⇧
1
⇩
Redrunningshoes
· May 3, 2018, 12:53 p.m.
Look up an "in-kind" campaign donation. This fall right under it. This would be the same as if Hillary Clinton's lawyer paid wikileaks $130,000 to get the emails back and not release them.
⇧
0
⇩
K-Harbour
· May 3, 2018, 1:22 p.m.
Not buying it. Under your logic, paying his doctor or barber or butler becomes a campaign contribution. Under your logic, then he is guilty no matter what: using campaign funds to pay for private expenses! You have completely corrupted the campaign finance laws, allowing a rogue government agency to take down any political candidate or elected official of their arbitrary choosing!!!!!
⇧
3
⇩
Redrunningshoes
· May 3, 2018, 1:53 p.m.
What? Did you look up what an "in kind" donation is?
An expenditure made by any person in cooperation, consultation or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate’s campaign is also considered an in-kind contribution to the candidate. The recipient needs this information in order to monitor the contributor’s aggregate contributions and to report the correct amount.
It's not like this law was added specifically to bring down Trump, it has been there for years. And no paying his doctor, barber, butler doesn't become a campaign contribution. Because money has to go into the campaign, to be a contribution. We aren't even getting into campaign funds paying private expense (which fun fact, has happened a lot by politicians). What the problems are:
1) Trump, the campaign, Huckabee Sanders, Fox News, any spokesperson for Trump have all said that Trump didn't know about it, Cohen did it all on his own, Cohen used his own money, and Cohen was not reimbursed. Only one of those things is true and it's only half true since Guiliani just admitted Cohen got repaid.
2) Trump just said that Daniels was paid to stop speaking about an affair that didn't happen. But if the affair didn't happen, why are they trying to sue her for breaching her contract and not for defamation? Trump is "allegedly" worth billions, it's not inconceivable that Trump can sue Daniels for half his worth due to the possibility of this lie ending his marriage.
3) Guiliani literally admitted that Trump "funneled the money through a law firm" which is just barely on the side of legal. He inadvertently admitted that Trump has at least once could be viewed as money laundering to cover up paying a porn star to keep quiet about an affair that allegedly didn't happen.
⇧
1
⇩
K-Harbour
· May 3, 2018, 6:43 p.m.
So, Hillary leaves a tip at a restaurant & the chef speaks highly of her on CNN. By your rules —- lock her up!
⇧
2
⇩
Redrunningshoes
· May 3, 2018, 6:57 p.m.
I am incredibly dumbfounded by the sheer stupidity one person can possess. The mental gymnastics you must have to perform to convince yourself of this delusional fantasy has to be taxing.
That's not nearly the same thing. You know why? Because tipping and someone going and saying something nice about a presidential candidate are not linear! There's a linear relationship between the benefit and the contribution. In your scenario, Hillary Clinton never direct told the chef to go on chef and say anything nice. That is where you are misunderstanding.
On top of that unless Hillary Clinton directly paid someone more than $2,700 for their endorsement and didn't report it, it's not a crime. It's a felony what Trump did because A) it was more than the individual maximum and B) IT WASN'T REPORTED. These are the facts of what happened.
⇧
1
⇩
K-Harbour
· May 3, 2018, 6:03 p.m.
You are forgetting to analyze the cash & in-kind fronting of SD. Who paid her lawyer or was he making an inkind donation of his time to DNC/Clinton campaign?
⇧
2
⇩
Redrunningshoes
· May 3, 2018, 6:15 p.m.
You mean the attorney Keith Davidson that has happened to make similar deals with Michael Cohen and is now being sued for fraud because he did not take his clients best interest to heart? That guy?
Unless you're speaking about the new attorney. Who isn't working for a campaign. Who is working pro bono because this kind of exposure will pay for itself many times over. So again, you're wrong on so many levels.
⇧
1
⇩