LOADING CLOSE

082118 Prosecutorial insanity

082118 Prosecutorial insanity

Sometimes stuff happens that is just so impossibly stupid and self-contradictory, I am dumbfounded that actual people took it seriously.  Today is one of those days.

Cohen pleading guilty to having made an excessive campaign contribution is one of those things.  He got reimbursed for those payments.  So even if it is “deemed” to have been an “in-kind” contribution (which brings up all manner of ramifications that the Democrats don’t dare deal with) … it has to also be “deemed” to have been returned.

And therefore, no net effect on the campaign.  A contribution was returned.  No big deal.

And since it got reimbursed, Cohen cannot really be said to have made a contribution.  It got returned, for crying out loud!  Politicians return campaign contributions all the time when they want to not be associated with the circumstances of the donor.

As for those ramifications?  Do the Democrats really want the rule to be, that anything which helps a candidate is “deemed” to be an in-kind contribution?  Really?  What about media coverage?  If it helps a candidate, then it’s an in-kind contribution, according to their Cohen rule.

Oh, wait a minute, that’s right.  The media are just doing their job, so there’s no in-kind contribution deemed.  Well, here’s a lawyer just doing his job, so no in-kind contribution should be deemed.  After all, if lawyers just doing their job can be deemed an in-kind contribution, then the entire budget of DOJ, FBI and the Mueller team should be deemed an in-kind contribution to the Clinton campaign and DNC.  Once again, we see the double standard for insiders vs. outsiders.

A payment which was returned – therefore making the transaction void, with no net effect to the campaign – is “deemed” to be an in-kind contribution in the amount of the initial payment only (choosing to not count the return of the funds) so as to enable the charge of campaign finance violations against Trump.

How can the amount of ZERO be a violation?  How can the amount of ZERO be “excessive”?  Well, if you are a distinguished graduate from the school of Prosecutorial Insanity, then it makes perfect sense to charge that the amount of ZERO is a violation and “excessive”.

And if it got reimbursed by one of Trump’s businesses, then just treat it as a distribution to Trump so the contribution to the campaign is from him personally.  And therefore not “excessive” since candidates can loan and/or donate unlimited amounts to their own campaign.

This is Prosecutorial Insanity.  The President should stop it and fire Mueller.  This is as clear as it gets that the Mueller investigation is not faithfully executing the law, to claim that the amount of ZERO is “excessive” and a violation.

Please, Mr. President, do your duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and stop this Prosecutorial Insanity.

 

ERpundit  –  08/21/18

Comments are closed.