by Queequeg 61 Replies latest social current
Trump's payment to Stormy Daniels was from his personal account. The monies paid did not come from Trumps election campaign account. Therefor there is no offense. It has only been presented by media advocates (formerly known as "journalists") as to be a violation of campaign fund violations.
Politicians across the U.S. have paid people off not to reveal the skeletons in their closet. It's only against the law if campaign funds are used.
1.) It doesn't have to come from a campaign account for it to be illegal. It just has to be "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" that is over $2,000 and/or is not reported. Trump's reimbursement to Cohen breaks this in both regards.
2.) Trump falsified his Financial Disclosure Form when he took office and failed to report that he owed Michael Cohen $130,000.
What do you think the punishment for Trump falsifying a Public Financial Disclosure Form (a felony) should be?
A minor fine, same as Obama.
It doesn't have to come from a campaign account for it to be illegal. It just has to be "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" that is over $2,000 and/or is not reported. Trump's reimbursement to Cohen breaks this in both regards.
This is incorrect. Just a little tiny bit of critical thought and you might see why. Everything “influences” an election. The entire MSM provides loads more “influence” (spending millions to do so). Are those “in-kind” contributions?
Again, reference the former FEC chairman Bradley Smith. To be a campaign contribution, it must be something that can ONLY arise from a campaign obligation. Stuff like renting an office space, printing flyers, etc. Politicians, when first running for office, often enter into non-disclosure agreements and settlements for all sorts of things. This is NOT illegal. You think it is because you are drinking the coolaid.
Not that I am a fan of Fox News... but in this case they have the most direct and concise clip of this issue. This is a former FEC chairman for goodness sakes. And if you don’t like this source, fine. Just search his name on YouTube and you will find other outlets with the same result.
Thank you for posting the video. I found it very informative. And I would agree with that Trump would be in the clear if it weren't for two major factors:
1.) We know there are recordings that show these donations were made with the specific intent to influence the election. This is from Michael Cohen's charging document, "Cohen deceived the voting public by hiding alleged facts that he believed would have had a substantial effect on the election, after making the payment to [Daniels], and after [Trump] was elected President, Cohen privately bragged to friends and reporters, including in recorded conversations, that he had made the payment to spare [Trump] from damaging press and embarrassment.”
2.) When Trump falsified his Financial Disclosure Form it was both a.) illegal in its own right and b.) demonstrated a consciousness of guilt. The reason Trump was hiding the payments is because he knew the unreported payments made via Cohen and American Media were illegal.
Keeping with the tooth analogy provided by the former FEC chairman, if someone paid $100k for you to get dental work done while you're running for office - that, by itself, may not be a campaign finance violation. However, if the person explicitly says "I'm doing this to help you win the election" and you don't report it as a campaign expenditure and you go out of your way to falsify your Financial Disclosure Form - then prosecutors are going to have a slam dunk case against you. This is the position Trump is presently in. And is also why they were able to slap a campaign felony charge on Michael Cohen.
1.) We know there are recordings that show these donations were made with the specific intent to influence the election. This is from Michael Cohen's charging document, "Cohen deceived the voting public by hiding alleged facts that he believed would have had a substantial effect on the election, after making the payment to [Daniels], and after [Trump] was elected President, Cohen privately bragged to friends and reporters, including in recorded conversations, that he had made the payment to spare [Trump] from damaging press and embarrassment.”
I’m sorry, but if you listened to the former FEC chairman, you must not have understood. Intent doesn’t matter here. For it to be considered a campaign contribution, the expense must *arise directly from the campaign*. (See time marker 3:15 in the video). That is the objective measure used by the FEC. Toothpaste wouldn’t arise from the campaign, even if you started purchasing really expensive extra whitening kind to help “influence” your chances (you really “intend” for it to help). In other words, if it arises from your personal obligations (like sleeping with a hooker), then solve it from your personal finances. It could help the election, yes. You might *intend* for it to help. It doesn’t matter.
Another way to look at it: if you think that this was a campaign expenditure, then it would REQUIRE Trump to pay with campaign funds. Are you willing to keep going with that line?
2.) When Trump falsified his Financial Disclosure Form it was both a.) illegal in its own right and b.) demonstrated a consciousness of guilt. The reason Trump was hiding the payments is because he knew the unreported payments made via Cohen and American Media were illegal.
He didn’t falsify the form. The expenditures should have been paid from his personal resources, as this was not an obligation that arose out of the campaign directly. The event in question preceded the candidacy. And he can enter into a non disclosure agreement regarding that event, even if it helps his election chances, even if he intends it to, without it being a campaign expense. He would be in trouble IF he used campaign funds. But he didn’t do that.
Keeping with the tooth analogy provided by the former FEC chairman, if someone paid $100k for you to get dental work done while you're running for office - that, by itself, may not be a campaign finance violation. However, if the person explicitly says "I'm doing this to help you win the election" and you don't report it as a campaign expenditure and you go out of your way to falsify your Financial Disclosure Form - then prosecutors are going to have a slam dunk case against you. This is the position Trump is presently in. And is also why they were able to slap a campaign felony charge on Michael Cohen.
First, your example is flawed. If you wanted it to be accurate, it would be Trump paying for his own dental work. It doesn’t matter if his lawyer pays first and the lawyer get reimbursed. It doesn’t matter if Trump routes the funds through several shell companies, back again, through the depths of hell, converted it to salt taffy, rolled in it, converted it back to cash, stuck it up a goats ass, and then finally gifted the goat to the porn star. None of this matters.
Second, this is a repeating pattern. The Democrats think they found something, make a big fuss, and then as time passes, it dies away. It has to - if they impeach over this, then it will eventually lead to a Senate trial where FEC officials, like Smith, are bound to testify.
Mmm, the facts do not matter. The left has decided what should be accepted as facts including the leftist news media. Save your breath. These folks will believe what they are programmed to believe by their sponsors. CL has his/her mind made up.
@minimus: Orange man bad.
Thank you again MeanMrMustard for taking the time to reply. I noticed there seems to be a couple of things your confusing.
1.) The FEC only deals with Civil Cases. It does not address Criminal Cases. And even if the FEC's bar for violations was that expenditures must "arise directly from the campaign" (which actually isn't the case at all) that's NOT the metric used for criminal liabilities. Tthe criminal code very much takes a persons intent into consideration - thus the specific inclusion of the language "for the purpose of influencing the election" in the definitions of "contribution" and "expenditure".
2.) Trump's Financial Disclosure Form he signed when taking office is in regards to HIS personal finances. Not the campaigns. His deliberate exclusion of the $130,000 he owed to Michael Cohen shows he was attempting to hide the payments made through Cohen and David Pecker's corporation American media. Which, in turn, opens up a third avenue for prosecutors to pursue - conspiracy.
You can be charged with robbing a bank. But if you do it with the help of other people - (regardless of success) you can also be charged with conspiracy to rob a bank. The same is true here.
...
PS: Your inclusion of "converted to salt taffy" was brilliant. It made laugh out loud.
1.) The FEC only deals with Civil Cases. It does not address Criminal Cases.
This is true. If the FEC is after you, it’s a civil matter. They have direct jurisdiction over federal election civil matters. If the justice department is after you, then they would be seeking criminal charges. In the case of Trump, neither applies. It would be an impeachment proceeding originating from the House.
But note: any of these bodies act on the same statutes. Most campaign violations *could* be pursued criminally, but they aren’t because it is very difficult to prove intent (more on intent this below).
The FEC is the authority on how to apply the campaign finance statutes. This is why the previous video matters so much. In the event of an impeachment, the Senate would start to dig in, ask questions, review statutes, and attempt to make sense of all of this. They will inevitably come across the same language that you’ve been quoting. Obviously it can’t literally mean anything that “influences” an election. Otherwise, it would implicate every federal politician and news agency in existence, including them. This is a sure sign that the broad interpretation you have suggested is not correct. What would they do next (other than display to the American people their incompetence)? They would call the FEC and ask them how they make sense of these arcane laws.
At that point it’s going to come out that there are *other parts of the statutes*, the same ones Smith was referencing, that lead to what the FEC use as their guidelines.
And then... there you go. It will transform into a giant nothing burger when they realize if they consider this a campaign contribution, it means Trump should have paid with campaign funds. But if politicians should do that, then any politician (with all sorts of unsavory affairs) could run for office, settle their affairs with campaign funds, then simply withdraw. Not only that, but it basically means that non-disclosure agreements are illegal/useless for politicians because they have to disclose the non-disclosure agreement. Silly.
Make no mistake: I would actually love the scenario above to play out. Incredible entertainment.
And even if the FEC's bar for violations was that expenditures must "arise directly from the campaign" (which actually isn't the case at all) that's NOT the metric used for criminal liabilities.
The former FEC chairman literally said that is the metric.
The criminal code very much takes a persons intent into consideration - thus the specific inclusion of the language "for the purpose of influencing the election" in the definitions of "contribution" and "expenditure".
You are conflating intent to influence the election with intent to commit a crime. A prosecutor will consider intent to commit a crime, although some statutes don’t require intent (like disclosing classified information). On the other hand, not all expenditures that help a campaign, even though there is “intent” to “influence” the election, are campaign expenditures. The example of whitening teeth, or buying an expensive suit, or paying off a former lover, etc.
But even if there is a violation, it is very rare that it gets to a criminal level. You have to prove it was an intentional breaking of the law. That is the reason why most of these campaign violations are handled as a civil matter through the FEC, as was Obama’s offense. Go back to the video, time stamp 8:07. This exact topic is addressed.
2.) Trump's Financial Disclosure Form he signed when taking office is in regards to HIS personal finances. Not the campaigns. His deliberate exclusion of the $130,000 he owed to Michael Cohen shows he was attempting to hide the payments made through Cohen and David Pecker's corporation American media.
Right. His financial disclosure document shows income/revenue streams and debts. It would not list non-disclosure agreements. You can’t seriously expect a person to disclose a non-disclosure agreement in a public form, can you? If so, then your position effectively makes non-disclosure agreements illegal (or at least useless) for any federally elected office.
Which, in turn, opens up a third avenue for prosecutors to pursue - conspiracy.
You can be charged with robbing a bank. But if you do it with the help of other people - (regardless of success) you can also be charged with conspiracy to rob a bank. The same is true here.
Also, you can eat goat testicles. But because that isn’t a crime, you can eat goat testicles with a bunch of people and it’s still not a crime. Even if you *thought* that eating goat testicles was a crime, and therefore told no one out of shame and fear, there still is no guilt. And if a prosecutor came along and found a member of your group (a lawyer, for example) that had committed some other horrible crime, and as a plea deal, offered a reduced sentence if only he would plead guilty to eating goat testicles, to serve three years, and as part of the deal testify how horrible of a bigoted testicles eater you are... well, you still wouldn’t be in trouble. At this point you might wise up, consult a goat testicle lawyer only to find your lawyer friend plead guilty to a non-crime. You might even tweet about it out of anger and amazement.
PS: Your inclusion of "converted to salt taffy" was brilliant. It made laugh out loud.
I was trying to think what Trump might want to do in his spare time. I cleared my mind, put on some polka music, and that seemed like the logical choice.
