Imagine that, a Biden backer hurling charges of plagiarism.

(12-14-2018 10:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Awwww how cute. Accuse someone of plagiarizing. The true twerp in you coming forth I guess.

Hate to tell you that more than one person can interpret the term 'irrespective' and there are way more sources than one for the reasoning behind the provisions of the Election Act.

In response: take a flying leap you sniveling twerp.

Edited to add: I did add the comment about the people who are complaining about personal monies being misapplied would undoubtedly be complaining if campaign funds were used from the Smith piece. It seemed appropriate. It still does.

But the implication that my position is 'plagiarized' my response is that Lad can go FHimself. Guilty of 'crude' there; better as all hell than twerpy though.

So the twerp was right? Hahahah

That was actually the comment that made me realize you must have read the piece - it was too on the nose. Why so worked up that I was right?

Ooohhhhh Yes it was right that I took a witticism and pointed comment and paraphrased it. As I noted, I thought it was a great insight. Still do. And I will use that same point at other times and in other places. And I readily admitted using it. Me bad (I guess).

By the way, Sparky, I did the same thing with some witticisms in the 'In a lighter side' thread as well. I suggest you get to work and ferret out those as well. Should be some rich digging there. And I will probably paraphrase other interesting, pithy, and pointed comments from time to time from other places if the example is worth sharing. Undoubtedly. Probably (horrors) even here. Im sure that will be the scoop of the fing century.

As to 'worked up', I could care less that a pithy and pointed remark is called out. I suggest you read the second sentence and the last sentence of my reply, Lad, to see what engenders the response.

If you dont mean what I state is implied there, then I will certainly back off my statement. And I will actually apologize to you for making the remark. If you did not mean that, I would suggest you take the time to be specific, since it wasnt just me that read that implication into your narrative.

If, in fact, you do mean the implication, then my original statement to you to 'go f-ck yourself' still holds. Clear enough?

And funnily enough, the body of the point itself:

Quote: the simple point is that Trump paid off Daniels and McDougal with personal funds, so people scream and ***** about an unreported campaign expenditure. If just the opposite happened, and the Trump campaign had paid them off with campaign funds, the same fing rabble would be bitching and screaming about how he’d improperly diverted campaign resources for personal use. That is the absolute long and short of it.

seems pretty spot on to me, fwiw. What say you, Lad? My best guess is that if it was the opposite, you would be on the front lines bitching and screaming about an illegal use of campaign funds for paying off a sex partner. I would bet a busload on that, to be honest. Or would that too depend on something 'reactive' against something 'proactive' as your current magical delineation/standard seems to be?

As to the French article -- well -- he got at least one fairly germane fact wrong.

Quote:So far, the best available evidence indicates that Trump’s commitments to Stormy Daniels didn’t exist “irrespective” of his campaign but rather because of his campaign. That’s Michael Cohen’s assertion.

I guess he didnt read Cohen's sentencing memo.

Cohen

Quote:"felt obligated to assist Client-1 [Trump], on Client-1's [Trump’s] instruction, to attempt to prevent Woman-1 and Woman-2 from disseminating narratives that would adversely affect the Campaign and cause personal embarrassment to Client-1 and his family.”

So his comment of "That's Cohen's assertion" really doesnt fit the text of Cohen's own sentencing memo.

(12-15-2018 01:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Ooohhhhh Yes it was right that I took a witticism and pointed comment and paraphrased it. As I noted, I thought it was a great insight. Still do. And I will use that same point at other times and in other places. And I readily admitted using it. Me bad (I guess).

By the way, Sparky, I did the same thing with some witticisms in the 'In a lighter side' thread as well. I suggest you get to work and ferret out those as well. Should be some rich digging there. And I will probably paraphrase other interesting, pithy, and pointed comments from time to time from other places if the example is worth sharing. Undoubtedly. Probably (horrors) even here. Im sure that will be the scoop of the fing century.

As to 'worked up', I could care less that a pithy and pointed remark is called out. I suggest you read the second sentence and the last sentence of my reply, Lad, to see what engenders the response.

If you dont mean what I state is implied there, then I will certainly back off my statement. And I will actually apologize to you for making the remark. If you did not mean that, I would suggest you take the time to be specific, since it wasnt just me that read that implication into your narrative.

If, in fact, you do mean the implication, then my original statement to you to 'go f-ck yourself' still holds. Clear enough?

And funnily enough, the body of the point itself:

Quote: the simple point is that Trump paid off Daniels and McDougal with personal funds, so people scream and ***** about an unreported campaign expenditure. If just the opposite happened, and the Trump campaign had paid them off with campaign funds, the same fing rabble would be bitching and screaming about how he’d improperly diverted campaign resources for personal use. That is the absolute long and short of it.

seems pretty spot on to me, fwiw. What say you, Lad? My best guess is that if it was the opposite, you would be on the front lines bitching and screaming about an illegal use of campaign funds for paying off a sex partner. I would bet a busload on that, to be honest. Or would that too depend on something 'reactive' against something 'proactive' as your current magical delineation/standard seems to be?

Not being worked up but then suggesting someone go f*ck themselves seem to be two ideas that aren’t exactly in agreement with each other...

Everyone on this board is informed and influenced by articles and columns they read - we use those to support our positions. I just happened to notice that such a specific point you made was so similar to one I happened to read that it was almost certainly first noted by that NR author, and not the other way around. Nothing wrong with borrowing someone’s observation, you just may want to be a bit more up front about it next time or get less worked up when someone happens to point out that you are presenting very specific ideas without attribution.

And I’ve got no idea how I’d react to the hypothetical you posit. I don’t think I’d be arguing it was illegal, but as I’ve mentioned multiple times, I do think the action would be unethical.

Edit: I do find it really rich that the person lambasting me for assuming what the motivation behind Trump’s were (based on evidence available), is trying to assume what I would do in another situation. At least you did ask me, I guess.

And what’s your deal with being against using motivation as a defining line for evaluating if someone is guilty of a crime? I’m no lawyer, but something tells me there are a number of crimes where intent and motivation are required to be shown. Or am I wrong on that?

(12-15-2018 11:00 AM)At Ease Wrote:  

Lol.

...and yet, the Democrats give us the Clintons.

Actions don't align with words. Especially ironic in the context of a poll about the value of honesty, eh?

At least Republicans are honest about how little they value honesty.

(12-15-2018 10:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-15-2018 01:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Ooohhhhh Yes it was right that I took a witticism and pointed comment and paraphrased it. As I noted, I thought it was a great insight. Still do. And I will use that same point at other times and in other places. And I readily admitted using it. Me bad (I guess).

By the way, Sparky, I did the same thing with some witticisms in the 'In a lighter side' thread as well. I suggest you get to work and ferret out those as well. Should be some rich digging there. And I will probably paraphrase other interesting, pithy, and pointed comments from time to time from other places if the example is worth sharing. Undoubtedly. Probably (horrors) even here. Im sure that will be the scoop of the fing century.

As to 'worked up', I could care less that a pithy and pointed remark is called out. I suggest you read the second sentence and the last sentence of my reply, Lad, to see what engenders the response.

If you dont mean what I state is implied there, then I will certainly back off my statement. And I will actually apologize to you for making the remark. If you did not mean that, I would suggest you take the time to be specific, since it wasnt just me that read that implication into your narrative.

If, in fact, you do mean the implication, then my original statement to you to 'go f-ck yourself' still holds. Clear enough?

And funnily enough, the body of the point itself:

Quote: the simple point is that Trump paid off Daniels and McDougal with personal funds, so people scream and ***** about an unreported campaign expenditure. If just the opposite happened, and the Trump campaign had paid them off with campaign funds, the same fing rabble would be bitching and screaming about how he’d improperly diverted campaign resources for personal use. That is the absolute long and short of it.

seems pretty spot on to me, fwiw. What say you, Lad? My best guess is that if it was the opposite, you would be on the front lines bitching and screaming about an illegal use of campaign funds for paying off a sex partner. I would bet a busload on that, to be honest. Or would that too depend on something 'reactive' against something 'proactive' as your current magical delineation/standard seems to be?

Not being worked up but then suggesting someone go f*ck themselves seem to be two ideas that aren’t exactly in agreement with each other...

Everyone on this board is informed and influenced by articles and columns they read - we use those to support our positions. I just happened to notice that such a specific point you made was so similar to one I happened to read that it was almost certainly first noted by that NR author, and not the other way around. Nothing wrong with borrowing someone’s observation, you just may want to be a bit more up front about it next time or get less worked up when someone happens to point out that you are presenting very specific ideas without attribution.

Lad, perhaps you need some reading lessons. My comment was targeted at the generalized form of the issue that you tossed this way. I guess you are like Mizie Hirono and are too fing smart to notice the implication.

If you want to say, 'I saw your point elsewhere' but simply point it out as a far more general and broad issue of plagiarization, then you are either blithely ignorant of the generalized manner in which you brought it up, or are in the alternative you are a twerpy little **** who is aware and simply wishes for the more general statement to stand.

You brought it up in manner that more than one other person assumed that you were making a more generalized charge, if you were able to actually read. So yes, to the the more general form, I will take offense to. If that was what you meant, you have had the opportunity to read my comment back to you on that and correct that.

On the 'one point' -- I really dont care. Readily copped to it. And said as to points I see I will do that. Bummer.

The main retort was to the more generalized and twerpy comment you made to it. And I outlined that stance to you. And I offered that if you had meant the 'as to the one point' I would readily offer you an apology. And if it stands in the more general form that it has, then I think a '**** you' is entirely appropriate.

But as to so many other hard questions that are tossed your way, you dont bother to say either way, do you?

Since I note that you havent bothered to address the more general form that your statement is in, then it seemingly stands in that more general form. So I guess the '**** your twerpy little attitude' comment of mine stands to you as well. Good for you.

If you dont see the more generalized context that your comment can be taken, and has been taken (by people even more than me) then you are either amazingly and blithely ignorant in terms of that, or simply dont give a rat's ass. And if you dont mean it in the general form, you have had every opportunity to walk it back to the more specific form.

The former I have no use for. The latter two cases I will tell, and have no hesitation in telling, to '**** off you little twerp'. Not to hard to understand, is it? And to be absolutely crystal clear, should you walk back and limit your original comment, I will still proffer the apology I extended. Again, not hard to understand this. Vive le difference, so to speak, between my very explicit comment and yours, I guess. (should I attribute that French saying somewhere, lad? Since I am unsure where in lad-world a comment of plagiarism is warranted, and I am apparently doubly touched by being blithely ignorant in that realm. I'd make a guess on which avenue happens, but I dont want to be lambasted for such an explicit conjecture (see below) )

Quote:Edit: I do find it really rich that the person lambasting me for assuming what the motivation behind Trump’s were (based on evidence available), is trying to assume what I would do in another situation. At least you did ask me, I guess.

Lad, your fing micro-contortions and quite interesting 'standards du jour' that fly out of the ether (a nice word for a body part, in this instance) to fit your preconceptions kind of make it easy to make such a guess. A guess. Perhaps it is a wrong guess. Considering the blithe ignorance you have such a fun time attributing to me, I would suggest take that you take that guess with such a grain of salt.

By 'lambasting' are we to take it that you *dont* have first hand knowledge and complete prescience on Trump's state of mind? That *must* be a terrible lambaste for you to be that churlish about what should be an obvious fact? I mean your statements are rife with the terms 'solely', and 'only' and.... **** Id have to go back and count them which would be an utter waste of time frankly.

Sorry for being so 'lambastic' (sic -- so as to try to avoid the twerpish return comments) by pointing out your amazing Kreskin-esque, omniscient, and somewhat prescient absolute knowledge of present facts. Must be a terrible burden to bear to endure such a 'lambaste' over that.

And, as the adroit and all encompassing mind that you show towards that subject, I would have hoped you understood the the difference between the term 'only', and 'solely' (yada, yada, yada,.... I guess I need to attribute this pithy retort, so 'Jerry Seinfeld Show' (c. unsure of air date), is that sufficient there lad?) on one hand -- and the term 'my best guess'?

Hint -- one is a fing 'guess' (somewhat explicit there.... duh.) The others are statements of fact. Statement of not just fact, but extreme and pretty absolute facts lad. Funny that. Just a tiny fing difference there lad. Think about it. I would think that one *would* able to discern the term 'best guess' from those statement of not just facts, but statements of absolute facts to the exclusion of *everything else* in life, the universe, and everything (Douglas Adams concept c. mid 70's iirc, to make sure I am citing concepts properly here. Cant be *too* careful now with the concept cop police skulking about in force....). Perhaps not.

But my humblest apologies for causing such consternation between a 'guess' (an explicit one) and statements of fact (and not just fact, but 'absolute' fact nonetheless) Thanks for that truly inspired insight that such an explicit 'guess' is just so close to the statement of an absolute fact that it truly is and should be completely mistaken for being exactly the same in all respects. An amazing insight and thanks for that.

But I will agree with you in one respect. 'Rich indeed' --- absolutely. But perhaps not for the same or even shared bases.

Back to work now.

(12-15-2018 11:48 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  ...and yet, the Democrats give us the Clintons.

Actions don't align with words. Especially ironic in the context of a poll about the value of honesty, eh?

At least Republicans are honest about how little they value honesty.

'If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.'

'The US ambassador in Libya was killed because the locals got mad about a video.'

Yes, the paradigm of honesty. To be honest, the Republicans are no better at honesty, but the cognitive dissonance is staggering.

As an aside, I find it interesting that the Democrat’s wail has changed from

“Trump stole the election by conspiring with the Russians to publish Hillary’s emails unchanged”

to

“Trump stole the election by paying off a couple of bimbos”

Still searching for a reason Hillary lost, I guess.

(12-16-2018 11:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  As an aside, I find it interesting that the Democrat’s wail has changed from

“Trump stole the election by conspiring with the Russians to publish Hillary’s emails unchanged”

to

“Trump stole the election by paying off a couple of bimbos”

Still searching for a reason Hillary lost, I guess.

Source? I mean, you are quoting someone there....

(12-16-2018 11:28 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-16-2018 11:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  As an aside, I find it interesting that the Democrat’s wail has changed from

“Trump stole the election by conspiring with the Russians to publish Hillary’s emails unchanged”

to

“Trump stole the election by paying off a couple of bimbos”

Still searching for a reason Hillary lost, I guess.

Source? I mean, you are quoting someone there....

Generic antiTrumpers. Could be CNN, MSNBC, NYT, or DNC.

Can someone explain to me why it was perfectly okay for multiple congress critters to pay off multiple sex partners with taxpayers' money, but it is somehow a felony for Donald Trump to pay off two women with his own money?

(12-16-2018 01:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Can someone explain to me why it was perfectly okay for multiple congress critters to pay off multiple sex partners with taxpayers' money, but it is somehow a felony for Donald Trump to pay off two women with his own money?

Nice strawman you got there...

I think many people do not like the current practice of using tax payer money to fund sexual harassment settlements. It's a rather shocking fact, and it's good that it was exposed back in 2017.

Last I saw, both parts of Congress have passed legislation to end the practice, but the bills haven't been reconciled. I've got no idea how that's the case, as one would imagine that this would be a great, bipartisan piece of legislation.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/congress-s...sment-bill

And the issue for Trump isn't who he paid and what for, it's that the payments were not disclosed and exceed campaign contribution amounts. As Tanq has argued, they weren't campaign contributions, but I'm not really interested in continuing down that rabbit hole...

(12-16-2018 01:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-16-2018 01:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Can someone explain to me why it was perfectly okay for multiple congress critters to pay off multiple sex partners with taxpayers' money, but it is somehow a felony for Donald Trump to pay off two women with his own money?

Nice strawman you got there...

I think many people do not like the current practice of using tax payer money to fund sexual harassment settlements. It's a rather shocking fact, and it's good that it was exposed back in 2017.

Last I saw, both parts of Congress have passed legislation to end the practice, but the bills haven't been reconciled. I've got no idea how that's the case, as one would imagine that this would be a great, bipartisan piece of legislation.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/congress-s...sment-bill

And the issue for Trump isn't who he paid and what for, it's that the payments were not disclosed and exceed campaign contribution amounts. As Tanq has argued, they weren't campaign contributions, but I'm not really interested in continuing down that rabbit hole...

So let's get this straight:

Third party (i.e. a party that is not the individual) pays off congressional allegations of sexual harassment -- shouldn't be a campaign contribution and should be unreportable;

Third party pays off McDougal with third party being compensated by Trump --- third party is obviously making a reportable campaign contribution, as is supposedly Trump;

Trump individually pays off Stormy -- an completely and obvious Trump reportable contribution.

Does this sum up your point of view, lad?

But somehow the first one is a 'strawman' and should not be considered. Got it.

Jeezus krist, if we could somehow store the energy in all these micro-contortions not only would we seal the demise of OPEC, we could patent a friggin perpetual energy source.....

I think the 'transparency' argument for campaign contributions just got a bit muddier with the 'strawman' argument there. Please do tell lad, which cutouts and how many cutouts delineate that bright magic line in your worldview?

By the way lad, the idea of applying the 'campaign contribution' to the Congressional slush fund is not mine, but I dont want the fing citation police to get mad.

The fact that the US taxpayer is the ultimate 'third person' in the first scenario makes it especially repulsive.

I think it also interesting to find the fine line on what an individual can and cannot do with their own resources for their own campaign, or what they should report for that matter, in the lad worldview....

(12-16-2018 01:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-16-2018 01:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-16-2018 01:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Can someone explain to me why it was perfectly okay for multiple congress critters to pay off multiple sex partners with taxpayers' money, but it is somehow a felony for Donald Trump to pay off two women with his own money?

Nice strawman you got there...

I think many people do not like the current practice of using tax payer money to fund sexual harassment settlements. It's a rather shocking fact, and it's good that it was exposed back in 2017.

Last I saw, both parts of Congress have passed legislation to end the practice, but the bills haven't been reconciled. I've got no idea how that's the case, as one would imagine that this would be a great, bipartisan piece of legislation.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/congress-s...sment-bill

And the issue for Trump isn't who he paid and what for, it's that the payments were not disclosed and exceed campaign contribution amounts. As Tanq has argued, they weren't campaign contributions, but I'm not really interested in continuing down that rabbit hole...

So let's get this straight:

Third party (i.e. a party that is not the individual) pays off congressional allegations of sexual harassment -- shouldn't be a campaign contribution and should be unreportable;

Third party pays off McDougal with third party being compensated by Trump --- third party is obviously making a reportable campaign contribution, as is supposedly Trump;

Trump individually pays of Stormy -- an obvious Trump reportable contribution.

Does this sum up your point of view, lad?

But somehow the first one is a 'strawman' and should not be considered. Got it.

Jeezus krist, if we could somehow store the energy in all these micro-contortions not only would we seal the demise of OPEC, we could patent a friggin perpetual energy source.....

I think the 'transparency' argument for campaign contributions just got a bit muddier with the 'strawman' argument there. Please do tell lad, which cutouts and how many cutouts delineate that bright magic line in your worldview?

By the way lad, the idea of applying the 'campaign contribution' to the Congressional slush fund is not mine, but I dont want the fing citation police to get mad.

The strawman argument was that there wasn't concern over the practice of Congress using a slush fund to settle sexual harassment claims. There was outrage about that and work was being done to fix it (turns out a few days ago an agreement was finally reached: https://www.npr.org/2018/12/12/676209258...tlements).

So to be crystal clear - people felt that it was NOT OK for Congress to use tax-payer slush funds to handle sexual harassment settlements, unlike what Owl#s tried to suggest.

(12-16-2018 01:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-16-2018 01:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-16-2018 01:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-16-2018 01:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Can someone explain to me why it was perfectly okay for multiple congress critters to pay off multiple sex partners with taxpayers' money, but it is somehow a felony for Donald Trump to pay off two women with his own money?

Nice strawman you got there...

I think many people do not like the current practice of using tax payer money to fund sexual harassment settlements. It's a rather shocking fact, and it's good that it was exposed back in 2017.

Last I saw, both parts of Congress have passed legislation to end the practice, but the bills haven't been reconciled. I've got no idea how that's the case, as one would imagine that this would be a great, bipartisan piece of legislation.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/congress-s...sment-bill

And the issue for Trump isn't who he paid and what for, it's that the payments were not disclosed and exceed campaign contribution amounts. As Tanq has argued, they weren't campaign contributions, but I'm not really interested in continuing down that rabbit hole...

So let's get this straight:

Third party (i.e. a party that is not the individual) pays off congressional allegations of sexual harassment -- shouldn't be a campaign contribution and should be unreportable;

Third party pays off McDougal with third party being compensated by Trump --- third party is obviously making a reportable campaign contribution, as is supposedly Trump;

Trump individually pays of Stormy -- an obvious Trump reportable contribution.

Does this sum up your point of view, lad?

But somehow the first one is a 'strawman' and should not be considered. Got it.

Jeezus krist, if we could somehow store the energy in all these micro-contortions not only would we seal the demise of OPEC, we could patent a friggin perpetual energy source.....

I think the 'transparency' argument for campaign contributions just got a bit muddier with the 'strawman' argument there. Please do tell lad, which cutouts and how many cutouts delineate that bright magic line in your worldview?

By the way lad, the idea of applying the 'campaign contribution' to the Congressional slush fund is not mine, but I dont want the fing citation police to get mad.

The strawman argument was that there wasn't concern over the practice of Congress using a slush fund to settle sexual harassment claims. There was outrage about that and work was being done to fix it (turns out a few days ago an agreement was finally reached: https://www.npr.org/2018/12/12/676209258...tlements).

So to be crystal clear - people felt that it was NOT OK for Congress to use tax-payer slush funds to handle sexual harassment settlements, unlike what Owl#s tried to suggest.

But you ignore the implications of the third party transaction completely, dont you?

All you say is 'it ended', yet you dont even address whether the structure of the financial transaction is or should be violative of the obvious relations, both in subject matter and in financial transaction structure, to the 'proper campaign expense' that you have your knickers up over Trump.

So no, it isnt a strawman, neither in the structure, nor in the subject matter, in the fing slightest according your view on the Trump transactions, is it? All you can say is 'Congress ended it. Case closed. Move on'. Lol.

(12-16-2018 01:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-16-2018 01:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Can someone explain to me why it was perfectly okay for multiple congress critters to pay off multiple sex partners with taxpayers' money, but it is somehow a felony for Donald Trump to pay off two women with his own money?

Nice strawman you got there...
I think many people do not like the current practice of using tax payer money to fund sexual harassment settlements. It's a rather shocking fact, and it's good that it was exposed back in 2017.
Last I saw, both parts of Congress have passed legislation to end the practice, but the bills haven't been reconciled. I've got no idea how that's the case, as one would imagine that this would be a great, bipartisan piece of legislation.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/congress-s...sment-bill
And the issue for Trump isn't who he paid and what for, it's that the payments were not disclosed and exceed campaign contribution amounts. As Tanq has argued, they weren't campaign contributions, but I'm not really interested in continuing down that rabbit hole...

Let me change one word:

Can someone explain to me why it was perfectly legal for multiple congress critters to pay off multiple sex partners with taxpayers' money, but it is somehow a felony for Donald Trump to pay off two women with his own money?

Now explain the straw man. I didn't like Trump paying off the bimbos. But I have a hard time concluding that it is somehow illegal, much less a felony, when the precedent has been set for decades that it was okay.

The "whatabout" cries tend to lose their significance when one realizes that our entire legal system is based upon precedent, as is any common law jurisdiction. Therefore, there is a serious problem when the rules change willy nilly. That's why our constitution has a prohibition against ex post facto laws.

I have a feeling that congress would never have gotten around to outlawing the process of outlawing having their indiscretions paid for by taxpayers had not Donald Trump become president. This strikes me as primarily something being done by a bunch of self-righteous a-holes to cover their butts so they could point fingers, rather than something they really believed was appropriate.

I have a feeling that the payments on behalf of those congress critters were not disclosed and exceeded campaign contribution limits, so those distinctions fail.

If what Trump did was illegal, then what those congress critters did was also illegal. And they stole my money for theirs, whereas he paid for his with his money. Or at least that's what we are told. If it turns out he diverted campaign contributions received from others, then I can see a problem. If it's his money, I would certainly never vote to convict if I were on the jury. Not ever.

I think the entire episode just points out what a rabbit warren the entire 'campaign finance' has become.

I mean, at the point we are telling an individual what they can do with their own funds (or not) is just kind of disgusting. I mean there are people on this board who explicitly state that if an individual settles a sexual-based complaint with their own funds it is *obviously* a campaign expenditure that *must* be reported.

What other blurry lines are going to pop up here? I am sure it will be absolutely partisan dependent for the most part where that line lies.

I think the case with third party funds is easy --- if you get third party funds of any sort, not only must you report the receipt of those you should absolutely account for those funds' expenditure (of any sort). And, you should open it up where those third party funds can be used for anything and everything --- but the expenditure of third-party funds must be accounted for.

With first party finances.... good god, what someone does with their own resources is no one else's fing business. But what this has pointed out is that you will have partisans who will ***** and pursue any and every first party expenditure, whichever way it suits their goals. All you have to do (with a straight face, of course) is say '[that action paid for] is *solely* for the campaign' --- whether it is a payoff of a lawsuit, a payoff to another potential legal issue, or for that matter it is a friggin haircut. It gets stupid. On the other hand you have people with a straight face who claim that the 100,000 units of 'Pence for Dogcatcher' bumper stickers have either 'no' campaign purpose, or not *solely* for a campaign purpose. All when done with the principals' own dinero.

Look, I have no doubt that there was at least *some* campaign consideration for the Daniels and McDougal payoff. Zero doubt. But the law has no fing effective meaning in the form it is in. And we have people going apeshit to play the ultimate political step with a fing indeterminative statute. Fing insane. Look, it forces one side to say with a gd straight face that a mistress payoff is a 'legitimate campaign expense' --- that is the height of utter stupidity.

In the case that say Trump decided to buy 5 million bumper stickers that say 'Trump for President 2020' is one act, and Trump buying 5 million bumper stickers that say 'Trump for President 20??' is completely another makes my head boggle. Paid for with the first party's own frigging moolah nonetheless.

But hell, it makes a great fing feasting ground for the people that want to draw nineteen billion ephemeral lines across something and then employ 1 billion regulators to enforce it.

The real issue is the true '2nd party action' stuff -- like Edwards' contributors executing 15k checks to his mistress with 'Purchase of credenza' on the check. I mean, we have found that 2nd party action to be 'fine to do', yet someone spending their own money is an issue. Just fing amazing to me.

But the main delineator between that 1st party funds payment and 2nd party direct payment seems for the most part to be a cry of 'Strawman' followed by thrashing; with the obvious unsaid delineator that it is Trump being the 1st party.