3 ms·
> I think he'd have a tough job convincing people that he arranged to pay someone in the middle of an election campaign in 2016 not to talk about something that
by meragrin_ 4y ago
> I think he'd have a tough job convincing people that he arranged to pay someone in the middle of an election campaign in 2016 not to talk about something that happened in 2006 without any expectation of it having any impact upon his campaign
You must have not seen much of the 2016 election crap then. It was pretty clear that it would not have any impact on his campaign by the time she was paid in October. So much crap was said about him by then, it would have been a small side story.
- notahacker 4y ago> It was pretty clear that it would not have any impact on his campaign by the time she was paid in October. So much crap was said about him by then, it would have been a small side story. All election ads and promotional activities are small side stories in the scope of the overall campaign (and his family heard all the other crap said about him too!). Fact remains that the time Trump's lawyer paid off Stormy Daniels was years after the event but weeks before an election, and Cohen has already pleaded guilty to it being a campaign finance violation. In the scope of campaign finance violations it doesn't sound like a particularly massive one and the reasons for not wanting to declare it are obvious and unlikely to be related to any sort of wider conspiracy, but it stretches credulity to imagine that the election wasn't a consideration.