• 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!

[W:63]Former FEC Commissioner: Trump did not violate campaign finance rules

Re: Former FEC Commissioner: Trump did not violate campaign finance rules

John Edward's exoneration was made long before the election. Trump's crime was done a few weeks before the election.

A reasonable doubt was established with Edwards, but I doubt it can be with Trump, given the timeline.

I'm surprised an intelligent person cannot make that distinction, and thus understand that the two cannot be compared, that one is not a precedent for the other.

Trump became president (partly via campaign finance violations), Edwards did not.

A huge distinction.
 
Re: Former FEC Commissioner: Trump did not violate campaign finance rules

What is not in doubt is that the correct reasoning from Spakovsky won't change YOUR mind.

What is not in doubt is that a federal judge recently determined in the finding of fact that Cohen violated campaign laws, and it was done in cooperation with and at the direction of the president.

what is not in doubt is that when a judge rules on a finding of fact on a charge which implicates directly the president for same, such a fact cannot change your closed mind.

The Former FEC chairman was not privy to all the facts on which the Judge based his ruling, and I believe he did so before the case came to fruition, did he not?

The question is, given the above, does he still feel this way? You should send him and email and find out.
 
Re: Former FEC Commissioner: Trump did not violate campaign finance rules

Cohen couldve lied to get a better prison deal. This is quite possible since Cohen is a proven criminal who cheated on his taxes.
How you can you blindly trust someone like that??

Trump did. For more than 10 years. Trump seems to have trusted a lot of people who have since admitted to being criminals. Even if you truthfully believe that a person who hires and surrounds himself with criminal money launderers, fraudsters, and tax evaders can somehow be perfectly innocent of any wrong doing, what does this say about Trump's judgment?
 
Re: Former FEC Commissioner: Trump did not violate campaign finance rules

John Edward's exoneration was made long before the election. Trump's crime was done a few weeks before the election.

A reasonable doubt was established with Edwards, but I doubt it can be with Trump, given the timeline.

I'm surprised an intelligent person cannot make that distinction, and thus understand that the two cannot be compared, that one is not a precedent for the other
I think this is what most likely happened: https://www.mediaite.com/tv/fmr-wh-...dnt-know-hush-payment-was-campaign-violation/

Trump didnt know. You could argue he should have known, but to impeach someone over that seems a little harsh.
I think what will happen is Trump and the RNC will get a large fine and thats the end of it
 
Re: Former FEC Commissioner: Trump did not violate campaign finance rules

I think this is what most likely happened: https://www.mediaite.com/tv/fmr-wh-...dnt-know-hush-payment-was-campaign-violation/

Trump didnt know. You could argue he should have known, but to impeach someone over that seems a little harsh.
I think what will happen is Trump and the RNC will get a large fine and thats the end of it


A celebrity might not know but a LAWYER would have and would have so advised his client.

Trump didn't know that Cohen Paid $130,000 for one Porno star to keep quiet, and $150,000 to another playboy bunny to keep quiet?

You are telling me that a lawyer would pay out $280,000, mortgage his house to do so, without mentioning it to Trump, without having worked out a pay back plan? That he "did not know about it"? Even when He, and AMI CEO BOTH said so, IN WRITING, whereupon a judge, on Cohen, ruled same as the finding of fact on on the case?

Are you kidding me?

Please please please tell me you are not that stupid.

Also, this campaign violation is not the end of it. AG NY is investigating a whole slew of other financials regarding the Trump org, the Trump foundation, the Russian money laundering, etc etc etc. AND.... Mueller is nearing the end of his investigation, and given the detail he has provided as evidence on those thus far convicted, what are the odds Mueller, after all of this, is going to find a TON of stuff on Trump?

What are the odds?
 
Last edited:
Re: Former FEC Commissioner: Trump did not violate campaign finance rules

A celebrity might not know but a LAWYER would have and would have so advised his client.

Trump didn't know that Cohen Paid $130,000 for one Porno star to keep quiet, and $150,000 to another playboy bunny to keep quiet?

You are telling me that a lawyer would pay out $280,000, mortgage his house to do so, without mentioning it to Trump, without having worked out a pay back plan? That he "did not know about it"? Even when He, and AMI CEO BOTH said so, IN WRITING, whereupon a judge, on Cohen, ruled same as the finding of fact on on the case?

Are you kidding me?

Please please please tell me you are not that stupid
No, I'm saying Trump may not have known it violated campaign finance laws
 
Re: Former FEC Commissioner: Trump did not violate campaign finance rules

Apparently the SDNY is ill-informed as they are under the impression that Cohen broke a campaign finance law. So, too are Mueller's team and Cohen himself as Cohen testified in court yesterday that he did break an election law. So too were the prosecutors under the impression that Cohen broke the law at the direction and knowledge of Donald Trump. :roll:

Trump if you recall is the guy who denied having any relations with Daniels or McDougal. Later he denied making any payments to them. Trump, later, as we all remember, denied any knowledge and told reporters to "ask Micheal Cohen, one of my lawyers". On and on, denial and lies and lies. Until, oops, we discovered that Trump lied his ass off about it. At that point we discovered the truth and more.

David Pecker, CEO of AMI, which owns the National Enquirer, paid Daniels and McDougal (and more? Maybe, we don't know) for their Trump affair stories. Pecker then spiked the stories in a catch and kill. That's all fact and common knowledge now.

We also now know that Pecker was granted immunity if he agreed to truthfully answer questions from the special council. Yesterday, it was reported that Pecker stated that Trump paid the hush money for the purpose of keeping Daniels and McDougal (and possibly more) quiet so that their relationships with Trump wouldn't possibly destroy his campaign.

First, we know that we do not know everything. We don't know the full extent of what the SDNY or special council knows. We do know that Cohen said the above happened and that it happened at Trump's direction and knowledge and that the prosecutors and the judge felt that there was compelling evidence (that the public doesn't yet know) to support Cohen's statement regarding the matter.

Second, we also now know Pecker testified under an agreement of immunity. We know that Pecker has stated that Trump's intention was to prevent sex scandal stories from damaging his presidential campaign. We don't know if additional evidence was provided by Pecker and/or if the evidence involves letters, texts, recordings and/or additional witnesses. We don't know if there are other women that were also paid off.

Third, Allen Weisselberg, Trump Organization's long time CFO is talking to Mueller. Weisselberg signed the checks for Trump. Weisselberg was granted immunity by Mueller a month or more ago. How much does Weisselberg know about the hush payments Trump made? Does Weisselberg know Trump's intentions for making the payments? Does Weisselberg know about other women and other similar payments? We don't know.

Fourth, who else? Are there others who can corroborate the testimonies of all of the above?


Ah, yes, Weisselberg, according to his own statement, was not the only one cutting checks, all of his family members did, as well, which would put them in legal jeopardy.

I think the next shoe to drop is an indictment on DJTjr.

After that, the big Kahuna, and thus the big Kahuna won't be Kahuna-ing much longer.
 
Re: Former FEC Commissioner: Trump did not violate campaign finance rules

No, I'm saying Trump may not have known it violated campaign finance laws


Well, that's what he tells us, but you know the old saying, "ignorance of the law is no excuse".

Especially if you seek the highest office in the land.
 
Re: Former FEC Commissioner: Trump did not violate campaign finance rules

Well, that's what he tells us, but you know the old saying, "ignorance of the law is no excuse".

Especially if you seek the highest office in the land.
Thats true, but I still dont think its an impeachable offence. My guess is the RNC will just get a large fine.

Obama was also fined for campaign finance violations: https://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/obama-2008-campaign-fined-375000-085784
So was Bill Clinton: https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...0a8-8574-caef4b7570e3/?utm_term=.0e0c38e536cb
And so was Bernie Sanders: https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-campaign-illegal-contribution-828044
 
Re: Former FEC Commissioner: Trump did not violate campaign finance rules

It sounds like you do. You're putting your blind trust in a criminal

No, I don't support criminals, frauds, and confirmed liars. That's why I didn't vote for Trump.
 
Re: Former FEC Commissioner: Trump did not violate campaign finance rules

Apparently the SDNY is ill-informed as they are under the impression that Cohen broke a campaign finance law. So, too are Mueller's team and Cohen himself as Cohen testified in court yesterday that he did break an election law. So too were the prosecutors under the impression that Cohen broke the law at the direction and knowledge of Donald Trump. :roll:

Trump if you recall is the guy who denied having any relations with Daniels or McDougal. Later he denied making any payments to them. Trump, later, as we all remember, denied any knowledge and told reporters to "ask Micheal Cohen, one of my lawyers". On and on, denial and lies and lies. Until, oops, we discovered that Trump lied his ass off about it. At that point we discovered the truth and more.

David Pecker, CEO of AMI, which owns the National Enquirer, paid Daniels and McDougal (and more? Maybe, we don't know) for their Trump affair stories. Pecker then spiked the stories in a catch and kill. That's all fact and common knowledge now.

We also now know that Pecker was granted immunity if he agreed to truthfully answer questions from the special council. Yesterday, it was reported that Pecker stated that Trump paid the hush money for the purpose of keeping Daniels and McDougal (and possibly more) quiet so that their relationships with Trump wouldn't possibly destroy his campaign.

First, we know that we do not know everything. We don't know the full extent of what the SDNY or special council knows. We do know that Cohen said the above happened and that it happened at Trump's direction and knowledge and that the prosecutors and the judge felt that there was compelling evidence (that the public doesn't yet know) to support Cohen's statement regarding the matter.

Second, we also now know Pecker testified under an agreement of immunity. We know that Pecker has stated that Trump's intention was to prevent sex scandal stories from damaging his presidential campaign. We don't know if additional evidence was provided by Pecker and/or if the evidence involves letters, texts, recordings and/or additional witnesses. We don't know if there are other women that were also paid off.

Third, Allen Weisselberg, Trump Organization's long time CFO is talking to Mueller. Weisselberg signed the checks for Trump. Weisselberg was granted immunity by Mueller a month or more ago. How much does Weisselberg know about the hush payments Trump made? Does Weisselberg know Trump's intentions for making the payments? Does Weisselberg know about other women and other similar payments? We don't know.

Fourth, who else? Are there others who can corroborate the testimonies of all of the above?

One of the humorous silver linings of this "scandal" is in the reading of dramatic narratives built on unproven assumptions, breathless speculation, notorious character flaws, gullible faith, and lurid "what-ifs". Clearly the poster should intern under the master of fake intrigue - Oliver Stone.

Nonetheless, character flaws are not crimes, and sinning does not make one unlawful. The problem with the narrative is that what does make one unlawful is not only absent but, under any rational interpretation of FEC law, inapplicable.

Even if one presumes (as most of us have) that Trump was lying to the public about his history of affairs and hush money, if we grant that he asked for hush money payments, if we assume that none of these witnesses are lying to save their skin, if we grant that the witnesses now acknowledge their purposes, and we accept their plea deals as acknowledgement of their acts, from the facts known Trump is as pure as Ivory Snow.

The only way Trump committed a criminal act in regards to hush money IS IF: it was actually a violation of FEC law AND he knew it was unlawful AND he intentionally acted to direct, manage, or approve an unlawful transaction. And if he didn't lie to an FBI agent about his actions OR lie under oath, his public dissembling is irrelevant.

In short, the prosecutor has obtained confessions and guilty pleas for actions that are not crimes, least of all for Trump who is 100 percent ignorant of many things, including election law. And that, by the way, is why he relied on the advice of his lawyer.
 
Re: Former FEC Commissioner: Trump did not violate campaign finance rules

Well, that's what he tells us, but you know the old saying, "ignorance of the law is no excuse".

Especially if you seek the highest office in the land.

In federal criminal law, it is.
 
Re: Former FEC Commissioner: Trump did not violate campaign finance rules

good luck with this strategy to undermine the President's crimes, but, I sincerely doubt it's going to change very many people's minds.

Thankfully, we have not descended entirely into mob rule.

Yet.
 
Re: Former FEC Commissioner: Trump did not violate campaign finance rules

Well, his reasoning certainly didn't convince the courts, or either Cohen's lawyers, or even Cohen. Nor did it convince Mueller. So, that reasoning is not relevant to the people who actually matter. That indicates the reasoning is not 'correct'.

I'm sorry...

Did this thing go to trial? I thought he copped a plea to get a deal.
 
Re: Former FEC Commissioner: Trump did not violate campaign finance rules

imo, the genie's out of the bottle. Sorry, should've picked a more competent criminal for your President. :shrug:

All of the really competent criminals are in the Democrat Party.

You know... Where we found Trump.
 
Re: Former FEC Commissioner: Trump did not violate campaign finance rules

Huh. So Spakovsky is dumber than we previously thought. It was a campaign-related expense in the case of Cohen.

Play retard games, win retard prizes.

Was the payment made by the Trump Campaign?

Were Campaign funds used to make the payment?

I don't see how this is a campaign related expense.
 
Re: Former FEC Commissioner: Trump did not violate campaign finance rules

So let's see. Attorney Michael Cohen, Michael Cohen's attorneys, Robert Mueller, and the entirety of the SDNY are all wrong.

If this is what you have to hang on to in order to feel better, then do it. But nobody who thinks about it with a clear and fully functioning critical thinking process buys it.

Is Cohen's attorney Lanny Davis? The same Lanny Davis employed by the Clintons?

Is Michael Cohen a lying, self serving ambulance chaser?

Is Mueller a marauding intimidator using police state tactics to coerce and extort confessions?

Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.
 
Re: Former FEC Commissioner: Trump did not violate campaign finance rules

Is Cohen's attorney Lanny Davis? The same Lanny Davis employed by the Clintons?

Is Michael Cohen a lying, self serving ambulance chaser?

Is Mueller a marauding intimidator using police state tactics to coerce and extort confessions?

Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

What does Lanny Davis have to do with my post?
 
Re: Former FEC Commissioner: Trump did not violate campaign finance rules

Right, so you admit Trump has never been convicted for fraud or any other serious crime

I "admit" that? If you can find a post from me saying "Trump was convicted for a serious crime", please link to it. Since I never made such a post, you wasted your little typing fingers tinkling your panties with this dumb post.

But then again, there was this little corrupt scheme called "Trump University", and the $25 million settlement his highness had to pay for duping the students. Oh yeah. We call that "fraud".
 
Re: Former FEC Commissioner: Trump did not violate campaign finance rules

A celebrity might not know but a LAWYER would have and would have so advised his client.

Trump didn't know that Cohen Paid $130,000 for one Porno star to keep quiet, and $150,000 to another playboy bunny to keep quiet?

You are telling me that a lawyer would pay out $280,000, mortgage his house to do so, without mentioning it to Trump, without having worked out a pay back plan? That he "did not know about it"? Even when He, and AMI CEO BOTH said so, IN WRITING, whereupon a judge, on Cohen, ruled same as the finding of fact on on the case?

Are you kidding me?

Please please please tell me you are not that stupid.
At this point, it would be highly implausible that Trump was unaware of the payments - already alluded to on the tape that has been released. Still, Trump may, or may not have known Cohen's financial resources and no one knows yet when Cohen and Trump agreed that Trump would reimburse Cohen (although he eventually did so). Equally opaque is the reported initial corporate indecision by the National Enquirer on whether they should be reimbursed or if it were better to eat the cost.

Still, it does not strain incredulity to believe a sycophantic fake tough-guy would avoid telling his crazy brave tough-guy boss something that the boss does not want to hear - that what they are doing is illegal and a felony. Cohens whole personae is built around pleasing Trump and proving that he is a great fixer - when it comes to Trump, he is spineless and tells the boss what pleases the boss.

On the other hand, it does strain credulity that National Enq/AMI wouldn't consult its his own legal staff if they had the belief that it might be illegal. Either way, it looks like they blundered into this with foreknowledge of illegality (either because of bad advice or no advice).

And none of this, so far, makes Trump guilty of a crime.
 
Last edited:
Re: Former FEC Commissioner: Trump did not violate campaign finance rules

Former FEC Commissioner says Trump did not violate campaign finance rules:

https://dailycaller.com/2018/12/12/c...nce-spakovsky/

FBI seems to disagree!

but it is good to know that Still Conservatives and Republicans...The party of Law and Order totally support a convict as a president. That does say a lot about who the conservatives and Republican truly are!

Diving Mullah
 
Back
Top Bottom