Author Topic: Stormy in a teacup — campaign finance case against Trump is laughably weak  (Read 1439 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Right_in_Virginia

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,470
Stormy in a teacup — campaign finance case against Trump is laughably weak
Washington Examiner, Dec 11, 2018, Editorial Board

Prosecutors in the Southern District of New York want you to know the real problem with President Trump paying off a porn star to keep her quiet about their extramarital fling is that his shady lawyer didn't use campaign funds to do it.

The legal reasoning here is tendentious and the implications are absurd, and it wouldn't be treated seriously if it were not a Republican politician being targeted for potential prosecution.

[...]

The argument is that since the hush money was paid to “influence” the election, it was a campaign expenditure. But by that logic, every dime Chris Christie spent to lose weight before his 2016 run — the diet books, the StairMaster, the bariatric surgery — was a campaign expenditure. If Christie bought a SlimFast shake with his personal money, was he a felon?

Former Federal Election Commissioner Bradley Smith posited another hypothetical: “If a business owner ran for political office and decided to pay bonuses to his employees in the hope that he would get good press and boost his stock as a candidate, would that be a campaign expenditure, payable from campaign funds?”

If a candidate who normally gets a $12 haircut shells out $40 for a better cut, is he a criminal for paying out of his own pocket even though the idea is to look sharp in front of news cameras? If a candidate pays a contested past-due personal bill only to make the headache go away before the debates begin, is he legally required to pay out of his campaign coffers?


More:  https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/stormy-in-a-teacup-campaign-finance-case-against-trump-is-laughably-weak


« Last Edit: December 11, 2018, 07:48:56 AM by Right_in_Virginia »
"January 20th 2017 will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again."  --  President Donald J. Trump

Offline Right_in_Virginia

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,470
FTA..

Quote
Cohen pleaded guilty to this campaign finance violation to avoid prison time for more serious tax evasion issues. Just because he pleads guilty doesn’t make Trump a criminal.
"January 20th 2017 will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again."  --  President Donald J. Trump

Offline edpc

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,408
  • Professional Misanthrope - Briefer and Boxer
Former Federal Election Commissioner Bradley Smith posited another hypothetical: “If a business owner ran for political office and decided to pay bonuses to his employees in the hope that he would get good press and boost his stock as a candidate, would that be a campaign expenditure, payable from campaign funds?”



Here’s a better question: If a business owner paid bonuses to his employees, didn’t report the expenditures, then later accounted for them as a different type of business expense, would he have legal problems?
I disagree.  Circle gets the square.

Offline DB

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,966
Many seem to miss the point.

This wasn't about campaign contribution legalities. It was about gaining legal access to both Cohen and Trump's financial records which was successful because he had to have a porn star and playboy bunny while his wife was pregnant with their child.

It is what is in those financial records that put Cohen in prison not campaign contributions. Cohen was Trump's fixer lawyer for 12 years. That is where the real damage is going to come from. Campaign contributions was just a pawn in a larger game to get access to where the actual damaging information was.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2018, 03:36:46 PM by DB »

Offline Absalom

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 888
Whisper circulating in the media is that Stormy Daniels real name
is Stormachoff Danielsov. Hmm.........could be real trouble here.

Offline Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 38,169
  • "Heads I win, Tails you lose."
The rats don't need a conviction, they need the smear.  This is to peel the Evangelicals off from Trump.  This is the Roy Moore/Kavanaugh playbook.
I will NOT comply.
                                                                                           :dontfeed:
Home Sweet Home!

Offline aligncare

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 21,981
The rats don't need a conviction, they need the smear.  This is to peel the Evangelicals off from Trump.  This is the Roy Moore/Kavanaugh playbook.

You’re exactly right. Trump’s only exposure here is political – not legal, as it’s been from the beginning of the Great Outrage.

God, I hate the swamp. **nononono*

Just think how Trump’s presidency could have gone if only he’d had a united GOP fighting as hard along side him to expose the cabal.


Oceander

  • Guest
You’re exactly right. Trump’s only exposure here is political – not legal, as it’s been from the beginning of the Great Outrage.

God, I hate the swamp. **nononono*

Just think how Trump’s presidency could have gone if only he’d had a united GOP fighting as hard along side him to expose the cabal.



:bigsilly:

Careful, don’t guzzle too much orange koolaid all at once. 

Oceander

  • Guest
It isn’t laughably weak.  It’s a matter of whether a jury can be convinced - or not - that the expenditure was made to influence the campaign.  There is a rather elaborate set of tests that are applied, and at the end of the day, it comes down to what the jury believes. 

There is a much tighter relationship between the payments here and the campaign-related purpose than there was in the John Edwards case.

That doesn’t mean that Trump is lost; it’s entirely possible that a jury would not believe the requisite connection existed when it’s given all the facts, but it does mean that this is a legitimate possibility that should be taken seriously by those who support the president.

Offline aligncare

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 21,981
:bigsilly:

Careful, don’t guzzle too much orange koolaid all at once.

Answer me this. What event, incident or action on the part of Trump or his campaign trigger the investigation into Russian collusion by the special counsel? Did suspicion of a crime trigger it? If so, what crime and what evidence?
« Last Edit: December 12, 2018, 06:27:56 AM by aligncare »

Offline Free Vulcan

  • Technical
  • ****
  • Posts: 13,703
  • Ah, the air is so much fresher here...
    • The Conservative Fist
It is weak. The logic here is that the payments should have been disclosed because it influenced the campiagn. Nearly everything a candidate does during a campiagn is going to influence the campaign. How far do you go to demand disclosure?
The Conservative Fist: https://twitter.com/arguedpolitics - follow me and I'll follow you.

Offline Frank Cannon

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 26,223
It is weak. The logic here is that the payments should have been disclosed because it influenced the campiagn. Nearly everything a candidate does during a campiagn is going to influence the campaign. How far do you go to demand disclosure?

By this logic Obama should be in jail for covering up his college transcripts and his meeting with terrorists that were recorded on film prior to his running.

Offline RoosGirl

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 16,809
Answer me this. What event, incident or action on the part of Trump or his campaign trigger the investigation into Russian collusion by the special counsel? Did suspension of a crime trigger it? If so, what crime and what evidence?

When did SDNY start investigating Russian collusion?  I thought that was Mueller's gig.

Offline RoosGirl

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 16,809
By this logic Obama should be in jail for covering up his college transcripts and his meeting with terrorists that were recorded on film prior to his running.

That's just the beginning of the list.

Oceander

  • Guest
Answer me this. What event, incident or action on the part of Trump or his campaign trigger the investigation into Russian collusion by the special counsel? Did suspension of a crime trigger it? If so, what crime and what evidence?

Tell me, did Trump try to buy the silence of this woman in the midst of his campaign for president in a manner clearly designed to prevent her story from becoming public during the campaign?

Offline Frank Cannon

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 26,223
Tell me, did Trump try to buy the silence of this woman in the midst of his campaign for president in a manner clearly designed to prevent her story from becoming public during the campaign?

I'm having trouble finding the word "Russia" or Russians" in your question.


Oceander

  • Guest
I'm having trouble finding the word "Russia" or Russians" in your question.



You couldn’t find your dick if Stormy Daniels wrapped your hand around it.

Offline RoosGirl

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 16,809
 :2popcorn:

Offline Right_in_Virginia

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,470
Tell me, did Trump try to buy the silence of this woman in the midst of his campaign for president in a manner clearly designed to prevent her story from becoming public during the campaign?

No.  He did it to protect his wife and marriage.  Do campaign finance laws say a candidate can't use his own money in this way?
"January 20th 2017 will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again."  --  President Donald J. Trump

Oceander

  • Guest
No.  He did it to protect his wife and marriage.  Do campaign finance laws say a candidate can't use his own money in this way?

Matter of interpretation.  I say he did it to protect his campaign because the facts most clearly align that way. 

Well just have to wait and see what the jury says. It’ll be laughably pathetic if Trump gets taken down because he tried to hush up something that wouldn’t have hurt him if it had come out. 

Offline Frank Cannon

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 26,223
You couldn’t find your dick if Stormy Daniels wrapped your hand around it.

Why would I need to grab it? I got hot chicks for that.

Oceander

  • Guest
Why would I need to grab it? I got hot chicks for that.

Where did I say anything about grabbing it?

Offline Frank Cannon

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 26,223
Where did I say anything about grabbing it?

Christ. You're phoning it in tonight.


Offline Right_in_Virginia

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,470
Matter of interpretation. 

No.  It is not. 
"January 20th 2017 will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again."  --  President Donald J. Trump

Offline RoosGirl

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 16,809


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf