Cohen hearing

[GMDino]

You proposed two reasons for this possible campaign violation to be nothing.

(03-01-2019, 12:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I just wanted to remind everyone of the following;

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-campaign-to-pay-375000-fine-for-omitting-some-donors-names-in-2008/2013/01/04/78973402-56bb-11e2-8b9e-dd8773594efc_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3cd35d753592

Now, I'm no math wiz, but I think the amounts in discussion above are significantly higher than the money paid to Stormy Daniels.  I'd also point out that Trump has a history of paying hush money to former mistresses/hook ups, so a defense that he was just protecting his wife and kids from the affair being publicly known rather holds water.  Even if it does not, I don't recall anyone talking about impeaching Obama over his campaign finance violations, and he wasn't exactly well liked by the GOP.  I'll say it again, the Stormy Daniels payoff is not a smoking gun, it's a stupid distraction.

One was not so good

(03-01-2019, 12:40 PM)GMDino Wrote: This has been discussed.

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/12/676198885/experts-debunk-trumps-claim-that-cohens-campaign-violations-are-similar-to-obama


More at the link.

So that left us with:

(03-01-2019, 02:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Which then leaves us with the fact that Trump has a well established track record of paying hush money to mistresses/wives/hook ups.  It would be extremely difficult to prove he wasn't paying off Daniels for any reason other than his usual one.

But now you say:

(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.

It's completely relevant if someone wants to make the case that it is his very history of being "morally reprehensible" that allows him to say the payoff was just business as usual and not to protect him during the campaign.