ADVERTISEMENT

From LA Times opinion page, this is a pretty simple explanation for us non-lawyers.....

independencebowlmainstay

All-Pro NFL
Gold Member
Jan 11, 2006
21,094
68,103
113
Basically, the prosecution argued that Hillary Clinton might have won if Trump hadn’t paid Stormy Daniels for her silence, and so you must convict him for covering up what amounts to a campaign finance violation that he was never charged with or convicted of in the first place. The Department of Justice and Federal Election Commission declined to pursue this novel theory, but it found a home in the Manhattan district attorney’s office.

It sounds crazy just typing it. Having never stuck the landing on “Russia stole the election” in 2016, Democrats have moved on to this rationalization of Hillary Clinton’s loss being caused by Trump paying for the silence of a porn star he allegedly had sex with in 2006. (Trump maintains it didn’t happen; Daniels says it did.)
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT

Go Big.
Get Premium.

Join Rivals to access this premium section.

  • Say your piece in exclusive fan communities.
  • Unlock Premium news from the largest network of experts.
  • Dominate with stats, athlete data, Rivals250 rankings, and more.
Log in or subscribe today Go Back