Megan Kelly Obliterates Dan Abrams on Trump Hush Money Case!

In a heated debate that showcased her sharp legal mind, Megan Kelly dismantled Dan Abrams’ arguments on the legality and morality of hush money payments made by Donald Trump. Known for her straightforward approach and legal expertise, Kelly demonstrated why these payments are neither illegal nor morally wrong, contrary to Abrams’ assertions.

The Heart of the Debate

The crux of the debate centered on whether paying hush money to protect a political campaign constitutes a violation of campaign finance laws. Kelly, who is not known for being a Trump supporter, approached the issue with objective clarity. She argued that paying for a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) is a common practice and not inherently illegal. Abrams, on the other hand, insisted that using such payments to shield a campaign crosses legal boundaries.

Legal vs. Moral Issues

Kelly was quick to draw a distinction between legal and moral issues, a crucial point often missed in heated political discussions. She emphasized that while some might view the payments as morally questionable, this does not translate to legal wrongdoing. “There’s nothing illegal about paying hush money for an NDA,” Kelly stated. “It’s done all the time.”

Abrams attempted to argue that spending $130,000 to protect a campaign is inherently wrong, suggesting it violated campaign finance laws. However, Kelly countered effectively by asking him to cite the specific law Trump allegedly violated. When Abrams mentioned campaign finance laws, Kelly responded with, “You don’t know what you’re talking about.”

The Substantiality Standard

One of Kelly’s most compelling arguments hinged on the “substantiality standard,” a concept from Supreme Court precedents. She explained that for a payment to be considered a campaign contribution, it must be substantially connected to the campaign. If the payment could have been made outside the campaign context, it does not meet this standard.

Kelly highlighted that paying hush money to protect personal privacy could happen regardless of a campaign. This undermines Abrams’ assertion that the payment was a campaign contribution. Her knowledge and articulation of legal standards left Abrams struggling to defend his position.

Objective Perspective

Despite her history of tension with Trump, Kelly’s objective stance in this debate was clear. She focused on the facts and legal principles rather than personal biases. This impartiality made her arguments even more powerful. Kelly noted that personal agreements, such as the one between Trump and Melania, should not be conflated with campaign issues.

Abrams’ attempt to pivot the discussion to the morality of paying hush money to a porn star fell flat. Kelly deftly handled this by pointing out the irrelevance of personal moral judgments in legal discussions. “I’m not talking about the sex,” she stated, “I’m talking about the $130,000 to keep her quiet to protect his campaign.”

The Role of Privacy

Kelly also touched on the broader issue of privacy for public figures. She questioned whether candidates for office should lose all rights to privacy once they declare their candidacy. This is a significant point, especially in today’s media landscape, where personal and campaign matters often become intertwined.

Kelly argued that expecting complete transparency about every aspect of a candidate’s life is unrealistic and unfair. This perspective is crucial for understanding the balance between public interest and personal privacy.

Misinterpretation of Campaign Finance Laws

Throughout the debate, Kelly highlighted how campaign finance laws are often misunderstood and misapplied in political arguments. She pointed out that the payments in question do not qualify as campaign contributions under established legal standards. This clear explanation exposed the weaknesses in Abrams’ argument.

Abrams’ reliance on the idea that the payments were meant to protect the campaign did not hold up against Kelly’s well-founded legal insights. She reiterated that unless the payments are directly and substantially tied to campaign activities, they do not breach campaign finance regulations.

Final Thoughts

Megan Kelly’s performance in this debate was a masterclass in legal reasoning and objective analysis. Her ability to separate legal facts from moral judgments and personal biases demonstrated why she is a respected voice in political and legal discussions. Despite not being a Trump supporter, Kelly defended the legal principles at play with precision and clarity, dismantling Dan Abrams’ arguments effectively.

Kelly’s arguments underscored the importance of understanding the nuances of campaign finance laws and the need to distinguish between legal and moral issues in political debates. Her objective stance and legal expertise provided a clear, fact-based perspective on a contentious issue, reminding us all of the value of reasoned, informed debate in the public sphere.

Share

11 Comments

  1. Avatar photoSteven Reply

    From a strictly legal perspective, it is irrelevant if Stormy and Trump ever even met before the trial. Paying for an NDA does not mean the event happened. There are known cases where people have been paid not to make accusations that are known to be false. Sometimes it is just less expensive to pay someone to to go away than to prove they are liars.

    Another minor issue is if Stormy going public would have effected voters anyway. At the time, he was in his 3rd marriage. It is widely believed, if not actually proven, that his first marriage ended as a result of an affair with his second wife. In short. if he did have an affair with Stormy, that would be entirely consistent with what the public already knew about his history.

    1. Avatar photoJager GEHRING Reply

      As far as we know the Clinton’s don’t pay nda’s, the accusers all just seem to get suicided.

  2. Avatar photoBret Reply

    Now, any time a hush money payment is issued, from this point on all politicians should be considered guilty of campaign finance laws, even if there is really no such law. At one time Congress had a tax payer funded account just for this. Maybe they still do. Let’s go back and prosecute all who used this account. Also If you have owned a prosperous business, sooner or later a consumer will sue you, it’s the country we live in and the justice system is set up to make these NDA payments instead of the long drawn out court proceedings and cost.

    1. Avatar photoAllen Reply

      Bret, good analysis. The only thing I would question Trump on is why Stormy Daniels? It was the same question I had of Bill Clinton with Monica Lewinsky. Neither to me are attractive in the least. Maybe Trump used two bags in case one fell off.

  3. Avatar photoMAllen Reply

    My question is; why did Stormy go back on her word when she accepted the “hush” money? She is dishonest and represents being a bad character.

  4. Avatar photofrank Reply

    The article was good but I disagree with the writers assertion that Kelly is not a Trump supporter. Although she had a period when she didn’t like Trump, she later came to realize that Trump was doing some good for the country and recanted her prior bias.
    The two of them had a reconciliation of sorts and she has been a moderate supporter of his for the past 3 years.
    I still don’t trust her but in the past few years, she has begun to once again earn my guarded respect.
    Just my opinion.

  5. Avatar photoSHRW ?? Reply

    The verdict was a foregone conclusion before the trial even began. And the judge was clearly prejudiced. The trial was a formality and used as a public show case to sway public opinion against Trump. It is questionable that the prosecutors even proved that a crime had been committed much less Trump being guilty. Of course die hard democrat partisan knew Trump was guilty or at least wanted him to be. Die hard Trump supporters never believed it and still don’t. Of the others, some may have been persuaded of Trump’s quilt while others may not have been due to the prosecutor’s and judge’s conduct. Will this help or hurt the democrat agenda is difficult to say.

  6. Avatar photoC.W. LAUDERDALE Reply

    America, take it from a very old soldier/cop. Most of the actions taken by the democrats over the years since Donald Trump came down that escalator are really are not all that new. But, the act of falsely convicting an ex-president clearly demonstrates that the democrats dominating the political class, the bureaucracy, the media, and academia have become louder, dumber, crazier, and have no regard for the rights/concerns of their fellow Americans. Question you have to ask yourself is, do you really know the true degree of threat the democrats present to you, your family, and your way of life?

    As a retired soldier/cop who joined the army at the age of 17, spent over 30 years as a soldier after swearing to protect the American people from all threats (both foreign and domestic), followed by another six years as a civilian police chief sworn to serve and protect the folks in my community, I present you with seven of the many lessons learned I first presented in 1989 to the citizens of my community.

    AN OLD SOLDIER/COP’S LESSONS LEARNED.

    *The ‘Seven C’s of Leadership’ according to a survey of Vietnam era ground combat veterans listed of the order of their importance to the veterans are; Candor, Competence, Consistency, Commitment, Courage, Compassion, and Courtesy. The reason the soldiers chose “candor” is because candor encompasses both omission and co-mission. To a combat soldier the lack of absolute candor, be it co-mission or omission, are equal sins! It has been my observation that, democrats are masters of co-mission while republicans are masters of omission!

    *The American people are the most effectively lied to people in modern times thanks primarily to the political class, the bureaucracies at every level of government, the media, and academia.

    *Most of the politicians/bureaucrats/academicians/media types I have encountered during my years as a soldier and a cop I most kindly refer to as; self-serving, witless, cowards. Note: Prior to retiring to the deep woods I referred to most of the before mentioned folks as self-serving, witless, cowardly, piss-ants. After a short time in the woods I came to know that piss-ants are neither self-serving nor witless, and certainly not cowards!

    *After carefully watching the whole of the political class for many years I can say without reservation that most of the group will sell their souls and our bodies just to remain in power.
    *The end goal of the elites and their minions is not (nor ever has been) socialism, communism, fascism, or capitalism. The elites of the world have used all manner of ideologies, religions, terrorism, wars, etc., to drive the masses/peasants/serfs/whoever in one direction. That direction leads to one of the oldest forms of human control ever employed in the history of mankind. That form of human control is Feudalism!

    *The greatest threats to the American people are the corrupt and/or incompetent politicians/bureaucrats/academicians found at every level of government/academia, and the majority of the so-called media.

    *If the so-called ‘progressive movement’ continues unchecked a number of able veterans/soldiers/cops are going to be presented with a challenge/decision. Are the American people worth another drop of our sweat and/or our blood?

    Soldier/Cop, Retired

    Note: These seven lessons learned and 12 more were prepared as part of the prelude of a book that detailed an investigation that named as subjects a large number of politicians and bureaucrats including a first term senator, a governor, and a state attorney general. All three of the politicians went on to become President of the United States of America.

    Soldier/Cop/Grunt, Retired

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *