Posted on 12/10/2018 7:30:02 AM PST by libstripper
When you stretch the law to “get” a political opponent, it’s rarely possible to return the law to its original shape. Which brings us to Stormy Daniels.
* * *
When the FEC adopted these regulations, it specifically rejected a rule under which campaign contributions could fund an expenditure “related to” a candidacy. The FEC was concerned that would make it too easy for candidates to use campaign funds for personal benefit. Personal debts, for example, are “related to” the campaign—if unpaid, the candidate’s reputation might suffer. A Rolex watch, a new suit, or a haircut might help a candidate look good on the trail.
(Excerpt) Read more at outline.com ...
I’m reposting this article by Bradley A. Smith, a former FEC chairman, whose opinion is that PJT’s payments to Daniels and the other slut were purely legal private expenditures, the same position PJT is taking. Funny how none of the MSM talking heads even mention Mr. Smith’s opinion.
...
I’m glad you posted this, because mostly what we see here on FR is the liberal propaganda.
Edwards already was found not guilty for doing it by a jury. Letterman already was made into a hero by the media for having it done to him FOR having sex with female staffers who were his direct reports. Thanks for painting yourselves into your own box, dems!
What the author points out is that one law/regulation says a private payment that benefits a political candidate is an illegal campaign contribution ... which means the payment must come from the campaign funds, not a private party. But that would make such a payment that benefits a political candidate an illegal campaign expenditure under a different law/regulation.
So every political candidate is basically in a position where he or she is violating one law/regulation or another ... which means nobody has any obligation to obey the laws and regulations anyway.
bttt
Yes. I can’t imagine that a court would find this to be a violation of the law. If the court says that the mere fact that the candidate was motivated to pay the expense in order to advance his candidacy makes it a campaign expense then the court is saying in effect that any candidate can pay off his mistress with campaign funds if he did so to advance his campaign. I’d throw Mueller out of court very fast if he made that argument to me.
And in Edwards' case, the money came from two friends who provided benefits to his mistress in order to keep her quiet. Edwards never reimbursed them from his own pocket. President Trump reimbursed his lawyer for the payment out of his own pocket. As someone else pointed out on FR, Cohen worked on retainer for Trump prior to his candidacy, and handled these types of issues as a regular part of his legal services through the years. It had nothing to do with the campaign. As well, the alleged affair with Daniels was long before Trump ever even thought of running for office.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.