Trump's Alleged Campaign Finance Violations

[JimC]

Thanks for the useful clarifications, guys...

[Seabass]

and he isn't stupid.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Specific allegations against Cohen in his capacity as paymaster to former mistresses can be found starting on page 11 of this document.

[Scot Dutchy]

WHY IN THE FUCK WHY DO WE HAVE ANOTHER TRUMP THREAD!!!!!

Brian please merge this rubbish. We have enough of this crap.

[Joe]

[Forty Two]

42, if there is clear evidence that the money for Stormy originated from his campaign funds, would that be enough to charge or impeach Trump?

If we were to assume as true that campaign funds were used to pay Stormy Daniels, then I think it would be an impermissible personal expense under FEC regulations. If one had to argue a defense, one might argue that it's a legal expense, but under the "irrespective" test used by the FEC, I don't think there is a snowball's chance in hell that a payment to buy a confidentiality agreement would be deemed a campaign related expense. The penalty would be in the amount of the expenditure ($130,000) or twice that if it is found to be knowing/wilful.

If, however, Trump can show that he paid Cohen the money out of his regular business account, or personal funds, then there shouldn't be an issue. The issue of getting Stormy Daniels to keep her yap shut about liaison with Trump existed irrespective of the campaign (e.g., keeping the matter out of the press would benefit him personally both in his business and his personal life (wife and family), etc.).

Impeachment for a campaign finance violation? Unlikely. I think the main reason it gets bandied about in the media in that fashion, as if it's the big gotcha moment for Trump, is the assumption that there must be something illegal about paying Stormy Daniels to promise to keep her yap shut about the affair. There is absolutely nothing illegal about that. There is nothing unethical about it. Whether it's immoral depends on your particular moral milieu. However, confidentiality agreements are used routinely in the business and political world, and their whole purpose is to keep not only false statements out, but also the truth out of the public sphere. If all a person wanted to buy was silence in relation to false statements, then one can pay for a "non-disparagement" agreement. Confidentiality provisions are used to put matters to rest, even if someone has a truthful claim or allegation against someone else - the settlement payment puts the matter to rest.

[Hermit]

WHY IN THE FUCK WHY DO WE HAVE ANOTHER TRUMP THREAD!!!!!

Brian please merge this rubbish. We have enough of this crap.

Thirded.

And merge all threads within News, Current Events & Politics, Science, Technology & Environment, Atheism & Religion, General Serious Discussion & Philosophy, History, Geography & Education, Language, Culture & Anthropology, The Seminary, Entertainment, Music, Literature & The Arts, Stage & Screen, Video Gaming, Sport, Technical Stuff / Site Suggestions and so forth within their respective sections while you're at it.

[Forty Two]

Why the fuck would The Donald use $130,000 in campaign funds to pay off some whore? It's fucking pocket change to him and he isn't stupid.

Just come out and say "Yeah I banged her like a cheap fucking gong and then gave her $130Gs to shut her fucking mouth". None of it is illegal, and nobody gives a shit.

I find it highly unlikely he used campaign funds. He has already gone on record as saying he paid the money himself (I think he said he paid Cohen with non-campaign funds). It's a scurrilous allegation, of course - where a man is paying "hush money" to cover a sexual dalliance. But, everyone knew Trump was sexually dalliant before, and nobody was surprised that he would arrange to wet his noodle in a porn star. The only question is buying confidentiality so the porn star doesn't spread the word all over the place. Paying her, though, is settlement of a dispute - a business matter - no different than if Robert Kennedy paid $500,000 (50-odd years ago) on behalf his brother John F. Kennedy to buy the silence of Alice Corning Clark over her affair with John F. Kennedy. People have affairs. And, plenty of people who aren't running for President also settle issues like this with confidentiality and nondisclosure agreements.

[Forty Two]

WHY IN THE FUCK WHY DO WE HAVE ANOTHER TRUMP THREAD!!!!!

Brian please merge this rubbish. We have enough of this crap.

Well, the goal in creating it was to discuss the fairly complex legal and factual issues in relation to the specific claim of campaign finance reforms.

I note that several "bash trump" type threads have been created and have never been merged, and nobody has screamed "why in the fuck do we have another bashing trump thread."

In any case, this is neither a pro- nor con- Trump thread. It's a thread related to campaign finance violations and the allegations thereof against Trump.

The reason this needs to be a separate thread is that there will be (to those interested) discussion of legal claims, statutes, FEC regulations, court interpretations, and opinions/theories cutting multiple ways.

To merge this thread with a general "post more scurrilous insults, jukes and memes against Trump" thread will suck the life out of this discussion and make it impossible to have a serious discussion. If that's what you want, then that's improper. It's not up to you to control what other people talk about here. Nothing about this thread violates the rules, it's not redundent of any other thread, it is posted properly within News, Current Events and Politics.

The fact of the matter is, certain people, you included, think you need to but your fucking nose into everybody else's business and conversations. You can't bear to let other people talk about what they want to talk about, and the proceed on to go post in the threads in which you feel an inclination to participate. It's such a mean-spirited and immature mindset. Go piss off and talk about what you want to talk about and leave others to discuss the issues they want to talk about.

[Animavore]

and he isn't stupid.

I think it was one of those Greek fellas said a mark of an intelligent man is that they know what they don't know.

This is where Trump fails badly.

[Forty Two]

If it turns out that money from the campaign went to cover the payment to Daniels, it certainly wouldn't be out of character for Trump.

Which brings me to my question, which has to be fairly central to this whole debacle - if that were proved to be the case, would there be a prosecution and/or impeachment?

Mind you, in virtually all western democracies, if a leader had be shown to pay hush money to a whore, no matter where the money came from, he'd be out on his ear...

The question of prosecution of a sitting president is not settled despite claims to the contrary, but I'd say it's very unlikely to happen. Impeachment to a great extent depends on political considerations, but if there's a strong case and Democrats control the House of Representatives (which is a distinct possibility after the mid-term elections this November) it could happen.

The question of whether spending money from the campaign on keeping Daniels from telling her story is a violation of campaign laws isn't absolutely clear. Is hush money a legitimate campaign expense? As long as full disclosure to the Federal Elections Committee is made and the payment was legal in every other way, I'd say there was a good argument that it can be considered a legitimate expense. However, there wan't any disclosure, so if it turns out that campaign money went to Daniels, even in a roundabout way, that in itself violates campaign finance laws.

There is a law against using campaign money for personal use. It could be argued that the hush money was a personal expense, so again, if it came from the campaign that would be illegal.

If in fact Trump himself or his corporation paid the hush money, that still could be a violation of campaign finance laws because all campaign expenses must be reported. Trump's lawyers could argue that the payment was entirely personal and had no relation to the campaign, and it's conceivable that would work.

If it's a campaign expenditure (i.e. the money came from the campaign), then I agree, it's a violation of campaign finance laws which prohibit the payment of personal expenses with campaign money.

If it's not a personal expense, but rather a campaign expense, then it would actually have to be paid for by campaign money, and then declared. However, the test used by the FEC to determine if an expense is personal or campaign is the "irrespective" test - meaning that if the candidate would have the expense irrespective of the campaign, then it's personal.

I think Trump easily makes the case that the expense is personal, because there is plenty of reason to settle these kinds of claims irrespective of the campaign. Not wanting one's wife and family to find out, not wanting business associates to find out, all that is non-campaign reason to make the payout. Even though it otherwise benefits the campaign too doesn't make it a campaign expense.

So, some expenses can be either/or -- if a candidate wants to pay to have their teeth straightened and whitened, for example, precisely because he's running for office, then that can be a campaign expense because he's doing it for the campaign, and it has to be reported. However, if he pays for it with personal money instead and doesn't report it, he could categorize it as a personal expense by pointing out that dental care and even straightening and whitening are something done irrespective of the campaign.

It's this massive muddy area in the regulations that we find the Stormy payment. The issue settled arguably existed irrespective of the campaign, but at the same time, what if they have him on audiotape saying something like "Mike, Mike, we need to silence Stormy Daniels to help the campaign - I wouldn't give a shit about her squawking if it wasn't for the campaign, but now that I'm running for President, we have to shut this bitch up to keep her from sinking our campaign for President?" That's pretty much an assertion that it's a claim that relates only to the campaign.

In that case, though, it could properly be paid with campaign funds, provided, as you pointed out, it was properly reported as a campaign expense. But, I think it's fair to say that if Trump publicly disclosed that expense, people would be alleging that it was a personal expense in reality, was being improperly paid for by campaign funds.

So, this is a thorny issue.

Also, the ultimate penalty, if it's found that it should have been a campaign expenditure paid by campaign funds, is what? Does he correct the issue by writing a check from the campaign to himself to pay himself back?

If it's found that it was paid for by campaign funds, but was really a personal expense, then the penalty is what? Does he reimburse the campaign and then pay a penalty to FEC for a maximum in the case of wilful and intentional violations of $260,000?

[rainbow]

Any expense that is used to affect the outcome of the elections is a campaign fund.
Doesn't matter if it came from Trumps pocket, or the general campaign warchest.

It is that simple.

[Scot Dutchy]

You would think so.

[Forty Two]

Any expense that is used to affect the outcome of the elections is a campaign fund.
Doesn't matter if it came from Trumps pocket, or the general campaign warchest.

It is that simple.

Not accurate. An expense can be "personal" even if it benefits the campaign, provided it passes the "irrespective test." https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and ... sonal-use/ . Under the “irrespective test,” personal use is any use of funds in a campaign account of a candidate (or former candidate) to fulfill a commitment, obligation or expense of any person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s campaign or responsibilities as a federal officeholder.

Thus, if the Stormy Daniels expense is a "personal" expense, then he cannot use campaign funds for it, but he can use personal funds for it. Is it a personal expense? It is if it is an expense that would exist irrespective of Trump's campaign. Would the expense exist irrespective of Trump's campaign? I think the idea of the porn star wanting to hurt Trump's reputation (with his family, business associates, etc.) exists irrespective of the campaign. The campaign is another, even bigger, reason why Trump wouldn't want disclosure of the information to come out. However, it's still an issue "irrespective of" the campaign. So, it would not properly be paid for with campaign money, because it's personal.

However, if it is a campaign expense -- let's assume for the sake of argument that it is an expense that exists only because of the campaign -- that doesn't make the payment illegal - it makes the payment a campaign expense which must be paid for with campaign money and disclosed.

Whichever way Trump went with this back in 2016 it would be argued by Democrats as an illegal payment. If he cut a campaign check to Stormy Daniels for $130,000, it would be categorized as improper payment of a personal expense with campaign money. If he cut a personal check to Cohen to fund the payment to Stormy Daniels, it is being categorized as an improper payment precisely because it wasn't cut from the campaign accounts.

At bottom, this is, at worst, a technical issue - if the FEC finds Trump picked the wrong way to pay Stormy, then he may have to pay a fine, just like Obama did when he was fined $375,000 for his FEC violations.

This is being blown way out of proportion because of the "get Trump" attitude, and because of the fact that it's a payment for a sex-affair-related confidentiality agreement is morally reprehensible to many people.

[Seabass]

Christ. America is doomed. Doomed by stupidity.