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.Really? And the explanation is?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.
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
So far you have no proof of anything you claim..
We know the far left posts known bunk and expects others to prove them wrong!
Instead you are running with a debunked far left religious narrative that is not based in fact!