so if you have an issue with the way I am interpreting campaign finance law take it up with the FEC:
In New York, you take it up with Merchan alone. Good luck.
34 Felony Counts Guilty
Posts
Total:
400
-->
@Double_R
If Trump built a building as candidate and put his name on it, as he always have, your interpretation would hold that it was money spent to influence an election.No one has ever been held to this standard because it is unlawful and downright stupid.Strawman arguments normally are downright stupid, that’s the point of them. You can’t refute my actual position so you have to make one up to attack instead.The test of what makes an expense personal vs a campaign contribution that I’ve been arguing is exactly the same is your own link:“if the expense would exist even in the absence of the candidacy or even if the officeholder were not in office, then the personal use ban applies.”
Notice the key word in this sentence: “would”. Not “could”, as in, not in some absurd imaginary theoretical example, but “would”, as in, in real life what would have happened.
...and you cultist would argue that Trump would have paid off Stormy even if he wasn't running and then claim he violated the personal use ban by using campaign funds for a personal expense.
In the case at hand, and in accordance with the above test, the burden was on the prosecution to show that this payment was expressly for the purposes of advancing Trump’s campaign.
The above test was for determining if the personal use ban.
"Under the "irrespective test," personal use is any use of funds in a campaign account of a candidate (or former candidate) to fulfill a commitment, obligation or expense of any person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s campaign or responsibilities as a federal officeholder" - FEC
He didn't use campaign funds, so there is no way for the personal use ban to apply. I am pointing out, that you are inverting the standard by claiming he MUST use campaign funds. If he MUST use campaign funds then it would be a contradiction for him to be FORBIDDEN from using campaign funds (the personal use ban).
Trump did not actually pay Stormy, BUT IF HE HAD, using personal funds was by all precedent and FEC guidelines (which we are talking about and you are failing to twist) the safe option. The option that bypasses the personal use ban.
If he had to use campaign funds he would have had to prove an effect on the campaign, something cultist like yourself would vehemently deny because you are able to adopt any position as divine truth so far as it is useful for getting Trump.
Nothing in your Trump hypothetical applies. There is no reason to think putting his name on a building as he has done his entire life would not have occurred if he were not running for office.
Threaten enough people with kangaroo courts and I'm sure you would get some hearsay to the contrary.
You keep twisting my words into ‘if a possible personal expense can be considered a campaign expense, then any expense can be twisted into a campaign expense’.
Not "any expense", "any expense in the overlap between personal and campaign expenses"
That overlap is huge, especially for celebrities. You have butchered election law into an absurdity by asserting that there is no overlap. ANYTHING that could influence a campaign or has been an approved use of campaign money is a campaign expenditure regardless of whether campaign money was used.
This is madness. The existence of expenses which can be paid personally and with campaign money at the same time at the discretion of the candidate contradicts this madness.
If your interpretation was correct, then there would be no "50%" there would be "100%", there would be no discretion, if it helped the campaign it's a campaign expenditure, if you didn't put it through the campaign committee it's an in-kind donation and a campaign expenditure the end.
So again, let me make this very simple. Instead of asking for legal citations and historical precedent, here is very simply what I am talking about so if you have an issue with the way I am interpreting campaign finance law take it up with the FEC:“When candidates use their personal funds for campaign purposes, they are making contributions to their campaigns.”
In the overlap, candidates choose whether it's a campaign purpose or a personal expense by the act of using personal money vs campaign money.
No other interpretation is possible. Simple right?
What's the difference between lawyer's salary and NDA compensation?Reimbursements are not part of someone’s salary.
I even made it clear with "lawyer's salary" to bypass your idiotic and no doubt very recent nomenclature epiphany.
What is the difference that is relevant under federal election law?
Paying a lawyer might help a campaign. Paying under an NDA might help a campaign.
What's the difference that would explain why paying under an NDA is any different from paying a lawyer's salary which may be simultaneously a campaign expense and a personal expense under certain circumstances?
Didn't stop you when you asserted repeatedly that NDA compensation is necessarily campaign expenditureI never said NDA compensation is necessarily a campaign expenditure. I said this payment was a campaign expenditure.
This payment does not require a campaign to exist. Therefore it is not up to you whether it is a campaign expenditure. It is not a matter of deluding yourself into thinking you know someone's intent. The only intent that matters is using campaign funds or personal funds.
If a candidate fills up his tank with gasoline on the way to a campaign rally (and not reporting it to the FEC), you don't get to try and take him to court to prove that he intended to aid his campaign by fueling his car. He's allowed to intend just that without reporting it at campaign expenditure.
If a candidate stops on the way to a rally to get new shoes (and not reporting it to the FEC), you don't get to try and take him to court to prove that he intended to aid his campaign by having fancy shoes. He's allowed to intend just that without reporting it at campaign expenditure.
Let me be clear, he can stop, buy new clothes and confess to the entire world that he did so in order to be elected, and so long as he used personal funds it was not a campaign expenditure.
"campaign purposes" is not about intent, intent has never been litigated in regards to campaign finance laws in its history because it would be insane thought crime. Campaign purposes are purposes that could not exist without a campaign, i.e. everything campaign committees do. You can fill your car with gas without a campaign. You can buy shoes without a campaign. You can enter into a compensated NDA without a campaign. You can pay lawyer salary without a campaign. You cannot put up an add saying "Me for President" without a campaign because the mere existence of such an ad is identical to a campaign.
Campaign expenditures and campaign purposes are two different things. Things that are not campaign purposes can be campaign expenditures. Such as travel expenses, paying a lawyers salary, paying a compensated NDA (probably it hasn't been adjudicated by a real court and is not specifically mentioned in the law).
That's right, campaign money can be used for non-campaign purposes when those purposes could help the campaign. Like I said above, the laws are doing two separate things. Preventing money from being used on purely personal expenses, that is expenses which could not possibly help the campaign, is about protecting the donors from fraud.
The requirement to report campaign purpose expenses is about donor transparency. The category of "things that could help the campaign" is vastly wider than "campaign purposes = expenses that could only exist when a campaign exists, expenses that could ONLY be for the campaign".
You should have been able to figure this out yourself, you would have had you wanted to.
Still waiting.
The delay is you. When the issue of what constitutes a campaign expenditure and who decides is resolved we can debate that.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
...and you cultist would argue that Trump would have paid off Stormy even if he wasn't running and then claim he violated the personal use ban by using campaign funds for a personal expense.
You really enjoy arguing with imaginary people don’t you?
"Under the "irrespective test," personal use is any use of funds in a campaign account of a candidate (or former candidate) to fulfill a commitment, obligation or expense of any person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s campaign or responsibilities as a federal officeholder" - FECHe didn't use campaign funds, so there is no way for the personal use ban to apply. I am pointing out, that you are inverting the standard by claiming he MUST use campaign funds.
Yet another strawman.
I never said the funds must come out of the campaign account, I argued that the payment to SD was a campaign contribution, which means it should have been reported.
So naturally, instead of showing me FEC rules that explain when personal expenses are actually campaign expenses, you show me a rule that explains when campaign expenditures can be used as personal expenses. I’m not the one doing the inverting here. And why? Probably because that way it’s easier to strawman my point. Your specialty.
Not "any expense", "any expense in the overlap between personal and campaign expenses"That overlap is huge, especially for celebrities. You have butchered election law into an absurdity by asserting that there is no overlap.
And yet, another strawman.
I never argued that there is no overlap, of course there is. Campaign finance is always going to be a difficult topic because there are always going to be grey areas. That’s why we have certain tests, and I’ve already described to you what those tests are. So naturally, you ignore those entirely so you can focus on your irrelevant inverted example in an attempt to “catch me”. This is what it looks like when you care more about winning the argument than facing reality. If you knew what you were talking about and were right you wouldn’t need to.
“When candidates use their personal funds for campaign purposes, they are making contributions to their campaigns.”In the overlap, candidates choose whether it's a campaign purpose or a personal expense by the act of using personal money vs campaign money.
That’s not even close to what it says.
I even made it clear with "lawyer's salary" to bypass your idiotic and no doubt very recent nomenclature epiphany.
The fact that reimbursements are not someone’s salary is basic common sense, and bookkeeping 101.
This payment does not require a campaign to exist. Therefore it is not up to you whether it is a campaign expenditure. It is not a matter of deluding yourself into thinking you know someone's intent. The only intent that matters is using campaign funds or personal funds.
Then all campaign finance law is irrelevant. According to this standard, as long as the candidate can argue that his expense was personal, it was personal. And as long as he can argue that any personal expense is a campaign expense, it’s a campaign expense. We can’t know anyone’s intent after all. Not through evidence, not through actions, not through testimony, not through tape recordings. So just chuck it all in the trash.
Or better yet don’t. Do that in your own imaginary country when you get to write the laws and the rest of us here in reality will continue to use common sense to prove what people’s intentions were and hold them to account for it, the same way we have done in every criminal trial ever and the same way you do in every other aspect of your life.
Still waiting.The delay is you. When the issue of what constitutes a campaign expenditure and who decides is resolved we can debate that.
Translation: I have no good answer to your question so I’m going to pretend this issue must be resolved first, and by resolved I mean when you agree with me.
-->
@Double_R
"Under the "irrespective test," personal use is any use of funds in a campaign account of a candidate (or former candidate) to fulfill a commitment, obligation or expense of any person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s campaign or responsibilities as a federal officeholder" - FECHe didn't use campaign funds, so there is no way for the personal use ban to apply. I am pointing out, that you are inverting the standard by claiming he MUST use campaign funds.I never said the funds must come out of the campaign account, I argued that the payment to SD was a campaign contribution
Misdirection to subvert the point, or in other words you pretended a different context.
If the payment must be a campaign contribution then it must also be a campaign expenditure. There is no difference between Trump donating 130k to his campaign and then paying 130k from his campaign account. They call it "in-kind contribution".
You claiming that the payment to SD was in fact a campaign contribution regardless of Trump using personal money means you are claiming it is a mandated campaign contribution, which means you are claiming it is a "campaign purpose" and not just "intended to help the campaign" which means you are claiming that the payment could not exist without a campaign to support.
you show me a rule that explains when campaign expenditures can be used as personal expenses
No, a example that shows the same expense can be both a legal campaign use and personal and in such cases the candidate/committee chooses how much campaign donations to use vs personal money.
I’m not the one doing the inverting here.
Yes you are. If the personal use ban doesn't apply that implies nothing about whether the expenditure is exclusively a campaign expenditure. You tried to conclude that if the personal use ban doesn't apply, it must be a campaign expenditure.
All B are A
Not all A are B
I never argued that there is no overlap, of course there is.
Yes you have, by implication.
I’ve already described to you what those tests are.
The opinion of pseudojudges is not a test. If you don't have an objective argument I will simply keep pointing out that you don't have an objective argument.
This is what it looks like when you care more about winning the argument than facing reality.
Debating is facing reality. You trying to change the subject instead of supporting your assertions or resolving apparent contradictions in your presented facts is failing at debating and thus hiding from reality.
If you knew what you were talking about and were right you wouldn’t need to.
Catching you in a contradiction is how I prove your assertions have a flaw.
“When candidates use their personal funds for campaign purposes, they are making contributions to their campaigns.”In the overlap, candidates choose whether it's a campaign purpose or a personal expense by the act of using personal money vs campaign money.That’s not even close to what it says.
That is what the whole of the guidance (including the page I linked to) and common sense (as in avoiding absurd conclusions) says.
This payment does not require a campaign to exist. Therefore it is not up to you whether it is a campaign expenditure. It is not a matter of deluding yourself into thinking you know someone's intent. The only intent that matters is using campaign funds or personal funds.Then all campaign finance law is irrelevant. According to this standard, as long as the candidate can argue that his expense was personal, it was personal.
"as long as a fascist pseudo-prosecutor can argue that the expense was an exclusive campaign purpose, then it was an unreported campaign expenditure"
This standard, is the standard. Violating this standard is not standard since it contradicts precedent. You are only claiming it's irrelevant because it makes it irrelevant for getting Trump, but campaign finance law was not designed to GET TRUMP and does not become meaningless just because you can't legally get Trump with it.
Campaign finance law is designed to do two things:
1.) To keep campaigns from defrauding the donors by spending their money on non-campaign expenses
2.) To inform the public about potential special interests and lobbying
Trump spending his own money can't defraud donors
Trump being beholden to himself goes without saying
The requirement to report campaign donations even from the candidate is a bookkeeping requirement. If the campaign committee spent more than the recorded donations that would create unnecessary difficulty during an audit. There is no other legitimate purpose under the law.
Only the insane cultist mind can take a book keeping requirement, combine it with an absurdly wide definition of campaign purposes, and come up with criminal liability for not reporting a 'donation' that never went through your campaign committee to be spent as a reported expenditure.
We can’t know anyone’s intent after all.
We don't need to. It's irrelevant. The FEC decides what are automatic personal expenses and what are automatic campaign expenses. Everything else is decided by who is paying. If the FEC thinks someone got it wrong there is a process for that, then people know not to do that; but in the spirit of the ex post facto principle it has never entered anyone's mind that you could criminally punish someone for making a choice in the absence of clear guidance to the contrary.
In my opinion it never occurred to anyone that a compensated NDA would ever be considered an exclusive campaign expenditure because that contradicts nearly every guideline and precedent to date. I don't think anyone knew about this NDA but Cohen, Stormy, and her lawyer; but I'm sure none of them thought it was violating campaign finance laws.
You know, if you knowingly aid someone in violating the law that makes you an accessory? If Stormy had any clue she's an accessory. If her lawyer had any clue he's an accessory.
When Trump found out, and his other lawyers found out; did they freak out "oh no we've violated campaign finance law!" No, didn't even cross their minds until the witch-hunt goons attacked Cohen, mixing in fake crimes with real crimes and not even going to trial (best to keep it away from the eyes of judges you don't control).
In fact when Trump knew, he authorized suing Daniels under the NDA. May as well use it right? Now what is the point of bringing a legal case with a contract that was executed by illegal means? Does it seem possible that multiple sane lawyers would do that?
You asked about Trump and Daniels shaking hands over a kitchen table (we may get to that, depends on how stubborn you are); that would be the best you could do if it was actually illegal to pay her; well if she could be trusted which she can't. A contract that would expose a crime is hardly one you can use against someone. It would be like signing a contract to sell illegal drugs to someone. What's the point of that?
There is no predicting lawfare though. It has no relation to the objective meaning of the text of the law or precedent. But keep going, call all the competent lawyers MAGAs for not rewriting everything they've known for decades, we could use more people.
the rest of us here in reality will continue to use common sense to prove what people’s intentions were and hold them to account for it
Have fun in that "reality", you sure are making the dream come to life. I don't think it will work out well for either of us.
I’m going to pretend this issue must be resolved first
Since you're a galloper a pin needs to be put somewhere.
and by resolved I mean when you agree with me.
Yes
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
which means you are claiming that the payment could not exist without a campaign to support.
There you go again… claiming that the standard is about whether the payment “could not exist” rather than “would not have existed” despite me pointing this out to you already.
“I could beat up a 10 year old”
“I would beat up a 10 year old”
The difference between these two statements is not semantic, they are saying completely different things. Injecting the word “could” merely refers to the possibility, while “would” refers to the reality.
That matters here because by using the word could you are inflating the overlap between personal and campaign to a point where any expense could reasonably be placed under either, and then using this to argue that the payment to SD can’t therefore be deemed a campaign contribution. This isn’t what any of the literature you’ve presented says, isn’t what the FEC guideline I cited says, isn’t what the law says, and for the reasons I just explained defies all logic and common sense.
I never argued that there is no overlap, of course there is.Yes you have, by implication.
No, I haven’t, that’s what your brain chose to see because it’s easier to argue with imaginary Double_R than the person typing these words.
In the overlap, candidates choose whether it's a campaign purpose or a personal expense by the act of using personal money vs campaign money.That’s not even close to what it says.That is what the whole of the guidance (including the page I linked to) and common sense (as in avoiding absurd conclusions) says.
No, it’s not.
“When candidates use their personal funds for campaign purposes, they are making contributions to their campaigns.”
Note the bold. It does not say “well since it came out of a personal account it’s a personal expense” nor “it’s a campaign expense if the candidate says so”. It literally says the opposite.
You know, if you knowingly aid someone in violating the law that makes you an accessory? If Stormy had any clue she's an accessory. If her lawyer had any clue he's an accessory.When Trump found out, and his other lawyers found out; did they freak out "oh no we've violated campaign finance law!" No, didn't even cross their minds until the witch-hunt goons attacked Cohen
The entire point of the trial was for the prosecution to prove that Trump and his attorney knew this from the start and did it anyway, and the jury found that they did.
In fact when Trump knew, he authorized suing Daniels under the NDA. May as well use it right? Now what is the point of bringing a legal case with a contract that was executed by illegal means? Does it seem possible that multiple sane lawyers would do that?
No one is claiming the NDA was illegal. The falsification of the record of the payment is what was illegal, and the intended purpose of that falsification is what made it really illegal.
That is the most basic fact of the case, how do you still not know this?
and by resolved I mean when you agree with me.Yes
Exactly. I don’t know why you keep pretending you have any intention to engage on that question. You have no answer, ask yourself why, I already know.
-->
@Double_R
which means you are claiming that the payment could not exist without a campaign to support.There you go again… claiming that the standard is about whether the payment “could not exist” rather than “would not have existed” despite me pointing this out to you already.“I could beat up a 10 year old”“I would beat up a 10 year old”The difference between these two statements is not semantic, they are saying completely different things. Injecting the word “could” merely refers to the possibility, while “would” refers to the reality.
You are right, it's a meaningful difference and "could" is correct while "would" is not. "Could" can be objectively evaluated. "Would" cannot. For example:
If a candidate stops on the way to a rally to get new shoes (and not reporting it to the FEC), goes to the rally, and then says "look at my shoes, aren't they fabulous, I bought them just for this campaign. You should elect me because of how stylish I am".
Would he have bought the shoes without a campaign? He implies he would not have.
Could he have bought the shoes without a campaign? YES
Now apply your standards and tell me if buying new shoes under those circumstances is exclusively a campaign expense that must be reported? (don't try to sneak around with limits they are expensive shoes, and the candidate has already exceeded the aggregate reporting threshold)
Note the bold. It does not say “well since it came out of a personal account it’s a personal expense” nor “it’s a campaign expense if the candidate says so”. It literally says the opposite.
The FEC has literally said that the candidate decides how much can be paid by campaign money in other circumstances.
Therefore "for campaign purposes" must me "for expenses that could not exist without a campaign" or it contradicts with the rest of the FEC guidance, precedent, and history. Which is not impossible. Governments give contradictory information all the time; but that doesn't leave you with case it leaves you with none.
Judges, real judges, choose definitions and interpretations that don't create contradictions and when they can't they strike down the law/policy as unconstitutionally vague.
Now you can choose an interpretation of "campaign purposes" that creates contradictions and lose this point or you can choose an interpretation that doesn't and still lose this point. The only difference is that if you do the second one you can still claim to believe that FEC guidance has legal force.
...the prosecution to prove that Trump and his attorney knew this from the start and did it anyway, and the jury found that they did.
...but they didn't.
In fact when Trump knew, he authorized suing Daniels under the NDA. May as well use it right? Now what is the point of bringing a legal case with a contract that was executed by illegal means? Does it seem possible that multiple sane lawyers would do that?No one is claiming the NDA was illegal.
Yes you have. You claimed it would have to be disclosed to the public and you have claimed that would cancel the purpose of the NDA.
That's like saying it's legal to buy a potato, you just have to poison it before you eat it. That is defacto illegal.
and the intended purpose of that falsification is what made it really illegal.
The intended purpose must be to obscure a crime. A crime is a thing which is illegal <-basic English. Therefore if the intended purpose is to hide failing to report a campaign expenditure/donation pair, then that must be illegal.
Yes, you and they are accusing Trump of {conspiring to hide {a conspiracy to hide (by failing to report) paying Stormy Daniels}}.
The fact that you can't even keep it straight yourself leaves little room to wonder why most Americans haven't a clue, even the TDSers, the TDSers don't care though. They know Trump is evil and that everything he does is evil and dishonest and just HAS to be against the law, so they reach for faith.
Or in other words if what you were saying was true, and lawyers knew this (because they would if it was clear law and precedent) then Stormy's lawyer and Cohen BOTH knew that there was no way to pay Stormy except by a reported campaign expenditure. Why didn't it occur to them that there was no point in having an NDA if everyone in the world would know that an NDA was paid for?
The only conclusion would have been that Cohen and Trump were planning to commit a crime, in which case lawyer's rules of ethics would have required Daniel's lawyer to tell his client that she would be aid and abetting a crime by seeking this compensation. Like signing a contract to receive stolen goods.
Can you point out a flaw in the above chain of inference?
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I don't know if using SD lawyer as an example helps since he was responsible for her current 500k payout to Trump....
-->
@Greyparrot
I don't know if using SD lawyer as an example helps since he was responsible for her current 500k payout to Trump....
Really? I didn't know that.
You know something, this whole grotesque story might be a good basis for a book of the theme: "kill all the lawyers"
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Now apply your standards and tell me if buying new shoes under those circumstances is exclusively a campaign expense that must be reported?
Yes, if someone says out of their own mouth “I spent this money exclusively for campaign purposes” then guess what… it’s a campaign expense. Let’s see who else agrees with me…
“When candidates use their personal funds for campaign purposes, they are making contributions to their campaigns.”
The FEC has literally said that the candidate decides how much can be paid by campaign money in other circumstances.Therefore "for campaign purposes" must me "for expenses that could not exist without a campaign" or it contradicts with the rest of the FEC guidance, precedent, and history.
It doesn’t, because what made your hypothetical an obvious violation was the blatant and explicit admission of the violation. That is not something you’d find anywhere else in your historical examples. In any other real life example, you’d have those grey areas where there is no way for the FEC to determine whether it was personal or for the campaign (like buying a pair of shoes) so they wouldn’t waste their time trying to step in and determine that.
No one is claiming the NDA was illegal.Yes you have. You claimed it would have to be disclosed to the public and you have claimed that would cancel the purpose of the NDA.
The NDA being legally required to be disclosed does not mean the NDA was illegal. What was illegal is what Trump and his attorney did with it afterward, and how they did it.
The fact that the disclosure requirement contradicted its purpose is exactly why they chose not to disclose it. That was the entire point of the trial.
Why didn't it occur to them that there was no point in having an NDA if everyone in the world would know that an NDA was paid for?
It did, that’s why they falsified the records, to prevent everyone from finding out thereby securing Trump’s chances of getting elected (which entirely worked btw).
The only conclusion would have been that Cohen and Trump were planning to commit a crime, in which case lawyer's rules of ethics would have required Daniel's lawyer to tell his client that she would be aid and abetting a crime by seeking this compensation. Like signing a contract to receive stolen goods.Can you point out a flaw in the above chain of inference?
Again, the NDA itself was not illegal. What was illegal was the falsification of Trump’s documents, which there is no reasonable way to tie Stormy to. Moreover, if they made Stormy a target that would have blown up the entire case, so of course they wouldn’t have gone after her. As prosecutors have been doing for over a century now, you don’t charge the minions when you can use them to charge the people at the top of the scheme.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I watched Dr. Phil on CNN discuss the case with a TDS anchor. He asked for an example where someone was convicted the same way Trump was.
I was doing a bit of digging and the amount of cases where a person got convicted without getting overturned solely on the testimony of a convicted felon was about 100 cases out of a million, or .01% chance.
Imagine jailing the president in an election year using an obscure legal tactic only used .01% of the time for regular people....
-->
@Greyparrot
Imagine jailing the president in an election year using an obscure legal tactic only used .01% of the time for regular people....
The way I figure it, there seem to be generally four responses to this verdict:
A. You are gratified that Trump has FINALLY been convicted of… something or other.
B. You are mortified that a POTUS candidate is actually a convicted felon.
C. You have never seen a public figure so singled out and targeted by a legal system in these United States in your life.
D. You don’t really give two shits about this case over an obscure crime 7 years ago. Either way, your groceries cost too much, your favorite store has shut its doors… and you’ve just been carjacked.
With the exception of A, these don’t necessarily determine a decisive vote either way. Going forward, Trump needs not to play the victim and just confidently claim that he will beat the rap on appeal, while Biden should just focus on making clear his platform for his second term.
-->
@cristo71
Another take is that this is the end of democracy as future elections will rely heavily on lawfare, long after Trump is gone.
-->
@Greyparrot
I was doing a bit of digging and the amount of cases where a person got convicted without getting overturned solely on the testimony of a convicted felon was about 100 cases out of a million, or .01% chance.
Solely? Do you even know what the evidence against Trump was?
And btw, why was Cohen a felon?
-->
@Double_R
Now apply your standards and tell me if buying new shoes under those circumstances is exclusively a campaign expense that must be reported?Yes, if someone says out of their own mouth “I spent this money exclusively for campaign purposes” then guess what… it’s a campaign expense. Let’s see who else agrees with me…“When candidates use their personal funds for campaign purposes, they are making contributions to their campaigns.”
...
you’d have those grey areas where there is no way for the FEC to determine whether it was personal or for the campaign (like buying a pair of shoes) so they wouldn’t waste their time trying to step in and determine that.
I gave you the link, you refused to read it, then you go ahead and jump down the hole with spikes at the bottom. Let me guess, your interpretation being in direct contradiction with an FEC example is just another attempt at a 'meaningless' 'gotcha'?
[FEC] Automatic Personal Expenses:Clothing
The campaign cannot pay for attire for political functions (for example, a new tuxedo or dress), but it can pay for clothing of de minimis value that is used in the campaign, such as T-shirts or caps imprinted with a campaign slogan.
Your interpretation of federal campaign law is dead on arrival.
The fact that the disclosure requirement contradicted its purpose is exactly why they chose not to disclose it.
...and just to be clear the purpose was to win the 2016 presidential election? Which you claim would not have happened if it had been filed as a compensated NDA to Stormy Daniels?
Or in other words if what you were saying was true, and lawyers knew this (because they would if it was clear law and precedent) then Stormy's lawyer and Cohen BOTH knew that there was no way to pay Stormy except by a reported campaign expenditure. Why didn't it occur to them that there was no point in having an NDA if everyone in the world would know that an NDA was paid for?It did, that’s why they falsified the records
Dropping context (italic is re-added text), I'm talking about Stormy and her lawyer here.
Are you ceding that they were co-conspirators?
Again, the NDA itself was not illegal.
That is not a flaw in the inference if the NDA is for all practical purposes illegal, illegal to get any benefit from.
What was illegal was the falsification of Trump’s documents, which there is no reasonable way to tie Stormy to.
Your theory also require non-reporting to be illegal. I just pointed out how non-reporting should have been obvious if your assertion that the supposed campaign finance violation was obvious is true. I am only appearing to have to remind you because you are intentionally straying in an attempt to shift context to a different theory of your own invention, in other words a stawman, a despicable tactic of sophists.
Moreover, if they made Stormy a target that would have blown up the entire case, so of course they wouldn’t have gone after her.
That is a distraction. The question is not why the prosecutors didn't go after Stormy's lawyer (she can rely on advise of council defense), the question is why the lawyer would lead his client straight into a criminal conspiracy.
You have in the past repeatedly appealed to concepts you do not understand. One of them is Occam's razor. Here is how to correctly use it:
By Occam's razor the explanation with the least assumptions tends to be correct, and the explanation with the least assumptions is that there was no reason to believe it was a criminal conspiracy because it wasn't a criminal conspiracy because this is not federal election law as so aptly demonstrated by your total failure to cite precedent, law, or even come up with a coherent understanding of FEC guidance as seen above.
-->
@Swagnarok
Every juror was predisposed to assume Trump's guilt; they may or may not have been actively selected to produce this outcome, given the geographic bias was probably enough on its own.
They filtered out the jury so much to get 12 apolitical people to be on the jury. Keep in mind, all juror members had to be approved by both the prosecution and Trump's lawyers.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I gave you the link, you refused to read it, then you go ahead and jump down the hole with spikes at the bottom. Let me guess, your interpretation being in direct contradiction with an FEC example is just another attempt at a 'meaningless' 'gotcha'?
Yes, it is a meaningless gotcha. I’m talking about a principal used to determine what sits outside of the grey areas, so naturally you decided to use an example that the FEC decided ahead of time in an apparent effort to test whether I read the entire page even after I told you I skimmed through it. Congratulations.
Now show me the example where the FEC says payments made to shut up pornstars are excluded from campaign expenditures and this debate will be over.
...and just to be clear the purpose was to win the 2016 presidential election? Which you claim would not have happened if it had been filed as a compensated NDA to Stormy Daniels?
The evidence overwhelmingly shows their intentions were to impact the election, and the jury agreed.
I never claimed claimed Trump would have lost 2016 if this came out, I said it’s very possible. That is of course irrelevant here, the fact that they believed it would have made an impact is all that matters.
I'm talking about Stormy and her lawyer here.Are you ceding that they were co-conspirators?
Possibly, although it would be a really shaky case since the essence of the crime was the intentional non-reporting of the payment which it would be really hard to legally tie Stormy to. It wasn’t her responsibility, so they would probably need evidence that this was all discussed.
What was illegal was the falsification of Trump’s documents, which there is no reasonable way to tie Stormy to.Your theory also require non-reporting to be illegal. I just pointed out how non-reporting should have been obvious if your assertion that the supposed campaign finance violation was obvious is true.
This makes no sense, please rephrase.
Failure to report something and engaging in conspiracy to hide something are two totally different things.
the question is why the lawyer would lead his client straight into a criminal conspiracy.You have in the past repeatedly appealed to concepts you do not understand. One of them is Occam's razor. Here is how to correctly use it:By Occam's razor the explanation with the least assumptions tends to be correct, and the explanation with the least assumptions is that there was no reason to believe it was a criminal conspiracy because it wasn't a criminal conspiracy because this is not federal election law as so aptly demonstrated by your total failure to cite precedent, law, or even come up with a coherent understanding of FEC guidance as seen above.
This is like a blind person trying to lecture me on how to mix colors.
Occam’s razor (used properly) requires that all of the known data points be included, you don’t get to just cherry pick one set of points and pretend the rest of the data doesn’t exist.
We know they conspired because we have the testimony of Pecker, the recordings by Cohen, the documentary evidence, and the timing of this whole scheme, just to name a few, and we know what the law is because we can read it (which I’ve already provided here).
So no, Occam’s razor does not negate all of that. The simplest explanation here is either because Stormy’s lawyer has a valid legal argument as to why her client has no legal liability (which is not hard to imagine) or we could even go further and assume he did recognize there was an issue here but decided that getting paid was more important. Either of those explain the facts far better than “because it wasn’t a conspiracy by Trump and Cohen to falsify the payments to hide a campaign contribution”.
-->
@Double_R
Now show me the example where the FEC says payments made to shut up pornstars are excluded from campaign expenditures and this debate will be over.
Guilty until proven innocent by the FEC?
Nice dystopia you got there...
-->
@Double_R
No, you are debunked.I gave you the link, you refused to read it, then you go ahead and jump down the hole with spikes at the bottom. Let me guess, your interpretation being in direct contradiction with an FEC example is just another attempt at a 'meaningless' 'gotcha'?Yes, it is a meaningless gotcha.
Now show me the example where the FEC says payments made to shut up pornstars are excluded from campaign expenditures and this debate will be over.
The debate is over. You lost.
...and just to be clear the purpose was to win the 2016 presidential election? Which you claim would not have happened if it had been filed as a compensated NDA to Stormy Daniels?The evidence overwhelmingly shows their intentions were to impact the election, and the jury agreed.
Then why does Alan Dershowitz claim that the electorate would not have seen the filing till after the election?
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I still don't understand why the FEC needs to prove a person innocent. Either it's against the law to create a NDA during an election or it isn't. And if it is against the law, then the crime objectively has to be clearly defined. That's the very definition of "rule of law"
If a judge has to make his own interpretation on the law, then it's no longer a standard. And it's no longer "rule of law"
-->
@Greyparrot
Well in theory the only purpose of a judge is to interpret law, but the problem here is that he's dead wrong on letter, precedent, not a federal judge, and no principle which will be applied equally has been relied upon.
That's not really interpreting that's making it up, and that's what makes him a pseudo-judge instead of a judge.
The FEC isn't needed to prove people innocent, until now nobody has even been pursued for election violations without clear condemnation from the FEC, and as I said when the guidance is new there has been no punishment since it's obvious that they're making stuff up as they go along.
Double R is right, legislatures do write laws so vague because they want to create unaccountable bureaucracies (so people stop blaming them, still their fault). The constitutionality of this practice is doubtful, but even with that flaw the FEC (the unaccountable bureaucracy in this case) is not even the origin of the attack.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I guess I'm okay with judges interpreting the law, as long as it's consistent and predictable: (precedent, shoe on other foot test...)
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Yes, it is a meaningless gotcha.No, you are debunked.
Right… on a meaningless gotcha.
The debate is over. You lost.
lol ok bro
Then why does Alan Dershowitz claim that the electorate would not have seen the filing till after the election?
Ask him
-->
@Greyparrot
Well in broad theory there isn't any other choice but to have interpretations by people, not unless a real AI is built; but it could be a lot better than even what the founders intended (and what we're seeing is not that).
If judges have the authority to overturn laws (and that is how they have operated due to constitutions being supreme laws) then they should review and veto laws before they are passed. It's pretty stupid to wait until someone gets enough money to sue before you react and that your reacting is "oops, we're sorry the government wrecked thousands of lives, moving on"
Vague laws, laws that attempt to delegate definition to unelected authority, and laws that violate the constitution should never make it to the people.
I drafted a few constitutions years ago and one provision which was absolutely core to the "improvement" over the American Constitution is the 'just cause' test. It is not enough for a law to be clear and equally applied. It also needs to serve the purpose of protecting liberty. If it doesn't serve that purpose don't call it a law.
There are whole batteries of heuristics (thought experiments in this case) you could make mandatory for a law to pass. The outcome of that kind of review would pretty much boil away these ridiculous grey areas and make it much easier to spot and eliminate oath-breaking judges.
That being said, I'm not making excuses for Merchan. Before TDS no judge would dare contradict all precedent, not even pretend to look at election law, and then presume a fringe interpretation that would make every candidate since 1970 a criminal.
-->
@Greyparrot
I still don't understand why the FEC needs to prove a person innocent.
No one has argued this
Either it's against the law to create a NDA during an election or it isn't.
It isn’t. That’s not what was alleged in this case.
-->
@Double_R
I still don't understand why the FEC needs to prove a person innocent.No one has argued this
You did:
Now show me the example where the FEC says payments made to shut up pornstars are excluded from campaign expenditures and this debate will be over.
Implying that unless the FEC enumerates the exact circumstances as personal expenses, then they must be a campaign expenditure. This no doubt works in reverse where unless the FEC enumerates the exact circumstances as campaign expenses, then they must be personal expenses.
In either case you assume guilt unless the FEC says otherwise specifically.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Now show me the example where the FEC says payments made to shut up pornstars are excluded from campaign expenditures and this debate will be over.Implying that unless the FEC enumerates the exact circumstances as personal expenses, then they must be a campaign expenditure.
This isn’t even close to what I argued.
The FEC lays out an irrespective test to determine whether something qualifies as a campaign expenditure. It also pulls out specific examples of expense types that qualify as automatic personal expenses.
So naturally, since you can’t refute that the payment to Stormy fails that test, you engage in a dishonest game of gotcha walking me through a scenario where you ask me to apply the irrespective test to something the FEC has preemptively singled out as an automatic personal expense, just so you can claim victory when I walked into your silly little trap. That doesn’t refute a single argument I’ve made. There is a reason the FEC singled out these types of expenses - because it would otherwise conflict with their own respective test, so it is there to clarify when to apply the irrespective test:
“Case-by-Case determination of personal use
For other expenses not mentioned on this page, the Commission will determine, on a case-by-case basis through the advisory opinion process, whether the expense is one that would exist irrespective of the candidate's campaign or duties as a federal officeholder and would be considered a personal use expense.”
It explicitly states that if the expense in question is not listed on this page, then it is subject to its personal use determination (based on its irrespective test). Therefore, if you are claiming that the test does not apply to the Stormy payment, you would need to show me where it singles out this type of expense. Otherwise, it is in fact subject to this test (that’s what “not mentioned on this page” means).
Saying it is subject to the irrespective test does not =/= “it must be a campaign expenditure”.
If you had a real argument you wouldn’t need to waste your time with these silly little games. But you don’t.
-->
@Double_R
Now show me the example where the FEC says payments made to shut up pornstars are excluded from campaign expenditures and this debate will be over.Implying that unless the FEC enumerates the exact circumstances as personal expenses, then they must be a campaign expenditure.This isn’t even close to what I argued.
The quote is right there.
It also pulls out specific examples of expense types that qualify as automatic personal expenses.
So a tuxedo is a personal expense but shoes aren't huh? GTFO
you engage in a dishonest game of gotcha
It's perfectly honest, and if you weren't so dishonest it wouldn't have felt dishonest to you. If you had seen it coming you would have come up with some other bizzare sophistry instead of making the contradiction (which would exist regardless) absolutely clear.
That doesn’t refute a single argument I’ve made.
You don't make that many arguments, it did refute the interpretation of federal election law you asserted.
There is a reason the FEC singled out these types of expenses
because some numbskull tried to claim that buying a tuxedo was a campaign expense that donors would happily pay for because it was for "campaign purposes".
Now long dead zombie skulls (you) are claiming that if you pay for things that could be personal expenses with personal money that's actually a campaign expenditure.
because it would otherwise conflict with their own respective test, so it is there to clarify when to apply the irrespective test:
Ah, so the irrespective test applies when it's not a personal expense. Show me the irrespective test in the law or the FEC website. Let's see the context that I'm missing.
Just kidding, it's you who are missing the context!
It's at the top of the page I linked to in the first place:
The irrespective test is to determine what is definitely a personal payment, not what is definitely a campaign expenditure. QED
It's a rule to tell you the default for the determination of "definitely personal" not "definitely campaign". The default position is that if the expense would exist without the campaign it is a personal expense and cannot be paid for from donor money.
That does not mean it is a campaign expense that must be reported.
All A are B
From that you are adding:
~A
Therefore ~B
*wags finger like a disappointed Indian school teacher*
No sir, your missing premise is: All B are A.
That is: "All expenses which are not mandatory personal expenses are mandatory campaign expenses"
FALSE, proven by the personal use page, especially the situation where both campaign and personal funds may be used for the same expense.
That premise which you rely on you falsely disclaimed in post #213:
[ADOL] Not "any expense", "any expense in the overlap between personal and campaign expenses"That overlap is huge, especially for celebrities. You have butchered election law into an absurdity by asserting that there is no overlap.And yet, another strawman.I never argued that there is no overlap, of course there is. Campaign finance is always going to be a difficult topic because there are always going to be grey areas.
Let us also note that within the set of campaign expenses is "mandated" campaign expenses and within the set of personal expenses are "mandated" personal expenses and they are disjoint with each other.
There is overlap in precisely this situation: Expenses that are neither mandated as personal nor mandated as campaign expenses. Expenses that can be either.
What do we know about this intersection of campaign and personal expenses? Well we know that just because someone claims to be using money to help their campaign, that does not mean it is within this set. Therefore we can also conclude that intention of spender does not determine inclusion in the intersection.
You are going from "not a mandated personal expense under the default rule" to " mandated campaign expense", it's wrong, it's producing contradictions. Therefore (again, you have lost the argument.
the Commission will determine
Unless the commission is insufficiently TDS in which case they will be ignored and somebody pretending they are a judge will hold up a sock-puppet pretending to be the commission.
You forgot that part, it's in the fine print.
Therefore, if you are claiming that the test does not apply to the Stormy payment
It does not apply to the stormy payment because campaign money was not used.
The test determines (as this whole page determines) if you're allowed to use donor money. Not whether you're allowed to use personal money. You couldn't even get that right because you don't have the categories straight in your mind and blindly applied "campaign purposes" from another page to shoes and produced a contradiction.
If you had a real argument you wouldn’t need to waste your time with these silly little games. But you don’t.
If you were an honest debater you would care that your interpretation contradicted the FEC.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
This isn’t even close to what I argued.The quote is right there.
And it doesn’t mean what you claim it does, because as usual, you have no to refutation except strawman arguments.
I told you to provide the part where the FEC excludes NDA payments from campaign contributions stating that if you could do that this debate would be over. At no point did I state, suggest, or imply that your failure to do so would affirm my position. You made that part up entirely because you either do not know how to read, do not understand logic 101, or have no interest in dealing with the actual arguments I am making.
It also pulls out specific examples of expense types that qualify as automatic personal expenses.So a tuxedo is a personal expense but shoes aren't huh? GTFO
No genius. I really don’t know who you are talking to but perhaps I should leave the room so you two can be alone.
I said nothing like this. You are still working with the original point I made even after I acknowledged my error. Pay attention to the conversation.
Ah, so the irrespective test applies when it's not a personal expense. Show me the irrespective test in the law or the FEC website.
The irrespective test is not something the FEC invented for the purposes of determining whether the personal use ban applies, it’s a very basic concept in law (often referred to as the but/for test), and it definitionally follows from the word “would”. I have just been appealing to it because it came from your own chosen source.
Again, here is the Federal Campaign Finance Act defining what a contribution is:
The term “contribution” includes— (i) 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;
There is only one test that logically applies to establish whether an expenditure meets this definition, and it’s not whether the expenditure could exist without the campaign. And the fact that the FEC uses this test to determine whether an expenditure qualifies under the personal use ban gives you another clue as to what that test would be.
The test determines (as this whole page determines) if you're allowed to use donor money. Not whether you're allowed to use personal money. You couldn't even get that right because you don't have the categories straight in your mind and blindly applied "campaign purposes" from another page to shoes and produced a contradiction.
It wasn’t a contradiction, it was a failure to account for instances where the FEC singled out specific types of spending to be excluded from this test. And why would the FEC do that? Because otherwise the irrespective test could be used by the candidate to abuse campaign laws, the opposite of its intention.
In other words, if the candidate could credibly argue that their shoes were specifically purchased for the campaign then candidates could use campaign funds to build themselves a new wardrobe. So it does make perfect sense to single out these kinds of expenditures when we’re talking about campaign funds out of the campaign account.
I didn’t think about that part because that’s not the subject of our conversation so I made the mistake of thinking you were arguing in good faith. I already pointed out to you in post 213 how stupid it is to even be talking about this page in the first place given that these were not the circumstances of the payment we are supposedly discussing. The fact that you decided to use this page and start arguing over what qualifies under the personal use ban when the conversation is actually about an in kind contribution that had nothing to do with the funds in the campaign account speaks to which one of us is being dishonest here.
If you go back to the point I actually made note that all I was really doing is following the tone of your question and applying it to what we are actually talking about:
Now apply your standards and tell me if buying new shoes under those circumstances is exclusively a campaign expense that must be reported?Yes, if someone says out of their own mouth “I spent this money exclusively for campaign purposes” then guess what… it’s a campaign expense. Let’s see who else agrees with me…“When candidates use their personal funds for campaign purposes, they are making contributions to their campaigns.”
Note the dishonesty here. You’re asking me about campaign expenditures that must be reported (the subject of our conversation) but inserting an example that falls under the personal use ban (not the subject of our conversation), then acting like you won the debate because you succeeded in getting me to provide a confusing answer (since you are covering two different subjects at the same time).
My point is and has been from the start that the in kind contribution that Cohen made to the Trump campaign at the behest of Trump was required to be reported. Do you have an argument that it wasn’t which actually sticks to the topic?
-->
@Double_R
I told you to provide the part where the FEC excludes NDA payments from campaign contributions
It doesn't, but it doesn't exclude them from personal expenses either which means they are in the overlap which means nobody can convict anybody of anything without getting a change in policy from the FEC, and for that matter the FEC ought to be reviewed so as to not go farther than the law allows erring in the extreme on the side of not creating criminal or civil liability.
At no point did I state, suggest, or imply that your failure to do so would affirm my position. You made that part up entirely because you either do not know how to read, do not understand logic 101, or have no interest in dealing with the actual arguments I am making.
Bla bla sophistry
You are still working with the original point I made even after I acknowledged my error.
Must have missed that, what was your error? Cause it seemed like you said "Well my interpretation is absolutely correct unless specifically contradicted by an example given by the FEC"
Again, here is the Federal Campaign Finance Act defining what a contribution is:The term “contribution” includes— (i) 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;
Apply it to a tuxedo bought for a campaign rally.
It wasn’t a contradiction, it was a failure to account for instances where the FEC singled out specific types of spending to be excluded from this test.
Like I said, you admitted no error. "just keep swimming"
My interpretation doesn't require the automatic personal expenses to be in contradiction with the default (irrespective test).
Because otherwise the irrespective test could be used by the candidate to abuse campaign laws, the opposite of its intention.
Only if he assumed, like you are assuming, that if the test fails then it is a legitimate campaign expense. The examples given are expansions, not corrections or retractions from the baseline test.
I already pointed out to you in post 213 how stupid it is to even be talking about this page in the first place given that these were not the circumstances of the payment we are supposedly discussing.
It eviscerates your theory on what constitutes mandated campaign expenses, which clearly annoys you.
You have asserted/implied that if someone intends to help their campaign by spending money, then whatever they are spending money on is a mandated campaign expense. That ultra-wide definition of mandated campaign expenses leads to absurdities and the most relevant example of the absurdity is that it bulldozes right over mandated personal expenses.
Buying shoes with the intent to influence your campaign cannot simultaneously be a mandated personal expense (which the page says it is) and a mandated campaign expense (which you and the fake jurists say).
No stated underlying crime. Just a statement of possible crimes.