Cohen hearing

[GMDino]

(03-04-2019, 09:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Except you said yes to a question that literally cannot be answered in the affirmative with the evidence at hand.


Consequently, unless there is concrete evidence that Trump's intent was demonstrably to prevent damage to his campaign you have a non-starter of a case.  It is highly possible, even probable, that Trump's intent was to prevent damage to his campaign.  However, unless you can demonstrably prove this you have no violation of campaign finance law.

I disagree because we have his lawyer saying "can you imagine what would happen if that came up during the last debate".  Now if DJT wants to play dumb and say Rudy didn't know he can try, but RG was working for the President for a while when he said that and the President's own lies about the payments won't help his case.

Concrete? No.  Enough to convince enough people?  Maybe.

That's what hearings are for. (Which is what I said.)

I'm going to go out on a limb and say people have been convicted of worse without concrete evidence.