Cohen hearing

[GMDino]

(03-01-2019, 02:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You saying this makes me think you're missing the point being made.




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.


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.

I'm not "anxious" for anything.  I'm merely saying that just because he's a scum who cheats often and pays off women doesn't mean he didn't break a law this time with his "deliberate" hiding of the transaction versus Obama turning in the information and paying the fine.

Again, just because he's always been a lowlife doesn't mean he didn't do something a little worse this time.