense, representing Trump, to be reimbursed by Trump. Case closed.

2) In the case of the National Enquirer's purchase of the exclusive rights to Karen McDougal's story, Trump did not pay for it. If the purchase of an exclusive is illegal because it is intended to "influences an election" then all such stories in elections are "in-kind contributions", whether they are published or not. What a paper does with a story always influences an election, and is often meant to do so. In other words, its called freedom of the press. Trump did not direct a felony because it was not a felony.

3) And its even unclear if the law being used is being properly understood. The law is for no other purpose than to deter corruption (bribery of the elected) and to check the "undue influence" of economic interests. Yet, neither the Trump-Cohen expenditures have anything to do with "corruption" or the undue influence of economic interests. Candidates that fund themselves directly or indirectly are being influenced by themselves, and those accused in this case of in-kind contributions are not motivated by bribery, but personal support.

4) Bradley A. Smith, former chair of the FEC (and one of the few leading authorities on election law) has stated:

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 (the) “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.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/stormy-weather-for-campaign-finance-laws-1523398987

All of which leads to the absurd catch 22: if this expense would not exist but for the campaign, then it must be paid by campaign funds (of which he can contribute as much as he likes). Then, of course, if Trump had directed the campaign to do so, he would be accused of using campaign funds for private hush money and could be impeached for that.

Needless to say, this is what happens when law is ssstttttrrrreaaachhhhed to the point of incoherency.

 

[Luckyone]

Nope - if you are running for office then you can contribute as much as you wish to your own campaign but if I contribute money to your campaign (even if you later pay me back) then I must abide by the legal individual campaign contribution limit. What is illegal for Cohen may be perfectly legal for Trump.

I am also not a legal scholar but the reality is that he paid to keep the information from being known to the public, specifically just before the election, thus influencing the election. That may be the big sticking point "paying for something to influence the election in his favor".

Imagine if Hillary had paid to keep the personal servers from being discovered and it was proven. How would that have been seen?

Just knowing that she had personal servers was bad enough, but a cover up would have been a criminal offense. In Trump's case, knowing he had extra-marital affairs was a negative but covering them up with payments is criminal, in my opinion.