You're the expert, obviously, and I won't debate either that proof is tricky and that the FEC won't do anything. But Daniels' lawyer believes it was election-related, perhaps for a reason. And the natural presumption (which is what that quote centers on) is not that it wasn't.
I think you overstate it: 1. Just because Daniels' lawyer says it was campaign-related, doesn't mean it so 2. If it is not campaign related (which depends upon proving motive, hard beyond a reasonable doubt w/o documentary evidence), then no problem with Trump org facilitatinghttps://twitter.com/pbump/status/972227180263608320 …
-
-
-
Sure. But the criminal law standard for a prosecution by DOJ is high indeed. And the John Edwards case is a cautionary tale
-
We’re debating something we agree on: Lots of laws are broken for which no punishment ensues.
-
Think we are debating whether we know the law was broken
-
My only problem with your piece (aside from sole focus on FEC and not on DOJ) is the confidence you express in your conclusion
-
Fair enough.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
But doesn't it make it harder to claim trump knew nothing about it?
-
Trump's knowledge does not prove it is a campaign finance violation if the money was paid to preserve his marriage or reputation
-
I'm not arguing that. Just saying that claims that he didn't know about the payment become less believable
-
I find myself wondering how that marriage is going these days...
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I think this is funny. It does not change the fact it was hush money paid to a woman to be hushed about Trump while Trump was married. So if it isn't about Trump then she can go on 60 Minutes and talk about Trump. Am I missing something? Or is this all about Trump?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.