Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 97

Thread: Stormy in a teacup — campaign finance case against Trump is laughably weak

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Lansing Ks
    Posts
    34,166
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 14,633 Times in 10,059 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,101 Times in 1,013 Posts

    Default Stormy in a teacup — campaign finance case against Trump is laughably weak

    The argument is that since the hush money was paid to “influence” the election, it was a campaign expenditure. But by that logic, every dime Chris Christie spent to lose weight before his 2016 run — the diet books, the StairMaster, the bariatric surgery — was a campaign expenditure. If Christie bought a SlimFast shake with his personal money, was he a felon?

    Former Federal Election Commissioner Bradley Smith posited another hypothetical: “If a business owner ran for political office and decided to pay bonuses to his employees in the hope that he would get good press and boost his stock as a candidate, would that be a campaign expenditure, payable from campaign funds?”

    If a candidate who normally gets a $12 haircut shells out $40 for a better cut, is he a criminal for paying out of his own pocket even though the idea is to look sharp in front of news cameras? If a candidate pays a contested past-due personal bill only to make the headache go away before the debates begin, is he legally required to pay out of his campaign coffers?


    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...laughably-weak

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to volsrock For This Post:

    Truth Detector (12-11-2018)

  3. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    49,883
    Thanks
    14,463
    Thanked 32,101 Times in 21,165 Posts
    Groans
    6
    Groaned 1,307 Times in 1,235 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by volsrock View Post
    The argument is that since the hush money was paid to “influence” the election, it was a campaign expenditure. But by that logic, every dime Chris Christie spent to lose weight before his 2016 run — the diet books, the StairMaster, the bariatric surgery — was a campaign expenditure. If Christie bought a SlimFast shake with his personal money, was he a felon?

    Former Federal Election Commissioner Bradley Smith posited another hypothetical: “If a business owner ran for political office and decided to pay bonuses to his employees in the hope that he would get good press and boost his stock as a candidate, would that be a campaign expenditure, payable from campaign funds?”

    If a candidate who normally gets a $12 haircut shells out $40 for a better cut, is he a criminal for paying out of his own pocket even though the idea is to look sharp in front of news cameras? If a candidate pays a contested past-due personal bill only to make the headache go away before the debates begin, is he legally required to pay out of his campaign coffers?


    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...laughably-weak
    I’m hoping the House Impeachment Circus is centered on Trump’s campaign law ‘violation’ [which results in a fine in more sane instances] for a couple reasons.

    The first one is obvious: it’s a weak charge. But secondly, the hush money paid out of the congressional slush fund looms in the background. Do House Democrats really want to go there when Trump can order declassification of it? There will be some serious dirty laundry aired if that happens.

    This could get interesting.
    Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Darth Omar For This Post:

    Truth Detector (12-11-2018)

  5. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    73,743
    Thanks
    102,643
    Thanked 55,137 Times in 33,847 Posts
    Groans
    3,188
    Groaned 5,083 Times in 4,699 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Beto Omar View Post
    I’m hoping the House Impeachment Circus is centered on Trump’s campaign law ‘violation’ [which results in a fine in more sane instances] for a couple reasons.

    The first one is obvious: it’s a weak charge. But secondly, the hush money paid out of the congressional slush fund looms in the background. Do House Democrats really want to go there when Trump can order declassification of it? There will be some serious dirty laundry aired if that happens.

    This could get interesting.
    You think Republicans really want to go there themselves? You’re right, it could get interesting, let’s do it. It could help drain the swamp of all the predators.

  6. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    49,883
    Thanks
    14,463
    Thanked 32,101 Times in 21,165 Posts
    Groans
    6
    Groaned 1,307 Times in 1,235 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phantasmal View Post
    You think Republicans really want to go there themselves? You’re right, it could get interesting, let’s do it. It could help drain the swamp of all the predators.
    We agree, finally lol. Let’s do this.

    Oh, I’m sure it’s a bipartisan thing. All the more reason democrat’s impeachment hopes will die on the vine if they go that route. One thing the Congress critters can be counted on to work together is on saving their own skins.
    Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Darth Omar For This Post:

    Truth Detector (12-11-2018)

  8. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    73,743
    Thanks
    102,643
    Thanked 55,137 Times in 33,847 Posts
    Groans
    3,188
    Groaned 5,083 Times in 4,699 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Beto Omar View Post
    We agree, finally lol. Let’s do this.

    Oh, I’m sure it’s a bipartisan thing. All the more reason democrat’s impeachment hopes will die on the vine if they go that route. One thing the Congress critters can be counted on to work together is on saving their own skins.
    I believe if they decide to impeach, they will have more grounds than just this. Mueller isn’t done.

  9. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    49,426
    Thanks
    12,195
    Thanked 14,304 Times in 10,498 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 4,916 Times in 4,232 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by volsrock View Post
    The argument is that since the hush money was paid to “influence” the election, it was a campaign expenditure. But by that logic, every dime Chris Christie spent to lose weight before his 2016 run — the diet books, the StairMaster, the bariatric surgery — was a campaign expenditure. If Christie bought a SlimFast shake with his personal money, was he a felon?

    Former Federal Election Commissioner Bradley Smith posited another hypothetical: “If a business owner ran for political office and decided to pay bonuses to his employees in the hope that he would get good press and boost his stock as a candidate, would that be a campaign expenditure, payable from campaign funds?”

    If a candidate who normally gets a $12 haircut shells out $40 for a better cut, is he a criminal for paying out of his own pocket even though the idea is to look sharp in front of news cameras? If a candidate pays a contested past-due personal bill only to make the headache go away before the debates begin, is he legally required to pay out of his campaign coffers?


    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...laughably-weak
    Yeah, those make believe scenarios are EXACTLY like paying a whore $130,000 to stay quiet just days before the election.

    EXACTLY the same.


  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to domer76 For This Post:

    Althea (12-11-2018), Phantasmal (12-11-2018)

  11. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    107,358
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default


  12. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    73,743
    Thanks
    102,643
    Thanked 55,137 Times in 33,847 Posts
    Groans
    3,188
    Groaned 5,083 Times in 4,699 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    Yeah, those make believe scenarios are EXACTLY like paying a whore $130,000 to stay quiet just days before the election.

    EXACTLY the same.

    Did they create a shell corporation to do it, too? These attempts to justify Trump’s breaking the law are amusing .

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Phantasmal For This Post:

    Althea (12-11-2018)

  14. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    49,883
    Thanks
    14,463
    Thanked 32,101 Times in 21,165 Posts
    Groans
    6
    Groaned 1,307 Times in 1,235 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phantasmal View Post
    I believe if they decide to impeach, they will have more grounds than just this. Mueller isn’t done.
    You’d do well to hope that lol.

    Though the fact Mullet is barking up that tree seems to indicate desperation on his part. Campaign finance violations are low hanging fruit. Not as bad as invoking the 1799 Logan Act, but nearly so.

    Why would he even bother with it if he serious goods on Trump?
    Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Darth Omar For This Post:

    Truth Detector (12-11-2018)

  16. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    107,358
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phantasist View Post
    I believe if they decide to impeach, they will have more grounds than just this. Mueller isn’t done.
    Your faith is unlikely to be justified by results, imbecile.

    Even if the new DEMOCRAT-infested House votes to impeach, removal from office requires a conviction in the Senate.

  17. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    73,743
    Thanks
    102,643
    Thanked 55,137 Times in 33,847 Posts
    Groans
    3,188
    Groaned 5,083 Times in 4,699 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Beto Omar View Post
    You’d do well to hope that lol.

    Though the fact Mullet is barking up that tree seems to indicate desperation on his part. Campaign finance violations are low hanging fruit. Not as bad as invoking the 1799 Logan Act, but nearly so.

    Why would he even bother with it if he serious goods on Trump?
    He is a prosecutor going after all the laws that were broken, that is what they do. He’s starting with the small stuff and working his way up.

  18. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    36,821
    Thanks
    16,886
    Thanked 21,030 Times in 14,526 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,387 Times in 1,305 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    Yeah, those make believe scenarios are EXACTLY like paying a whore $130,000 to stay quiet just days before the election.

    EXACTLY the same.

    I especially liked the one about the bonuses. One is out in public, and bragged about, and the other is done in secret, with the help of others employing illegal monetary scams.

    And...the issue is the dollar amount. Not necessarily the scope of the contribution.

    Ironically, this is exactly what put Kushner's real daddy in jail.
    Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to Althea For This Post:

    Phantasmal (12-11-2018)

  20. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    107,358
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Beto Omar View Post
    You’d do well to hope that lol.

    Though the fact Mullet is barking up that tree seems to indicate desperation on his part. Campaign finance violations are low hanging fruit. Not as bad as invoking the 1799 Logan Act, but nearly so.

    Why would he even bother with it if he serious goods on Trump?
    Did you notice that no "Russian collusion" seems to have occurred?

    Looks like the FISA warrant was a fabricated excuse to get an open-ended investigation going.

    Never-Trumpers and DEMOCRATS started with the premise that Trump has to be guilty of something/anything and have spent over $30 million and 19 months trying to find a "crime."


  21. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Mid-West
    Posts
    24,406
    Thanks
    2,522
    Thanked 14,824 Times in 8,868 Posts
    Groans
    4
    Groaned 896 Times in 801 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    I'm sure laughing about it, not sure if Donny or Milaniais.
    ONE-N-DONE, YOU GOT PLAYED; Time To Play-On
    Remember ... ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES ... So STFU Bitch

  22. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Mid-West
    Posts
    24,406
    Thanks
    2,522
    Thanked 14,824 Times in 8,868 Posts
    Groans
    4
    Groaned 896 Times in 801 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post

    Benghazi
    ONE-N-DONE, YOU GOT PLAYED; Time To Play-On
    Remember ... ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES ... So STFU Bitch

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-10-2018, 12:41 PM
  2. Day 8 - Still no indictment for campaign finance violations
    By canceled.2021.2 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-29-2018, 07:15 AM
  3. "Trump Said Campaign Finance Violations Aren't a Crime"
    By archives in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 128
    Last Post: 08-23-2018, 04:43 PM
  4. Obama Campaign In Finance Trouble
    By RockX in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-02-2008, 03:42 PM
  5. Obama re:Campaign Finance
    By Blackflag in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 06-20-2008, 11:07 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •