Unless you showed he used money in a campaign account... tell us how paying off a mistress could be a campaign violation. It would never be a proper campaign write off nor a proper campaign expense. Therefore, it would never be reported. So Trump would not have a duty to report it. So no violation. Had his campaign not been self financed and he used campaign money that might become an issue. Here it is only an issue if he was really stupid and used money he had already sent to his campaign. Even then... the way the IRS likes to look at the truth of what happened rather than the accounting... it could easily be argued... in a self funded campaign paying off a mistress would never have to be reported.
The two campaign finance law violations included: Cohen’s negotiation of an agreement with American Media Inc., which publishes the National Enquirer, to pay Playboy Playmate Karen McDougal $150,000 to keep quiet about an alleged 10-month relationship with Trump. According to the plea, McDougal transferred the rights to her story to the Enquirer, which did not publish the story, and Cohen paid American Media to compensate the company for payments made to McDougal. Cohen’s $130,000 payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, also over an alleged affair with Trump, that was made with funds drawn on a home equity line of credit Cohen took out. The plea said Cohen paid Daniels “by making and causing to be made an expenditure, in cooperation, consultation, and concert with, and at the request and suggestion of one or more members of the campaign … to ensure that she not publicize damaging allegation before the 2016 presidential election and thereby influence that election." Cohen said during the plea that he “participated in this conduct for the principal purpose” of influencing an election and did it at the “direction of a candidate for federal office.” What’s wrong with paying the women? How did it violate the law? Under federal campaign finance law, individual campaign contributions are limited to $2,700 per individual, or $5,400 for a couple, for each election cycle – that includes primary elections and the general election. Federal law bars direct corporate contributions to federal candidates. The money paid to Daniels – $130,000 – was moved through a limited-liability company called Essential Consultants. Cohen created the company a few weeks before the election. The payment to Daniels was a campaign contribution, according to Cohen, who said in court on Tuesday that when he paid Daniels off, he was acting on behalf of the campaign with the aim of helping Trump win the presidency. In other words, Cohen was making a campaign-related expenditure on behalf of the campaign. There would have been no problem, legally, with making such a payment to Daniels if the Trump campaign had paid the $130,000 with donated contributions and reported it to the Federal Election Commission. Prosecutors made it clear that the payment was a campaign contribution because Cohen was repaid by the Trump Organization after he submitted “sham” invoices for legal work. Originally, after the deal came to light, Cohen said he acted on his own and had not been reimbursed by the Trump Organization, or by the campaign. He recanted that statement on Tuesday. What does the law say about this case? The Federal Election Campaign Act states, in part, that while individuals are limited to making donations of $2,700 to presidential candidates, businesses may not make direct contributions to candidates for president. When candidates use or loan their personal funds for campaign use, they are making contributions to their campaigns, but contributions by candidates are not subject to limits. In other words, they may spend whatever they want on their campaigns. It is a felony offense to conspire to make a campaign contribution that exceeds $25,000. How does this affect Trump? If what Cohen says is true, Trump conspired to violate campaign finance laws by directing payments to keep the women quiet so as to boost his election prospects. https://www.ajc.com/news/national/m...n-finance-laws-broken/vdDCRDwLbT6wkgXamENVpI/
What would stop Trump for saying the payoff for personal reasons... i.e. so his wife would not find out. Your theory...hinges on proving this... In other words, Cohen was making a campaign-related expenditure on behalf of the campaign. I suspect you will see that the money came from Trump not the campaign. It will be interesting if any of Trump's conversations were reported. What if he wanted to help his own chances to be president and his his image and keep things from his wife? But he knew it could never be a proper campaign expense so he paid with his own money?
Wow you can be dense. When it got to the NY Post or Newday's cover you don't think Melania would have heard about it. The idea would be that if the payoff from his personal account was successful neither Melania nor someday Baron would hear about it.
Being that you are from N.C. I am sure you know that it did work out for him in terms of criminal liability. He did not go to jail because it was very hard to prove it was a campaign contribution. Edwards situation is one of the reasons why some prominent attorneys believe that given a non really stupid move by Trump, Mueller will have problems successfully prosecuting Trump for an illegal campaign contribution. If I recall Edwards money came from a donor... in this case the money came from Trump... as far as we know. Hence this should be an even tougher case for the prosecution. Providing Trump did not say or do something really dumb.
Rich people have plenty of ways to funnel money, there was no need to use the campaign apparatus to do a payoff. And Trump could have called it fake news and denied it like he is doing now while saying he paid off to avoid bad publicity, what's Melania gonna do? Leave him with the prenup hanging over her head? Right.