Let Mueller keep indicting and convicting ham sandwiches. Most Americans won’t care.

[TJustice]

I clearly considered the possibility they have evidence of Trumps intent.
Its part of both item number 2 and my last sentence.

As I said I don't think the a good prosecutor lets a defendant plead guilty to something for which there is no evidence. Nor do judges for that matter.

How about option 3. The charges are in fact credible, Cohen is actually guilty and Trump is legitimately implicated.

But seriously, it is beyond belief you guys are taking some obscure Russian loving opinion piece over the United States justice system. It is truly a sad and worrying time for this country because of what is happening to right wing people such as yourself.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

This is pathetic. None of it makes any difference. What if Trump merely felt sorry for her and thought maybe he had misled her about being on his TV show, like she in fact claimed? So he slid her some folding money to go away. How is that a campaign issue and not a personal expense. If Trump has a beef with his yard guy and pays him off, is that also a campaign contribution? Where is the line? Stormy had nothing to do with the campaign or the election, except she saw it as her point of max leverage.

 

[Buy1Sell2]

I would think they would need evidence of intent to benefit his campaign for Trump to be prosecuted.

We already know he made the payments.

The question might be was there an intent to influence the election or simply protect his business image or his relationship with his wife?

He committed no crime so intent would not matter.

 

[TJustice]

1. It is possible he did not commit a crime
2. It is possible the prosecutor thinks he did
3. Its is possible the prosecutor thinks he did and cohen has some evidence trump was concerned about bad publicity.
4. Trump may have said this could look bad and hurt his chances and pay it off. With personal funds or corporate funds, would make an interesting case.
I would say Trump is not guilty in scenarios 1 through 3. Not sure about scenario 4.

5. If he used campaign funds to pay off Daniels that might be a real problem. Like Hillary using campaign funds for the dossier.

 

[Buy1Sell2]

1. it is possible he did not commit a crime
2. it is possible the prosecutor thinks he did
3. its is possible the prosecutor thinks he did and cohen has some evidence trump was concerned about bad publicity.
4. Trump may have said this could look bad and hurt his chances and pay it off. With personal funds or corporate funds.

4 would make an interesting case.
I would say Trump is not guilty in scenarios 1 through 3. Not sure about scenario 4.

5. If he used campaign funds to pay off Daniels that might be a real problem. Like Hillary using campaign funds for the dossier.

Trump is especially not guilty in your number 4. ---Trump committed a lot of money to his campaign and it is his money to do with however he wants whether corporate or personal. There is absolutely no crime here. Cohen and Davis are laughingstocks.

 

[Buy1Sell2]

1. It is possible he did not commit a crime
2. It is possible the prosecutor thinks he did
3. Its is possible the prosecutor thinks he did and cohen has some evidence trump was concerned about bad publicity.
4. Trump may have said this could look bad and hurt his chances and pay it off. With personal funds or corporate funds, would make an interesting case.
I would say Trump is not guilty in scenarios 1 through 3. Not sure about scenario 4.

5. If he used campaign funds to pay off Daniels that might be a real problem. Like Hillary using campaign funds for the dossier.

And as for your number 5, it is Cohen's assertion that Trump reimbursed him. So, where is the crime again?

 

[TJustice]

Have you ever seen how a campaign does its accounting?
Forms have to be filed.
Money has to be segregated.
You track the money in and out.
You have to turn in your accounting statements to election commissions.

It does not matter if the money was once Trump's money.
While it is in the campaign account, it is treated as campaign money.
I would hope Trump was smart enough to use his own money and not the campaign's money.


I just spoke with someone whose bank screwed up his campaign account. It was a large accounting hassle. Hours to fix a short term mistake. The bank apologized. Candidates are under the impression the FEC takes campaign accounting very seriously. Especially, if the candidate wins. Its like drug tests at the Tour de France.

And as for your number 5, it is Cohen's assertion that Trump reimbursed him. So, where is the crime again?

 

[elderado]

Exactly.

Megyn Kelly Audience Boos and Laughs at Lanny Davis For Seeking Donations For Michael Cohen
https://www.mediaite.com/online/meg...or-seeking-donations-to-defend-michael-cohen/

Lanny, Lanny, Lanny.

EPIC troll fail.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...irects-them-to-president-trump-donation-page/

 

[Buy1Sell2]

Have you ever seen how a campaign does its accounting?
Forms have to be filed.
Money has to be segregated.
You track the money in and out.
You have to turn in your accounting statements to election commissions.

It does not matter if the money was once Trump's money.
While it is in the campaign account, it is treated as campaign money.
I would hope Trump was smart enough to use his own money and not the campaign's money.


I just spoke with someone whose bank screwed up his campaign account. It was a large accounting hassle. Hours to fix a short term mistake. The bank apologized. Candidates are under the impression the FEC takes campaign accounting very seriously. Especially, if the candidate wins. Its like drug tests at the Tour de France.

You have a lot of facts and logistics incorrectly stated in this case. Please review Mr Levin's commentary and then re-address.

 

[UsualName]