Cohen hearing

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-01-2019, 05:13 PM)GMDino Wrote: You proposed two reasons for this possible campaign violation to be nothing.


One was not so good

I've actually, consistently, made one argument on this topic since it became a topic.  The Obama issue I raised as a comparison of campaign finance violation.  

Quote:So that left us with:


But now you say:


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.

It would be really helpful if someone other than me explained to you the legal difficulties inherent in establishing intent and why my argument applies to that directly.  I say that because you seemed determined to disagree with me while not really addressing my argument.  I'll take one more stab at it before relaxing for the weekend.

In order for the Daniels' payoff to be a campaign finance violation the intent behind the payoff has to be that she was silenced so she would not hurt Trump's campaign.  You have stated this is demonstrably the case.  I have asked you to make a fact based argument with tangible evidence that this is so.  You have thus far failed to even attempt to do this.  I raise Trump's history of engaging in these exact type of payoffs because in every other instance it is demonstrably certain that the intent behind the payoffs was not to prevent damage to an campaign.  This is because the rest of them took place when Trump was not campaigning.

Any lawyer not recently lobotomized would instantly point to Trump's history of this exact type of behavior to demonstrate that the Daniels' payment was simply the most recent example of a well established pattern of behavior.  As intent is the sole determinant of whether a campaign finance violation took place this instantly throws credible doubt that this was the intent of the payout.  Consequently, without physical evidence that the payment was made with the intent to prevent damage to his campaign you have no real case other than pure conjecture.  It "might be" true isn't good enough.

You raise Trump's history of this type of amoral behavior as a negative, which in almost any other situation it would be.  But in this case it provides evidence that is is normal behavior for him, and normal behavior not tied to running for political office.  Morally and ethically it's bad, but that's completely irrelevant to the matter at hand.

Now, if you still don't get it I must apologize as I won't be expending any further energy attempting to explain further.  Enjoy the rest of your day and your weekend.