1.) We know there are recordings that show these donations were made with the specific intent to influence the election. This is from Michael Cohen's charging document, "Cohen deceived the voting public by hiding alleged facts that he believed would have had a substantial effect on the election, after making the payment to [Daniels], and after [Trump] was elected President, Cohen privately bragged to friends and reporters, including in recorded conversations, that he had made the payment to spare [Trump] from damaging press and embarrassment.”
I’m sorry, but if you listened to the former FEC chairman, you must not have understood. Intent doesn’t matter here. For it to be considered a campaign contribution, the expense must *arise directly from the campaign*. (See time marker 3:15 in the video). That is the objective measure used by the FEC. Toothpaste wouldn’t arise from the campaign, even if you started purchasing really expensive extra whitening kind to help “influence” your chances (you really “intend” for it to help). In other words, if it arises from your personal obligations (like sleeping with a hooker), then solve it from your personal finances. It could help the election, yes. You might *intend* for it to help. It doesn’t matter.
Another way to look at it: if you think that this was a campaign expenditure, then it would REQUIRE Trump to pay with campaign funds. Are you willing to keep going with that line?
2.) When Trump falsified his Financial Disclosure Form it was both a.) illegal in its own right and b.) demonstrated a consciousness of guilt. The reason Trump was hiding the payments is because he knew the unreported payments made via Cohen and American Media were illegal.
He didn’t falsify the form. The expenditures should have been paid from his personal resources, as this was not an obligation that arose out of the campaign directly. The event in question preceded the candidacy. And he can enter into a non disclosure agreement regarding that event, even if it helps his election chances, even if he intends it to, without it being a campaign expense. He would be in trouble IF he used campaign funds. But he didn’t do that.
Keeping with the tooth analogy provided by the former FEC chairman, if someone paid $100k for you to get dental work done while you're running for office - that, by itself, may not be a campaign finance violation. However, if the person explicitly says "I'm doing this to help you win the election" and you don't report it as a campaign expenditure and you go out of your way to falsify your Financial Disclosure Form - then prosecutors are going to have a slam dunk case against you. This is the position Trump is presently in. And is also why they were able to slap a campaign felony charge on Michael Cohen.
First, your example is flawed. If you wanted it to be accurate, it would be Trump paying for his own dental work. It doesn’t matter if his lawyer pays first and the lawyer get reimbursed. It doesn’t matter if Trump routes the funds through several shell companies, back again, through the depths of hell, converted it to salt taffy, rolled in it, converted it back to cash, stuck it up a goats ass, and then finally gifted the goat to the porn star. None of this matters.
Second, this is a repeating pattern. The Democrats think they found something, make a big fuss, and then as time passes, it dies away. It has to - if they impeach over this, then it will eventually lead to a Senate trial where FEC officials, like Smith, are bound to testify.