Paying people off to avoid a scandal is perfectly legal

[Faun]

Only someone retarded beyond all repair would be able to fool themselves into believing silencing women just before an election and alleging affairs with Trump as his new bride birthed their child; was neither of any benefit to the campaign nor even an attempt to benefit the campaign.

The law says, if there is a personal benefit, you can't use campaign funds to pay the bill, even if there is a tangential benefit to the campaign. Campaign funds have to be used EXCLUSIVELY for the campaign, no dual purpose campaign expenses are allowed.

.

Dumbfuck, the law also says...

(8)(A) The term "contribution" includes-
(i) any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office

[USC10] 52 USC Ch. 301: FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS​

Contributions include those made by the candidate and “must be reported”...

When candidates use their personal funds for campaign purposes, they are making contributions to their campaigns. Unlike other contributions, these candidate contributions are not subject to any limits. They must, however, be reported.

Using the personal funds of the candidate - FEC.gov​

What cracks me up the most is what sycophants you rightards are. This isn’t that big of a deal. If he’s found guilty of violating campaign finance laws, he’s facing a fine. It happens all the time. Y’all are circling the wagon over something as trivial as this does nothing other than to expose what cock holsters you are for him.

Poor little retard, it wasn't a valid campaign expense, that's why campaign funds weren't used. Of course you're free to pretend otherwise in your little retard world. It doesn't make it so. LMAO

.

You dumbfuck, it matters not if campaign funds were used or not. Paying off Stormy to not talk about having an affair was a benefit to his campaign and intended to influence the election. That exposes those funds to be reported to the FEC.

Not if there was a dual purpose, like protecting his family. That would make it an illegitimate campaign expense. So run along retard, I think the short bus is waiting for ya. LMAO

.

If that were true, you’d post the supporting law.

 

[OKTexas]

That's why I said it was a short term personal loan to Trump, not to his campaign. Are you having problems reading simple english tonight?

.

It was not reported and was for the purpose of benefiting his campaign.

That's appears to be the position of knuckledraggers with TDS. The law says, if there was a personal benefit, it can't be a legitimate campaign expense. Deal with it.

.

It was a benefit to his campaign. It was for the purpose of influencing the election.

Give it up little retard, there was a dual benefit, so it couldn't be a valid campaign expense.

.

It matters not if he personally benefited from paying off Stormy. If it was a benefit to his campaign and intended to influence the election, and it was, it was a campaign contribution...

(8)(A) The term "contribution" includes—
(i) any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office; or

[USC03] 52 USC Ch. 301: FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS​

Poor little retard, you're concentrating on how money can legally flow into a campaign, what you need to be looking at is the ways it can legally be spent. Typical regressive always looking a shit in a ass backwards manner. But that's OK, you're great entertainment.

.

 

[JimH52]

I'm not sure why, but it seems the Democrats think that paying off a woman to be quiet about a scandal is somehow illegal. Well, it isn't.

Meanwhile, I'm wondering what any of this has to do with collusion with Russia...

Read my lips.....Cohen said that he was ordered by the man that you call president to make the payment which was a FELON.

Your so called president is an unindicted co-conspirator. But it won't stop there. There are other charges looming on the horizon....like

Treason
Conspiracy against the United States
Money Laundering
Bank Fraud
Blackmail
Witness Tampering

And the list will go on. The Republican party will continue to hump trumps leg until they become the modern day Whig Party.

 

[joaquinmiller]

As predicted, Russia! was just a lie to fabricate something to get Trump because he beat their Queen.

Show me the man, I'll find you a crime. Works in every banana republic. Welcome to post-constitutional America.

.

"Lock her up!"

Banana Republicans. Do they come any other way?

 

[Weatherman2020]

I'm not sure why, but it seems the Democrats think that paying off a woman to be quiet about a scandal is somehow illegal. Well, it isn't.

Meanwhile, I'm wondering what any of this has to do with collusion with Russia...

Read my lips.....Cohen said that he was ordered by the man that you call president to make the payment which was a FELON.

Your so called president is an unindicted co-conspirator. But it won't stop there. There are other charges looming on the horizon....like

Treason
Conspiracy against the United States
Money Laundering
Bank Fraud
Blackmail
Witness Tampering

And the list will go on. The Republican party will continue to hump trumps leg until they become the modern day Whig Party.

That song got boring two years ago, try a new one.

 

[Faun]

It was not reported and was for the purpose of benefiting his campaign.

That's appears to be the position of knuckledraggers with TDS. The law says, if there was a personal benefit, it can't be a legitimate campaign expense. Deal with it.

.

It was a benefit to his campaign. It was for the purpose of influencing the election.

Give it up little retard, there was a dual benefit, so it couldn't be a valid campaign expense.

.

It matters not if he personally benefited from paying off Stormy. If it was a benefit to his campaign and intended to influence the election, and it was, it was a campaign contribution...

(8)(A) The term "contribution" includes—
(i) any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office; or

[USC03] 52 USC Ch. 301: FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS​

Poor little retard, you're concentrating on how money can legally flow into a campaign, what you need to be looking at is the ways it can legally be spent. Typical regressive always looking a shit in a ass backwards manner. But that's OK, you're great entertainment.

.

LOLOL

You poor, demented, conservative. Too stupid to comprehend “anything of value” for the purpose of “influencing any election” renders that a contribution. And contributions must be reported.

anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office

 

[mudwhistle]

Poor little retard, it wasn't a valid campaign expense, that's why campaign funds weren't used. Of course you're free to pretend otherwise in your little retard world. It doesn't make it so. LMAO

.

You dumbfuck, it matters not if campaign funds were used or not. Paying off Stormy to not talk about having an affair was a benefit to his campaign and intended to influence the election. That exposes those funds to be reported to the FEC.

Repeating that lie over and over doesn't make it true.

If Hillary paid journalists to release negative stories about Trump in a publication, that is an attempt to influence the election. Russians flooding the internet with negative fake news articles is an attempt to influence the election. 300 different liberal publications releasing negative stories about Trump is an attempt to influence the the election.

Having a hooker sign an NDA doesn't influence Jack squat.

Imbecile... I posted the law.

Have a Liberal explain it to ya.

Liar.
The statute doesn't exist.

LOLOL

I even posted the link to FEC.gov. You should contact them and tell them they’ve got the law wrong.

Didn't see it......sorry.

 

[Olde Europe]

At worst, he’s facing a fine. Who knows why these cockholsters are so eager to line up on their knees?

I think you are wrong on that.

A violation of campaign finance law is only a crime punishable by imprisonment, as opposed to a civil offense punishable only by fine, if an individual’s violation of the restrictions was knowing and willful. As explained in the Department of Justice manual, Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses, federal campaign finance law violations “become potential crimes when they are committed knowingly and willfully, that is, by an offender who knew what the law forbade and violated it notwithstanding that knowledge.” That’s an important qualification to keep in mind. It means that knowledge of the law is, in some sense, an excuse or get-out-of-jail free card in this arena. And it is prosecutors who would have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant acted with this state of mind.​

Now, if you put the whole thing together, in particular Cohen's confession (under oath and under penalty of perjury) that the purpose of the payments was to influence the election, the non-reporting, and the elaborate scheme to hide the true purpose of the payments, altogether indicating that they knew exactly they're running afoul of campaign finance laws, and did it anyway, there's some prison time lurking ahead.

And let's not get into a variety of conspiracies to violate campaign finance laws that also circle around all this.

 

[OKTexas]

Edwards problem is he used campaign money to make the payoff, which is illegal. If there was a personal benefit, it's not a legitimate campaign expense. Trump gained a personal benefit, so it can't legally be a campaign expense. If it wasn't a legal campaign expense and wasn't paid with campaign money, there is no violation of campaign finance law.

.

Trump’s lawyer pled guilty to campaign finance violations. I suppose Trump ass kissers would have us believe that he was working for Hillary?

Did he, cite the statute he plead guilty to. While your at it, explain how there was no personal benefit to Trump.

.

You can google the former.
Massive personal benefit to candidate Trump.

More importantly, this was not a campaign expenditure at all. Constitutional scholar Mark Levin has interviewed former Federal Election Commission chairman Bradley Smith repeatedly on his show over the past year, and Smith has made the point that "dual use" expenditures are not "campaign expenditures" under the meaning of the act.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...ated_campaign_finance_laws_and_heres_why.html

This is no more a campaign expense than getting your teeth capped or a tummy tuck to improve a candidates physical appearance. It has a benefit to the campaign but the benefit is not exclusive to the campaign.

.

What reason would a former FEC chairman have to lie about it. I'll take his word over yours, thank you very much.

.

 

[Faun]

At worst, he’s facing a fine. Who knows why these cockholsters are so eager to line up on their knees?

I think you are wrong on that.

A violation of campaign finance law is only a crime punishable by imprisonment, as opposed to a civil offense punishable only by fine, if an individual’s violation of the restrictions was knowing and willful. As explained in the Department of Justice manual, Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses, federal campaign finance law violations “become potential crimes when they are committed knowingly and willfully, that is, by an offender who knew what the law forbade and violated it notwithstanding that knowledge.” That’s an important qualification to keep in mind. It means that knowledge of the law is, in some sense, an excuse or get-out-of-jail free card in this arena. And it is prosecutors who would have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant acted with this state of mind.​

Now, if you put the whole thing together, in particular Cohen's confession (under oath and under penalty of perjury) that the purpose of the payments was to influence the election, the non-reporting, and the elaborate scheme to hide the true purpose of the payments, altogether indicating that they knew exactly they're running afoul of campaign finance laws, and did it anyway, there's some prison time lurking ahead.

And let's not get into a variety of conspiracies to violate campaign finance laws that also circle around all this.

Then why was Obama fined and not imprisoned for violating campaign finance laws?

 

[deanrd]

I'm not sure why, but it seems the Democrats think that paying off a woman to be quiet about a scandal is somehow illegal. Well, it isn't.

Meanwhile, I'm wondering what any of this has to do with collusion with Russia...

It’s not ok when it’s a violation of election law

If Hillary did this you’d be in melt down

Now be quiet. You sound stupid

Its not a violation, legal experts and even the former head of the Federal Election Commission say so. Tissue? lmao!

When this boomerangs on the left, you might want to wear your rubber boots. The leftist tears are going to run deep....

I predict they will turn on Mueller like a pack of rabid dogs and conjure up conspiracy theories about how Mueller was secretly working with Trump all along.

LMAO Yup. Just as soon as his report shows not sign of collusion he will immediately be branded as working with Trump.

These lefty loons are laughable.

Trump publicly asked Russia for their help during the campaign that’s collusion.
Trumps son campaign manager and son-in-law met with the Russians to get dirt on Hillary to change the election that’s collusion.
Trumps campaign manager was paid by the Russians to change the Republican Party platform that’s collusion.

He’s done all the stuff right in ******* front of your faces. What is wrong with you people ? He never even tried to hide it just deny it and you guys are falling for it.

 

[g5000]

At worst, he’s facing a fine. Who knows why these cockholsters are so eager to line up on their knees?

I think you are wrong on that.

A violation of campaign finance law is only a crime punishable by imprisonment, as opposed to a civil offense punishable only by fine, if an individual’s violation of the restrictions was knowing and willful. As explained in the Department of Justice manual, Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses, federal campaign finance law violations “become potential crimes when they are committed knowingly and willfully, that is, by an offender who knew what the law forbade and violated it notwithstanding that knowledge.” That’s an important qualification to keep in mind. It means that knowledge of the law is, in some sense, an excuse or get-out-of-jail free card in this arena. And it is prosecutors who would have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant acted with this state of mind.​

Now, if you put the whole thing together, in particular Cohen's confession (under oath and under penalty of perjury) that the purpose of the payments was to influence the election, the non-reporting, and the elaborate scheme to hide the true purpose of the payments, altogether indicating that they knew exactly they're running afoul of campaign finance laws, and did it anyway, there's some prison time lurking ahead.

And let's not get into a variety of conspiracies to violate campaign finance laws that also circle around all this.

Then why was Obama fined and not imprisoned for violating campaign finance laws?

Obama did not personally order the violation.

Trump did.

 

[jon_berzerk]

It is not a campaign violation. You will never see any charges filed against Trump for this action. It is absurd. Trump is in the clear on this one. He might have a slew of other problems, but paying off a porn star isn't one of them.

Michael Cohen plead guilty to a FELONY campaign law violation... which Trump is on tape with him making the arrangements for the payments. That's conspiracy.

conspiracy

A plea deal is not proof of anything, moron. It's a deliberate attempt by Mueller to do an end around proof.

a plea deal can not be used in court

they are never adjudicated

a plea deal can not be used in court

they are never adjudicated

Facepalm.

They are adjudicated, dope. When a judge asks you, " how do you plead?" After reading the charges , the defendent answers and the judge signs off. Done.

Otherwise, what's the point of pleading before a judge?

sorry pal plea deals are not usable in court

so his phony plea wont go anywhere

shout - stomp your feet and hoild your breath all you want

but this will never be used against Trump

 

[Faun]

At worst, he’s facing a fine. Who knows why these cockholsters are so eager to line up on their knees?

I think you are wrong on that.

A violation of campaign finance law is only a crime punishable by imprisonment, as opposed to a civil offense punishable only by fine, if an individual’s violation of the restrictions was knowing and willful. As explained in the Department of Justice manual, Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses, federal campaign finance law violations “become potential crimes when they are committed knowingly and willfully, that is, by an offender who knew what the law forbade and violated it notwithstanding that knowledge.” That’s an important qualification to keep in mind. It means that knowledge of the law is, in some sense, an excuse or get-out-of-jail free card in this arena. And it is prosecutors who would have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant acted with this state of mind.​

Now, if you put the whole thing together, in particular Cohen's confession (under oath and under penalty of perjury) that the purpose of the payments was to influence the election, the non-reporting, and the elaborate scheme to hide the true purpose of the payments, altogether indicating that they knew exactly they're running afoul of campaign finance laws, and did it anyway, there's some prison time lurking ahead.

And let's not get into a variety of conspiracies to violate campaign finance laws that also circle around all this.

Then why was Obama fined and not imprisoned for violating campaign finance laws?

Obama did not personally order the violation.

Trump did.

The candidate is ultimately responsible for their own campaign, regardless of who orders what. Furthermore, there’s zero evidence that Trump ordered Cohen to do anything illegal. According to Cohen, trump directed him to silence Daniels with the payoff. That’s not illegal.

 

[skews13]

I'm not sure why, but it seems the Democrats think that paying off a woman to be quiet about a scandal is somehow illegal. Well, it isn't.

Meanwhile, I'm wondering what any of this has to do with collusion with Russia...

So a federal judge allowed Cohen to plea guilty to a non crime.

Riiiggghhhttt.

 

[Olde Europe]

Then why was Obama fined and not imprisoned for violating campaign finance laws?

As far as I've seen these were mere clerical errors, blown deadlines, or reporting typos, eff ups occurring in every Presidential election, not an elaborate conspiracy to hide contributions way above the limits while avoiding reporting requirements altogether, and to do so knowingly and willfully.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

At worst, he’s facing a fine. Who knows why these cockholsters are so eager to line up on their knees?

I think you are wrong on that.

A violation of campaign finance law is only a crime punishable by imprisonment, as opposed to a civil offense punishable only by fine, if an individual’s violation of the restrictions was knowing and willful. As explained in the Department of Justice manual, Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses, federal campaign finance law violations “become potential crimes when they are committed knowingly and willfully, that is, by an offender who knew what the law forbade and violated it notwithstanding that knowledge.” That’s an important qualification to keep in mind. It means that knowledge of the law is, in some sense, an excuse or get-out-of-jail free card in this arena. And it is prosecutors who would have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant acted with this state of mind.​

Now, if you put the whole thing together, in particular Cohen's confession (under oath and under penalty of perjury) that the purpose of the payments was to influence the election, the non-reporting, and the elaborate scheme to hide the true purpose of the payments, altogether indicating that they knew exactly they're running afoul of campaign finance laws, and did it anyway, there's some prison time lurking ahead.

And let's not get into a variety of conspiracies to violate campaign finance laws that also circle around all this.

Then why was Obama fined and not imprisoned for violating campaign finance laws?

Obama did not personally order the violation.

Trump did.

The candidate is ultimately responsible for their own campaign, regardless of who orders what. Furthermore, there’s zero evidence that Trump ordered Cohen to do anything illegal. According to Cohen, trump directed him to silence Daniels with the payoff. That’s not illegal.

There is no comparison between the violations. One the data was reported later than the 48 hour window that was required, the other it was never reported and was in fact hidden.

 

[Olde Europe]

Furthermore, there’s zero evidence that Trump ordered Cohen to do anything illegal. According to Cohen, trump directed him to silence Daniels with the payoff. That’s not illegal.

How do you know there is zero evidence? SDNY raided Cohen's office, and have near everything, including tapes.

Moreover, if the purpose of the payment is to influence the election, that's a campaign contribution by Cohen (Clifford) and A.M.I. (McDougal), exceeding limits, and concealed / not reported.

Did you read the article I linked?

 

[Faun]

Then why was Obama fined and not imprisoned for violating campaign finance laws?

As far as I've seen these were mere clerical errors, blown deadlines, or reporting typos, eff ups occurring in every Presidential election, not an elaborate conspiracy to hide contributions way above the limits while avoiding reporting requirements altogether, and to do so knowingly and willfully.

So? They’re still violations of campaign finance laws. Obama was fined and not imprisoned — which goes to show that prison is not the only penalty for violating campaign finance laws.

 

[mudwhistle]

I'm not sure why, but it seems the Democrats think that paying off a woman to be quiet about a scandal is somehow illegal. Well, it isn't.

Meanwhile, I'm wondering what any of this has to do with collusion with Russia...

Obama paid $2 million to have his college transcripts and all of his records sealed.
Isn't that influencing an election?????