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

[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

There's been plenty of Russian connections.

Are you stupid or lying?

 

[Lesh]

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?

You might want to look in the mirror.

You're freaking out like a meth crazed Trumper.

Oh wait...

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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?

Works for me! Now, lets look at each one of them that used the money and see which of them did so in conjunction with an election.

What you Trump sheep like to ignore is the timing of payments...and the timing is the key.

Ummmmmmmm, by the way, didn't Mz Clifford (Stormy) take the money, then proceed to try and BLACKMAIL Trump, while also violating a contract?

Shouldn't she be prosecuted?

Cohen blew up the nda by commenting on it and naming Cliffords, dope.

This shit is in recent memory and you dopes still can't get it right.

 

[Rustic]

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?

You might want to look in the mirror.

You're freaking out like a meth crazed Trumper.

Oh wait...

Lol

 

[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"

What a fool Cohen is pleading guilty to no crime

It's not even possible to do so, dope.
Charges must be filed before a plea can be entered.

 

[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.

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

Did she make any moves before then to indicate she was going public?

 

[hadit]

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

Words mean things. When you say, "he named him", that means he actually named him, at least in the real world.

 

[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.

It wasn’t a crime

Sure, dope. That's why he's convicted of that non-crime.

 

[whitehall]

Who paid Hillary's "bimbo eruption squad"? Was democrat hitman James Carville on the payroll when he intimidated, threatened and humiliated Bill's victims with statements like "drag a $20 through a trailer park"?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.”​

First off, he's the former FEC Chairman so it isn't "the final word on the subject."

Do you have a quote of any other FEC chairman contradicting what he says?

Who the fuck is your "FEC chaiman" in Cohen vs the USA?

Hint: nobody.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

A judge is not going to accept a guilty plea on something that is not even a crime.

Says who? There is a statute about campaign expenditures. The problem is that neither Trump no Cohen violated it.

Cohen said he violated it, the Southern District of New York says Cohen violated it. That is all that really matters, everything is just opinion and holds no actual value.

Wrong. Neither of those facts matter. They prove nothing other than that Cohen agreed to a plea bargain. If I agreed to a contract that said there are unicorns on Mars, would that prove there are unicorns on Mars?

They prove nothing other than that Cohen agreed to a plea bargain

No. They prove that Cohen admitted guilt to specific, felonious campaign finance violations.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Of course what people say about it matters. You want the plea agreement to be the final word because you got nothing else. Of course, in a court of law, the plea agreement isn't even admissible.

No, what people say means nothing, all that matters is what the court says.

Did it matter what all the people were saying about OJ during his murder trial?

The courts haven't said he's guilty. Cohen says he's guilty, and you just agreed that it doesn't matter what he says.

The courts haven't said he's guilty. Cohen says he's guilty, and you just agreed that it doesn't matter what he says.

WTF?

Cohen is convicted, dope. He is now a federal felon. It is a done deal

 

[bripat9643]

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.

The guilty plea is evidence of nothing, dumbass.

 

[bripat9643]

Of course what people say about it matters. You want the plea agreement to be the final word because you got nothing else. Of course, in a court of law, the plea agreement isn't even admissible.

No, what people say means nothing, all that matters is what the court says.

Did it matter what all the people were saying about OJ during his murder trial?

The courts haven't said he's guilty. Cohen says he's guilty, and you just agreed that it doesn't matter what he says.

The courts haven't said he's guilty. Cohen says he's guilty, and you just agreed that it doesn't matter what he says.

WTF?

Cohen is convicted, dope. He is now a federal felon. It is a done deal

I'm sorry you can't understand simple sentences. The court accepted Cohen's plea. That's all it did.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.”​

Did you ever in your wildest dreams think you would find yourself defending a sleaze bag candidate who had to pay off porn stars prior to an election?
Are you still a member of the "Party of Family Values"?

Looks like Levin can get just about anybody to come on his show and say just about anything he wants them to say, but that doesn't change the facts.

From the American Bar Association:
Michael Cohen pleads guilty to campaign finance violations, tax and bank fraud
.
.
.

Says the guy who voted twice for a man who had to explain why he was getting hummers in the Ofal Office.

Again, for the legally impaired, a plea agreement is proof of nothing.

Your desperation is glaring.
And it wasn't a plea agreement. It was a guilty plea.
You're the legally impaired one here, trying to rewrite the facts to suit your BI-ASS.
.
.
.

The guilty plea was the result of a plea agreement, you double barreled dumbass.

Guilty is guilty, dope.

There arent degrees of guilty.

 

[bripat9643]

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

A judge is not going to accept a guilty plea on something that is not even a crime.

Says who? There is a statute about campaign expenditures. The problem is that neither Trump no Cohen violated it.

Cohen said he violated it, the Southern District of New York says Cohen violated it. That is all that really matters, everything is just opinion and holds no actual value.

Wrong. Neither of those facts matter. They prove nothing other than that Cohen agreed to a plea bargain. If I agreed to a contract that said there are unicorns on Mars, would that prove there are unicorns on Mars?

They prove nothing other than that Cohen agreed to a plea bargain

No. They prove that Cohen admitted guilt to specific, felonious campaign finance violations.

No, it only proves that Cohen agreed to the plea. There's nothing "felonious" about the violation. If it was felonious, then why aren't both Clinton and Obama in prison?

 

[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.”​

Did you ever in your wildest dreams think you would find yourself defending a sleaze bag candidate who had to pay off porn stars prior to an election?
Are you still a member of the "Party of Family Values"?

Looks like Levin can get just about anybody to come on his show and say just about anything he wants them to say, but that doesn't change the facts.

From the American Bar Association:
Michael Cohen pleads guilty to campaign finance violations, tax and bank fraud
.
.
.

Says the guy who voted twice for a man who had to explain why he was getting hummers in the Ofal Office.

Again, for the legally impaired, a plea agreement is proof of nothing.

Your desperation is glaring.
And it wasn't a plea agreement. It was a guilty plea.
You're the legally impaired one here, trying to rewrite the facts to suit your BI-ASS.
.
.
.

The guilty plea was the result of a plea agreement, you double barreled dumbass.

Guilty is guilty, dope.

There arent degrees of guilty.

Wrong. There's pleading guilty and actually being guilty. I'm sorry you are too intellectually challenged understand that the law and reality do not always coincide.

 

[bripat9643]

... 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?

Such as?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Wrong. How can you demonstrate the they actually believe what you claim?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Horseshit.