Why won't FEC go after Donald Trump for several documented regulations breaches?

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: EightAhoy

"Solicitation of funds from representatives of a foreign Government (the campaign emailed every British MP asking for a donation)"

This one is old news, it was on ATS before.

Thanks for all your work on behalf of defending the OP. Since I had absolutely no sources via the OP, I went off for a few hours and found my own answers.

Here's what I found:

Solicitation of funds from representatives of a foreign Government (the campaign emailed every British MP asking for a donation)

I found Tweets by MPs in various countries stating they were receiving solicitations from Team Trump. A few posted what were suppose to be pics of something I guess. Hoping they were screen shots of the actual solicitation emails, I clicked the pic links posted by MPs, but they were all dead links. But, I continued, and did find a law suit filed with the FEC alleging the same as what the MPs were posting.

The lawsuit doesn't provide proof, either. (Ever since WL, I expect to see proof, I guess.) However, using the "Team Trump" comment found in those MP tweets, I found at least a half-dozen TeamTrump2016 search results but all were 404 returns. So I used the Wayback machine and found a TeamTrump2016 site. The site had a disclaimer at the bottom that stated it was a grassroots organization not affiliated with the Donald J. Trump for President campaign. With Trump having fewer than 70 paid campaign staffers back then, I wonder if it was a SuperPAC sending the cheesy emails, raising its own funds. Just don't see Trump as being that sophisticated. Besides, he had sufficiently seasoned advisors such as Gingrich to advise against such fundraising initiatives.

If this is all old news as per your comment about other ATS threads, nothing was linked in your response or the OP, so I'm filling with color that may be redundant.


Nigel Farage, head of UKIP, spoke at several campaign rallies. It's a breach of FEC rules to have foreign nationals donating to or supporting the campaign in any way.

Farage didn't endorse Trump. He was invited to tell the story of Brexit. Not sure what he donated, as intimated in the OPs statement italicized above. Again, no source citations about donations.

Somewhere in those FEC rules it is illegal to pay people to vote for a candidate, too, but I'm sure those geriatric rocker concerts Clinton rolled out in NC and PA, and the hip hop power couple concert in Cleveland don't count as buying votes. Tickets to that concert were free, and one of the distribution sites was across the street from the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections.


"(b) Promise of appointment by candidate: 18 U.S.C. § 599 This statute prohibits a candidate for federal office from promising appointments “to any public or private position or employment” in return for “support in his candidacy.” It is one of the few federal criminal laws specifically addressing campaign-related activity by candidates. "

It was Donald J. Trump, Jr. who stated although he wasn't part of those discussions, “I mean, I think there would certainly be something within the Justice Department for him,” the 38-year-old Trump Jr. added, unprompted."

SCOTUS, 9-0. First Amendment protection as per Brown v. Hartlage addresses issues related to free speech during a campaign that a cadre of Duke Law professors feel extend further protections had the President-Elect made any such promise.


And now the zinger of zingers: "Eric Trump having direct contact with a pro Trump Super PAC (he made a speech at a fundraising dinner). FEC rules SPECIFICALLY ban contact between people working for the campaign and Super PACs.
Campaign Legal Center is on it! It has filed two complaints against Clinton for same, and two against Trump.

Not sure if the Eric Trump speech is one of the complaints; after all, was Eric a paid campaign staffer?

Campaign Legal Center Files FEC Complaints Against Both Major Party Presidential Candidates and Their Supporting Super PACs

A second against Clinton

Hopefully you and the OP will continue to follow the stories and give us updates as these issues continue to churn through the legal system.

originally posted by: EightAhoy

originally posted by: babybunnies

It seems that the Federal Election Commission doesn't want to investigate several serious breaches that occurred during Trump's campaign, including

Your source doesn't support anything you posted after "was holding out for Attorney General, a post he had been promised"

Actually, the original sources uses those words EXACTLY, for that part of it.

The other parts can be easily verified with quick searches on Google, and were WIDELY covered by the press. However, as you appear to be too lazy to find out for yourself, here are some links

Eric Trump attends PAC meeting thehill.com...

British MPs receive emails www.bbc.com...

Nigel Farage speaks at Trump rally www.youtube.com...

Actually, Nigel Farage DID endorse Trump, many times.

Several British MPs forwarded copies of the emails they'd been sent.

Eric Trump was WIDELY known to be working on the campaign, even if he wasn't paid, he was certainly an unpaid spokesperson.

a reply to: babybunnies

"However, as you appear to be too lazy to find out for yourself, here are some links"

What are you going on about calling me lazy? I took care of the research and links you omitted in your OP. Simply making allegations and statements without citations and sources doesn't cut it, anymore. And yeah, I did the research you intentionally omitted, not because you were lazy but perhaps you... well, I dunno why you didn't support your statements. "Widely reported" doesn't cut it. That deke doesn't work here, either.

And of course the original sources used that EXACT words. That was my point. The only link you provided in your OP ONLY supported those words I had in quotations.

Are you okay?

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Think fast: Who here would bet their life that Trump would be in deeper FEC trouble than Clinton if all the cards were shown??

I would.

Trump is in deep.

I think I know why the FEC isn't going to investigate this though. The FEC, like any regulators are inherently political. It's a bad idea politically to go after your new boss. At a minimum, it's a good way to lose your job. At worst, it's a good way to be targeted on an enemies list.

Also, I don't think they want to put the country though more election drama, can't say I blame them.

originally posted by: spirit_horse
CNN LOL! One of the biggest Fake News sites out there. After their performance during the election, I am surprised anyone even tries to use them as a source.

When people correctly call one of my favorite sites "fake news" because they fabricate stories from whole cloth, my gut reaction is to call EVERYTHING fake news.

Tonight, my wife said she was going to cook Mac and Cheese. You know what I said? I said, "That's FAKE NEWS woman. Now dial me up some Breitbart."

Okay, serious question. Does anyone here NOT think Trump is going to get impeached?

Certainly he'll do something --- he's Trump -- and in this political environment, the Dems will come gunning for him even if they shouldn't, like the Republicans went after Clinton for getting some action in the oval office.

originally posted by: babybunnies
Sources close to Donald Trump are claiming that Chris Christie was turning down multiple offers in the Trump Administration because he "was holding out for Attorney General, a post he had been promised"

www.cnn.com...

If this is true, it's yet another example of a direct breach of FEC regulations surrounding elections.

"(b) Promise of appointment by candidate: 18 U.S.C. § 599
This statute prohibits a candidate for federal office from promising appointments “to any public or private position or employment” in return for “support in his candidacy.” It is one of the few federal criminal laws specifically addressing campaign-related activity by candidates. "

This is a minor news story right now, and will probably remain so. It seems that the Federal Election Commission doesn't want to investigate several serious breaches that occurred during Trump's campaign, including

Eric Trump having direct contact with a pro Trump Super PAC (he made a speech at a fundraising dinner). FEC rules SPECIFICALLY ban contact between people working for the campaign and Super PACs.

Solicitation of funds from representatives of a foreign Government (the campaign emailed every British MP asking for a donation)

Nigel Farage, head of UKIP, spoke at several campaign rallies. It's a breach of FEC rules to have foreign nationals donating to or supporting the campaign in any way.

These were all DOCUMENTED and fully covered by the media at the time they happened, but the FEC seems extremely reluctant to go after Trump for any of this. WHY ?

Even if he WAS promised that, does the source have any idea WHEN it was promised?

details....

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: spirit_horse
CNN LOL! One of the biggest Fake News sites out there. After their performance during the election, I am surprised anyone even tries to use them as a source.

When people correctly call one of my favorite sites "fake news" because they fabricate stories from whole cloth, my gut reaction is to call EVERYTHING fake news.

Tonight, my wife said she was going to cook Mac and Cheese. You know what I said? I said, "That's FAKE NEWS woman. Now dial me up some Breitbart."

I was being sort of sarcastic, but there is some truth to it also. And I would agree with you that most of them do peddle fake stories. CNN has said a lot of things not true during this election in their zeal for Clinton. I used to watch CNN a lot, but like most MSM (which I call LSM- Lame Stream Media) it got to a point I couldn't stomach them anymore.