ralliann
christian
- Jun 27, 2007
- 8,084
- 2,558
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Widowed
There is no similarity......As I put in another post, if I rob a bank to prevent a friend from losing his house and, a couple of months later, my friend pays back the bank the money I stole -- it does not change that I robbed the bank. It is similar here.
To pay for a non- disclosure agreement is not illegal. Brad Smith was ready to testify to that. he was disallowed. The feds did not find anything concerning Trump....If nothing else, as you point out, it was a loan and the loan had a value high enough that it violated campaign finance laws.
The money was not paid to a campaign.It doesn't matter that it was paid back after the election was over -- if Trump didn't have the cash on hand he should have gotten the loan himself, as he can loan money to his own campaign.
Again, after the election was over. To not be a crime, Trump needed to have paid off the NDA with his own money, not have Cohen get a loan and then Trump pay him a few months later.
Cohen pleaded guilty for perks..Ami, was also offered a non-prosecution deal...This will work its way through the appeals process. Trump will continue to run....Great, then maybe Trump shouldn't have paid Cohen back, particularly writing on the checks that it was a retainer payment. After all, Cohen ended up being charged with campaign finance violations for paying Stormy Daniels and served time in Federal Prison. Though I'm also confused, because I keep see it being claimed that it was "Cohen's elaborate scheme" but also seeing that Trump promised to pay Cohen back -- seems like those two ideas contradict each other. Either way, since Cohen was convicted of campaign finance violations, I'm not sure how it can be claimed that the NDA had nothing to do with the campaign and was completely legal; particularly since Cohen was convicted after Trump had paid him back.
Last edited:
Upvote
0