President Donald Trump

[TranaGreg]

you guys should stop moking him.

[baldgriff]

you guys should stop moking him.

Now really - thats just uncalled four!.......

[onejayhawk]

Lololololololololololololololol. And Dan Quayle got crushed for "tomatoe."

I wonder what they would have done with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Oh, wait, she's not a Republican.

J

[revo]

I wonder what they would have done with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Oh, wait, she's not a Republican.

J

What did she misspell?

[chancellor]

What did she misspell?

Trillion. Just like me.

[baldgriff]

Im still waiting for her inauguration as a representative - and of course all of those Bills that she will be signing.

[Igor]

Well we can pounce on a freshman congress persons future misspellings if it makes you feel better about the president. Meanwhile I will enjoy some Nambian cofeve while I smock.

[baldgriff]

Well we can pounce on a freshman congress persons future misspellings if it makes you feel better about the president. Meanwhile I will enjoy some Nambian cofeve while I smock.

Good Post!!

[B-Fly]

I was amused by the Cohen prosecution narrative that he worked to "influence the election results" by agreeing to pay off gals who Trump slept with, so as to not lose ground politically.

I'll go look for a unicorn, you go look for a 2016 voter who chose Trump - but would have gone in a different direction if these ladies had come forward during the campaign.

You'd have to ask a Trump voter why they voted for the guy, but some ex-Playboy playmate and another gal announcing their status as more notches on his bedpost doesn't strike me as a likely "move the needle" moment for them.

a better question is why they bothered to pay these women off at all. as Kris Kristofferson wrote, "when you ain't got nothing, you got nothing to lose."

You understand, I'm sure, that your question whether suppressing information about Trump affairs DID influence the election outcome, in retrospect, is irrelevant from a prosecutorial perspective, right? Much as I'm sure Trump team worried about the impact of the Access Hollywood tape on the election, it's natural that they would have worried about the impact of two porn stars sharing lurid details of their adulterous affairs with the nominee in the lead-up to the election. The intent to buy their silence to avoid that impact is what's relevant - not whether, in retrospect, the impact would have swung the outcome.

[baldgriff]

and keep in mind that the House spent millions paying off sexual harassment lawsuits against Congressmen and their staff. surpressing info about unwanted sexual advances while feigning mock outrage over consensual sex will not be a great look.

The list of Congressmen that the government has used our tax dollars to protect by keeping men and women quiet should be made available to the public. Would this be a request available via FOIA?

[nots]

You understand, I'm sure, that your question whether suppressing information about Trump affairs DID influence the election outcome, in retrospect, is irrelevant from a prosecutorial perspective, right? Much as I'm sure Trump team worried about the impact of the Access Hollywood tape on the election, it's natural that they would have worried about the impact of two porn stars sharing lurid details of their adulterous affairs with the nominee in the lead-up to the election. The intent to buy their silence to avoid that impact is what's relevant - not whether, in retrospect, the impact would have swung the outcome.

Wasn’t this already settled by the courts in the Edwards case?

[B-Fly]

Wasn’t this already settled by the courts in the Edwards case?

How would a jury's verdict in one case "settle" a subsequent case? Jurors weigh questions of fact, not questions of law.

[nots]

How would a jury's verdict in one case "settle" a subsequent case? Jurors weigh questions of fact, not questions of law.

I guess it wouldn’t, but given that Edwards raised money to pay off his baby momma and Trump used his own cash, I would think the likelihood of a conviction would be even more remote. Which makes me think this is more about politics than actually prosecuting a crime.
Do you believe John Edwards was guilty of a felony?

[OaklandA's]

Wasn’t this already settled by the courts in the Edwards case?

In the Edwards case, Edwards was acquitted because the jury decided that Edwards used the money to hide the affair from his wife, not for the purpose of influencing his political campaign. Presumably a jury would have to ask the same question in the Trump case.

It probably does not help Trump's case that his lawyer Rudy Guiliani said on TV "“Imagine if it came out on October 15, 2016, in the middle of the last debate with Hillary Clinton. Cohen didn’t even ask. Cohen made it go away. He did his job.”

[nots]

In the Edwards case, Edwards was acquitted because the jury decided that Edwards used the money to hide the affair from his wife, not for the purpose of influencing his political campaign. Presumably a jury would have to ask the same question in the Trump case.

It probably does not help Trump's case that his lawyer Rudy Guiliani said on TV "“Imagine if it came out on October 15, 2016, in the middle of the last debate with Hillary Clinton. Cohen didn’t even ask. Cohen made it go away. He did his job.”

What Rudy Giuliani says on TV is considered evidence?