Sorry yes, please disregard to money transaction, As I do agree and that is part of my point try to "prove" if the action was in benefit of the campaign
1) Yes Trump admitted to the NDA. like you stated NOTHING illegal about it. Second YES it is recorded that the money transfer is in relation to the NDA- nothing out of the ordinary that proves "Campaign Violation" Just that fact that it was a NDA and a payment. PEOPLE ARE TRYING to insinuate that it is in relation to a campaign violation. THAT is where were are trying to prove that....
2) SORRY Actually good point (a little forhead slap) True Trump is the Campaign....SORRY I can have a memory dump once in a while right =P
3) Sorta, The issue is currently that I am trying to sift through is, "Felony, Misdemeanor or slap on the wrist" depending how a prosecutor and how it is applied. a TREND, under misdemeanor or a slap on the rest is relevant. IF this is felony of some sort then its irrelevant. BUT I dont think this will make it pass the level of a misdemeanor at WORST? So The trend may play a part of the defense to SAY we have DONE HUNDREDs of NDA with multiple women before and after the "accused" payment. This is the only one in which reached political momentum, was it in fact campaign related or was it because it was intentionally politically driven. The tone I set is that Karen McDougal's NDA and payment was brought into play BUT disappeared into obscurity because McDougal wanted no part in the political world? Stormy on the other hand with Avennati took it to a whole new level. THEY LOST... that sets the tone in the fact was the NDA an ACTUAL violation or was in intentionally used as a political tool intentionally by the plaintiff.
4) What cover up in infidelity terms, NOT a cover up for a Presidential elections ( OR that is currently the job of the prosecution to PROVE) So semantics (yes yes its a cover up) But prosecution wise... was it a personal cover up or a Campaign cover up. That none of us know yet...
5) Same as above.... Wont deny it... I got it I agree.
YES NDA's are LEGAL. SO I have asked this but no one has yield me an answer.
As PUBLIC persona. IF I bound by the NDA.... When I address the public NOT under oath (SO in other words the NDA prohibits me to discuss it) If I am in front of a mic and asked the question the NDA essentially forces me to LIE as I AM BOUND BY IT? NOW if I was under oath under testimony, Then Does that Nullify the NDA and I must speak the truth about it RIGHT?
TRUMP was NEVER under oath when discussing Stormy Daniels. MORE so Lying about it to the public (or denying it per the NDA agreement) Is what he is bound too? CAN anyone answer me this questions. IF Trump Violated the NDA and spoke about in public. Would Stormy have rights to recovery under the NDA disclosure? Of course right because essential he violates the NDA?
Sorry a little off track but I never got a straight answer about HOW that applies to a public person when infront of the cameras like Trump was? HE was bound to lie due to the restrictions to discuss it right?
There's plenty of proof that these were campaign contributions but I will go into that later.
1) But there was something extraordinary about it. AFAIK, In all of US history, there has been only one other case of a NDA being agreed to and paid for in order to protect someone who was a presidential candidate.
Pretty extraordinary, no?
And in that one other case, it WAS criminally prosecuted.
But in the other case, the NDA was signed BEFORE the candidate became a candidate. IOW, Trump is the only presidential candidate in US history to pay for an NDA
while he was either a candidate for president or the president
So yeah, it's pretty extraordinary
2) Thanks
3) ok, now I see what you're getting at with the trends.
AFAIK, it is not known if there are any more Trump affairs being covered up with NDAs. However, that is irrelevant.
What we do know is that
A) both of these affairs happened long before Trump became a candidate.
B) Both women wanted to publicly speak out about the affairs
C) both women hired a lawyer to represent them and protect them
D) both women hired the same lawyer
E) That lawyer contacted both David Pecker (of AMI) and Trump in the belief that one or both might want to play to keep the women quiet
F) At the time, neither Trump nor Pecker offered to pay for an NDA
G) Subsequently, both women did speak to the media about their affairs with Trump
H) Just weeks before Election Day, AMI offered to pay both women in exchange for their signature on an NDA
4) given the facts above, if Trump wanted to hide his infidelity from his wife, then why didn't he, or Pecker, pay for an NDA when the women's lawyer first contacted them? And why did he offer to pay AFTER the women had publicly disclosed the affairs?
And why just weeks before Election Day?
