FEC: Trump-Stormy Case ‘Not A Campaign Finance Violation’

I've already read it. How does it prove what you wrote below? Let me save you the time. Your "proof" is a blanket Trump supporters' insult.

yardmeat said: ↑
What we've learned over the past few years is that Trump supporters don't care about the law.

 

I guess I should have added reading the Constitution and reading the ECA to the request list. If you had read those, you'd understand.

 

I see what you're saying but conversely, they'll throw him under the bus if his case against Trump goes down the drain. Looks like it's headed that way to many legal experts, both on the left and right.

 

I wonder if this will become a states rights issue. Maybe NY will be a 'freedom from FEC laws sanctuary.' ...lol

 

You made a couple of assumptions that are simply at the end of the day, still nothing more than ad homs.
I accept your concession.
Do better.

 

That's not what the phrase "ad hom" means. Meanwhile, the strategies outlined in Eastman's memo clearly violate the Constitution and the ECA. We both know why I'm willing to debate that and you run away.

 

Oh, I forgot to add something from my last post. Not time like the present, is there?



I sincerely accept your concession.

 

And yet Michael Cohen pled guilty to covering up the lies he gave to the FEC, the Eastern District of NY and so forth. But somehow, the Washington Examiner is not really trying to exonerate Cohen are they? They are only interested in following Trump, even if it means going off the 2 mile cliff that Trump is pointing them to.

But here is a memo from the very same FEC in the statement of reason. It says, "But we have investigated a grand total of zero of those allegations. Zero. At every turn, Republican FEC Commissioners have voted to block the pursuit of these matters, which have included allegations that Trump or his campaign committee accepted prohibited contributions through Trump’s role in the Stormy Daniels payoff (allegations for which Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, went to jail), 3 that the campaign illegally solicited contributions to a super PAC supportive of Trump, 4 and that Trump solicited a prohibited foreign national contribution from Russian nationals. 5 It also included a referral from the New York State Attorney General that provided the Commission with a mountain of evidence supporting the allegation that Trump, his committee, and his family foundation exploited a charitable event for veterans, illegally using the foundation to benefit the campaign." Or in other words, the FEC, with Trump-appointed commissioners choose party over country and the law instead of following the evidence if there was any at that time. But that too is another Trump tactic trying to control the outcome, which in and of itself, is interference on Trump.

Case closed on this thread BS.

 

Bragg is exonerating Cohen on the campaign contribution charge.

 

Trump actually has a history of going cheap on his legal representation. Doesn't make much sense, but he's pretty cheap on these matters generally speaking.

 

I accept your admission that you are unwilling to read the Constitution, the ECA, or the Eastman memo. "Not time like the present" if you decide to do so, though.

 

So... Bragg's claim, in a sworn document, is a lie. The legal term for that is "perjury".

 

It is the opinion of a former FEC Chairman. The WA. Examiner is merely reporting what he has to say about Bragg's case.

“It’s not a campaign finance violation. It’s not a reporting violation of any kind,” Trainor told the Washington Examiner"

"Bragg, Trainor said, is “really trying to make a square peg fit into a round hole.”

Let's look back to the facts:
"The FEC closed its investigation into the payments after failing to find that Trump or his campaign “knowingly and willfully” violated campaign finance law "

They've a right to their opinion, but not their own facts.
Michael Cohen, Stormy Daniels blast FEC for dropping Trump probe | The Hill

 

Did Trump pay a pornstar hush money? If yes then he and he alone put himself in a vulnerable and precarious position. The NY case at most will end with Trump paying a fine so y'all Republicans outta save your pearl clutching for the real big one. The Georgia election fraud case

 

Hollow words coming from the guy who supports a NY DA who has been caught falsifying murder charges against his own citizens where the Mayor had to step in to get those charges dismissed.

Just last week, one of those items cropped up when Bragg charged a local parking attendant who was shot in the stomach, with illegal possession of a firearm and murder, because the attendant fought for his life, got the gun away from the murder and shot him.

Since you think so highly of Bragg, is this is your standard for caring about the law now?

 

Yep. And the federal theft of documents case. This one is minor leagues by comparison to either of those.

 

The problem with this scenario is two-fold.

1. If Trump didn't direct Cohen, then Bragg has no case on the campaign contribution allegation.
2. If Trump did direct him to facilitate a campaign donation through Cohen's company then Trump is legally allowed to spend an unlimited amount of his own money on his campaign. Bragg has no case.

But, we don't even get to this logic until Bragg can somehow convince a jury that paying for a hush money NDA is solely beneficial to a campaign and has no other benefits outside of the campaign. Historically speaking, John Edwards was the last candidate to pay for a hush money NDA out of campaign funds and the federal government said he wasn't allowed to do that and prosecuted him for it. So Bragg, cannot legitimately claim that his charges are felonies based on federal campaign statutes due to Trump not paying for this out of campaign funds. This also ignores the fact that Bragg can't prosecute or introduce evidence of a federal charge in state court, or that the FEC and DOJ looked at this and said there was nothing there.

So let's take it to the next step. If he can't claim Trump violated federal campaign laws then can he claim he violated state campaign laws? No, because Trump was running for federal office and is beholden to federal campaign laws. State laws cannot overrule federal campaign laws.

In short, Bragg has no legitimate case no matter which way he tries to take this. This is why he indicted Trump without telling him what he was accused of.

 

Maybe the decided not to pursue it because there was nothing to pursue once the FEC received a letter from Cohens attorneys.

 

Ad hominem attacks and the use of fallacy is all that Trump acolytes have. This NY state case is going to be dealt in a NY court of law where actual evidence and testimony will either prove Trump guilty, will be acquitted, or a hung Jury.

Bragg presented his case to the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury decided to indict seeing there is enough probable cause. We still don't know how close the vote was, but under NY statute, at least 14 sought to indict Trump. It may have been 14, may have been 20 or even all 23 members. There is no way around that and Bragg does not have the authority under NY statute NOT to indict if the Grand Jury inclines to indict him. Those of us who have experience with law knows this. We may have our opinions on whether Trump is guilty or not, but none of us, both for or against Trump, on this PF, is going to serve in a NY jury for obvious reasons: none of us live in NYC, and all of us have probably made up our minds on whether there is guilty or innocence, hence precludes us from serving to begin with. This is not some episode of Law and Order here. This is the actual judicial system, in full view for all to see because Trump is a celebrity and every media outlet, from the Left to the Right, is covering this. Only Law and Crime or Court TV will have a shot at having cameras in the Trial, but Trump nor his attorneys will want that. It is also why Trump did not insist on cameras into the courtroom for his arraignment. At the Judge was professional in not allowing the public or cameras into the courtroom, which is usually opened to the public. Do you understand now?

 

Again, that is going to be a point of facts for the jury is concerned. Both the DA and the defense have that very same letter. And the DA has additional facts that Michael Cohen provided, namely the tape recordings, that may disprove why that letter is false.

Nothing you are posting is nothing new. Not in the least bit. That single letter does not make Trump guilty nor innocent given Michael Cohen is a convicted criminal and a disbarred attorney.

 

Nope.

 

"And another one bites the dust!"

 

The real one? Lol
A phone call that is subject to interpretation.

About that "pearl clutching".

 

To be fair, he did outline it in his press conference, these are the three possible 2nd crimes, underlined in italics and bolded, respectively. The OP casts doubt only on the 2nd one in italics:

"The participant’s scheme was illegal. The scheme violated New York election law, which makes it a crime to conspire to promote a candidacy by unlawful means. The $130,000 wire payment exceeded the federal campaign contribution cap and the false statements in AMI’s books violated New York law...

That is why Mr. Trump made false statements about his payments to Mr. Cohen. He could not simply say that the payments were a reimbursement for Mr. Cohen’s payments to Stormy Daniels to do so. To do so, to make that true statement would’ve been to admit a crime. So instead, Mr. Trump said that he was paying Mr. Cohen for fictitious legal services in 2017 to cover up actual crime committed the prior year. And in order to get Michael Cohen his money back, they planned one last false statement. In order to complete the scheme, they planned to mischaracterize the repayments to Mr. Cohen as income to the New York State tax authorities."

 

Well, first off, you citing federal election laws.
2nd, when did it become illegal to contribute any amount you want to your own campaign?
While supporters and corporations are capped at (I think) $2700, what law prohibits a candidate from donating any amount he wants to his own campaign? What about independents who have little to know contributions? Are they banned from running using their own funds?
I don't think so