Paying people off to avoid a scandal is perfectly legal

[Olde Europe]

Then why was Obama fined and not imprisoned for violating campaign finance laws?

As far as I've seen these were mere clerical errors, blown deadlines, or reporting typos, eff ups occurring in every Presidential election, not an elaborate conspiracy to hide contributions way above the limits while avoiding reporting requirements altogether, and to do so knowingly and willfully.

So? They’re still violations of campaign finance laws. Obama was fined and not imprisoned — which goes to show that prison is not the only penalty for violating campaign finance laws.

<sigh>

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

I think you are wrong on that.

A violation of campaign finance law is only a crime punishable by imprisonment, as opposed to a civil offense punishable only by fine, if an individual’s violation of the restrictions was knowing and willful. As explained in the Department of Justice manual, Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses, federal campaign finance law violations “become potential crimes when they are committed knowingly and willfully, that is, by an offender who knew what the law forbade and violated it notwithstanding that knowledge.” That’s an important qualification to keep in mind. It means that knowledge of the law is, in some sense, an excuse or get-out-of-jail free card in this arena. And it is prosecutors who would have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant acted with this state of mind.​

Now, if you put the whole thing together, in particular Cohen's confession (under oath and under penalty of perjury) that the purpose of the payments was to influence the election, the non-reporting, and the elaborate scheme to hide the true purpose of the payments, altogether indicating that they knew exactly they're running afoul of campaign finance laws, and did it anyway, there's some prison time lurking ahead.

And let's not get into a variety of conspiracies to violate campaign finance laws that also circle around all this.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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...

Obama paid $2 million to have his college transcripts and all of his records sealed.
Isn't that influencing an election?????

Link please.

 

[deanrd]

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

I think you are wrong on that.

A violation of campaign finance law is only a crime punishable by imprisonment, as opposed to a civil offense punishable only by fine, if an individual’s violation of the restrictions was knowing and willful. As explained in the Department of Justice manual, Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses, federal campaign finance law violations “become potential crimes when they are committed knowingly and willfully, that is, by an offender who knew what the law forbade and violated it notwithstanding that knowledge.” That’s an important qualification to keep in mind. It means that knowledge of the law is, in some sense, an excuse or get-out-of-jail free card in this arena. And it is prosecutors who would have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant acted with this state of mind.​

Now, if you put the whole thing together, in particular Cohen's confession (under oath and under penalty of perjury) that the purpose of the payments was to influence the election, the non-reporting, and the elaborate scheme to hide the true purpose of the payments, altogether indicating that they knew exactly they're running afoul of campaign finance laws, and did it anyway, there's some prison time lurking ahead.

And let's not get into a variety of conspiracies to violate campaign finance laws that also circle around all this.

Then why was Obama fined and not imprisoned for violating campaign finance laws?

Obama did not personally order the violation.

Trump did.

The candidate is ultimately responsible for their own campaign, regardless of who orders what. Furthermore, there’s zero evidence that Trump ordered Cohen to do anything illegal. According to Cohen, trump directed him to silence Daniels with the payoff. That’s not illegal.

You’re right that in itself is not illegal.
But offering a thing of value to change an election is a violation of campaign finance laws If it’s not reported.
If Trump had reported he was giving money to porn stars and playboy bunnies to shut them up he could never be charged with anything.
If Bill Clinton Admitted he got a blowjob from a young woman he could never have been impeached.
It’s all about being honest and above board.
Even when you do sleazy stuff just admit it.

 

[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...

Obama paid $2 million to have his college transcripts and all of his records sealed.
Isn't that influencing an election?????

Link please.

Wayne Dupree on Twitter

 

[Faun]

Furthermore, there’s zero evidence that Trump ordered Cohen to do anything illegal. According to Cohen, trump directed him to silence Daniels with the payoff. That’s not illegal.

How do you know there is zero evidence? SDNY raided Cohen's office, and have near everything, including tapes.

Moreover, if the purpose of the payment is to influence the election, that's a campaign contribution by Cohen (Clifford) and A.M.I. (McDougal), exceeding limits, and concealed / not reported.

Did you read the article I linked?

Because paying Stormy Daniels to hush up is not a crime. The crime was Trump's negligence in reporting it to the FEC.

 

[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...

Obama paid $2 million to have his college transcripts and all of his records sealed.
Isn't that influencing an election?????

No, Obama did not pay $2 million for that.

Dayum, you're a special kind of stupid.

 

[Seawytch]

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...

Obama paid $2 million to have his college transcripts and all of his records sealed.
Isn't that influencing an election?????

Link please.

Wayne Dupree on Twitter

Obama's 'Sealed' Records - FactCheck.org

 

[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...

Obama paid $2 million to have his college transcripts and all of his records sealed.
Isn't that influencing an election?????

No, Obama did not pay $2 million for that.

Dayum, you're a special kind of stupid.

How much did he pay for it then??

Maybe he got it done through a campaign donation.

I think we need to appoint a special council and investigate this.

 

[Faun]

Then why was Obama fined and not imprisoned for violating campaign finance laws?

As far as I've seen these were mere clerical errors, blown deadlines, or reporting typos, eff ups occurring in every Presidential election, not an elaborate conspiracy to hide contributions way above the limits while avoiding reporting requirements altogether, and to do so knowingly and willfully.

So? They’re still violations of campaign finance laws. Obama was fined and not imprisoned — which goes to show that prison is not the only penalty for violating campaign finance laws.

<sigh>

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

I think you are wrong on that.

A violation of campaign finance law is only a crime punishable by imprisonment, as opposed to a civil offense punishable only by fine, if an individual’s violation of the restrictions was knowing and willful. As explained in the Department of Justice manual, Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses, federal campaign finance law violations “become potential crimes when they are committed knowingly and willfully, that is, by an offender who knew what the law forbade and violated it notwithstanding that knowledge.” That’s an important qualification to keep in mind. It means that knowledge of the law is, in some sense, an excuse or get-out-of-jail free card in this arena. And it is prosecutors who would have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant acted with this state of mind.​

Now, if you put the whole thing together, in particular Cohen's confession (under oath and under penalty of perjury) that the purpose of the payments was to influence the election, the non-reporting, and the elaborate scheme to hide the true purpose of the payments, altogether indicating that they knew exactly they're running afoul of campaign finance laws, and did it anyway, there's some prison time lurking ahead.

And let's not get into a variety of conspiracies to violate campaign finance laws that also circle around all this.

"A violation of campaign finance law is only a crime punishable by imprisonment"

I already demonstrated that's not true.

 

[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...

Obama paid $2 million to have his college transcripts and all of his records sealed.
Isn't that influencing an election?????

No, Obama did not pay $2 million for that.

Dayum, you're a special kind of stupid.

How much did he pay for it then??

Maybe he got it done through a campaign donation.

I think we need to appoint a special council and investigate this.

G'head, lead the investigation. I nominate you.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

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...

Called blackmail.

 

[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...

Obama paid $2 million to have his college transcripts and all of his records sealed.
Isn't that influencing an election?????

Link please.

Wayne Dupree on Twitter

Obama's 'Sealed' Records - FactCheck.org

Sorry, but they have been trying to get his college transcripts unsealed for years...FACTCHECK.ORG..not withstanding...the Annenberg project run by William Ayres who helped get Obama started in politics.

Summary: Both of the nation’s most prominent fact-checking organizations—FactCheck.org and PolitiFact—tilt to the political left, which makes them representative of the majority of journalists who also lean to port. Both of these groups go far beyond what they say they do, claiming to fact-check subjective things like political rhetoric that are not susceptible to fact-checking. DISHONEST FACT-CHECKERS: How fact-checkers trivialize lies by politicians and undermine truth-seeking​

 

[bripat9643]

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...

This may come down to why one assumes the money was paid. If you assume that it was paid as to not hurt his chances in the election, then it could be construed to be campaign hush-money activity. If it was paid just to avoid anybody finding out about it, it could be construed as more of a legal settlement.

Actually, it's harder than that for the Trump haters to make their case. If there is any way that the payoff can be construed as personally benefiting Trump, then it's not a campaign expenditure.

 

[OKTexas]

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

.

If that were true, you’d post the supporting law.

I dare you to try to find an applicable case in the FEC decisions database, it's got to be the worse site I've every tried to find anything on. So I chose to take the word of a former FEC chairman. I think he knows more about it than some regressive retard.

.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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...

Obama paid $2 million to have his college transcripts and all of his records sealed.
Isn't that influencing an election?????

Link please.

Wayne Dupree on Twitter

Holy fucking shit! That is your source!

Damn, you made me spit beer on my keyboard!

 

[bripat9643]

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.

.

Post the transcripts? Go listen to them. Stormy Daniels was paid through Cohen's LLC which he clear as day says on the tape with Trump he was creating JUST to make the payments.

And Cohen used his own funds to fund the NDA, doesn't matter if he did it through the LLC or not, it was a short term loan to Trump personally and not to his campaign. The NDA served a dual purpose and couldn't have been a legal campaign expense under any circumstances.

.

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.

It's not a campaign expenditure, moron. Even if everything you claimed was true, Obama was guilty of not reporting $2 million in donations. He was fined $365,000 for it. If we scale the Trump fine proportionally, then he should be fined $23,750. That's what you morons are shouting about: a fine that would be pocket change for Trump. Furthermore, his campaign would pay the fine.

 

[bripat9643]

I guess some folks can be talked into pleading to just about anything. There can't be a conspiracy related to the NDA's, because Cohen was Trumps attorney and acting on Trumps behalf. Cohen also had a fiduciary responsibility to only act in Trumps best interest, if he allowed Trump to go down the road to criminality, Trump has a cause of action against Cohen in the tens of millions.

.

Yes he can... because the women were paid off using an LLC, and Trump is on tape discussing the payoff doing it. He conspired with Cohen to break campaign finance laws.

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.

The 2nd Amendment says the right to bare arms shall not be abridged. So that means we have the right to own machine guns. Right, dumbfuck?

 

[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...

Obama paid $2 million to have his college transcripts and all of his records sealed.
Isn't that influencing an election?????

Link please.

Wayne Dupree on Twitter

Holy fucking shit! That is your source!

Damn, you made me spit beer on my keyboard!

Maybe that will clean some of the jizz off of it.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

.

Cohen was investigated and plead guilty for it... and he was questioned by the judge who decided to accept his plea. Deal with it.

Don't expect Trump to be as ignorant as Cohen.

.

No, he's much dumber.

Trump went from: "I never slept with McDougal or Daniels and have no idea about any payments. Ask Michael he's my lawyer."

to: "Cohen did it and I didn't know about it until after the fact, but I paid him back through his monthly retainer."

to: "I didn't know about it, but I paid Cohen back and it had nothing to do with my campaign it was just to save my marriage."

to: "I didn't know about it, but it isn't a crime because I paid Cohen back with my own money."

to: "Cohen is a rat scumbag lawyer and I did nothing wrong."

Of course, as always, you characterization of what Trump did is total bullshit.

 

[bripat9643]

And Cohen used his own funds to fund the NDA, doesn't matter if he did it through the LLC or not, it was a short term loan to Trump personally and not to his campaign. The NDA served a dual purpose and couldn't have been a legal campaign expense under any circumstances.

.

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.

.

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

It was a benefit to himself. End of story.