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

[The Purge]

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!

 

[Claudette]

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 ...

And he's right.

 

[charwin95]

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.

 

[The Purge]

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!

 

[charwin95]

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 Purge]

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!

 

[martybegan]

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 ...

Dershowitz is not a liberal. He's nothing but a conservitard stooge these days.

Dershowitz is a classic Liberal, he's just not a progressive twat.

 

[theHawk]

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 ...

Bribery is an impeachable offence.

NDAs are not bribery, no matter how much you wish it.

 

[theHawk]

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.

 

[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 ...

Nothing is ever quite clear in the legal county.
Did Trump break laws with hush-money payments? Here's what legal experts are saying | CBC News
People emphasize what fits their made up mind

 

[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? Wonder where you are coming from?!!
Why don't you have few balls and express your old white fart prejudice? An uppity nixxer?

 

[Tehon]

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 ...

Bribery is an impeachable offence.

NDAs are not bribery, no matter how much you wish it.

It is legalized bribery, but never mind that, I was just having fun.

 

[Synthaholic]

And Dershowitz is a HUGE LIBERAL!

He’s not a liberal at all. He’s a guy who has been told that the Russians are holding evidence about this:

Lawyers admit it was a 'mistake' to claim Alan Dershowitz had sex with an underage girl tied to a notorious financier

 

[skookerasbil]

And Dershowitz is a HUGE LIBERAL!

He’s not a liberal at all. He’s a guy who has been told that the Russians are holding evidence about this:

Lawyers admit it was a 'mistake' to claim Alan Dershowitz had sex with an underage girl tied to a notorious financier

lol.......dang......Dershowitz appearances sure are a big bumpy cucumber for the progressive hysteric's.

I love this forum!

 

[The Purge]

And Dershowitz is a HUGE LIBERAL!

He’s not a liberal at all. He’s a guy who has been told that the Russians are holding evidence about this:

Lawyers admit it was a 'mistake' to claim Alan Dershowitz had sex with an underage girl tied to a notorious financier

Dershowitz is turning 79....even V(can you imagine. the name of a Pill is banned here...deplorable!)wont hold it up at that age!

 

[Crepitus]

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 ...

Dershowitz is not a liberal. He's nothing but a conservitard stooge these days.

Dershowitz is a classic Liberal, he's just not a progressive twat.

Too many words in you response. It can be shortened to make perfect sense:

"Dershowitz is a twat."

 

[eagle1462010]

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 ...

Bribery is an impeachable offence.

So is extortion.........lol

Stormy was selling the story for bucks but no one was buying.......Because in their minds Hillary was a shoe in to win.........

She has stated she screwed Trump for personal and Financial gain.........tried to sell it before......tried to sell it 3 weeks before the election and got 130k to STFU..........

She did it for MONEY.........for a one night stand........And now it's the GREAT RUSSIAN INVASION.........LOL

 

[eagle1462010]

Stormy Daniels tried to sell story on Trump weeks before election | Daily Mail Online

EXCLUSIVE: How Stormy Daniels tried to sell story about her one-night-stand with Donald Trump for $200,000 THREE weeks before the election but worked out a deal with Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen after she got no takers

• Stormy Daniels's manager offered her client's story to celebrity magazines, television shows and websites in the run-up to the 2016 election
• The titillating tell all was peddled to the media around October 17, three weeks before the election
• But the adult actress apparently had no takers as Hillary was expected to win at the time, and Stormy's story would have been worth a fraction of her asking price
• Daniels then accepted the $130k from Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen, who had made her the offer after Trump won the nomination
• 'It looks to me that she accepted Cohen's money because she could not get the money she wanted from anyone else,' one media executive said
• Daniels told her version of her tryst with Trump to Anderson Cooper on CBS's 60 Minutes on Sunday
• Stormy made it seem as though she did not seek to sell her story, telling Cooper: 'Suddenly people are reaching out to me again, offering me money. Large amounts of money'

 

[EverCurious]

It is interesting how that whole thing went down. It just reflects how little the american people care about Trump's sleeping around with women.

I think the press kind of had no choice but to bring it back up, they had nothing else that stuck - I wonder how much they paid her...

 

[candycorn]

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 ...

He also thought OJ was innocent.