(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.

(12-13-2018 03:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 03:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 03:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 02:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 01:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  They set out to get him, and they got him. Not for what they wanted him for, but they got him.

Neither you nor I would survive a witch hunt into our lives like this.

No, I'm pretty darn confident that I would not be guilty of any felonies.

Such a spotless life you have led!!!!

After two interviews you would be guilty of lying to the FBI - IF you or an associate was the one they were out to get. The first interview, you say you had dinner about 8. The second one you say 8 or 8:30. Your friend says 7:45. Someone is lying. They choose you. Because, of course, they have no interest in NOT finding witches. Bada bing, you are making a p.ea deal to avoid bankruptcy and/or jail. Haven’t you been watching?

I will limit myself to my student days - underage drinking, DUI, some other things best not confessed to a liberal. Since then, I could not truthfully say that every cent of income was declared. Ever go to a casino and hit a $500 jackpot? Did you declare it?

Maybe you are not as spotless as you say. And the witch hunters will ferret those out, and twist them to seem worse.

I moved out of La La Land long ago. Let me know if there is an excess of gum drops in your neighborhood.

As I said - felony. Underage drinking is a misdemeanor, as well as are the other things most college students partake in (including a single DUI where no one is injured).

I never said I've never broken the law (I've definitely been stopped for speeding in my life), but I have not committed a felony. And I am confident about that.

I'm just surprised you're willing to be so nonchalant about someone committing felonies, only because you think they were out to be got. What if that person who was out to be got had investigations started because they did enough things wrong to warrant an investigation????

But they did not warrant an investigation until They associated with Trump. Then they dug up ten year old things or twisted things.

The Southern District of New York is group that is dealing with the campaign finance violations. I could be wrong, but I do not believe that these proceedings had anything to do with the witch hunt you're talking about.

Unless you're trying to suggest any investigations, no matter how much evidence exists, into Trump and his associates aren't warranted.

And further, the other item I posted about, the Russian spy pleading guilty, that does not directly connect to Trump, but it's likely a very important piece in the Russian influence/interference/collusion investigation.

(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?

(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.

Watching CNN now.

Jim Acosta just said that there was no comment from the WH on the inaugural stuff “because they are too busy trying to get their stories straight on the events of this morning”.

Yeah, just great unbiased reporting.

Now Wolf is leading a panel discussion on the pay,Mets to women. Why have they given up on collusion?

as usual, all Trump all the time.

It’s like watching a pack of chihuahuas.

CNN took a one minute break to report on bomb threats, then immrdiately back to Trump.

CNN ogles Trump the way I used to digest an issue of Penthouse.

(12-13-2018 06:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  CNN ogles Trump the way I used to digest an issue of Penthouse.

You know, we really ought to ding your reputation for that image! :)

In '13 under Obama, all 54 Dems in the Dem Senate voted to:
*double length of border barrier w/ Mexico
*spend $40B on border security
*end diversity visa lottery
*double # of border agents to 40K

What amazing new facts emerged to cause an extinction akin to the dinosaurs here?

(12-13-2018 01:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 01:42 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 01:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 11:45 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 11:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  This witch hunt is destroying America, which is fine with the left as long as it destroys Trump. he committed the crime of winning against Hillary. Not allowed.

Destroying America is fine with the left, as long as they get to impose their socialist/communist/redistributionist/collectivist scheme upon us.

At least this witch hunt has found some legitimate witches!

With that said, at what point will y’all stop calling it a witch hunt? There’s now been court filings that clearly show crimes were committed by those in the inner Trump circle. Should we just ignore said crimes and not investigate them because they relate to the president?

Because the hunt is for Russian collusion, not to demonstrate that people around Trump have not been lily pure. I bet if we investigated the DNC is a similar way, we would find crimes have been committed. Would you take that bet/

No witch hunt in history has failed to find witches. Look up Salem, Mass. Look up McCarthy, Joe.

It is really very stupid to say this is what the investigation was looking for.

Well this is the first time I've learned that actual witches were found in the Salem witch trials. Interesting.

Thirteen of them were found guilty and executed.

Guilty, mind you. Just like Flynn and Cohen. Therefore they were witches.

the similarity to defining the people arrested and charged in the Trump witch hunt as witches is striking. Just because somebody is charged withlying does not mean there was collusion.

Clearly, you do not understand the term witch hunt. Try fishing expedition instead.

(12-13-2018 01:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 01:42 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 01:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 11:45 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 11:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  This witch hunt is destroying America, which is fine with the left as long as it destroys Trump. he committed the crime of winning against Hillary. Not allowed.

Destroying America is fine with the left, as long as they get to impose their socialist/communist/redistributionist/collectivist scheme upon us.

At least this witch hunt has found some legitimate witches!

With that said, at what point will y’all stop calling it a witch hunt? There’s now been court filings that clearly show crimes were committed by those in the inner Trump circle. Should we just ignore said crimes and not investigate them because they relate to the president?

Because the hunt is for Russian collusion, not to demonstrate that people around Trump have not been lily pure. I bet if we investigated the DNC is a similar way, we would find crimes have been committed. Would you take that bet/

No witch hunt in history has failed to find witches. Look up Salem, Mass. Look up McCarthy, Joe.

It is really very stupid to say this is what the investigation was looking for.

Well this is the first time I've learned that actual witches were found in the Salem witch trials. Interesting.

Thirteen of them were found guilty and executed.

Guilty, mind you. Just like Flynn and Cohen. Therefore they were witches.

the similarity to defining the people arrested and charged in the Trump witch hunt as witches is striking. Just because somebody is charged withlying does not mean there was collusion.

Clearly, you do not understand the term witch hunt. Try fishing expedition instead.

(12-13-2018 10:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  In '13 under Obama, all 54 Dems in the Dem Senate voted to:
*double length of border barrier w/ Mexico
*spend $40B on border security
*end diversity visa lottery
*double # of border agents to 40K

What amazing new facts emerged to cause an extinction akin to the dinosaurs here?

And Dems have shown willingness to compromise and fund portions of the wall and increase further funding under Trump in exchange for a permanent legislative fix for Dreamers. Yet Trump and the Reps don't want to play in the sand box unless they get their way completely.

Did you forget that?

(12-13-2018 04:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(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.

Yeah, Trump's own words indicate he only wanted the stories quiet before the election.

Quote: I think it’s probably better to do the Charleston thing, just this time. Uh, yeah. In two weeks, it’s fine.

and

Quote:TRUMP: All you’ve got to do is delay for —

COHEN: Even after that, it’s not going to ever be opened. There’s no, there’s no purpose for it. Um, told you about Charleston. Um, I need to open up a company for the transfer of all of that info regarding our friend, David, you know, so that — I’m going to do that right away. I’ve actually come up and I’ve spoken —

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 *full* and *complete* *set* of motivations; 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.

I would hazard a guess that Trump probably has at least one settlement we dont know from the public record.

(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.

(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.

(12-14-2018 11:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(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.

The problem is that you are assuming ipso facto and without regard to the words of the statute that the expenditures are 'campaign expenditures'. You simply dont understand the import of the wording of the statute.

If you are claiming that the personal expenditures by Trump were in fact 'campaign expenditures', then you by default support the position that the Trump campaign could have and should have made the expenditures, since that would be legal. That is the absolute and necessary result from your predetermined idea that a payoff to a mistress with personal funds for hush money in this case is illegal. Got it. You dont seem to gd understand that necessary result, but so be it.

Do you know how fing stupid that appears? I guess in Lad-world the payment of hush money to mistresses by a campaign is and should be a legitimate campaign expense. Good for you. That is the necessary result of your contortions. Might be good in Lad-world, sounds utterly fing stupid to me. And to a world of ex-chairmen of the FEC for that matter.

Quote: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.

I'm following the fing wording of the law, hate to tell you. I'm following the law that surrounds the statute, hate to tell you.

I guess the words and concepts and results of your position dont fing matter to you. Got it.

(12-14-2018 11:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(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?

That introduces the iota of non-campaign (personal) reasons for such a payoff. That 'iota' thingy is somewhat important in the campaign finance laws. Perhaps if you understood the concept behind the law in question you would have a tad better grasp.

Quote: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.

Doesnt matter. Even the smallest amount of non-campaign reasoning is sufficient to take it outside of being a campaign expenditure and into the set of personal expenditures.

But you are seemingly having a grand old time of picking and choosing your own formulations of what you want, so please dont let the actual law get in your way.