(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.

Thirdly, your second quote says 'zero' about *Trump's* motivation; when you peruse it *real* carefully you might notice that all the relevant comments are Cohen's.

Look Lad, I will agree with you that there was probably a great political motivation to do this. But 'great motivation' doesnt get you there -- the law is written in absolutes; and for good reason when you stop and think about it.

Fourthly if Trump has *any* previous history of being alleged in sexual nature before, and even more so if a settlement of any sort happened, your POV is kind of stupid given the 'totality' requirement.

A third grade google search produces this Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations . You will note there were at least three court-filed allegations even before his campaign. Kind of works against your thrashing of the 'totality' issue when you look at it under the lens of the statutory and legal requirements.

How does Trump's previous sexual assault/misconduct allegations matter?

As you say, I could potentially see an argument that says if he paid off some these women to keep quiet and not go to the press, that there is a history of him paying women to stay quiet for personal reasons and he may have made these two payments for personal reasons. But I would not extend that to a settlement, as those settlements are in a court and are to avoid potential criminal charges. The payments to AMI to squash a story don't have any legal consequences.