He argued that Hillary Clinton investigating Russia collusion was a campaign expenditure while President Trump allegedly paying off Stormy Daniels was not.
The very possibility that President Donald Trump and anyone affiliated with him has been under attack more than democrats have ever been is high on the list of every-increasing liberal denials. Specifically related to campaign funding violations, President Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, has been under recent scrutiny.
However, a former pollster for both former president Bill Clinton and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton released an opinion piece explaining why Hillary should be the one under investigation, not Cohen. He further reveals the horrific double standard surrounding both situations, arguing that now-President Trump paying off adult entertainer Stormy Daniels was not a campaign funding violation.
The Clinton ‘expert,’ Mark Penn, published his piece for The Hill Wednesday, outlining why President Trump’s alleged attempt to silence Daniels was done so out of ‘personal reasons’ and could not be considered campaign expenditure.
Initially notable, President Trump and his former lawyer had allegedly been attempting to “obtain [such an] agreement” since 2011, making it considerably unrelated to his 2016 presidential run.
“So, Trump spends $130,000 to keep the lid on a personal story and the full weight of state prosecutors comes down on his lawyer, tossing attorney-client privilege to the wind,” he wrote. “Democrats spend potentially millions on secret opposition research and no serious criminal investigation occurs.”
Further, Penn compared President Trump’s situation to that of a candidate with poor teeth as an example, explaining that, of course, such an individual would seek to clear his image by obtaining “dental work to look better for the campaign” which could not be written off as a campaign expense.
However, just as President Trump sought to disassociate himself from the pornstar, Penn explains that “Just because it would be helpful to the campaign does not convert it to a campaign expenditure.”
He further called the attempt to suggest otherwise to be ‘a bogus approach’ to suggest that the president violated Federal Election Commission laws, citing that “donors in the 2012 John Edwards cases” were not held in contempt of such laws and were also not considered campaign contributions.
He further claimed that the attempt to tarnish Edwards then was unsuccessful then, just as such an attempt again would be today.
Also relating to the corrupt Clintons, Penn noted that despite Cohen having pled guilty to the campaign fraud, former president Bill Clinton’s acquittal sent a firm message: “That we are not going to remove presidents for lying about who they had affairs with, nor even convict politicians on campaign violations for these personal payments.”
Conversely, Clinton’s campaign “paid out money to political research firm Fusion GPS and British spy Christopher Steele without listing them on any campaign expenditure form despite crystal clear law and regulations that the ultimate beneficiaries of the funds must be listed.”
Penn explains that the reason for such a double standard is that the Russian spying efforts “did not ‘get’ Trump” as far as successfully proving any conspiracy.
The former pollster further noted that the attack against Cohen includes “manufacture[d] crimes in what is a naked attempt to take Trump down and defeat democracy.”
Unfortunately, that is what is ultimately at risk in the never-ending attacks against the president despite that the American people voted him into office.
Penn further expressed that for this reason, it is of utmost important who President Trump chooses to entrust his affairs with, as seen with Cohen, an aide who appears or proves dishonest can negatively affect the president’s reputation which is constantly under liberal scrutiny.
He concluded by saying that the continuing investigations into President Trump’s “aids [and] lawyers” are nothing more than a witch hunt to “find anything that could be colored into a crime.” Penn expresses again that the payments to Stormy Daniels were not a criminal violation, again citing FEC laws.
Forcing involved individuals, he continues, into guilty confessions, does not make White House officials actually guilty of their crimes.
Unfortunately, this appears of no concern to anti-Trump officials.
An even worse converse suggests that simply because Hillary Clinton was not investigated for her Russia schemes to the extent that President Trump has been, does not necessarily determine her innocence.
While leftists may continue to argue that the Trump administration is the corrupt party, proof of Clinton’s campaign funding violations actually exist in that of the Steele dossier which has proven to be a liberal fairytale that President Trump opposers appear to be clinging onto as their only source of ‘proof’ against the commander in chief.
Yet it is important to consider how the dossier came to be, with the answer leading right back to Clinton’s funding.
Thankfully for the integrity of all American citizens, their elected president did not use his associated campaign in such a ridiculous and illegal attempt to bring down another candidate.