(12-14-2018 06:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 06:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 12:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 12:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Does that make him feel like a big boy still?
I understand his point that any inkling of personal rationale for the payments renders the campaign expenditure moot.
However, all evidence points to motivations being campaign related, and none point to there being a personal motivation. Of course one could assume that there was a personal motivation, but there needs to be evidence of that 0.001% personal motivation.
All Tanq has that indicates I "don't understand the law" is his own opinions of how the law should be applied. I mean, I know that every lawyer knows they're right about the law, so I've tried to not get into this issue too much.

There is evidence of the personal motivation. It's called "pattern of behavior," with is a recognized legal principle. Basically, you can presume intent from a pattern of past behavior. And Trump has paid off women before, several times. I agree that there evidence points to a campaign relationship. But under the specific wording of the statute, and related cases law, that's not enough.

I get this - but I have googled and read that Wikipedia article, and maybe I missed this, but I’ve not seen any other examples of Trump paying hush money to a mistress. settling a sexual assault case that was brought to court is much different. That’s a reactive response and not a proactive response. Trump being a serial philanderer that gets sued every once in a while doesn’t create a pattern of behavior that suggests he always proactively pays off his mistresses to keep quiet.
Can you show me other examples of Trump proactively paying mistresses off to keep quiet about affairs?

Jill Harth, circa 1997, for one.

Citation?

All I see is that she took Trump to court and they then settled out of court. As I said, a reactive response, which is very different.