What are the chances of Trump's political survival to 2020?

[_Chap]

Oddly enough, <LOOK! A pregnant squirrel>.

What did you think of the Napolitano segment on Fox, subgenius?

I mean, he's a legal expert on Fox, so you should be fine with his views on Cohen and Trump, amirite?

[_EAllusion]

AMI, the owner of the Enquirer, is cooperating with SDNY and has admitted that the payments were made in concert with the Trump campaign for the purpose of of silencing the Trump affair stories to influence the election. That's now everyone involved but Trump contending that they understood the payments as campaign activity. Or, in subgenius's universe, offered no evidence at all.

[_Xenophon]

AMI, the owner of the Enquirer, is cooperating with SDNY and has admitted that the payments were made in concert with the Trump campaign for the purpose of of silencing the Trump affair stories to influence the election. That's now everyone involved but Trump contending that they understood the payments as campaign activity. Or, in subgenius's universe, offered no evidence at all.

You see, what we have here is just a classic "he said vs everyone else involved said" scenario. How could one reasonably draw a conclusion from that?

[_EAllusion]

AMI, the owner of the Enquirer, is cooperating with SDNY and has admitted that the payments were made in concert with the Trump campaign for the purpose of of silencing the Trump affair stories to influence the election. That's now everyone involved but Trump contending that they understood the payments as campaign activity. Or, in subgenius's universe, offered no evidence at all.

You see, what we have here is just a classic "he said vs everyone else involved said" scenario. How could one reasonably draw a conclusion from that?

I think the convictions of the President's personal lawyer, campaign manager, deputy campaign manager, national security adviser, and campaign adviser prove that Trump can't catch a break and is the innocent victim of all these unscrupulous people surrounding him for inscrutable reasons. The sad thing is I know he picks the best people, so imagine how much worse it is for everyone else.

[_Xenophon]

I think the convictions of the President's personal lawyer, campaign manager, deputy campaign manager, national security adviser, and campaign adviser prove that Trump can't catch a break and is the innocent victim of all these unscrupulous people surrounding him for inscrutable reasons. The sad thing is I know he picks the best people, so imagine how much worse it is for everyone else.

Given the part I bolded, it can really only be through a Deep State Conspiracy™ that all off Obama's staff wasn't indicted on similar or worse charges.

[_Kevin Graham]

Oddly enough, the sort of campaign finance crime that Trump is seemingly being accused of is the same that Senator Edwards was accused of with regards to payment to a specific pregnant lady....Intent was indeed the operative word and he ultimately prevailed because he was paying her not to tell his wife and not to keep it from the voters (the latter being a happy consequence of the former).

Which is something Trump cannot reasonably claim because these women were threatening him for years and Trump didn't pay them off because he obviously didn't care what his wife thought. But as soon as he becomes a potential President he pays right before the election.

Don't you believe in enforcing the rule of law?

[_Xenophon]

AMI, the owner of the Enquirer, is cooperating with SDNY and has admitted that the payments were made in concert with the Trump campaign for the purpose of of silencing the Trump affair stories to influence the election. That's now everyone involved but Trump contending that they understood the payments as campaign activity. Or, in subgenius's universe, offered no evidence at all.

On a much more serious note you can read the document from SDNY here: https://www.axios.com/national-enquirer ... 8cd7a.html

Jump straight to the last 2 pages of admitted facts to get to the juicy details of what all AMI did to cover-up for Trump.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

You going to admit President Trump committed a crime now?

- Doc

[_Brackite]

Speaking of Hannity, what about his connection with Cohen? Haven't heard much on that lately, have we?

CAUGHT DELETING MICHAEL COHEN TWEETS ON EVE OF FORMER Trump LAWYER SENTENCING

Fox News host and President Donald Trump superfan, Sean Hannity, was caught deleting past tweets that tied him to the president's former attorney, Michael Cohen, just hours before Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison Wednesday.

Hannity's attitude toward Cohen quickly soured over the past several months after it became clear how much distance the attorney was putting between himself and his former boss. Fox News' most dedicated Trump sycophant went on a furious tweet deletion campaign Tuesday afternoon, with five of the more than 270 Twitter posts he deleted Tuesday directly referencing Cohen, Hill Reporter first reported. Just hours later, Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison after he pleaded guilty in August to eight charges, including several tax fraud and campaign finance violations.

A "Screenshot Bot" Twitter account uncovered Hannity's attempt to sever past ties with Cohen, who Trump recently referred to as "weak," by deleting tweets discussing their relationship.

https://www.newsweek.com/sean-hannity-m ... il-1256322

[_subgenius]

Oddly enough, the sort of campaign finance crime that Trump is seemingly being accused of is the same that Senator Edwards was accused of with regards to payment to a specific pregnant lady....Intent was indeed the operative word and he ultimately prevailed because he was paying her not to tell his wife and not to keep it from the voters (the latter being a happy consequence of the former).

Which is something Trump cannot reasonably claim because these women were threatening him for years and Trump didn't pay them off because he obviously didn't care what his wife though. But as soon as he becomes a potential President he pays right before the election.

Don't you believe in enforcing the rule of law?

The Edwards example was provided to illustrate how problematic it is to prove "intent" with regard to campaign finance crime. For example, if you consider the law in its own terms of "to influence an election" then buying shampoo or a new suit could be interpreted as such a thing because wanting to look good for the voters etc. So, while you can argue that Trump paid hush money to these women for "influencing an election" he can easily argue otherwise in the absence of actual evidence for his intent - and that is sufficient to absolve him of wrong-doing in a criminal sense. And even if you could prove that campaign money was used or that private money was intended for "influence", then impeachment is waaay unlikely and a fine is waaay more likely (you would be surprised at how many campaign violations actually occur - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_A ... _of_crimes ).