(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.

And is there evidence that suggests Trump made these payments for personal reasons? Wouldn't you need some sort of evidence to suggest that in order for your hypothesis to be proven true, that there was a 0.001% personal reason for them? Without evidence, and with substantial evidence that these payments were made solely to assist the campaign, how can you argue there is any personal nature to them? Your argument basically boils down to a carte blanche for campaign finance violations because all someone would have to do is say that they were making a personal donation and they couldn't be charged.

I'm not dancing an Irish jig. I'm simply stating that Trump made a personal donation to his campaign via these payments, and did not report it. Is that really such a jig?

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.