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

[Faun]

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?

Fucking moron... that wouldn’t be a case of you confessing to a crime and being criminally punished for it.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

Linky to the specific law that was violated?

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.

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.
.
..
.

 

[boedicca]

Linky to the specific law that was violated?

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.

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.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

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.

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.
.
.
.

 

[Faun]

Linky to the specific law that was violated?

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.

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.”

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Here is the bottom line...

Michael Cohen was charged with 8 counts, he pleaded guilty to 8 counts and the Judge accepted his guilty plea.

Thus Cohen is guilty under in the eyes of the law no different than if there had been a year long trial.

 

[Faun]

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.

 

[BluesLegend]

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

So?
He's traded that in to be an alt-right flame-throwing talk show host.
Doesn't that tell you anything?

His JD comes from Temple University Beasley School of Law. Where the fuck is that?

By your standards, Obama looms large over this weasel and yet you wouldn't give him the same cred.
.
.
.

Name the biggest case Obama argued in court, oh wait there isn't one

 

[bripat9643]

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.

True, the courts have not yet finished the process.

Perhaps the thing to do is give them some time to do so.

Yes, they actually have finished the "process."

If you plead guilty as the result of a plea bargain—-and the Judge accepted your plea—- your status is the same as if you had been found guilty by a Judge or Jury at trial.

Your status is the same. However, it has never been proved. That's what you can't seem to figure out.

What difference does that make? Hell even if they had a video tape of Trump handing him the cash and telling Cohen to lie, you would still deny it happened.

Fuck, if Trump himself said he did it, you would still claim he was tricked or forced to do it.

As someone already mentioned, you can't use a plea bargain as evidence in another trial. You idiots can't seem to get that through your thick skulls.

Here's the mental process involved: "it would be nice if it were true. Hence, it must be true."

You're incapable of committing logic. All information that conflicts the narrative cannot penetrate.

You're an idiot, in other words.

 

[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.”​

”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 wasn't the sole purpose, moron. You certainly can't prove it was the sole purpose. Other billionaires pay off bimbos to shut them up, so you can't possibly claim that winning a political campaign is the only purpose.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

 

[bripat9643]

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.
.
.
.

Thanks for demonstrating that all you Trump hating psychos are part of a cult.

Facts and reality have no relation to the shit you are spewing in this forum.

 

[bripat9643]

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

No but I have a person who plead guilty to the crime. Do you think they charged the man for the crime without consulting the current FEC Chairman?

Sure. Why not?

Why not? Because these are professionals, not idiots who get engineering degrees out of Cracker Jacks boxes.

They are corrupt. Nothing they say can be believed.

You are brainwashed or brain dead.

Do you realize that Rudy Guiliani came from that same office? They are made up of more than just Democrats.

Rosenstein made the Republican in charge recuse himself.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

True, the courts have not yet finished the process.

Perhaps the thing to do is give them some time to do so.

Yes, they actually have finished the "process."

If you plead guilty as the result of a plea bargain—-and the Judge accepted your plea—- your status is the same as if you had been found guilty by a Judge or Jury at trial.

Your status is the same. However, it has never been proved. That's what you can't seem to figure out.

What difference does that make? Hell even if they had a video tape of Trump handing him the cash and telling Cohen to lie, you would still deny it happened.

Fuck, if Trump himself said he did it, you would still claim he was tricked or forced to do it.

Whether it happened isn't what's up for debate here.

 

[Supposn]

... 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​

 

[bripat9643]

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.

True, the courts have not yet finished the process.

Perhaps the thing to do is give them some time to do so.

Yes, they actually have finished the "process."

If you plead guilty as the result of a plea bargain—-and the Judge accepted your plea—- your status is the same as if you had been found guilty by a Judge or Jury at trial.

It takes a special kind of stupid to believe that Cohen's plea bargain means Trump is guilty. I'm done arguing with you.

It taken an even more kind of stupid and dishonest to claim I said that Trump was guilty of any fucking thing.

but if you are anything, it is stupid and dishonest. the only question is are more stupid than you are dishonest...the jury is still out on that one.

Pure horseshit. That's exactly what you're saying.

 

[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.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

True, the courts have not yet finished the process.

Perhaps the thing to do is give them some time to do so.

Yes, they actually have finished the "process."

If you plead guilty as the result of a plea bargain—-and the Judge accepted your plea—- your status is the same as if you had been found guilty by a Judge or Jury at trial.

It takes a special kind of stupid to believe that Cohen's plea bargain means Trump is guilty. I'm done arguing with you.

It taken an even more kind of stupid and dishonest to claim I said that Trump was guilty of any fucking thing.

but if you are anything, it is stupid and dishonest. the only question is are more stupid than you are dishonest...the jury is still out on that one.

"It taken an even more kind of stupid and dishonest"?

When you're accusing people of being stupid, you should at least try to make sure that you're posting intelligible English.

 

[bripat9643]

Linky to the specific law that was violated?

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.

It wasn't a campaign contribution, dumbass.

 

[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"

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?