Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 123,611
- 78,883
- 2,635
It matters not if he personally benefited from paying off Stormy. If it was a benefit to his campaign and intended to influence the election, and it was, it was a campaign contribution...It was a benefit to his campaign. It was for the purpose of influencing the election.Trump and Guiliani has said Trump paid Cohen back. Have you been under a huge rock?
That's why I said it was a short term personal loan to Trump, not to his campaign. Are you having problems reading simple english tonight?
.
It was not reported and was for the purpose of benefiting his campaign.
That's appears to be the position of knuckledraggers with TDS. The law says, if there was a personal benefit, it can't be a legitimate campaign expense. Deal with it.
.
Give it up little retard, there was a dual benefit, so it couldn't be a valid campaign expense.
.
(8)(A) The term "contribution" includes—
(i) any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office; or
[USC03] 52 USC Ch. 301: FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS
(i) any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office; or
[USC03] 52 USC Ch. 301: FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS