Posted on 03/12/2018 12:54:08 PM PDT by NoLibZone
The complaints make a compelling case that the $130,000 payment to Daniels was made to influence the presidential election; that makes it a campaign expenditure.
Daniels herself admits this in her new lawsuit, claiming Trump agreed to pay her to avoid her telling the truth, thus helping to ensure that he won the Presidential Election.
By failing to report the payment as a campaign expense, the Trump campaign violated multiple federal disclosure laws.
And depending on the source of the $130,000 paid to Daniels, the payment may also have been an illegal contribution.
If the funds came from a corporation like the Trump Organization, the payment would be an illegal corporate contribution because corporations are prohibited from make contributions to federal candidates.
And if the money came from Cohen or anyone other than Trump himself, it would violate the $2,700 limit on individual contributions to a federal candidate.
Ahahahahahahaha.
Yeah right.
Millions in Obama 2008/2012 contributions from Muslim nations “violated election law.” Hillary and the DNC funding the “pee dossier” “violated election law.” NOTHING was done about either. The FEC is completely toothless, and NOTHING will happen from this ridiculous fake story of Daniels.
New Democrat talking point: paying a porn star is collusion!
Stormy Daniels helped Trump beat Hillary Clinton!
Apparently, she could have done back then what the Hollywood Access tape didn’t do.
Yeah, sure.
The Dems should be very careful in pursuing this line of attack - given the HRC campaign filtered 10 million through a law firm to produce that dossier.
These people not only don’t know election law, they are grasping at straws.
Actually, it’s fun to watch
5.56mm
Clintons can get away with murder and they want to go after Trump for jaywalking if that.
Don’t high profile people do this stuff a lot, even if there is no election. i.e. could the argument not be made that it was about protecting his reputation - in general?
This is how I’m seeing it as well.
I have seen a picture of Stormy from 12 years ago and she is definitely Not Guilty. Same goes for Trump.
Who is paying the whore to reopen her blackmail operation?
Oooops. My bad. I read the headline as ‘erection law.’
Keep in mind none of these accusations are designed to bring criminal charges against the President.
They’re attempts to shape public opinion so when/if the Democrats regain control of Congress, they can start impeachment proceedings.
So, Two Not Guilties cannot make a Guilty?
Not that it matters to me, I voted for Trump to be President in preference to Hillary, not for Ron Jeremy.
This is all they got? Go big or go home.
Sounds like blackmail was involved.
Why hasn’t she been arrested?
I thought we learned from the Clinton Crime Family in 1992 that handling “bimbo eruptions” prior to and during elections and while in office was okay.
Bingo.
Stormy has little to do with sex or adultery.
It has to do with election campaign finance law.
ChiComs gave money to Al Gore and Bill Clinton in 1996 in exchange for tech secrets and no one went to prison or the electric chair.
FUDNC
No one went to prison when Monica Lewinsky and others were rewarded with jobs in the private sector for lying under oath.
Wait, this woman claims to have had sex with Donald Trump, a multi billionaire and she settled for couch cushion change?
Who’s fault is that?
It makes her story sound, fake....
I would not be surprised Cohen has a slush fund just to pay off crazy idiots like this just so Trump and his businesses don’t have to waste time with nonsense lawsuits.
Lady calls and say she slipped and fell in the lobby of Trump Tower, sign these papers and we will send you 5 grand, magically she feels better and they didn’t have to waste money going back and forth with lawyers and judges, etc.
Just a thought.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.