The mainstream media was on overdrive on August 21st when Michael Cohen’s defence attorney, Lanny Davis, alleged Cohen would testify against President Donald Trump for alleged campaign finance violations before any kind of congressional committee, possibly even without being granted immunity. This is a bold claim, especially since Davis hadn’t even broached the topic of immunity with Cohen at the time. It would appear a lot of the pontification by Davis is designed to portray a faux “moral high-ground”, rather than actually serving the interests of his client. Upon analysing his words, whether spoken or written on social media platforms like Twitter, Davis seems to exhibit the same arrogance and narcissism as Peter Strzok, as the former’s Twitter is riddled with anti-Trump propaganda, as well as acrimony towards the President and anyone who disagrees with him. Not to mention that Davis publicly calls out another lawyer - Rudy Giuliani - as being “highly partisan and compromised” (the Left’s use of projection is somewhat of a fine art), which is highly unethical and a possible Bar violation. This is not unexpected, as Davis and many others have allowed political bias to influence the professionalism of their careers, and even abuse the power that they have in an effort to hinder the presidency. However, will any of this latest controversy actually affect the presidency, other than casting doubt into the minds of those who only get their news from talking heads? To answer this, we must first analyse the laws regarding campaign funds.
Notwithstanding the former FEC chairman’s testimony that the current information on the Trump campaign is indicative of no campaign violation, let us still examine the FEC laws directly, and subsequently compare these laws with the alleged infraction(s) being paraded. As an aside, it seems suspect that Cohen’s representation would advise him to plead guilty to a non-crime - the allegation that Trump “made him” pay off two women he allegedly was involved with. A request like this is not illegal, but even if it was, Cohen, as a lawyer, had a duty to inform his client as such. Ignorance of the law is not a valid defence, but the same people who were calling for Cohen’s head on a pike are now praising him as some kind of martyr. It is interesting how many would look past a person’s deficiencies on the supposition that they could be a useful political tool. Admittedly, Davis is Cohen’s last hope, as Cohen’s betrayal of Trump and alliance with the “Never-Trumpers” seem to be his only hope in reducing sentencing for his unrelated tax crimes. Certainly, President Trump will not pardon him now. Cohen’s gamble is likely for naught, however, as the FEC uses a handbook to determine the laws regarding campaign finances, and chapter eight deals directly with the permissible use of campaign funds. We will be going over the most pertinent sections, but the full document can be found on the FEC website for inquisitive minds.
In the introductory paragraph to Chapter 8, it says that “For reporting purposes, it is important to understand the term expenditure, because expenditures count toward the threshold that determines whether an individual is a candidate under the Act. 100.3(a).An expenditure is a purchase, payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit or gift of money or anything of value made to influence a federal election. 100.111(a).” This is an important distinction to make, even before our analysis. It gives a definition for what is actually considered an expenditure, which we will discuss further below. Anyone with a creative legal team could use that definition to their advantage - whether for or against a campaign. Under Section 1: Permissable Uses of Campaign Funds, subsection Campaign-Related Expenses, it states “[b]y definition, the Act allows campaign funds to be used for purposes in connection with the campaign to influence the federal election of the candidate. 52 U.S.C. §30114(a); 113.2.” So, despite the foreign concept that campaigners should actually attempt to influence others for the benefit of their candidate, it appears that influencing a campaign is perfectly permissable.
The next relevant information is in the sub-subsection Operating Expenditures, which states that “Certain other expenses are considered to be permissible operating expenditures on a case-by-case basis, including meal, travel, vehicle and legal expenses.1 For example, if a campaign pays for the candidate’s travel and subsistence in connection with his or her campaign activities, those payments are also considered operating expenditures. Generally, as long as such expenses would not exist irrespective of the candidate’s campaign or duties as a federal officeholder, they are considered permissible. See Section 2,“Case-by-Case Determination of Personal Use,” for more information.” The entirety of Section 2 is essential to proving that no wrongdoings occurred.
Now, before we get into anything else, we must determine if the only relevant expenses President Trump may or may not have been aware of (i.e., the payment towards the two women) were considered personal use, or even a legal expense at all. What has been alleged in the story so far is that Cohen used his own funds to accomplish this goal, and President Trump reimbursed him, either with his own money or campaign funds. If President Trump used his own money - as he stated he did - then this situation is moot. For sake of argument, however, lets assume that President Trump is considered as having used campaign funds rather than his own money. Either President Trump operated under the legally correct assumption that any payments done by Cohen were merely legal expenses made on his behalf, with no knowledge of the specific details, or President Trump directed Cohen to do so with full knowledge of the circumstances, as Cohen claims (contrary to Cohen’s previous statements).
If Cohen was allowed to operate with some autonomy, and with a salary from then-candidate Donald Trump, reimbursement by Donald Trump from his personal funds - or campaign funds - to one’s lawyer would very likely constitute a legal service. Legal services are considered “case-by-case” as to whether they are personal use, and this ambiguity is not helpful in such a politically charged controversy. If not considered personal use of campaign funds - by whichever tribunal is responsible for making that determination - this entire spectacle is, yet again, a complete waste of time. If the determination is in fact personal use, however, we start to enter the realm of relevance. Historically, however, presidential candidates are faced with numerous obstacles that campaign workers and “fixers” are usually responsible for taking care of, as every political leader is subject to extreme scrutiny and personal attacks. Silencing past affairs is not a crime - none of the alleged romance happened during the presidency or even the campaign, a far cry from some former presidents. It is important to note that we do not penalise the victims who pay ransom or blackmail. There is no moral or legal consequence to affairs when considering someone for president. Even Alexander Hamilton had to endure such trivialities during the founding of the United States, when his affair became public knowledge. When running for president, in which any personal attack can - and often is - used against you as a contender, it would only be prudent to remove an obstacle like that - true or not. One pertinent exception to personal campaign fund use would be if said expense would not exist irrespective of the candidate’s duties as a federal officeholder. Let us expand on this below, with rules from the aforementioned Section 2: Prohibited Uses of Campaign Funds, subsection Salary, Compensation and Other Payments Paid On Behalf of Candidates, sub-subsections General Rule and Exceptions:
“General Rule
Generally, when a third party (not the candidate
or the candidate’s committee) pays for personal use expenses, the third party makes a contribution, subject to the restrictions and limitations of the Act. 113.1(g)(6).
Exceptions
No contribution will result, however, if the payment would have been made irrespective of the candidacy. For example, a third party may make the following payments on behalf of a candidate without making a contribution:
• Payments to a legal expense trust fund established under House and Senate rules (see 113.1(g)(6)(i));
• Payments for personal living expenses made from funds that are the candidate’s personal funds, including an account the candidate holds jointly with a family member (See 100.153, and 113.1(g)(6)(ii)); and
• Payments that began prior to candidacy. For example, if the candidate’s parents had been making college tuition payments for the candidate’s children, the parents could continue to do so during the campaign without making a contribution. See 100.153 and 113.1(g)(6) (iii).”
In the rules above, we can see from 100.153 and 113.1(g)(6) (iii), that any payment that began prior to the presidential run would not even count as a contribution. The agreements President Trump had with these women were already established in the past, and one of the women interviewed back then had claimed nothing even happened. But, if additional payments were made in continuation of that same issue, especially on behalf of the candidate by a third party (Cohen), the exceptions to the rule state that no contribution will result. Any combination we have discussed thus far would be perfectly allowed under the FEC rules and regulations. This should be all the evidence one needs to understand that the corrupt politicians and mainstream media are grasping at straws in their efforts to delegitimise the presidency.
To conclude, there is no evidence that President Trump, or even Michael Cohen, are/were guilty of any crime in paying two women to stay silent about their alleged affairs with Donald Trump before he was even in office. If Donald Trump used campaign funds, they could be attributed to a non-personal legal expense as said funds were given directly to his lawyer, for a situation that, under Operating Expenditures of Permissable Uses of Campaign Funds, and under the Exceptions sub-subsection of Salary, Compensation and Other Payments Paid On Behalf of Candidates under Prohibited Uses of Campaign Funds, would not have needed to occur outside of his presidential run.
Comments
Post a Comment