Trump has not violated campaign finance laws, and here's why


The media is in a frenzy louder than feeding time at the zoo over the guilty pleas by Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign manager, and Michael Cohen, Trump's (former) personal lawyer. Manafort's plea was unrelated to Trump. Cohen pleaded to tax evasion (also unrelated to Trump), but also two counts of working with Trump to violate campaign finance laws.

As an attorney I can tell you, pretty definitively, that Trump has violated no campaign laws.

Cohen's plea deal states that Cohen violated campaign finance laws by making payments to one of Trump's alleged mistresses, "Stormy Daniels", and made payments to the National Enquirer to compensate the Enquirer for paying off another of Trump's alleged mistresses. Cohen, in turn was reimbursed by Trump for these expenses, so Trump was the ultimate source of the money for these payments.

Click here to see the rest of this article
The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, Title 52, United States Code Section 30101 states in part that individuals are limited to making donations of $2,700 to presidential candidates. Cohen is accused of spending money in violation of the Act. Although Cohen spent more than $2,700 on behalf of Trump, he was reimbursed by Trump, so Trump was ultimately spending money on himself, and there is no limit on how much a person may spend on their own presidential campaign, so this section does not apply.

The Campaign Act also prohibits corporations from contributing directly to presidential campaigns. Cohen set up dummy corporations to make the payments and pled to making improper corporate donations. But again, although the money technically came from corporations, ultimately, all the money came from Donald Trump, so again these limitations do not apply.

But more importantly, this was not a campaign expenditure at all. Constitutional scholar Mark Levin has interviewed former Federal Election Commission Chairman Bradley Smith repeatedly on his show over the past year, and Smith has made the point that "dual use" expenditures are not "campaign expenditures" under the meaning of the Act.

What are campaign expenditures? Payments for advertising, consultants, rallies, transportation, polling, and get out the vote efforts, of course. But has anyone ever reported payments to a mistress as campaign expenditure? Almost certainly not.

That's because any expenditure is not an expenditure simply because it may incidentally benefit a campaign. It must be an expenditure whose only purpose is to benefit a campaign. So if a candidate for office buys an American car, or gets his teeth whitened, these are things that can benefit his campaign, but are not campaign expenditures because they also have personal benefits.

Payments to President Trump's alleged mistresses to stay silent certainly benefitted his campaign. But they also served the purpose of not embarrassing the President's family. There clearly was a dual use to the payments, therefore they were not "campaign expenditures" under the act. If they were, then everything a candidate spent money on during the course of a campaign, whether of a personal nature or not, would have to be reported as a campaign expenditure. Does a candidate eat during a campaign? Well, if so that benefits his campaign and so must be an expenditure! Do you see how ridiculous this can become?

If these payments were not campaign expenditures then there is no violation. But Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to violating campaign expenditure laws. Although no plea deal was announced, it looks like Cohen has flipped and pleaded guilty to these counts to avoid even more charges. But just because Cohen claims he, and Trump, violated campaign finance laws, that is not the same as a legal determination that he did so.

As Mark Levin pointed out on his show yesterday, a guilty plea is not an adjudication of a court. No court has ever ruled that hush payments to mistresses are a campaign expenditure. Michael Cohen was simply squeezed to get the results Robert Mueller wanted, to give grounds to impeach President Trump.

Mueller was supposed to be investigating the claims of Trump colluding with Russia. These guilty pleas, while notable for non-campaign finance reasons, have nothing to do with Russia and nothing to do with Donald Trump. But it seems clear that the road to impeachment goes through campaign finance laws.

Even if Donald Trump allegedly funneled hush payments through his lawyer, and through a dummy corporation, they were still payments ultimately from him, and had nothing to do with campaign finance laws.

While the President's personal behavior is as unadmirable as ever, even worse is sitting back silently while the media wages lawfare against the President and Nancy Pelosi rams through articles of impeachment in 2019 because everyone accepts this false narrative.

[originally in AT]



Related articles:
Woman with niece who wears MAGA hat to parties turns to Slate for help

Trump says North Korea is no longer a threat, you can sleep easy!

Why does Trump suddenly sound like "The Manchurian Candidate"?








The war on men, part 554: "Study" claims women are superior doctors


What if we did a study on the survival rates of patients who were treated by brunette doctors and blonde doctors? Wouldn't we find that patients did better with one set of doctors, either blondes or brunettes? In that case, wouldn't it mean that blondes or brunettes make better doctors?
CONTINUE READING

Related articles:
Dems promise to subordinate men if they retake the House

NYT writes obits of long dead women & minorities, but no Holocaust victims

Libs demand tax cut for tampons




Dems promise to subordinate men if they retake the House


Democrats are promising that women will be the ones wearing the pants in the House if they get a majority in the November elections. That's because not only would Nancy Pelosi become speaker, but 35 women would head major committees and subcommittees. Voters who think women are better at ruling because of their gender are very, very politically aroused.
CONTINUE READING Related articles:
NYT writes obits of long dead women & minorities, but no Holocaust victims

Libs demand tax cut for tampons

The end of the swimsuit competition is part of the war on heterosexual men



New York Times erases 52 million white people from existence


The liberal media is in such a desperate hurry to change the demographics in this country that they can't wait for rhetoric to match reality. That's why it's understandable that The New York Times claimed that America is only 60% white. In case you had doubts, they even linked to a US Census website to back up their claim. How much more authoritative can you be than that?
The only problem is that the webpage the Times linked to does not say that the US population is 60% white; it says the US population is 76% white.

CONTINUE READING Related articles:
Let's all thank Sarah Jeong for showing us what liberals think of white people

New Hampshire working hard to make state less white

NYT writes obits of long dead women & minorities, but no Holocaust victims



How will liberals ruin Patrick Stewart's return to Star Trek?


78 year old Patrick Stewart, who played the wildly popular Captain Picard on the 1980's series Star Trek: The Next Generation, is returning to the role in a new Star Trek series.
CONTINUE READING Related articles:
Star Trek takes PC to new extremes, even for Hollywood

New Star Trek series to feature woman lead, homosexual assistant

Trump is Kirk and Obama is Picard



In Venezuela, drones make the government run more effectively


Drones have many uses. They can be used to monitor pipelines. Or crops. Or scan the countryside to track wild elk, or schools of fish in the sea.
CONTINUE READING Related articles:
Zuckerberg calls for guaranteed income; write him for your first check

Public housing projects great place to raise kids, Lib. study finds

Socialism turns oil exporting country into oil importer



Pocahontas and Krazy Kamala shamelessly pander for Nutroots support


The "Netroots", which are derisively--and very accurately--called the "Nutroots" by some, are hard-left activists who provides the ready foot soldiers when the Left goes to electoral war. So would-be 2020 Democratic Presidential candidates appeared before them, each trying to appear more insanely left wing than the other, in an attempt to curry favor with the certifiably politically insane.
CONTINUE READING Related articles:
Is Elizabeth Warren having an affair with New York Magazine?

Elizabeth Warren's book says socialism will work like it's never worked before

WaPo writes article admiring Elizabeth Warren's bony arms



Experts predict that men, women, & heterosexuals will sweep the midterm elections


The New York Times loves to write about identity groups, but only certain ones. So if you're heterosexual, a man who is certain he's a man, or, increasingly, a woman whose certain she's a woman, you're not going to find a lot of articles about your identity group in the Times, unless, of course, your identity group has been "oppressing" other identity groups.
CONTINUE READING Related articles:
Spain decides most beautiful Spanish woman... is a man

Denny's reassures disguised men of access to women's bathrooms

Are there enough mentally ill voters in Maryland to elect Chelsea Manning to the Senate?



Let's all thank Sarah Jeong for showing us what liberals think of white people


Anti-white racism is endemic among liberals. For liberals, it is permissible to show disdain for white people in a way that would be totally, totally unacceptable to show for blacks, hispanics, or people of other "colors" of the liberal rainbow.
CONTINUE READING Related articles:
New Hampshire working hard to make state less white

NYT writes obits of long dead women & minorities, but no Holocaust victims

Judicial nominee pulled because of opposition to "Multiculturalism"



The liberal media is the enemy of the rule of law and civil society


The liberal media is unused to anyone fighting back. It feels it should feel free to attack, defend, define, and distort as it sees fit, because of the First Amendment, but feels that anyone else exercising their First Amendment rights is "encouraging violence against the media". But what the media ignores is its own role in fomenting law-breaking and hatred.
CONTINUE READING Related articles:
What's the difference between Russian Twitter bots and liberal media polls?

Let's replace the words "Trump" with "Obama" in biased headlines

How many buzzwords can the liberal media use in one sentence?



Lib media worries about crime wave in Mexico "caused" by America


We all know about cross-border crime on the Mexico border. But what we don't know, according to the liberal media, is that the crime is all one-way: Mexico does not export crime to America, but America causes crime in Mexico. A lot of it! Who knew?
CONTINUE READING Related articles:
Lib Study: Illegals miss court dates due to confusion, mental illness, bad bus service

I agree with the HuffPo: reunite migrant kids with deported parents!

Help! How to update the Statue of Liberty for the era of illegal immigration?




Next Page





Search Topic Areas
o Donald Trump
o Best articles
o Abortion
o Economy
o Education
o Environment
o Hairy feminists
o Gay agenda
o Gun control
o Illegal aliens
o Pop culture
o Radical islam
o Republicans
o Reverse Racism
o Ted Cruz
o Transvestite agenda




NewsMachete.com Copyright 2015
Feedback


Who is NewsMachete?

Privacy policy
Search Topic Areas
o Donald Trump
o Best articles
o Abortion
o Economy
o Education
o Environment
o Hairy feminists
o Gay agenda
o Gun control
o Illegal aliens
o Pop culture
o Radical islam
o Republicans
o Reverse Racism
o Ted Cruz
o Transvestite agenda