Originally Posted by Got Stripers
Well if as he suggests and I'm no lawyer, that paying off two women to keep them quiet about a couple extra marital affairs isn't a crime and that were his only campaign blunder, well I'd say that's worth a legal discussion and debate.
No, it's not a crime. I don't like being deceitful to a spouse, or to anyone else, but especially to your wife and family. But that also is not a crime. In my little world I think it is a character flaw, but I don't live in the world of the Kennedys, Clintons, Trumps, high paid Hollywood and media types, billionaires who are openly and often offered sex for money, or for future consideration, or for the thrill of being intimate with the high and mighty. That world seems to have a different opinion on what is moral or of good character. If they deign, at all, to stoop to things as humble as morality.
If it came out that they are two of many payments made over the years to many women, because Donald just isn't getting enough at home, well that's not much different than pulling a Bill Clinton. That's if that is all we were talking about, but as you know, that's just a small piece of a big pie.
It seems that Bill was a bit more forceful, shall we say, in some of his dalliances than the Don. But none of it was deemed important enough to start an FBI and special counsel investigation into Bill's sex life involving confiscation of the files of Bill's lawyer.
And, legally speaking, Trumps hush money is not a piece of the pie at all.
I find it hard to believe a lawyer would plead guilty if it isn't a crime and risk 5 years in prison and time away from a young family. But if Cohen is playing "Russian" roulette with his life and putting that in the hands of a judge, maybe that's just another example of Trump hiring stupid people who can't be trusted and can't avoid getting caught.
Mueller probably has a lot more on Cohen that would stand up in Court. Who knows what kind of arrangement Cohen and Mueller agreed to in sentencing if he would say what he did. Trump has hired some outstanding people. He has hired some duds.
I would suggest however that when you start adding everything he did to sway this election in his favor, it goes beyond the usual dirty politics.
Well, campaigns are, after all, about swaying elections in one's favor. What is it, actually, that Trump has done beyond usual dirty politics? Not what accusations, or suggestions, or rumors, or innuendo's, or interpretations of, has Trump done or said that should recommend impeachment, removal from office, or imprisonment?
Begging Russia to hack the US on public TV is not only un-American, it too looks like a campaign violation, as he is looking to a foreign power and long time adversary of the US to aid in swaying the election.
It never occurred to me that Trump seriously meant that Russia should hack. It was obviously an attempt at some kind of sarcasm which was opportunistically characterized by his opponents as actual treason in order to make him look bad. You know, like usual dirty politics. If Trump wanted to collude with Putin, he would have done so by other means, not by doing it openly before an audience of millions of American people, and certainly not in front of his opponents.
I won't get into the meeting at Trump tower,
I'm still waiting for a definitive explanation of what confirmed collusion or conspiracy took place at that meeting.
or the connections to Russia from multiple members of the campaign, there has been plenty of coverage.
What is meant by "connections to Russia"? What "connections" have been proven to be conspiratorial?
Then you have no tax returns and many questions about where the money is coming from and collectively, it IMHO appears to be a big time problem for DJT.
Many questions that imply vague accusations. There seem to be a lot of that, implied evidence but not actually evidence of wrongdoing, of conspiracy or collusion.
Patterns, intent, complicit behavior, cumulative evidence, it isn't about one man pleading guilty to a "non-crime" as is suggested. You may see a fin on the surface, the tip of an iceberg, neither tells you what lies beneath the surface.
Patterns that could imply a lot of different things, good, bad, or indifferent. Only Trump knows his own intent. Association is not complicity, but it can be insinuated to be so. Not so much cumulative hard evidence, but cumulative suggestions, accusations, presumptions, or vaguely circumstantial evidence. There seems to be a concerted effort to build an iceberg by floating a bunch of tips. So many on the "right" are accused of conspiracy mongering. But, so far, the supposed Trumpian iceberg looks like a conspiracy theory.
I can't wait for it to be over, but it is like watching survivor; who is getting voted out at the next tribal.
|