03-01-2019, 02:46 PM
(03-01-2019, 02:25 PM)GMDino Wrote: Put not a well established track record of deliberately breaking campaign finance laws.
You saying this makes me think you're missing the point being made.
Quote:I mean he has an established track record of breaking laws and getting sued and fined and losing...but this is a specific instance.
True, and also irrelevant. The Daniels payoff has clear precedent in Trump's history. His paying hush money to women he's slept with has been done numerous times over the course of his life. Hence, his paying Daniels is easily explained as more of the same. As Bel correctly points out, violating campaign finance law with this payment would entail his paying her specifically so her talking about the affair doesn't hurt his campaign. I made this point the moment this "story" came out. Short of hard evidence of Trump saying "pay her off or she's going to hurt my campaign" this is a huge nothing.
Quote:And leaves out the "evolving" (if you will) explanations from DJT and his mouthpieces from it never happened to it did happen but it's not a crime.
A non-disclosure agreement usually prevents both parties from discussing the facts. Regardless, his denials would only be further evidence that he didn't want the matter discussed to avoid public embarrassment for himself or his family. As the Obama example above illustrates, if you admit you violated rules you pay a fine and move on. I get it, you're very anxious for this to be a smoking gun but it's not even a leaky water pistol.
