There's a long road ahead before this comes to fruition. Notice some terms used in the article"
Cohen’s accusation
a candidate for federal office
Cohen did not name Trump in court, but his lawyer, Lanny Davis, said afterward that he was referring to the president.
Hmmm, his lawyer "explaining" this outside of court means it's not under oath or part of the Court record.
“Today he (Cohen) stood up and testified under oath that Donald Trump directed him to commit a crime
No, he didn't.
Under U.S. election law, campaign contributions, defined as things of value given to a campaign to influence an election, must be disclosed. A payment intended to silence allegations of an affair just before an election could constitute a campaign contribution
The italicized "could" is open to debate.
All parties involved in this have a long ways to go. If a crime has been committed, they need to be addressed and result in conclusions of similar occurrences of past instances.
There's a long road ahead before this comes to fruition. Notice some terms used in the article"
>Cohen’s accusation
>a candidate for federal office
>Cohen did not name Trump in court, but his lawyer, Lanny Davis, said afterward that he was referring to the president.
Hmmm, his lawyer "explaining" this outside of court means it's not under oath or part of the Court record.
>“Today he (Cohen) stood up and testified under oath that Donald Trump directed him to commit a crime
No, he didn't.
>Under U.S. election law, campaign contributions, defined as things of value given to a campaign to influence an election, must be disclosed. A payment intended to silence allegations of an affair just before an election *could* constitute a campaign contribution
The italicized "could" is open to debate.
All parties involved in this have a long ways to go. If a crime has been committed, they need to be addressed and result in conclusions of similar occurrences of past instances.
There's a long road ahead before this comes to fruition. Notice some terms used in the article"
Hmmm, his lawyer "explaining" this outside of court means it's not under oath or part of the Court record.
No, he didn't.
The italicized "could" is open to debate.
All parties involved in this have a long ways to go. If a crime has been committed, they need to be addressed and result in conclusions of similar occurrences of past instances.