08-22-2018, 07:09 PM
(08-22-2018, 05:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well the above is a question I've had. Everyone in here is stating the payoff came from Campaign funds; however, I've never heard anyone confirm that. Would it make a difference (legally) if it did come from his private funds? To me that's a huge difference whether you're paying these women off with your own funds or funds donated to your campaign.
I don't really need a "oh you're just supporting Trump" spill; simply curious. I freely admit what he did is (at best) morally wrong.
(08-22-2018, 05:46 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I would think it made a difference if it were true which I wouldn't bet a whole lot on.
I touched on this earlier on, but no, it doesn't make a difference.
Cohen's payoffs are considered a loan (since Trump is claiming it was paid back to him), which is a contribution, to the campaign, even if they never touched campaign accounts. Because the intent was to keep information from coming out that could be damaging to the campaign, the value of the payoffs is a contribution/loan to the campaign that was above the maximum allowable limits and not reported. People are talking about this situation without understand why it was a campaign finance violation. It has nothing to do with whether the campaign made the payment directly, the law is set up so that indirect contributions such as these are also against the law.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
