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

[bripat9643]

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.

You certainly aren't libertarian.

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

Libertarians believe the EPA and all other government regulatory agencies should be abolished.

What do you believe?

I believe the EPA should be 1/10 the size that it is and it should only deal with pollution that crosses state boundaries. But I do not have an ideological issue with holding companies responsible for their reckless behavior if it endangers the rights of people to live a free life. Your right to pollute should not override my right to live.

From the Libertarian party directly...Libertarians advocate removing unproductive regulation, reducing and eliminating taxes, and getting government out of the way of innovation and job creation. The only thing on here I disagree with is total removal of all taxes, that is not realistic and would lead to anarchy

I also am against abortion, while most libertarians are ok with it. To me, abortion is the ultimate removal of liberty from the human baby being killed.

I agree 100% with the Libertarians on civil liberties, justice system, education, non-interventionist foreign policy, and most other things.

The thing about Libertarians is that we are not a flock of sheep following a party leader and party line. That is what sets us apart from you and those like you.

Then why are you always attacking Trump? He's a hell of lot closer to being a libertarian than that crriminal Hillary

 

[bripat9643]

It wasn't a campaign expenditure, so he isn't required to report it.

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

You seem to believe that conflicts with something else I have posted.

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?

It was you that said it, not me. Do try and keep up.

I think all these lies you are telling are starting to catch up to you.

The best one being that Cohen admitted to a crime that was not a crime so he would not go to jail for that crime that was not a crime.

That is the stuff of legends!

You said it, dumbass. You even quoted yourself saying it:

"just as long as they report it. Did Trump report the payments on his campaign finances?"

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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.

You certainly aren't libertarian.

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

Libertarians believe the EPA and all other government regulatory agencies should be abolished.

What do you believe?

I believe the EPA should be 1/10 the size that it is and it should only deal with pollution that crosses state boundaries. But I do not have an ideological issue with holding companies responsible for their reckless behavior if it endangers the rights of people to live a free life. Your right to pollute should not override my right to live.

From the Libertarian party directly...Libertarians advocate removing unproductive regulation, reducing and eliminating taxes, and getting government out of the way of innovation and job creation. The only thing on here I disagree with is total removal of all taxes, that is not realistic and would lead to anarchy

I also am against abortion, while most libertarians are ok with it. To me, abortion is the ultimate removal of liberty from the human baby being killed.

I agree 100% with the Libertarians on civil liberties, justice system, education, non-interventionist foreign policy, and most other things.

The thing about Libertarians is that we are not a flock of sheep following a party leader and party line. That is what sets us apart from you and those like you.

Then why are you always attacking Trump? He's a hell of lot closer to being a libertarian than that crriminal Hillary

There is nothing libertarian about Trump. Tariffs are not a libertarian ideal, bombing Syria multiple times are not the actions of a libertarian, 6 more years of FISA are not the actions of a libertarian.

Saying he is better than Hillary is like asking someone why they are mad about having lung cancer, since pancreatic cancer is worse.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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

You seem to believe that conflicts with something else I have posted.

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?

It was you that said it, not me. Do try and keep up.

I think all these lies you are telling are starting to catch up to you.

The best one being that Cohen admitted to a crime that was not a crime so he would not go to jail for that crime that was not a crime.

That is the stuff of legends!

You said it, dumbass. You even quoted yourself saying it:

"just as long as they report it. Did Trump report the payments on his campaign finances?"

You just cannot follow a thread to save you life...

let me try and help..

You said...(and I quote) A candidate can donate as much of his own funds as we wants

To which I replied just as long as they report it. Did Trump report the payments on his campaign finances?

Which part of this is confusing for you?

 

[bripat9643]

You certainly aren't libertarian.

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

Libertarians believe the EPA and all other government regulatory agencies should be abolished.

What do you believe?

I believe the EPA should be 1/10 the size that it is and it should only deal with pollution that crosses state boundaries. But I do not have an ideological issue with holding companies responsible for their reckless behavior if it endangers the rights of people to live a free life. Your right to pollute should not override my right to live.

From the Libertarian party directly...Libertarians advocate removing unproductive regulation, reducing and eliminating taxes, and getting government out of the way of innovation and job creation. The only thing on here I disagree with is total removal of all taxes, that is not realistic and would lead to anarchy

I also am against abortion, while most libertarians are ok with it. To me, abortion is the ultimate removal of liberty from the human baby being killed.

I agree 100% with the Libertarians on civil liberties, justice system, education, non-interventionist foreign policy, and most other things.

The thing about Libertarians is that we are not a flock of sheep following a party leader and party line. That is what sets us apart from you and those like you.

Then why are you always attacking Trump? He's a hell of lot closer to being a libertarian than that crriminal Hillary

There is nothing libertarian about Trump. Tariffs are not a libertarian ideal, bombing Syria multiple times are not the actions of a libertarian, 6 more years of FISA are not the actions of a libertarian.

Saying he is better than Hillary is like asking someone why they are mad about having lung cancer, since pancreatic cancer is worse.

I don't recall you ever attacking Hillary. You only attack Republicans.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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

Libertarians believe the EPA and all other government regulatory agencies should be abolished.

What do you believe?

I believe the EPA should be 1/10 the size that it is and it should only deal with pollution that crosses state boundaries. But I do not have an ideological issue with holding companies responsible for their reckless behavior if it endangers the rights of people to live a free life. Your right to pollute should not override my right to live.

From the Libertarian party directly...Libertarians advocate removing unproductive regulation, reducing and eliminating taxes, and getting government out of the way of innovation and job creation. The only thing on here I disagree with is total removal of all taxes, that is not realistic and would lead to anarchy

I also am against abortion, while most libertarians are ok with it. To me, abortion is the ultimate removal of liberty from the human baby being killed.

I agree 100% with the Libertarians on civil liberties, justice system, education, non-interventionist foreign policy, and most other things.

The thing about Libertarians is that we are not a flock of sheep following a party leader and party line. That is what sets us apart from you and those like you.

Then why are you always attacking Trump? He's a hell of lot closer to being a libertarian than that crriminal Hillary

There is nothing libertarian about Trump. Tariffs are not a libertarian ideal, bombing Syria multiple times are not the actions of a libertarian, 6 more years of FISA are not the actions of a libertarian.

Saying he is better than Hillary is like asking someone why they are mad about having lung cancer, since pancreatic cancer is worse.

I don't recall you ever attacking Hillary. You only attack Republicans.

Hillary is a private citizen that has no impact on my life, why would I waste my time talking about her? Should I attack the guy down the street that lets his dog shit in my yard as well?

I focus on those currently in power, not two time losers.

 

[bripat9643]

Libertarians believe the EPA and all other government regulatory agencies should be abolished.

What do you believe?

I believe the EPA should be 1/10 the size that it is and it should only deal with pollution that crosses state boundaries. But I do not have an ideological issue with holding companies responsible for their reckless behavior if it endangers the rights of people to live a free life. Your right to pollute should not override my right to live.

From the Libertarian party directly...Libertarians advocate removing unproductive regulation, reducing and eliminating taxes, and getting government out of the way of innovation and job creation. The only thing on here I disagree with is total removal of all taxes, that is not realistic and would lead to anarchy

I also am against abortion, while most libertarians are ok with it. To me, abortion is the ultimate removal of liberty from the human baby being killed.

I agree 100% with the Libertarians on civil liberties, justice system, education, non-interventionist foreign policy, and most other things.

The thing about Libertarians is that we are not a flock of sheep following a party leader and party line. That is what sets us apart from you and those like you.

Then why are you always attacking Trump? He's a hell of lot closer to being a libertarian than that crriminal Hillary

There is nothing libertarian about Trump. Tariffs are not a libertarian ideal, bombing Syria multiple times are not the actions of a libertarian, 6 more years of FISA are not the actions of a libertarian.

Saying he is better than Hillary is like asking someone why they are mad about having lung cancer, since pancreatic cancer is worse.

I don't recall you ever attacking Hillary. You only attack Republicans.

Hillary is a private citizen that has no impact on my life, why would I waste my time talking about her? Should I attack the guy down the street that lets his dog shit in my yard as well?

I focus on those currently in power, not two time losers.

You never attacked her once during the election. Who do you think you're fooling?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I believe the EPA should be 1/10 the size that it is and it should only deal with pollution that crosses state boundaries. But I do not have an ideological issue with holding companies responsible for their reckless behavior if it endangers the rights of people to live a free life. Your right to pollute should not override my right to live.

From the Libertarian party directly...Libertarians advocate removing unproductive regulation, reducing and eliminating taxes, and getting government out of the way of innovation and job creation. The only thing on here I disagree with is total removal of all taxes, that is not realistic and would lead to anarchy

I also am against abortion, while most libertarians are ok with it. To me, abortion is the ultimate removal of liberty from the human baby being killed.

I agree 100% with the Libertarians on civil liberties, justice system, education, non-interventionist foreign policy, and most other things.

The thing about Libertarians is that we are not a flock of sheep following a party leader and party line. That is what sets us apart from you and those like you.

Then why are you always attacking Trump? He's a hell of lot closer to being a libertarian than that crriminal Hillary

There is nothing libertarian about Trump. Tariffs are not a libertarian ideal, bombing Syria multiple times are not the actions of a libertarian, 6 more years of FISA are not the actions of a libertarian.

Saying he is better than Hillary is like asking someone why they are mad about having lung cancer, since pancreatic cancer is worse.

I don't recall you ever attacking Hillary. You only attack Republicans.

Hillary is a private citizen that has no impact on my life, why would I waste my time talking about her? Should I attack the guy down the street that lets his dog shit in my yard as well?

I focus on those currently in power, not two time losers.

You never attacked her once during the election. Who do you think you're fooling?

When was the election?

When did I join this board?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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

Former Trump attorney, Michael Cohen to federal judge: "Guilty your honor"

Your post is retarded, Trump didn't break the law legal experts and even a former FEC chairman say so, suck it.

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.

Cohen plead guilty to have a dozen crimes moron, all of which were crimes with the exception of the Stormy payment. Here I'll reply for you, but but but...but BUTTHURT.

Still retardedly suggesting that Cohen, his attorney, the prosecutor and the judge all just made a mistake doesn't change what actually happened.

Cohen plead guilty to, and named Trump as a co-conspirator in two counts related to the payment, dope.

Like to see the quote where he named Trump. You said named, so that doesn't mean alluded to, suggested, or because it's Tuesday.

He named Trump in the way he was able.

Tell us who he named, loser.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

If, historically, the FEC has said this sort of payment isn't a campaign contribution, cite the historic cases....

From everything I understand, it's going to come down to intent. Was the payment for personal or political reasons.

Considering he kept her "hush" for YEARS before ever running for President I'd say it certainly isn't political.

Would you not agree?

Considering the payment was made during the campaign, how do you separate the political?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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

Former Trump attorney, Michael Cohen to federal judge: "Guilty your honor"

Your post is retarded, Trump didn't break the law legal experts and even a former FEC chairman say so, suck it.

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.

Cohen plead guilty to have a dozen crimes moron, all of which were crimes with the exception of the Stormy payment. Here I'll reply for you, but but but...but BUTTHURT.

Still retardedly suggesting that Cohen, his attorney, the prosecutor and the judge all just made a mistake doesn't change what actually happened.

Cohen plead guilty to, and named Trump as a co-conspirator in two counts related to the payment, dope.

The payment wasn't illegal, man it sucks to be you.

Sure. As evidenced by the guilty plea, dope.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

Cohen plead guilty to have a dozen crimes moron, all of which were crimes with the exception of the Stormy payment. Here I'll reply for you, but but but...but BUTTHURT.

Still retardedly suggesting that Cohen, his attorney, the prosecutor and the judge all just made a mistake doesn't change what actually happened.

Cohen plead guilty to, and named Trump as a co-conspirator in two counts related to the payment, dope.

The payment wasn't illegal, man it sucks to be you.

So what did Cohen plead guilty to?

Several tax crimes that had nothing to do with Trump.

Of course that is not all he plead to.

 

[hadit]

... 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​

Take the campaign out of the picture. Does Trump still make the payment? Most likely, yes. Hence, it's going to be hard to prove it's only a campaign benefit.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Considering he kept her "hush" for YEARS before ever running for President I'd say it certainly isn't political.

Would you not agree?

The timing of the payments (weeks before the election) and Guliani's statements put that in question.

"Imagine if that came out on Oct. 15, 2016, in the middle of the, you know, last debate with Hillary Clinton,”

The timing is likely based on her greed but that is just a guess. No more or less accurate than your assumptions

Mine are based on public evidence and statements while yours are based on a desire for it to be true.

I have no desires on the subject dear.

Make no mistake, I don't give a rat's ass either way.

Your post is retarded, Trump didn't break the law legal experts and even a former FEC chairman say so, suck it.

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.

Cohen plead guilty to have a dozen crimes moron, all of which were crimes with the exception of the Stormy payment. Here I'll reply for you, but but but...but BUTTHURT.

Still retardedly suggesting that Cohen, his attorney, the prosecutor and the judge all just made a mistake doesn't change what actually happened.

Cohen plead guilty to, and named Trump as a co-conspirator in two counts related to the payment, dope.

The payment wasn't illegal, man it sucks to be you.

The timing of the payments (weeks before the election) and Guliani's statements put that in question.

"Imagine if that came out on Oct. 15, 2016, in the middle of the, you know, last debate with Hillary Clinton,”

The timing is likely based on her greed but that is just a guess. No more or less accurate than your assumptions

Mine are based on public evidence and statements while yours are based on a desire for it to be true.

I have no desires on the subject dear.

Make no mistake, I don't give a rat's ass either way.

Either way, your theory is based on nothing. All evidence points to the payments being made because of the election not for personal reasons.

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.

Cohen plead guilty to have a dozen crimes moron, all of which were crimes with the exception of the Stormy payment. Here I'll reply for you, but but but...but BUTTHURT.

Still retardedly suggesting that Cohen, his attorney, the prosecutor and the judge all just made a mistake doesn't change what actually happened.

Cohen plead guilty to, and named Trump as a co-conspirator in two counts related to the payment, dope.

The payment wasn't illegal, man it sucks to be you.

Which to believe?

Some partisan hack on an Internet forum and a partisan hack that wants less rules and regulations dealing with campaign finance...

Or

The Southern District of New York, the lawyer that worked out the plea deal and the lawyer that signed the plea deal.

Sort of like choosing between getting punched in the gut or eating pizza...not really a hard choice


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

And so-------->If Trump is guilty for an NDA using his own money, then should we assume that everyone in congress who created an NDA (non disclosure agreement) using our taxpayer dollars is also guilty of the same thing-)

In another thread I reminded people, you can NOT pick and choose. It either is, or it isn't! Everyone treated fairly, remember-)

Sooooooooooooo, is it, or isn't it? Gee, I wonder how many congress critters have made NDAs, before their election, and after their election, using the slush fund that we all discovered, lol. Should they be prosecuted, or resign, and if so/if not, why?

You should not. There are ways of handling those type of thing without felonious intent.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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

Former Trump attorney, Michael Cohen to federal judge: "Guilty your honor"

Which proves exactly nothing.

Of course, it proves it was in fact, a crime.

 

[Lesh]

... 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​

Take the campaign out of the picture. Does Trump still make the payment? Most likely, yes. Hence, it's going to be hard to prove it's only a campaign benefit.

Then why did it take him ten years to do that?

And why do it weeks before the election.

Hmmm

Smell that?

It's the smell of Trumper bullshit

 

[Rustic]

... 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​

Take the campaign out of the picture. Does Trump still make the payment? Most likely, yes. Hence, it's going to be hard to prove it's only a campaign benefit.

Then why did it take him ten years to do that?

And why do it weeks before the election.

Hmmm

Smell that?

It's the smell of Trumper bullshit

... and still no Russian connection

 

[Lesh]

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.

Cohen plead guilty to have a dozen crimes moron, all of which were crimes with the exception of the Stormy payment. Here I'll reply for you, but but but...but BUTTHURT.

Still retardedly suggesting that Cohen, his attorney, the prosecutor and the judge all just made a mistake doesn't change what actually happened.

Cohen plead guilty to, and named Trump as a co-conspirator in two counts related to the payment, dope.

Like to see the quote where he named Trump. You said named, so that doesn't mean alluded to, suggested, or because it's Tuesday.

He named Trump in the way he was able.

Tell us who he named, loser.

He named no one, idiot.

He "named" "a candidate for President...that he did work for".

Did he work for Hillary? Romney? McCain?

No?

Oh

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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

Former Trump attorney, Michael Cohen to federal judge: "Guilty your honor"

Which proves exactly nothing.

It proves that Michael Cohen believes it to be a crime and it proves the judge believes it to be a crime.

it doesn't matter what Cohen believes. It says nothing about what the judge believes.

It says EXACTLY what they both believe, dope.

 

[Lesh]

... 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​

Take the campaign out of the picture. Does Trump still make the payment? Most likely, yes. Hence, it's going to be hard to prove it's only a campaign benefit.

Then why did it take him ten years to do that?

And why do it weeks before the election.

Hmmm

Smell that?

It's the smell of Trumper bullshit

... and still no Russian connection

There's been plenty of Russian connections.

Are you stupid or lying?