Paying hush money to an accuser is prima facie evidence a subject is open to blackmail?

[kentuck]

If Donald Trump is willing to pay women hundreds of thousands of dollars to stay quiet about relationships in the past, what would he be willing to pay to keep embarrassing information from being leaked by the Russians? That is a question that needs to be asked.

[gratuitous]

1. This is such a bone-simple point

But I don't hear anyone asking it, either on the news shows or in the daily presser with Sarah Sanders. It's a glaring and baffling omission.

[kentuck]

2. It seems like an important point to me, also.

But, we do not see the connection made by the media??

[unblock]

3. It's more than merely prima facie evidence, it's a compelling demonstration

In almost all respects, it *is* submitting to blackmail. Really the only differences are:

(A) the people doing the "blackmailing" didn't do anything illegal as far as we know. They acquired their knowledge of embarrassing information through willing and informed cooperation with Donnie, and didn't threaten anything other than legal use of that information; and

(B) Donnie only parted with his own money. Or maybe cohen's money. ... a lot of it and repeatedly to multiple people for multiple embarrassing incidents.


It's so compelling that it's nearly impossible to even imagine how he could possibly convince anyone objective that he would do this but wouldn't use state secrets or the powers of office as payment in lieu of cash.