Paying people off to avoid a scandal is perfectly legal

[OKTexas]

And what if he made the NDA payments to avoid personal embarrassment, in whole or in part?

.

Which is what John Edwards did being married and all.

Only Trump was taped. And his timing was two weeks before the election.

And there were multiple women involved.

Edwards problem is he used campaign money to make the payoff, which is illegal. If there was a personal benefit, it's not a legitimate campaign expense. Trump gained a personal benefit, so it can't legally be a campaign expense. If it wasn't a legal campaign expense and wasn't paid with campaign money, there is no violation of campaign finance law.

.

Trump’s lawyer pled guilty to campaign finance violations. I suppose Trump ass kissers would have us believe that he was working for Hillary?

Did he, cite the statute he plead guilty to. While your at it, explain how there was no personal benefit to Trump.

.

You can google the former.
Massive personal benefit to candidate Trump.

More importantly, this was not a campaign expenditure at all. Constitutional scholar Mark Levin has interviewed former Federal Election Commission chairman Bradley Smith repeatedly on his show over the past year, and Smith has made the point that "dual use" expenditures are not "campaign expenditures" under the meaning of the act.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...ated_campaign_finance_laws_and_heres_why.html

This is no more a campaign expense than getting your teeth capped or a tummy tuck to improve a candidates physical appearance. It has a benefit to the campaign but the benefit is not exclusive to the campaign.

.

 

[joaquinmiller]

That’s where the argument lies. It has not been established it was a violation yet or not. I’ve basically heard some people say it is and others say it isn’t

There is no argument. Only desperate narratives.

It has been established. The man who made the payment has plead guilty to doing so.

Do you imagine that Cohen, his lawyers, the prosecutors and the judge are all just mistaken?

I have heard multiple lawyers say on tv that because of the way the money was exchanged it is not a violation and I've heard others say that it is. You're correct in that the opinion tends to fall along the lines of the political views of the lawyer.

I am not going to be pretend to understand the nuances of federal campaign finance laws, nor am I going to base my opinion on my personal views of Trump.

He isn't going to be sentenced by talking heads on cable news. There's an actual courtroom involved, with a Judge and everything.

 

[joaquinmiller]

President Shock Jock's attacks on his own AG show how worried he is. Actually, it shows his contempt for Americans and the law, but I still hope he isn't impeached - he's not far from finding who stole the strawberries.

 

[OKTexas]

As predicted, Russia! was just a lie to fabricate something to get Trump because he beat their Queen.

Show me the man, I'll find you a crime. Works in every banana republic. Welcome to post-constitutional America.

.

 

[Faun]

Which is what John Edwards did being married and all.

Only Trump was taped. And his timing was two weeks before the election.

And there were multiple women involved.

Edwards problem is he used campaign money to make the payoff, which is illegal. If there was a personal benefit, it's not a legitimate campaign expense. Trump gained a personal benefit, so it can't legally be a campaign expense. If it wasn't a legal campaign expense and wasn't paid with campaign money, there is no violation of campaign finance law.

.

Trump’s lawyer pled guilty to campaign finance violations. I suppose Trump ass kissers would have us believe that he was working for Hillary?

Did he, cite the statute he plead guilty to. While your at it, explain how there was no personal benefit to Trump.

.

You can google the former.
Massive personal benefit to candidate Trump.

More importantly, this was not a campaign expenditure at all. Constitutional scholar Mark Levin has interviewed former Federal Election Commission chairman Bradley Smith repeatedly on his show over the past year, and Smith has made the point that "dual use" expenditures are not "campaign expenditures" under the meaning of the act.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...ated_campaign_finance_laws_and_heres_why.html

This is no more a campaign expense than getting your teeth capped or a tummy tuck to improve a candidates physical appearance. It has a benefit to the campaign but the benefit is not exclusive to the campaign.

.

I posted the law. “Anything” of value to the campaign is s contribution and contributions must be reported.

 

[OKTexas]

I'm not sure why, but it seems the Democrats think that paying off a woman to be quiet about a scandal is somehow illegal. Well, it isn't.

Meanwhile, I'm wondering what any of this has to do with collusion with Russia...

It’s not ok when it’s a violation of election law

If Hillary did this you’d be in melt down

Now be quiet. You sound stupid

To be a valid election expense it would have to exclusively benefit the campaign, no rational person can make that claim. There were other personal benefits to the NDA's.

.

To be a valid election expense it would have to exclusively benefit the campaign, no rational person can make that claim. There were other personal benefits to the NDA's.

This is the thread you're posting in.
Paying people off to avoid a scandal is perfectly legal


So, avoiding a scandal is not a benefit to the campaign?

The question should be, is it an exclusive benefit to the campaign, if the answer is no, then it's not a legal campaign expense.

.

 

[Faun]

That’s where the argument lies. It has not been established it was a violation yet or not. I’ve basically heard some people say it is and others say it isn’t

There is no argument. Only desperate narratives.

It has been established. The man who made the payment has plead guilty to doing so.

Do you imagine that Cohen, his lawyers, the prosecutors and the judge are all just mistaken?

I have heard multiple lawyers say on tv that because of the way the money was exchanged it is not a violation and I've heard others say that it is. You're correct in that the opinion tends to fall along the lines of the political views of the lawyer.

I am not going to be pretend to understand the nuances of federal campaign finance laws, nor am I going to base my opinion on my personal views of Trump.

He isn't going to be sentenced by talking heads on cable news. There's an actual courtroom involved, with a Judge and everything.

At worst, he’s facing a fine. Who knows why these cockholsters are so eager to line up on their knees?

 

[Faun]

I'm not sure why, but it seems the Democrats think that paying off a woman to be quiet about a scandal is somehow illegal. Well, it isn't.

Meanwhile, I'm wondering what any of this has to do with collusion with Russia...

It’s not ok when it’s a violation of election law

If Hillary did this you’d be in melt down

Now be quiet. You sound stupid

To be a valid election expense it would have to exclusively benefit the campaign, no rational person can make that claim. There were other personal benefits to the NDA's.

.

To be a valid election expense it would have to exclusively benefit the campaign, no rational person can make that claim. There were other personal benefits to the NDA's.

This is the thread you're posting in.
Paying people off to avoid a scandal is perfectly legal


So, avoiding a scandal is not a benefit to the campaign?

The question should be, is it an exclusive benefit to the campaign, if the answer is no, then it's not a legal campaign expense.

.

Post the law which states it has to be exclusive to the campaign...

 

[Correll]

But but Bill...


That is all they have. An army of rabid squirrels and rotting red herrings trying to distract from their overflowing swamp,

Ok...let me ask the obvious question....Does anyone honestly expect trumpanzees to wake up and admit to the disaster they bought into? Most of them will go down with the Trump ship, denying and crying victim alllllllllllll the way.

God forbid we would expect that winning an election would get our interests finally represented in government policy.


How silly of US not to realize that scum like you would gin up some excuse to shut down democracy, when you didn't win.


Those who make peaceful revolution impossible....

Exhibit A, ladies and gentlemen.....

Laugh now. And enjoy it. Fool.

 

[candycorn]

Which is what John Edwards did being married and all.

Only Trump was taped. And his timing was two weeks before the election.

And there were multiple women involved.

Edwards problem is he used campaign money to make the payoff, which is illegal. If there was a personal benefit, it's not a legitimate campaign expense. Trump gained a personal benefit, so it can't legally be a campaign expense. If it wasn't a legal campaign expense and wasn't paid with campaign money, there is no violation of campaign finance law.

.

Trump’s lawyer pled guilty to campaign finance violations. I suppose Trump ass kissers would have us believe that he was working for Hillary?

Did he, cite the statute he plead guilty to. While your at it, explain how there was no personal benefit to Trump.

.

You can google the former.
Massive personal benefit to candidate Trump.

More importantly, this was not a campaign expenditure at all. Constitutional scholar Mark Levin has interviewed former Federal Election Commission chairman Bradley Smith repeatedly on his show over the past year, and Smith has made the point that "dual use" expenditures are not "campaign expenditures" under the meaning of the act.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...ated_campaign_finance_laws_and_heres_why.html

This is no more a campaign expense than getting your teeth capped or a tummy tuck to improve a candidates physical appearance. It has a benefit to the campaign but the benefit is not exclusive to the campaign.

.

 

[OKTexas]

I'm not sure why, but it seems the Democrats think that paying off a woman to be quiet about a scandal is somehow illegal. Well, it isn't.

Meanwhile, I'm wondering what any of this has to do with collusion with Russia...

Oh yes it is.
And I'll gladly tell you why.
When you contribute to a campaign a "thing of value" it has to be documented and reported. That doesn't even need to be money.
The women were shushed to affect the outcome of the election, so that, by definition, makes it part of the campaign.

Say the president paid with his own money (which it looks like he did). They call that "in kind". It was money paid to affect the outcome of the election, so it was money paid to his campaign.
And it was unreported which means campaign finance laws were broken.
All he had to do was report it.
What's funny is how alike it is to Clinton's BJ. If Bill had reported his BJ from the beginning, Republicans never could have cornered him into lying to his wife.
Ergo,
If Trump had reported his payoffs to his hookers, he never would have broken campaign finance laws.

But Bill never had to pay for his BJ. He got that for free.

And what if he made the NDA payments to avoid personal embarrassment, in whole or in part?

.

Which is what John Edwards did being married and all.

Only Trump was taped. And his timing was two weeks before the election.

And there were multiple women involved.

Edwards problem is he used campaign money to make the payoff, which is illegal. If there was a personal benefit, it's not a legitimate campaign expense. Trump gained a personal benefit, so it can't legally be a campaign expense. If it wasn't a legal campaign expense and wasn't paid with campaign money, there is no violation of campaign finance law.

.

Edwards problem is he used campaign money to make the payoff, which is illegal

No. An outside donor made the payment just as Cohen did.

Maybe that's why he wasn't convicted.

.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

It was a benefit to his campaign. It was for the purpose of influencing the election.

Give it up little retard, there was a dual benefit, so it couldn't be a valid campaign expense.

.

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...

(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​

Campaigns spend money on adverting to influence elections.

Yes, and they report it. Did Trump report this money spent to influence the election?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Why would Trump report it?

Because it was a campaign expense and legally he is required to report it

 

[mudwhistle]

The law says, if there is a personal benefit, you can't use campaign funds to pay the bill, even if there is a tangential benefit to the campaign. Campaign funds have to be used EXCLUSIVELY for the campaign, no dual purpose campaign expenses are allowed.

.

Dumbfuck, the law also says...

(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

[USC10] 52 USC Ch. 301: FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS​

Contributions include those made by the candidate and “must be reported”...

When candidates use their personal funds for campaign purposes, they are making contributions to their campaigns. Unlike other contributions, these candidate contributions are not subject to any limits. They must, however, be reported.

Using the personal funds of the candidate - FEC.gov​

What cracks me up the most is what sycophants you rightards are. This isn’t that big of a deal. If he’s found guilty of violating campaign finance laws, he’s facing a fine. It happens all the time. Y’all are circling the wagon over something as trivial as this does nothing other than to expose what cock holsters you are for him.

Poor little retard, it wasn't a valid campaign expense, that's why campaign funds weren't used. Of course you're free to pretend otherwise in your little retard world. It doesn't make it so. LMAO

.

You dumbfuck, it matters not if campaign funds were used or not. Paying off Stormy to not talk about having an affair was a benefit to his campaign and intended to influence the election. That exposes those funds to be reported to the FEC.

Repeating that lie over and over doesn't make it true.

If Hillary paid journalists to release negative stories about Trump in a publication, that is an attempt to influence the election. Russians flooding the internet with negative fake news articles is an attempt to influence the election. 300 different liberal publications releasing negative stories about Trump is an attempt to influence the the election.

Having a hooker sign an NDA doesn't influence Jack squat.

Imbecile... I posted the law.

Have a Liberal explain it to ya.

Liar.
The statute doesn't exist.

 

[mudwhistle]

I'm not sure why, but it seems the Democrats think that paying off a woman to be quiet about a scandal is somehow illegal. Well, it isn't.

Meanwhile, I'm wondering what any of this has to do with collusion with Russia...

The scum is rising to the top. There’s a rock with your name on it. Please get crawling.

Good post.
Very convincing.
Keep up the good work.

 

[OKTexas]

Fuck this shit, post the transcripts of the tapes or STFU. Trump got a personal benefit from the NDA's, legally only things that benefit the campaign and nothing else can be financed with campaign funds, there cannot be a dual purpose like a personal or commercial benefit.

.

Only someone retarded beyond all repair would be able to fool themselves into believing silencing women just before an election and alleging affairs with Trump as his new bride birthed their child; was neither of any benefit to the campaign nor even an attempt to benefit the campaign.

The law says, if there is a personal benefit, you can't use campaign funds to pay the bill, even if there is a tangential benefit to the campaign. Campaign funds have to be used EXCLUSIVELY for the campaign, no dual purpose campaign expenses are allowed.

.

Dumbfuck, the law also says...

(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

[USC10] 52 USC Ch. 301: FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS​

Contributions include those made by the candidate and “must be reported”...

When candidates use their personal funds for campaign purposes, they are making contributions to their campaigns. Unlike other contributions, these candidate contributions are not subject to any limits. They must, however, be reported.

Using the personal funds of the candidate - FEC.gov​

What cracks me up the most is what sycophants you rightards are. This isn’t that big of a deal. If he’s found guilty of violating campaign finance laws, he’s facing a fine. It happens all the time. Y’all are circling the wagon over something as trivial as this does nothing other than to expose what cock holsters you are for him.

Poor little retard, it wasn't a valid campaign expense, that's why campaign funds weren't used. Of course you're free to pretend otherwise in your little retard world. It doesn't make it so. LMAO

.

It was a valid campaign expense because the money was spent to impact the outcome of the election. No different than if he had secretly spent his own money to pay for ads.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Ads would yield a singular benefit, and would be a legitimate campaign expense.

.

 

[Faun]

Dumbfuck, the law also says...

(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

[USC10] 52 USC Ch. 301: FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS​

Contributions include those made by the candidate and “must be reported”...

When candidates use their personal funds for campaign purposes, they are making contributions to their campaigns. Unlike other contributions, these candidate contributions are not subject to any limits. They must, however, be reported.

Using the personal funds of the candidate - FEC.gov​

What cracks me up the most is what sycophants you rightards are. This isn’t that big of a deal. If he’s found guilty of violating campaign finance laws, he’s facing a fine. It happens all the time. Y’all are circling the wagon over something as trivial as this does nothing other than to expose what cock holsters you are for him.

Poor little retard, it wasn't a valid campaign expense, that's why campaign funds weren't used. Of course you're free to pretend otherwise in your little retard world. It doesn't make it so. LMAO

.

You dumbfuck, it matters not if campaign funds were used or not. Paying off Stormy to not talk about having an affair was a benefit to his campaign and intended to influence the election. That exposes those funds to be reported to the FEC.

Repeating that lie over and over doesn't make it true.

If Hillary paid journalists to release negative stories about Trump in a publication, that is an attempt to influence the election. Russians flooding the internet with negative fake news articles is an attempt to influence the election. 300 different liberal publications releasing negative stories about Trump is an attempt to influence the the election.

Having a hooker sign an NDA doesn't influence Jack squat.

Imbecile... I posted the law.

Have a Liberal explain it to ya.

Liar.
The statute doesn't exist.

LOLOL

I even posted the link to FEC.gov. You should contact them and tell them they’ve got the law wrong.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Only someone retarded beyond all repair would be able to fool themselves into believing silencing women just before an election and alleging affairs with Trump as his new bride birthed their child; was neither of any benefit to the campaign nor even an attempt to benefit the campaign.

The law says, if there is a personal benefit, you can't use campaign funds to pay the bill, even if there is a tangential benefit to the campaign. Campaign funds have to be used EXCLUSIVELY for the campaign, no dual purpose campaign expenses are allowed.

.

Dumbfuck, the law also says...

(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

[USC10] 52 USC Ch. 301: FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS​

Contributions include those made by the candidate and “must be reported”...

When candidates use their personal funds for campaign purposes, they are making contributions to their campaigns. Unlike other contributions, these candidate contributions are not subject to any limits. They must, however, be reported.

Using the personal funds of the candidate - FEC.gov​

What cracks me up the most is what sycophants you rightards are. This isn’t that big of a deal. If he’s found guilty of violating campaign finance laws, he’s facing a fine. It happens all the time. Y’all are circling the wagon over something as trivial as this does nothing other than to expose what cock holsters you are for him.

Poor little retard, it wasn't a valid campaign expense, that's why campaign funds weren't used. Of course you're free to pretend otherwise in your little retard world. It doesn't make it so. LMAO

.

It was a valid campaign expense because the money was spent to impact the outcome of the election. No different than if he had secretly spent his own money to pay for ads.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Ads would yield a singular benefit, and would be a legitimate campaign expense.

.

There is no evidence of a secondary benefit and no secondary benefit was spoken of according to Cohen.

 

[Faun]

Only someone retarded beyond all repair would be able to fool themselves into believing silencing women just before an election and alleging affairs with Trump as his new bride birthed their child; was neither of any benefit to the campaign nor even an attempt to benefit the campaign.

The law says, if there is a personal benefit, you can't use campaign funds to pay the bill, even if there is a tangential benefit to the campaign. Campaign funds have to be used EXCLUSIVELY for the campaign, no dual purpose campaign expenses are allowed.

.

Dumbfuck, the law also says...

(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

[USC10] 52 USC Ch. 301: FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS​

Contributions include those made by the candidate and “must be reported”...

When candidates use their personal funds for campaign purposes, they are making contributions to their campaigns. Unlike other contributions, these candidate contributions are not subject to any limits. They must, however, be reported.

Using the personal funds of the candidate - FEC.gov​

What cracks me up the most is what sycophants you rightards are. This isn’t that big of a deal. If he’s found guilty of violating campaign finance laws, he’s facing a fine. It happens all the time. Y’all are circling the wagon over something as trivial as this does nothing other than to expose what cock holsters you are for him.

Poor little retard, it wasn't a valid campaign expense, that's why campaign funds weren't used. Of course you're free to pretend otherwise in your little retard world. It doesn't make it so. LMAO

.

It was a valid campaign expense because the money was spent to impact the outcome of the election. No different than if he had secretly spent his own money to pay for ads.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Ads would yield a singular benefit, and would be a legitimate campaign expense.

.

squashing a scandal just before the election is also beneficial to a campaign.

 

[joaquinmiller]

David Pecker was granted immunity, indicating legal exposure due to knowledge of criminal activity, rather than mere scandal.

 

[OKTexas]

Fuck this shit, post the transcripts of the tapes or STFU. Trump got a personal benefit from the NDA's, legally only things that benefit the campaign and nothing else can be financed with campaign funds, there cannot be a dual purpose like a personal or commercial benefit.

.

Only someone retarded beyond all repair would be able to fool themselves into believing silencing women just before an election and alleging affairs with Trump as his new bride birthed their child; was neither of any benefit to the campaign nor even an attempt to benefit the campaign.

The law says, if there is a personal benefit, you can't use campaign funds to pay the bill, even if there is a tangential benefit to the campaign. Campaign funds have to be used EXCLUSIVELY for the campaign, no dual purpose campaign expenses are allowed.

.

Dumbfuck, the law also says...

(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

[USC10] 52 USC Ch. 301: FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS​

Contributions include those made by the candidate and “must be reported”...

When candidates use their personal funds for campaign purposes, they are making contributions to their campaigns. Unlike other contributions, these candidate contributions are not subject to any limits. They must, however, be reported.

Using the personal funds of the candidate - FEC.gov​

What cracks me up the most is what sycophants you rightards are. This isn’t that big of a deal. If he’s found guilty of violating campaign finance laws, he’s facing a fine. It happens all the time. Y’all are circling the wagon over something as trivial as this does nothing other than to expose what cock holsters you are for him.

Poor little retard, it wasn't a valid campaign expense, that's why campaign funds weren't used. Of course you're free to pretend otherwise in your little retard world. It doesn't make it so. LMAO

.

You dumbfuck, it matters not if campaign funds were used or not. Paying off Stormy to not talk about having an affair was a benefit to his campaign and intended to influence the election. That exposes those funds to be reported to the FEC.

Not if there was a dual purpose, like protecting his family. That would make it an illegitimate campaign expense. So run along retard, I think the short bus is waiting for ya. LMAO

.