National Enquirer publisher says they paid off Playboy model Karen McDougal in concert with Trump’s presidential campaign

[Samm]

@TheDoctorIsIn

Bradley Smith is an anti-campaign finance law activist and every FEC commissioner serves as “Chair” for at least a year. He’s not the bulletproof appeal to authority that you think he is.

Where did I say his opinion is bulletproof? But he is by no means the only “authority” on the issue that believes no violation was committed, because the law specifically exempts such sort of payments irrespective of any political campaign.

[freemind]

Ironically, it was the Nation Enquirer that broke the John Edwards adultery story.

[Samm]

@TheDoctorIsIn

The current chair of the FEC is a woman, named Ellen Weintraub.

So what?

And the law is clear - but not how you think it is. There’s a reason why Michael Cohen is going to prison.

None of his jail time is for campaign law violations. It is as I stated above, for tax fraud, bank fraud, and lying to Congress about the Trump Hotel/Russia connection.

[Samm]

@TheDoctorIsIn

You didn’t read the sentencing memo, did you?

I read it. Apparently you didn’t.

[Samm]

@TheDoctorIsIn

Here’s the thing about the FEC.

They’re not a law enforcement body.

Nor does the opinion of a single FEC commissioner mean a damn thing. The FEC is a commission, requiring 4 votes (out of 6 commissioners) for any decision.

So what?

………

[Jezcoe]

@Samm

@Jezcoe

Please try to stay on topic and not flail around trying to score internet points.

What are these internet points you speak of? Is that some sort of contest you liberals have come up with?

It is shorthand for calling out sophistry.

Well… I guess it is more letters than sophistry so it can’t be shorthand… hmmmmm.

Maybe lingo. Yeah… lingo. That’s it.

[Samm]

@ComfortablyNumb

@Samm

He’s not going to jail for paying Stormy and the PB model to keep their mouths shut. And in fact, former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith says that such payments do NOT constitute campaign contributions, and therefore, do NOT constitute a violation of the law. That whole situation is really nothing more than a media sensation hyped all out of proportion to sell newspapers and damage Trump.

He is correct. The framing of the argument as you have done, would not equal the criminal conspiracy that places Trump at risk. But that’s the thing about false framing of arguments. Frame them in a fashion that sets up a straw-man, and it becomes easy to knock them down.

President Trump instead engaged in a criminal conspiracy, with shell companies, falsified book-keeping, and a discussed plan to withhold information from the public, so as to steal the election. No amount of false framing changes these alleged facts as offered by the Prosecutors in the southern district of New York.

The only questions that remain, are whether you believe President Trump, the man who always lies and has lied repeatedly about this issue? Or will you believe the career Prosecutors who have been appointed by President Trump, and have spent their entire adult lives upholding the rule of law.

Where do you stand, in the face of these undeniable facts?

I understand that those things have nothing to do with the OP topic.

[Samm]

@Jezcoe

@Samm

@Jezcoe

Please try to stay on topic and not flail around trying to score internet points.

What are these internet points you speak of? Is that some sort of contest you liberals have come up with?

It is shorthand for calling out sophistry.

Well… I guess it is more letters than sophistry so it can’t be shorthand… hmmmmm.

Maybe lingo. Yeah… lingo. That’s it.

Never use one word when many words will do.

[Jezcoe]

@Samm

@lulubee

@Samm

He’s not going to jail for paying Stormy and the PB model to keep their mouths shut. And in fact, former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith says that such payments do NOT constitute campaign contributions, and therefore, do NOT constitute a violation of the law. That whole situation is really nothing more than a media sensation hyped all out of proportion to sell newspapers and damage Trump.

LOL!

10RonDavis

Looks like the Media has you sold.

By the way, both Bradley Smith and another former FEC Chairman have also stated that they would have advised John Edwards that similar payments to his mistress during his campaign would not be a campaign contribution. (Notably, prosecution of that charge against Edwards failed.) In each situation, in their learned opinion, the hush money would likely have been paid irrespective of the campaign and, therefore, is specifically exempted by law.

I know how badly you want this to be something, but it simply is much ado about nothing.

Really? Because setting up a shell corporation and then paying back Cohen by knowingly accepting fraudulent invoices in order to bury the truth is something that we used to consider a bad thing in this country.

[Jezcoe]

@Samm

@Jezcoe

@Samm

@Jezcoe

Please try to stay on topic and not flail around trying to score internet points.

What are these internet points you speak of? Is that some sort of contest you liberals have come up with?

It is shorthand for calling out sophistry.

Well… I guess it is more letters than sophistry so it can’t be shorthand… hmmmmm.

Maybe lingo. Yeah… lingo. That’s it.

Never use one word when many words will do.

Very untrue.

^^^^^ says guy with the Theater degree and studied so much Shakespeare my brain leaked out of my ears ^^^^^

[Axxowiz]

I remember that breaking I didn’t know it was them. I did know that some of their stories happened to be true. I just thought overall it was the alien abduction magazine

[TheDoctorIsIn]

If you had read the sentencing memo, you’d know that the judge made in very clear that he was grouping the campaign finance charges with the tax evasion charges.

In fact, the judge goes into quite a bit of detail about the campaign finance violations, I’m very surprised you missed it.

Here’s a link, just in case you were lying when you claimed to have read it:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5453401-SDNY-Cohen-sentencing-memo.html

[TheDoctorIsIn]

It just puts your desperate appeals to authority in perspective.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@Samm

None of his jail time is for campaign law violations. It is as I stated above, for tax fraud, bank fraud, and lying to Congress about the Trump Hotel/Russia connection.

So you didn’t read the memo.

Color me unsurprised.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@Samm

Where did I say his opinion is bulletproof? But he is by no means the only “authority” on the issue that believes no violation was committed, because the law specifically exempts such sort of payments irrespective of any political campaign.

The US Attorney for the Southern District of NY - appointed by Trump - disagrees with you, and any fake authorities you choose to believe.

The law has no such exemption. You made that up.

[Samm]

@Jezcoe

@Samm

@lulubee

@Samm

He’s not going to jail for paying Stormy and the PB model to keep their mouths shut. And in fact, former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith says that such payments do NOT constitute campaign contributions, and therefore, do NOT constitute a violation of the law. That whole situation is really nothing more than a media sensation hyped all out of proportion to sell newspapers and damage Trump.

LOL!

10RonDavis

Looks like the Media has you sold.

By the way, both Bradley Smith and another former FEC Chairman have also stated that they would have advised John Edwards that similar payments to his mistress during his campaign would not be a campaign contribution. (Notably, prosecution of that charge against Edwards failed.) In each situation, in their learned opinion, the hush money would likely have been paid irrespective of the campaign and, therefore, is specifically exempted by law.

I know how badly you want this to be something, but it simply is much ado about nothing.

Really? Because setting up a shell corporation and then paying back Cohen by knowingly accepting fraudulent invoices in order to bury the truth is something that we used to consider a bad thing in this country.

It is a bad thing, but it’s still not what Cohen is going to prison for, and it still isn’t necessarily a violation of campaign law. Just because Cohen said n his admission of guilt that the payments were to influence the election, does not change the fact that the law does not consider payments that likely would have been made irrespective of an election to be campaign contributions. A guy like Cohen will say anything the Prosecutor wants him to say, to reduce his sentence. Surely you must know that.

[Samm]

@Jezcoe

@Samm

@Jezcoe

@Samm

@Jezcoe

Please try to stay on topic and not flail around trying to score internet points.

What are these internet points you speak of? Is that some sort of contest you liberals have come up with?

It is shorthand for calling out sophistry.

Well… I guess it is more letters than sophistry so it can’t be shorthand… hmmmmm.

Maybe lingo. Yeah… lingo. That’s it.

Never use one word when many words will do.

Very untrue.

^^^^^ says guy with the Theater degree and studied so much Shakespeare my brain leaked out of my ears ^^^^^

Hey, I was just agreeing with you. You going to argue about that too?

[Samm]

@TheDoctorIsIn

It just puts your desperate appeals to authority in perspective.

Desperate appeals to authority? What on earth are you talking about?

[Samm]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@Samm

None of his jail time is for campaign law violations. It is as I stated above, for tax fraud, bank fraud, and lying to Congress about the Trump Hotel/Russia connection.

So you didn’t read the memo.

Color me unsurprised.

I read it. 36 months for tax fraud and lying on a loan application and another two months n the Special Prosecutor’s complaint of lying to Congress, to be served concurrently. No time added for campaign law violations.

[Samm]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@Samm

Where did I say his opinion is bulletproof? But he is by no means the only “authority” on the issue that believes no violation was committed, because the law specifically exempts such sort of payments irrespective of any political campaign.

The US Attorney for the Southern District of NY - appointed by Trump - disagrees with you, and any fake authorities you choose to believe.

The law has no such exemption. You made that up.

I did not make it up. The law defines expenditures for personal use, namely, any expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign. Payments by a prominent married man to shut up a woman (or two) about an affair to avoid that exposure, while not spelled out specifically, certainly fall into that category. Particularly from a scumbag like Trump who has a history of paying people to drop legal and/or embarrassing issues.