Posted on 03/26/2018 10:09:57 AM PDT by bgill
If Ryan & Co. manage to hand Congress to the Democrats in the November 2018 election, and the Democrats go full speed ahead with impeachment, will the American public accept the idea of a President being removed for a "process crime" (not properly dotting all the I's and crossing all the T's on complicated campaign finance laws)? But the Democrats probably don't think they can get to a two-thirds vote in the Senate for conviction--they just want the impeachment process to hamstring Trump so that he cannot accomplish anything and then can be defeated in 2020.
Except this supposed payment was TO Daniels, not FROM Daniels to Trump.
Exactly. Unless being serviced by a whore somehow helps Trump get elected.
Take also into account that Trump is NOT a wild man. He doesn't drink or do drugs. He's not given to fulfilling every impulse he has. His entire fortune is built on self-discipline and self control. It's not likely that he would recklessly endanger his marriage or his business for a quickie with a porn star.
Didn’t see the story about why Mimi Alford’s story matters.
I don’t buy that its a campaign expense. But if it is, then paying women to come forward, which we know happened, is also a campaign violation.
But in both cases, I don’t buy the legal logic.
Funny how Juanita Broaderick never mattered to libs when Bill Clinton was in office.
If we’re going to talk about “coordinated, illegal, in-kind contributions”...
Let’s talk about Google, Yahoo, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, NYTimes, Washington Post, LA Times, etc. ad nauseam.
I’d love to have that conversation...
I smell the scent of Hillary and her minions behind this disgusting tale.
Their logic is Daniels made the payment instead of the campaign. The leap is Daniels paid a campaign obligation and therefore it is a campaign contribution in excess of legal limits.
The question I have would the $130k been a legitimate campaign expenditure in the first place. I sure hope not. There are examples of candidates getting in trouble for paying for things out or campaign contributions that were not allowed. I’m guessing hush money or extortion is a no - no.
The whole thing is complete BS if you ask me.
We didn’t get a BBC story about “Why it matters” for the several hundred times that Dem donors did this on behalf of Bill or Hillary Clinton.
Matters to MSM media ratings, maybe, but not to the people of the US.
I meant Cohen not Daniels making the payment. I’m getting the players mixed up.
and really doesn’t involve Trump’s campaign, rather the guy that made it is the one in trouble.
Britain has too many Muslims.
“Record viewership for CBS’ “60 Minutes.””
But that’s not necessarily good news for them. The tweets coming in last night to my local news were all in the ‘who cares/waste of time .. she’s looking for a payout/lying .. none of my business/knew he wasn’t perfect’ columns.
This story is what was left at the bottom of the barrel...
Or the MSM Paula Jones interview, or Kathleen Wiley, or......
Funny, how that works.
Why you could almost conclude the MSM has an agenda.
With Clinton they were snicker, snicker peccadilloes.
With Trump they are gasp .. an impeachment offense.
What penalty did Algore pay for his Buddhist Temple illegal contributions? A fine. Period.
Fortunately for the Republic, President Trump is a highly effective street-fighter when he needs to be, and this indirect attack on his spouse may cause a really tough, a really nasty response ... hopefully.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.