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

[bripat9643]

Here is the bottom line...

Michael Cohen was charged with 8 counts, he pleaded guilty to 8 counts and the Judge accepted his guilty plea.

Thus Cohen is guilty under in the eyes of the law no different than if there had been a year long trial.

There is a difference: None of the charges against him were ever proven, and the plea bargain cannot be used as evidence in any trial.

No, but Cohen’s testimony can be used against Trum should Trump be charged.

What testimony?

 

[bripat9643]

The snowflakes insist that paying Stormy to shut her pie hole is a campaign contribution. Here's the final word on the subject. Only sheer idiocy would cause anyone to continue claiming that the snowflake theory is valid.

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

Law Professor and former FEC chairman Bradley Smith spoke with conservative radio host Mark Levin on Tuesday. He laid out the reason why the payment made to porn star Stormy Daniels from President Trump’s private attorney Michael Cohen could not be an in-kind campaign contribution.

“Here’s the bottom line,” Smith told Levin. “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. You can’t use them to buy yourself grandfather clocks or fur coats or Rolex watches or something like that.”

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.”​

”Here’s the bottom line,” Smith told Levin. “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.”

Then trump’s payment is an in-kind contribution since the sole purpose of it was to help him win the election.

That was not the sole purpose.

Of course it was.

ROFL! You are so confident of things that you can't possibly demonstrate.

 

[Faun]

The snowflakes insist that paying Stormy to shut her pie hole is a campaign contribution. Here's the final word on the subject. Only sheer idiocy would cause anyone to continue claiming that the snowflake theory is valid.

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

Law Professor and former FEC chairman Bradley Smith spoke with conservative radio host Mark Levin on Tuesday. He laid out the reason why the payment made to porn star Stormy Daniels from President Trump’s private attorney Michael Cohen could not be an in-kind campaign contribution.

“Here’s the bottom line,” Smith told Levin. “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. You can’t use them to buy yourself grandfather clocks or fur coats or Rolex watches or something like that.”

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.”​

”Here’s the bottom line,” Smith told Levin. “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.”

Then trump’s payment is an in-kind contribution since the sole purpose of it was to help him win the election.

That wasn't the sole purpose, moron. You certainly can't prove it was the sole purpose. Other billionaires pay off bimbos to shut them up, so you can't possibly claim that winning a political campaign is the only purpose.

Others may have their own reasons. Trump’s was to win an election.

So you can read Trump's mind?

I don’t have to. Cohen said why they did it and it matches precisely with the events as they unfolded.

 

[Faun]

Retarded is suggesting that Cohen plead guilty to a crime that was in fact, not a crime.

That is about as retarded as one can be for Trump.

It wasn’t a crime

Well he’s convicted of committing a crime — so yeah, it’s a crime.

Obama was convicted of a far worse crime. Why isn't he going to prison?

Obama was fined.

So even if everything you claim is true, the worst that can happen is a fine? In proportion to the money spent, the fine would be $24,000 - and Trump's campaign would pay it, not him personally.

But all you fucking morons believe this is the smoking gun that is going to take Trump down.

Fucking Hilarious.

Fucking moron.... where did I say this would “take trump down?”



Are you ever not crazy?

 

[Faun]

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

Law Professor and former FEC chairman Bradley Smith spoke with conservative radio host Mark Levin on Tuesday. He laid out the reason why the payment made to porn star Stormy Daniels from President Trump’s private attorney Michael Cohen could not be an in-kind campaign contribution.

“Here’s the bottom line,” Smith told Levin. “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. You can’t use them to buy yourself grandfather clocks or fur coats or Rolex watches or something like that.”

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.”​

Bripat9643, is it a campaign contribution? I think that may be for a jury to decide. The learned professor's statement that the expenditure did not help President Trump's primary or general election campaign is sophistry. If the the woman's accusation became common knowledge, it may likely been detrimental to Trump's political purposes.

“Historically, the FEC has said these things are not campaign contributions”? This question has often arisen historically, and always in this exact or very similar manner?

Respectfully, Supposn​

That isn't what he said, douchebag. Buying a new suit would help his campaign, but it's not classified as a campaign expenditure because that's an expenditure he would make even if he wasn't running for office.

Thanks for proving the hush money for Stormy Daniels was for the purpose of the election... unlike a suit, Trump didn’t pay her off until he was running for president.

And a key witness in this case stated the bush money was “for the principal purpose of influencing the election.”

If he bought a suit the day he announced he was a candidate, it wouldn't be classified as a campaign contribution. It doesn't matter when he paid Stormy off.

A suit is not hush money. A suit is something he would have bought anyway. Paying off Stormy Daniels is not something he would have done had there not been an election coming up.

 

[Faun]

WTF does the poster have to explain anything?
His link IS the explanation.
Your list of "No Clickage" ("clickage" is a word?) is your deliberate willfulness to remain ignorant.
.
..
.

Oh blah blah blah so sleepy....zzzz

Just because some hack Prog SJW loon posts a link, I am under no obligation to perform clickage upon said link....especially when the loon is unable to explain in XYR own words why the link proves XYR point.

Oh blah blah blah you're also intellectually lazy.
And you're wrong, doesn't matter whose money it is if it's used unlawfully in a campaign or not reported to the FEC.
.
.
.

It wasn't used unlawfully, dumbfuck.

So you say.

New York’s federal court says otherwise and they have a conviction to back it up.

Their "conviction" backs up nothing except Cohen's desire to avoid as much prison time as possible.

It’s still a conviction, based on the law, for which Cohen was formally charged and for which he admitted guilt.

 

[Faun]

Here is the bottom line...

Michael Cohen was charged with 8 counts, he pleaded guilty to 8 counts and the Judge accepted his guilty plea.

Thus Cohen is guilty under in the eyes of the law no different than if there had been a year long trial.

There is a difference: None of the charges against him were ever proven, and the plea bargain cannot be used as evidence in any trial.

No, but Cohen’s testimony can be used against Trum should Trump be charged.

What testimony?

The testimony Cohen would give should Trump be charged.

 

[Faun]

The snowflakes insist that paying Stormy to shut her pie hole is a campaign contribution. Here's the final word on the subject. Only sheer idiocy would cause anyone to continue claiming that the snowflake theory is valid.

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

Law Professor and former FEC chairman Bradley Smith spoke with conservative radio host Mark Levin on Tuesday. He laid out the reason why the payment made to porn star Stormy Daniels from President Trump’s private attorney Michael Cohen could not be an in-kind campaign contribution.

“Here’s the bottom line,” Smith told Levin. “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. You can’t use them to buy yourself grandfather clocks or fur coats or Rolex watches or something like that.”

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.”​

”Here’s the bottom line,” Smith told Levin. “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.”

Then trump’s payment is an in-kind contribution since the sole purpose of it was to help him win the election.

That was not the sole purpose.

Of course it was.

ROFL! You are so confident of things that you can't possibly demonstrate.

LOL

Fucking moron... there was no other reason. According to the DNA, Stormy Daniels had to turn over any material in her possession related to her affair with Donald Trump no later than 11.1.16. The election was 11.8.16.

So if not for the purpose of influencing the election, what was the urgency of her signing and adhering to the NDA by November 1st? Why not November 10th? Or December 1st?

And don’t forget, a functioning brain is not something you’re equipped with to handle this debate.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

This is ALL about the midterms. The left can't 'get' Trump on something valid, so they make shit up and run it 24/7 trying to damage the Trump presidency.

I wonder who they learned that trick from...

A former Marine Gunny you say? And you are a liberal progressive? My experience was that only certain Officers were liberal in th Marine Corps usually the technical officers,Most NCO and other officers knew better then to believe the fairy tale idiocy of the left.

Yea, retired Marine Gunny, just like you claim to be. I am neither liberal nor progressive, without a doubt you are to the left of me.

I was a 7041, Aviation Operations.

 

[boedicca]

Linky to the specific law that was violated?

52 U.S. Code § 30118 - Contributions or expenditures by national banks, corporations, or labor organizations

52 U.S. Code § 30116 - Limitations on contributions and expenditures

*sigh*

I'll refer you to #1 of My Policies

Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

But I will note that spending one's own money doesn't fall under either of these laws.

You asked a question and you got your answer. What you do with it is up to you. I cannot force you to stop being ignorant.

You are correct, as long as spending your own money is reported on your campaign finance report.

I asked for an explanation in the poster's own words.

But thanks for playing.

LOLOL

You rightwing freaks are fucking hysterical.

Before you refused to click on the links to the laws that were violated, you asked for, ”linky to the specific law that was violated?”

.... then you get those links but refuse to click on them...

... then you pretend like you asked for an explanation and not a ”linky to the specific law that was violated.”

You dishonest Progs always edit out the important bits. Here's the rest of my post:

Can you explain how it was violated in your own words? (note: rhetorical questions as you clearly cannot).

 

[boedicca]

The snowflakes insist that paying Stormy to shut her pie hole is a campaign contribution. Here's the final word on the subject. Only sheer idiocy would cause anyone to continue claiming that the snowflake theory is valid.

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

Law Professor and former FEC chairman Bradley Smith spoke with conservative radio host Mark Levin on Tuesday. He laid out the reason why the payment made to porn star Stormy Daniels from President Trump’s private attorney Michael Cohen could not be an in-kind campaign contribution.

“Here’s the bottom line,” Smith told Levin. “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. You can’t use them to buy yourself grandfather clocks or fur coats or Rolex watches or something like that.”

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.”​

”Here’s the bottom line,” Smith told Levin. “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.”

Then trump’s payment is an in-kind contribution since the sole purpose of it was to help him win the election.

That was not the sole purpose.

Of course it was.

So, when Bill Clinton paid Paula Jones over $800K, was that an illegal campaign contribution?

 

[Faun]

52 U.S. Code § 30118 - Contributions or expenditures by national banks, corporations, or labor organizations

52 U.S. Code § 30116 - Limitations on contributions and expenditures

*sigh*

I'll refer you to #1 of My Policies

Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

But I will note that spending one's own money doesn't fall under either of these laws.

You asked a question and you got your answer. What you do with it is up to you. I cannot force you to stop being ignorant.

You are correct, as long as spending your own money is reported on your campaign finance report.

I asked for an explanation in the poster's own words.

But thanks for playing.

LOLOL

You rightwing freaks are fucking hysterical.

Before you refused to click on the links to the laws that were violated, you asked for, ”linky to the specific law that was violated?”

.... then you get those links but refuse to click on them...

... then you pretend like you asked for an explanation and not a ”linky to the specific law that was violated.”

You dishonest Progs always edit out the important bits. Here's the rest of my post:

Can you explain how it was violated in your own words? (note: rhetorical questions as you clearly cannot).

WTF is wrong with you freaks?

Where exactly was I dishonest? Was pointing out YOU asked for links dishonest? Was pointing out YOU refused to click on the links YOU asked for dishonest?

As far as it being a crime. It was an in-kind contribution according to Cohen. Such contributions are limited to $2700 but according to Cohen, he paid $130,000.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Well if you cannot trust a Repub who wants even less regulation of campaign finances telling a far right conservative talk show host what he wants to hear, who can you trust.

Well if you cannot take a goofball seriously because they attempt to suggest that not breaking a law that doesn't apply, should apply anyway because they think it would be a great idea in context to something else completely unrelated, then you just have to applaud the fact they were kind enough to identify themselves as a doofus and can still laugh about it.

Still waiting for the Check from Daniels to clear and its been months since she said she was going to donate it. Hummm

 

[boedicca]

*sigh*

I'll refer you to #1 of My Policies

Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

But I will note that spending one's own money doesn't fall under either of these laws.

You asked a question and you got your answer. What you do with it is up to you. I cannot force you to stop being ignorant.

You are correct, as long as spending your own money is reported on your campaign finance report.

I asked for an explanation in the poster's own words.

But thanks for playing.

LOLOL

You rightwing freaks are fucking hysterical.

Before you refused to click on the links to the laws that were violated, you asked for, ”linky to the specific law that was violated?”

.... then you get those links but refuse to click on them...

... then you pretend like you asked for an explanation and not a ”linky to the specific law that was violated.”

You dishonest Progs always edit out the important bits. Here's the rest of my post:

Can you explain how it was violated in your own words? (note: rhetorical questions as you clearly cannot).

WTF is wrong with you freaks?

Where exactly was I dishonest? Was pointing out YOU asked for links dishonest? Was pointing out YOU refused to click on the links YOU asked for dishonest?

As far as it being a crime. It was an in-kind contribution according to Cohen. Such contributions are limited to $2700 but according to Cohen, he paid $130,000.

You didn't quote my full post. Dishonest editing is a hallmark for you progs.

And now, if you scream into your computer and no one listens to you, do you actually exist?

 

[Faun]

The snowflakes insist that paying Stormy to shut her pie hole is a campaign contribution. Here's the final word on the subject. Only sheer idiocy would cause anyone to continue claiming that the snowflake theory is valid.

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

Law Professor and former FEC chairman Bradley Smith spoke with conservative radio host Mark Levin on Tuesday. He laid out the reason why the payment made to porn star Stormy Daniels from President Trump’s private attorney Michael Cohen could not be an in-kind campaign contribution.

“Here’s the bottom line,” Smith told Levin. “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. You can’t use them to buy yourself grandfather clocks or fur coats or Rolex watches or something like that.”

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.”​

”Here’s the bottom line,” Smith told Levin. “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.”

Then trump’s payment is an in-kind contribution since the sole purpose of it was to help him win the election.

That was not the sole purpose.

Of course it was.

So, when Bill Clinton paid Paula Jones over $800K, was that an illegal campaign contribution?

No, and for obvious reasons.

Funny part is, despite the how obvious the reason is, it still eludes you.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The snowflakes insist that paying Stormy to shut her pie hole is a campaign contribution. Here's the final word on the subject. Only sheer idiocy would cause anyone to continue claiming that the snowflake theory is valid.

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

Law Professor and former FEC chairman Bradley Smith spoke with conservative radio host Mark Levin on Tuesday. He laid out the reason why the payment made to porn star Stormy Daniels from President Trump’s private attorney Michael Cohen could not be an in-kind campaign contribution.

“Here’s the bottom line,” Smith told Levin. “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. You can’t use them to buy yourself grandfather clocks or fur coats or Rolex watches or something like that.”

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.”​

”Here’s the bottom line,” Smith told Levin. “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.”

Then trump’s payment is an in-kind contribution since the sole purpose of it was to help him win the election.

That was not the sole purpose.

Of course it was.

So, when Bill Clinton paid Paula Jones over $800K, was that an illegal campaign contribution?

That was not done during an election year or as part of a campaign. That took place towards the end of Bill's second term, he as not running for anything. Plus it was widely reported, not hidden as a misc expense.

 

[boedicca]

The snowflakes insist that paying Stormy to shut her pie hole is a campaign contribution. Here's the final word on the subject. Only sheer idiocy would cause anyone to continue claiming that the snowflake theory is valid.

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

Law Professor and former FEC chairman Bradley Smith spoke with conservative radio host Mark Levin on Tuesday. He laid out the reason why the payment made to porn star Stormy Daniels from President Trump’s private attorney Michael Cohen could not be an in-kind campaign contribution.

“Here’s the bottom line,” Smith told Levin. “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. You can’t use them to buy yourself grandfather clocks or fur coats or Rolex watches or something like that.”

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.”​

”Here’s the bottom line,” Smith told Levin. “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.”

Then trump’s payment is an in-kind contribution since the sole purpose of it was to help him win the election.

That was not the sole purpose.

Of course it was.

So, when Bill Clinton paid Paula Jones over $800K, was that an illegal campaign contribution?

That was not done during an election year or as part of a campaign. That took place towards the end of Bill's second term, he as not running for anything. Plus it was widely reported, not hidden as a misc expense.

At the end of Bill's term when his Co-President Partner in Crime was getting ready to run for a carpet bagger Senate seat in NYC.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

”Here’s the bottom line,” Smith told Levin. “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.”

Then trump’s payment is an in-kind contribution since the sole purpose of it was to help him win the election.

That was not the sole purpose.

Of course it was.

So, when Bill Clinton paid Paula Jones over $800K, was that an illegal campaign contribution?

That was not done during an election year or as part of a campaign. That took place towards the end of Bill's second term, he as not running for anything. Plus it was widely reported, not hidden as a misc expense.

At the end of Bill's term when his Co-President Partner in Crime was getting ready to run for a carpet bagger Senate seat in NYC.

Good thing Hillary did not pay it then!

 

[boedicca]

That was not the sole purpose.

Of course it was.

So, when Bill Clinton paid Paula Jones over $800K, was that an illegal campaign contribution?

That was not done during an election year or as part of a campaign. That took place towards the end of Bill's second term, he as not running for anything. Plus it was widely reported, not hidden as a misc expense.

At the end of Bill's term when his Co-President Partner in Crime was getting ready to run for a carpet bagger Senate seat in NYC.

Good thing Hillary did not pay it then!

Her husband paid. Do you think he didn't do it to help her?

Jeebus, you are dull.

 

[Faun]

You asked a question and you got your answer. What you do with it is up to you. I cannot force you to stop being ignorant.

You are correct, as long as spending your own money is reported on your campaign finance report.

I asked for an explanation in the poster's own words.

But thanks for playing.

LOLOL

You rightwing freaks are fucking hysterical.

Before you refused to click on the links to the laws that were violated, you asked for, ”linky to the specific law that was violated?”

.... then you get those links but refuse to click on them...

... then you pretend like you asked for an explanation and not a ”linky to the specific law that was violated.”

You dishonest Progs always edit out the important bits. Here's the rest of my post:

Can you explain how it was violated in your own words? (note: rhetorical questions as you clearly cannot).

WTF is wrong with you freaks?

Where exactly was I dishonest? Was pointing out YOU asked for links dishonest? Was pointing out YOU refused to click on the links YOU asked for dishonest?

As far as it being a crime. It was an in-kind contribution according to Cohen. Such contributions are limited to $2700 but according to Cohen, he paid $130,000.

You didn't quote my full post. Dishonest editing is a hallmark for you progs.

And now, if you scream into your computer and no one listens to you, do you actually exist?

LOL

I quoted you asking for links and then refusing them when they were given to you.

To the brain-dead .... that’s me being dishonest.