Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

I feel sad for all the progressives on OPP. They had a real celebration when Cohen trapped himself and then said he had real evidence on President Trump collusion with Russia. Turns out, his lawyer is now back stepping, saying he is not sure Cohen has any evidence.

"Lanny Davis, a spokesman and attorney for Cohen, said in an interview this weekend that he is no longer certain about claims he made to reporters on background and on the record in recent weeks about what Cohen knows about Trump's awareness of the Russian efforts." https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Lawyer-backs-off-claims-about-information-Cohen-13184027.php

So Mr. Cohen has plead guilty of: tax evasion, bank fraud and campaign finance crimes. Now Davis's latest comments cast doubt on what Cohen may know, including about a June 2016 meeting in New York's Trump Tower attended by Trump's eldest son and a Russian lawyer. Add this to embezzlement of funds from Trump Cooperation....it does not look good for Cohen. So the FBI got another tax evader but has come no closer to anything on President Trump. I am betting that the campaign finance crimes will turn out to be his crimes alone. We will wait for the ruling, but my instincts plus the FEC publications leads me to be certain that Trump did not commit a crime.https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/handling-loans-debts-and-advances/personal-loans-candidate/

So guys..... I know you must have champaign headaches, take some aspirin (the real stuff), drink a few litters of water and first thing when you wake up, tomato juice and at least your headache will be better.

PeterS

Your instincts? You mean your conservative bias. The question to be asked is whether Trump gained any benefit by having his girls stay silent just prior to the e******n. If the answer is no then Donald is out of the woods and your instincts are spot on but if the answer is yes then you instincts suck and at some point Donald will be made to answer for his campaign finance crimes. Such a shame too, after all he has shown himself to be such a wonderful man...

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

FYI: Trump never, not once, committed a campaign finance crime. That is not based on conservative bias or anyone's instincts, it is based on facts.

In 2000, law professor Bradley Smith was appointed by Bill Clinton to chair the FEC.

Smith's ability to write for a general audience soon attracted the attention of politicians and think tanks in Washington. Smith became a popular witness before congressional panels, both for his contrarian views and his ability to simplify complex issues for ease of consumption. Having gained the attention of Republican leaders in Congress, in 1999 then Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, on the recommendation of Senator Mitch McConnell, sent Smith's name to the Clinton White House as the Republican choice to fill an upcoming Republican vacancy on the bipartisan Federal E******n Commission, which oversees enforcement of federal campaign finance laws.

After a lengthy battle between Senate Republican leaders and the White House, Smith was nominated to a six-year term on the FEC on February 9, 2000 by then-President Bill Clinton, and confirmed to the post by the United States Senate on May 24, 2000. By this time, Smith had established himself as one of the leading experts on campaign finance in the United States, with his writings on campaign finance and e******n issues having appeared in noted academic publications in addition to the Yale Law Journal, including the University of Pennsylvania Law Review and the Harvard Journal of Legislation. The Brennan Center for Justice, a harsh critic of Smith's work, nevertheless recognized him as "the most sought after witness" to make the case for deregulation of campaign finance before congressional committees.

Because of his contrarian, deregulatory views on campaign finance, there was a strong objection to his nomination from reform advocates. The libertarian magazine Reason noted that virtually all reform advocates "agreed that he was the wrong person for the job". His nomination, however, received support from supporters of deregulation of campaign finance, such as the Cato Institute.

As Commissioner and later Chairman of the FEC, Smith remained controversial, particularly in 2004, when as Chairman he bucked the Republican Party and refused to support new regulations of "527 groups," organizations, largely unregulated by campaign finance laws, that were generally believed to favor Democratic P**********l candidate John Kerry. Smith's tenure was otherwise marked by efforts to reform the FEC's enforcement proceedings to provide greater due process rights for respondents, and a staunch stand against expansion of the law into uncharted areas.[citation needed] Smith also supported the creation of an Administrative Fines program and an Alternative Dispute Resolution Office at the FEC. As Commissioner, he maintained an active speaking schedule and continued to criticize campaign finance laws. He resigned from the FEC in August 2005 to return to teaching, writing in his resignation letter to President Bush, "Political activity is more heavily regulated than at any time in our nation's history."

Smith has re-emerged to voice his expert analysis of this entire sordid Cohen affair with emphasis on the alleged charges of campaign finance law violations. It is not against the law for a candidate or his attorney to use private or corporate funds for any purpose whatsoever, including paying a couple of bimbos to keep their mouths shut. Since these two women breached their non-disclosure agreements and opened their mouths, Trump and Cohen should get their money back.

Let's talk about a real and very serious violation of campaign finance law.

The Anatomy Of Hillary Clinton's $84 Million Money-Laundering Scheme

Hillary Voctory Fund solicited six-figure donations from major donors, including Calvin Klein and "Family Guy" creator Seth MacFarlane, and routed them through state parties en route to the Clinton campaign. Roughly $84 million may have been laundered in what might be the single largest campaign finance scandal in U.S. history.

PeterS

Say I own a political magazine and you are running for office so I buy someones story in order to bury it because it would be an embarrassment for you. Since burying the story would be a benefit to your campaign would you have to report it as a campaign contribution or could you just ignore it and pretend like nothing happened?

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

No, it would not be a campaign contribution and I would not have to report it. Such a thing is not considered a campaign expense.

You could buy me a Brooks Bros suit and a Lamborghini Aventador so I would look really cool on the campaign trail and I would not have to report it as a campaign contribution. I might send you a cookie though.

PeterS

So you are saying that I can give you things that are of a benefit to you and your campaign but they aren't campaign contributions? Why don't you ask Pennylynn about that. I would love to hear her opinion...

pafret Loc: Northeast

It is so easy to win the argument when you define the grounds to your advantage. Extend yourself a bit and consider the folly of defining anything that benefits a candidate as campaign finances because there will be one ton of prosecutions for coffee breaks, with or without Danish.