What Hillery did WAS illegal and she walked away with a big grin on her her face while flpping off Lady Justice.
I’m not assuming anything by merely asking the question of whether there will be someone (Cohen presumably) that could decide to become a cooperating witness for the Prosecution, and testify that he, Trump and Pecker knowingly engaged in a scheme to make sure that the campaign was not negatively impacted by this news, and therefore made payments to kill the story as a specific means to protect the campaign. Which I believe would constitute an in-kind contribution.
Then why in the world is the Trump-led DOJ not prosecuting her and hauling her off in handcuffs? Can you provide any logical explanation for this?
1 Like
I guess that’s how we will rationalize trump
1 Like
You believe it, a former head of the FEC doesn’t, I wonder who I should give more credibility to on the subject?
Um…no. The former head of the FEC was paid by the Edwards campaign to give his “opinion” on their behalf in relation to Edward’s specific alleged criminal actions. Which are not the same as the potential criminal actions of Trump. Which is what I speculated on, and if they were true, would represent an in-kind contribution.
Can you show us where a former head of the FEC commented on the current revelations concerning Trump?
He commented on another case that would be substantially the same. And he said essentially that in his opinion, having your friends pay your mistress during a campaign is not a campaign activity. Like I said, it might be different if he paid her out of campaign funds. But if he had a friend pony up the cash, it’s pretty much what the feds tried to nail Edwards on and failed.
Did they have Edwards on tape talking about reimbursing the friend for the payments?
No they did not. Nor could they convince anyone to testify against him, saying that he was knowingly involved in a scheme. With Trump it appears they have the former, and now there is a strong potential with Cohen that they could have the latter.
So not even close to the same set of circumstances.
No. And really, the overall cases of both are similar-ish, but they are not identical by any means. Trying to show a mistrial occurring in one case as proof positive there is no case at all against Trump is pretty silly.
Really? So his aid, Andrew Young, didn’t really testify he was recruited to secretly solicit the donations in excess of campaign finance laws?
from John Edwards trial: jury requests evidence in campaign finance case | John Edwards | The Guardian
Andrew Young, who said Edwards recruited him to solicit secret donations in excess of the legal limit for campaign contributions, then $2,300.
Mr. Cohen’s attorney weighs in…
Clearly indicating that any damage from this tape would only hurt one party, and that party not being Cohen.
You’re correct. I had written him off as irrelevant as a witness because of the money he stole from that old lady, and claimed that it was part of the scheme. But really it was to build himself a mansion.
But technically, there was someone who claimed Edwards directed him to seek these donations. Still comparing apples and oranges though. Not too mention the taped recording of Cohen and Trump’s discussion of the payments.
Oooh, discussion of payment tape, that you have no earthly idea as to what was said. Which for all you know could have gone like this.
Cohen “The National Enquirer paid her 150k for that bogus story she had an affair with you”
Trump “Wow, I can’t believe they fell for that.”
You know I already said as much, right? That it is all speculation right now. But you sure are in a defend Trump kind of mood here today. When you have no idea either. Weird.
Even if what Trump did was technically illegal.
1 Like
