The tapes . They make it explicitly clear the purpose is to influence the election. Trump fucked Stormy, and now Trump is fucked in return!
Last edited:
Treason's Greetings
- Thread starter exGOPer
- Start date
Trump and Stormy was 10 years before he ran. Edwards was having an affair during his campaign and hired his paramour. Then had a donor pay her off, setting up a potential blackmail situation or at least very huge unpublicized obligation. Trump is merely vulgar. Edwards was a lying sleazebag who made millions suing country doctors who had the misfortune to deliver a less than perfect baby on junk science theories. Result is that many rural counties had to get by with no OB/GYN docs.
But that is the point. But then it would not be a proper campaign expense so how could you prosecute him for knowing and willfully violating campaign finance law.
How could he be guilty for paying for something which campaign finance law deems a personal expense only?
As I have been trying to get you to understand... its not illegal to buy someone's silence. If you were American and you did it, it would no be illegal.
So where is the crime?
How could he be guilty for paying for something which campaign finance law deems a personal expense only?
As I have been trying to get you to understand... its not illegal to buy someone's silence. If you were American and you did it, it would no be illegal.
So where is the crime?
You show me the tapes where he says he is paying her off to help his campaign and not his personal life and I will revise my opinion.
If there are tapes of him saying he was doing it for the campaign... then I think it would be Supreme Court kind of case.
---
"Legal" impossibility involves an error as to a legal reality (the state of the law). Put more simply, you can mess up attempting to commit an actual crime & be guilty of attempting to commit that actual crime, but you can't be guilty of attempting to commit a crime that isn't an actual crime.
Impossibility defense - Wikipedia
My take... at first thought...and subject to change.
If Trump intended to misreport payoffs on his campaign forms... he could be guilty. But I don't see that as this situation.
If he intended to keep the payoffs silent even though it was for his campaign he would not be guilty because I doubt the govt could show he had the mens read for campaign finance violations. I remind you paying lovers for silence is a personal expense and could never be a legitimate campaign expense.
If there are tapes of him saying he was doing it for the campaign... then I think it would be Supreme Court kind of case.
---
"Legal" impossibility involves an error as to a legal reality (the state of the law). Put more simply, you can mess up attempting to commit an actual crime & be guilty of attempting to commit that actual crime, but you can't be guilty of attempting to commit a crime that isn't an actual crime.
Impossibility defense - Wikipedia
My take... at first thought...and subject to change.
If Trump intended to misreport payoffs on his campaign forms... he could be guilty. But I don't see that as this situation.
If he intended to keep the payoffs silent even though it was for his campaign he would not be guilty because I doubt the govt could show he had the mens read for campaign finance violations. I remind you paying lovers for silence is a personal expense and could never be a legitimate campaign expense.
Last edited:
I already showed you how but you want to ignore the evidence and peddle hypotheticals.
Read the article again and then read the indictment, it's all in there.
I have... and so far nothing you have posted shows that Trump broke the law. Perhaps Cohen broke the law but nothing I read showed that Trump did.
Those facts are yet to be produced.
Produce them if you like.
How many times do I have to tell you, it was not necessarily illegal for Trump to make a payoff with non campaign money?
Those facts are yet to be produced.
Produce them if you like.
How many times do I have to tell you, it was not necessarily illegal for Trump to make a payoff with non campaign money?
Criminal law is not bullshit.
Unless you have a strict liability law like some national security laws... you have to have the mens rea for the very specific offense.
There is no campaign violation for paying off a mistress with personal money, even if it is disgusting.
Unless you have a strict liability law like some national security laws... you have to have the mens rea for the very specific offense.
There is no campaign violation for paying off a mistress with personal money, even if it is disgusting.
Even Fox News says that's bullshit
So they used sham invoices because?
Well now we are talking about evidence of a crime...
Link us to the invoices.
Tell us how they are evidence of a campaign violation by Trump.
Link us to the invoices.
Tell us how they are evidence of a campaign violation by Trump.