Trump using campaign cash to defend himself against Russia probe

[corbe]

Trump using campaign cash to defend himself against Russia probe

By Bob Fredericks
September 19, 2017 | 5:00pm | Updated 

President Trump is spending cash donated to his reelection campaign and the Republican National Committee to pay for his lawyers in the criminal probe of Russian interference in the election, a new report said Tuesday.

The Federal Election Commission allows the use of private campaign funds to pay legal bills arising from being a candidate or elected official.

But while previous presidential campaigns have used these funds to pay for routine legal matters such as ballot access disputes and compliance requirements, Trump would be the first president in the modern campaign finance era to use such funds to cover the costs of defending himself in a criminal probe, said election law experts.

<..snip..>

http://nypost.com/2017/09/19/trump-using-campaign-cash-to-defend-himself-against-russia-probe/

[driftdiver]

So they felt it ok to wiretap him during the campaign.

Bogus lawsuits seems to be the way to bankrupt people now.

[Sanguine]

Has an incoming president ever been faced with a criminal investigation by a hostile outgoing administration?   

[ABX]

Normal and legal. Obama used campaign funds (and matching taxpayer funds) for several lawsuits including a copyright claim on Audacity of Hope and a military voting lawsuit against Buckeye State University.

[ABX]

Has an incoming president ever been faced with a criminal investigation by a hostile outgoing administration?

Yes, Clinton Gore against Bush re several campaign violations (fake of course)

[Right_in_Virginia]

In several advisory opinions the Commission has said that campaign funds may be used to pay for up to 100% of legal expenses related to campaign or officeholder activity, where such expenses would not have occurred had the individual not been a candidate or officeholder.

https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements/personal-use/

The Federal Election Commission allows the use of private campaign funds to pay legal bills arising from being a candidate or elected official.

http://nypost.com/2017/09/19/trump-using-campaign-cash-to-defend-himself-against-russia-probe/

[RoosGirl]

Has an incoming president ever been faced with a criminal investigation by a hostile outgoing administration?

Conversely, has an incoming president threatened criminal investigation of an outgoing administration?

[bigheadfred]

Conversely, has an incoming president threatened criminal investigation of an outgoing administration?

Has there been a case where such was expedient? More to the point. This is a current affair. Strike while the iron is hot.

[driftdiver]

Has there been a case where such was expedient? More to the point. This is a current affair. Strike while the iron is hot.

Trump is at his best when he's on offense.  When he plays defense he messes everything up.  He should go after obama and Hillary.  Probably jerret lynch and anyone else.

[Sanguine]

Conversely, has an incoming president threatened criminal investigation of an outgoing administration?

There have been several that should have been, the last 3 democrat presidents for instance. 

But, when you investigate an incoming administration, they haven't had a chance to commit any crimes in an official capacity yet, so it looks to be merely a means to subvert an election.

[RoosGirl]

There have been several that should have been, the last 3 democrat presidents for instance. 

But, when you investigate an incoming administration, they haven't had a chance to commit any crimes in an official capacity yet, so it looks to be merely a means to subvert an election.

Part of my point is Trump was threatening the investigation of Hillary well before the election.  We know how petty the last administration was.  Could this be a tit for tat except the tat never materialized?

[bigheadfred]

Part of my point is Trump was threatening the investigation of Hillary well before the election.  We know how petty the last administration was.  Could this be a tit for tat except the tat never materialized?

Part of the problem is there has to be an exact nature and specificity to the crime. Names, dates, places. In/undisputable facts.  Strictly for having a prosecutorial case.

There is such obfuscation in matters relating to offenses by the obama admin such exactness is hard to nail down. Too much equivocation. To the point any conviction won't be overturned in an appellate court on a technicality. This will be the failure of the Mueller investigation, IMO. (There is something there but we can't prove it beyond an incontrovertible doubt)