Former FEC Chairman To Mark Levin: Stormy Daniels Money Cannot Be In Kind Campaign Contribution

[bripat9643]

Former FEC Chairman To Mark Levin: Stormy Daniels Money Cannot Be In Kind Campaign Contribution

Former Trump attorney, Michael Cohen to federal judge: "Guilty your honor"

Which proves exactly nothing.

It proves that Michael Cohen believes it to be a crime and it proves the judge believes it to be a crime.

it doesn't matter what Cohen believes. It says nothing about what the judge believes.

 

[Seawytch]

If, historically, the FEC has said this sort of payment isn't a campaign contribution, cite the historic cases....

From everything I understand, it's going to come down to intent. Was the payment for personal or political reasons.

He emphasized, “Historically, the FEC has said these things are not campaign contributions.”

I think the chairman of the FEC would know.

Then some previous cases should be able to be cited, right?

 

[imawhosure]

And so-------->If Trump is guilty for an NDA using his own money, then should we assume that everyone in congress who created an NDA (non disclosure agreement) using our taxpayer dollars is also guilty of the same thing-)

In another thread I reminded people, you can NOT pick and choose. It either is, or it isn't! Everyone treated fairly, remember-)

Sooooooooooooo, is it, or isn't it? Gee, I wonder how many congress critters have made NDAs, before their election, and after their election, using the slush fund that we all discovered, lol. Should they be prosecuted, or resign, and if so/if not, why?

Works for me! Now, lets look at each one of them that used the money and see which of them did so in conjunction with an election.

What you Trump sheep like to ignore is the timing of payments...and the timing is the key.

Ummmmmmmm, by the way, didn't Mz Clifford (Stormy) take the money, then proceed to try and BLACKMAIL Trump, while also violating a contract?

Shouldn't she be prosecuted?

 

[imawhosure]

And so-------->If Trump is guilty for an NDA using his own money, then should we assume that everyone in congress who created an NDA (non disclosure agreement) using our taxpayer dollars is also guilty of the same thing-)

In another thread I reminded people, you can NOT pick and choose. It either is, or it isn't! Everyone treated fairly, remember-)

Sooooooooooooo, is it, or isn't it? Gee, I wonder how many congress critters have made NDAs, before their election, and after their election, using the slush fund that we all discovered, lol. Should they be prosecuted, or resign, and if so/if not, why?

Works for me! Now, lets look at each one of them that used the money and see which of them did so in conjunction with an election.

What you Trump sheep like to ignore is the timing of payments...and the timing is the key.

Ummmmmmmm, by the way, didn't Mz Clifford (Stormy) take the money, then proceed to try and BLACKMAIL Trump, while also violating a contract?

Shouldn't she be prosecuted?

So let me get this straight as I can-----------> Congress uses taxpayer money to sign NDAs, and you have no clue of their timing because it is secret, lol.

But, you support a BLACKMAILING porn star against the President of the United States, even though he used his own money, and all the experts say it is not illegal what he did?

Very interesting comrade-)

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Former FEC Chairman To Mark Levin: Stormy Daniels Money Cannot Be In Kind Campaign Contribution

Former Trump attorney, Michael Cohen to federal judge: "Guilty your honor"

Which proves exactly nothing.

It proves that Michael Cohen believes it to be a crime and it proves the judge believes it to be a crime.

it doesn't matter what Cohen believes. It says nothing about what the judge believes.

A judge is not going to accept a guilty plea on something that is not even a crime.

 

[jc456]

Former FEC Chairman To Mark Levin: Stormy Daniels Money Cannot Be In Kind Campaign Contribution

Former Trump attorney, Michael Cohen to federal judge: "Guilty your honor"

What a fool Cohen is pleading guilty to no crime

 

[bripat9643]

The snowflakes insist that paying Stormy to shut her pie hole is a campaign contribution. Here's the final word on the subject. Only sheer idiocy would cause anyone to continue claiming that the snowflake theory is valid.

Former FEC Chairman To Mark Levin: Stormy Daniels Money Cannot Be In Kind Campaign Contribution​

Law Professor and former FEC chairman Bradley Smith spoke with conservative radio host Mark Levin on Tuesday. He laid out the reason why the payment made to porn star Stormy Daniels from President Trump’s private attorney Michael Cohen could not be an in-kind campaign contribution.

“Here’s the bottom line,” Smith told Levin. “The purpose of those laws is to prevent corruption and one way campaign contributions or in-kind campaign contributions are different than bribes is that you have to use them to get elected. You can’t use them to buy yourself grandfather clocks or fur coats or Rolex watches or something like that.”

He said, “And the FEC standard for that is you can’t use your campaign money for personal use. What they mean by that is you can’t use that for something you’d have to pay anyway that’s not directly for your campaign. The question is, ‘is this really a campaign obligation?’”

Professor Smith continued, “None of these expenditures helped Mr. Trump’s campaign. There’s all kinds of reasons why he may want to make these expenditures even if the allegations made by Stormy Daniels are untrue. Just for family harmony, commercial viability over the long term.”

He emphasized, “Historically, the FEC has said these things are not campaign contributions.”

Professor Smith added, “When the FEC wrote the regulation that says what constitutes campaign expenditures and what constitutes personal use, it rejected specifically the idea that a campaign expenditure was anything related to a campaign, and instead says it has to be something that exists only because of the campaign and solely for that reason.”​

Did you ever in your wildest dreams think you would find yourself defending a sleaze bag candidate who had to pay off porn stars prior to an election?
Are you still a member of the "Party of Family Values"?

Looks like Levin can get just about anybody to come on his show and say just about anything he wants them to say, but that doesn't change the facts.

From the American Bar Association:
Michael Cohen pleads guilty to campaign finance violations, tax and bank fraud
.
.
.

Says the guy who voted twice for a man who had to explain why he was getting hummers in the Ofal Office.

Again, for the legally impaired, a plea agreement is proof of nothing.

 

[Lewdog]

The snowflakes insist that paying Stormy to shut her pie hole is a campaign contribution. Here's the final word on the subject. Only sheer idiocy would cause anyone to continue claiming that the snowflake theory is valid.

Former FEC Chairman To Mark Levin: Stormy Daniels Money Cannot Be In Kind Campaign Contribution​

Law Professor and former FEC chairman Bradley Smith spoke with conservative radio host Mark Levin on Tuesday. He laid out the reason why the payment made to porn star Stormy Daniels from President Trump’s private attorney Michael Cohen could not be an in-kind campaign contribution.

“Here’s the bottom line,” Smith told Levin. “The purpose of those laws is to prevent corruption and one way campaign contributions or in-kind campaign contributions are different than bribes is that you have to use them to get elected. You can’t use them to buy yourself grandfather clocks or fur coats or Rolex watches or something like that.”

He said, “And the FEC standard for that is you can’t use your campaign money for personal use. What they mean by that is you can’t use that for something you’d have to pay anyway that’s not directly for your campaign. The question is, ‘is this really a campaign obligation?’”

Professor Smith continued, “None of these expenditures helped Mr. Trump’s campaign. There’s all kinds of reasons why he may want to make these expenditures even if the allegations made by Stormy Daniels are untrue. Just for family harmony, commercial viability over the long term.”

He emphasized, “Historically, the FEC has said these things are not campaign contributions.”

Professor Smith added, “When the FEC wrote the regulation that says what constitutes campaign expenditures and what constitutes personal use, it rejected specifically the idea that a campaign expenditure was anything related to a campaign, and instead says it has to be something that exists only because of the campaign and solely for that reason.”​

First off, he's the former FEC Chairman so it isn't "the final word on the subject."

 

[WaitingFor2020]

I can't believe Trump supporters are either too stupid or too stubborn to face reality:

Here's the actual plea, in ******* black and white you silly bunch of human ostriches.


PAGE 11
CAMPAIGN FINANCE VIOLATIONS
Michael Cohen Charging Documents
.
.
.

 

[jc456]

Former FEC Chairman To Mark Levin: Stormy Daniels Money Cannot Be In Kind Campaign Contribution

Former Trump attorney, Michael Cohen to federal judge: "Guilty your honor"

Your post is retarded, Trump didn't break the law legal experts and even a former FEC chairman say so, suck it.

Retarded is suggesting that Cohen plead guilty to a crime that was in fact, not a crime.

That is about as retarded as one can be for Trump.

It wasn’t a crime

 

[Harpy Eagle]

And so-------->If Trump is guilty for an NDA using his own money, then should we assume that everyone in congress who created an NDA (non disclosure agreement) using our taxpayer dollars is also guilty of the same thing-)

In another thread I reminded people, you can NOT pick and choose. It either is, or it isn't! Everyone treated fairly, remember-)

Sooooooooooooo, is it, or isn't it? Gee, I wonder how many congress critters have made NDAs, before their election, and after their election, using the slush fund that we all discovered, lol. Should they be prosecuted, or resign, and if so/if not, why?

Works for me! Now, lets look at each one of them that used the money and see which of them did so in conjunction with an election.

What you Trump sheep like to ignore is the timing of payments...and the timing is the key.

Ummmmmmmm, by the way, didn't Mz Clifford (Stormy) take the money, then proceed to try and BLACKMAIL Trump, while also violating a contract?

Shouldn't she be prosecuted?

If she violated a contract she should indeed be sued by the one that she signed the contract with. Personally I would love to see "Trump vs Daniels" played out in the civil courts.

 

[bripat9643]

Former FEC Chairman To Mark Levin: Stormy Daniels Money Cannot Be In Kind Campaign Contribution

Former Trump attorney, Michael Cohen to federal judge: "Guilty your honor"

Which proves exactly nothing.

It proves that Michael Cohen believes it to be a crime and it proves the judge believes it to be a crime.

it doesn't matter what Cohen believes. It says nothing about what the judge believes.

A judge is not going to accept a guilty plea on something that is not even a crime.

Says who? There is a statute about campaign expenditures. The problem is that neither Trump no Cohen violated it.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Former FEC Chairman To Mark Levin: Stormy Daniels Money Cannot Be In Kind Campaign Contribution

Former Trump attorney, Michael Cohen to federal judge: "Guilty your honor"

Which proves exactly nothing.

It proves that Michael Cohen believes it to be a crime and it proves the judge believes it to be a crime.

it doesn't matter what Cohen believes. It says nothing about what the judge believes.

A judge is not going to accept a guilty plea on something that is not even a crime.

Says who? There is a statute about campaign expenditures. The problem is that neither Trump no Cohen violated it.

Cohen said he violated it, the Southern District of New York says Cohen violated it. That is all that really matters, everything is just opinion and holds no actual value.

 

[jc456]

If, historically, the FEC has said this sort of payment isn't a campaign contribution, cite the historic cases....

From everything I understand, it's going to come down to intent. Was the payment for personal or political reasons.

Considering he kept her "hush" for YEARS before ever running for President I'd say it certainly isn't political.

Would you not agree?

The timing of the payments (weeks before the election) and Guliani's statements put that in question.

"Imagine if that came out on Oct. 15, 2016, in the middle of the, you know, last debate with Hillary Clinton,”

Yeah that debate she cheated and got the questions? That one?

 

[jc456]

If, historically, the FEC has said this sort of payment isn't a campaign contribution, cite the historic cases....

From everything I understand, it's going to come down to intent. Was the payment for personal or political reasons.

He emphasized, “Historically, the FEC has said these things are not campaign contributions.”

I think the chairman of the FEC would know.

Then some previous cases should be able to be cited, right?

How you figure? What if nobody was ever charged?

 

[bripat9643]

The snowflakes insist that paying Stormy to shut her pie hole is a campaign contribution. Here's the final word on the subject. Only sheer idiocy would cause anyone to continue claiming that the snowflake theory is valid.

Former FEC Chairman To Mark Levin: Stormy Daniels Money Cannot Be In Kind Campaign Contribution​

Law Professor and former FEC chairman Bradley Smith spoke with conservative radio host Mark Levin on Tuesday. He laid out the reason why the payment made to porn star Stormy Daniels from President Trump’s private attorney Michael Cohen could not be an in-kind campaign contribution.

“Here’s the bottom line,” Smith told Levin. “The purpose of those laws is to prevent corruption and one way campaign contributions or in-kind campaign contributions are different than bribes is that you have to use them to get elected. You can’t use them to buy yourself grandfather clocks or fur coats or Rolex watches or something like that.”

He said, “And the FEC standard for that is you can’t use your campaign money for personal use. What they mean by that is you can’t use that for something you’d have to pay anyway that’s not directly for your campaign. The question is, ‘is this really a campaign obligation?’”

Professor Smith continued, “None of these expenditures helped Mr. Trump’s campaign. There’s all kinds of reasons why he may want to make these expenditures even if the allegations made by Stormy Daniels are untrue. Just for family harmony, commercial viability over the long term.”

He emphasized, “Historically, the FEC has said these things are not campaign contributions.”

Professor Smith added, “When the FEC wrote the regulation that says what constitutes campaign expenditures and what constitutes personal use, it rejected specifically the idea that a campaign expenditure was anything related to a campaign, and instead says it has to be something that exists only because of the campaign and solely for that reason.”​

First off, he's the former FEC Chairman so it isn't "the final word on the subject."

Do you have a quote of any other FEC chairman contradicting what he says?

 

[jc456]

I love it when experts are questioned by message board trolls. But, but, but, but

 

[bripat9643]

Which proves exactly nothing.

It proves that Michael Cohen believes it to be a crime and it proves the judge believes it to be a crime.

it doesn't matter what Cohen believes. It says nothing about what the judge believes.

A judge is not going to accept a guilty plea on something that is not even a crime.

Says who? There is a statute about campaign expenditures. The problem is that neither Trump no Cohen violated it.

Cohen said he violated it, the Southern District of New York says Cohen violated it. That is all that really matters, everything is just opinion and holds no actual value.

Wrong. Neither of those facts matter. They prove nothing other than that Cohen agreed to a plea bargain. If I agreed to a contract that said there are unicorns on Mars, would that prove there are unicorns on Mars?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

And so-------->If Trump is guilty for an NDA using his own money, then should we assume that everyone in congress who created an NDA (non disclosure agreement) using our taxpayer dollars is also guilty of the same thing-)

In another thread I reminded people, you can NOT pick and choose. It either is, or it isn't! Everyone treated fairly, remember-)

Sooooooooooooo, is it, or isn't it? Gee, I wonder how many congress critters have made NDAs, before their election, and after their election, using the slush fund that we all discovered, lol. Should they be prosecuted, or resign, and if so/if not, why?

Works for me! Now, lets look at each one of them that used the money and see which of them did so in conjunction with an election.

What you Trump sheep like to ignore is the timing of payments...and the timing is the key.

Ummmmmmmm, by the way, didn't Mz Clifford (Stormy) take the money, then proceed to try and BLACKMAIL Trump, while also violating a contract?

Shouldn't she be prosecuted?

So let me get this straight as I can-----------> Congress uses taxpayer money to sign NDAs, and you have no clue of their timing because it is secret, lol.

But, you support a BLACKMAILING porn star against the President of the United States, even though he used his own money, and all the experts say it is not illegal what he did?

Very interesting comrade-)

Where have I ever shown any support for Stormy? Feel free to show a couple of examples.

He was not the POTUS when this was happening.

Some experts say it is not a crime, some say it is. None of their opinions matter 1 iota.

Cohen said it was a crime

The Southern District of New York says it was a crime.

Guy Petrillo, Cohen's lawyer and former prosecutor says it was a crime.

 

[bripat9643]

I love it when experts are questioned by message board trolls. But, but, but, but

Especially when they believe that the authority figures they cite are not to be questioned.