Anyone who has gotten through their first year of law school knows that the Trump "Hush Money" trial in NYC is, legally speaking, a travesty. There is no crime, no jurisdiction, no meaningful evidence being adduced, and so on.
So what is a Leftist Attorney-pundit supposed to do when addressing the trial for publication? The linked article is one possibility. Try to make the case that it has been proven that Trump KNEW that the money paid to Cohen included a payoff for the Slut-in-Question.
But the rational response to this assertion is, "So what?" Assume that the money paid to Daniels was compensation for her remaining publicly silent about her claim that they had fucked. Nothing illegal about it. NDA's are done all the time. Assume that Trump knew that this money was going to be characterized as a legal expense or even as a campaign contribution? So what? At worst, that would be a misdemeanor for which a fine would be assessed, and BTW, the Statute of Limitation has run on that "crime." So what?
Smoking gun?
Gimmeafukinbreak.
