@robertholtz

1 week ago

The sexual encounter is NOT at the heart of the case. In fact, it has zero legal relevance. Also, it is not illegal to pay someone so-called “hush money.” Monetary compensation in exchange for confidentiality non-disclosure is perfectly legal and incredibly common. This case is about business record-keeping, specifically the categorization of business expenses and the possible use of campaign-related funds. There is literally no reason for Ms. Daniels to even testify other than the media circus frenzy prosecutors wrongly think will damage Mr. Trump’s campaign efforts. Ms. Daniels signed a non-disclosure agreement, agreed to the terms of the agreement, accepted and even spent the associated funds, then proceeded to violate the agreement and breach confidentiality many years later, when she realized that with Mr. Trump now significantly more famous than before, that she could make considerably more money by selling her story to the highest bidder than honoring the deal she had made and abiding to its conditions. But these so-called “salacious details” have no bearing whatsoever and are certainly NOT at the heart of this case as these newscasters wrongly claim. This is an incredibly simple and flimsy case about business records that already exceeded the statute of limitations and would be a misdemeanor at best if not for a very weak theory that campaign funds were used and, if so, whether or not said use was allowed under campaign finance laws.

5 |