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

[Hutch Starskey]

Levin is a constitutional lawyer and former US Attorney General chief of staff by the way.

And someone who has no authority in this case at all, loser.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

Awwww...you didn't get what you demanded?

Would you like a crying towel now or later

You were presented with the facts. Sorry if you don't like them

Sorry to disappoint, but you did not present any facts. You spewed LW Prog delusions.

The fact is that Cohen is a convicted felon and he named Trump as a co-conspirator.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

He said he violated it so he wouldn't have to spend the rest of his life in prison. .

He admitted to a crime that was not a crime so he would not go to jail for that crime that was not a crime.


WOW. That is the most impressive display of mental gymnastics I have ever seen.

This is how members of a cult act.
All facts and reality suspended in order to support their leader.
.
.
.

I love how we went from "he is not guilty" to "well, yeah he is guilty but ti was not proven".

By this standard, Darren Vann, who killed 7 women was never proven to be guilty since he pleaded guilty and avoided a trial.

When was it proven, dumbass? What evidence was presented in court? What testimony? When was the trial?

What testimony?

The testimony of Cohen, dope. When asked about the charges, he said, yes, I did in fact do that and I did it at the direction of the current president.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

... 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.

Not if he needed the suit for the campaign, dope. If Trump is on the road and his suit is ruined, a replacement would certainly be a campaign expense.

 

[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

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 convicted of nothing, dope.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

Your experience is obviously limited.

 

[airplanemechanic]

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.

So what did Cohen plead guilty to?

A charge, not necessarily a crime.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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 a admission if guilt with a side of implication sauce.

 

[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.”​

”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?

Obviously not, dope as there is no such charge.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

”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.

So not a campaign contribution then as you retardedly claimed?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

A candidate can donate as much of his own funds as we wants, dumbass.

Sure. As long as it's reported.

Was it?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

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?

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.

It would be a donation as you suggested, dope and subject to reporting requirements.

You are dumb as shit, son.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

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?

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.

Loser.

 

[bripat9643]

*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.

Awwww...you didn't get what you demanded?

Would you like a crying towel now or later

You were presented with the facts. Sorry if you don't like them

Sorry to disappoint, but you did not present any facts. You spewed LW Prog delusions.

The fact is that Cohen is a convicted felon and he named Trump as a co-conspirator.

Even if that were true, he's a "co-conspirator" to the equivalent of a parking ticket. However, since Cohen wasn't charged with conspiracy, then Trump can't be a "co-conspirator."

As with every one of your posts, you only proved that you're a dumbass.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

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.

Loser.

Brilliant retort!

 

[bripat9643]

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.

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?

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.

It would be a donation as you suggested, dope and subject to reporting requirements.

You are dumb as shit, son.

Wrong, shit for brains. Read the OP.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

... 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

Who said there needs to be?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

A candidate can donate as much of his own funds as we wants, dumbass.

Sure. As long as it's reported.

Was it?

It's not a campaign donation, dumbass.

 

[bripat9643]

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 a admission if guilt with a side of implication sauce.

There's no legal implication of any kind, douche nozzle.

 

[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.

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 convicted od nothing, dope.

He paid a $365,000 fine for not reporting donations, asshole.