Did President Trump violate campaign finance laws? Professor Dershowitz doesn't think so!

[Faun]

Great, so we agree the motive for looking to sell her story in 2016 was because Trump was running for president and Trump’s motivation for buying her silence was also because he was running for president.

So what exactly are you challenging?

Not that. How bout you??

No, I’m not challenging that either. Now that we agree Trump’s motive was to influence the election, how can we not agree that designates it a campaign contribution?

[USC10] 52 USC Ch. 301: FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS

(8)(A) The term "contribution" includes—

(i) any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office; or​

Can you or Mueller PROVE to a jury that it influenced an election...PLEASE explain how.

That’s easy — even die hard con, Claudette, just admitted trump silenced her to “get her out of the election.”

If cons on this forum get that, no doubt empaneling an impartial jury will get that too.

That is Claudettes opinion. Mine is you're a vacuum...others may vary, but after being schooled so many times, one does have to wonder about you!

LOLOL

You’ve already proven you don’t even possess the first fucking clue of what this is about.

You thought it was about trump donating to his own campaign or that his contribution was too big; when in fact, it’s really about him not reporting a campaign contribution.

So hopefully, you can understand why I laugh at an idiot who calls me a “vacuum.”

 

[Faun]

No, I’m not challenging that either. Now that we agree Trump’s motive was to influence the election, how can we not agree that designates it a campaign contribution?

[USC10] 52 USC Ch. 301: FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS

(8)(A) The term "contribution" includes—

(i) any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office; or​

No, I’m not challenging that either. Now that we agree Trump’s motive was to influence the election, how can we not agree that designates it a campaign contribution?

[USC10] 52 USC Ch. 301: FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS

(8)(A) The term "contribution" includes—

(i) any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office; or​

Now lets talk about Hitlery and the DNC paying Steele, and ex British agent for a fake dossier on Trump.

Would you call that trying to influence an election??

LOLOLOLOL

No, let’s not divert to Hillary.

Let’s talk about this thread topic.

This thread is about Trump; while the butwhatabouthillary thread is over there —>

Now that we [seemingly] agree that trump broke the law, let’s see if we can agree on an appropriate punishment, shall we?

No, I’m not challenging that either. Now that we agree Trump’s motive was to influence the election, how can we not agree that designates it a campaign contribution?

[USC10] 52 USC Ch. 301: FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS

(8)(A) The term "contribution" includes—

(i) any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office; or​

No, I’m not challenging that either. Now that we agree Trump’s motive was to influence the election, how can we not agree that designates it a campaign contribution?

[USC10] 52 USC Ch. 301: FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS

(8)(A) The term "contribution" includes—

(i) any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office; or​

Now lets talk about Hitlery and the DNC paying Steele, and ex British agent for a fake dossier on Trump.

Would you call that trying to influence an election??

LOLOLOLOL

No, let’s not divert to Hillary.

Let’s talk about this thread topic.

This thread is about Trump; while the butwhatabouthillary thread is over there —>

Now that we [seemingly] agree that trump broke the law, let’s see if we can agree on an appropriate punishment, shall we?

Tit for tat buddy.

If you can call a pay off to Flowers a campaign contribution seems to me a pay off to Steele for dirt on Trump can be called a campaign contribution.

LOLOL

No worries. I consider your refusal to discuss this any further without diverting to butwhatabout_______ (fill in the name of a Democrat) as concession on your part that you’ve exhausted any and all defenses for Trump breaking the law.

Great, so we agree the motive for looking to sell her story in 2016 was because Trump was running for president and Trump’s motivation for buying her silence was also because he was running for president.

So what exactly are you challenging?

Not that. How bout you??

No, I’m not challenging that either. Now that we agree Trump’s motive was to influence the election, how can we not agree that designates it a campaign contribution?

[USC10] 52 USC Ch. 301: FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS

(8)(A) The term "contribution" includes—

(i) any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office; or​

Can you or Mueller PROVE to a jury that it influenced an election...PLEASE explain how.

That’s easy — even die hard con, Claudette, just admitted trump silenced her to “get her out of the election.”

If cons on this forum get that, no doubt empaneling an impartial jury will get that too.

Of course he did. Common Sense.

I'm sure Hitlery and the DNC paid Steele a campaign contribution for dirt on Trump.

Funny how only Stormy's money is the only money you consider a campaign contribution.

I'll bet Mueller will see it differently.

Sure, common sense.

Too bad for trump that’s a campaign contribution that he neglected to report as required by law.

 

[Claudette]

Now lets talk about Hitlery and the DNC paying Steele, and ex British agent for a fake dossier on Trump.

Would you call that trying to influence an election??

LOLOLOLOL

No, let’s not divert to Hillary.

Let’s talk about this thread topic.

This thread is about Trump; while the butwhatabouthillary thread is over there —>

Now that we [seemingly] agree that trump broke the law, let’s see if we can agree on an appropriate punishment, shall we?

Now lets talk about Hitlery and the DNC paying Steele, and ex British agent for a fake dossier on Trump.

Would you call that trying to influence an election??

LOLOLOLOL

No, let’s not divert to Hillary.

Let’s talk about this thread topic.

This thread is about Trump; while the butwhatabouthillary thread is over there —>

Now that we [seemingly] agree that trump broke the law, let’s see if we can agree on an appropriate punishment, shall we?

Tit for tat buddy.

If you can call a pay off to Flowers a campaign contribution seems to me a pay off to Steele for dirt on Trump can be called a campaign contribution.

LOLOL

No worries. I consider your refusal to discuss this any further without diverting to butwhatabout_______ (fill in the name of a Democrat) as concession on your part that you’ve exhausted any and all defenses for Trump breaking the law.

Not that. How bout you??

No, I’m not challenging that either. Now that we agree Trump’s motive was to influence the election, how can we not agree that designates it a campaign contribution?

[USC10] 52 USC Ch. 301: FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS

(8)(A) The term "contribution" includes—

(i) any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office; or​

Can you or Mueller PROVE to a jury that it influenced an election...PLEASE explain how.

That’s easy — even die hard con, Claudette, just admitted trump silenced her to “get her out of the election.”

If cons on this forum get that, no doubt empaneling an impartial jury will get that too.

Of course he did. Common Sense.

I'm sure Hitlery and the DNC paid Steele a campaign contribution for dirt on Trump.

Funny how only Stormy's money is the only money you consider a campaign contribution.

I'll bet Mueller will see it differently.

Sure, common sense.

Too bad for trump that’s a campaign contribution that he neglected to report as required by law.

Wonder if HItlery reported hers???

 

[Faun]

LOLOLOLOL

Stop diverting your own thread.

This isn’t about the National Inquirer. It’s not about Karen McDougal. It’s not about John Edwards and it’s not about Barack Obama.

It’s about Trump and did Trump commit a crime and Alan Dershowitz’s opinion on that. Dershowitz acknowledges it is a crime if it was an unreported campaign contribution.

And it appears it was.

Oh brilliant one...lolol....a candidate is allowed to make any size donation to his own campsign....set, match, game over!!....Now I fully expect you come to back with more of your BULLDADA.....and it is STILL ONLY an FEC VIOLATION. AND AT MOST A CIVIL LAW CRIME!

”set, match, game over!!”

Holyfuckingshit!

Who said anything about the size of the “donation” being illegal?

Not me.

Who said Trump couldn’t donate to his own campaign?

Not me.

You literally just declared yourself the weiner of this debate by latching onto arguments I never made.

I think I would kill myself if I ever did anything that stupid.

Really who cares what you say and think....

Michael D. Cohen, Trump’s Longtime Lawyer, Says He Paid Stormy Daniels Out of His Own Pocket

You mean HE LIED AND NOW CHANGED THE STORY....GET THAT MAN IN FRONT OF A JURY!!!!

Michael D. Cohen, Trump’s Longtime Lawyer, Says He Paid Stormy Daniels Out of His Own Pocket

So? Trump also lied and changed his story. He first said he had nothing to do with paying off Stormy Daniels and didn’t know where Cohen got the money to do so; then later admitted he did know and reimbursed Cohen the money. So trump’s credibility is just as shot as Cohen’s.

Meanwhile, it was trump’s campaign, not Cohen’s. It was trump’s responsibility to see that the $130,000 payment was reported to the FEC. Instead of doing that, Trump tried to hide the payment through a shell company setup by Cohen where Trump’s name would not appear on the company or the non-disclosure agreement signed by Stormy Daniels.

It doesn't matter. He broke no criminal law.... now you can have the last word, as some of us have things to do instead of sitting in mom's basement on dad's computer!

Even Dershowitz says he may have where he points out not reporting campaign contributions is a violation of campaign finance laws.

 

[Faun]

LOLOLOLOL

No, let’s not divert to Hillary.

Let’s talk about this thread topic.

This thread is about Trump; while the butwhatabouthillary thread is over there —>

Now that we [seemingly] agree that trump broke the law, let’s see if we can agree on an appropriate punishment, shall we?

LOLOLOLOL

No, let’s not divert to Hillary.

Let’s talk about this thread topic.

This thread is about Trump; while the butwhatabouthillary thread is over there —>

Now that we [seemingly] agree that trump broke the law, let’s see if we can agree on an appropriate punishment, shall we?

Tit for tat buddy.

If you can call a pay off to Flowers a campaign contribution seems to me a pay off to Steele for dirt on Trump can be called a campaign contribution.

LOLOL

No worries. I consider your refusal to discuss this any further without diverting to butwhatabout_______ (fill in the name of a Democrat) as concession on your part that you’ve exhausted any and all defenses for Trump breaking the law.

No, I’m not challenging that either. Now that we agree Trump’s motive was to influence the election, how can we not agree that designates it a campaign contribution?

[USC10] 52 USC Ch. 301: FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS

(8)(A) The term "contribution" includes—

(i) any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office; or​

Can you or Mueller PROVE to a jury that it influenced an election...PLEASE explain how.

That’s easy — even die hard con, Claudette, just admitted trump silenced her to “get her out of the election.”

If cons on this forum get that, no doubt empaneling an impartial jury will get that too.

Of course he did. Common Sense.

I'm sure Hitlery and the DNC paid Steele a campaign contribution for dirt on Trump.

Funny how only Stormy's money is the only money you consider a campaign contribution.

I'll bet Mueller will see it differently.

Sure, common sense.

Too bad for trump that’s a campaign contribution that he neglected to report as required by law.

Wonder if HItlery reported hers???

LOLOL

I wonder if you’ll ever stop trying to derail this thread?

 

[Claudette]

Tit for tat buddy.

If you can call a pay off to Flowers a campaign contribution seems to me a pay off to Steele for dirt on Trump can be called a campaign contribution.

LOLOL

No worries. I consider your refusal to discuss this any further without diverting to butwhatabout_______ (fill in the name of a Democrat) as concession on your part that you’ve exhausted any and all defenses for Trump breaking the law.

Can you or Mueller PROVE to a jury that it influenced an election...PLEASE explain how.

That’s easy — even die hard con, Claudette, just admitted trump silenced her to “get her out of the election.”

If cons on this forum get that, no doubt empaneling an impartial jury will get that too.

Of course he did. Common Sense.

I'm sure Hitlery and the DNC paid Steele a campaign contribution for dirt on Trump.

Funny how only Stormy's money is the only money you consider a campaign contribution.

I'll bet Mueller will see it differently.

Sure, common sense.

Too bad for trump that’s a campaign contribution that he neglected to report as required by law.

Wonder if HItlery reported hers???

LOLOL

I wonder if you’ll ever stop trying to derail this thread?

Not trying to derail anything and you still haven't answered.

Oh well. Carry on

 

[hadit]

Campaign funding violations are small potatoes, compared to the shit Mueller's certainly got on Trump.
We haven't heard any of it yet, because the Mueller team is disciplined, and doesn't leak like a sieve.

So how do you know that he has such? I don't recall seeing you in the meeting. Maybe you were hiding behind the potted plants.

 

[ph3iron]

And Dershowitz is a HUGE LIBERAL!

A few things are clear. A candidate is free to contribute to his or her own campaign. It also is not criminal for a candidate to pay hush money to women whose disclosures might endanger his campaign. So if candidate Trump paid hush money to his two accusers, there would be no violation of any campaign or other laws. To be sure, if he did so for the purpose of helping his campaign — as distinguished from helping his marriage — his campaign would have to disclose any such contribution, and failure to do so might be a violation of a campaign law, but the payments themselves would be entirely lawful.

If, on the other hand, Michael Cohen made the payments by himself, without direction from the president, that would constitute an impermissible campaign contribution from a third party. But if Cohen was merely acting as Trump’s lawyer and advancing Trump’s payments, with an expectation of repayment, then it would be hard to find a campaign finance crime other than failure to report by the campaign.

Failure to report all campaign contributions is fairly common in political campaigns. Moreover, the offense is committed not by the candidate but, rather, by the campaign and is generally subject to a fine. Though it is wrong, it certainly is not the kind of high crime and misdemeanor that could serve as the basis for a constitutionally authorized impeachment and removal of a duly elected president.

Moreover, prosecutors should be reluctant to rely on the uncorroborated word of a guilty defendant who pleaded guilty to lying and defrauding. Thomas Jefferson once observed that a criminal statute, to be fairly enforceable, must be so clear that it can be understood by the average person who reads it “while running.”

(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...

The campaign violations are at worst a civil matter. The Hussein was caught misusing over a million dollars of campaign money and was only fined several hundred thousand.

Hussein?
Why don't you utter your white old fart real opinion?
Uppity nixxer?
You have no idea of the difference between the uppity n and Don the cons campaign money.
Could you stomach a brown guy getting his rear end spanked by a white pro?
Try reading a non knees news account
Q&A: what is Donald Trump accused of and what happens now?

 

[ph3iron]

Campaign funding violations are small potatoes, compared to the shit Mueller's certainly got on Trump.
We haven't heard any of it yet, because the Mueller team is disciplined, and doesn't leak like a sieve.

So how do you know that he has such? I don't recall seeing you in the meeting. Maybe you were hiding behind the potted plants.

No one knows yet darlin.
Benghazi took 3. Years
Patience

 

[ph3iron]

Campaign funding violations are small potatoes, compared to the shit Mueller's certainly got on Trump.
We haven't heard any of it yet, because the Mueller team is disciplined, and doesn't leak like a sieve.

He better use them fast...the RED WAVE is about to drown you fools!

The only wave that we see coming is Trumpy criminal crook buddies are indicted, plead guilty, immunity. LOCK THEM ALL UP.

Podesta was Manaforts partner....
Podesta Group one of the companies mentioned in Manafort indictment: report
Referred to Democrat NY AG office where it gets buried!

Well you have POTUS, AG, GOP...... where is the investigations?

The same place Hildebeasts DNC Holder, Lynch and a bevy of other Democrat felons are!

Hildabeast?
Doesn't know the difference between a noun and an adjective?
Dead giveaway for an old white uneducated fart
Any idea why Hillary was never charged with anything?
And what did you do to eliminate AIDS and help the 911 families?
Let me guess - ZERO

 

[Crepitus]

Fine, you are now a "cock"

feel better, snowflake?

And you're still a dumbass.

I would imagine you're used to it by now.

Not even close, twat.

I'll put my education, IQ and credentials up against yours any day of the week.

LOLOL

You never learn, do ya?

How’d that work out for you last time you tried pulling that shtick?

I was less than 10 points off from you on a quickie IQ test.

Well within the margin of error.

LOL

You demonstrate your IQ is on the lower end of that IQ test as the margin of error is built into the score they present; being that it’s a range and not a specific number.

And no, you weren’t off by less than 10 points...

Marty: 114-121
Faun: 131-230

The closest you could be is 10 points. But as far off as 116 points.

You lost. And if you had even a bit more intelligence than you obviously do, you wouldn’t repeat a wager you lost.

Still higher then I was guessing he would score based on his posts.

 

[WTP]

No, I’m not challenging that either. Now that we agree Trump’s motive was to influence the election, how can we not agree that designates it a campaign contribution?

[USC10] 52 USC Ch. 301: FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS

(8)(A) The term "contribution" includes—

(i) any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office; or​

No, I’m not challenging that either. Now that we agree Trump’s motive was to influence the election, how can we not agree that designates it a campaign contribution?

[USC10] 52 USC Ch. 301: FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS

(8)(A) The term "contribution" includes—

(i) any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office; or​

How in hell do you call paying that woman off a campaign contribution?? What a stupid statement.

It had nothing to do with campaign contributions.

It was a pay off to keep her and her story out of the news. Smart move on Trumps part.

I just quoted the law for you. See, you prove me 100% right when I said to WTP not long ago how rightards can’t understand the law.

Again, the law states a contribution is, ”anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office”

So let’s break that down so hopefully, your subpar intelligence can fathom the implication therein...

“anything of value.” ... Trump put a value of $130,000 on silencing Stormy Daniels.

”made by any person” ... includes Trump.

”for the purpose of influencing an election” ... even you confessed that was Trump’s intention, ”of course. Smart move on Trumps part. Pay her off and get her out of the election. I'd have done the same and so would you.” ~ Claudette

”for Federal office” ... the election trump was running in was for President of the United States, which is a Federal office.

Do you understand that law now or do I need to break out crayons?

Well seems to me the Hitlery and the DNC are guilty of the same thing.

They paid Steel and unknown amount of money for dirt in a fake dossier on Trump to influence the election.

If you can think Trump guilty then you have to think Hitlery is as well.

Yes, we need crayons. They still don't get it.

Yes you do so you can draw pictures.

Hitlery and the DNC are as guilty as you think Trump is if you consider money paid to Stormy a campaign contribution.

That money they paid Steele could be considered a campaign contribution to influence an election as well.

Wonder if Mueller or the FEC is looking into that??

Except it was never used during the election, so it isn't the same thing.

Where do you get this off the wall nonsense? You aren't even close in your comparison. We definitely need crayons for you.

 

[WTP]

LOLOLOLOL

Stop diverting your own thread.

This isn’t about the National Inquirer. It’s not about Karen McDougal. It’s not about John Edwards and it’s not about Barack Obama.

It’s about Trump and did Trump commit a crime and Alan Dershowitz’s opinion on that. Dershowitz acknowledges it is a crime if it was an unreported campaign contribution.

And it appears it was.

Oh brilliant one...lolol....a candidate is allowed to make any size donation to his own campsign....set, match, game over!!....Now I fully expect you come to back with more of your BULLDADA.....and it is STILL ONLY an FEC VIOLATION. AND AT MOST A CIVIL LAW CRIME!

”set, match, game over!!”

Holyfuckingshit!

Who said anything about the size of the “donation” being illegal?

Not me.

Who said Trump couldn’t donate to his own campaign?

Not me.

You literally just declared yourself the weiner of this debate by latching onto arguments I never made.

I think I would kill myself if I ever did anything that stupid.

Really who cares what you say and think....

Michael D. Cohen, Trump’s Longtime Lawyer, Says He Paid Stormy Daniels Out of His Own Pocket

You mean HE LIED AND NOW CHANGED THE STORY....GET THAT MAN IN FRONT OF A JURY!!!!

Michael D. Cohen, Trump’s Longtime Lawyer, Says He Paid Stormy Daniels Out of His Own Pocket

So? Trump also lied and changed his story. He first said he had nothing to do with paying off Stormy Daniels and didn’t know where Cohen got the money to do so; then later admitted he did know and reimbursed Cohen the money. So trump’s credibility is just as shot as Cohen’s.

Meanwhile, it was trump’s campaign, not Cohen’s. It was trump’s responsibility to see that the $130,000 payment was reported to the FEC. Instead of doing that, Trump tried to hide the payment through a shell company setup by Cohen where Trump’s name would not appear on the company or the non-disclosure agreement signed by Stormy Daniels.

It doesn't matter. He broke no criminal law.... now you can have the last word, as some of us have things to do instead of sitting in mom's basement on dad's computer!

It does matter and they both broke the law. And we proved it.

 

[Crepitus]

Grammar, spelling, use of words, I'm an Engineer not an English Major.

What butthurt you possess.

Engineer or not you are a dumbass. "Cuck" is what alt-right lunatics call conservatives that still possess some common sense.

Fine, you are now a "cock"

feel better, snowflake?

And you're still a dumbass.

I would imagine you're used to it by now.

Not even close, twat.

I'll put my education, IQ and credentials up against yours any day of the week.

Internet tough guy

Just another dumbass conservative.

 

[Crepitus]

Engineer or not you are a dumbass. "Cuck" is what alt-right lunatics call conservatives that still possess some common sense.

Fine, you are now a "cock"

feel better, snowflake?

And you're still a dumbass.

I would imagine you're used to it by now.

Not even close, twat.

I'll put my education, IQ and credentials up against yours any day of the week.

Internet tough guy

Nah, I am not threatening bodily harm to anyone.

When you call someone stupid, be prepared to back it up.

Or not, this is a message board after all.

Now how smart if Faun really if I am able to drag this on beyond 5-6 posts?

I think that's gonna be more a function of his current bordom level.

 

[martybegan]

And you're still a dumbass.

I would imagine you're used to it by now.

Not even close, twat.

I'll put my education, IQ and credentials up against yours any day of the week.

LOLOL

You never learn, do ya?

How’d that work out for you last time you tried pulling that shtick?

I was less than 10 points off from you on a quickie IQ test.

Well within the margin of error.

LOL

You demonstrate your IQ is on the lower end of that IQ test as the margin of error is built into the score they present; being that it’s a range and not a specific number.

And no, you weren’t off by less than 10 points...

Marty: 114-121
Faun: 131-230

The closest you could be is 10 points. But as far off as 116 points.

You lost. And if you had even a bit more intelligence than you obviously do, you wouldn’t repeat a wager you lost.

Still higher then I was guessing he would score based on his posts.

That you have to use accusations of stupidity as a crutch to try to understand people who disagree with you shows your own intellect.

 

[martybegan]

Engineer or not you are a dumbass. "Cuck" is what alt-right lunatics call conservatives that still possess some common sense.

Fine, you are now a "cock"

feel better, snowflake?

And you're still a dumbass.

I would imagine you're used to it by now.

Not even close, twat.

I'll put my education, IQ and credentials up against yours any day of the week.

Internet tough guy

Just another dumbass conservative.

I can add more to the conversation when it is warranted.

You don't warrant it.

 

[martybegan]

Fine, you are now a "cock"

feel better, snowflake?

And you're still a dumbass.

I would imagine you're used to it by now.

Not even close, twat.

I'll put my education, IQ and credentials up against yours any day of the week.

Internet tough guy

Nah, I am not threatening bodily harm to anyone.

When you call someone stupid, be prepared to back it up.

Or not, this is a message board after all.

Now how smart if Faun really if I am able to drag this on beyond 5-6 posts?

I think that's gonna be more a function of his current bordom level.

It's still pretty damn sad.

in a funny way.

 

[rightwinger]

Your irrelevance is noted and discarded. It matters not why she waited until 2011. All that matters is that she sought to sell her story in 2011. Had trump silenced her in 2016 to protect his family, as rightards are laughably leaping to his defense, he would have silenced her in 2011.

But he didn’t. He silenced her 11 days before his election. Looking at those events in 2011 and 2016 reveal his reason for silencing Stormy Daniels.... and Melanie wasn’t it.

Oh bullshit. What does it matter when he paid her off. She was after money either with a book or a pay off.

Oh and who knows if the affair ever happened? Its a he said she said and frankly most people couldn't care less.

LOLOLOL

Moron, it matters because his intentions matters. And his timing reveals his intentions.

When his family was vulnerable to learn about his affair in 2011, he did not pay off Daniels to stay quite. Clearly, protecting his family from hearing about that affair was of little, if any, importance to him.

When his campaign got rocked by the Access Hollywood video and then just 11 days out from his election, he decided that was the moment Stormy needed to be silenced.

Anyone with functioning neurons can decipher his intentions for paying Stormy Daniels $130,000 to stay quiet.

LMAO She was after money and she got it.

Yes she did. And the timing reveals the reason she did was because Trump’s election was just 11 days out.

Of course. Smart move on Trumps part. Pay her off and get her out of the election. I'd have done the same and so would you.

Now did she and he have an affair?? Unknown. Its he said. She said. No one will ever know.

I am sure our President is an expert at paying off hookers and old girlfriends

But to do so with campaign funds breaks the law

 

[rightwinger]

LMAO She was after money and she got it.

Yes she did. And the timing reveals the reason she did was because Trump’s election was just 11 days out.

Of course. Smart move on Trumps part. Pay her off and get her out of the election. I'd have done the same and so would you.

Now did she and he have an affair?? Unknown. Its he said. She said. No one will ever know.

We will run out of rocks before we run out of ignorant people. Stop embarrassing yourself. Learn a little bit about what the law says instead of wrapping yourself around this apology tour for Trump;
Most violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) result in civil penalties--fines arrived at through a conciliation process. Knowing and willful violations of certain FECA provisions can lead to imprisonment. The FEC has exclusive civil enforcement authority, and may refer criminal violations to the U.S. Department of Justice. For additional information see our page describing the complaint process. Note that sentencing guidelines for criminal violations of the law are set by the U.S. Sentencing Commission.

How bout you blow it out your ass instead??

Oh and talk it over with Dershowitz. Rabid lefty that he is he doesn't believe Trump is in the wrong.

Most violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) result in civil penalties--fines arrived at through a conciliation process.

That’s not exactly what Dershowitz said. He did acknowledge that if it’s a campaign contribution and if it went unreported, then it is indeed a campaign violation.

And even you just agreed it was a campaign contribution.

Campaign contributions need to be documented

Under the table contributions do not foot the bill