(12-14-2018 10:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 10:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  In '13 under Obama, all 54 Dems in the Dem Senate voted to:
*double length of border barrier w/ Mexico
*spend $40B on border security
*end diversity visa lottery
*double # of border agents to 40K
What amazing new facts emerged to cause an extinction akin to the dinosaurs here?

And Dems have shown willingness to compromise and fund portions of the wall and increase further funding under Trump in exchange for a permanent legislative fix for Dreamers. Yet Trump and the Reps don't want to play in the sand box unless they get their way completely.
Did you forget that?

But they voted for all of that once, and now they are holding it hostage for one more thing. This is democrats' idea of compromise. You give us everything we want, and we won't give anything in return.

Agreeing to what they've already agreed to isn't giving anything in exchange.

Personally, I'm not a huge fan of the wall. I'd give it up to get a true merit-based immigration system (which interestingly, despite Trudeau's whining, is what Canada has), raise the hurdle for amnesty to legitimate grounds, increase legal immigration, and permanent guest worker status for those here illegally, including the DACA kids. And any non-citizen who serves a full enlistment in the military with an honorable discharge gets fast tracked.

(12-14-2018 10:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 10:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  In '13 under Obama, all 54 Dems in the Dem Senate voted to:
*double length of border barrier w/ Mexico
*spend $40B on border security
*end diversity visa lottery
*double # of border agents to 40K
What amazing new facts emerged to cause an extinction akin to the dinosaurs here?

And Dems have shown willingness to compromise and fund portions of the wall and increase further funding under Trump in exchange for a permanent legislative fix for Dreamers. Yet Trump and the Reps don't want to play in the sand box unless they get their way completely.
Did you forget that?

But they voted for all of that once, and now they are holding it hostage for one more thing. This is democrats' idea of compromise. You give us everything we want, and we won't give anything in return.

Agreeing to what they've already agreed to isn't giving anything in exchange.

Personally, I'm not a huge fan of the wall. I'd give it up to get a true merit-based immigration system (which interestingly, despite Trudeau's whining, is what Canada has), raise the hurdle for amnesty to legitimate grounds, increase legal immigration, and permanent guest worker status for those here illegally, including the DACA kids. And any non-citizen who serves a full enlistment in the military with an honorable discharge gets fast tracked.

(12-14-2018 11:37 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 11:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 11:00 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  You still dont understand:

There are 'campaign expenditures' and 'personal expenditures' in the campaign finance law. No other groupings. Campaign expenditures are those that are are have to be undertaken 'irrespective' of personal considerations. Words matter, again, Lad. 'Irrespective' means totality. If there is *any* iota of a personal nature -- then it is a personal expense.

Further, it is okay for campaign funds to be used for campaign expenditures, and personal funds can be used for campaign expenditures if reported.

Campaign funds *cannot* be used for personal expenditures. Personal funds are always copacetic for personal expenditures.

Your Irish jig definition you so desperately want makes it proper to pay for or pay off mistresses with campaign funds. So I guess it would be proper in your mind for Trump to pay off the chicks with campaign funds, since that is the end result of your thesis under the law. Got it. Sounds like a fun position to champion, since that is what you have to support with your theory.

Do you even understand what you are supporting with all of your thrashing here?

But please try to stretch it some more. Try to dance all you fing want -- knock yourself out. Doesnt change the analysis.

By the way, your words dont match what you want them to say. I fail to see the 'only' that you so desperately wish for. Your words show a great concern to do so, but not an 'only' concern. Words matter, Lad. Hate to tell you that 'a great concern' <> 'only concern'. You are a smart guy, I would have thought you would understand the concept 'only'. I find it odd that in many instances you really want to ignore very specific words.

To the bolded, were these expenditures reported? I believe your preface is, in fact, THE most important part of this issue. The personal expenditures made by Trump in order to support his campaign were NOT reported, and therefore, by your own admission, are not allowed.

The problem is that you are assuming ipso facto and without regard to the words of the statute that the expenditures are 'campaign expenditures'. You simply dont understand the import of the wording of the statute.

If you are claiming that the personal expenditures by Trump were in fact 'campaign expenditures', then you by default support the position that the Trump campaign could have and should have made the expenditures, since that would be legal. That is the absolute and necessary result from your predetermined idea that a payoff to a mistress with personal funds for hush money in this case is illegal. Got it. You dont seem to gd understand that necessary result, but so be it.

Do you know how fing stupid that appears? I guess in Lad-world the payment of hush money to mistresses by a campaign is and should be a legitimate campaign expense. Good for you. That is the necessary result of your contortions. Might be good in Lad-world, sounds utterly fing stupid to me. And to a world of ex-chairmen of the FEC for that matter.

Quote:But I also don't get how you, a lawyer, continually harps on someone for this, especially when you're doing exactly that - dancing a jig around the nature and purpose of these payments.

I'm following the fing wording of the law, hate to tell you. I'm following the law that surrounds the statute, hate to tell you.

I guess the words and concepts and results of your position dont fing matter to you. Got it.

I've not seen anything that indicates the payments themselves were illegal, so yes, in Lad world the campaign should have made these expenditures and disclosed of them, from a legal standpoint. The ethical nature of that decision is not clear, but legally there is no issue.

If the campaign had made the payments to AMI, there would have been a public record of those payments, and that public record could have been investigated by the many, many people covering the Trump campaign (as I doubt a large sum paid to a media company would have gone unnoticed). Instead, Trump attempted to cover up the payments that were solely meant to benefit his campaign, and hide his transgressions from public view.

So yeah, tell me I don't understand what I'm suggesting. Does that make you feel like a big boy?

Lad -- real simple question here:

Is a payment of a $100,000+ to another sexual partner or former mistress of a married candidate a legitimate campaign expense? Yes or no.

This really is the only question in the issue at hand when it boils down to it, so please limit your answer to a Yes or a No.

My answer is no, it is not.

(12-14-2018 11:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 11:37 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 11:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 11:00 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  You still dont understand:

There are 'campaign expenditures' and 'personal expenditures' in the campaign finance law. No other groupings. Campaign expenditures are those that are are have to be undertaken 'irrespective' of personal considerations. Words matter, again, Lad. 'Irrespective' means totality. If there is *any* iota of a personal nature -- then it is a personal expense.

Further, it is okay for campaign funds to be used for campaign expenditures, and personal funds can be used for campaign expenditures if reported.

Campaign funds *cannot* be used for personal expenditures. Personal funds are always copacetic for personal expenditures.

Your Irish jig definition you so desperately want makes it proper to pay for or pay off mistresses with campaign funds. So I guess it would be proper in your mind for Trump to pay off the chicks with campaign funds, since that is the end result of your thesis under the law. Got it. Sounds like a fun position to champion, since that is what you have to support with your theory.

Do you even understand what you are supporting with all of your thrashing here?

But please try to stretch it some more. Try to dance all you fing want -- knock yourself out. Doesnt change the analysis.

By the way, your words dont match what you want them to say. I fail to see the 'only' that you so desperately wish for. Your words show a great concern to do so, but not an 'only' concern. Words matter, Lad. Hate to tell you that 'a great concern' <> 'only concern'. You are a smart guy, I would have thought you would understand the concept 'only'. I find it odd that in many instances you really want to ignore very specific words.

To the bolded, were these expenditures reported? I believe your preface is, in fact, THE most important part of this issue. The personal expenditures made by Trump in order to support his campaign were NOT reported, and therefore, by your own admission, are not allowed.

The problem is that you are assuming ipso facto and without regard to the words of the statute that the expenditures are 'campaign expenditures'. You simply dont understand the import of the wording of the statute.

If you are claiming that the personal expenditures by Trump were in fact 'campaign expenditures', then you by default support the position that the Trump campaign could have and should have made the expenditures, since that would be legal. That is the absolute and necessary result from your predetermined idea that a payoff to a mistress with personal funds for hush money in this case is illegal. Got it. You dont seem to gd understand that necessary result, but so be it.

Do you know how fing stupid that appears? I guess in Lad-world the payment of hush money to mistresses by a campaign is and should be a legitimate campaign expense. Good for you. That is the necessary result of your contortions. Might be good in Lad-world, sounds utterly fing stupid to me. And to a world of ex-chairmen of the FEC for that matter.

Quote:But I also don't get how you, a lawyer, continually harps on someone for this, especially when you're doing exactly that - dancing a jig around the nature and purpose of these payments.

I'm following the fing wording of the law, hate to tell you. I'm following the law that surrounds the statute, hate to tell you.

I guess the words and concepts and results of your position dont fing matter to you. Got it.

I've not seen anything that indicates the payments themselves were illegal, so yes, in Lad world the campaign should have made these expenditures and disclosed of them, from a legal standpoint. The ethical nature of that decision is not clear, but legally there is no issue.

If the campaign had made the payments to AMI, there would have been a public record of those payments, and that public record could have been investigated by the many, many people covering the Trump campaign (as I doubt a large sum paid to a media company would have gone unnoticed). Instead, Trump attempted to cover up the payments that were solely meant to benefit his campaign, and hide his transgressions from public view.

So yeah, tell me I don't understand what I'm suggesting. Does that make you feel like a big boy?

I love how you are so God-like in knowing what the 'sole' reason for that is. In fing amazing. How do you do that? Must be a tough burden to bear knowing the answer to life and everything. I am in awe....

I also think it rather amazing that someone believes that a payoff to a mistress is a legitimate campaign expense. Most would see how utterly stupid that result is, but good for you.

My question is, what do these payments have to with showing collusion with Russia?

An investigation looks into a specific matter. An investigator looking into, say, a murder or rape does not look for tax law violations or indict people other than the target for failure to perform a fiduciary duty.

A witch hunt looks for anything on anybody.

(12-14-2018 11:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I've not seen anything that indicates the payments themselves were illegal, so yes, in Lad world the campaign should have made these expenditures and disclosed of them, from a legal standpoint. The ethical nature of that decision is not clear, but legally there is no issue.
If the campaign had made the payments to AMI, there would have been a public record of those payments, and that public record could have been investigated by the many, many people covering the Trump campaign (as I doubt a large sum paid to a media company would have gone unnoticed). Instead, Trump attempted to cover up the payments that were solely meant to benefit his campaign, and hide his transgressions from public view.
So yeah, tell me I don't understand what I'm suggesting. Does that make you feel like a big boy?

I don't think Tanq is suggesting that you don't understand what you are suggesting. I think he's not suggesting, but stating very clearly, that you don't understand the law.

I'm reminded of an incident in Tanq's hometown a few years ago. Woman goes walking down the sidewalk along Congress Street in the middle of the day, topless. Police arrest her. Turns out they can't prosecute her. Why not? Because there was no statute or ordinance against it.

Trump's action may be distasteful to you. But you've got to fit into the specific prohibitions of some statute to make it a crime. And I'm not seeing that statute.

(12-14-2018 12:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Lad -- real simple question here:

Is a payment of a $100,000+ to another sexual partner or former mistress of a married candidate a legitimate campaign expense? Yes or no.

This really is the only question in the issue at hand when it boils down to it, so please limit your answer to a Yes or a No.

My answer is no, it is not.

Yes. It's an unethical one, but I don't see what is illegal about it. I would be interested in the illegality of a campaign doing that, though. Furthermore, there is clearly a reason as to why a campaign would want to bury such a story, so from a logical standpoint it is legitimate.

But first, that's a really funny way to spin the AMI payment to McDougal.

AMI the other day admitted that, in coordination with Trump's presidential campaign, it had paid McDougal $150,000 in the run-up to the election for the exclusive rights to her story that she had an affair with Donald Trump a decade earlier.

So, in this regard, the payment was for the rights to a story so that it could not be published elsewhere prior to the election, and the money went from Trump, to AMI, to McDougal.

Second, the NDA with Daniels is a lot closer to what you describe - but due the timing of the payment (Oct 2016) and the date of the affair (2006), it seems odd that the reason for the payment and NDA was not solely campaign related.

(12-14-2018 12:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 11:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I've not seen anything that indicates the payments themselves were illegal, so yes, in Lad world the campaign should have made these expenditures and disclosed of them, from a legal standpoint. The ethical nature of that decision is not clear, but legally there is no issue.
If the campaign had made the payments to AMI, there would have been a public record of those payments, and that public record could have been investigated by the many, many people covering the Trump campaign (as I doubt a large sum paid to a media company would have gone unnoticed). Instead, Trump attempted to cover up the payments that were solely meant to benefit his campaign, and hide his transgressions from public view.
So yeah, tell me I don't understand what I'm suggesting. Does that make you feel like a big boy?

I don't think Tanq is suggesting that you don't understand what you are suggesting. I think he's not suggesting, but stating very clearly, that you don't understand the law.

Does that make him feel like a big boy still?

I understand his point that any inkling of personal rationale for the payments renders the campaign expenditure moot.

However, all evidence points to motivations being campaign related, and none point to there being a personal motivation. Of course one could assume that there was a personal motivation, but there needs to be evidence of that 0.001% personal motivation.

All Tanq has that indicates I "don't understand the law" is his own opinions of how the law should be applied. I mean, I know that every lawyer knows they're right about the law, so I've tried to not get into this issue too much.

(12-14-2018 12:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 11:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 11:37 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 11:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 11:00 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  You still dont understand:

There are 'campaign expenditures' and 'personal expenditures' in the campaign finance law. No other groupings. Campaign expenditures are those that are are have to be undertaken 'irrespective' of personal considerations. Words matter, again, Lad. 'Irrespective' means totality. If there is *any* iota of a personal nature -- then it is a personal expense.

Further, it is okay for campaign funds to be used for campaign expenditures, and personal funds can be used for campaign expenditures if reported.

Campaign funds *cannot* be used for personal expenditures. Personal funds are always copacetic for personal expenditures.

Your Irish jig definition you so desperately want makes it proper to pay for or pay off mistresses with campaign funds. So I guess it would be proper in your mind for Trump to pay off the chicks with campaign funds, since that is the end result of your thesis under the law. Got it. Sounds like a fun position to champion, since that is what you have to support with your theory.

Do you even understand what you are supporting with all of your thrashing here?

But please try to stretch it some more. Try to dance all you fing want -- knock yourself out. Doesnt change the analysis.

By the way, your words dont match what you want them to say. I fail to see the 'only' that you so desperately wish for. Your words show a great concern to do so, but not an 'only' concern. Words matter, Lad. Hate to tell you that 'a great concern' <> 'only concern'. You are a smart guy, I would have thought you would understand the concept 'only'. I find it odd that in many instances you really want to ignore very specific words.

To the bolded, were these expenditures reported? I believe your preface is, in fact, THE most important part of this issue. The personal expenditures made by Trump in order to support his campaign were NOT reported, and therefore, by your own admission, are not allowed.

The problem is that you are assuming ipso facto and without regard to the words of the statute that the expenditures are 'campaign expenditures'. You simply dont understand the import of the wording of the statute.

If you are claiming that the personal expenditures by Trump were in fact 'campaign expenditures', then you by default support the position that the Trump campaign could have and should have made the expenditures, since that would be legal. That is the absolute and necessary result from your predetermined idea that a payoff to a mistress with personal funds for hush money in this case is illegal. Got it. You dont seem to gd understand that necessary result, but so be it.

Do you know how fing stupid that appears? I guess in Lad-world the payment of hush money to mistresses by a campaign is and should be a legitimate campaign expense. Good for you. That is the necessary result of your contortions. Might be good in Lad-world, sounds utterly fing stupid to me. And to a world of ex-chairmen of the FEC for that matter.

Quote:But I also don't get how you, a lawyer, continually harps on someone for this, especially when you're doing exactly that - dancing a jig around the nature and purpose of these payments.

I'm following the fing wording of the law, hate to tell you. I'm following the law that surrounds the statute, hate to tell you.

I guess the words and concepts and results of your position dont fing matter to you. Got it.

I've not seen anything that indicates the payments themselves were illegal, so yes, in Lad world the campaign should have made these expenditures and disclosed of them, from a legal standpoint. The ethical nature of that decision is not clear, but legally there is no issue.

If the campaign had made the payments to AMI, there would have been a public record of those payments, and that public record could have been investigated by the many, many people covering the Trump campaign (as I doubt a large sum paid to a media company would have gone unnoticed). Instead, Trump attempted to cover up the payments that were solely meant to benefit his campaign, and hide his transgressions from public view.

So yeah, tell me I don't understand what I'm suggesting. Does that make you feel like a big boy?

I love how you are so God-like in knowing what the 'sole' reason for that is. In fing amazing. How do you do that? Must be a tough burden to bear knowing the answer to life and everything. I am in awe....

I also think it rather amazing that someone believes that a payoff to a mistress is a legitimate campaign expense. Most would see how utterly stupid that result is, but good for you.

Again - is it an ethical thing to do? No.

Is it the right thing to do? No.

Is it legal and beneficial to the campaign? Yes.

The first two don't make these payments illegitimate, they just make them morally dubious. These payments were made to materially benefit the campaign so that people did not find out about the two affairs prior to the election.

And based on the evidence presented, there is no doubt about the nature of the payments. Do you have evidence that suggests these payments - either to McDougall of Daniels - were done for personal reasons not related to the campaign? Yes or no, please.

(12-14-2018 12:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Does that make him feel like a big boy still?
I understand his point that any inkling of personal rationale for the payments renders the campaign expenditure moot.
However, all evidence points to motivations being campaign related, and none point to there being a personal motivation. Of course one could assume that there was a personal motivation, but there needs to be evidence of that 0.001% personal motivation.
All Tanq has that indicates I "don't understand the law" is his own opinions of how the law should be applied. I mean, I know that every lawyer knows they're right about the law, so I've tried to not get into this issue too much.

There is evidence of the personal motivation. It's called "pattern of behavior," with is a recognized legal principle. Basically, you can presume intent from a pattern of past behavior. And Trump has paid off women before, several times. I agree that there evidence points to a campaign relationship. But under the specific wording of the statute, and related cases law, that's not enough.

(12-14-2018 12:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 12:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 11:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 11:37 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 11:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  To the bolded, were these expenditures reported? I believe your preface is, in fact, THE most important part of this issue. The personal expenditures made by Trump in order to support his campaign were NOT reported, and therefore, by your own admission, are not allowed.

The problem is that you are assuming ipso facto and without regard to the words of the statute that the expenditures are 'campaign expenditures'. You simply dont understand the import of the wording of the statute.

If you are claiming that the personal expenditures by Trump were in fact 'campaign expenditures', then you by default support the position that the Trump campaign could have and should have made the expenditures, since that would be legal. That is the absolute and necessary result from your predetermined idea that a payoff to a mistress with personal funds for hush money in this case is illegal. Got it. You dont seem to gd understand that necessary result, but so be it.

Do you know how fing stupid that appears? I guess in Lad-world the payment of hush money to mistresses by a campaign is and should be a legitimate campaign expense. Good for you. That is the necessary result of your contortions. Might be good in Lad-world, sounds utterly fing stupid to me. And to a world of ex-chairmen of the FEC for that matter.

Quote:But I also don't get how you, a lawyer, continually harps on someone for this, especially when you're doing exactly that - dancing a jig around the nature and purpose of these payments.

I'm following the fing wording of the law, hate to tell you. I'm following the law that surrounds the statute, hate to tell you.

I guess the words and concepts and results of your position dont fing matter to you. Got it.

I've not seen anything that indicates the payments themselves were illegal, so yes, in Lad world the campaign should have made these expenditures and disclosed of them, from a legal standpoint. The ethical nature of that decision is not clear, but legally there is no issue.

If the campaign had made the payments to AMI, there would have been a public record of those payments, and that public record could have been investigated by the many, many people covering the Trump campaign (as I doubt a large sum paid to a media company would have gone unnoticed). Instead, Trump attempted to cover up the payments that were solely meant to benefit his campaign, and hide his transgressions from public view.

So yeah, tell me I don't understand what I'm suggesting. Does that make you feel like a big boy?

I love how you are so God-like in knowing what the 'sole' reason for that is. In fing amazing. How do you do that? Must be a tough burden to bear knowing the answer to life and everything. I am in awe....

I also think it rather amazing that someone believes that a payoff to a mistress is a legitimate campaign expense. Most would see how utterly stupid that result is, but good for you.

Again - is it an ethical thing to do? No.

Is it the right thing to do? No.

Is it legal and beneficial to the campaign? Yes.

The first two don't make these payments illegitimate, they just make them morally dubious. These payments were made to materially benefit the campaign so that people did not find out about the two affairs prior to the election.

And based on the evidence presented, there is no doubt about the nature of the payments. Do you have evidence that suggests these payments - either to McDougall of Daniels - were done for personal reasons not related to the campaign? Yes or no, please.

Where does Putin fit into this?

(12-14-2018 12:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  My question is, what do these payments have to with showing collusion with Russia?

An investigation looks into a specific matter. An investigator looking into, say, a murder or rape does not look for tax law violations or indict people other than the target for failure to perform a fiduciary duty.

A witch hunt looks for anything on anybody.

These are NOT part of the Mueller probe. These are charges brought about by the SDNY - not being made by those in your supposed witch hunt.

Trying to tie these together suggests you want prosecutors to look the other way when they believe they have evidence of a crime.

(12-14-2018 12:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 12:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  My question is, what do these payments have to with showing collusion with Russia?
An investigation looks into a specific matter. An investigator looking into, say, a murder or rape does not look for tax law violations or indict people other than the target for failure to perform a fiduciary duty.
A witch hunt looks for anything on anybody.

These are NOT part of the Mueller probe. These are charges brought about by the SDNY - not being made by those in your supposed witch hunt.
Trying to tie these together suggests you want prosecutors to look the other way when they believe they have evidence of a crime.

Are you suggesting that they arose totally independently of the Mueller investigation? Considering the Mueller referred the case to them, that seems an improbable leap.

That is mentioned at
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mueller-ref...osecutors/

(12-14-2018 01:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 12:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 12:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  My question is, what do these payments have to with showing collusion with Russia?
An investigation looks into a specific matter. An investigator looking into, say, a murder or rape does not look for tax law violations or indict people other than the target for failure to perform a fiduciary duty.
A witch hunt looks for anything on anybody.

These are NOT part of the Mueller probe. These are charges brought about by the SDNY - not being made by those in your supposed witch hunt.
Trying to tie these together suggests you want prosecutors to look the other way when they believe they have evidence of a crime.

Are you suggesting that they arose totally independently of the Mueller investigation? Considering the Mueller referred the case to them, that seems an improbable leap.

That is mentioned at
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mueller-ref...osecutors/

Nope - I know how they got started. I specifically said they are not part of the Mueller investigation (which they aren’t).

That’s why I asked the last question - Mueller provided information on crimes to another prosecutor. If you want to complain about these being part of a witch hunt, you’re suggesting that you want prosecutors to look the other way when they see evidence of crimes.

(12-14-2018 01:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 01:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 12:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 12:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  My question is, what do these payments have to with showing collusion with Russia?
An investigation looks into a specific matter. An investigator looking into, say, a murder or rape does not look for tax law violations or indict people other than the target for failure to perform a fiduciary duty.
A witch hunt looks for anything on anybody.

These are NOT part of the Mueller probe. These are charges brought about by the SDNY - not being made by those in your supposed witch hunt.
Trying to tie these together suggests you want prosecutors to look the other way when they believe they have evidence of a crime.

Are you suggesting that they arose totally independently of the Mueller investigation? Considering the Mueller referred the case to them, that seems an improbable leap.
That is mentioned at
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mueller-ref...osecutors/

Nope - I know how they got started. I specifically said they are not part of the Mueller investigation (which they aren’t).
That’s why I asked the last question - Mueller provided information on crimes to another prosecutor. If you want to complain about these being part of a witch hunt, you’re suggesting that you want prosecutors to look the other way when they see evidence of crimes.

Mueller farmed them out because New York was where the evidence was, and the SDNY legal staff was in better shape to prosecute them. It's really classic witch hunt--we found something that may be outside our scope, so let's turn it over to somebody under whose purview it falls. Anything to pursue anything.

(12-14-2018 01:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 01:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 01:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 12:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 12:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  My question is, what do these payments have to with showing collusion with Russia?
An investigation looks into a specific matter. An investigator looking into, say, a murder or rape does not look for tax law violations or indict people other than the target for failure to perform a fiduciary duty.
A witch hunt looks for anything on anybody.

These are NOT part of the Mueller probe. These are charges brought about by the SDNY - not being made by those in your supposed witch hunt.
Trying to tie these together suggests you want prosecutors to look the other way when they believe they have evidence of a crime.

Are you suggesting that they arose totally independently of the Mueller investigation? Considering the Mueller referred the case to them, that seems an improbable leap.
That is mentioned at
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mueller-ref...osecutors/

Nope - I know how they got started. I specifically said they are not part of the Mueller investigation (which they aren’t).
That’s why I asked the last question - Mueller provided information on crimes to another prosecutor. If you want to complain about these being part of a witch hunt, you’re suggesting that you want prosecutors to look the other way when they see evidence of crimes.

Mueller farmed them out because New York was where the evidence was, and the SDNY legal staff was in better shape to prosecute them. It's really classic witch hunt--we found something that may be outside our scope, so let's turn it over to somebody under whose purview it falls. Anything to pursue anything.

So what should Mueller have done? Ignored evidence of crimes?

The reason I say this isn't part of the witch hunt is he passed of the investigation. He knew it was not within his original scope, so we handed it to someone else. If Mueller really did want to get Trump, no matter what, what incentive is there to lose oversight of the investigation?

(12-14-2018 12:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 12:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Lad -- real simple question here:

Is a payment of a $100,000+ to another sexual partner or former mistress of a married candidate a legitimate campaign expense? Yes or no.

This really is the only question in the issue at hand when it boils down to it, so please limit your answer to a Yes or a No.

My answer is no, it is not.

Yes. It's an unethical one, but I don't see what is illegal about it. I would be interested in the illegality of a campaign doing that, though. Furthermore, there is clearly a reason as to why a campaign would want to bury such a story, so from a logical standpoint it is legitimate.

So lets be clear -- you view the use of campaign funds to pay off a mistress or a previous sexual harassment claim as a legitimate use of campaign funds. The paying off a sexual partner is legitimate campaign expense. Good for you.

But then you waffle to the 'unethical' thing like I knew you would. I didnt ask that. The issue is *only* over proper campaign expenses and improper. Proper use of campaign funds and improper. But funny you have to fall back on the not illegal but improper. Hate to tell you Lad, there is no 'ethical' or 'non-ethical' feel good bull**** backstop here -- there is only 'proper use' and 'improper use'.

What other lawsuits/settlements are a legitimate use of campaign funds in your view? How about paying *for* a mistress with campaign funds? How about paying a drug dealer for drugs? Once you cross the rubicon as you just have, I dont see any limits to a legitimate use of campaign funds. Can you draw us a line where in Lad-world there is a delineation between a legitimate use of campaign funds and illegitimate use of those same campaign funds?

I can -- very easily. The statute defines it.

In your view anything beneficial to a campaign is a legitimate use of funds. How about babysitter fees? Toothpaste? A brand new Maserati?

The point is you are still selectively blending 'beneficial' with the 'idea of solely used for' with this. But many have that wonderful predicament of such selective positions I have found.

By the way Lad, the issue of the previous settlements were brought up as proof of settlements -- since they were before the campaign there were ostensibly reasons aside from a campaign to settle them. Kind of a weird timing issue -- no one I know has perfect a priori knowledge, so to this dumb*** cracker those are indicia of 'reasons to settle a lawsuit or sexual claim' apart and aside from a campaign long in the future. But that probably escapes you.

Or did Trump have the perfect a priori knowledge of his campaign at that time (much like your seeming perfect and all prescient knowledge of Trump's motivation here)?

Look, this was not Trumps first rodeo in this arena. The previous suits are clear evidence of that. The previous settlements are clear evidence of reasons for settling these issues apart and aside from campaigns. Evidence that you either dont comprehend or are not willing to consider.

Quote:But first, that's a really funny way to spin the AMI payment to McDougal.

I'm talking about all the payments with my query, Lad. I'm not the one making miniscule iterations ad infinitum to keep my belief system in check.

Quote:AMI the other day admitted that, in coordination with Trump's presidential campaign, it had paid McDougal $150,000 in the run-up to the election for the exclusive rights to her story that she had an affair with Donald Trump a decade earlier.

So, in this regard, the payment was for the rights to a story so that it could not be published elsewhere prior to the election, and the money went from Trump, to AMI, to McDougal.

And your point is, exactly, what? So what. Fine, expand the 'payoff' with personal funds to any number of fing cutouts. Doesnt change the base question. But, as has been noted before, I guess I am a dumb*** cracker for overlooking the fine distinctions that paying cutouts means.

Quote:Second, the NDA with Daniels is a lot closer to what you describe - but due the timing of the payment (Oct 2016) and the date of the affair (2006), it seems odd that the reason for the payment and NDA was not solely campaign related.

Actually when you read what I typed instead of reading into them as you ostensibly try to do, my question covers both cases.

And look, I will grant you that the payments may have had a good deal to do with the campaign. But, given Trump's history, I am not arrogant enough to proclaim it is the 'sole' reason as you have seemingly judged.

(12-14-2018 12:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 12:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 11:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I've not seen anything that indicates the payments themselves were illegal, so yes, in Lad world the campaign should have made these expenditures and disclosed of them, from a legal standpoint. The ethical nature of that decision is not clear, but legally there is no issue.
If the campaign had made the payments to AMI, there would have been a public record of those payments, and that public record could have been investigated by the many, many people covering the Trump campaign (as I doubt a large sum paid to a media company would have gone unnoticed). Instead, Trump attempted to cover up the payments that were solely meant to benefit his campaign, and hide his transgressions from public view.
So yeah, tell me I don't understand what I'm suggesting. Does that make you feel like a big boy?

I don't think Tanq is suggesting that you don't understand what you are suggesting. I think he's not suggesting, but stating very clearly, that you don't understand the law.

Does that make him feel like a big boy still?

I understand his point that any inkling of personal rationale for the payments renders the campaign expenditure moot.

However, all evidence points to motivations being campaign related, and none point to there being a personal motivation. Of course one could assume that there was a personal motivation, but there needs to be evidence of that 0.001% personal motivation.

All Tanq has that indicates I "don't understand the law" is his own opinions of how the law should be applied. I mean, I know that every lawyer knows they're right about the law, so I've tried to not get into this issue too much.

The pattern of payoffs, all prior to any campaign, cuts completely against your comment in the third paragraph. And it answers your question of 'what proof exists to wanting to pay off sexual allegations for reasons other than a campaign'.

That pattern of payoffs is clear evidence of other such motivations to pay settlements re: sexual liaisons and/or harrassment.

------------------------------

As to the bolded, no there doesnt. I suggest you re-learn the concepts of 'burden of proof' and 'burden of moving forward' under the law. For criminal law, each and every element must meet the 'beyond a reasonable doubt', including state of mind. Thus, the state has to show that there is *no* other reason. The presumption is that 'at least some other reason' is present. And the state has to negate that presumption to the absolute exclusion of all others, based on the language. I would suggest you stop making stuff up. The word 'irrespective' makes that very problematic -- but hell, 'damn semantics' in your view I guess.....

What I *have* done is point out that you seemingly think that 'all' doesnt mean all, or that some evidence should be ignored (for some unknown basis), or that you have some amazing Kreskin ability to be all knowing into the life, universe, and everything when it comes to motivations.

If the last of the three, I can point you to some good jury consultants where you can make a bundle, or I would suggest you turn that superpower, in the alternative, to promote some sort of world good.

I am glad you understand the idea of totality (albeit your followup still mixes in a good dose of 'predominant use' into your analysis, to be honest); and kudos to you for believing that any campaign under all circumstances should be absolutely in the clear for using campaign funds for paying off mistresses.

I will note that there are more than just a few of ex Federal Election Commission commissioners that dont see eye to eye with you on that classification. But, I am sure that you would be able to predict that. (especially when I can...)

(12-14-2018 01:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 01:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 01:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 01:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 12:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  These are NOT part of the Mueller probe. These are charges brought about by the SDNY - not being made by those in your supposed witch hunt.
Trying to tie these together suggests you want prosecutors to look the other way when they believe they have evidence of a crime.

Are you suggesting that they arose totally independently of the Mueller investigation? Considering the Mueller referred the case to them, that seems an improbable leap.
That is mentioned at
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mueller-ref...osecutors/

Nope - I know how they got started. I specifically said they are not part of the Mueller investigation (which they aren’t).
That’s why I asked the last question - Mueller provided information on crimes to another prosecutor. If you want to complain about these being part of a witch hunt, you’re suggesting that you want prosecutors to look the other way when they see evidence of crimes.

Mueller farmed them out because New York was where the evidence was, and the SDNY legal staff was in better shape to prosecute them. It's really classic witch hunt--we found something that may be outside our scope, so let's turn it over to somebody under whose purview it falls. Anything to pursue anything.

So what should Mueller have done? Ignored evidence of crimes?
The reason I say this isn't part of the witch hunt is he passed of the investigation. He knew it was not within his original scope, so we handed it to someone else. If Mueller really did want to get Trump, no matter what, what incentive is there to lose oversight of the investigation?

I think we were discussing whether it was part of the Mueller investigation. It clearly originated there, and was farmed out. What Mueller should have done would depend on facts that I don't know. My guess is that he farmed it out because he evaluated it as having a low probability of producing anything relative to the amount of effort required to pursue it. So let some US attorney go try to make a name for him/herself.

But you admit the point. It was outside his scope. So why did he turn it up in the first place? That's the witch hunt element, that he was looking into a bunch of stuff that was outside his scope. Tat's how Ken Starr prolonged the Whitewater investigation into Monicagate.

I think we need to revisit the special counsel statute. I don't think to does anybody any good to turn a social counsel loose with no accountability and unlimited funding and no deadline, to look at whatever he wants to. I'd say that a special counsel should have someone to answer to, be appointed with a certain budget for a fixed time frame and scope, and at the end of that time frame, must report progress, and at interval points should request and justify any scope changes. I think there's a very real possibility that being the scenes Mueller has just been told to stir up as much as he can for as long as he can, to try to interfere with Trump's performance as president.