It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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?
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....
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.
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.
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.
This has NOTHING TO DO WITH SEX.
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Wayfarer
Cohen is not in trumps campaign.
He is his personal lawyer.
That fact actually matters.
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.
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.