Guliani admits Trump lied about paying off stormy Daniels.

originally posted by: Agit8dChop

He claims it wasn’t breaking election law, but it obviously was.

''that money was not campaign money, no campaign finance violation''

So Trump paid back $130,000 from his personal bank accounts to the law-firm to Stormy Daniels

How is it breaking the law?

Because there is a campaign finance rule that says you can't get around it by using personal funds, and that during a campaign even personal funds used are to be counted as campaign funds....

a reply to: olaru12

Ooh, a different strategy! You usually go with #9...

Hmmm... I'm tempted to counter with a 6, but I think I'll instead go with #12 as it suits me.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Agit8dChop

He claims it wasn’t breaking election law, but it obviously was.

''that money was not campaign money, no campaign finance violation''

So Trump paid back $130,000 from his personal bank accounts to the law-firm to Stormy Daniels

How is it breaking the law?

Because there is a campaign finance rule that says you can't get around it by using personal funds, and that during a campaign even personal funds used are to be counted as campaign funds....

By those standards, you're saying any candidate who pays a lawyer for legal service must report every cent plus the reason for the expense, which is not what the law has ever required in the past. Trump has paid people to make them go away long before he ran for president, so it is sketchy to argue that this was a situation unique to his campaign.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Agit8dChop

He claims it wasn’t breaking election law, but it obviously was.

''that money was not campaign money, no campaign finance violation''

So Trump paid back $130,000 from his personal bank accounts to the law-firm to Stormy Daniels

How is it breaking the law?

Because there is a campaign finance rule that says you can't get around it by using personal funds, and that during a campaign even personal funds used are to be counted as campaign funds....

By those standards, you're saying any candidate who pays a lawyer for legal service must report every cent plus the reason for the expense, which is not what the law has ever required in the past. Trump has paid people to make them go away long before he ran for president, so it is sketchy to argue that this was a situation unique to his campaign.

I'm not the one who made up the rule, so while I can understand you taking issue with it, it is what it is. In this case, when he paid the 130k back to Cohen during the campaign the money was 'flavored' as campaign funds because of the timing of it.

a reply to: Wayfarer

I know you didn't make it up, but it is a new, magically invented interpretation one side is calling for in this case. It isn't, however, codified in black and white as some are saying, it's an awkward interpretation and it would require a court to set precedence for it to be interpreted in that manner. That precedence isn't likely to hold up to scrutiny, all things considered.

To make it clear, I'm not arguing the campaign finance rule, I'm saying there's no way this is going to legally be considered part of his campaign finances. It was a personal matter of expenses, not part of his campaign any more than Bernie Sander's vacation house purchase or Hillary Clinton's book contract were part of their campaigns. Trump bought a commodity: a prostitute, and a service: discretion, for his own personal entertainment, period.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Wayfarer

I know you didn't make it up, but it is a new, magically invented interpretation one side is calling for in this case. It isn't, however, codified in black and white as some are saying, it's an awkward interpretation and it would require a court to set precedence for it to be interpreted in that manner. That precedence isn't likely to hold up to scrutiny, all things considered.

I am pretty sure that is for the FEC to interpret and NOT the fbi or anyone on muellers team.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Wayfarer

I know you didn't make it up, but it is a new, magically invented interpretation one side is calling for in this case. It isn't, however, codified in black and white as some are saying, it's an awkward interpretation and it would require a court to set precedence for it to be interpreted in that manner. That precedence isn't likely to hold up to scrutiny, all things considered.

I think normally you'r feelings are pretty well founded, but that the specificity of the occurrence (that the money was used while Trump was campaigning for President) dictated the unique rules that he's now being assailed upon by. You could make the argument I suppose that there should be some class of expenses that can remain outside of the purview of the campaign while a candidate is campaigning, but I would imagine they were likely debated as the rule was being made and found to not be weighty enough to justify an exception.

This has NOTHING TO DO WITH SEX.

Neither did the whole Clinton/Lewinsky imbroglio, but when all was said and done, that's not how the majority of the country saw it.

Face it ... you guys go after Trump and that's what most people will see -- you're impeaching a president over sex he had ... more than a decade before he ever ran for office.

At least when Congress went after Clinton, they picked a fight over sex he had in the Oval Office!

Good luck with public opinion.

a reply to: Wayfarer

Cohen is not in trumps campaign.
He is his personal lawyer.
That fact actually matters.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Wayfarer

Cohen is not in trumps campaign.
He is his personal lawyer.
That fact actually matters.

Correct, but the 130k 'reimbursement' that Gulliani admitted on national television last night to did in fact come from Trump, while he was running for President.

a reply to: Wayfarer

Alright, partisan flexing and posturing aside for a moment, it's a valid situation that the FEC needs to take a look, BUT there is no slam dunk here. The OP is discussing this as if is so crystal clear that it stands utterly naked before established law. It doesn't. There are four possible outcomes here and the "OMG, it's a blatent violation of law and a felony is gonna be levied" is the least likely outcome of the 4.
1. No violation of the FEC law is found to have occurred.
2. We see a split decision on whether it was or wasn't in violation of the law and this remains a huge bickerfest through at least 2020, even 2024, but fails to reach a decisive conclusion.
3. It is determined that the spirit of the law was violated, but not the law directly and it results in changes to the law to solidify it moving forward, but little more than a partisan rebuke stems from it.
4. Precedent is set ruling this a direct and intentional violation of the law and Trump ends up impeached or at the very least censured.

Of those, 4 is the least likely purely because it involves precedent and open a huge can of worms for past campaigns and future campaigns. 2 is the most likely outcome, and I say that not because I believe the law was violated but because we're dealing with a side that refuses to take "no" for an answer and is deadset on throwing a never ending tantrum against this administration because they have failed to get their way.

This has been said before, but it bears repeating, I don't think the Democrats are going to like the table they've set for the next Democrat president. They've laid in a hell of a precedent over the past 18 months and if they think carrying this never ending hissy fit all the way to the finish line, be it 2020 or 2024 or beyond if Trump's successor is not a Democrat, won't have massive repercussions down the road, then they're smoking something very strong and very halucinagenic.

An interesting comment from Stormy Daniels on twitter -

Apparently she is not paying her lawyer. Someone else is.

Sara A. Carter
‏Verified account @SaraCarterDC

Sara A. Carter Retweeted Brit Hume

Wonder if he’s doing his work for Stormy pro-bono? Nah, begs the question - whose paying his legal fees? That should be an interesting find.

Whats the count on how many lies Trump has been caught telling, it is so hard to keep track.

I wonder when too much lies is enough for his supporters and how can they still believe him when he states no collusion? I do not know if there was collusion but the amount of lies this man tells and the fact that he vehemently denies it, makes me think there is something to it.

a reply to: heartbreakkid

After 8 years of Obama we have a lot of room before Trump starts bumping against the previously set line.

This doesn't smell right.

Giuliani may have deliberately revealed this just to hurt Trump
Giuliani is a deep state actor and may have been doing this to further their agenda. Trump likely is being double-crossed by his old friend.

Or is he senile to be so stupid, I doubt it.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Wayfarer

Cohen is not in trumps campaign.
He is his personal lawyer.
That fact actually matters.

Correct, but the 130k 'reimbursement' that Gulliani admitted on national television last night to did in fact come from Trump, while he was running for President.

And???
CFR says its NOT a contribution
Look up the definition of contribution