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

[bripat9643]

Your post is retarded, Trump didn't break the law legal experts and even a former FEC chairman say so, suck it.

Retarded is suggesting that Cohen plead guilty to a crime that was in fact not a crime.

That is about as retarded as one can be for Trump.

Cohen plead guilty to have a dozen crimes moron, all of which were crimes with the exception of the Stormy payment. Here I'll reply for you, but but but...but BUTTHURT.

Still retardedly suggesting that Cohen, his attorney, the prosecutor and the judge all just made a mistake doesn't change what actually happened.

Cohen plead guilty to, and named Trump as a co-conspirator in two counts related to the payment, dope.

Like to see the quote where he named Trump. You said named, so that doesn't mean alluded to, suggested, or because it's Tuesday.

LOLOLOL

Why would you be so desperate??

Cohen said....

As to Count No. Seven, on or about the summer of 2016, in coordination with, and at the direction of, a candidate for federal office, I and the CEO of a media company at the request of the candidate worked together to keep an individual with information that would be harmful to the candidate and to the campaign from publicly disclosing this information. After a number of discussions, we eventually accomplished the goal by the media company entering into a contract with the individual under which she received compensation of $150,000. I participated in this conduct, which on my part took place in Manhattan, for the principal purpose of influencing the election.

Your Honor, as to Count No. Eight, on or about October of 2016, in coordination with, and at the direction of, the same candidate, I arranged to make a payment to a second individual with information that would be harmful to the candidate and to the campaign to keep the individual from disclosing the information. To accomplish this, I used a company that was under my control to make a payment in the sum of $130,000. The monies I advanced through my company were later repaid to me by the candidate. I participated in this conduct, which on my part took place in Manhattan, for the principal purpose of influencing the election.”​

Of course he was talking about Trump.

What candidate for federal office in 2016 knew about Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels other than Trump?

What candidate for federal office in 2016 was giving direction to Trump’s attorney, Michael Cohen, other than Trump?

What candidate for federal office in 2016 reimbursed Michael Cohen for his $130,000 hush money payment to Stormy Daniels other than Trump?

Of course Cohen named Trump as the person who directed him to silence those women.

It's meaningless. It can't be used as evidence in any trial.

Try not to be such a dumbass.

 

[bripat9643]

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

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

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

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

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

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

It doesn't matter what you confess to if it hasn't been proven, and the statement in the plea bargain hasn't been proven. It might as well say there are unicorns on Mars.

It's amazing to me how difficult it is for basic legal principles to penetrate your thick skull.

 

[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.

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.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

There is a difference: None of the charges against him were ever proven, and the plea bargain cannot be used as evidence in any trial.

 

[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 was not the sole purpose.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

 

[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.

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.

Others may have their own reasons. Trump’s was to win an election.

 

[Faun]

... 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.

Thanks for proving the hush money for Stormy Daniels was for the purpose of the election... unlike a suit, Trump didn’t pay her off until he was running for president.

And a key witness in this case stated the bush money was “for the principal purpose of influencing the election.”

 

[Faun]

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 fined.

 

[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.

Others may have their own reasons. Trump’s was to win an election.

So you can read Trump's mind?

 

[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 fined.

So even if everything you claim is true, the worst that can happen is a fine? In proportion to the money spent, the fine would be $24,000 - and Trump's campaign would pay it, not him personally.

But all you fucking morons believe this is the smoking gun that is going to take Trump down.

Fucking Hilarious.

 

[Faun]

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.

It doesn't matter what you confess to if it hasn't been proven, and the statement in the plea bargain hasn't been proven. It might as well say there are unicorns on Mars.

It's amazing to me how difficult it is for basic legal principles to penetrate your thick skull.

LOLOLOL

The forum’s fucking moron lecturing on legal principles.

Fucking moron... Trump can be charged based on a key witness testifying against him that they paid Daniels off to win the election.

As always, you have zero fucking clue what you’re talking about.

 

[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.

Thanks for proving the hush money for Stormy Daniels was for the purpose of the election... unlike a suit, Trump didn’t pay her off until he was running for president.

And a key witness in this case stated the bush money was “for the principal purpose of influencing the election.”

If he bought a suit the day he announced he was a candidate, it wouldn't be classified as a campaign contribution. It doesn't matter when he paid Stormy off.

 

[LaDexter]

At least give Trump credit - he was fucking a girl.

QUEER-O, on the other hand....

 

[Faun]

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.
.
.
.

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.

 

[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?

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

It doesn't matter what you confess to if it hasn't been proven, and the statement in the plea bargain hasn't been proven. It might as well say there are unicorns on Mars.

It's amazing to me how difficult it is for basic legal principles to penetrate your thick skull.

LOLOLOL

The forum’s fucking moron lecturing on legal principles.

Fucking moron... Trump can be charged based on a key witness testifying against him that they paid Daniels off to win the election.

As always, you have zero fucking clue what you’re talking about.

"Charged" with what, a campaign violation far more trivial than the one Obama's campaign was fined for?

That's your smoking gun?

 

[Faun]

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.

There is a difference: None of the charges against him were ever proven, and the plea bargain cannot be used as evidence in any trial.

No, but Cohen’s testimony can be used against Trum should Trump be charged.

 

[bripat9643]

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.
.
.
.

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.

 

[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.

That was not the sole purpose.

Of course it was.

 

[LaDexter]

OH the HYPOCRISY of these leftists who so so so supported Slick's sexual assaults in the WH....