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.

 

Is violating campaign finance laws reason for impeachment

page: 5
18
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2018 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth






Dude, he paid a blackmailing whore to keep her mouth shut (for once) just before the election, presumably because he knew whether it was true or false the media would run with it 24/7 to try and swing the election to Hillary.


No matter how many times you call her a whore, that's exactly the motivation that ties this to the Trump Campaign.

Don't believe me? Ask Kellyanne Conway's husband!



George Conway



@gtconway3d
Follow
Follow @gtconway3d

More
www.fec.gov...

Not considered the candidate's personal funds

Personal gifts and loans

If any person, including a relative or friend of the candidate, gives or loans the candidate money “for the purpose of influencing any election for federal office,” the funds are not considered personal funds of the candidate even if they are given to the candidate directly. Instead, the gift or loan is considered a contribution from the donor to the campaign, subject to the per-election limit and reportable by the campaign. This is true even if the candidate uses the funds for personal living expenses while campaigning.




Whether or not Trump paid Cohen back, the motive behind paying Stormy Daniels off was to influence the election.


edit on 3-5-2018 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 3 2018 @ 09:35 PM
link   
Campaign finance laws, conflict of interest laws, collusion with Russia, a history of bribing politicians, purposefully neglecting his duty to run the government by appointing unqualified and massively partisan people to destroy government agencies, many of whom are criminals, Simony, not to mention using the Presidency to funnel government money to his own businesses.

Why would anyone NOT think he should be impeached?



posted on May, 3 2018 @ 11:17 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah
a reply to: network dude
a reply to: UKTruth

WTH are you all aiming your words at me? I literally only answered the OP's main question. And not only that, I simply quoted word for word a tweet from yesterday from a sitting member of the House of Representatives. Why a sitting member of the House of Representatives instead of giving my personal opinion? Because any presidential impeachment legally has to start in the House of Representatives!

In other words, none of our opinions matter on this because not one of us has any say in it. But the sitting members of the House of Representatives do have a say in it because they're literally the ones who would be initiating the impeachment process. And this Representative gave the 4 possible reasons why this situation could lead to impeachment and/or criminal charges. Is everybody getting it now?

And for another tip on the legal process, everyone should also look at the actual quotes from sitting US Senators on the issue. Because unlike us internet posters, unlike tv commentators, and unlike anyone else, the members of the US Senate are the only ones who would be holding the actual impeachment trial if the House of Representatives impeached him over this.

So if people here actually want to get an idea of how a potential impeachment over this issue would play out, it's important to look into the words & conclusions coming from the people who'd actually be involved in the impeachment process. Does my post make sense now?

ETA: LOL Ok, so I'm admittedly a bit grumpy right now. The teams I rooted for went 0-2 in the NBA playoffs tonight & my patience is thin for people ignoring the main point here in order to attack the messenger. I don't think I've given my personal opinion on a possible Trump impeachment since their push to get him removed based on the 25th Amendment (last summer? or before that?). So it's odd & annoying that people are trying to act like they know how I feel about the issue when I've deliberately stayed out of most of this impeachment talk.
edit on 3-5-2018 by enlightenedservant because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2018 @ 04:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: UKTruth






Dude, he paid a blackmailing whore to keep her mouth shut (for once) just before the election, presumably because he knew whether it was true or false the media would run with it 24/7 to try and swing the election to Hillary.


No matter how many times you call her a whore, that's exactly the motivation that ties this to the Trump Campaign.

Don't believe me? Ask Kellyanne Conway's husband!



George Conway



@gtconway3d
Follow
Follow @gtconway3d

More
www.fec.gov...

Not considered the candidate's personal funds

Personal gifts and loans

If any person, including a relative or friend of the candidate, gives or loans the candidate money “for the purpose of influencing any election for federal office,” the funds are not considered personal funds of the candidate even if they are given to the candidate directly. Instead, the gift or loan is considered a contribution from the donor to the campaign, subject to the per-election limit and reportable by the campaign. This is true even if the candidate uses the funds for personal living expenses while campaigning.




Whether or not Trump paid Cohen back, the motive behind paying Stormy Daniels off was to influence the election.



no, it was to NOT influence the election.



posted on May, 4 2018 @ 05:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
So as we have been told over and over again, the Stormy Daniels situation is a big deal.

Not because trump had sex with her 10 years before being in office, but because his payment to her may have violated campaign finance laws.

I am all for investigating to see if any laws were broke.

My question is, how big of a deal are violating campaign finance laws?

Should he be impeached if he broke them?

Should his lawyers office have been raided over this?

Should the media be rabid in covering this?

I just wanted to see what people’s opinions were on how serious violations of campaign finance law are.



Should they be impeached? likely so but unless the masses make their voice's heard and put more pressure on their politicians than big business does then nothing will happen.

The reason the masses do not exercise their massive power is because the power of that rectangular box to distract and deceive and focus the attention of the masses on matters of no consequence.

Its ably assisted by the success of the media in segmenting various sections of the masses, vilify them and helping their govt partners get the consent of the masses to pass laws designed to help control and prosecute the segmented off section of society.



posted on May, 4 2018 @ 05:22 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

As for my response to you, when I said 'Dems", I was referring to the source of your post, which was a Twitter opinion from a Democrat who includes this in his profile intro:



Also, I don't take orders from Vladimir Putin.

twitter.com...

So... it's kind of hard to take such a seriously biased opinion seriously.



posted on May, 4 2018 @ 06:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: enlightenedservant

As for my response to you, when I said 'Dems", I was referring to the source of your post, which was a Twitter opinion from a Democrat who includes this in his profile intro:



Also, I don't take orders from Vladimir Putin.

twitter.com...

So... it's kind of hard to take such a seriously biased opinion seriously.



Did someone seriously use Ted Lieu as a source of information ? LOLOLOL


edit on 4/5/2018 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2018 @ 08:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: UKTruth






Dude, he paid a blackmailing whore to keep her mouth shut (for once) just before the election, presumably because he knew whether it was true or false the media would run with it 24/7 to try and swing the election to Hillary.


No matter how many times you call her a whore, that's exactly the motivation that ties this to the Trump Campaign.

Don't believe me? Ask Kellyanne Conway's husband!



George Conway



@gtconway3d
Follow
Follow @gtconway3d

More
www.fec.gov...

Not considered the candidate's personal funds

Personal gifts and loans

If any person, including a relative or friend of the candidate, gives or loans the candidate money “for the purpose of influencing any election for federal office,” the funds are not considered personal funds of the candidate even if they are given to the candidate directly. Instead, the gift or loan is considered a contribution from the donor to the campaign, subject to the per-election limit and reportable by the campaign. This is true even if the candidate uses the funds for personal living expenses while campaigning.




Whether or not Trump paid Cohen back, the motive behind paying Stormy Daniels off was to influence the election.



no, it was to NOT influence the election.


HAHA! Don't get trapped inside the double negatives of your upside down world, there!

An overt act, in this case a cash payoff, to suppress (true) information that would inform the voters as to a candidate's character is "influence".



posted on May, 4 2018 @ 08:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Did trumps dealings with daniels begin in the 2016 presidential cycle, or was this ongoing from trumps past?
That does actually matter with respect to the status of if it is a contribution or not.
Trump dealing with something in 2006 makes investigators attempting to pretend he just started dealing with this in 2016 for the purposes of the election look silly.



posted on May, 4 2018 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody


Did the Access Hollywood tapes matter? Did 18 plus women accusing Trump of inappropriate sexual conduct matter?

It mattered when he used it, in the debate, against Hillary, when he brought in Bill Clinton's accusers, a creative touch.

What's more important than WHEN the incident occurred, is WHEN the cover up happened, WHY it happened and HOW it happened.



posted on May, 4 2018 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

What does the access hollywood tape have to do with this, aside from you slinging more mud?

Notice you dont site anything of legal relevance for your retort. No worries your opinons are unfounded and just silly. Daniels took a lie detector test about this event in 2011, which is far outside the 2016 election cycle. Legally that actually does matter as the ongoing handling of a personal crisis has nothing to do with the presidential election.
Unless you have proof otherwise....



posted on May, 4 2018 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah
a reply to: UKTruth

Yet he's also a sitting member of the House of Representatives, which means that he literally would be one of the people impeaching Trump. Whether he, the other House Democrats, the House Republicans, or any of us are biased one way or another isn't the point. The point is that the House of Representatives are the ones who will decide whether to impeach Trump over this situation or not, which is why I posted his opinion on the matter.

This is honestly confusing me right now. Do people not realize that it's important to learn the opinions and stances of the people who would actually be judging a "case"? It's like people would rather speculate over their own opinions of what's legal or not, yet completely ignore the people who are actually going to make that decision. LOL Why do attorneys examine potential jurors before selecting them for a trial? Why do attorneys look into specific judges to see if they have conflicts of interest and should be recused from a trial before the trial begins?

If anything, you should be thanking me for giving you the potential arguments that at least one person may be making in the effort to impeach dude. This way, people can see if the potential charges hold any legal basis, and more importantly, can begin to come up with legal arguments to counter any case based on those 4 points. But I'm thinking that people didn't look that far into it; just kneejerk reactions that completely miss the point.

But whatever, do what you wish. I'm bored with this topic anyway.



posted on May, 4 2018 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody




What does the access hollywood tape have to do with this, aside from you slinging more mud?


It was information about Trump's character, that came out during the 2016 election.


Rudy Giuliani, acting as Trump's lawyer, tied the Stormy Daniels payoff to the 2016 Election, explaining the motive and the timing. So, it matters.


edit on 4-5-2018 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2018 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: shooterbrody


Rudy Giuliani, acting as Trump's lawyer, tied the Stormy Daniels payoff to the 2016 Election, explaining the motive and the timing. So, it matters.


What actually matters is what you can prove.
Or did daniels not take a polygraph about this event in 2011?
Trumps personal crisis and how he chose to deal with it has nothing to do with the election; Trump was in the process of dealing with this situation prior to the election and would have had to deal with it had he not run for office.
Trumps personal life was not required to stop because he ran for office.



posted on May, 4 2018 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody


This isn't about what I can prove. It's about what the NY FBI Office can prove. Cohen's office was raided, they have all the proof they need, I believe. That's why Judy Riuliani is wildly babbling to the press, throwing anything and everything at the wall, hoping something sticks.



posted on May, 4 2018 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

So you don't deny Trump was dealing with this LONG before the election? Because that FACT is legally relevant to the FEC who interprets the regulations you are claiming the trump campaign violated.
The daniels/cohen narrative is dead. The attempted fishing expedition is dead as well.



posted on May, 4 2018 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Sookiechacha

So you don't deny Trump was dealing with this LONG before the election? Because that FACT is legally relevant to the FEC who interprets the regulations you are claiming the trump campaign violated.
The daniels/cohen narrative is dead. The attempted fishing expedition is dead as well.


So? The payment was made at the end of the election cycle. The motive behind the payment was to silence Stormy Daniels, so as not to contribute to Trump's already tarnished sexual reputation and how he deals with women, that is, according to Giuliani.



posted on May, 4 2018 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

So?
lol
perhaps you should do a little research on what actually is a contribution and what is not




TITLE 52—VOTING AND ELECTIONS



Subtitle III—Federal Campaign Finance CHAPTER 301—FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS



SUBCHAPTER I—DISCLOSURE OF FEDERAL
CAMPAIGN FUNDS

§ 30101. Definitions When used in this Act



(8)(A) The term ‘‘contribution’’ includes—



(B) The term ‘‘contribution’’ does not include—



(xiv) any loan of money derived from an advance on a candidate’s brokerage account, credit card, home equity line of credit, or other line of credit available to the candidate, if such loan is made in accordance with applicable law and under commercially reasonable terms and if the person making such loan makes loans derived from an advance on the candidate’s brokerage account, credit card, home equity line of credit, or other line of credit in the normal course of the person’s business.

The daniels repayment from trump to cohen was a loan from cohen to trump in the normal course of the persons business and not included in the definition of contribution in the CFR.

Sorry the talking heads on tv dont tell people this, all you get from them is "it may be a violation". Well the cfr says it is not.



posted on May, 4 2018 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody


Sorry, but Cohen paid Stormy Daniels on Trump's behalf, either a gift or a loan. Now, we're being told that Trump paid Cohen back, through monthly installments of 35K. So, a loan? Either way:

www.fec.gov...

Not considered the candidate's personal funds

Personal gifts and loans

If any person, including a relative or friend of the candidate, gives or loans the candidate money “for the purpose of influencing any election for federal office,” the funds are not considered personal funds of the candidate even if they are given to the candidate directly. Instead, the gift or loan is considered a contribution from the donor to the campaign, subject to the per-election limit and reportable by the campaign. This is true even if the candidate uses the funds for personal living expenses while campaigning.



posted on May, 4 2018 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

You do understand that I quoted the CFR definition of what a contribution is?
If it is not a contribution it is not a "personal gift or loan" as you posted. It would have to be a contribution first.




top topics



 
18
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join