Here's What You Need To Know About Giuliani Spilling The Beans

GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
If all of Giuliani’s contentions were true, then both Cohen and Trump would be off the hook legally. There are two campaign finance issues that the Stormy Daniels payment implicates.

  1. In-Kind Contributions. The rule is that in-kind contributions in campaigns are limited to $2,700. So if Cohen “gave” Trump $130,000 by paying off Daniels in order to help Trump’s campaign, then he violated campaign finance law. Cohen’s case would be (a) the payment had nothing to do with the election; or (b) Trump reimbursed him, and there are no limits to giving to yourself during a campaign. While Trump reimbursing Cohen would alleviate the in-kind contribution limit issue, it wouldn’t fully alleviate it — it’s illegal to give a loan to a campaign in excessive amounts as well.
  2. Contribution Reporting. If this was Trump giving money to his own campaign via Cohen, he had to report it. He didn’t report it to the FEC. Rudy’s defense, therefore, is that Trump was just handing Cohen cash, as he often did.

Why would Giuliani put Trump into this position? Why not leave Cohen out there to hang? Before these comments, Cohen was the only one in legal jeopardy; now Trump has some legal issues to worry about, too. This may mean that Trump was attempting to use Giuliani to convey to Cohen that help was on its way, and not to turn on Trump in the larger FBI investigation.

[clip]

Politically, this doesn’t mean much for Trump either. Everyone with half a brain assumed Trump was lying when he said he didn’t pay off Daniels. Trump lies frequently and fluidly. That’s not a justification for his lying. That’s a fact. And it is also a fact that most Americans have already priced in Trump’s dishonesty. Trump’s garbage with women in his personal life, and he always has been. He’s dishonest about his personal life, and he always has been. He should be condemned for that. But there’s no groundshift in anyone’s judgment about Trump based on the Stormy Daniels affair.

Here's What You Need To Know About Giuliani Spilling The Beans On Trump Paying Cohen To Pay Off Stormy Daniels
 
Last edited:
vraiblonde

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Wow, Ben Shapiro wrote that? Is he getting roasted?

I'm surprised to see something like that out of him.
 
vraiblonde

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Legally, I'm not sure how paying hush money to a former lay could be considered a campaign contribution. I'm sure some lawyer can rigamarole it into one, but it's pretty thin.

Regardless, as we saw with Willie Jeff, being impeached doesn't mean you are no longer President. So I'm not sure what the bots are so excited about.
 
littlelady

littlelady

God bless the USA
Rommey said:
...because Hillary would be president then...
:sarcasm:
Click to expand...

:lol: I guess they think Pence and Ryan can be skipped over to get to Hillary. I would like to think sarcasm is involved, but that is not the case. It would be funny if it wasn’t so scary. The far left is so determined to continue their agenda that they are, literally, ignoring The Constitution. God bless the USA!
 
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
vraiblonde said:
Legally, I'm not sure how paying hush money to a former lay could be considered a campaign contribution.
Click to expand...

Progressives are trying to claim the payout is a 'campaign contribution'
especially if Trump used money specifically from campaign bank accounts instead of a personal or business accounts

however my attitude would still be so what ... pay back the campaign fund, pay a fine to the FEC and its done

other politicians have done way worse ...
Progressives will try to turn this into a reason to impeach Trump

Hillary cooked the books to the tune of 84 million
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
GURPS said:
Cohen’s case would be (a) the payment had nothing to do with the election
Click to expand...

This is it, in a nutshell. To be an issue, one must prove the opposite of this. One must prove the intent of the provider of the funds over the direct testimony of the provider of the funds, and the long-standing relationship that person has as a "fixer" for the president long before he was president.

No unbiased jury could or would ever convict.

But, let's say they did.
US News and World Report said:
BARACK OBAMA'S presidential campaign has been fined $375,000 by the Federal Election Commission for violating federal disclosure laws...The resulting fine, one of the largest ever handed down by the FEC, is the result of a failure to disclose or improperly disclosing thousands of contributions to Obama for America during the then-senator's 2008 presidential run...The FEC says the Obama campaign failed to disclose the sources of 1,300 large donations, which together accounted for nearly $1.9 million. Election Commission rules state campaigns must report donations of $1,000 or more within 20 days of Election Day.
Click to expand...

If the fine is $375K for $1.9M, I'm guessing the fine for $130,000 would be lunch money for Barron.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top