Posted on 12/19/2018 9:56:31 AM PST by TangledUpInBlue
I get it. One-time Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards was once accused of campaign finance violations arising from hush payments to a mistress, but was not convicted. That makes people say maybe Donald Trump didn’t commit any crimes for which he can be convicted? That’s a take that makes a person sound “smart” and “lawyerly” and not tempted into hyperbole.
It’s also a surface-level analysis that ignores key differences between the Edwards case and the mounting evidence against Donald Trump. Comparing the two is like saying “Fran is sitting there drinking her third cup of coffee right now, so why are you on my case?” as you ram two lines up your nose in the break room.
The cases of John Edwards paying off his mistress and Donald Trump paying off his mistresses are easily distinguishable. Let’s roll through the three highlights
(Excerpt) Read more at abovethelaw.com ...
I agree with you and said as much in one of my other posts on this thread. Since Trump used personally money, it’s not a crime. (IMO) The extension they would try to make is what I mentioned - the fungible nature of money.
As for Trump, he cheated on each of his wives with his next wife. He took Marla Maples on vacation with the family while he was still married to Ivana. It’s well documented and not disputed by Trump. Infidelity isn’t a crime. Hell, you could argue it’s almost a pre-req for office. But I don’t have any time believing that Trump was with these women.
Evidence? No. As I said somewhere in this thread it’s no more than he said/she said. But I’m not so naïve.
It’s my believe that the Congressional slush fund, and its use, should be declared a violation of campaign finance laws. It uses taxpayer money without our permission as a donation to settle complaints brought against them. The intent of the slush fund is to prevent the dirty laundry of Congressmen/Congresswomen from being made public, so as not to negatively impact any future elections/reelections they will be participating in.
Stormy could be lying about the timeline as well, a year off and President Trump was single
I believe her extortion was paid because President Trump just didn’t want to deal with her. He just fought off the Billy Bush tape. He didn’t need to deal with this as well.
Stormy looked as this as an opportunity to cash in, like I said true, not true, semi true, whatever, the press would eat it up especially at that time. She figured a 130K pay day right then there was the best she was going to do, after the November election her story would be worth 20K to the national enquirer because nobody believed Trump was going to be president at that time. (we did)
This looks like extortion more then it does ‘hush money’
Uh...he lied about his income to keep from paying taxes, he lied to banks to obtain loans, he lied to Congress, and Mueller said he lied to him as well.
That is true hush money payoffs right there
The congressional slush (hush) fund was there for the sole purpose of paying off people so they won’t complain to the media about our congress critters transgressions.
That is a great example of hush money being paid out. (on our dime of course)
You’re entitled to your belief, and yes, Trump has had his affairs over the years. The one question I have been asking since the Daniels story came out, is that Trump is a wealthy man. He was wealthy then too. Why would a porn star, or any bimbo wait all those years and settle for a mere pittance, when she could have demanded far more, and possibly have more credibility with her story, back when the alleged affair/one night stand occurred. She began claiming it was an affair, then changed her tune to it being a one night stand. Credible? Hardly.
She’s a porn star. It’s hard for me to wonder too much about her motivation for anything. Let alone her credibility. Maybe she had hopes of continually bopping him. Maybe she wanted to see the White House? Who the hell knows.
None of it is impeachable.
The reason she did not say anything is because if she did, she would lose her other “daddies” at the time, I am sure she was bopping others as well. Kiss and tell would kill her business overnight. She knows that, that is why she kept quiet until a larger offer was thrown at her. That is where the CPL came into play.
She was making noise to Cohen and Cohen paid her off. Hush money? LOL yea right, Extortion, heck yes.
What gets lost in the translation is the, supposedly, discussion about paying these women off started in 2014...
In an August 2014 meeting at Trump Tower, Pecker offered to Donald Trump that he would use the National Enquirer to catch and kill any allegations of sexual affairs against Trump.
Most stories that use the Pecker quote ( it’s getting harder to find ) leave out the date & place. The original source for that story seems nowhere to be found.
I mean, who wants to touch Stormy Daniels with ummmm, Pecker?
Yes,
Cohen plead to the campaign finance payoff in order to wrap a “crime” around Trump — but as the article points out, this was not really crime. But watch how many anti-Trump people get behind the idea that if a judge lets Cohen make this plea, it “must” be a crime and he said Trump helped him. We only have his worthless word for Trump helping, unless he has it on a tape, which is also pretty much unethical behavior on his part.
They have Cohen for tax evasion and he will go to jail for that anyway, so he turned and tried to implicate Trump as a favor so that Mueller could give him a reduced sentence letter (WHICH Mueller did give.)
Its all part of the Get Trump game. I don’t think it will fly, but remember that impeachment does not need a crime if the House is willing to vote for it anyway. But since it is a poor excuse for a “high crime” I doubt they will want to take the huge risk that Trump will survive the trial and be dangerous as hell after that.
Pay no attention to people like this that Hit the Pipe every morning before work, I see them all the time here in SoCal.
Why would it be a "major problem" to get nondisclosure agreements from whores paid for with his own money?
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.