It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
, as the rest of the theory is still relevant for discussion.
own all the pool paintings
originally posted by: RelSciHistItSufi
The problem with the response is that you don't identify which either of them do own, and who owns the others.
Though his collection stands at 792 works
only about 10 percent is displayed at any one time in the house
he has donated more than 1300 pieces
prefers to buy from the same artists once he establishes that he likes their work
Despite the media hype it is not a campaign contribution for a candidate to instruct his attorney to pay-off a nuisance claim to avoid any issues or embarrassment. It is not a campaign donation for Donald Trump to reimburse his attorney for paying the claim.
♦The issue of the Cohen payment being an “in kind” campaign contribution is the bottom line question which underpins the charge.
There is no FEC rule or law that says a candidate cannot pay-off an accuser to avoid further issues, a nuisance claim. Paying an accuser to avoid controversy or embarrassment, is no different than a candidate buying an American made car -with personal funds- to gain the beneficial public optics of not driving a foreign car. Neither expense example makes the payment an aspect of am “in kind” campaign contribution.
There is no connected claim that President Trump used campaign funds to repay his attorney for eliminating the nuisance claim. President Trump, a businessman, used his own business income to repay his attorney; an attorney on a monthly retainer.
The entire charge of Cohen making a campaign contribution, or campaign finance violation, is a manufactured claim, made only by the SDNY, for political benefit.