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

[Faun]

Obama wasn't charged with a federal felony, dope. Cohen was.

The campaign violations are not felonies, moron. The other charges are. Effectively what the prosecutor did is charge him with the equivalent of 5 armed robberies and a couple of parking tickets.

Fucking moron...

The plea on eight felony counts, entered Tuesday afternoon in federal court in Manhattan...

What makes what Trump/Cohen did a felony while when Obama did worse it was just a fine?

You said you explained the difference. The only difference I see is that Obama did it for more money and it was an actual donation.

Fucking moron, I explained the difference and even suggested you re-read it as many times as necessary until you understand it. Now it’s on you.

But regardless of your ignorance, you’ve now been shown he pled guilty to felony counts of violating campaign finance laws.

I have seen no evidence that these charges are felonies, and you have to explain why they would be felonies while Obama's violation is not.

Yes, I already explained it. As did Hutch Starskey. You’re simply not capable of comprehending the explanations.

Here, this will sail clearly over your head too; but it’s worth posting just to provide more laughs at your expense...

ENFORCEMENT

1. Three Types of Enforcement

Federal campaign financing violations are subject to three types of enforcement:

i) Criminal prosecution by the Justice Department as felonies, either under FECA; under other federal criminal statutes addressing frauds and false statements, such as 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1001, 1341, 1343, and 1519; or under Title 26 statutes if the matter involves a publicly funded presidential campaign;

ii) Criminal prosecution by the Justice Department as FECA misdemeanors if the amount of the violation does not reach the felony threshold; and

iii) Civil enforcement proceedings by the FEC.

FECA creates a statutory dichotomy between non-willful violations involving any amount, and willful violations involving $2,000 or more within a calendar year. The former are expressly subject to the exclusive civil jurisdiction of the FEC. 52 U.S.C. §§ 30109(a), 30107(e). The latter are subject to both civil enforcement proceedings by the FEC and criminal prosecution by the Justice Department. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(5)(B) & (C) & (d). In addition, the Commission has statutory authority to interpretthestatutethrough regulations and advisory opinions, and its opinion should be given deference. 52 U.S.C. §§ 30106(b)(1), 30107(a)(7)-(8), & (e); FEC v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Comm., 454 U.S. 27, 37 (1981).

The FEC pursues FECA violations under the statutory scheme set forth in Section 30109(a). In brief, civil penalties can be imposed through a “conciliation” process, which is roughly equivalent to an administrative guilty plea with a stipulated penalty agreed upon by the FEC and the respondent; civil penalties can also be imposed through a civil suit brought by the FEC in federal district court. Civil sanctions range from “cease and desist” agreements (in which the respondent agrees not to commit a similar violation in the future) to relatively substantial fines. The size of the civil fine depends both on the amount involved in the violation and the degree of knowledge and intent of the respondent. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(5) & (a)(6). The FEC possesses subpoena power and the power to administer oaths, § 30107(a)(3) & (a)(2), as well.

Criminal prosecution under FECA can be pursued before civil and administrative remedies are exhausted. § 30109(a) & (d); see United States v. Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs, Local 701, 638 F.2d 1161, 1162–68 (9th Cir. 1979); see also Marcus v. Holder, 574 F.3d 1182, 1184–86 (9th Cir. 2009); Fieger v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 542 F.3d 1111, 1119 (6th Cir. 2008); Bialek v. Mukaskey, 529 F.3d 1267, 1271 (10th Cir. 2008).

https://www.justice.gov/criminal/file/1029066/download#page206​

 

[bripat9643]

The campaign violations are not felonies, moron. The other charges are. Effectively what the prosecutor did is charge him with the equivalent of 5 armed robberies and a couple of parking tickets.

Fucking moron...

The plea on eight felony counts, entered Tuesday afternoon in federal court in Manhattan...

What makes what Trump/Cohen did a felony while when Obama did worse it was just a fine?

You said you explained the difference. The only difference I see is that Obama did it for more money and it was an actual donation.

Fucking moron, I explained the difference and even suggested you re-read it as many times as necessary until you understand it. Now it’s on you.

But regardless of your ignorance, you’ve now been shown he pled guilty to felony counts of violating campaign finance laws.

I have seen no evidence that these charges are felonies, and you have to explain why they would be felonies while Obama's violation is not.

Yes, I already explained it. As did Hutch Starskey. You’re simply not capable of comprehending the explanations.

Here, this will sail clearly over your head too; but it’s worth posting just to provide more laughs at your expense...

ENFORCEMENT

1. Three Types of Enforcement

Federal campaign financing violations are subject to three types of enforcement:

i) Criminal prosecution by the Justice Department as felonies, either under FECA; under other federal criminal statutes addressing frauds and false statements, such as 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1001, 1341, 1343, and 1519; or under Title 26 statutes if the matter involves a publicly funded presidential campaign;

ii) Criminal prosecution by the Justice Department as FECA misdemeanors if the amount of the violation does not reach the felony threshold; and

iii) Civil enforcement proceedings by the FEC.

FECA creates a statutory dichotomy between non-willful violations involving any amount, and willful violations involving $2,000 or more within a calendar year. The former are expressly subject to the exclusive civil jurisdiction of the FEC. 52 U.S.C. §§ 30109(a), 30107(e). The latter are subject to both civil enforcement proceedings by the FEC and criminal prosecution by the Justice Department. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(5)(B) & (C) & (d). In addition, the Commission has statutory authority to interpretthestatutethrough regulations and advisory opinions, and its opinion should be given deference. 52 U.S.C. §§ 30106(b)(1), 30107(a)(7)-(8), & (e); FEC v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Comm., 454 U.S. 27, 37 (1981).

The FEC pursues FECA violations under the statutory scheme set forth in Section 30109(a). In brief, civil penalties can be imposed through a “conciliation” process, which is roughly equivalent to an administrative guilty plea with a stipulated penalty agreed upon by the FEC and the respondent; civil penalties can also be imposed through a civil suit brought by the FEC in federal district court. Civil sanctions range from “cease and desist” agreements (in which the respondent agrees not to commit a similar violation in the future) to relatively substantial fines. The size of the civil fine depends both on the amount involved in the violation and the degree of knowledge and intent of the respondent. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(5) & (a)(6). The FEC possesses subpoena power and the power to administer oaths, § 30107(a)(3) & (a)(2), as well.

Criminal prosecution under FECA can be pursued before civil and administrative remedies are exhausted. § 30109(a) & (d); see United States v. Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs, Local 701, 638 F.2d 1161, 1162–68 (9th Cir. 1979); see also Marcus v. Holder, 574 F.3d 1182, 1184–86 (9th Cir. 2009); Fieger v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 542 F.3d 1111, 1119 (6th Cir. 2008); Bialek v. Mukaskey, 529 F.3d 1267, 1271 (10th Cir. 2008).

https://www.justice.gov/criminal/file/1029066/download#page206​

"Willful violation" means they had to know it was a crime, as when Hillary sent classified emails to her private server. You'll never convince a jury that it was "willful."

 

[Faun]

Feel free to re-read my explanation as many times as necessary.

I will if you ever post it. So far all I've seen is a link to an article that simply assumes what Cohen/Trump did is a felony.

Here’s another link...

Washington (CNN) President Donald Trump's longtime personal attorney and adviser pleaded guilty on Tuesday to two felony campaign finance violations. Those are crimes. And he confessed to them under oath, saying he willfully violated those laws at Trump's direction.

Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to felonies. Trump falsely said they were not crimes - CNNPolitics

First, your source is CNN, which automatically means it's horseshit.

Second, the headline states that he plead guilty to "felonies." That means at least two of the charges are felonies, not all of them.

Third, even the authority they cited says these charges can be handled as a civil matter or as a criminal matter. the prosecutor simply chose to handle them as a criminal matter to cause as much damage to Trump as possible - a sure indication that he's a deep state scum bag.

Nowhere does the article claim the campaign finance charges were felonies.

It's pretty obvious the story's author is deliberately slanting the story to make it seem like the campaign finance charges are much worse than they are, and so did the prosecutor.

LOLOLOLOL

You’re completely fucking brain-dead, ya fucking moron.

”Nowhere does the article claim the campaign finance charges were felonies.”​

Fucking moron, in the article... two felony campaign finance violations

That's not in the article I'm discussing, shit for brains. It's in the other one you cited, which is also bullshit.

Fucking moron, the other article I cited said Cohen pled guilty to 8 felony counts.

Both articles stated the campaign finance violations were felonies. You are completely brain-dead.

”Nowhere does the article claim the campaign finance charges were felonies.”​

 

[Faun]

Fucking moron...

The plea on eight felony counts, entered Tuesday afternoon in federal court in Manhattan...

What makes what Trump/Cohen did a felony while when Obama did worse it was just a fine?

You said you explained the difference. The only difference I see is that Obama did it for more money and it was an actual donation.

Fucking moron, I explained the difference and even suggested you re-read it as many times as necessary until you understand it. Now it’s on you.

But regardless of your ignorance, you’ve now been shown he pled guilty to felony counts of violating campaign finance laws.

I have seen no evidence that these charges are felonies, and you have to explain why they would be felonies while Obama's violation is not.

Yes, I already explained it. As did Hutch Starskey. You’re simply not capable of comprehending the explanations.

Here, this will sail clearly over your head too; but it’s worth posting just to provide more laughs at your expense...

ENFORCEMENT

1. Three Types of Enforcement

Federal campaign financing violations are subject to three types of enforcement:

i) Criminal prosecution by the Justice Department as felonies, either under FECA; under other federal criminal statutes addressing frauds and false statements, such as 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1001, 1341, 1343, and 1519; or under Title 26 statutes if the matter involves a publicly funded presidential campaign;

ii) Criminal prosecution by the Justice Department as FECA misdemeanors if the amount of the violation does not reach the felony threshold; and

iii) Civil enforcement proceedings by the FEC.

FECA creates a statutory dichotomy between non-willful violations involving any amount, and willful violations involving $2,000 or more within a calendar year. The former are expressly subject to the exclusive civil jurisdiction of the FEC. 52 U.S.C. §§ 30109(a), 30107(e). The latter are subject to both civil enforcement proceedings by the FEC and criminal prosecution by the Justice Department. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(5)(B) & (C) & (d). In addition, the Commission has statutory authority to interpretthestatutethrough regulations and advisory opinions, and its opinion should be given deference. 52 U.S.C. §§ 30106(b)(1), 30107(a)(7)-(8), & (e); FEC v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Comm., 454 U.S. 27, 37 (1981).

The FEC pursues FECA violations under the statutory scheme set forth in Section 30109(a). In brief, civil penalties can be imposed through a “conciliation” process, which is roughly equivalent to an administrative guilty plea with a stipulated penalty agreed upon by the FEC and the respondent; civil penalties can also be imposed through a civil suit brought by the FEC in federal district court. Civil sanctions range from “cease and desist” agreements (in which the respondent agrees not to commit a similar violation in the future) to relatively substantial fines. The size of the civil fine depends both on the amount involved in the violation and the degree of knowledge and intent of the respondent. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(5) & (a)(6). The FEC possesses subpoena power and the power to administer oaths, § 30107(a)(3) & (a)(2), as well.

Criminal prosecution under FECA can be pursued before civil and administrative remedies are exhausted. § 30109(a) & (d); see United States v. Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs, Local 701, 638 F.2d 1161, 1162–68 (9th Cir. 1979); see also Marcus v. Holder, 574 F.3d 1182, 1184–86 (9th Cir. 2009); Fieger v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 542 F.3d 1111, 1119 (6th Cir. 2008); Bialek v. Mukaskey, 529 F.3d 1267, 1271 (10th Cir. 2008).

https://www.justice.gov/criminal/file/1029066/download#page206​

"Willful violation" means they had to know it was a crime, as when Hillary sent classified emails to her private server. You'll never convince a jury that it was "willful."

Their actions of covering it up reveal they knew it was a crime.

 

[Faun]

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?

Isn’t the law

Of course it’s the law. The law stipulates that any campaign contributions over a certain dollar amount must be reported to the FEC.

It's not a campaign contribution, shit for brains.

Of course it is. It was for the purpose of influencing the election. That’s why Stormy had to agree to it by November 1st, before the election; not after the election. And there was no other benefit to Trump other than the election.

 

[Faun]

Fucking moron, learn to read. I spoke of testimony, not plea agreements.

He hasn't testified, so what testimony could you possibly referring to?

Fucking moron, I didn't say he testified.

Then why are you talking about "testimony?"

You idiotically pointed out Cohen’s plea cannot be used against trump in court, should he be charged. I countered that moronic strawman by pointing out Cohen could testify against trump if it were to ever come to that.

"Coulda, woulda, shoulda."

”Derp...

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I think this thread has now set the record for the same thing being said the most amount of times in a single thread!

I don't get their "nuh-uh" strategy. Refusing to recognize what happened doesn't change what happened.

We recognize that the prosecutor made Cohen plea to a non-crime.

Prove it, loser.

Post up the charges.

Done.

Liar.

 

[bripat9643]

I will if you ever post it. So far all I've seen is a link to an article that simply assumes what Cohen/Trump did is a felony.

Here’s another link...

Washington (CNN) President Donald Trump's longtime personal attorney and adviser pleaded guilty on Tuesday to two felony campaign finance violations. Those are crimes. And he confessed to them under oath, saying he willfully violated those laws at Trump's direction.

Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to felonies. Trump falsely said they were not crimes - CNNPolitics

First, your source is CNN, which automatically means it's horseshit.

Second, the headline states that he plead guilty to "felonies." That means at least two of the charges are felonies, not all of them.

Third, even the authority they cited says these charges can be handled as a civil matter or as a criminal matter. the prosecutor simply chose to handle them as a criminal matter to cause as much damage to Trump as possible - a sure indication that he's a deep state scum bag.

Nowhere does the article claim the campaign finance charges were felonies.

It's pretty obvious the story's author is deliberately slanting the story to make it seem like the campaign finance charges are much worse than they are, and so did the prosecutor.

LOLOLOLOL

You’re completely fucking brain-dead, ya fucking moron.

”Nowhere does the article claim the campaign finance charges were felonies.”​

Fucking moron, in the article... two felony campaign finance violations

That's not in the article I'm discussing, shit for brains. It's in the other one you cited, which is also bullshit.

Fucking moron, the other article I cited said Cohen pled guilty to 8 felony counts.

Both articles stated the campaign finance violations were felonies. You are completely brain-dead.

”Nowhere does the article claim the campaign finance charges were felonies.”​

The sentence you supposedly quoted didn't come from the article I was discussing. All you have to do is a text search in the page and you can confirm the fact yourself. The second article did no claim the soc-called "campaign violations" were felonies. Not only are you completely brain-dead, you're a sleazy lying douchebag.

 

[bripat9643]

What makes what Trump/Cohen did a felony while when Obama did worse it was just a fine?

You said you explained the difference. The only difference I see is that Obama did it for more money and it was an actual donation.

Fucking moron, I explained the difference and even suggested you re-read it as many times as necessary until you understand it. Now it’s on you.

But regardless of your ignorance, you’ve now been shown he pled guilty to felony counts of violating campaign finance laws.

I have seen no evidence that these charges are felonies, and you have to explain why they would be felonies while Obama's violation is not.

Yes, I already explained it. As did Hutch Starskey. You’re simply not capable of comprehending the explanations.

Here, this will sail clearly over your head too; but it’s worth posting just to provide more laughs at your expense...

ENFORCEMENT

1. Three Types of Enforcement

Federal campaign financing violations are subject to three types of enforcement:

i) Criminal prosecution by the Justice Department as felonies, either under FECA; under other federal criminal statutes addressing frauds and false statements, such as 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1001, 1341, 1343, and 1519; or under Title 26 statutes if the matter involves a publicly funded presidential campaign;

ii) Criminal prosecution by the Justice Department as FECA misdemeanors if the amount of the violation does not reach the felony threshold; and

iii) Civil enforcement proceedings by the FEC.

FECA creates a statutory dichotomy between non-willful violations involving any amount, and willful violations involving $2,000 or more within a calendar year. The former are expressly subject to the exclusive civil jurisdiction of the FEC. 52 U.S.C. §§ 30109(a), 30107(e). The latter are subject to both civil enforcement proceedings by the FEC and criminal prosecution by the Justice Department. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(5)(B) & (C) & (d). In addition, the Commission has statutory authority to interpretthestatutethrough regulations and advisory opinions, and its opinion should be given deference. 52 U.S.C. §§ 30106(b)(1), 30107(a)(7)-(8), & (e); FEC v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Comm., 454 U.S. 27, 37 (1981).

The FEC pursues FECA violations under the statutory scheme set forth in Section 30109(a). In brief, civil penalties can be imposed through a “conciliation” process, which is roughly equivalent to an administrative guilty plea with a stipulated penalty agreed upon by the FEC and the respondent; civil penalties can also be imposed through a civil suit brought by the FEC in federal district court. Civil sanctions range from “cease and desist” agreements (in which the respondent agrees not to commit a similar violation in the future) to relatively substantial fines. The size of the civil fine depends both on the amount involved in the violation and the degree of knowledge and intent of the respondent. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(5) & (a)(6). The FEC possesses subpoena power and the power to administer oaths, § 30107(a)(3) & (a)(2), as well.

Criminal prosecution under FECA can be pursued before civil and administrative remedies are exhausted. § 30109(a) & (d); see United States v. Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs, Local 701, 638 F.2d 1161, 1162–68 (9th Cir. 1979); see also Marcus v. Holder, 574 F.3d 1182, 1184–86 (9th Cir. 2009); Fieger v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 542 F.3d 1111, 1119 (6th Cir. 2008); Bialek v. Mukaskey, 529 F.3d 1267, 1271 (10th Cir. 2008).

https://www.justice.gov/criminal/file/1029066/download#page206​

"Willful violation" means they had to know it was a crime, as when Hillary sent classified emails to her private server. You'll never convince a jury that it was "willful."

Their actions of covering it up reveal they knew it was a crime.

ROFL! The whole point of the payment was to keep it quiet, you thermonuclear dumbass.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Sure. As long as it's reported.

Was it?

Isn’t the law

Of course it’s the law. The law stipulates that any campaign contributions over a certain dollar amount must be reported to the FEC.

It's not a campaign contribution, shit for brains.

Of course it is. It was for the purpose of influencing the election. That’s why Stormy had to agree to it by November 1st, before the election; not after the election. And there was no other benefit to Trump other than the election.

We've already been over this at least 100 times. I won't waste my time educating you again.

 

[Faun]

Here’s another link...

Washington (CNN) President Donald Trump's longtime personal attorney and adviser pleaded guilty on Tuesday to two felony campaign finance violations. Those are crimes. And he confessed to them under oath, saying he willfully violated those laws at Trump's direction.

Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to felonies. Trump falsely said they were not crimes - CNNPolitics

First, your source is CNN, which automatically means it's horseshit.

Second, the headline states that he plead guilty to "felonies." That means at least two of the charges are felonies, not all of them.

Third, even the authority they cited says these charges can be handled as a civil matter or as a criminal matter. the prosecutor simply chose to handle them as a criminal matter to cause as much damage to Trump as possible - a sure indication that he's a deep state scum bag.

Nowhere does the article claim the campaign finance charges were felonies.

It's pretty obvious the story's author is deliberately slanting the story to make it seem like the campaign finance charges are much worse than they are, and so did the prosecutor.

LOLOLOLOL

You’re completely fucking brain-dead, ya fucking moron.

”Nowhere does the article claim the campaign finance charges were felonies.”​

Fucking moron, in the article... two felony campaign finance violations

That's not in the article I'm discussing, shit for brains. It's in the other one you cited, which is also bullshit.

Fucking moron, the other article I cited said Cohen pled guilty to 8 felony counts.

Both articles stated the campaign finance violations were felonies. You are completely brain-dead.

”Nowhere does the article claim the campaign finance charges were felonies.”​

The sentence you supposedly quoted didn't come from the article I was discussing. All you have to do is a text search in the page and you can confirm the fact yourself. The second article did no claim the soc-called "campaign violations" were felonies. Not only are you completely brain-dead, you're a sleazy lying douchebag.

I only posted two articles and both of them stated the campaign finance violations were felony charges.

 

[Faun]

Fucking moron, I explained the difference and even suggested you re-read it as many times as necessary until you understand it. Now it’s on you.

But regardless of your ignorance, you’ve now been shown he pled guilty to felony counts of violating campaign finance laws.

I have seen no evidence that these charges are felonies, and you have to explain why they would be felonies while Obama's violation is not.

Yes, I already explained it. As did Hutch Starskey. You’re simply not capable of comprehending the explanations.

Here, this will sail clearly over your head too; but it’s worth posting just to provide more laughs at your expense...

ENFORCEMENT

1. Three Types of Enforcement

Federal campaign financing violations are subject to three types of enforcement:

i) Criminal prosecution by the Justice Department as felonies, either under FECA; under other federal criminal statutes addressing frauds and false statements, such as 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1001, 1341, 1343, and 1519; or under Title 26 statutes if the matter involves a publicly funded presidential campaign;

ii) Criminal prosecution by the Justice Department as FECA misdemeanors if the amount of the violation does not reach the felony threshold; and

iii) Civil enforcement proceedings by the FEC.

FECA creates a statutory dichotomy between non-willful violations involving any amount, and willful violations involving $2,000 or more within a calendar year. The former are expressly subject to the exclusive civil jurisdiction of the FEC. 52 U.S.C. §§ 30109(a), 30107(e). The latter are subject to both civil enforcement proceedings by the FEC and criminal prosecution by the Justice Department. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(5)(B) & (C) & (d). In addition, the Commission has statutory authority to interpretthestatutethrough regulations and advisory opinions, and its opinion should be given deference. 52 U.S.C. §§ 30106(b)(1), 30107(a)(7)-(8), & (e); FEC v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Comm., 454 U.S. 27, 37 (1981).

The FEC pursues FECA violations under the statutory scheme set forth in Section 30109(a). In brief, civil penalties can be imposed through a “conciliation” process, which is roughly equivalent to an administrative guilty plea with a stipulated penalty agreed upon by the FEC and the respondent; civil penalties can also be imposed through a civil suit brought by the FEC in federal district court. Civil sanctions range from “cease and desist” agreements (in which the respondent agrees not to commit a similar violation in the future) to relatively substantial fines. The size of the civil fine depends both on the amount involved in the violation and the degree of knowledge and intent of the respondent. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(5) & (a)(6). The FEC possesses subpoena power and the power to administer oaths, § 30107(a)(3) & (a)(2), as well.

Criminal prosecution under FECA can be pursued before civil and administrative remedies are exhausted. § 30109(a) & (d); see United States v. Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs, Local 701, 638 F.2d 1161, 1162–68 (9th Cir. 1979); see also Marcus v. Holder, 574 F.3d 1182, 1184–86 (9th Cir. 2009); Fieger v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 542 F.3d 1111, 1119 (6th Cir. 2008); Bialek v. Mukaskey, 529 F.3d 1267, 1271 (10th Cir. 2008).

https://www.justice.gov/criminal/file/1029066/download#page206​

"Willful violation" means they had to know it was a crime, as when Hillary sent classified emails to her private server. You'll never convince a jury that it was "willful."

Their actions of covering it up reveal they knew it was a crime.

ROFL! The whole point of the payment was to keep it quiet, you thermonuclear dumbass.

Why? Who would find out?

 

[Faun]

Sure. As long as it's reported.

Was it?

Isn’t the law

Of course it’s the law. The law stipulates that any campaign contributions over a certain dollar amount must be reported to the FEC.

It's not a campaign contribution, shit for brains.

Of course it is. It was for the purpose of influencing the election. That’s why Stormy had to agree to it by November 1st, before the election; not after the election. And there was no other benefit to Trump other than the election.

We've already been over this at least 100 times. I won't waste my time educating you again.

It matters not how ignorant you are, there was no reason other than the election to silence her. We know that since Trump did not pay her off to buy her silence in 2011 when she sought to go public with her claims of an affair.

 

[bripat9643]

I have seen no evidence that these charges are felonies, and you have to explain why they would be felonies while Obama's violation is not.

Yes, I already explained it. As did Hutch Starskey. You’re simply not capable of comprehending the explanations.

Here, this will sail clearly over your head too; but it’s worth posting just to provide more laughs at your expense...

ENFORCEMENT

1. Three Types of Enforcement

Federal campaign financing violations are subject to three types of enforcement:

i) Criminal prosecution by the Justice Department as felonies, either under FECA; under other federal criminal statutes addressing frauds and false statements, such as 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1001, 1341, 1343, and 1519; or under Title 26 statutes if the matter involves a publicly funded presidential campaign;

ii) Criminal prosecution by the Justice Department as FECA misdemeanors if the amount of the violation does not reach the felony threshold; and

iii) Civil enforcement proceedings by the FEC.

FECA creates a statutory dichotomy between non-willful violations involving any amount, and willful violations involving $2,000 or more within a calendar year. The former are expressly subject to the exclusive civil jurisdiction of the FEC. 52 U.S.C. §§ 30109(a), 30107(e). The latter are subject to both civil enforcement proceedings by the FEC and criminal prosecution by the Justice Department. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(5)(B) & (C) & (d). In addition, the Commission has statutory authority to interpretthestatutethrough regulations and advisory opinions, and its opinion should be given deference. 52 U.S.C. §§ 30106(b)(1), 30107(a)(7)-(8), & (e); FEC v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Comm., 454 U.S. 27, 37 (1981).

The FEC pursues FECA violations under the statutory scheme set forth in Section 30109(a). In brief, civil penalties can be imposed through a “conciliation” process, which is roughly equivalent to an administrative guilty plea with a stipulated penalty agreed upon by the FEC and the respondent; civil penalties can also be imposed through a civil suit brought by the FEC in federal district court. Civil sanctions range from “cease and desist” agreements (in which the respondent agrees not to commit a similar violation in the future) to relatively substantial fines. The size of the civil fine depends both on the amount involved in the violation and the degree of knowledge and intent of the respondent. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(5) & (a)(6). The FEC possesses subpoena power and the power to administer oaths, § 30107(a)(3) & (a)(2), as well.

Criminal prosecution under FECA can be pursued before civil and administrative remedies are exhausted. § 30109(a) & (d); see United States v. Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs, Local 701, 638 F.2d 1161, 1162–68 (9th Cir. 1979); see also Marcus v. Holder, 574 F.3d 1182, 1184–86 (9th Cir. 2009); Fieger v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 542 F.3d 1111, 1119 (6th Cir. 2008); Bialek v. Mukaskey, 529 F.3d 1267, 1271 (10th Cir. 2008).

https://www.justice.gov/criminal/file/1029066/download#page206​

"Willful violation" means they had to know it was a crime, as when Hillary sent classified emails to her private server. You'll never convince a jury that it was "willful."

Their actions of covering it up reveal they knew it was a crime.

ROFL! The whole point of the payment was to keep it quiet, you thermonuclear dumbass.

Why? Who would find out?

Your stupidity amazes me.

 

[bripat9643]

Isn’t the law

Of course it’s the law. The law stipulates that any campaign contributions over a certain dollar amount must be reported to the FEC.

It's not a campaign contribution, shit for brains.

Of course it is. It was for the purpose of influencing the election. That’s why Stormy had to agree to it by November 1st, before the election; not after the election. And there was no other benefit to Trump other than the election.

We've already been over this at least 100 times. I won't waste my time educating you again.

It matters not how ignorant you are, there was no reason other than the election to silence her. We know that since Trump did not pay her off to buy her silence in 2011 when she sought to go public with her claims of an affair.

If that were true, then only politicians would ever do it. Since we know plenty of people and companies do it, you're obviously wrong. I know we'll go round and round on this a few hundred times before I get fed up and put you on ignore.

 

[Faun]

Yes, I already explained it. As did Hutch Starskey. You’re simply not capable of comprehending the explanations.

Here, this will sail clearly over your head too; but it’s worth posting just to provide more laughs at your expense...

ENFORCEMENT

1. Three Types of Enforcement

Federal campaign financing violations are subject to three types of enforcement:

i) Criminal prosecution by the Justice Department as felonies, either under FECA; under other federal criminal statutes addressing frauds and false statements, such as 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1001, 1341, 1343, and 1519; or under Title 26 statutes if the matter involves a publicly funded presidential campaign;

ii) Criminal prosecution by the Justice Department as FECA misdemeanors if the amount of the violation does not reach the felony threshold; and

iii) Civil enforcement proceedings by the FEC.

FECA creates a statutory dichotomy between non-willful violations involving any amount, and willful violations involving $2,000 or more within a calendar year. The former are expressly subject to the exclusive civil jurisdiction of the FEC. 52 U.S.C. §§ 30109(a), 30107(e). The latter are subject to both civil enforcement proceedings by the FEC and criminal prosecution by the Justice Department. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(5)(B) & (C) & (d). In addition, the Commission has statutory authority to interpretthestatutethrough regulations and advisory opinions, and its opinion should be given deference. 52 U.S.C. §§ 30106(b)(1), 30107(a)(7)-(8), & (e); FEC v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Comm., 454 U.S. 27, 37 (1981).

The FEC pursues FECA violations under the statutory scheme set forth in Section 30109(a). In brief, civil penalties can be imposed through a “conciliation” process, which is roughly equivalent to an administrative guilty plea with a stipulated penalty agreed upon by the FEC and the respondent; civil penalties can also be imposed through a civil suit brought by the FEC in federal district court. Civil sanctions range from “cease and desist” agreements (in which the respondent agrees not to commit a similar violation in the future) to relatively substantial fines. The size of the civil fine depends both on the amount involved in the violation and the degree of knowledge and intent of the respondent. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(5) & (a)(6). The FEC possesses subpoena power and the power to administer oaths, § 30107(a)(3) & (a)(2), as well.

Criminal prosecution under FECA can be pursued before civil and administrative remedies are exhausted. § 30109(a) & (d); see United States v. Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs, Local 701, 638 F.2d 1161, 1162–68 (9th Cir. 1979); see also Marcus v. Holder, 574 F.3d 1182, 1184–86 (9th Cir. 2009); Fieger v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 542 F.3d 1111, 1119 (6th Cir. 2008); Bialek v. Mukaskey, 529 F.3d 1267, 1271 (10th Cir. 2008).

https://www.justice.gov/criminal/file/1029066/download#page206​

"Willful violation" means they had to know it was a crime, as when Hillary sent classified emails to her private server. You'll never convince a jury that it was "willful."

Their actions of covering it up reveal they knew it was a crime.

ROFL! The whole point of the payment was to keep it quiet, you thermonuclear dumbass.

Why? Who would find out?

Your stupidity amazes me.

LOL

Slobbers the forum’s fucking moron.

 

[Faun]

Of course it’s the law. The law stipulates that any campaign contributions over a certain dollar amount must be reported to the FEC.

It's not a campaign contribution, shit for brains.

Of course it is. It was for the purpose of influencing the election. That’s why Stormy had to agree to it by November 1st, before the election; not after the election. And there was no other benefit to Trump other than the election.

We've already been over this at least 100 times. I won't waste my time educating you again.

It matters not how ignorant you are, there was no reason other than the election to silence her. We know that since Trump did not pay her off to buy her silence in 2011 when she sought to go public with her claims of an affair.

If that were true, then only politicians would ever do it. Since we know plenty of people and companies do it, you're obviously wrong. I know we'll go round and round on this a few hundred times before I get fed up and put you on ignore.

It doesn’t matter who does it. Trump clearly didn’t pay her off so his family wouldn’t find out. We know that because he never paid her for her silence for all those years. He didn’t pay her off until he was running for president. Shit, even convicted felon, Michael Cohen, admitted it was for the election. As if anyone with a brain didn’t already know that.

 

[bripat9643]

It's not a campaign contribution, shit for brains.

Of course it is. It was for the purpose of influencing the election. That’s why Stormy had to agree to it by November 1st, before the election; not after the election. And there was no other benefit to Trump other than the election.

We've already been over this at least 100 times. I won't waste my time educating you again.

It matters not how ignorant you are, there was no reason other than the election to silence her. We know that since Trump did not pay her off to buy her silence in 2011 when she sought to go public with her claims of an affair.

If that were true, then only politicians would ever do it. Since we know plenty of people and companies do it, you're obviously wrong. I know we'll go round and round on this a few hundred times before I get fed up and put you on ignore.

It doesn’t matter who does it. Trump clearly didn’t pay her off so his family wouldn’t find out. We know that because he never paid her for her silence for all those years. He didn’t pay her off until he was running for president. Shit, even convicted felon, Michael Cohen, admitted it was for the election. As if anyone with a brain didn’t already know that.

Your unrelenting stupidity is incomprehensible. I refer you to the OP. Argue your point with the former chairman of the FEC.

 

[Faun]

Of course it is. It was for the purpose of influencing the election. That’s why Stormy had to agree to it by November 1st, before the election; not after the election. And there was no other benefit to Trump other than the election.

We've already been over this at least 100 times. I won't waste my time educating you again.

It matters not how ignorant you are, there was no reason other than the election to silence her. We know that since Trump did not pay her off to buy her silence in 2011 when she sought to go public with her claims of an affair.

If that were true, then only politicians would ever do it. Since we know plenty of people and companies do it, you're obviously wrong. I know we'll go round and round on this a few hundred times before I get fed up and put you on ignore.

It doesn’t matter who does it. Trump clearly didn’t pay her off so his family wouldn’t find out. We know that because he never paid her for her silence for all those years. He didn’t pay her off until he was running for president. Shit, even convicted felon, Michael Cohen, admitted it was for the election. As if anyone with a brain didn’t already know that.

Your unrelenting stupidity is incomprehensible. I refer you to the OP. Argue your point with the former chairman of the FEC.

Why would I do that when your article fails to address the issue that Trump has had years to silence Stormy Daniels but didn’t until he ran for president? It also fails to address Cohen’s confession that they silenced Stormy because of the election.

Can’t you fight your own fights instead of hiding behind someone else’s skirt?

 

[Care4all]

Here is why it allegedly broke the law with links to the law:


Michael Cohen plea deal: How were campaign finance laws broken?

What did Cohen plead to?


Cohen pleaded guilty to eight charges on Tuesday; two concerned federal campaign finance laws, and six dealt with income tax and bank fraud.

The two campaign finance law violations included:

• Cohen’s negotiation of an agreement with American Media Inc., which publishes the National Enquirer, to pay Playboy Playmate Karen McDougal $150,000 to keep quiet about an alleged 10-month relationship with Trump. According to the plea, McDougal transferred the rights to her story to the Enquirer, which did not publish the story, and Cohen paid American Media to compensate the company for payments made to McDougal.
• Cohen’s $130,000 payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, also over an alleged affair with Trump, that was made with funds drawn on a home equity line of credit Cohen took out. The plea said Cohen paid Daniels “by making and causing to be made an expenditure, in cooperation, consultation, and concert with, and at the request and suggestion of one or more members of the campaign … to ensure that she not publicize damaging allegation before the 2016 presidential election and thereby influence that election." Cohen said during the plea that he “participated in this conduct for the principal purpose” of influencing an election and did it at the “direction of a candidate for federal office.”

>> From Cox Media Group’s Jamie Dupree: Read the documents from Michael Cohen’s guilty plea

Cohen was later reimbursed for the payments.

“I used a company under my control to make the payment (to Daniels)” Cohen told the judge, adding that “the monies used were later repaid by the candidate.”

What’s wrong with paying the women? How did it violate the law?

Under federal campaign finance law, individual campaign contributions are limited to $2,700 per individual, or $5,400 for a couple, for each election cycle – that includes primary elections and the general election.

Federal law bars direct corporate contributions to federal candidates. The money paid to Daniels – $130,000 – was moved through a limited-liability company called Essential Consultants. Cohen created the company a few weeks before the election. The payment to Daniels was a campaign contribution, according to Cohen, who said in court on Tuesday that when he paid Daniels off, he was acting on behalf of the campaign with the aim of helping Trump win the presidency.

In other words, Cohen was making a campaign-related expenditure on behalf of the campaign.

There would have been no problem, legally, with making such a payment to Daniels if the Trump campaign had paid the $130,000 with donated contributions and reported it to the Federal Election Commission.

Prosecutors made it clear that the payment was a campaign contribution because Cohen was repaid by the Trump Organization after he submitted “sham” invoices for legal work.

Originally, after the deal came to light, Cohen said he acted on his own and had not been reimbursed by the Trump Organization, or by the campaign. He recanted that statement on Tuesday.

What does the law say about this case?

• The Federal Election Campaign Act states, in part, that while individuals are limited to making donations of $2,700 to presidential candidates, businesses may not make direct contributions to candidates for president.
• When candidates use or loan their personal funds for campaign use, they are making contributions to their campaigns, but contributions by candidates are not subject to limits. In other words, they may spend whatever they want on their campaigns.
• It is a felony offense to conspire to make a campaign contribution that exceeds $25,000.

How does this affect Trump?

If what Cohen says is true, Trump conspired to violate campaign finance laws by directing payments to keep the women quiet so as to boost his election prospects.