• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Once Again: Former FEC Chair: Trump Hush Money Not Illegal

Grokmaster

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
9,613
Reaction score
2,735
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
While the Fake News/Lying Left etc. are, once again, running around in a frothy-frenzy over the latest Witch Hunt "dog whistle", they are , once again, alse trying their favorite Liespeak Game: "Create a Crime".

You know, where they decide that the ACTUAL LAW is just a "suggestion", and they declare anything Pres.Trump has ever done, to be a "crime" such as looking into a real estate development in Russia, or, in this case, , making a perfectly legal payment to stop libelous tramps from messing with his marriage, etal.

A former FEC (as in " Federal Election Commission" ) chairman explained this MONTHS AGO, but the Fake News/Lying Left just cannot help themselves when The Grand Buffoon speaks:




Former FEC Chair: Trump Hush Money Unseemly, But Not Illegal


So, about all this hush money? Does anyone, excluding snobby Acela Corridor elites, really care about it? The claim is that these payments to allege mistresses to President Trump—affairs that allegedly occurred way before he was even thinking about running for president, were campaign finance violations. The plea deal by Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen kicked the impeachment talk into high gear this week. It’s not going anywhere. Well, for starters, you have former top Federal Election Commission officials saying the payments were “unseemly,” but not illegal. The law is murky on this subject—and just because Stormy Daniels’ lawyer, Michael Avenatti, says it’s a violation doesn’t make it so. The porn star lawyer has been going on a tear, alleging this, that, and the other against the Trump administration for months. Nothing substantive has materialized. Wait—didn’t Cohen admit that these payments were directed by Trump? Maybe—but again—so what?

Former chair of the FEC, Bradley Smith, has more (via WaPo):


[I]…[R]egardless of what Cohen agreed to in a plea bargain, hush-money payments to mistresses are not really campaign expenditures. It is true that “contribution” and “expenditure” are defined in the Federal Election Campaign Act as anything “for the purpose of influencing any election,” and it may have been intended and hoped that paying hush money would serve that end. The problem is that almost anything a candidate does can be interpreted as intended to “influence an election,” from buying a good watch to make sure he gets to places on time, to getting a massage so that he feels fit for the campaign trail, to buying a new suit so that he looks good on a debate stage. Yet having campaign donors pay for personal luxuries — such as expensive watches, massages and Brooks Brothers suits — seems more like bribery than funding campaign speech.

That’s why another part of the statute defines “personal use” as any expenditure “used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.” These may not be paid with campaign funds, even though the candidate might benefit from the expenditure. Not every expense that might benefit a candidate is an obligation that exists solely because the person is a candidate.

Suppose, for example, that Trump had told his lawyers, “Look, these complaints about Trump University have no merit, but they embarrass me as a candidate. Get them settled.” Are the settlements thus “campaign expenses”? The obvious answer is no, even though the payments were intended to benefit Trump as a candidate.

If the opposite were true and they were considered campaign expenses, then not only could Trump pay them with campaign funds, but also he would be required to pay these business expenses from campaign funds. Is that what campaign donations are for?

[…]

Yes, those payments were unseemly, but unseemliness doesn’t make something illegal. At the very least, the law is murky about whether paying hush money to a mistress is a “campaign expense” or a personal expense.
[/I]

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattv...-hush-money-unseemly-but-not-illegal-n2512451
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Getting popcorn and beverage for the upcoming DP Left comedy....
 

jnug

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 23, 2018
Messages
20,606
Reaction score
7,689
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
While the Fake News/Lying Left etc. are, once again, running around in a frothy-frenzy over the latest Witch Hunt "dog whistle", they are , once again, alse trying their favorite Liespeak Game: "Create a Crime".

You know, where they decide that the ACTUAL LAW is just a "suggestion", and they declare anything Pres.Trump has ever done, to be a "crime" such as looking into a real estate development in Russia, or, in this case, , making a perfectly legal payment to stop libelous tramps from messing with his marriage, etal.

A former FEC (as in " Federal Election Commission" ) chairman explained this MONTHS AGO, but the Fake News/Lying Left just cannot help themselves when The Grand Buffoon speaks:




Former FEC Chair: Trump Hush Money Unseemly, But Not Illegal


So, about all this hush money? Does anyone, excluding snobby Acela Corridor elites, really care about it? The claim is that these payments to allege mistresses to President Trump—affairs that allegedly occurred way before he was even thinking about running for president, were campaign finance violations. The plea deal by Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen kicked the impeachment talk into high gear this week. It’s not going anywhere. Well, for starters, you have former top Federal Election Commission officials saying the payments were “unseemly,” but not illegal. The law is murky on this subject—and just because Stormy Daniels’ lawyer, Michael Avenatti, says it’s a violation doesn’t make it so. The porn star lawyer has been going on a tear, alleging this, that, and the other against the Trump administration for months. Nothing substantive has materialized. Wait—didn’t Cohen admit that these payments were directed by Trump? Maybe—but again—so what?

Former chair of the FEC, Bradley Smith, has more (via WaPo):


[I]…[R]egardless of what Cohen agreed to in a plea bargain, hush-money payments to mistresses are not really campaign expenditures. It is true that “contribution” and “expenditure” are defined in the Federal Election Campaign Act as anything “for the purpose of influencing any election,” and it may have been intended and hoped that paying hush money would serve that end. The problem is that almost anything a candidate does can be interpreted as intended to “influence an election,” from buying a good watch to make sure he gets to places on time, to getting a massage so that he feels fit for the campaign trail, to buying a new suit so that he looks good on a debate stage. Yet having campaign donors pay for personal luxuries — such as expensive watches, massages and Brooks Brothers suits — seems more like bribery than funding campaign speech.

That’s why another part of the statute defines “personal use” as any expenditure “used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.” These may not be paid with campaign funds, even though the candidate might benefit from the expenditure. Not every expense that might benefit a candidate is an obligation that exists solely because the person is a candidate.

Suppose, for example, that Trump had told his lawyers, “Look, these complaints about Trump University have no merit, but they embarrass me as a candidate. Get them settled.” Are the settlements thus “campaign expenses”? The obvious answer is no, even though the payments were intended to benefit Trump as a candidate.

If the opposite were true and they were considered campaign expenses, then not only could Trump pay them with campaign funds, but also he would be required to pay these business expenses from campaign funds. Is that what campaign donations are for?

[…]

Yes, those payments were unseemly, but unseemliness doesn’t make something illegal. At the very least, the law is murky about whether paying hush money to a mistress is a “campaign expense” or a personal expense.
[/I]

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattv...-hush-money-unseemly-but-not-illegal-n2512451
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Getting popcorn and beverage for the upcoming DP Left comedy....

Except SDNY has Weisselberg and Pecker and Cohen cooperating with regard to the nature of the payments and the rational for them. SDNY would not have named "the candidate" for the Presidency if they did not have corroboration for Cohen. In fact, SDNY is not happy with Cohen making corroboration all the more important.
 

cabse5

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2013
Messages
22,624
Reaction score
2,293
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I saw a blurb on the Internet suggesting Pelosi and the house's first priority is campaign finance law reform. Hum, I wonder if Trump's situation with his mistresses and their hush monies paid by Trump will be included in the campaign finance reform bill? Will the house attempt to retroactively prosecute Trump using this new campaign finance bill?
 

bubbabgone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
31,192
Reaction score
15,946
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
While the Fake News/Lying Left etc. are, once again, running around in a frothy-frenzy over the latest Witch Hunt "dog whistle", they are , once again, alse trying their favorite Liespeak Game: "Create a Crime".

You know, where they decide that the ACTUAL LAW is just a "suggestion", and they declare anything Pres.Trump has ever done, to be a "crime" such as looking into a real estate development in Russia, or, in this case, , making a perfectly legal payment to stop libelous tramps from messing with his marriage, etal.

A former FEC (as in " Federal Election Commission" ) chairman explained this MONTHS AGO, but the Fake News/Lying Left just cannot help themselves when The Grand Buffoon speaks:




Former FEC Chair: Trump Hush Money Unseemly, But Not Illegal


So, about all this hush money? Does anyone, excluding snobby Acela Corridor elites, really care about it? The claim is that these payments to allege mistresses to President Trump—affairs that allegedly occurred way before he was even thinking about running for president, were campaign finance violations. The plea deal by Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen kicked the impeachment talk into high gear this week. It’s not going anywhere. Well, for starters, you have former top Federal Election Commission officials saying the payments were “unseemly,” but not illegal. The law is murky on this subject—and just because Stormy Daniels’ lawyer, Michael Avenatti, says it’s a violation doesn’t make it so. The porn star lawyer has been going on a tear, alleging this, that, and the other against the Trump administration for months. Nothing substantive has materialized. Wait—didn’t Cohen admit that these payments were directed by Trump? Maybe—but again—so what?

Former chair of the FEC, Bradley Smith, has more (via WaPo):


[I]…[R]egardless of what Cohen agreed to in a plea bargain, hush-money payments to mistresses are not really campaign expenditures. It is true that “contribution” and “expenditure” are defined in the Federal Election Campaign Act as anything “for the purpose of influencing any election,” and it may have been intended and hoped that paying hush money would serve that end. The problem is that almost anything a candidate does can be interpreted as intended to “influence an election,” from buying a good watch to make sure he gets to places on time, to getting a massage so that he feels fit for the campaign trail, to buying a new suit so that he looks good on a debate stage. Yet having campaign donors pay for personal luxuries — such as expensive watches, massages and Brooks Brothers suits — seems more like bribery than funding campaign speech.

That’s why another part of the statute defines “personal use” as any expenditure “used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.” These may not be paid with campaign funds, even though the candidate might benefit from the expenditure. Not every expense that might benefit a candidate is an obligation that exists solely because the person is a candidate.

Suppose, for example, that Trump had told his lawyers, “Look, these complaints about Trump University have no merit, but they embarrass me as a candidate. Get them settled.” Are the settlements thus “campaign expenses”? The obvious answer is no, even though the payments were intended to benefit Trump as a candidate.

If the opposite were true and they were considered campaign expenses, then not only could Trump pay them with campaign funds, but also he would be required to pay these business expenses from campaign funds. Is that what campaign donations are for?

[…]

Yes, those payments were unseemly, but unseemliness doesn’t make something illegal. At the very least, the law is murky about whether paying hush money to a mistress is a “campaign expense” or a personal expense.
[/I]

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattv...-hush-money-unseemly-but-not-illegal-n2512451
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Getting popcorn and beverage for the upcoming DP Left comedy....

Yeah. We went through the same thing months ago when Cohen initially took the plea. I produced quotes from Bradley Smith then. You'll be met with the same arms-crossed stubbornness I was.
 

humbolt

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2013
Messages
26,470
Reaction score
17,682
Location
SW Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yeah. We went through the same thing months ago when Cohen initially took the plea. I produced quotes from Bradley Smith then. You'll be met with the same arms-crossed stubbornness I was.

Yep. A worthwhile effort, but the audience doesn't respond well to that reality. It's almost as if they consider a description of the color red as sufficient to describe any color, i.e., all roads lead to impeachment. Why, you can drive to Virgina Beach and arrive in San Diego. It's just a freaking miracle.
 

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
40,179
Reaction score
9,010
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
I saw a blurb on the Internet suggesting Pelosi and the house's first priority is campaign finance law reform. Hum, I wonder if Trump's situation with his mistresses and their hush monies paid by Trump will be included in the campaign finance reform bill? Will the house attempt to retroactively prosecute Trump using this new campaign finance bill?
How can they?
Who is going to pass it in the Senate and then sign it into law?
 

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
40,179
Reaction score
9,010
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Except SDNY has Weisselberg and Pecker and Cohen cooperating with regard to the nature of the payments and the rational for them. SDNY would not have named "the candidate" for the Presidency if they did not have corroboration for Cohen. In fact, SDNY is not happy with Cohen making corroboration all the more important.

cohen-memo.jpg


It has been established that Cohen as a liar. So what he says can be taken with a grain of salt.
 

Grokmaster

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
9,613
Reaction score
2,735
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Except SDNY has Weisselberg and Pecker and Cohen cooperating with regard to the nature of the payments and the rational for them. SDNY would not have named "the candidate" for the Presidency if they did not have corroboration for Cohen. In fact, SDNY is not happy with Cohen making corroboration all the more important.

The SDNY does not determine campaign finance law, and their desperation to pretend Cohen's attempt to MAKEUP A BIG CRIME to "COOPERATE" OVER, has no effect on the LAW, either.
 

Grokmaster

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
9,613
Reaction score
2,735
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Yeah. We went through the same thing months ago when Cohen initially took the plea. I produced quotes from Bradley Smith then. You'll be met with the same arms-crossed stubbornness I was.

But they really, really, really NEED THIS TO BE A "CRIME"...just this once!!!
 

Grokmaster

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
9,613
Reaction score
2,735
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
cohen-memo.jpg


It has been established that Cohen as a liar. So what he says can be taken with a grain of salt.

And the LAW is the LAW.
 

Grokmaster

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
9,613
Reaction score
2,735
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Yep. A worthwhile effort, but the audience doesn't respond well to that reality. It's almost as if they consider a description of the color red as sufficient to describe any color, i.e., all roads lead to impeachment. Why, you can drive to Virgina Beach and arrive in San Diego. It's just a freaking miracle.

I thought the Truth Pot could use a little stirring, with the foamy-mouthed Left Swarm in full frenzy!!
 

jnug

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 23, 2018
Messages
20,606
Reaction score
7,689
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The SDNY does not determine campaign finance law, and their desperation to pretend Cohen's attempt to MAKEUP A BIG CRIME to "COOPERATE" OVER, has no effect on the LAW, either.

Sorry, that won't wash.

Neither the "expenditures" from Trump's Campaign Funds nor the contributions from Pecker were reported as campaign expenditures or campaign contributions. In addition they all exceed campaign contribution limits. Trump is boxed into his own defense strategy. He initially said he had nothing to do with the Daniels payment. Then said it came from his personal accounts (opening himself up to a possible campaign limitation issue). Then Trump decided that claiming the money came from his personal accounts unrelated to the Campaign did not help him and in fact hurt him. It point of fact, Cohen provided the funds for Stormy Daniels out of a home equity loan he took out. Hence it is an unreported loan to the campaign and Cohen has now identified it as such. Cohen also has receipts from Trump Org repaying the loan.

In the McDougal situation, Pecker's AMI conducted a catch and kill operation on the McDougal story paying her $125k in the process again far in excess of campaign finance limitations for the purposes of aiding the campaign so stated by Cohen. Weisselberg is a cooperating witness on the Trump Org end of the Daniels deal and Pecker is a cooperating witness on the McDougal end. Neither would be cooperating unless they were providing corroboration on both deals.
 

jnug

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 23, 2018
Messages
20,606
Reaction score
7,689
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I thought the Truth Pot could use a little stirring, with the foamy-mouthed Left Swarm in full frenzy!!

You and Corsi should be fast friends since it appears you both share only one purpose in life, to "stir" the pot though truth appears to have nothing to do with your arguments.
 

Skeptic Bob

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
16,626
Reaction score
19,488
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I saw a blurb on the Internet suggesting Pelosi and the house's first priority is campaign finance law reform. Hum, I wonder if Trump's situation with his mistresses and their hush monies paid by Trump will be included in the campaign finance reform bill? Will the house attempt to retroactively prosecute Trump using this new campaign finance bill?

Assuming what Trump did wasn’t illegal you can’t create a law and punish a person retroactively. Such ex post facto punishment is expressly forbidden by the Constitution.
 

Grokmaster

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
9,613
Reaction score
2,735
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Sorry, that won't wash.

Neither the "expenditures" from Trump's Campaign Funds nor the contributions from Pecker were reported as campaign expenditures or campaign contributions. In addition they all exceed campaign contribution limits. Trump is boxed into his own defense strategy. He initially said he had nothing to do with the Daniels payment. Then said it came from his personal accounts (opening himself up to a possible campaign limitation issue). Then Trump decided that claiming the money came from his personal accounts unrelated to the Campaign did not help him and in fact hurt him. It point of fact, Cohen provided the funds for Stormy Daniels out of a home equity loan he took out. Hence it is an unreported loan to the campaign and Cohen has now identified it as such. Cohen also has receipts from Trump Org repaying the loan.

In the McDougal situation, Pecker's AMI conducted a catch and kill operation on the McDougal story paying her $125k in the process again far in excess of campaign finance limitations for the purposes of aiding the campaign so stated by Cohen. Weisselberg is a cooperating witness on the Trump Org end of the Daniels deal and Pecker is a cooperating witness on the McDougal end. Neither would be cooperating unless they were providing corroboration on both deals.

Trump reimbursed Cohen out of his OWN MONEY.

Nice try.


Keep playing "Leftiist Create a Crime.it's hilarious to watch, especially since you are all still playing an ongoing game of "Leftist Ignore the Crimes" , which started in the Obama Swamp Adm.
 

jnug

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 23, 2018
Messages
20,606
Reaction score
7,689
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Trump reimbursed Cohen out of his OWN MONEY.

Nice try.


Keep playing "Leftiist Create a Crime.it's hilarious to watch, especially since you are all still playing an ongoing game of "Leftist Ignore the Crimes" , which started in the Obama Swamp Adm.

Trump is boxed into his own defense strategy. He initially said he had nothing to do with the Daniels payment. Then said it came from his personal accounts (opening himself up to a possible campaign limitation issue). Then Trump decided that claiming the money came from his personal accounts unrelated to the Campaign did not help him and in fact hurt him.

Yes Trump has claimed to have used his personal funds to reimburse Cohen which actually creates more problems for Trump than it solves.

Trump has been all over the map on the source of the funds and his knowledge of the payments. Mainly he has been all over the map changing his story as more information became available that he was hoping would be made public. Were he not a sitting President he would indicted right now.

In your own words....Nice try.
 

humbolt

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2013
Messages
26,470
Reaction score
17,682
Location
SW Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Trump is boxed into his own defense strategy. He initially said he had nothing to do with the Daniels payment. Then said it came from his personal accounts (opening himself up to a possible campaign limitation issue). Then Trump decided that claiming the money came from his personal accounts unrelated to the Campaign did not help him and in fact hurt him.

Yes Trump has claimed to have used his personal funds to reimburse Cohen which actually creates more problems for Trump than it solves.

Trump has been all over the map on the source of the funds and his knowledge of the payments. Mainly he has been all over the map changing his story as more information became available that he was hoping would be made public.
Were he not a sitting President he would indicted right now.
In your own words....Nice try.


He is a sitting president, and this isn't sufficient for an indictment. For that matter, if Trump was simply a private citizen, nobody would give a crap about any of this, Daniels wouldn't have come forward publicly, and Avenatti would be chasing ambulances and defrauding his partners.
 

cabse5

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2013
Messages
22,624
Reaction score
2,293
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Assuming what Trump did wasn’t illegal you can’t create a law and punish a person retroactively. Such ex post facto punishment is expressly forbidden by the Constitution.

Prosecute is an imprecise word. Harass is more correct. Like the Mueller investigation harassing Trump.
 
Top Bottom