• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mueller and Stormy Daniels

RedFishBlueFish

RedFishBlueFish

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2017
Messages
3,626
Reaction score
4,249
Location
Blue Ridge Mountains
Political Leaning
Liberal
Could Mueller interview Stormy Daniels or her lawyer?

Somewhat like the Rob Porter “wife beater” story, where the underlying story of security clearances in the White House became a bigger story than the wife beating, the Stormy Daniels underlying story about campaign finance laws may become a bigger story than the original story about Trump’s porn star adulteress.

The “Trump Porn Star” story is now turning into a story about campaign finance laws. Is this something Mueller would look into? If there is reason to believe that the Trump Campaign violated campaign finance laws when paying off Stormy Daniels, could Mueller investigate this? Would he be interested? Is this a “matter that may arise directly from the investigation”?

I don’t know the answer to this. But, I love that fact that the head of the Party of Family Values had an affair with a porn star.

Here are some links.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/22/politics/common-cause-stormy-daniels/index.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opini...commission-examine-trump-s-payment-ncna846486

https://www.npr.org/2018/02/14/5857...lt-film-actress-who-alleges-affair-with-trump

Stormy Daniels, porn star who alleged Trump affair: I can now tell my story - Chicago Tribune
 
What Mueller has on Trump is so massive that he probably doesn't need this to convict Trump.
 
RedFishBlueFish said:
Could Mueller interview Stormy Daniels or her lawyer?

Somewhat like the Rob Porter “wife beater” story, where the underlying story of security clearances in the White House became a bigger story than the wife beating, the Stormy Daniels underlying story about campaign finance laws may become a bigger story than the original story about Trump’s porn star adulteress.

The “Trump Porn Star” story is now turning into a story about campaign finance laws. Is this something Mueller would look into? If there is reason to believe that the Trump Campaign violated campaign finance laws when paying off Stormy Daniels, could Mueller investigate this? Would he be interested? Is this a “matter that may arise directly from the investigation”?

I don’t know the answer to this. But, I love that fact that the head of the Party of Family Values had an affair with a porn star.

Here are some links.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/22/politics/common-cause-stormy-daniels/index.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opini...commission-examine-trump-s-payment-ncna846486

https://www.npr.org/2018/02/14/5857...lt-film-actress-who-alleges-affair-with-trump

Stormy Daniels, porn star who alleged Trump affair: I can now tell my story - Chicago Tribune
Click to expand...

I'm confused as to exactly why this constitutes a campaign finance issue. They keep calling it an in-kind campaign contribution, but the money came from Trump. It's not a contribution to Trump's campaign unless you call "lack of sex scandal" a campaign contribution.

But I'm not going to even pretend to understand the insanity that is campaign finance, superpacs, etc.
 
We have not been allowed to know the rules Mueller is working under, so the question is impossible to answer.

Maybe he does not have any rules...he does what he wants....
 
Hawkeye10 said:
We have not been allowed to know the rules Mueller is working under, so the question is impossible to answer.

Maybe he does not have any rules...he does what he wants....
Click to expand...

Well, we have the letter from Rosenstein that established the Special Counsel, in part it says:

The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confinned by then-FBI
Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:

(i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals
associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

The (ii) paragraph is pretty broad. The full letter can be found here:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download
 
RedFishBlueFish said:
Well, we have the letter from Rosenstein that established the Special Counsel, in part it says:

The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confinned by then-FBI
Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:

(i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals
associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

The (ii) paragraph is pretty broad. The full letter can be found here:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download
Click to expand...

Personally, I think that Trump is simply a "scumbag", but I take no enjoyment from his porn star tryst. The whole deal is likely a MAJOR source of embarrassment to both Melania and Barron - neither of which deserve it.

That said, keep in mind that a Special Prosecutor has wide powers. Ken Starr started out investigating Clinton's Whitewater issue and wound up with Monica Lewinski.
 
The group Common Cause has filed the complaint with the Federal Election Commission and the DOJ. Ryan of that group says, “"It certainly looks pretty obvious to me that this was hush money payment," Ryan said. "If the money came from Trump's personal funds, that effectively establishes our allegation that his committee violated the law by failing to report an in-kind contribution and an expenditure," he later told CNN. "If it was Trump's own money, there was no illegal contribution -- but there's still a reporting violation."

According to Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, a “contribution” is defined as “any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office.” Importantly, the money does not need to pass through a campaign’s war chest to qualify as a contribution.

In speculating on this, it appears to me that the hush money was used in the very last days of the campaign to keep the news from influencing the election. Following the “Hollywood Tapes” video where Trump bragged about grabbing women’s vaginas, this story would have been explosive and could be judged to have influenced the election.

But, this may be a stretch.

Bradley Smith, the Republican chairman the Federal Election Commission from 2000 to 2005, was skeptical that the payment by Cohen could pose a campaign finance issue.
"You'd have to prove that it was a coordinated expenditure, and that the reason it was done was for the benefit of the campaign," he said. If the payment was made to protect Trump's brand or avoid personal embarrassment, he said, that would likely not be a campaign problem.
 
Deuce said:
I'm confused as to exactly why this constitutes a campaign finance issue. They keep calling it an in-kind campaign contribution, but the money came from Trump. It's not a contribution to Trump's campaign unless you call "lack of sex scandal" a campaign contribution.

But I'm not going to even pretend to understand the insanity that is campaign finance, superpacs, etc.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm not exactly sure either. I'm guessing that because the attorney paid Daniels, to benefit the campaign, and because the payment wasn't made public, that it violated campaign laws. From everything I've read, it wasn't the campaign who paid Daniels, but Trump's personal attorney (whom I'm guessing wasn't part of the campaign???).

I could be completely mistaken because I simply haven't cared hardly at all about this story, but that would just be my "rather ignorant of campaign laws" guess.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Yeah, I'm not exactly sure either. I'm guessing that because the attorney paid Daniels, to benefit the campaign, and because the payment wasn't made public, that it violated campaign laws. From everything I've read, it wasn't the campaign who paid Daniels, but Trump's personal attorney (whom I'm guessing wasn't part of the campaign???).

I could be completely mistaken because I simply haven't cared hardly at all about this story, but that would just be my "rather ignorant of campaign laws" guess.
Click to expand...

I would think if the lawyer was reimbursed for his personal payment to Daniels by the Trump campaign rather than Trump directly it would be an issue.

I strongly doubt the lawyer paid Daniels and did not get paid back at some point
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
I strongly doubt the lawyer paid Daniels and did not get paid back at some point
Click to expand...
Yeah, I wasn't buying that story either. I've known many attorneys in my life, including a few in my family, but no attorney I've ever met has ever been so kind as to give $130,000 in hush money out of their own pocket just to be friendly to a client.
 
RedFishBlueFish said:
The group Common Cause has filed the complaint with the Federal Election Commission and the DOJ. Ryan of that group says, “"It certainly looks pretty obvious to me that this was hush money payment," Ryan said. "If the money came from Trump's personal funds, that effectively establishes our allegation that his committee violated the law by failing to report an in-kind contribution and an expenditure," he later told CNN. "If it was Trump's own money, there was no illegal contribution -- but there's still a reporting violation."

According to Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, a “contribution” is defined as “any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office.” Importantly, the money does not need to pass through a campaign’s war chest to qualify as a contribution.

In speculating on this, it appears to me that the hush money was used in the very last days of the campaign to keep the news from influencing the election. Following the “Hollywood Tapes” video where Trump bragged about grabbing women’s vaginas, this story would have been explosive and could be judged to have influenced the election.

But, this may be a stretch.

Bradley Smith, the Republican chairman the Federal Election Commission from 2000 to 2005, was skeptical that the payment by Cohen could pose a campaign finance issue.
"You'd have to prove that it was a coordinated expenditure, and that the reason it was done was for the benefit of the campaign," he said. If the payment was made to protect Trump's brand or avoid personal embarrassment, he said, that would likely not be a campaign problem.
Click to expand...

Explain this.

"If the money came from Trump's personal funds, that effectively establishes our allegation that his committee violated the law by failing to report an in-kind contribution and an expenditure," he later told CNN. "If it was Trump's own money, there was no illegal contribution -- but there's still a reporting violation."

What is the difference between Trump's personal funds and his own money?

Why would any payment to a private individual be a reporting violation?

Who would it have to be reported to and why?
 
Mason66 said:
Explain this.

"If the money came from Trump's personal funds, that effectively establishes our allegation that his committee violated the law by failing to report an in-kind contribution and an expenditure," he later told CNN. "If it was Trump's own money, there was no illegal contribution -- but there's still a reporting violation."

What is the difference between Trump's personal funds and his own money?

Why would any payment to a private individual be a reporting violation?

Who would it have to be reported to and why?
Click to expand...

I don't know the answers. I'm asking questions and posting information. And speculating, to some extent. I have to guess that the lawyers at Common Cause had a reason to file a compliant with the FEC and DOJ and ask for an investigation. Maybe not.

Like a lot of things with the Trump Administration, they lie and deflect. Why don't they just tell us what they did. We all pretty much doubt that Cohen just gave the money to Trump. So what is the truth? What are they hiding? At this point the affair is well known, there is no cover up needed for that anymore.
 
Last edited:
SonOfDaedalus said:
What Mueller has on Trump is so massive that he probably doesn't need this to convict Trump.
Click to expand...

That was exactly my first thought, however I just think it would be too entertaining to have her gold dress be at least part of what takes him down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom