(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...)