I’d say for certain religious leaders, it is unquestionable as to whether their allegiance was more to their political aspirations/achievements at the behest of a man, as opposed to their desire for delivering on a message of morality. Many have perverted Christianity beyond recognition. And I personally believe there will be a judgment awaiting them for their decisions.
I’m talking about the evidence regarding Trump. The two scenarios are not apples-to-apples comparisons. Sure, they have some similarities, but the devil is in the details.
The answer is no, it wasn’t a lack of evidence it was the juries lack of belief that paying your mistress was campaigning or accepting campaign donations.
And that is doing it while your wife is dying of incurable cancer.
All juries rule the same way?
The DOJ could have retried it, they declined, they obviously thought another jury was likely to have similar results.
That’s great for Edwards, not so much for Trump.
To be clear. He was never found not guilty on the charge. It resulted in a hung jury.
So you think that after the DOJ declined to prosecute Edwards for pretty much the same thing, they should prosecute Trump? I can’t imagine why.
Wow I bet even you kinda struggled with typing that out 
Unless of course Trump was dumb enough to write her a check right out of campaign coffers.
Pretty much the same thing is not the same thing. The cases are different
I dare anyone to read this board over the last six months and tell me that anything I’ve typed when I described the Trump Republicans in my area was false. Just simply compare it to what’s typed here daily. It’s the same type people.
I was friggin spot on yet again. None of their preaching and talking about family values and Christian values had me fooled. I pegged them 40 years ago. Hell, I went to high school with many of them.
Prosecutors tried to prove that Edwards conspired with his close aide, Andrew Young, and two wealthy donors—the Texas lawyer Fred Baron and Mellon, the Virginia heiress and Kennedy clan intimate—to conceal the affair with Hunter and the child he fathered with her. But they were hampered by a lack of witnesses who could say that Edwards knowingly violated campaign finance laws.
Prosecutors couldn’t get anyone to flip on him. That being a key potential difference in the two cases. Now, will the same be true for Trump, especially with what Prosecutors “may” have as leverage over Cohen?
different or (D)ifferent?
Prosecutors couldn’t find someone to flip on Edwards and admit that he was engaged in a scheme. Will the same hold true with Trump? Only time will tell.
It’s actually disturbingly easy for me to adopt the persona of a Trumpster. Sometimes my own voice requires more thought process than the Trumpster voice in my head.
Assuming quite a bit there. You have no idea whether Trump ever discussed it with Cohen in terms of it being a campaign violation. And tow that they could have obtained a conviction if they could have proved he thought it was one, which according to a former head of the FEC, it wasn’t.
From http://media2.newsobserver.com/smedia/2011/06/03/10/edwardsdefense.source.prod_affiliate.156.pdf
It is my view that, under the law as developed by the United States courts and the Federal Election Commission, these payments would not be considered to be either campaign contributions or campaign expenditures within the meaning of the campaign finance laws; that the Federal Election Commission, if asked, would conclude that these payments did not constitute a violation of the law, even as a civil matter; and that the facts do not make out a knowing and willful violation of the campaign finance laws warranting criminal prosecution.
Look at you defending Trump even when what he did was “technically illegal”
1 Like
Over a month later… Cohen is gonna flip… any day now… tap, tap, tap… any day… TRUMP!!!
