bowserthedog said:
Machiavellian said:
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?
|
Trump reported the 60 million+ as part of the rules. What he did not do was report the hush money. If he reported the Hush money, since pretty much every news agency was looking at campaign money spent, it would have bubbled up right away and be in the news. What that line is trying to say is that if Trump would have paid these women off to keep their mouth shut if there was no campaign run, then it could be considered like any other hush money payment.
Currently Online 
