Using campaign funds to pay for criminal defense?


Try not to be obtuse, Brown. First of all, Larry Craig did NOT have to “reimburse” the treasury the money he used in his own defense because THE TREASURY DIDN’T PAY FOR HIS DEFENSE.

That may or may not be true, I really don’t know, but the fact remains that Craig had to repay the US Treasury, but I realized that I read the total amount he was to pay, I assumed all of it was to be remanded to the US Treasury. Turns out, only $197k of it was returned to the Treasury the other $45k was a civil penalty.

From the following:

United States Court of Appeals
Argued October 7, 2015, Decided March 4, 2016


Nobody has come up with any CRIME that President Trump might have committed, let alone a conviction. This whole witch-hunt is a search FOR a crime…not for evidence of a crime they already know about.

Obstruction is a crime and it’s pretty obvious to those who are paying attention that Trump is obstructing, he admitted it. Establishing a motive is the reason for the investigation.

Now I try to be fair, and in all honesty, I think Muller’s investigation is sweeping pretty wide. My suspicion is that once he started looking into Trump’s dealings it was like cleaning a dirty spot on a car, once you start, you have to clean it all. Once they got to looking, my guess (and it’s just a guess) is that there was a LOT of there, there. Hence the reason Muller is renting a warehouse (A WAREHOUSE!!) to store evidence…lol

Same thing happened during Watergate. There were some instances where incidents were uncovered having nothing to do with the original investigation that was eventually prosecuted.

We’ll all find out when the results are made public.


There was no “reimbursement” of the treasury, however, and THAT’S what you were alleging in the Craig case. In order to “reimburse” the treasury, he’d have to have, first, TAKEN money from the treasury–and he didn’t do that. Nor was that even ALLEGED in his indictment and trial. Words MEAN things. Just like when John Kerry claimed that his military medals had been “reinstated” and NOT “replaced.” He later claimed that the Navy had “reinstated” his “lost medals” from Vietnam…going so far as to claim that it was because he’d “thrown them over the White House fence in protest of the war.” “Lost” medals are REPLACED…not “reinstated.” His medals were “reinstated” because they’d been taken away BY the Navy. The only way a Naval officer’s medals and awards CAN be “taken away” is for cause–usually by dishonorable discharge. Kerry’s “dishonor” was because, while a commissioned Naval officer, he’d met with representatives of the enemy–with whom we are at war at the time–in Paris and then came home to “testify” before Congress, spouting the NVA positions and lied repeatedly under oath about his short service there. Carter “pardoned” all those people and had their dishonorable discharges “reviewed” and changed to “honorable,” which entitled Kerry to have his medals “reinstated.”


So far this is the best argument you’ve made. I mixed up the words “pay” and “repay” (as if that really matters).

You are correct about that.

However, I find it ironic that you would hold me (rightly so) so strictly to use my language but forgive Trump, the president of the united states, wide leeway when using language.

The difference is, I can admit I was wrong in the use of the word "repay’. It really makes no difference to me. You proved me wrong on an error of grammar/ vocabulary, not the substance of the claims I’ve made.


It matters - a great deal!


You didn’t SAY “repay” OR “pay.” You said “reimburse” and there was no “reimbursement” involved in the case.


Again, who cares? I admitted already that he didn’t repay (I used the word repay twice btw), but whatever language I used, I admit that he didn’t reimburse, repay whatever, so what? I didn’t say it like that on purpose. I was actually thinking of the word “remanded” when I wrote that, but I used repay instead. But again, why the long drawn out fight over verbal real estate I already gave up?

The whole point that you are conveniently ignoring is that he used campaign funds to defend himself criminally and was forced to “disgorge” to the Treasury $197k plus $45k in civil fines.

I thought it an interesting precedent given the question at hand having to do with using donor money to pay legal fees. Instead, you want to focus on a completely inane topic that has nothing to do with the post, a point I conceded. Then when I adit your right, you claim I didn’t use the term "repay (something I used twice) and you blather on about something inconsequential in the context of what we’re discussing which is whether it’s legal/ ethical to use campaign donors money to defend yourself in a criminal case.


…except that you forget that he wasn’t CONVICTED of using campaign funds for his defense. He was convicted of the underlying crime for which he was being tried. It makes a difference. What he had to render to the government was a FINE for the offense of which he was convicted.


Please explain HOW President Trump has “obstructed” anything. Firing Comey was NECESSARY–and SHOULD have been done long before he perjured himself before Congress. He lied repeatedly and colluded with Hillary and the Obama AG to exonerate Hillary, even after ADMITTING that she’d violated the law in the Summer of 2016.


This is the point, read it. “…Unlawfully converted campaign contributions to personal use be spending them on Senators Craigs effort to withdraw his guilty plea.”

The whole point of this thread was to ask how people feel about using donations for legal fees.

Everything else is a distraction from that conversation. I really don’t care why he paid that money, but the court found it was unlawful for him to use campaign funds for his legal fees.


From the interview with Lester Holt:

Holt, May 11: Monday you met with the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

Trump: Right.

Holt: Did you ask for a recommendation?

Trump: What I did is, I was going to fire Comey. My decision. It was not —

Holt: You had made the decision before they came in the room.

Trump: I was going to fire Comey. There’s no good time to do it, by the way.

Holt: Because in your letter you said, “I accepted their recommendation.”

Trump: Well, they also —

Holt: So, you had already made the decision.

Trump: Oh, I was going to fire regardless of recommendation.

What does that prove, that The reasons that Rosenstein gave weren’t the motive for firing Comey. What Comey did as FBI director and the reasons that he should or should not have been fired are irrelevant.

This is why Trump is such an idiot. He could have fired Comey and said nothing. He had every right to do so and he could have just said something like, I felt it was time to bring in new leadership or something like that. But instead, the president said that he thought about “this Russia thing with Trump and Russia” when he decided to fire Comey.

Stupidity on a scale unimaginable. An unforced error the likes we may never see again in presidential politics.

Now let me be crystal clear here. I think Trump had every right to fire Comey. It wasn’t until he admitted that his motive for firing him had to do with the Trump Russia scandal that things changed. Motive matters and Trump stuck his leg down his throat (Bannon knows it). If he hadn’t said that Muller wouldn’t be doing what he’s doing and, other than a bunch of noise on the news, the story, IMO goes nowhere.

Instead, we have Muller picking through documents, interviewing staffers like old woman shop at yard sales. Trump has only himself to blame.


NO THE COURT DID NO SUCH THING. It FINED him for the offense for which he was convicted. If the court ordered him to give the Treasury the money from his campaign that he’d paid his attorneys, then the court was unequivocally WRONG to do so. How he paid for his defense has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the crime he was convicted of AND IS NOT WITHIN THE COURT’S PURVIEW. If someone wants to try and try him for THAT, then they should bring charges for that “offense” and try him. Good luck proving that it’s against the law. This is especially so since no one has alleged that he used his campaign funds to “solicit” sex from that officer.


Don’t shoot the messenger, but it right here:

Read it, what does it say?



If that’s a true transcript of the conversation, why do you think Holt wouldn’t let the President complete a sentence? And, where does he “admit” that he fired Comey because of the Russia probe?