Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
LOLOf course it was.That was not the sole purpose.”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.
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.
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.
Not at all. The payment was done in the open and with full news coverage. I do not recall seeing that when Trump paid off his hookers. Maybe I missed it.
That’s true, these are not the same. One was a campaign finance violation and the other was not.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.
Not at all. The payment was done in the open and with full news coverage. I do not recall seeing that when Trump paid off his hookers. Maybe I missed it.
A private transaction involving a non-disclosure agreement is not the same as a lawsuit against the POTUS which also caused his disbarment.
Try to keep up.
As I already explained to you and all the other dumbasses. It doesn't matter what Cohen said in his plea bargain. That's not admissible in court. Your mind reading talent also isn't admissible evidence.I don’t have to. Cohen said why they did it and it matches precisely with the events as they unfolded.So you can read Trump's mind?Others may have their own reasons. Trump’s was to win an election.”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.”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.
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.”
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.
Perhaps not, but these are campaign finance violations:That’s true, these are not the same. One was a campaign finance violation and the other was not.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.
Not at all. The payment was done in the open and with full news coverage. I do not recall seeing that when Trump paid off his hookers. Maybe I missed it.
A private transaction involving a non-disclosure agreement is not the same as a lawsuit against the POTUS which also caused his disbarment.
Try to keep up.
How many times do you have to be told that it doesn't matter? So long as the transaction could have taken place if Trump wasn't a candidate, then it's not a campaign violation. What you're trying to tell me is that no billionaire ever paid a bimbo to shut her pie hole. No one believes that for a millisecond.LOLROFL! You are so confident of things that you can't possibly demonstrate.Of course it was.That was not the sole purpose.”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.”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.
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.”
Then trump’s payment is an in-kind contribution since the sole purpose of it was to help him win the election.
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.
Charged with what?The testimony Cohen would give should Trump be charged.What testimony?No, but Cohen’s testimony can be used against Trum should Trump be charged.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.
You certainly aren't libertarian.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.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...
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.
A candidate can donate as much of his own funds as we wants, dumbass.WTF is wrong with you freaks?LOLOL*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.
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).
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.
A candidate can donate as much of his own funds as we wants, dumbass.WTF is wrong with you freaks?LOLOLYou 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.
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).
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 certainly aren't libertarian.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.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...
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.
It wasn't a campaign expenditure, so he isn't required to report it.A candidate can donate as much of his own funds as we wants, dumbass.WTF is wrong with you freaks?LOLOLI asked for an explanation in the poster's own words.
But thanks for playing.
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).
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.
Just as long as they report it. Did Trump report the payments on his campaign finances?
It wasn't a campaign expenditure, so he isn't required to report it.A candidate can donate as much of his own funds as we wants, dumbass.WTF is wrong with you freaks?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).
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.
Just as long as they report it. Did Trump report the payments on his campaign finances?
Libertarians believe the EPA and all other government regulatory agencies should be abolished.You certainly aren't libertarian.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.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...
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.
Yes, as a matter of a fact I am. You problem is you do not know the difference between an anarchist and a libertarian.
But, you really are not a very bright person, so that is not unexpected
You seem to believe that conflicts with something else I have posted.It wasn't a campaign expenditure, so he isn't required to report it.A candidate can donate as much of his own funds as we wants, dumbass.WTF is wrong with you freaks?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).
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.
Just as long as they report it. Did Trump report the payments on his campaign finances?
Then why did you just make this comment, dumbass?
A candidate can donate as much of his own funds as we wants
Seems you cannot keep your stories straight
Libertarians believe the EPA and all other government regulatory agencies should be abolished.You certainly aren't libertarian.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.I wonder who they learned that trick from...
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.
Yes, as a matter of a fact I am. You problem is you do not know the difference between an anarchist and a libertarian.
But, you really are not a very bright person, so that is not unexpected
What do you believe?
You seem to believe that conflicts with something else I have posted.It wasn't a campaign expenditure, so he isn't required to report it.A candidate can donate as much of his own funds as we wants, dumbass.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.
Just as long as they report it. Did Trump report the payments on his campaign finances?
Then why did you just make this comment, dumbass?
A candidate can donate as much of his own funds as we wants
Seems you cannot keep your stories straight
Then why do you keep bringing it up?You seem to believe that conflicts with something else I have posted.It wasn't a campaign expenditure, so he isn't required to report it.A candidate can donate as much of his own funds as we wants, dumbass.
Just as long as they report it. Did Trump report the payments on his campaign finances?
Then why did you just make this comment, dumbass?
A candidate can donate as much of his own funds as we wants
Seems you cannot keep your stories straight
If it was not a campaign expenditure, then what you posted is irrelevant and has no part in the discussion.
Then why do you keep bringing it up?You seem to believe that conflicts with something else I have posted.It wasn't a campaign expenditure, so he isn't required to report it.Just as long as they report it. Did Trump report the payments on his campaign finances?
Then why did you just make this comment, dumbass?
A candidate can donate as much of his own funds as we wants
Seems you cannot keep your stories straight
If it was not a campaign expenditure, then what you posted is irrelevant and has no part in the discussion.
