Maybe it does. Most statutes do not.  Ignorantia non excusat.

Excuse me, what actions the President took violated which statute exactly?

This is the question the Mueller report will answer.

---

His payments to 2 porn stars violated campaign finance law.  Michael Cohen plead guilty to violating that statute. If what he did was not technically a violation, he would not have plead guilty.

Prove it.

It's not in dispute.  Cohen plead guilty.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Excuse me, what actions the President took violated which statute exactly?

This is the question the Mueller report will answer.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Prove it.

It's not in dispute.  Cohen plead guilty.

They had Cohen on millions in tax evasion and he plead to their trumped up political charges in a kangaroo court to avoid 20 years in jail. This is not really in dispute except to those on the side of the kangaroo court.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Prove it.

It's not in dispute.  Cohen plead guilty.

Some bozo pleading guilty does not prove that the action in question was a crime, especially when it saved him from being charged with actual and much more severe, crimes.

Common sense says that paying a blackmailer from campaign funds would have been the actual crime. Paying off a blackmailer from one's private account is not a violation of campaign finance law in any sense. You can't have it be a violation both ways, the payment has to come from one or the other pool of money. Or is it always illegal to pay off a blackmailer (in which case the crime is not a campaign finance violation)?

Show me one, just one, instance of anyone other than Trump being accused of a campaign finance violation for spending one's own money to pay off a blackmailer.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

This is the question the Mueller report will answer.

Ken Starr started his investigation in August of 1994 and didn't release anything until September of 1998. Mueller is moving at lightning pace compared to that, yet I don't really remember conservatives pissing and moaning about how long the Starr report took to tell us all that Bill Clinton cheated on Hillary, and, I mean, can you blame him?

---