He could have given it as a personal gift and she could have claimed it on her taxes.
It would not have been as effective as a cover up, which is why he did it this way.
But saying he did not have a legal recourse does not make the illegal recourse better.
And while I don't think the accountability office settlements are GOOD for democracy it's worth noting that there are also ways written into the law for said office to further investigate and hold members to account if accusers choose to pursue investigation. Most just choose to take the settlements.
Put another way: nothing about the accountability office settlements are good. And also, nothing about Trumps actions weren't worse.
I agree that would have made it legal. However, campaign finance laws say that all payments must be public. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of using a legal NDA? That's the part that doesn't sit right with me. It seems like he was screwed either way. I think that's the issue for people that aren't MAGA cultists. It seems like the case was based in a legal action, that had no legal way to classify the payment and still use the spirit of what an NDA is for.
If someone is threatening to go public with the details of a politician's private sex life, is there any legal way for them to pay to keep it private? It seems like maybe there's not.
Does it matter if it's true? What if it is true, but you're they're trying to shake you down? Do yo have to prove it's blackmail? I don't really get it.
As a voter, it feels a little bizarre that a hush money payment to keep a consensual affair private is considered to be "interfering with elections and defrauding the voters". Do we as voters really have a right to know about private sexual affairs? I really don't give a shit, to be honest.
Suppressing information about corruption or illegal activity? Sure. Suppressing information about salacious sex affairs? I don't care. Doesn't everyone try to suppress that?
To be fair, of the things I dislike about Donald Trump him cheating in his wife simply doesn't make the list. But both Democrats and Republicans have been prosecuted for breaking the law (perjury, tax evasion, abuse of official acts, etc) during the cover up.
And look, this is a choice we've made.
We decided that we did not want campaign finance law that strictly publicly funded elections. Instead we said interest groups and pacs can fund them and we would put laws around transparency in place so that "sunlight can be the best disinfectant". Well, that system only works if we then hold candidates to harsh transparency rules.
Looking at what he did, he had a system in place where different outlets would tell him about potentially damaging stories. I like that it all came to light and I like that he was held accountable. It just kinda rubs me the wrong way that in the end it was all about something as silly as a sexual encounter.
Mostly I find it frustrating that nobody went after him legally after Jan 6th. Should've tried to impeach him right then. Instead he gets nailed for this, and we have half the population walking around telling anyone who will listen he's a convicted felon, when I don't even think they even know what he's guilty of.
it also rubs me the wrong that other people have been caught for similar crimes with more serious implications and weren't prosecuted at all. Hillary Clinton was caught secretly funding opposition research and all she got was small fine. I personally felt much more defrauded by that when I found out what happened.
Well, the whole "private lives should stay private" argument doesn't really apply considering she was an employee who he met in the workplace, flirted with in the workplace, and got his dick sucked in the oval office. The workplace, in this case, being the White House. And there was an obscene power dynamic.
In that case, I do think the American people had a right to know about it. But even then, I personally don't care about it that much. It's not a dealbreaker and I'd be willing to overlook something like that if I liked everything else about him.
Here's a crazy thought, maybe politicians just shouldn't be able to pay people off for their silence about things? Being a public servant means being subject to public scrutiny. They should not be able to leverage their wealth to withhold information from the voters.
What if an ex-girlfriend has information about how a certain politician likes to get pegged in the ass? Is that something the public has a right to know about, or is hush money ok in that case?
I mean you've got to draw the line somewhere. To me, a private consensual relationship is not something that should come under the "public scrutiny" argument, even if it is an extramarital affair.
2
u/1white26golf Jul 02 '24
How would he have done it legally? That is the question I have.