Listen: Trump defenders draw comparisons to John Edwards
"Were not a campaign finance violation or crime Trump's saying, quote, number one, it wasn't a campaign contribution. If it were it's only civil and even if it's only civil there was no violation based on what we did. Okay. Trump's allies, including Senator John Kennedy at the top of this program. I've been picked to mention former democratic Senator and vice presidential nominee John Edwards when they're defending Trump on this issue. But the two cases seem to be far from the same. Jessica dean is out front. After the southern district of New York implicated, President Donald Trump in two federal election crimes surrounding hush money payments to two alleged former mistresses affairs, the White House denies Trump defenders have been quick to point to one person. John edwards? Look at the John Edwards case we to twenty eleven then failed democratic presidential candidate. And former Senator John Edwards was indicted on six counts related to allegations. He accepted illegal campaign contributions to cover up an extramarital affair and hide his mistress from the public during the two thousand eight election. Those trying to keep this mistake that I made from becoming public prosecutors alleged to wealthy donors gave Edwards over nine hundred thousand dollars in legal contributions to hide his relationship with real hunter who gave birth to his child. There's no question that I've done wrong. All twenty twelve. The case went to trial. A jury acquitted Edwards on one charge and was deadlocked on the other five the Justice department than decided to drop the case. Some Republicans have argued the potential case against Trump would be much like the Edwards case ending without a conviction. The question is then whether or not this so-called hush money is a crime John John Edwards, obviously was prosecuted for the same thing and Justice department failed but the former general counsel of the Federal Election Commission. Larry noble says there are major differences between the two cases you have Trump's attorney who seems to be willing to say that the purpose of these expenditures were for the campaign. Prosecutors have Michael Cohen saying under oath the payments were made to affect the outcome of the election. They had no such witnesses in the Edwards trial. President Trump tweeted the payments were a quote simple private transaction. But noble points to the timing of the payments as a key factor in determining intent where they made simply to keep the alleged affairs, private or to influence the outcome of an election. Hi, everyone Edwards affair occurred during the election with at least one of the payments being made to hunter after the election was over it showed that the payments were being made irrespective of the campaign. They're being made because John Edwards did not want his wife to find out about it. In contrast, the alleged Trump affairs happened years before the critical part of this was was it to affect the election was it for the purpose of influence in the election. They've said previously that oh, no it was about his business reputation. Well, then why didn't they pay a long long before he ran for office that makes it for campaign purposes? And one more thing to think about when it comes to the Trump supporters out there who say look to the Edwards case for guidance here. Larry noble told me remember, John Edwards was indicted. Now, ultimately, he was acquitted on one charge and on the other five it was a hung jury. But he was alternately prosecuted in this case, and right now, of course, no formal charges against the president will wait to see what's next from prosecutors. Aaron all right. Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Jessica next President Trump claiming he has so many"