Cont: Mueller Investigation pt3

[LSSBB]

It doesn't matter if it's a "thing of value" to the campaign. It runs afoul, and obviously so, of the personal use prohibition on campaign funds, even if it used funds he donated himself to the campaign. You cannot use campaign funds, regardless of their source, for expenses that you would have incurred anyways, and Trump has been paying off women he slept with for years, long before he ran. Therefore it qualifies as personal use under federal election law.

No, it would be a campaign expense, because it is directly related to getting him elected.
That not being an option to Trump to maintain his chances since it would result in disclosure anyway, is not the law's problem. It looks like you are disappointed he doesn't get a loophole. Well, such is the life of a duplicitous politician.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Two former ethics chiefs have said that Trump admitted to a federal crime on his most recent Fox & Friends interview

 

[Ziggurat]

There should be a legal way to improve a candidate's election chances by bribing women to keep quiet about their affairs without having to report the funding sources and expenses just like any other campaign transactions?

I'm not arguing for what the proper way for the law to handle this is. I'm saying that the law shouldn't make it illegal to categorize it as not a campaign expense and simultaneously make it illegal to categorize it as a campaign expense. Catch-22's are bad, and that applies whether you think it properly should be a campaign expense or you think it should not be a campaign expense. It' doesn't work to insist that it's both or neither.

 

[crescent]

No. That isn't how the personal use prohibition works. It isn't enough to say that the expense is useful for the campaign. You have to be able to say that you wouldn't have incurred the expense but for the campaign. An expense you would have incurred anyways, even if it's useful to the campaign, cannot be paid for by the campaign.

Correction accepted. I added some bolding for emphasis.

He waited until she started making noise.

Why did she start making noise when she did? Why not earlier? She did it because he was running for office. This was the time to make noise, either to get him to pay her off or to sell her story to a press outfit or publisher.

She did it because of the campaign. It became necessary to pay her off because of the campaign. But for the campaign, she would not have made any noise. But for the campaign, the noise she was making would have been irrelevant anyway.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, it would be a campaign expense, because it is directly related to getting him elected.

Once again, that isn't how the personal use prohibition works. That isn't the test.

 

[Ziggurat]

Why did she start making noise when she did? Why not earlier? She did it because he was running for office.

That wasn't his decision, you can't really make him responsible for it.

She did it because of the campaign.

Yes, it may be that she did it because of the campaign. That doesn't mean he did.

It became necessary to pay her off because of the campaign.

His record of paying off other women before the campaign establishes precedent that for his part this is not a but for the campaign expense. He pays to silence former sex partners, campaign or no. And it is his decision making, not hers, which matters here.

 

[LSSBB]

Once again, that isn't how the personal use prohibition works. That isn't the test.

Here, again, is the relevant code:

Can I use remaining campaign funds to cover personal expenses?
Using campaign funds for personal use is prohibited, even when a federal candidate or officeholder is no longer seeking election to federal office. In determining whether expenses are for personal use or are legitimate campaign/officeholder expenses, the Commission uses the “Irrespective Test.” Personal use is any use of funds in a campaign account of a candidate (or former candidate) to fulfill a commitment, obligation or expense of any person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s campaign or responsibilities as a federal officeholder. 11 CFR 113.1(g). More simply put, if the expense would exist even in the absence of the candidacy or even if the officeholder were not in office, then the personal use ban applies.

Since the expense was to keep her quiet for the election, it would not exist in the absence of the candidacy.

In my non-lawyerly opinion. What are your credentials?

 

[LSSBB]

That wasn't his decision, you can't really make him responsible for it.



Yes, it may be that she did it because of the campaign. That doesn't mean he did.



His record of paying off other women before the campaign establishes precedent that for his part this is not a but for the campaign expense. He pays to silence former sex partners, campaign or no. And it is his decision making, not hers, which matters here.

He can only weasel out, ala Edward 's defense, if it cannot be positively established to have done so specifically for the election. If there is evidence to the contrary, which we may not be privy to and the judge may be, then it could have been positively established. Which it apparently was, to the judge's satisfaction.

ETA: in my non-lawyerly opinion.

 

[Ziggurat]

Since the expense was to keep her quiet for the election, it would not exist in the absence of the candidacy.

Trump paid off sex partners to keep them quiet well before he ever ran for office. You can't prove that it was solely for the election, it doesn't matter if the election was an additional motive, he had non-election motives and precedent for acting on those motives.

In my non-lawyerly opinion. What are your credentials?

I don't base my arguments on my credentials. Nor do I hold a lack of credentials against other people's arguments.

This isn't a new issue, BTW. They tried to nail John Edwards for the same thing (paying off a mistress during a campaign). The prosecutors failed to get a conviction, and rightly so.

 

[Sherkeu]

One could question whether spending money to buy silence in a public election is even a legitimate action we should tolerate.

Silence, or rather the 'story' is being sold and anyone can buy it if terms are agreed. These are personal stories of a non-criminal nature.

Perhaps there is a way to ban profiting from the story in the first place once the election is well underway? Not sure how it would work, but getting all the salacious claims out early would be a nice change. There are motivations other than receiving payment but i think most of these deals are about the money.
eta: So that towards the end of the campaign, no one can pay anyone to remain silent.

 

[LSSBB]

Trump paid off sex partners to keep them quiet well before he ever ran for office. You can't prove that it was solely for the election, it doesn't matter if the election was an additional motive, he had non-election motives and precedent for acting on those motives.



I don't base my arguments on my credentials. Nor do I hold a lack of credentials against other people's arguments.

This isn't a new issue, BTW. They tried to nail John Edwards for the same thing (paying off a mistress during a campaign). The prosecutors failed to get a conviction, and rightly so.

Do you even read what I wrote? I mentioned Edwards.

And none of the other mistress payments are relevant if there is evidence of specific communication directing the payment in order to win the election.

The reason I ask credentials, is to establish that without such what you maintain is the case is your non-professional opinion

 

[WilliamSeger]

No. That isn't how the personal use prohibition works. It isn't enough to say that the expense is useful for the campaign. You have to be able to say that you wouldn't have incurred the expense but for the campaign. An expense you would have incurred anyways, even if it's useful to the campaign, cannot be paid for by the campaign.



He waited until she started making noise.

And she started making noise when he ran for president. If he was still the petty tyrant of the Apprentice boardroom, a story about porking a porn star would have just flattered his ego.

 

[Ziggurat]

Do you even read what I wrote? I mentioned Edwards.

In the following post, which I didn't see while I was composing mine.

And none of the other mistress payments are relevant if there is evidence of specific communication directing the payment in order to win the election.

Perhaps, but your justification for believing in the likelyhood of such evidence, namely that the judge hasn't thrown out Cohen's guilty plea on that count, doesn't make sense to me. Judges aren't usually in the practice of taking on the role of defense counsel. If the defense pleads guilty, the judge is only going to reject that plea under extraordinary circumstances. The payment to Stormy is a lesser charge here. If the other charges are well supported and if the prosecution is recommending light sentencing (very likely since a plea deal was reached quickly) then I doubt the judge is going to consider it a miscarriage of justice that warrants tossing the plea. It's not like Cohen got stuck with a public defender who forced a bad plea on Cohen out of negligence or incompetence.

 

[carlitos]

It doesn't matter if it's a "thing of value" to the campaign. It runs afoul, and obviously so, of the personal use prohibition on campaign funds, even if it used funds he donated himself to the campaign. You cannot use campaign funds, regardless of their source, for expenses that you would have incurred anyways, and Trump has been paying off women he slept with for years, long before he ran. Therefore it qualifies as personal use under federal election law.

You have an unqualified legal opinion that mirrors talking heads on conservative media, and Michael Cohen has pleaded guilty to two Federal election campaign violations on the record in open court. Which should I give more weight, I wonder?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Micheal Cohen says that the purpose of the hush payment to Daniels was to influence the election.

 

[The Big Dog]

the crux of the issue is the following language:

The Act defines “contribution” to include “any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office."

The FEC defined "the purpose" to mean the sole purpose, here there clearly was a personal interest (like in the Edwards case) and therefore the law should not and was not violated.

 

[Ziggurat]

Micheal Cohen says that the purpose of the hush payment to Daniels was to influence the election.

You can't imagine why the prosecution might want him to say that? You can't imagine why he might be willing to say what prosecutors want him to say even if it's not true?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

the crux of the issue is the following language:

The Act defines “contribution” to include “any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office."

The FEC defined "the purpose" to mean the sole purpose, here there clearly was a personal interest (like in the Edwards case) and therefore the law should not and was not violated.

Not so.
Trump was known to have affairs whilst married, he even bragged about it. Unless we can see the nuptials in which Trump will lose money if caught cheating, there is no demonstrable damage to his family life.

But there would have been political repercussions.

 

[Ziggurat]

Not so.
Trump was known to have affairs whilst married, he even bragged about it. Unless we can see the nuptials in which Trump will lose money if caught cheating, there is no demonstrable damage to his family life.

But there would have been political repercussions.

Your argument is disproven by the existence of previous hush money payments to other women which predate his campaign.

 

[The Big Dog]

Your argument is disproven by the existence of previous hush money payments to other women which predate his campaign.

It is also disproven by the change of circumstances, not the least of which would be the impact on his relationship with his son Barron.