finance laws isn t really high on the list. on the other hand, the fact that you have the two other people in the room, as carol said, saying that this was a campaign payment and not a, quote unquote, personal transaction or private transaction as the president has tried to make it sound has really just made it impossible for him to provide an explanation that makes him sound innocent. yeah, that s it, carol. this is unambiguous situation in which the judge, the prosecutors, two of the three people in the room all agree what was happening was a criminal conspiracy to commit a felony and the president is the only one left denying it. it is a discreet and easily understandable crime that he appears to have committed. he s really isolated on this. you know, you make a really good point. the other thing i would say about it is one of the things that they re really worried about, and we ve talked about this a lot over however long
i mean, yesterday the president as long-time personal lawyer was sentenced to three years in federal prison. then immediately following his sentencing, prosecutors almost simultaneously unsealed what is basically a cooperation agreement with a company that made illegal payments to benefit the president s campaign in an arrangement that was worked out overtly between that company and the president s campaign. the president s own company appears to have been used to cover up another illegal campaign payment with falsified records and accounts. there are a handful of executives within the president s company who would seem to have had the authority within the company to commit that kind of, what looks like accounting fraud or potentially tax fraud in terms of writing checks, directing disbursements, misleading accounting entries. one of those handful of kbektives who had that authority is granted immunity by
i think when you look at some of the president s policies that have caused a significant amount of human suffering, obviously trying to get around campaign finance laws isn t really high on the list. on the other hand, the fact that you have the two other people in the room, as carol said, saying that this was a campaign payment and not a, quote unquote, personal transaction or private transaction as the president has tried to make it sound has really just made it impossible for him to provide an explanation that makes him sound innocent. yeah, that s it, carol. this is unambiguous situation in which the judge, the prosecutors, two of the three people in the room all agree what was happening was a criminal conspiracy to commit a felony and the president is the only one left denying it. it is a discreet and easily understandable crime that he appears to have committed. he s really isolated on this. you know, you make a really good point. the other thing i would say about it is one o
successive developments, because so many of them have happened in such quick succession. in the past week or so, we have seen at least one news development per day that alone would be the biggest scandal to hit any other president in at least a year if not an entire term in office. we ve been having them daily for more than a week now, and they just keep coming. i mean, as yesterday, the president s long-time personal lawyer was just sentenced to three years in federal prison. then immediately following his sentencing, prosecutors almost simultaneously unsealed what amounts to basically a cooperation agreement that they entered into with a company that made illegal payments to benefit the president s campaign in an arrangement that was worked out overtly between that company and the president s campaign. the president s own company appears to have been used to cover up another illegal campaign payment with falsified records and accounts.
election law. this is not a crime. this is at worst, at worst a civil violation. i don t even think it is bad. me running for office, i can donate to my campaign unlimited sums. yes, i would have to report that. but this is debatable if this was even a campaign payment. why? richard is trying to debate it right here. let s be honest. you have no idea why donald trump paid this money. you can speculate. fair enough, what you re doing. you can say he wanted to spare embarrassment. you don t know that. can i just say one quick thing to him, the same people who would buy the fact that donald trump meant to say would or wouldn t to vladimir putin would believe the notion that on october 25th he paid off stormy daniels from something ten years ago and having nothing to do with the presidential campaign. that same person would believe that. nobody else in the country would. i didn t is stormy daniels russian or kremlin connected? do you have information we don t? it s a serious questi