Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Locked
User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by Forty Two » Tue Dec 18, 2018 1:22 pm

L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 1:51 am
The jury acquitted Edwards, but the judge in the case ruled on the issue of payoffs, and it doesn't support the Trump team's attempt to use the 'irrespective test.' From a recent Washington Post piece:
Edwards repeatedly argued that the payments were not campaign contributions because they were not made exclusively to further his campaign. The judge rejected this argument as a matter of law, ruling that a payment to a candidate’s extramarital sexual partner is a campaign contribution if “one of” the reasons the payment is made is to influence the election.
Giuliani on television Sunday seemed very sure of himself, but what he said is problematic in light of the above:
Giuliani tried to claim that, as long as the payments were made for a reason other than the campaign, then they wouldn't run afoul of election law.

"If there’s another purpose, it’s no longer a campaign contribution — if there’s a personal purpose," said Giuliani.

But [Washington Post reporter Aaron] Blake explained why this is wrong:
The law does not say that a campaign finance violation exists only if the “sole purpose” of it is to affect a campaign. In fact, it says a contribution is “any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office.” This definition doesn’t carve out exceptions for things that were also for personal purposes (indeed, if that were the case, basically nothing would qualify). Instead, it says anything with a campaign benefit is a contribution.
So clearly, Giuliani doesn't understand the law in question. But even worse, his comments appear to be an admission that helping the campaign was a clear purpose of the payment.

When, during his ABC New interview, George Stephanopoulos said that the AMI payment to Karen McDougal would be "clearly illegal" as a campaign contribution, Giuliani said, "No, it would not be."

He continued: "It's not a contribution. It's not a contribution if it's intended for a purpose in addition to the campaign purpose."

This would seem to be a clear admission that the AMI payment was made, at least in part, for a campaign purpose. Since Giuliani is wrong that any additional purpose excludes the payment from being a campaign contribution, it seems nearly certain that he just admitted his client broke the law.

[source]
No wonder the source has it so wrong. "Alternet." Joke.

A third-party’s payment of a candidate’s campaign or personal expense qualifies as a “contribution,” except where “the payment would have been made irrespective of the candidacy” (11 C.F.R. § 113.1(g)(6)). Candidates may spend personal funds to support their campaign—and, importantly, these contributions are not subject to the $2,700 per person per election limit applicable to other donors (52 U.S.C. § 30116)—but these contributions still must be disclosed (11 C.F.R. § 104.3(a)(3)(ii)) and properly reported on FEC filings.

That is EXACTLY what I've been saying. So, if a payment to a paramour would have been made irrespective of the candidacy, then it's not a campaign contribution, and need not be reported. It's easy to make the case here that a payment to a woman, similar to other payments made in one's personal life before the candidacy, would have been made, because other similar payments WERE made. And, they were made to keep bad press out of the news, keep a wife and children from finding out, and benefiting business and celebrity issues.

Now, you can argue all you want, as could a prosecutor, that the expense is not one that would exist irrespective of the campaign, and the proof would be in the witnesses and documentation.

However, I think a sober reflection on the issue reveals that this payment is in a giant grey area where we really aren't going to get a definitive answer, and it's hard to get "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" when you really don't have objective evidence here.

Moreover, Trump can point out that on the other side of the coin we have the "campaign expenditure" rules -- the question we ask there is whether the payment to a paramour for his or her discretion is properly a campaign expense. Is it? Because if the money paid by Trump to Daniels is a "campaign contribution" then that means that what it was contributed for was a "campaign expense." If it's a campaign expense, then that means that the payment should have been made with campaign money and disclosed, and the violation is one of disclosure only (because Trump's own contributions are unlimited).

So, if it's is a payment that would be made "irrespective" of the campaign, then it's not a campaign contribution. But, if it is a campaign contribution, then it would also be a campaign expense, meaning paying women to keep their yaps shut would PROPERLY be paid with campaign money. The only other alternative is that a perfectly lawful non-disclosure agreement is neither personal, nor campaign, and thus impermissible, even though legal - and that presents a VERY thorny issue, because it's one thing when the subject matter is illicit, like a paramour, and it's quite another if the non-disclosure was about some other kind of civil settlement. It would basically mean that any payment for confidentiality, nondisclosure and nondisparagement would be an impermissible payment ONLY for people running for office.
“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

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 24075
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by Brian Peacock » Tue Dec 18, 2018 1:48 pm

OK. So if I've got this right, while you think it probably aided and benefited the campaign to keep a scandal out of the mix you actually think the money Pecker paid McDougal, and the NDA she signed to effectively kill the story of the affair, was itself merely coincidental to the campaign - and it was coincidental to the campaign only because the payments took place during the campaign and not because it was meant in anyway to effect the campaign, even though it probably did?

:tea:
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
Posts: 2373
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by L'Emmerdeur » Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:39 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 1:22 pm
No wonder the source has it so wrong. "Alternet." Joke.
You can sneer at Alternet all you like. Your bloviating interpretation of the law is worthless when it's up against the interpretation given by the judge in the Edwards case.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by Forty Two » Tue Dec 18, 2018 6:15 pm

L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:39 pm
Forty Two wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 1:22 pm
No wonder the source has it so wrong. "Alternet." Joke.
You can sneer at Alternet all you like. Your bloviating interpretation of the law is worthless when it's up against the interpretation given by the judge in the Edwards case.
Alternet. I accept no criticism of any site that I reference if you're going to rely on that garbage.

The Alternet case did not, as per usual, accurately describe what happened in the Edwards' case.
“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

User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
Posts: 2373
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by L'Emmerdeur » Tue Dec 18, 2018 6:18 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 6:15 pm
L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:39 pm
Forty Two wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 1:22 pm
No wonder the source has it so wrong. "Alternet." Joke.
You can sneer at Alternet all you like. Your bloviating interpretation of the law is worthless when it's up against the interpretation given by the judge in the Edwards case.
Alternet. I accept no criticism of any site that I reference if you're going to rely on that garbage.

The Alternet case did not, as per usual, accurately describe what happened in the Edwards' case.
Cite the inaccuracies then. Note that the quote about the Edwards case doesn't come from the Alternet you so despise. It comes from a piece written by prominent former Justice Department laywer Neal Katyal, with two others.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by Forty Two » Tue Dec 18, 2018 6:26 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 1:48 pm
OK. So if I've got this right, while you think it probably aided and benefited the campaign to keep a scandal out of the mix you actually think the money Pecker paid McDougal, and the NDA she signed to effectively kill the story of the affair, was itself merely coincidental to the campaign - and it was coincidental to the campaign only because the payments took place during the campaign and not because it was meant in anyway to effect the campaign, even though it probably did?

:tea:
Brian - we've talked about this a lot. I have not now, nor ever, said that paying Stormy Daniels did not benefit the campaign. Benefitting the campaign is not the test. It's the "irrespective" test. And, under that test, if a payment would exist "irrespective of" the campaign, then it's not a campaign contribution at all. It's a personal payment. Things can both benefit the campaign and also exist irrespective of the campaign.

For example, if Obama was running for President and during the campaign he settled a fender bender lawsuit by a payment of $10,000, and included in that settlement agreement the standard - STANDARD - confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses which would be "hush money" to keep the plaintiff quiet about the lawsuit so he could not drone on and on about how in his opinion Obama was an irresponsible and reckless driver, then that would not be a campaign expense because that payment exists irrespective of whether the campaign exists. It would certainly "benefit the campaign" to have that matter settled and for the plaintiff to say only good things it. But that benefit does not make it a campaign contribution.

Coincidental? I don't know. The test is "irrespective." and under that test, even if because of the existence of the campaign it was a benefit to the campaign - and even if the candidate was quite pleased with that benefit -- if the expense would exist "irrespective" of the campaign, then it's not a campaign contribution.

What if Candidate Clinton had someone claiming that he witnessed her in a romantic embrace with another woman while she was First Lady. As first lady, she wanted to protect her reputation, so she paid the witness to keep quiet about the alleged embrace. To her, it was a small payment - $50,000 -- and gave her piece of mind. Then, in the run up to the 2016 election, a second witness appears, and Hillary says to her lawyer - can you pay that guy $50k to make it go away? And, so he does and she reimburses him once he bills her for the project. Illegal campaign contribution? Why or why not?
“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

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by Forty Two » Tue Dec 18, 2018 6:31 pm

L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 6:18 pm
Forty Two wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 6:15 pm
L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:39 pm
Forty Two wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 1:22 pm
No wonder the source has it so wrong. "Alternet." Joke.
You can sneer at Alternet all you like. Your bloviating interpretation of the law is worthless when it's up against the interpretation given by the judge in the Edwards case.
Alternet. I accept no criticism of any site that I reference if you're going to rely on that garbage.

The Alternet case did not, as per usual, accurately describe what happened in the Edwards' case.
Cite the inaccuracies then. Note that the quote about the Edwards case doesn't come from the Alternet you so despise. It comes from a piece written by prominent former Justice Department laywer Neal Katyal, with two others.
Oh, you mean, when a questionable and biased source shows something that was not invented by them, but is just being reported by them, then that does not mean the thing is false? Funny, I've tried to make that point many times, and so many of you won't give me the courtesy of addressing the actual facts and arguments. So, fuck off with that - I've taken so much shit for linking a few times to the same kind of thing - a biased or weird source that happens to be reporting on or showing something objectively verifiable - and so many of you take that opportunity to just scream at me that you think I use this or that source as a credible source in and of itself. No no. I'm not going to honor your request. YOU find a different, reputable source, for what you're saying, and I'll address it. That's what folks did to me. They wouldn't even look at the information - even when I pointed out that what I was referencing was something concrete - not a biased, argumentative piece.
“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

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 28262
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: Something something birds
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by Tero » Tue Dec 18, 2018 6:35 pm

No worries, what Trump knew will be fully in the Mueller report. Just need to wait. Maybe another year of fake president.
http://karireport.blogspot.com/ (:_funny_:)
http://esapolitics.blogspot.com/
Dominus vo-bisque'em Et cum spear a tu-tu, oh!

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by Forty Two » Tue Dec 18, 2018 6:36 pm

LOL.

When the Mueller report reveals that there was no coordination or collusion between Trump or his campaign and Russia, will you believe him?
“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

User avatar
Cunt
Lumpy Vagina Bloodfart
Posts: 8270
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:10 am
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by Cunt » Tue Dec 18, 2018 8:47 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 6:36 pm
LOL.

When the Mueller report reveals that there was no coordination or collusion between Trump or his campaign and Russia, will you believe him?
Mueller is like any other goalposts.

I'll give you a peek at the future. Tero et al will continue with 'Orange-Man Bad. I am mad!'

It's not always so easy to predict, but lately it has been.
Shit, Piss, Cock, Cunt, Motherfucker, Cocksucker and Tits.
-various artists


Hermit aka Seraph wrote:
Wed Jul 24, 2019 7:25 pm
placed himself within a swinging arm's distance from said antifas

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 24075
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by Brian Peacock » Tue Dec 18, 2018 10:19 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 6:26 pm
Brian Peacock wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 1:48 pm
OK. So if I've got this right, while you think it probably aided and benefited the campaign to keep a scandal out of the mix you actually think the money Pecker paid Edwards, and the NDA she signed to effectively kill the story of the affair, was itself merely coincidental to the campaign - and it was coincidental to the campaign only because the payments took place during the campaign and not because it was meant in anyway to effect the campaign, even though it probably did?

:tea:
Brian - we've talked about this a lot. I have not now, nor ever, said that paying Stormy Daniels did not benefit the campaign. Benefitting the campaign is not the test. It's the "irrespective" test. And, under that test, if a payment would exist "irrespective of" the campaign, then it's not a campaign contribution at all. It's a personal payment. Things can both benefit the campaign and also exist irrespective of the campaign.

For example, if Obama was running for President and during the campaign he settled a fender bender lawsuit by a payment of $10,000, and included in that settlement agreement the standard - STANDARD - confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses which would be "hush money" to keep the plaintiff quiet about the lawsuit so he could not drone on and on about how in his opinion Obama was an irresponsible and reckless driver, then that would not be a campaign expense because that payment exists irrespective of whether the campaign exists. It would certainly "benefit the campaign" to have that matter settled and for the plaintiff to say only good things it. But that benefit does not make it a campaign contribution.

Coincidental? I don't know. The test is "irrespective." and under that test, even if because of the existence of the campaign it was a benefit to the campaign - and even if the candidate was quite pleased with that benefit -- if the expense would exist "irrespective" of the campaign, then it's not a campaign contribution.

What if Candidate Clinton had someone claiming that he witnessed her in a romantic embrace with another woman while she was First Lady. As first lady, she wanted to protect her reputation, so she paid the witness to keep quiet about the alleged embrace. To her, it was a small payment - $50,000 -- and gave her piece of mind. Then, in the run up to the 2016 election, a second witness appears, and Hillary says to her lawyer - can you pay that guy $50k to make it go away? And, so he does and she reimburses him once he bills her for the project. Illegal campaign contribution? Why or why not?
OK, so what you're saying is that Trump would have paid these ladies anyway, whether he was running for office or not - in fact, he'd already paid one of them once, so there's no real difference in your eyes about him paying again and again if he wanted/needed to, right? He would have paid to keep this out of the public eye 'irrespective' of whether he was running for office?
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 50232
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by pErvinalia » Tue Dec 18, 2018 10:22 pm

How long ago did these happen? It seems very unlikely that he would have paid them now irrespective of his running for President.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"My penis is VERY small" - Cunt.

User avatar
Cunt
Lumpy Vagina Bloodfart
Posts: 8270
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:10 am
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by Cunt » Tue Dec 18, 2018 10:27 pm

Nevermind. Trump gets paid by prostitutes. pErvinalia does not.
Shit, Piss, Cock, Cunt, Motherfucker, Cocksucker and Tits.
-various artists


Hermit aka Seraph wrote:
Wed Jul 24, 2019 7:25 pm
placed himself within a swinging arm's distance from said antifas

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 61932
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by JimC » Tue Dec 18, 2018 10:32 pm

I still can't believe that anybody could seriously defend the grubby actions of this utterly undignified travesty of a leader.
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 24075
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by Brian Peacock » Tue Dec 18, 2018 10:35 pm

Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 guests