Paying people off to avoid a scandal is perfectly legal

[Care4all]

Because your question has nothing to do with this discussion and you are just going to try and state some conspiracy theory.

1. You folks contend that paying for an NDA to avoid embarrassment before an election, is a campaign expense, right?

2. Any entity that gives a candidate more than $2,700 in an election cycle is violating campaign finance laws, right?

3. It's been proven that sitting congress critter have used taxpayer funds to pay for NDAs far in excess of allowable campaign finance laws, WHY AREN'T YOU DEMANDING THEIR PROSECUTION???????????????

.

was it during an election cycle?

The house is in a constant election cycle, they raise money all the time. But the cycle is irrelevant, the question is, was the money spent to keep the congresscritter more electable, therefore influencing an election?

.

The answer is, yes of course it was to make the congress critter more electable.... and a damn shame that it came out of our tax dollars.

So how is it not an illegal unreported campaign contribution? Why aren't these people being prosecuted and going to jail for campaign finance violations? I mean if this type of violation is serious enough to end a presidency and congresscritter going to jail should be a done deal.

.

Who contributed to the campaign? No one. So it is not covered by Campaign finance laws OKTex....

 

[Skylar]

If paying that money is for the benefit of a political campaign, its a campaign contribution. If that payment is more than $2700, its an illegal campaign contribution.

And Trump directed Cohen to make more than $400,000 in such illegal conributions. And then Trump lied to try and cover it up.

You would have to prove that it was for the benefit of a political campaign. Stretching it that far would make ANY payment of ANY sort to one's personal attorney a campaign contribution if the person is a candidate for office. Men with lots of money are frequent targets of opportunistic women, most especially those they have had relationships with. I wouldn't be surprised if such payoffs happen to most wealthy men if they have been in a number of relationships in and out of marriage.

11 days before the election....A porn star that was going to tell the world that Trump had an affair with her while his wife Melania was pregnant......

....would have been rather disadvantageous to the campaign. Also, the affair was a decade ago. But the payment was 11 days before the election?

On sheer chance, that's ridiculously unlikely.

.

The timing was irrelevant.

Says you, citing yourself. And you're nobody.

If the payments are to benefit a political campaign, they are campaign contributions. And yes, the fact that some of these payments were made only 11 days before the election is immediately relevant. As it obliterates the 'the payments had nothing to do with the election' narrative.

As reaffirmed by the federal courts which found the payments to be criminal acts of excessive campaign contributions. Vs. you....who insist you know better.

Um, nope. You're nobody.

At least I can make a reasoned and supportable argument without resorting to ad hominem and personal insults. Do have a pleasant afternoon.

I'm simply impeaching your source with a factual review of the events. The judge, the prosecutors, the defendant all have legal standing, rights or legal authority in the matter. They have the weight of experience and knowledge about the law or the events in question.

Then there is some anonymous person on the internet with no standing, no direct experience, no legal authority, nothing.....insisting they know better.

Sorry, but you're nobody in this case. And you're just citing yourself. If you don't want me impeaching your source, offer me a better one.

 

[Skylar]

Paying money that somebody extorts from you is legal. Extortion, however, is illegal in all 50 states. I wonder why nobody is looking at women who extort money from men and/or is prosecuting them?

If paying that money is for the benefit of a political campaign, its a campaign contribution. If that payment is more than $2700, its an illegal campaign contribution.

And Trump directed Cohen to make more than $400,000 in such illegal conributions. And then Trump lied to try and cover it up.

No, it is not illegal unless it is paid for out of campaign funds. There is no evidence that such happened. The President is a multi-billionaire. He can certainly afford to pay legal fees to his personal attorney without using any money from his campaign fund.

It is illegal if it went unreported.

Hillary paid a foreign operative/spy to get Russian dirt on Trump but did not report it as campaign expenses but rather as legal fees. If she can do that with impunity then so can Trump pay whatever he wants as 'legal fees'.

Stop lying. Hillary paid an American-based firm to get dirt on Trump.

And that has nothing to do with Trump violating campaign finance laws.

Nothing at all. But distraction and naked denial are pretty much all they have left.

 

[Faun]

If paying that money is for the benefit of a political campaign, its a campaign contribution. If that payment is more than $2700, its an illegal campaign contribution.

And Trump directed Cohen to make more than $400,000 in such illegal conributions. And then Trump lied to try and cover it up.

No, it is not illegal unless it is paid for out of campaign funds. There is no evidence that such happened. The President is a multi-billionaire. He can certainly afford to pay legal fees to his personal attorney without using any money from his campaign fund.

It is illegal if it went unreported.

Hillary paid a foreign operative/spy to get Russian dirt on Trump but did not report it as campaign expenses but rather as legal fees. If she can do that with impunity then so can Trump pay whatever he wants as 'legal fees'.

Stop lying. Hillary paid an American-based firm to get dirt on Trump.

And that has nothing to do with Trump violating campaign finance laws.

Nothing at all. But distraction and naked denial are pretty much all they have left.

This is the only defense I've seen from them so far.

 

[Skylar]

No, it is not illegal unless it is paid for out of campaign funds. There is no evidence that such happened. The President is a multi-billionaire. He can certainly afford to pay legal fees to his personal attorney without using any money from his campaign fund.

It is illegal if it went unreported.

Hillary paid a foreign operative/spy to get Russian dirt on Trump but did not report it as campaign expenses but rather as legal fees. If she can do that with impunity then so can Trump pay whatever he wants as 'legal fees'.

Stop lying. Hillary paid an American-based firm to get dirt on Trump.

And that has nothing to do with Trump violating campaign finance laws.

Nothing at all. But distraction and naked denial are pretty much all they have left.

This is the only defense I've seen from them so far.

That and using imagination to try and counter facts and evidence. They lean *really* hard on that one.

Like, Brit insisting that Cohen wasn't sworn in during his plea deal....because Brit imagined it to be so. No evidence, nothing. Just....pure imagination.

 

[OKTexas]

Poor little retard, there's nothing being reported or written, that I've seen, that says Trump was aware of the In Touch interview. If he were aware, why would he pay her to not give an interview that she had already given several years before? You're the one making assumptions against logic.

.

To buy her silence for the election. You’re not very bright.

LMAO, the silence was broken 6 years earlier.

.

Which makes his choice to do it right before the election even more confusing.

Not really, no one was aware of the In Touch interview, Faun insist that's Trump and Cohen knew about it. Of course he has presented zero proof.

.

Dumbfuck, now you're flat out lying. I never insisted trump knew she went public with her story. What I actually said was it is ridiculous to assume he didn't know she went public.

But even if he didn't know she went public, he did know of the affair 10 years earlier and never once tried to silence her -- until just before his election and just after his campaign took a huge hit from the Access Hollywood tape.

You have to be completely fucked in the head to think silencing her had nothing to do with his election.

My bold
Once again you engage in pure double speak.

I never insisted trump knew she went public with her story. What I actually said was it is ridiculous to assume he didn't know she went public.

This is basically what you just said:

I never insisted trump knew, but it is ridiculous to assume he didn't know she went public.

What evidence do you have that makes it ridiculous to assume he didn't know?

.

 

[Faun]

To buy her silence for the election. You’re not very bright.

LMAO, the silence was broken 6 years earlier.

.

Which makes his choice to do it right before the election even more confusing.

Not really, no one was aware of the In Touch interview, Faun insist that's Trump and Cohen knew about it. Of course he has presented zero proof.

.

Dumbfuck, now you're flat out lying. I never insisted trump knew she went public with her story. What I actually said was it is ridiculous to assume he didn't know she went public.

But even if he didn't know she went public, he did know of the affair 10 years earlier and never once tried to silence her -- until just before his election and just after his campaign took a huge hit from the Access Hollywood tape.

You have to be completely fucked in the head to think silencing her had nothing to do with his election.

My bold
Once again you engage in pure double speak.

I never insisted trump knew she went public with her story. What I actually said was it is ridiculous to assume he didn't know she went public.

This is basically what you just said:

I never insisted trump knew, but it is ridiculous to assume he didn't know she went public.

What evidence do you have that makes it ridiculous to assume he didn't know?

.

Because she went public with her story. That doesn't mean he did know; but does mean her story was public and he could have known. There is no basis to assume he did or did not know.

And of course, he's known she knows about the affair since 2006. He waited 10 years until just before his election, and while his campaign was still reeling from the Hollywood Access tape, to silence her. He even contemplated buy the story from the National Inquirer about another affair, just so he could maintain control over that story too.

 

[Lewdog]

Cohen said payments from his own $$$ to the whores were never authorized by Trump or campaign.
Stormy Daniels Payment May Be Illegal, Even If It Came From Trump’s Lawyer

He is ON TAPE planning it.

Is he? You think the media wouldn't be all over that replaying such a clip again and again and again and again?

They are...

I am sure missing that and I am a media junkie.

Obviously you have a different definition of a media junkie than others do. I've seen it at least 100 times on the news since Cohen released the tape.

 

[OKTexas]

The NDA was executed in 2016, how could it have been considered a contribution in 2017?

.

Trump paid Cohen back starting in January 2017.

You're not making sense, the money was spent in 2016.

.

Cohen spent the money in 2016... Trump didn't start paying Cohen back, and hence breaking the campaign financing laws until 2017.

Damn, stop with the circular bullshit already. You claimed Cohen made an illegal excessive campaign contribution in 2016 and now you're saying it wasn't a violation of law until Trump started returning the money to Cohen in 2017. Is that really the story you want to stick with? LMAO

.

I never said that... Trump is the one saying HE MADE THE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION WHEN HE PAID COHEN BACK. He paid Cohen back starting with a payment in January 2017. They are two different things.

This is exactly what you said:
my bold
" With Trump trying backdate the reason for the payment from 2016, when the illegal campaign contribution was made to 2017."

.

 

[Care4all]

home

He even contemplated buy the story from the National Inquirer about another affair, just so he could maintain control over that story too.

I actually believe it is possible, trump bought the complete safe worth of stories.... this is why the AMI guy...Pecker supposedly emptied the safe of all contents from previous years of Trump's dalliances as well, a week before the election.... as being reported.....

 

[Uncensored2008]

Michael Cohen is a former Vice-President?

Did he serve under Obama? Does Biden know about this?

You rage filled Bolsheviks have no grip on reality.

"A former Vice-President and long-term employee of the Trump Organization is a lying scumbag"

Dummy.

Comrade what was Cohen charged with? I don't mean the inflammatory and slanderous plea contract from Torquemada; what was Cohen charged with?

Michael Cohen Charging Documents

Knock yourself out. Once more won't hurt - I already foresee CTE in your future.

So Comrade, FALSE STATEMENTS are some of the charges?

But, but, but that would mean he is a "lying scumbag?"



You ******* Stalinists are so easy....

I never denied he was a lying scumbag, you pinheaded ****. I said it was his primary qualification for employment in the Trump Organization - of which he was a Vice-President.

You find things "easy" because you just say stupid shit.

I find things easy because you're dumb as a ******* brick - it's why you're a Communist.

Given that Cohen is a known liar, that means he's a democrat and can't be trusted for anything he spews - kind of like you....

 

[Lewdog]

Trump paid Cohen back starting in January 2017.

You're not making sense, the money was spent in 2016.

.

Cohen spent the money in 2016... Trump didn't start paying Cohen back, and hence breaking the campaign financing laws until 2017.

Damn, stop with the circular bullshit already. You claimed Cohen made an illegal excessive campaign contribution in 2016 and now you're saying it wasn't a violation of law until Trump started returning the money to Cohen in 2017. Is that really the story you want to stick with? LMAO

.

I never said that... Trump is the one saying HE MADE THE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION WHEN HE PAID COHEN BACK. He paid Cohen back starting with a payment in January 2017. They are two different things.

This is exactly what you said:
my bold
" With Trump trying backdate the reason for the payment from 2016, when the illegal campaign contribution was made to 2017."

.

No I didn't say that. What post are you getting that from? What's the number. Quote it in a reply.

 

[OKTexas]

1. You folks contend that paying for an NDA to avoid embarrassment before an election, is a campaign expense, right?

2. Any entity that gives a candidate more than $2,700 in an election cycle is violating campaign finance laws, right?

3. It's been proven that sitting congress critter have used taxpayer funds to pay for NDAs far in excess of allowable campaign finance laws, WHY AREN'T YOU DEMANDING THEIR PROSECUTION???????????????

.

was it during an election cycle?

The house is in a constant election cycle, they raise money all the time. But the cycle is irrelevant, the question is, was the money spent to keep the congresscritter more electable, therefore influencing an election?

.

The answer is, yes of course it was to make the congress critter more electable.... and a damn shame that it came out of our tax dollars.

So how is it not an illegal unreported campaign contribution? Why aren't these people being prosecuted and going to jail for campaign finance violations? I mean if this type of violation is serious enough to end a presidency and congresscritter going to jail should be a done deal.

.

Are you still babbling about your imaginary campaign violations while ignoring the real ones?

Sigh....this is why its so hard to have a rational discussion with Trump supporters. They try and counter facts and evidence with their imagination.

Imaginary? Uncle sugar did exactly what Cohen did, kept congresscritters political reputations in tact with hush money, but the difference is the congresscritters didn't have to show it as a campaign contribution, pay back the money or even declare it as income on their taxes.

What's wrong with that picture?????????????

.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Is this where you start calling a campaign contribution an 'expense' again?

You know you can actually read an article or two on the topic and get answers to these questions in a few minutes, right?

You are a democrat, hence a ******* liar.

An NDA is not a "campaign contribution" any more than a balloon is a yacht. You Stalinists are engaging in amusing, but absurd contortions to try and craft a narrative so far outside the reality of the situation as to be unrecognizable.

{
…[R]egardless of what Cohen agreed to in a plea bargain, hush-money payments to mistresses are not really campaign expenditures. It is true that “contribution” and “expenditure” are defined in the Federal Election Campaign Act as anything “for the purpose of influencing any election,” and it may have been intended and hoped that paying hush money would serve that end. The problem is that almost anything a candidate does can be interpreted as intended to “influence an election,” from buying a good watch to make sure he gets to places on time, to getting a massage so that he feels fit for the campaign trail, to buying a new suit so that he looks good on a debate stage. Yet having campaign donors pay for personal luxuries — such as expensive watches, massages and Brooks Brothers suits — seems more like bribery than funding campaign speech.

That’s why another part of the statute defines “personal use” as any expenditure “used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.” These may not be paid with campaign funds, even though the candidate might benefit from the expenditure. Not every expense that might benefit a candidate is an obligation that exists solely because the person is a candidate.

Suppose, for example, that Trump had told his lawyers, “Look, these complaints about Trump University have no merit, but they embarrass me as a candidate. Get them settled.” Are the settlements thus “campaign expenses”? The obvious answer is no, even though the payments were intended to benefit Trump as a candidate.

If the opposite were true and they were considered campaign expenses, then not only could Trump pay them with campaign funds, but also he would be required to pay these business expenses from campaign funds. Is that what campaign donations are for?}

Former FEC Chair: Trump Hush Money Unseemly, But Not Illegal

Try again commie. This weeks HAIR ON FIRE episode has once again failed.

 

[Foxfyre]

Cohen said payments from his own $$$ to the whores were never authorized by Trump or campaign.
Stormy Daniels Payment May Be Illegal, Even If It Came From Trump’s Lawyer

He is ON TAPE planning it.

Is he? You think the media wouldn't be all over that replaying such a clip again and again and again and again?

They are...

I am sure missing that and I am a media junkie.

Obviously you have a different definition of a media junkie than others do. I've seen it at least 100 times on the news since Cohen released the tape.

Than by all means post a clip of it. If you have seen it 100 times there must be a youtube or other clip of it out there.

 

[OKTexas]

Since these funds are used to keep embarrassing situations quiet to keep a congresscritter more electable, how can they not be considered campaign contributions. Aren't they being spent to influence an election? You can't have it both ways, if Trump and Cohen are criminals, these congresscritter must be too, they're not reporting these contributions form the taxpayers.

.

Is this where you start calling a campaign contribution an 'expense' again?

You know you can actually read an article or two on the topic and get answers to these questions in a few minutes, right?

I don't want some reporters opinion, I'm asking people here. You can deflect all you want, that just demonstrates your discomfort with the prospect of admitting that payoffs for silence, aren't really campaign expenses.

.

He had ten years to pay her off. That he waited until just before an election and just after the Access Hollywood tape came out; shows it was to influence the election.

Or it shows she wasn't out shopping her story till just before the election. Cohen found out about her through a third party, she set the timing, not Cohen or Trump.

.

Well that's certainly not true as she was "shopping" her story out in 2011.

To an outlet that chose not to publish it, only the reporter and a few staff even knew it existed.

.

 

[Uncensored2008]

A candidate is a politician.

Just as a democrat is a ******* liar.

Trump is not a professional politician. He threatens the corrupt status quo, which is why pseudo republicans join with you Communists in attacking him.


You can't be a candidate and not be a politician, you can't be a democrat and not be a ******* liar, but you may not have had decades of experience in either.

 

[candycorn]

[
Nope, it’s not the same thing. Hillary paid an American firm for their services. People from Trump’s campaign are being investigated for direct links to foreign nationals who hacked the election.

Really ******* liar?

All I see from the Inquisition are investigations of bank fraud....

Wasn’t it a good thing that Paul Manafort’s wrongdoing was brought to light by Mueller? You do believe in law and order…don’t you asshole?

 

[Lewdog]

He is ON TAPE planning it.

Is he? You think the media wouldn't be all over that replaying such a clip again and again and again and again?

They are...

I am sure missing that and I am a media junkie.

Obviously you have a different definition of a media junkie than others do. I've seen it at least 100 times on the news since Cohen released the tape.

Than by all means post a clip of it. If you have seen it 100 times there must be a youtube or other clip of it out there.

 

[candycorn]

A candidate is a politician.

Just as a democrat is a ******* liar.

Trump is not a professional politician. He threatens the corrupt status quo, which is why pseudo republicans join with you Communists in attacking him.


You can't be a candidate and not be a politician, you can't be a democrat and not be a ******* liar, but you may not have had decades of experience in either.

3 years ago Trump was not a republican, you idiot.