By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
bowserthedog said:
EricHiggin said:

In order to violate campaign finance law, what transpired must have been directly related to the campaign, and must only have been done for the sole purposes of the campaign. If there are any other non campaign related reasons why it might have been done, then it's not violating the law.

Yeah..  Legal experts are all over the map on this one. As it stands right now you're probably correct.  Basically, in order for it to count as a campaign expense, it would have to be something that was done for the sole purpose of benefiting the campaign. In this case you could make the argument that he paid these women off because he didn't want personal embarrassment or he didn't want his wife to find out for example. For example, Bill Clinton was famous for his $200 haircuts and of course, your appearance will benefit the campaign but something like that isn't considered a campaign expense but rather a personal expense. 

People are largely being fooled on this one because of the guilty plea. But Cohen pleading guilty doesn't mean it was a crime.  For example, there's a lot of cases that get overturned later on based on DNA evidence when a defended had been strongarmed into pleading guilty to a crime they had not committed. 

He ll get jail time for it..... thats "crime" enough for me.

I guess trumps best defense then will be "I didnt want my wife knowing about it, I didnt care if I lost the election for president".
And people will have to believe what they want, Trump is a pathological Liar though, its hard to take him at his word.