You said: "Orange directed Cohen to make the payment to shut her up [and Trump] later reimbursed the money which would qualify as a contribution as would the original directed payment by Cohen."
So, the campaign received two contributions:
(1) Cohen paid Stormy Daniels, and
(2) Trump paid his attorney back.
Obviously, neither of those is literally a campaign contribution. We have to treat what is normally a non-contribution as if it were a contribution under some legal theory, such as: "Because the campaign benefited, what would normally be a private transaction became a campaign contribution in the eyes of the law. OK. That's fair. But, the logic has to work.
Let's look at the first payment: A payment that helps him get elected (by keeping her quiet) on his behalf is actually a donation. I get it. That might be true.
But, when Trump reimbursed Cohen?...how can that be a campaign donation? He was just paying his lawyer. And, of course, Trump is allowed to contribute to his own campaign. Perhaps there is a reporting issue, like Obama had.
Now, I don't know what Trump's and Cohen's relationship was structured, but let me ask you some questions:
If Cohen had a client trust account, full of a retainer Trump had provided, and Cohen paid SD from that, and Trump replenished the account, would that be a campaign contribution from Cohen?...from Trump? Maybe you could argue that it was a contribution because the campaign benefited, but it is not illegal to donate to your own campaign. And, you don't have to report until after the campaign is over. So, we can fine him just like Obama was fined.
Now (and I think this is more likely, because they likely wanted to hide the payment trail), if Cohen wrote a personal check, or otherwise drew on his own company's funds and not funds allocated to Trump, then that could be a contribution by Cohen to the Trump Campaign. But, if Trump contemporaneously reimbursed him it would not be. Or, if Trump and Cohen had a history of doing business like this (advance and replenish), then I think the argument against it being a campaign contribution gets very weak, don't you agree?...because Trump can legally contribute to his own campaign?
While we are turning private acts into campaign contributions, couldn't SD's attempt to blackmail Trump be considered a campaign contribution in kind to HRC? I mean, it was a private transaction which benefited the HRC campaign.
What if I spend $500 on gas and hotel to go to a Trump Campaign rally. Have I donated to the Trump campaign? The campaign did receive the benefit of my otherwise private transaction. What if I told the campaign about my expenses. What if I was a celebrity, and Trump said, "Hey, want to come to my rally?" and I came, and paid that money for expenses on my trip, and my trip therefore benefited Trump? Are my expenses campaign contributions because they benefited the campaign?
Anyway, fun to think about. The issue is how far away from normal are we willing to go...and will it be precedent for future candidates. My guess is that the Dems think they can control the future, and they are willing to very far away from normal right now.
Bottom line: If this convoluted campaign finance issue is the worst to come out of the Mueller investigation, Trump has to be feeling pretty good. You guys need a blue dress, and you don't have it yet. I'm not saying you won't find it. Trump is a shady character, and he hangs out with shady characters.