(12-13-2018 04:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 04:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 01:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And the cherry is that Cohen admitted to committing a crime in coordination with Trump.

The riotous thing is that Cohen's plea of guilt does not magically make the action that he pled to a crime. Think about it a bit....

Quote: "In particular, and as Cohen himself has now admitted, with respect to both payments, he acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1."

And since when is it improper for someone to spend their own money to settle a lawsuit or dispose of an issue? Ooooohh..... break out the manacles for *that* action. Oh, I forgot, campaign violations are only prison offenses if you are Republican or write for a conservative viewpoint.

Additionally, you may want to read up on the Edward's case which provides a bit better definition of the law than what you may have been digesting.

Superficially those payments look the same. But my understanding is that Edwards wasn't charged because it was not clear if the payoffs were to enhance his political career or save his personal life.

In Trump's case, there is evidence that clearly shows that the payments were made to protect his campaign's chances at winning. That's why it's clear that the payments were associated with the campaign, and thus campaign expenditures.

Did I miss something?

First, look at whose money was eventually used.

Second, the terms "personal expenditure" and “for the purpose of influencing an election” are key here. And as used in the section of law itself. Let's just say the Edwards case did a *lot* in discerning the two -- and if the proportion of 'protect my reputation overall' to 'do it for the campaign' is *anything* less than unitarily the former, the expense by definition is a personal expense.

So no, it is *not* clear that the burden you state is met in the slightest, notwithstanding your unchallenged assertion to the contrary. In fact you jump to the exact opposite default that the law requires. But, looking at the reporting on this, I am not surprised at this.

To be blunt, if Trump has *ever* settled *any* sexual claim at *any* point in time that would be fundamental crystal clear evidence to the exact opposite that you state.

So even if a payment has a 99.9999 per cent political purpose and *only* a .0001 per cent personal purpose, the payment is *not* a political expenditure under the act. The law is specifically written to put *anything* that has *any* element of personal expenditure out of the realm that can be paid with campaign funds, and thus 'personal expenditures' as a definition. That also puts any such payment out of the requirement of being reported. The key term in the definition is 'irrespective' -- i.e. the thing in question has to be 100%, no debate, absolute china white pure *only* for a campaign. *Any* iota of *anything* outside the campaign makes it outside of the purview.

As to the other point that is being made, it seems that Trump personally funded all amounts himself. So no campaign funds used anywhere, no issue with the first prong of the law. And since it seems to be the default of a 'personal expense' under the law, the personal funds being expended aren't required to be reported, no more than Trump's toothpaste, cologne, or tie bills.

So, to be honest, you are missing quite a bit, especially in your default assumption.

And yes Cohen pled to the charge. If I was facing 17-24 in the pokey for criminal tax evasion I would jump like a fing scalded cat at copping to the crime I didnt commit for less than 1/6 of the sentence.

And, sorry, to be a semantic asshat, Edwards *was* charged. And tried.