President Donald Trump

[OaklandA's]

What Rudy Giuliani says on TV is considered evidence?

The question the jury has to decide is if Trump was paying off the women to protect his wife, or to help his campaign. If his own lawyer admits that the payments were to help the campaign, then yes, that can be considered evidence.

[nots]

The question the jury has to decide is if Trump was paying off the women to protect his wife, or to help his campaign. If his own lawyer admits that the payments were to help the campaign, then yes, that can be considered evidence.

Well, I don’t think he was his lawyer at the time, but even if he was, I am quite sure Giuliani could walk back a non-sworn opinion made on a TV outlet if he needed to.
Again, smells more like politics than an actual criminal prosecution.

[baldgriff]

The question the jury has to decide is if Trump was paying off the women to protect his wife, or to help his campaign. If his own lawyer admits that the payments were to help the campaign, then yes, that can be considered evidence.

Wouldn't a history of paying off people to hide is "indiscretions" actually be to his credit in defending against a campaign finance charge? If there is a history of him doing this, then this would be a normal mode of operations to hide/quiet things - not to help himself get elected.

[chancellor]

Yawn. I can only hope the House Dems push forward for impeachment on another president involved in an affair. It worked so overwhelmingly well for the GOP in the late '90s, I think the Dems should follow the same playbook. Please.

[nots]

Yawn. I can only hope the House Dems push forward for impeachment on another president involved in an affair. It worked so overwhelmingly well for the GOP in the late '90s, I think the Dems should follow the same playbook. Please.

I am not discounting there might be an impeachable offense but so far Russia, Russia, Russia hasnt panned out at all, and campaign finance violations for paying off banging a porn store with his own cash, isn’t moving the needle. It does give the Dems a shiny toy to play with though.

[chancellor]

I am not discounting there might be an impeachable offense but so far Russia, Russia, Russia hasnt panned out at all, and campaign finance violations for paying off banging a porn store with his own cash, isn’t moving the needle. It does give the Dems a shiny toy to play with though.

Well, if banging a mistress and outright lying about it under oath wasn't considered impeachable, this doesn't even remotely come close. I sure hope they play with the shiny toy a lot.

[OaklandA's]

Well, I don’t think he was his lawyer at the time, but even if he was, I am quite sure Giuliani could walk back a non-sworn opinion made on a TV outlet if he needed to.
Again, smells more like politics than an actual criminal prosecution.

Aside from Giuliani, they supposedly also have sworn statements and messages/recordings from Cohen, David Pecker (National Enquirer), and Allen Weisselberg, the CFO of the Trump Organization who is also cooperating with prosecutors, talking about the need to do this for the campaign.

No one is saying that campaign finance will be the only result from the Mueller probe. It's just the only one that has been revealed so far.

[Bernie Brewer]

I am not discounting there might be an impeachable offense but so far Russia, Russia, Russia hasnt panned out at all, and campaign finance violations for paying off banging a porn store with his own cash, isn’t moving the needle. It does give the Dems a shiny toy to play with though.

What keeps getting lost (at least in my mind) is that this all proves that Trump isn't a very good businessman. I suspect you could do a porn star for a lot less than $130,000 and former playmates for less than $150,000, plus whatever he paid them back when he did the deed! He should've offered them a NDA right then and there to sign. I presume Malania signed a Pre nup before they got "married!" Poor planning all the way around!

That's all I got for today, folks!

[onejayhawk]

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

The Democrats lost one of their elite for another version of Dan Quayle. That is not a step forward.

J

[OaklandA's]

Aside from Giuliani, they supposedly also have sworn statements and messages/recordings from Cohen, David Pecker (National Enquirer), and Allen Weisselberg, the CFO of the Trump Organization who is also cooperating with prosecutors, talking about the need to do this for the campaign.

And here is today's statement from the Southern District of New York:

"AMI (parent company of the National Enquirer) admitted that it made the $150,000 payment in concert with a candidate's presidential campaign, and in order to ensure that the woman did not publicize damaging allegations about the candidate before the 2016 presidential election. AMI further admitted that its principal purpose in making the payment was to suppress the woman's story so as to prevent it from influencing the election."

https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1072921560095383552

I don't think the John Edwards defense will work in Trump's case.

[nots]

And here is today's statement from the Southern District of New York:

"AMI (parent company of the National Enquirer) admitted that it made the $150,000 payment in concert with a candidate's presidential campaign, and in order to ensure that the woman did not publicize damaging allegations about the candidate before the 2016 presidential election. AMI further admitted that its principal purpose in making the payment was to suppress the woman's story so as to prevent it from influencing the election."

https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1072921560095383552

I think don't the John Edwards defense will work in Trump's case.

I guess we will see

[B-Fly]

And here is today's statement from the Southern District of New York:

"AMI (parent company of the National Enquirer) admitted that it made the $150,000 payment in concert with a candidate's presidential campaign, and in order to ensure that the woman did not publicize damaging allegations about the candidate before the 2016 presidential election. AMI further admitted that its principal purpose in making the payment was to suppress the woman's story so as to prevent it from influencing the election."

https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1072921560095383552

I think don't the John Edwards defense will work in Trump's case.

The biggest difference I see is that Elizabeth Edwards worshipped John and Melania Trump loathes Donald and was well aware of his nature, so the idea that he paid off these "starlets" to avoid getting in trouble with his wife is pretty laughable.

[chancellor]

And here is today's statement from the Southern District of New York:

"AMI (parent company of the National Enquirer) admitted that it made the $150,000 payment in concert with a candidate's presidential campaign, and in order to ensure that the woman did not publicize damaging allegations about the candidate before the 2016 presidential election. AMI further admitted that its principal purpose in making the payment was to suppress the woman's story so as to prevent it from influencing the election."

https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1072921560095383552

I don't think the John Edwards defense will work in Trump's case.

Maybe. I can't wait for discovery, given that it's the National Enquirer.

[Fresno Bob]

Maybe. I can't wait for discovery, given that it's the National Enquirer.

it is shaped like a mushroom

[Judge Jude]

breaking reports that Congress is finalizing a deal on a bill that would force lawmakers who settle sexual harassment claims have to foot the bill themselves. so we taxpayers are off the hook.

fascinating that they paid out tens of millions over the years - and now pick this moment in time to get religion on the issue