As with the Stormy Daniels matter, there's the question whether the payment made by AMI to McDougal was campaign-related. If it was personal/business (for the paper's own interests or to help Trump with his personal life), the payment is not illegal. /2
-
-
Show this thread
-
If it was campaign-related and unreimbursed, it is an illegal an unreported corporate expenditure, and if Trump/Trump campaign cooperated with it, an illegal, unreported in-kind contribution to the campaign. If reimbursed, it is an illegal unreported loan. /3
Show this thread -
But the tape sheds little light on this. We don't know what AMI's motivation was, whether there was cooperation with Trump/campaign, whether there was reimbursement. /4
Show this thread -
Now there's some circumstantial evidence it is campaign-related given both timing and what else is discussed on the tape. And that's a GREAT reason for further investigation. But tape alone is no smoking gun as to campaign finance violations. /5
Show this thread -
But speaking politically, it shows how much the goal posts have moved with Trump. For any other president/presidential candidate, a tape like this about potential reimbursement of hush money to pay off playmate to keep quiet about affair would be YUGE political scandal. /6
Show this thread -
But a scandal does not prove illegality. The key point to keep in mind is that this is a piece of evidence in isolation. Cohen knows a lot more, and there is a lot more evidence. It may well be proven to be illegal activity. But the tape alone does not resolve the matter. 7/7
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Ask Yourself If This Had Been Another Politician Who Didn’t Have A Stadium Full Of Scandals Would It Still Be “Underwhelming”?
-
It was a thread from the first tweet, hence the "/1", but you did interject before he got to the issue that's true and you're both on the same wavelength. Never mind.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Test is not "campaign related," but whether "commitment, obligation or expense ... would exist irrespective of the candidate's campaign." 11 CFR 113.1
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Um... except we’ll have MC to give context. And person on phone, and female voice person, and the persons mentioned, likely. And, like,
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Now consider if this were Obama, not Trump. Would anyone be overwhelmed and investigating?
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Is there a plausible scenario in which AMI's payment was "for the paper's own interests?"
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It's evidence of it. It's not proof of it.
-
Test is not whether it is "campaign-related." It is "whether commitment, obligation or expense ... would exist irrespective of the candidate’s campaign." 11 CFR 113.1.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.