Trump's Bill Clinton defense

[DonViejo]

Mike Allen1 hour ago

Floating possible future defenses, Rudy Giuliani is invoking Republican overreach against Bill Clinton in arguing that President Trump's use of hush money during the campaign is "a non-crime."

What he's saying: The comparison, Giuliani told me, is "an extraordinary intrusion into what we regard as our private lives."

"The law says that if there's another purpose [for the payment], it's not a campaign contribution," Giuliani said. "Here, the purpose was to protect you against your wife. Protect her from embarrassment. Protect your family from embarrassment. Protect your business from embarrassment."

"Members of Congress use campaign funds to settle harassment claims," Giuliani added. "They're going to be the ones to impeach him?"

Giuliani recalled that he was the Republican mayor of New York when House Republicans impeached Bill Clinton in 1998. He thought that his party was making "a critical error" by making it a partisan issue.

"Bill Clinton used it very well against us," Giuliani said. "We ultimately got killed [politically], and should have."

more
https://www.axios.com/donald-trump-bill-clinton-sex-campaign-finance-075fd930-d641-4680-8ebb-e9b7f7b6eb64.html

[edhopper]

1. Sure Giuliani

I am sure you have the best interest of the Democrats at heart.

[underpants]

2. But we know Trump's payments via NE were related to the election.

Bill's was in the second term so there was no election connection.
Oh I see Mike Allen's reality check now

Then there's this from Rudy:
"When a man becomes president, he shouldn’t be subject to a review of his entire life."
Really? Whitewater ringing any bells? How about Obama's birth certificate and all sorts of wild allegations about he and his wife Michelle?

[2naSalit]

3. The purpose of this exercise in insanity

is to slowly make us all mad to match their mindset.

Not working.

[Jarqui]

4. "The law says that if there's another purpose [for the payment], it's not a campaign contribution,"

That is not what the judge in the Edwards case ruled.
They ruled if but one of the reasons for the payment had to do with the election, it was a campaign contribution.

Again, Giuliani is lying like his boss.

[mr_lebowski]

6. JINX!

[mr_lebowski]

5. Judge inr the John Edwards case said the opposite, Moron ...

By your logic, a person could say 'My being elected Senator would improve the life of my wife and kids, so all my contributors were just wanting my family to have a better life' ... same exact bullshit logic you're trying to put out there.

Judge in Edwards case said if contributions are even IN PART towards your campaign, they're campaign contributions. The timing in the Edwards case undermined the claim against Edwards in this regard, but COMPLETELY reinforces it with Trump. Plus we have witnesses against Trump, and didn't with Edwards.

You are a LIAR Rudy.

[Turbineguy]

7. Protect from embarrassment?

That dog won't hunt.

[mercuryblues]

8. That shit won't fly in court

Not when Clifford did an interview in 2011 with In Touch weekly about the affair. He can't claim he paid her off to keep his wife from finding out when the story has been in the public domain for 5 years.

https://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/stormy-daniels-full-interview-151788/

Porn star Stormy Daniels confirmed she had an affair with Donald Trump in an exclusive 2011 interview with In Touch, five years before she was reportedly paid $130,000 by the president to stay silent about the fling. Here is the full transcript of the interview conducted by former Bauer Publishing reporter Jordi Lippe-McGraw. Subsequent to the interview, Ms. Daniels took and passed a polygraph test. The account of her affair was corroborated by one of her good friends and supported by her ex-husband, both of whom also passed polygraph tests. This interview has been lightly edited for clarity and style.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

9. I thought he was going to deny sex with Putin

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

10. Trump's "Bill Clinton defense'... now THAT'S funny!!

[Caliman73]

11. Just trying to muddy the waters.

Rudy is likely banking on the idea that people will see the stories as similar in nature. As others pointed out, Clinton's political victory of the Republicans regarding impeachment was at the tail end of 6 years of harassment stemming from the stupid Whitewater investigation which turned up nothing but continued, in the now much used but completely inaccurate "fishing expedition", into various other issues including the Monica Lewinsky affair. Now I will say that Clinton could have and should have just said that he had an affair and it was nobody's business but his, Hillary's, and Lewinsky's but he tried to be a lawyer and got cute with words. The Republicans however, impeached him for basically not being adult enough to admit to an affair. People were over it.

Trump's situation is different, everything that is alleged (the Russia scandal, the money stuff, and the hush money) are all related to one thing, helping Trump get elected. Whatever the motives, the mechanisms, or whatever, the goal was to help Trump win election. Therefore there was a conspiracy to commit elections fraud in which Trump and his organization used various means to hide information, accept illegal assistance, and various other crimes for the purpose of being elected president.

We don't care about his personal life, sick and disgusting as he is, we just care that he cheated to gain the presidency, which he had NO DAMN business being considered for in the first place.