Oh yes it is.I'm not sure why, but it seems the Democrats think that paying off a woman to be quiet about a scandal is somehow illegal. Well, it isn't.
Meanwhile, I'm wondering what any of this has to do with collusion with Russia...
And I'll gladly tell you why.
When you contribute to a campaign a "thing of value" it has to be documented and reported. That doesn't even need to be money.
The women were shushed to affect the outcome of the election, so that, by definition, makes it part of the campaign.
Say the president paid with his own money (which it looks like he did). They call that "in kind". It was money paid to affect the outcome of the election, so it was money paid to his campaign.
And it was unreported which means campaign finance laws were broken.
All he had to do was report it.
What's funny is how alike it is to Clinton's BJ. If Bill had reported his BJ from the beginning, Republicans never could have cornered him into lying to his wife.
Ergo,
If Trump had reported his payoffs to his hookers, he never would have broken campaign finance laws.
But Bill never had to pay for his BJ. He got that for free.
And what if he made the NDA payments to avoid personal embarrassment, in whole or in part?
.