We are definitely looking at potential campaign finance violations implicating Trump

[WTP]

NYT: FBI seized tape of Trump discussing Playboy model payment

Full Rocah: Any recording is 'a smoking gun'

As if Trump didn't have enough problems with potential conspiracy and obstruction charges related to Russia, we now have breaking news of a Trump /Cohen taped conversation about campaign hush money that was paid to Karen Mcdougal through David Pecker and the National Enquirer.

Of course the ever present Trump's bs lawyer Rudy Giuliani, is claiming this is exculpatory because it was paid by someone else, is total nonsense. The fact that the two even had a conversation about it, on tape, and that someone else made the payment, still implicates Trump as potentially being guilty of illegal campaign finance violations. Which by the way, to go along with the Stormy Daniels case, proves that this will probably go down as an illegal election, by using campaign finance contributions during a presidential election.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Especially if this money was exchanged 12 years ago.

 

[2aguy]

NYT: FBI seized tape of Trump discussing Playboy model payment

Full Rocah: Any recording is 'a smoking gun'

As if Trump didn't have enough problems with potential conspiracy and obstruction charges related to Russia, we now have breaking news of a Trump /Cohen taped conversation about campaign hush money that was paid to Karen Mcdougal through David Pecker and the National Enquirer.

Of course the ever present Trump's bs lawyer Rudy Giuliani, is claiming this is exculpatory because it was paid by someone else, is total nonsense. The fact that the two even had a conversation about it, on tape, and that someone else made the payment, still implicates Trump as potentially being guilty of illegal campaign finance violations. Which by the way, to go along with the Stormy Daniels case, proves that this will probably go down as an illegal election, by using campaign finance contributions during a presidential election.

Sorry, no. Campaign laws will not cover this as Alan Dershowitz and other lawyers have already explained.

 

[Kosh]

Oh look another rotten carrot for the far left chance.

 

[WTP]

NYT: FBI seized tape of Trump discussing Playboy model payment

Full Rocah: Any recording is 'a smoking gun'

As if Trump didn't have enough problems with potential conspiracy and obstruction charges related to Russia, we now have breaking news of a Trump /Cohen taped conversation about campaign hush money that was paid to Karen Mcdougal through David Pecker and the National Enquirer.

Of course the ever present Trump's bs lawyer Rudy Giuliani, is claiming this is exculpatory because it was paid by someone else, is total nonsense. The fact that the two even had a conversation about it, on tape, and that someone else made the payment, still implicates Trump as potentially being guilty of illegal campaign finance violations. Which by the way, to go along with the Stormy Daniels case, proves that this will probably go down as an illegal election, by using campaign finance contributions during a presidential election.

Sorry, no. Campaign laws will not cover this as Alan Dershowitz and other lawyers have already explained.

Really? And the explanation is?

 

[WTP]

Oh look another rotten carrot for the far left chance.

We'll, there's one down, with nothing to rebut. Say good bye everyone.

 

[harmonica]

we are definitely looking at potential aliens landing at LAX
definitely and potential ??? hahahahhaha
see the oxymoron?

 

[WTP]

Especially if this money was exchanged 12 years ago.

But it wasn't. AMI's payment to Karen McDougal was a Trump campaign contribution, watchdog group claims That's the beauty of it.

 

[Kosh]

Oh look another rotten carrot for the far left chance.

We'll, there's one down, with nothing to rebut. Say good bye everyone.

Exactly there is nothing to rebut against the far left accusations.

It is just another debunked narrative for the far left to run that will do noting for them.

Trump will still be president, Hilary will not be installed as president and Hilary is worse than Trump!

Nothing you far left drones post will change these facts!

 

[WTP]

we are definitely looking at potential aliens landing at LAX
definitely and potential ??? hahahahhaha
see the oxymoron?

Two down with nothing to rebut. Say bye everyone.

 

[WTP]

Oh look another rotten carrot for the far left chance.

We'll, there's one down, with nothing to rebut. Say good bye everyone.

Exactly there is nothing to rebut against the far left accusations.

It is just another debunked narrative for the far left to run that will do noting for them.

Trump will still be president, Hilary will not be installed as president and Hilary is worse than Trump!

Nothing you far left drones post will change these facts!

Wow, who could have guessed? When did you join the investigation team?

 

[2aguy]

NYT: FBI seized tape of Trump discussing Playboy model payment

Full Rocah: Any recording is 'a smoking gun'

As if Trump didn't have enough problems with potential conspiracy and obstruction charges related to Russia, we now have breaking news of a Trump /Cohen taped conversation about campaign hush money that was paid to Karen Mcdougal through David Pecker and the National Enquirer.

Of course the ever present Trump's bs lawyer Rudy Giuliani, is claiming this is exculpatory because it was paid by someone else, is total nonsense. The fact that the two even had a conversation about it, on tape, and that someone else made the payment, still implicates Trump as potentially being guilty of illegal campaign finance violations. Which by the way, to go along with the Stormy Daniels case, proves that this will probably go down as an illegal election, by using campaign finance contributions during a presidential election.

Sorry, no. Campaign laws will not cover this as Alan Dershowitz and other lawyers have already explained.

Really? And the explanation is?

Here...

Critics of the president claim this not only was a campaign expense that should have been reported but a potentially illegal loan by Cohen. But the settlement was ultimately paid out of Trump’s personal funds and had nothing to do with the campaign since their alleged one-night stand occurred 10 years before the campaign.

No reasonable member of a jury would consider this to be a campaign-related expense that needed to be reported, or to which any other campaign finance rules in the Federal Election Campaign Act apply.

How do we know? Because the Justice Department tried out a similar theory once before with facts much more favorable. In the Edwards case, campaign donors made payments to Edwards’ mistress, Rielle Hunter, a videographer who was specifically hired to help his presidential campaign.

Unlike the Daniels situation, Hunter was paid up to $1 million while directly working for the campaign and Edwards.

The government’s legal theory in that case was that these were campaign-related payments, even though they did not go through the Edwards campaign’s accounts because they were intended to protect Edwards’ reputation during his presidential run. Sound familiar?

Yet a jury acquitted Edwards on one charge of accepting an illegal campaign donation and failed to reach a verdict—resulting in a mistrial—on the other charges, which included filing false reports with the Federal Election Commission for not listing the payments to his mistress.

In other words, the government was unable to convince the jury that these were campaign-related expenses covered by federal campaign finance law. The Justice Department subsequently dropped its prosecution and never retried Edwards—in part, no doubt, because many campaign finance experts called the case “legally flawed,” according to a Politico report in 2012.

I was of the opinion at the time that the government potentially could make a case if it could show the payments were “campaign-related” based on the fact that Hunter was actually working for the campaign and was being paid by donors. But in what was a case of first impression, that argument was not accepted as reasonable by a jury.

The alleged one-night stand between Daniels and Trump is far more of a stretch.

Daniels had no connection to the presidential campaign of any kind and the encounter—if it occurred—didn’t happen during the campaign itself. In any event, even if the Daniels payment were to be considered a campaign-related expense, unlike Edwards, the nominal $130,000 payment wasn’t made by Trump campaign donors but by Trump’s personal attorney (not the campaign’s attorney) with whom he has a long-standing business relationship.


Rudy Giuliani Is Right: Settlement With Stormy Daniels Didn’t Violate Campaign Finance Law

 

[Kosh]

Oh look another rotten carrot for the far left chance.

We'll, there's one down, with nothing to rebut. Say good bye everyone.

Exactly there is nothing to rebut against the far left accusations.

It is just another debunked narrative for the far left to run that will do noting for them.

Trump will still be president, Hilary will not be installed as president and Hilary is worse than Trump!

Nothing you far left drones post will change these facts!

Wow, who could have guessed? When did you join the investigation team?

See the far left still thinks they will get Hilary installed as president with these nothing burger accusations.

Trump will still be president, Hilary will not be installed as president and Hilary is worse than Trump.

Once you far left drones act like adults and accept the se facts, the world will be a much better place.

Then again even Obama invited Putin to the White House, but the far left goes nuts when Trump does it.

Clinton had a known terrorist to come to the White House Yasser Arafat and made sure to get him a Nobel Peace price for doing it.

Nothing you far left drones will post will change the fact that Hilary is worse than Trump, just be an adult and accept it!

 

[2aguy]

Then there is this...

Based on what we know, the Federal Election Campaign Act wasn’t meant to cover something like this, which is why the Edwards prosecution failed. The Federal Election Commission, where I served as a commissioner and which is responsible for enforcing the law, wouldn’t find a violation based on the facts that are known.

If special counsel Robert Mueller is investigating this based on a supposed campaign finance violation, he is definitely overreaching, just as the Justice Department did in the Edwards case.

Unless, of course, Mueller is actually investigating Daniels for possibly violating the federal extortion statute (18 U.S.C. §875), which makes it a felony for anyone to extort money by sending a communication that threatens to injure the “reputation” of another.

 

[Moonglow]

Don't worry, Trump had a different whore every year, eventually, he'll get caught, at least his wife doesn't seem to mind..

 

[Defiant1]

Especially if this money was exchanged 12 years ago.

But it wasn't. AMI's payment to Karen McDougal was a Trump campaign contribution, watchdog group claims That's the beauty of it.

The presidential campaign season is pretty long.
I bet Trump bought bunches of new underwear during that time.
Is your crooked watchdog group going to claim that was a campaign expense too?

 

[WTP]

NYT: FBI seized tape of Trump discussing Playboy model payment

Full Rocah: Any recording is 'a smoking gun'

As if Trump didn't have enough problems with potential conspiracy and obstruction charges related to Russia, we now have breaking news of a Trump /Cohen taped conversation about campaign hush money that was paid to Karen Mcdougal through David Pecker and the National Enquirer.

Of course the ever present Trump's bs lawyer Rudy Giuliani, is claiming this is exculpatory because it was paid by someone else, is total nonsense. The fact that the two even had a conversation about it, on tape, and that someone else made the payment, still implicates Trump as potentially being guilty of illegal campaign finance violations. Which by the way, to go along with the Stormy Daniels case, proves that this will probably go down as an illegal election, by using campaign finance contributions during a presidential election.

Sorry, no. Campaign laws will not cover this as Alan Dershowitz and other lawyers have already explained.

Really? And the explanation is?

Here...

Critics of the president claim this not only was a campaign expense that should have been reported but a potentially illegal loan by Cohen. But the settlement was ultimately paid out of Trump’s personal funds and had nothing to do with the campaign since their alleged one-night stand occurred 10 years before the campaign.

No reasonable member of a jury would consider this to be a campaign-related expense that needed to be reported, or to which any other campaign finance rules in the Federal Election Campaign Act apply.

How do we know? Because the Justice Department tried out a similar theory once before with facts much more favorable. In the Edwards case, campaign donors made payments to Edwards’ mistress, Rielle Hunter, a videographer who was specifically hired to help his presidential campaign.

Unlike the Daniels situation, Hunter was paid up to $1 million while directly working for the campaign and Edwards.

The government’s legal theory in that case was that these were campaign-related payments, even though they did not go through the Edwards campaign’s accounts because they were intended to protect Edwards’ reputation during his presidential run. Sound familiar?

Yet a jury acquitted Edwards on one charge of accepting an illegal campaign donation and failed to reach a verdict—resulting in a mistrial—on the other charges, which included filing false reports with the Federal Election Commission for not listing the payments to his mistress.

In other words, the government was unable to convince the jury that these were campaign-related expenses covered by federal campaign finance law. The Justice Department subsequently dropped its prosecution and never retried Edwards—in part, no doubt, because many campaign finance experts called the case “legally flawed,” according to a Politico report in 2012.

I was of the opinion at the time that the government potentially could make a case if it could show the payments were “campaign-related” based on the fact that Hunter was actually working for the campaign and was being paid by donors. But in what was a case of first impression, that argument was not accepted as reasonable by a jury.

The alleged one-night stand between Daniels and Trump is far more of a stretch.

Daniels had no connection to the presidential campaign of any kind and the encounter—if it occurred—didn’t happen during the campaign itself. In any event, even if the Daniels payment were to be considered a campaign-related expense, unlike Edwards, the nominal $130,000 payment wasn’t made by Trump campaign donors but by Trump’s personal attorney (not the campaign’s attorney) with whom he has a long-standing business relationship.


Rudy Giuliani Is Right: Settlement With Stormy Daniels Didn’t Violate Campaign Finance Law

Oh, I get it. You switch the topic, because you are too much of a coward to debate the real one in play. STAY ON TOPIC LOSER.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Check this n00b midterm shill out!

Hey dumbass. I'll call it right now, which is dangerous, because November is a long ways off.

Right now: Republican landslide.

Leftists will have the worst butthurt ever!

Trump largely funded his own campaign, and Hillary took in 10x the money he spent.

 

[WTP]

Don't worry, Trump had a different whore every year, eventually, he'll get caught, at least his wife doesn't seem to mind..

She's in it for the free ride, and irrelevant.

 

[theHawk]

NYT: FBI seized tape of Trump discussing Playboy model payment

Full Rocah: Any recording is 'a smoking gun'

As if Trump didn't have enough problems with potential conspiracy and obstruction charges related to Russia, we now have breaking news of a Trump /Cohen taped conversation about campaign hush money that was paid to Karen Mcdougal through David Pecker and the National Enquirer.

Of course the ever present Trump's bs lawyer Rudy Giuliani, is claiming this is exculpatory because it was paid by someone else, is total nonsense. The fact that the two even had a conversation about it, on tape, and that someone else made the payment, still implicates Trump as potentially being guilty of illegal campaign finance violations. Which by the way, to go along with the Stormy Daniels case, proves that this will probably go down as an illegal election, by using campaign finance contributions during a presidential election.

Any recording is considered attorney-client privilege and cannot be used in court.