Former FEC chairman states any payment to Stormy Daniesl does not violate campaign laws.

[2aguy]

Here you go......the fishing expedition against Trump's lawyer is not grounded in actual law....of course..

Former FEC Chairman To Mark Levin: Stormy Daniels Money Cannot Be In Kind Campaign Contribution

He said, “And the FEC standard for that is you can’t use your campaign money for personal use. What they mean by that is you can’t use that for something you’d have to pay anyway that’s not directly for your campaign. The question is, ‘is this really a campaign obligation?’”

Professor Smith continued, “None of these expenditures helped Mr. Trump’s campaign. There’s all kinds of reasons why he may want to make these expenditures even if the allegations made by Stormy Daniels are untrue. Just for family harmony, commercial viability over the long term.”

He emphasized, “Historically, the FEC has said these things are not campaign contributions.”

Professor Smith added, “When the FEC wrote the regulation that says what constitutes campaign expenditures and what constitutes personal use, it rejected specifically the idea that a campaign expenditure was anything related to a campaign, and instead says it has to be something that exists only because of the campaign and solely for that reason.”

 

[Pogo]

Ah, so a six-figure hush money bribe just before Election Day, about an event sitting in the past for ten years, doesn't "exist only because of the campaign and solely for that reason". Of course not. Cohen was just waiting for Uranus to transit the moon in the sign of Nesbitt, and that's how long it took to happen. Could have been any time but hey, you can't' control the solar system so wattayagonnado.

 

[Rambunctious]

The only crime here could end up being that she didn't claim the $130000 on her taxes.....BUUUUUUUUAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!stupid stripper....

 

[usmbguest5318]

From the article:

The purpose of those laws is to prevent corruption and one way campaign contributions or in-kind campaign contributions are different than bribes is that you have to use them to get elected....None of these expenditures helped Mr. Trump’s campaign.

Who in their right mind can, with a straight face and expecting to be taken as credible and serious, assert that the payment to purchase Daniels' silence about two weeks before the election and about two weeks after the Access Hollywood tape didn't "help Mr. Trump's campaign?"

Can one honestly think no material quantity of folks would have found it beyond the pale to emplace in office a POTUS candidate who, as a grown man of about 60 with a beautiful and glamorous wife who'd only four months prior given birth to the man's child, hired a porn star as his "hookup for a night?" Seriously?

What had that man been drinking or smoking prior to the interview that let him conjure, let alone utter on the record, such a preposterous assertion?

 

[BULLDOG]

I'm pretty sure the current FEC Chairman is the one that counts.

 

[rightwinger]

Paying off porn stars is just normal campaigning for Republicans

 

[Pogo]

From the article:

The purpose of those laws is to prevent corruption and one way campaign contributions or in-kind campaign contributions are different than bribes is that you have to use them to get elected....None of these expenditures helped Mr. Trump’s campaign.

Who in their right mind can, with a straight face and expecting to be taken as credible and serious, assert that the payment to purchase Daniels' silence about two weeks before the election and about two weeks after the Access Hollywood tape didn't "help Mr. Trump's campaign?"

Can one honestly think no material quantity of folks would have found it beyond the pale to emplace in office a POTUS candidate who, as a grown man of about 60 with a beautiful and glamorous wife who'd only four months prior given birth to the man's child, hired a porn star as his "hookup for a night?" Seriously?

What had that man been drinking or smoking prior to the interview that let him think, let alone utter on the record, such a preposterous assertion?

Being a Rumpbot, just like being Rump himself, requires copious transfusions of self-delusion.

At best Proffessor Weasel Word aims to draw a distinction between "did not help his campaign" and "kept his campaign from drowning". As if only a positive action counts, otherwise all you have to do is go

 

[BULLDOG]

Here you go......the fishing expedition against Trump's lawyer is not grounded in actual law....of course..

Former FEC Chairman To Mark Levin: Stormy Daniels Money Cannot Be In Kind Campaign Contribution

He said, “And the FEC standard for that is you can’t use your campaign money for personal use. What they mean by that is you can’t use that for something you’d have to pay anyway that’s not directly for your campaign. The question is, ‘is this really a campaign obligation?’”

Professor Smith continued, “None of these expenditures helped Mr. Trump’s campaign. There’s all kinds of reasons why he may want to make these expenditures even if the allegations made by Stormy Daniels are untrue. Just for family harmony, commercial viability over the long term.”

He emphasized, “Historically, the FEC has said these things are not campaign contributions.”

Professor Smith added, “When the FEC wrote the regulation that says what constitutes campaign expenditures and what constitutes personal use, it rejected specifically the idea that a campaign expenditure was anything related to a campaign, and instead says it has to be something that exists only because of the campaign and solely for that reason.”

You didn't mention England gun laws even once. You sick bro?

 

[2aguy]

From the article:

The purpose of those laws is to prevent corruption and one way campaign contributions or in-kind campaign contributions are different than bribes is that you have to use them to get elected....None of these expenditures helped Mr. Trump’s campaign.

Who in their right mind can, with a straight face and expecting to be taken as credible and serious, assert that the payment to purchase Daniels' silence about two weeks before the election and about two weeks after the Access Hollywood tape didn't "help Mr. Trump's campaign?"

Can one honestly think no material quantity of folks would have found it beyond the pale to emplace in office a POTUS candidate who, as a grown man of about 60 with a beautiful and glamorous wife who'd only four months prior given birth to the man's child, hired a porn star as his "hookup for a night?" Seriously?

What had that man been drinking or smoking prior to the interview that let him conjure, let alone utter on the record, such a preposterous assertion?

And reading the article you would see exactly how.......but intelligent discussion, rather than long typing sessions from you is not to be expected.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

A campaign expenditure shows up as an expense of the campaign. Not every expense of a candidate is an expense of the campaign. This is getting silly. Did Trump or ANYONE make a claim that the payment to Stormy Daniels was an expense of the campaign? No.

 

[Muhammed]

The Stormy Daniels story wasn't even used by the campaign. To claim that it was a campaign expenditure is fucking idiotic.

 

[2aguy]

A campaign expenditure shows up as an expense of the campaign. Not every expense of a candidate is an expense of the campaign. This is getting silly. Did Trump or ANYONE make a claim that the payment to Stormy Daniels was an expense of the campaign? No.

They can't get Cohen on this...but they did make a big news splash and will likely indict him in October...

 

[EvilCat Breath]

A campaign expenditure shows up as an expense of the campaign. Not every expense of a candidate is an expense of the campaign. This is getting silly. Did Trump or ANYONE make a claim that the payment to Stormy Daniels was an expense of the campaign? No.

They can't get Cohen on this...but they did make a big news splash and will likely indict him in October...

Indict him? For what? They better make up a good one.

 

[Roudy]

Gee! Yet another Leftwing epic fail. How surprising!

 

[del]

 

[JoeB131]

You didn't mention England gun laws even once. You sick bro?

Yes, we love hearing how 48 homicides with guns is worse than 11,000 in the US.

 

[JoeB131]

They can't get Cohen on this...but they did make a big news splash and will likely indict him in October...

Well, they can because he lied to the bank why he needed the money.