Trump’s $$$ to Extortionists Are NOT Illegal Say FEC Commissioners


Top Democrats say that President Trump’s alleged campaign finance violations are impeachable offenses, and possibly make him eligible for prosecution.

They cite statements made by lying ex-lawyer Michael Cohen who says Trump ordered him to make payments to Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels going into the 2016 presidential campaign.

The President said in an interview with Fox News’ Harris Faulkner on “Outnumbered Overtime” that the Cohen payments were “not a campaign finance violation.” He has also said that they were a “simple private transaction.”

A report by several former FEC commissioners agrees with the President. What the President did is not a campaign finance violation, according to their analysis.

One of those quoted in the report is Hans von Spakovsky who served on the FEC between 2006 and 2008.

Spakovsky published an op-ed on Tuesday for the Daily Signal, and again on Thursday for Fox News, and made the case in both articles that the campaign violations Cohen pleaded guilty to are things that aren’t a violation.

“The Cohen guilty pleas are likely irrelevant to the fate of President Trump,” Spakovsky wrote, adding, “That’s because in my judgment – as someone who served for two years as a member of the Federal Election Commission – the campaign finance law violations Cohen pleaded guilty to committing, allegedly at Donald Trump’s direction, aren’t really violations.”

A former FEC Chair explains his views on the issue:


  1. Is this really true. The payments with the Enquirer took place well Before Trump decided to run for President. So what the hell is going on.

  2. I don’t trust much of what judge Napolitano says. He is anti Trump and says whatever he feels is going to make people question the President’s position. I wish FOX would find a replacement for the Eddie Munster of judges.

  3. He makes one point here that relates to the Fox Judge, Napolitano. Because a person is a judge does not make him an “expert” in all matters of law. Otherwise you wouldn’t see lawyers in court citing law so often. Previously I assumed when these “experts” went on air they at least read up on the basics of whatever legal question was being discussed. Now I realize this is not the case, especially with this particular judge. When this question first came up I went and researched what the regulations stated. What this Commissioner explains is quite specific and clear. Essentially it Has to be specific to a campaign, otherwise literally every campaign can be charged with a violation.

    It’s understandable some would assume such payments would be in violation as any negative news could affect the outcome of an election. But that thinking would require any news organization, or publication, or any similar actions by a corporation to be an in-kind contribution. This is the manner in which tech companies are being scrutinized. When there are numerous legal conflicts a determination on what takes precedence has to be decided. Eventually that may be the Supreme Court.

    One thing is for certain, The Judge has certainly opened my eyes when it comes to “legal experts” that are on the air. Gregg Jarrett does do a better job, in that he will, at least, cite specific laws or regulations.

Leave a Reply