Cohen hearing

[GMDino]

(03-01-2019, 04:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It has a massive amount to do with it as we're talking about a violation that is predicated entirely on intent.  Was Trump's intent to pay off Daniels to spare himself and his family embarrassment or did he do it to prevent damage to his campaign?  That being the case every piece of evidence that could be used to prove intent is of immense value.  Evidence of past payments of the exact same type made prior to Trump ever being a candidate establishes a clear precedent of this type of conduct being engaged in for reasons obviously unrelated to a political campaign.  That being an inarguable fact one would need considerable, concrete, evidence that this was not the case in this instance.

As far as Trump being a serial adulterer, this was a known factor during his presidential run and he was elected anyways.  Being morally reprehensible is not a crime and isn't related to the alleged campaign finance violation anyways.  Consequently, while not speaking well for his character, this fact is completely irrelevant.

To answer the bold: Yes.

If someone is a thief because he always needs money.  And then while office (and still needing money) he steals again do we say "Oh, well we knew he was a thief so this must not have anything to do with needing money for the campaign"?

I get that being skinhound that pays hush money isn't illegal...until it happens during a campaign for office and the question comes up where the funds came from.

I can drive 45 in a 40 and probably get away with it. But as soon as I rive 45 in a 25 I'm gonna risk getting caught.  "I always go over the speed limit" won't be a good defense.

The bigger question now is if DJT got caught.  I guess that's why they do investigations.  I guess that why I didn't say he was guilty OR give him a pass.

But some want to defend him hard core.  I understand.