Stormy Daniels sues Trump

#2,051
#2,051
evillawyer said:
Conspiring to knowingly violate campaign finance laws, which would be a felony. That would apply regardless of who made the payment. If Trump made the payment, he'd still have to report it as a campaign expense if the payment was made to further his candidacy. It was not reported. If it was Cohen's money, it was a unreported campaign donation above the legal limit for an individual of $2500.
Click to expand...
Wait... this money (allegedly) went to Stormy Daniels, not the Trump campaign.
 
#2,052
#2,052
Rasputin_Vol said:
What was the original purpose of the (alleged) payment?
Click to expand...


To reimburse the National Enquirer for the catch and kill on her story, using a dummy corporation. Trump wanted to pay cash but Cohen said no, has to be a check to document it. The question is whether there was lying to the bank to transfer the money.
 
#2,053
#2,053
Rasputin_Vol said:
Wait... stop for a moment. Lets pretend he did exchange cash with Stormy Daniels. What is she claiming the payment was for?[/QUO

She was selling her silence during the heat of the campaign. That is, without question, something of value to the campaign.
Click to expand...
 
#2,054
#2,054
lawgator1 said:
To reimburse the National Enquirer for the catch and kill on her story, using a dummy corporation. Trump wanted to pay cash but Cohen said no, has to be a check to document it. The question is whether there was lying to the bank to transfer the money.
Click to expand...
Wait, reimburse the National Inquirer? For what?
 
#2,055
#2,055
Rasputin_Vol said:
Wait... this money (allegedly) went to Stormy Daniels, not the Trump campaign.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. It was for the benefit of the campaign. If Papa John's wants to provide pizza for the campaign staffers all-night planning session, that's a campaign contribution, even though they did not give money to the campaign itself.

Edit: Actually, to make this analogous, assume that you're buying the pizza and it's being delivered to the staffers. So you're making a payment to Papa John's, but the benefit is going to the campaign.
 
Last edited:
#2,056
#2,056
evillawyer said:
She was selling her silence during the heat of the campaign. That is, without question, something of value to the campaign.
Click to expand...
So Trump (or Cohen) allegedly paid Daniels based on an agreement that her and Cohen signed... but Trump didn't sign. And the money didn't come out of the campaign fund (they are alleging Cohen paid it) to basically keep her mouth closed about an alleged affair.

I'm still trying to see how you are making the leap to campaign finance fraud when the campaign didn't exchange any money, according to you all.
 
#2,057
#2,057
Rasputin_Vol said:
So Trump (or Cohen) allegedly paid Daniels based on an agreement that her and Cohen signed... but Trump didn't sign. And the money didn't come out of the campaign fund (they are alleging Cohen paid it) to basically keep her mouth closed about an alleged affair.

I'm still trying to see how you are making the leap to campaign finance fraud when the campaign didn't exchange any money, according to you all.
Click to expand...

Suppose I could contribute $2500 to Trump directly, which he would then use to buy an ad on This Week In White Nationalism. Instead, I just go out and buy the ad myself. The contract is between me and a third party and the funds never touch the Trump campaign. Functionally though the two scenarios are the same. That's why there is no requirement that the contribution be cash to the campaign itself. It just has to be something of value to the campaign and your intent is to aid the campaign.
 
#2,058
#2,058
evillawyer said:
Doesn't matter. It was for the benefit of the campaign. If Papa John's wants to provide pizza for the campaign staffers all-night planning session, that's a campaign contribution, even though they did not give money to the campaign itself.

Edit: Actually, to make this analogous, assume that you're buying the pizza and it's being delivered to the staffers. So you're making a payment to Papa John's, but the benefit is going to the campaign.
Click to expand...

In your analogy, Papa John's performed a service for the campaign and was paid for it.

Your allegation is that Stormy Daniels performed a service for the campaign (sex with Trump allegedly), but wasn't paid for that. Instead, Cohen paid her to keep quiet and had her sign an agreement that Trump didn't sign.

You all would have been better at suggesting Trump/Cohen paid Stormy for sex, then your Papa John's analogy might (might) have made more sense.
 
Last edited:
#2,060
#2,060
Rasputin_Vol said:
In your analogy, Papa John's performed a service for the campaign and was paid for it.

Your allegation is that Stormy Daniels performed a service for the campaign (sex with Trump allegedly), but wasn't paid it. Instead, Cohen paid her to keep quiet and had her sign an agreement that Trump didn't sign.

You all would have been better at suggesting Trump/Cohen paid Stormy for sex, then your Papa John's analogy might (might) have made more sense.
Click to expand...

No, the service was not the sex. It was keeping her yapper shut during the campaign. That was the thing of value the campaign received and the intent was to aid the campaign by entering into that agreement. That was, therefore, either an unreported campaign contribution above the legal limit for an individual (if Cohen's money) or an unreported campaign expense (if Trump's money).
 
#2,061
#2,061
evillawyer said:
Suppose I could contribute $2500 to Trump directly, which he would then use to buy an ad on This Week In White Nationalism. Instead, I just go out and buy the ad myself. The contract is between me and a third party and the funds never touch the Trump campaign. Functionally though the two scenarios are the same. That's why there is no requirement that the contribution be cash to the campaign itself. It just has to be something of value to the campaign and your intent is to aid the campaign.
Click to expand...
That is a reach.

Allegedly, these two had an intimate relationship. Friends can't exchange money amongst one another? I'm sure Jimmy Carter had agreements with Billy about staying out of the media, but those agreements wouldn't be considered campaign related.
 
#2,063
#2,063
#2,064
#2,064
evillawyer said:
No, the service was not the sex. It was keeping her yapper shut during the campaign. That was the thing of value the campaign received and the intent was to aid the campaign by entering into that agreement. That was, therefore, either an unreported campaign contribution above the legal limit for an individual (if Cohen's money) or an unreported campaign expense (if Trump's money).
Click to expand...

Giving your mistress money is a campaign expense?

Allegedly...

And what about this agreement that Trump didn't even sign? If Trump didn't sign the agreement, yet exchanged money with her (allegedly), then what was the money for then?
 
#2,065
#2,065
evillawyer said:
I think this is the relevant regulation

11 CFR 9002.11 - Qualified campaign expense.
Click to expand...
Which code did he violate?

9002.11 Qualified campaign expense.
(a)Qualified campaign expense means any expenditure, including a purchase, payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit, or gift of money or anything of value -

(1) Incurred to further a candidate's campaign for election to the office of President or Vice President of the United States;

(2) Incurred within the expenditure report period, as defined under 11 CFR 9002.12, or incurred before the beginning of such period in accordance with 11 CFR 9003.4 to the extent such expenditure is for property, services or facilities to be used during such period; and

(3) Neither the incurrence nor the payment of such expenditure constitutes a violation of any law of the United States, any law of the State in which such expense is incurred or paid, or any regulation prescribed under such Federal or State law, except that any State law which has been pre-empted by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, shall not be considered a State law for purposes of this subchapter. An expenditure which constitutes such a violation shall nevertheless count against the candidate's expenditure limitation if the expenditure meets the conditions set forth at 11 CFR 9002.11(a) (1) and (2).

(b)

(1) An expenditure is made to further a Presidential or Vice Presidential candidate's campaign if it is incurred by or on behalf of such candidate or his or her authorized committee. For purposes of 11 CFR 9002.11(b)(1), any expenditure incurred by or on behalf of a Presidential candidate of a political party will also be considered an expenditure to further the campaign of the Vice Presidential candidate of that party. Any expenditure incurred by or on behalf of the Vice Presidential candidate will also be considered an expenditure to further the campaign of the Presidential candidate of that party.

(2) An expenditure is made on behalf of a candidate if it is made by -

(i) Any authorized committee or any other agent of the candidate for the purpose of making an expenditure; or

(ii) Any person authorized or requested by the candidate, by the candidate's authorized committee(s), or by an agent of the candidate or his or her authorized committee(s) to make an expenditure; or

(iii) A committee which has been requested by the candidate, the candidate's authorized committee(s), or an agent thereof to make the expenditure, even though such committee is not authorized in writing.

(3) Expenditures that further the election of other candidates for any public office shall be allocated in accordance with 11 CFR 106.1(a) and will be considered qualified campaign expenses only to the extent that they specifically further the election of the candidate for President or Vice President. A candidate may make expenditures under this section in conjunction with other candidates for any public office, but each candidate shall pay his or her proportionate share of the cost in accordance with 11 CFR 106.1(a).

(4) Expenditures by a candidate's authorized committee(s) pursuant to 11 CFR 9004.6 for the travel and related ground service costs of media shall be qualified campaign expenses. Any reimbursement for travel and related services costs received by a candidate's authorized committee shall be subject to the provisions of 11 CFR 9004.6.

(5) Legal and accounting services which are provided solely to ensure compliance with 52 U.S.C. 30101et seq. or 26 U.S.C. 9001, et seq. shall be qualified campaign expenses which may be paid from payments received from the Fund. If federal funds are used to pay for such services, the payments will count against the candidate's expenditure limitation. Payments for such services may also be made from an account established in accordance with 11 CFR 9003.3 or may be provided to the committee in accordance with 11 CFR 100.86and 100.146. If payments for such services are made from an account established in accordance with 11 CFR 9003.3, the payments do not count against the candidate's expenditure limitation. If payments for such services are made by a minor or new party candidate from an account containing private contributions, the payments do not count against that candidate's expenditure limitation. The amount paid by the committee shall be reported in accordance with 11 CFR part 9006. Amounts paid by the regular employer of the person providing such services pursuant to 11 CFR 100.86 and 100.146 shall be reported by the recipient committee in accordance with11 CFR 104.3(h).

(c) Except as provided in 11 CFR 9034.4(e), expenditures incurred either before the beginning of the expenditure report period or after the last day of a candidate's eligibility will be considered qualified campaign expenses if they meet the provisions of 11 CFR 9004.4(a). Expenditures described under 11 CFR 9004.4(b) will not be considered qualified campaign expenses.
Click to expand...
 
#2,068
#2,068
evillawyer said:
No, the service was not the sex. It was keeping her yapper shut during the campaign. That was the thing of value the campaign received and the intent was to aid the campaign by entering into that agreement. That was, therefore, either an unreported campaign contribution above the legal limit for an individual (if Cohen's money) or an unreported campaign expense (if Trump's money).
Click to expand...
Look, you know good and damn well the spirit and intent of the law was for direct and active support of a campaign. That means media ads, billboards, yard signs, buses/planes/travel, staff salaries, etc.

This little game you all are playing by calling this alleged payment a campaign contribution is ridiculous and goes against the spirit and intent of the law.
 
#2,069
#2,069
lawgator1 said:
The Enquirer bought the rights to the Playboy model's story. Trump paid the Enquirer. The Enquirer was never to run the story.
Click to expand...
So the Inquirer paid Stormy for the story, then Cohen, Avenutti and the Inquirer cooked up an agreement where the Inquirer would get reimbursed what they paid Stormy... but Trump never signed the agreement, so you ended up with just an exchange of money with no strings attached and the story gets released anyways?

Is that pretty much what we have?
 
#2,071
#2,071
Rasputin_Vol said:
So the Inquirer paid Stormy for the story, then Cohen, Avenutti and the Inquirer cooked up an agreement where the Inquirer would get reimbursed what they paid Stormy... but Trump never signed the agreement, so you ended up with just an exchange of money with no strings attached and the story gets released anyways?

Is that pretty much what we have?
Click to expand...


No, the Enquirer was involved with the Playboy model. Stormy was a direct deal.
 
#2,072
#2,072
Rasputin_Vol said:
So the Inquirer paid Stormy for the story, then Cohen, Avenutti and the Inquirer cooked up an agreement where the Inquirer would get reimbursed what they paid Stormy... but Trump never signed the agreement, so you ended up with just an exchange of money with no strings attached and the story gets released anyways?

Is that pretty much what we have?
Click to expand...
Yep. Which is exactly why this thing is yet another nothing burger.
 
#2,073
#2,073
evillawyer said:
Doesn't matter. It was for the benefit of the campaign. If Papa John's wants to provide pizza for the campaign staffers all-night planning session, that's a campaign contribution, even though they did not give money to the campaign itself.

Edit: Actually, to make this analogous, assume that you're buying the pizza and it's being delivered to the staffers. So you're making a payment to Papa John's, but the benefit is going to the campaign.
Click to expand...

Lets pretend Cohen took the campaign staff to Waffle House. Obviously, using your analogy, the meal is a campaign expense. But if he puts $2 in the juke box during the meal, would you consider that a campaign expenditure?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top