Brian, you still seem to miss it.
There is no rule that any expense that is related to the campaign (or "directly related") must be paid with campaign funds, or is a campaign expense.
That's because expenses often are both "directly related to the campaign" AND directly related to the personal life of the candidate.
Campaign expenses must be paid with campaign money, and reported. Personal expenses must NOT be paid with campaign funds, but must be paid with personal funds.
The test used is the "irrespective test" -- if an expense would exist "irrespective of" the existence of the campaign, then even if it directly relates to and benefits the campaign, it's still a personal expense and cannot be paid with campaign funds. Paying with campaign funds would be a violation of FEC regulations.
For this to fail the "irrespective test," the FEC would have to find that Trump would not incur this expense but-for the existence of the campaign. I.e., that Trump would not pay women to keep their yaps shut, but for the existence of the campaign.
As stated in an article by the Atlantic - "The suggestion of hush money is easier to credit because it fits with a pattern from Trump in the past. Faced with the prospect of damaging revelations about his personal life, the otherwise parsimonious Trump has often paid out."
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... ey/550745/ The article is entitled Trump's "Long History With Hush Money" in order to cast doubt on any denial that Trump made such a payout.
So, that alone provides proof that even when not running for President, Trump pays women to keep mum about his sexual daliances.
If there was to be an investigation or prosecution of the Trump campaign or Trump for a violation in this regard - the prosecutor or the FEC would have to demonstrate that the expense was a campaign expense. Trump could present evidence that he would make the payment even if there was no campaign. The evidence would be his own testimony, and the testimony of others, and the prosecution would have to meet their burden of proof in showing that the expense is not one that would exist irrespective of the campaign.
How wold the allegation be falsified? The same way Trump would falsify the FEC's allegation (if there ever is one) that the payment was a campaign expense. Through documentary evidence and testimony.
Cohen might testify against Trump, perhaps, right? And, Cohen might say, Trump instructed me to go ahead and get the payments made, and he'd pay me back. I believed this was being done to help the campaign avoid embarrassing news coverage off the affairs. Trump might say that he certainly didn't want the embarrassment, but even if there was no campaign, a small payment like that - $130,000 - is something I wold pay just to avoid my wife finding out, and my kids, and I'm a celebrity and prominent businessman, so it benefits me personally and in my business life for this kind of thing not to be aired in public. I've entered into many confidentiality agreements in the past in various contexts, and these payments were no different.
And for the FEC to find, say ,that this payment was purely a campaign expense - that would have ripple effect throughout the campaign finance world. Candidates settle disputes more often than you think. And, just because this paymet was to cover up an affair, that doesn't mean the next settlement to cover up a business dispute or personal injury claim or something won't be treated the same way. Under the law, there is a strong policy to treat things the same - and things aren't made different because it's Trump rather than some other candidate.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar
Who did you get this lot from? It beggars belief to think that paying two women to keep schtumn just before an election, one of them for the second time, is not directly related to that election.
