Stormy Daniels sues Trump

[FLVOL_79]

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.

Uh..what kind of bank do you bank with that asks you what you are doing with your money?..

 

[McDad]

Uh..what kind of bank do you bank with that asks you what you are doing with your money?..

If the amount is over 5k, my bank asks for the purpose of the transfer. Because drugs.

 

[hog88]

If the amount is over 5k, my bank asks for the purpose of the transfer. Because drugs.

Yep, but generic answers generally suffice.

 

[McDad]

Yep, but generic answers generally suffice.

True. Always wondered what person when questioned answers the bank rep with, "illegal stuff".

 

[evillawyer]

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?

I don't think the $2 in the juke box would be a campaign contribution since it's not intended to benefit the campaign. But if he took them to the waffle house so that the campaign would not have to pay for their late-night meal, that would be a campaign contribution I believe. Technically, I think it's considered an "in-kind" contribution. Here's the FEC website's explanation of the various sorts of campaign contributions:

Types of contributions - FEC.gov

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

I think this is the relevant regulation

11 CFR 9002.11 - Qualified campaign expense.

Again, which section of the code did Trump allegedly violate?

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

I don't think the $2 in the juke box would be a campaign contribution since it's not intended to benefit the campaign. But if he took them to the waffle house so that the campaign would not have to pay for their late-night meal, that would be a campaign contribution I believe. Technically, I think it's considered an "in-kind" contribution. Here's the FEC website's explanation of the various sorts of campaign contributions:

Types of contributions - FEC.gov

My argument is that Trump (or Cohen) put money in a juke box (Stormy Daniels) but didn't ask for a song to be played. The payment essentially had no quid pro quo requirements or reciprocation required. They (allegedly) just dumped money off with no services rendered or expected.

So how is that a campaign finance violation if the campaign asked or required nothing in return for their payment?

 

[evillawyer]

My argument is that Trump (or Cohen) put money in a juke box (Stormy Daniels) but didn't ask for a song to be played. The payment essentially had no quid pro quo requirements or reciprocation required. They (allegedly) just dumped money off with no services rendered or expected.

So how is that a campaign finance violation if the campaign asked or required nothing in return for their payment?

Here's a discussion of the applicable criminal statutes: Campaign Finance Law Violations

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Here's a discussion of the applicable criminal statutes: Campaign Finance Law Violations

That does not explain what is considered as a campaign expense.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

I don't think the $2 in the juke box would be a campaign contribution since it's not intended to benefit the campaign. But if he took them to the waffle house so that the campaign would not have to pay for their late-night meal, that would be a campaign contribution I believe. Technically, I think it's considered an "in-kind" contribution. Here's the FEC website's explanation of the various sorts of campaign contributions:

Types of contributions - FEC.gov

Again, does not define what a campaign expense is.

You know good and damn well that any alleged payments to Daniels for whatever she did (outside of making yard signs or endorsing Trump in a campaign ad) is well outside the original intent of the law. This is a loose and dangerous interpretation of campaign finance abuse.

 

[evillawyer]

The $130 K Stormy Daniels payoff: Was it campaign money?

Here's a discussion of the issue with various campaign finance lawyers weighing in

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

The $130 K Stormy Daniels payoff: Was it campaign money?

Here's a discussion of the issue with various campaign finance lawyers weighing in

From the link:

By that standard, said Emory School of Law professor Michael Kang, "the circumstances and context here are suspicious," but it’s no slam-dunk that the payment was an expenditure on behalf of the campaign.

"Cohen may have been sufficiently involved in Trump’s personal dealings, perhaps with other similar transactions in the past, that they can credibly argue the hush payment would’ve been handled in similar fashion even if Trump were not a candidate," Kang said.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

The $130 K Stormy Daniels payoff: Was it campaign money?

Here's a discussion of the issue with various campaign finance lawyers weighing in

Again, from your link:

Former FEC chair Bradley Smith told us he sees evidence from Daniels that places this outside the realm of the campaign.

"Daniels herself has said that years before Trump declared for president, she was threatened about not disclosing any affair, suggesting, if she's telling the truth, that her silence was desired long before Trump became a candidate," Smith said.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

The $130 K Stormy Daniels payoff: Was it campaign money?

Here's a discussion of the issue with various campaign finance lawyers weighing in

Yet again, from your link. They couldn't get John Edwards on the same allegations:

Richard Hasen, a leading expert on campaign finance law at the University of California, Irvine, agrees that untangling the personal from the political is tough. He cited the example of payments to the mistress of former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards

"(The) Justice Department could not get a conviction, likely because there was no smoking gun evidence indicating that payments to Edwards’ mistress were campaign related and not aimed at saving his marriage," Hasen wrote May 3 for Slate.

 

[AirVol]

Just checking in. Stormy is still a whore and there’s no trial.

So nothings changed. Thx.

 

[evillawyer]

Again, from your link:

That's an issue of fact, not law.

 

[evillawyer]

Yet again, from your link. They couldn't get John Edwards on the same allegations:

Again, that's a factual issue, not an issue of law. This will turn on whether the facts establish the payment was made to benefit the campaign.

 

[T-TownVol]

Again, that's a factual issue, not an issue of law. This will turn on whether the facts establish the payment was made to benefit the campaign.

Good of you to admit that this is another fishing expedition.

 

[evillawyer]

Good of you to admit that this is another fishing expedition.

All cases turn on what the law is and whether the facts establish that the law was violated. Here, there's reason to look into matter, which is exactly what the sdny is doing. Not a fishing expedition at all.

 

[T-TownVol]

All cases turn on what the law is and whether the facts establish that the law was violated. Here, there's reason to look into matter, which is exactly what the sdny is doing. Not a fishing expedition at all.

Keep hanging your hat on that big guy.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

All cases turn on what the law is and whether the facts establish that the law was violated. Here, there's reason to look into matter, which is exactly what the sdny is doing. Not a fishing expedition at all.

What makes it a fishing expedition is the fact that no one can seriously call a payout (allegedly) to a candidate's significant other as a campaign expense.

 

[evillawyer]

What makes it a fishing expedition is the fact that no one can seriously call a payout (allegedly) to a candidate's significant other as a campaign expense.

When it's done a month before the election using psuedonyms and side-agreements because that person is about ready to go public with the story? And where other women's slience was purchased at approximately the same time under similar circumstances? That's a lot of smoke. Certainly sufficient to warrant an investigation.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

When it's done a month before the election using psuedonyms and side-agreements because that person is about ready to go public with the story? And where other women's slience was purchased at approximately the same time under similar circumstances? That's a lot of smoke. Certainly sufficient to warrant an investigation.

So wait, and I'm asking seriously, is it illegal to pay someone to close their mouths about something? Outside of a witness in a criminal or civil case (which Stormy Daniels was not during this time), why is it a legal matter to pay someone to not talk?

 

[evillawyer]

So wait, and I'm asking seriously, is it illegal to pay someone to close their mouths about something? Outside of a witness in a criminal or civil case (which Stormy Daniels was not during this time), why is it a legal matter to pay someone to not talk?

No, the agreement itself was fine. No one is arguing that the agreement itself was a crime. What was not fine was the failure to properly account for it under Federal Election Law.

 

[SLICKYINC]

No, the agreement itself was fine. No one is arguing that the agreement itself was a crime. What was not fine was the failure to properly account for it under Federal Election Law.