Brian Peacock wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 7:28 am
Forty Two wrote: 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.
...
Yeah, those women are gold-diggers irrespective of their desire to wantonly damage his reputation as a fine, upstanding and respected member of the business community and a devoted husband and father. Of course they'd want to hurt his reputation (with his family, business associates, etc), they're already proven harlots and strumpets and being blackmailed by whores while he's running for public office actually makes him the victim here. I bet they only had sex with him so they could charge him for it - they didn't really love him or want to make a baby in the good Christian way God intended.
it has nothing at all to do with whether they or Trump are golddiggers, love or what anybody wanted with respect to the sex or other interactions.
There was an issue of a story that was going to be told publicly. To prevent that from happening, Trump agreed to pay $X in exchange for non-disclosure agreement. There are reasons unrelated to the campaign why Trump would want to do that. I gave some examples. In other words, the expense existed (payment to keep the story quiet) irrespective of the campaign. As such, it would be classified as a personal expense. That doesn't mean the transaction is illegal. It means that it must be paid from personal funds. If he did that, then there is no issue. If he paid a personal expense with a campaign check, then, of course, there is a campaign violation and it woudl have to be reimbursed, and he would pay a fine.
The issue would become an FEC violation if it is a campaign expense. If it is a campaign expense, then, once again, it's not an illegal transaction. It simply must be paid for with campaign funds and reported that way. If he paid a campaign expense with personal funds, then that's a violation and he would be fined for it. That's it.
That's all it is. It has nothing to do with the reputations or chastity of the women involved. If It was Ivanka or Marla being paid to keep embarrassing details of Trump's habits as a husband - maybe he liked to walk around in his boxer shorts and guinea-t-shirt singing show-tunes on a Saturday afternoon, and maybe he cried when watching movies, kept a diary of all of his feelings of loss and loneliness, etc., and he didn't want that to be disclosed. He could pay for that. It looks like a personal expense, and not properly paid for by the campaign.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar
