Report: Trump played central role in hush payoffs to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal

But he did his own money, in the end. That's the issue.

 

It has to be SOLELY for the campaign and then it would be a minor campaign reporting violation.

Former FEC Chairman: Trump Paying Stormy Daniels With Own Money is Not Illegal

"....In the interview with Smith, the former FEC chairman repeatedly noted that just because a private expense happens to also help a candidate’s public image or improves the chances of winning an election, does not make every dollar spent by a candidate – as a private citizen – is a violation of the law.

Levin asks, “The argument seems to be and it hasn’t changed is that if I spend money to make myself look better or to take away negative issues in my private life, my business life, my employment life, and use my own money, that somehow that is a campaign contribution, correct?”

Smith agrees, “Right.”

Levin confirms, “Which it is not.”

And Smith agrees again, “That’s right, it’s not.”

Smith also published an op-ed in The Washington Post, where he notes that while the payments are unseemly, they are not illegal.

This is an important distinction to make. It would be one thing if Trump used campaign funds for personal matters. But an individual running for public office doesn’t suddenly lose his right to buy and spend money as he sees fit. And Trump, a high-profile billionaire, has faced down accusations his entire career, long before he entered politics. Sometimes, it’s cheaper to pay off accusers than fight them in court.
https://thepoliticalinsider.com/trump-stormy-daniels-payment-not-illegal-fec-chairman/

Link to the WaPo op-ed mentioned above
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...2e98c13528d_story.html?utm_term=.e44574994d3f

 

I don't think so.... As of the time of the election, Trump had not begun to reimburse Cohen (and we have no idea if Trump reimbursed AMI at all)... Thus none of it is known to have come from Trump at the time of the election. Thus problems...

 

Yep, not a illegal campaign expenditure.

 

That it was Trump's own money is MORE a defense not less. He can spend all his own money he wants on anything. Personal money does not come under campaign finance law, it's OTHER people's money that does.

 

Well, at least the average con isn’t coming on here anymore lying to everybody about how theirs is the party of morality and family values. Trump tore a big-ass hole in that BS curtain.

That’s been quite refreshing.

 

So did Bill Clinton about his sexcapades, it's not illegal unless under oath.

 

obviously mark levin would only have on the most fair minded non partisan experts lol

 

What a lame attempt at a rebuttal. How about the Washington Post, I guess they would only have the most fair minded and non partisan experts LOL.



Those payments to women were unseemly. That doesn’t mean they were illegal.

......
However, regardless of what Cohen agreed to in a plea bargain, hush-money payments to mistresses are not really campaign expenditures. It is true that “contribution” and “expenditure” are defined in the Federal Election Campaign Act as anything “for the purpose of influencing any election,” and it may have been intended and hoped that paying hush money would serve that end. The problem is that almost anything a candidate does can be interpreted as intended to “influence an election,” from buying a good watch to make sure he gets to places on time, to getting a massage so that he feels fit for the campaign trail, to buying a new suit so that he looks good on a debate stage. Yet having campaign donors pay for personal luxuries — such as expensive watches, massages and Brooks Brothers suits — seems more like bribery than funding campaign speech.

That’s why another part of the statute defines “personal use” as any expenditure “used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.” These may not be paid with campaign funds, even though the candidate might benefit from the expenditure. Not every expense that might benefit a candidate is an obligation that exists solely because the person is a candidate.

Suppose, for example, that Trump had told his lawyers, “Look, these complaints about Trump University have no merit, but they embarrass me as a candidate. Get them settled.” Are the settlements thus “campaign expenses”? The obvious answer is no, even though the payments were intended to benefit Trump as a candidate.

If the opposite were true and they were considered campaign expenses, then not only could Trump pay them with campaign funds, but also he would be required to pay these business expenses from campaign funds. Is that what campaign donations are for?

But let’s go in that direction. Suppose Trump had used campaign funds to pay off these women. Does anyone much doubt that many of the same people now after Trump for using corporate funds, and not reporting them as campaign expenditures, would then be claiming that Trump had illegally diverted campaign funds to “personal use”? Or that federal prosecutors would not have sought a guilty plea from Cohen on that count? And that gets us to a troubling nub of campaign finance laws: Too often, you can get your target coming or going.

Yes, those payments were unseemly, but unseemliness doesn’t make something illegal. At the very least, the law is murky about whether paying hush money to a mistress is a “campaign expense” or a personal expense. In such circumstances, we would not usually expect prosecutors to charge the individuals with a “knowing and willful” violation, leading to criminal charges and possible jail time. A civil fine would be the normal response.

But Cohen is not the normal defendant, and prosecutors almost certainly squeezed him to plead guilty on these charges, in part, for the purpose of building a case for possible criminal or impeachment charges against the president, or even, daresay, “influencing the reelection” of Trump.

Laws, once stretched from their limited language and proper purpose, are difficult to pound back into shape. We should proceed with caution here.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...2e98c13528d_story.html?utm_term=.a687173faf97

 

AAAAnnnd using your own money to pay off porn stars isn't a campaign contribution.

 

AAaand, that's not what happened, so please try to stay with known facts instead of spreading the manure..

 

Talk to mamasaid.

 

Agreed... Tried that in post #200....it's a very confused issue.... it's hard to find all the known facts in just one source....