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

We will have to wait and see what happens. But based on history I think it's going to be very difficult to see Trump get into legal trouble on this one. You have to be able to prove two things for it to potential end up in criminal charges against the campaign. You'd have to prove that Trump would not have wanted to silence these women for personal reason such as embarrassment or his wife finding out. This was something that prosecutors failed to do in the case of John Edwards a few years back. You'd also have to prove that Trump didn't pay Cohen back using his own personal money. And for a guy who spent over 60 million of his own money it would be very hard to do so. I personally find it a bit humorous that a guy who received the lowest amount of public donations in modern times that he'd be the one to go down for a donation that was clearly not intended to influence him. 

BTW.  Politifact has it as similar to Obama in potential severity. 

https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/cfe97272-bf17-4f08-b0e3-ba3788daa810

Ok, now we are on the same page.  You are correct that it will be the burden on Cohen and the prosecutors to prove that the hush money was for the campaign, that Trump knew it was for the campaign and that he knew it was a violation of finance laws.  This is where Cohen and his tapes, emails, receipts, David Pecker, Allen Weisselberg come into play.  Its one thing to say that these were personal endeavors used to keep his personal misdeeds out of the press and another when you might have communication between Trump and Cohen, Trump and David Pecker and Trump and Allen Weisselberg that might paint a totally different story.  So before you give Trump the pass,  you probably should be looking into why these men accepted immunity for their testimony on the whole incident.  Its not so cut and dried that Trump will be able to throw this off as just some hush money but instead a coordinated plan executed by him to influence the elections. 

This section from the article you posted is very important in understanding how Trump defense can crumple depend on what David and Allen have to contribute including Cohen and any evidence he might have kept.

But at the end of the day, the personal vs. campaign test isn’t based on the account the money came from, but whether the cost would have come regardless of Trump running for office.

That quote is confusing to me. Trump used 60 million other dollars of his personal money on matter related to influencing the election and to benefit his campaign. How is this money any different?