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.

 

"Muh Campaign Finance"

page: 1
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+8 more 
posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 01:41 PM
link   
According to law professor Bradley Smith, who previously served as Commissioner, Vice Chairman and Chairman of the Federal Election Commission, and whose work the Supreme Court cited in numerous decisions striking down campaign finance laws (including the Citizens United vs FEC case), Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to something that is a non-crime.



To the contrary, the law — following our common sense — tells us that the hush-money payments outlined by the U.S. Attorney are clearly not campaign expenditures. There is no violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act.


The prosecutors, he says, are twisting the language of campaign-finance law, specifically the part about “for the purpose of influencing the election”, while ignoring the rest. Their literal interpretation of that phrase puts every politician in violation of that law, because any expenditure, for instance Clinton’s $12,000 Armani jacket, could be described as being used for the purpose of influencing the election.

Smith says to understand the language “for the purpose of influencing the election”, we must look at it in conjunction with other parts of the statute, in particular, “the prohibition on diverting campaign funds to ‘personal use’”. The FEC calls this the “irrespective test”.

Smith says this is a crucial but obvious distinction, because one of the main differences between campaign and personal funds is that the former must be spent on the campaign, while the latter can be used to buy our $12,000 Armani jacket. Our jacket could be purchased for the purpose of influencing the election, but it is not an expenditure under the Federal Election Campaign Act, because it could have been purchased "irrespective" of the campaign.

The alleged affairs, Smith says, having occurred long before he became a presidential candidate, were not caused by his run for president. Paying them may indeed help the campaign, but the allegations are completely unrelated to the campaign for office, and there are many other valid reasons why Trump would want to keep them quiet that have nothing to do with elections. Indeed, if Trump's NDA's were campaign expenditures, then he'd be required by law to pay them with campaign funds, which is absurd.

***

There are more and better explained reasons why we should refrain from believe the prosecutors.

I may have completely butchered Smith’s arguments, and take full responsibility for appealing to his authority on the matter. But his expertise on the subject makes me wonder why NeverTrumpers are making this their hill to die on. Then again, I see all the other hills, and remember why.
edit on 13-12-2018 by Propagandalf because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Why would a big shot lawyer plead guilty to jailtime if he wasnt completely nailed to the wall?



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Why would a big shot lawyer plead guilty to jailtime if he wasnt completely nailed to the wall?

he was
for tax problems
which are in no way related to russia or trump



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Why would a big shot lawyer plead guilty to jailtime if he wasnt completely nailed to the wall?


Big shot lawyer? The man recorded his clients and broke attorney client privilege. You're setting the bar pretty low there.



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Propagandalf

Trump sitting down to discuss this payment, the reaction and Cohen




posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Some people also think you don't have to pay income tax.

Obviously everyone else involved in the case didn't see it that way and Cohen talked so there may be much more serious crimes that they chose not to prosecute him for. perhaps though Cohen saw it your way but needed to plead to these charges so the other charges wouldn't be pressed.



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Why would a big shot lawyer plead guilty to jailtime if he wasnt completely nailed to the wall?


Risk assessment. People plead guilty ALL THE TIME to crimes they didn't commit because the risk of losing is too great. The Feds use this strategy all the time to get guilty pleas. They throw a bunch a bunch football number like years at you to scare you to force a plea.

If you are a family man, you have to weigh do I take 3 years and get this fiasco behind me or do I go to trial, bankrupting myself in the process and if I lose, I might get 25 years?



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 01:50 PM
link   
yeah cause other have this resume:



Commissioner, Vice Chairman and Chairman of the Federal Election Commission, and whose work the Supreme Court cited in numerous decisions striking down campaign finance laws



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 01:50 PM
link   
This is what the usual anti-Trump crowd simply does not get: actual legal experts mostly think the charge is garbage.



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Propagandalf




tells us that the hush-money payments outlined by the U.S. Attorney are clearly not campaign expenditures.

The money was used to aid the campaign by keeping allegations of impropriety at bay , if Cohen pleaded guilty to something that isn't a crime what does that say about him as an Attorney and the client that hired him.



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
This is what the usual anti-Trump crowd simply does not get: actual legal experts mostly think the charge is garbage.

they dont care
they want to bring down trump by any means necessary



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Why would a big shot lawyer plead guilty to jailtime if he wasnt completely nailed to the wall?


Big shot lawyer? The man recorded his clients and broke attorney client privilege. You're setting the bar pretty low there.


You mean Trump did.




posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
This is what the usual anti-Trump crowd simply does not get: actual legal experts mostly think the charge is garbage.


Then why's the dude in PRISON?




edit on 13-12-2018 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
This is what the usual anti-Trump crowd simply does not get: actual legal experts mostly think the charge is garbage.


Then why's the dude in PRISON?



Greed



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Propagandalf

Thank you so much for starting this thread!!!

I was going to work on this subject for an OP this afternoon and you beat me to it... well done!

So that frees me up for a glass of Bushmill's and a return to Atomic Blonde.



One also has to wonder why a campaign finance law violation was put before the Southern District of New York, a court that rarely tries campaign finance violations and appears, on the surface, to not know much about the laws at all.

Judge shopping perhaps?



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
This is what the usual anti-Trump crowd simply does not get: actual legal experts mostly think the charge is garbage.


Then why's the dude in PRISON?



Because the leftist swamp decided to ruin a man's life over politics. You can't be so daft to believe that the justice system is immune from political posturing.



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Propagandalf




tells us that the hush-money payments outlined by the U.S. Attorney are clearly not campaign expenditures.

The money was used to aid the campaign by keeping allegations of impropriety at bay , if Cohen pleaded guilty to something that isn't a crime what does that say about him as an Attorney and the client that hired him.

Dude, did you actually read the OP? The answer is there: anything at all might "aid the campaign." The question is, would he have made the payments even if he wasn't running for president? I'm sure he would have, and in any event it's the prosecution's job to prove that there wasn't a non-campaign reason for it.

And Cohen, like Michael Avenatti, seems to be a rather crappy lawyer.



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

A lawyer PLED GUILTY because of liberal politics.




posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: six67seven
a reply to: Propagandalf

Trump sitting down to discuss this payment, the reaction and Cohen



Great interview. It's clear that overly aggressive prosecutors are abusing the justice system to embarrass Trump.



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Propagandalf




tells us that the hush-money payments outlined by the U.S. Attorney are clearly not campaign expenditures.

The money was used to aid the campaign by keeping allegations of impropriety at bay , if Cohen pleaded guilty to something that isn't a crime what does that say about him as an Attorney and the client that hired him.


SoOo... are you saying that a person in politics cannot spend personal monies on a private legal contract?

For instance, if I was running for office and I had a bunch of debt, if I took a loan out on my property to pay the debt down so that my opponent couldn't use that in a smear campaign, then it is a violation of campaign finance laws?

Can we just say at this point that you have no idea why campaign finance laws were written in the first place?

Hint... it was so that a rich person couldn't spend a lot of money to help someone's campaign, thus putting the politician in a situation where he/she would be beholden to the rich person.

You know, exactly like what Hillary and the Clinton Foundation are being investigated for now.

As to the case of Trump, how does that work out?

HE HAD HIS OWN MONEY.

/facepalm



new topics




 
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join