FEC: Trump-Stormy Case ‘Not A Campaign Finance Violation’

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Wild Bill Kelsoe, Apr 6, 2023.

  1. Overitall

    Overitall Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2021
    Messages:
    12,210
    Likes Received:
    11,567
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Good ole every day Americans don't let hatred of a man dictate their actions.
     
  2. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,464
    Likes Received:
    14,677
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hush money to influence a campaign, hidden as fake legal fees, is not a "valid business expense". Its criminal fraud. Especially as you claim it as a tax deduction.
     
  3. Noone

    Noone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2021
    Messages:
    14,439
    Likes Received:
    8,507
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So tRaitor tRump AbsaByGodLutely CAN get a fair trial!!! Good to know.

    Bragg won’t have to through NYC scraping the bottom of every barrel trying to put together a jury of tRaitor tRump’s peers. I’m sure Bragg is relieved. 8)
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2023
  4. CornPop

    CornPop Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2022
    Messages:
    5,338
    Likes Received:
    4,788
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The money also benefited his business as well as his personal life. For the hundredth time. The last person who paid for an NDA to cover up an affair with campaign funds was prosecuted for it. The fact that it also had campaign benefits does not mean it solely benefited the campaign. Thus, it would be illegal for Trump to pay for it out of campaign funds. His attorneys would have told him not to do tha, and they would have been right.
     
  5. CornPop

    CornPop Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2022
    Messages:
    5,338
    Likes Received:
    4,788
    Trophy Points:
    113
    NDAs are business expenses. Crying about someone also running a campaign doesn't change that fact. Nothing you have said has any correlation with the law or precedent. It's just TDS whining without making a coherent legal argument.
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2023
    glitch likes this.

Share This Page