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

[Lesh]

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.

Was it money spent to affect an election?

Yes.

That makes it a campaign donation...and unreported one that was fraudulently hidden and lied about.

If it came from someone other than the candidate himself it FAR exceeded limits as well

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Cohen plead guilty. Being guilty and pleading guilty are two separate things. I know you're trying to blur that distinction, but you won't get away with it.

No, that is not correct.

Pleading guilty and being found guilty by a court of law are equal in the eyes of the justice system.

 

[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.

Sure. As evidenced by the guilty plea, dope.

The guilty plea is evidence of nothing, dumbass.

It's an admission of guilt to a specific crime and a federal conviction, dope.

 

[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.

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.

I really am sorry about the tourettes troll. Ya know there is medication available for that.

Do you have healthcare insurance?

 

[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​

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.

Wrong. The suit would never be a campaign expense if he paid for it with his own money since people buy suits for personal use all the time.

 

[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

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

Which makes him convicted as a federal felon, dope.

 

[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.

Sure. As long as it's reported.

Was it?

It's not a campaign donation, dumbass.

Was it money spent to affect an election?

Yes.

That makes it a campaign donation...and unreported one that was fraudulently hidden and lied about.

If it came from someone other than the candidate himself it FAR exceeding limits as well

Wrong. Read the OP, dumbass.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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?

The charge he plead to was a federal felony, retard.

 

[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.

Which makes him convicted as a federal felon, dope.

Which means nothing as far as Trump is concerned.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

The charge he plead to was a federal felony, retard.

Is Obama in prison? No? Then you must be mistaken.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

There is no difference, dope.

It has been adjudicated. Cohen is a ferderal felon.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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?

The charge he plead to was a federal felony, retard.

Is Obama in prison? No? Then you must be mistaken.

Obama plead guilty to a felony?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

There is no difference, dope.

It has been adjudicated. Cohen is a ferderal felon.

You are such a fucking imbecile. You're obviously immune to facts and logic. You deserve to be put on ignore, but I don't do that out of principle.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

The charge he plead to was a federal felony, retard.

Is Obama in prison? No? Then you must be mistaken.

Obama plead guilty to a felony?

That's what that idiot Hutch Starskey claims.

 

[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.

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

Easy.
When asked about a crime, Cohen admitted guilt and the judge signed off on his conviction.

Done and done.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Easy.
When asked about a crime, Cohen admitted guilt and the judge signed off on his conviction.

Done and done.

The idiocy of your posts is mind numbing.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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?

The charge he plead to was a federal felony, retard.

Is Obama in prison? No? Then you must be mistaken.

Obama plead guilty to a felony?

That's what that idiot Hutch Starskey claims.

I did not see him claim that Obama plead guilty to a felony, what post number was that?

 

[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

Who said there needs to be?

Because there is not and it has nothing to do with Trump

 

[Rustic]

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.

I really am sorry about the tourettes troll. Ya know there is medication available for that.

Do you have healthcare insurance?

Health insurance is a Ponzi scheme

 

[Seawytch]

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.

You get charged with a crime. You plead or are found guilty of a crime.

Cohen pled guilty to crimes. Manifort was found guilty of crimes. Get it?