That's also clearly not the issue under discussion anymore. Rather, it's Trump's lies about hush money payments made on his behalf by third parties. Clinton never did that. And let's make no mistake here, given this week's revelations. Trump has been directly implicated in the commission of two separate felonies. He is effectively an unindicted co-conspirator at this point, and is likely facing potential legal jeopardy as a result.

Speaking as someone who's worked in politics for over 30 years now, there is nothing opaque about basic campaign finance law. Further, candidates and campaign committees are hardly left to their own devices in interpreting the law. Federal regulations clearly define the term "personal use," and personal use can include legitimate legal expenses incurred by said candidate or campaign committee.

But there is no category of expenditure under that federal definition of personal use for "hush money" (or for that matter, "blackmail"). I very seriously doubt that the payment of a specific remuneration to an adult film actress by one's personal attorney in order to secure her silence about a past encounter with the candidate qualifies as a legitimate legal expense for his campaign. Rather, how that expense is ultimately defined will really depend upon the facts and circumstances in this case.

On Friday the entire fifth floor of a Washington D.C. court room was shut down, so that investigators in Special Counsel Robert Mueller's probe could obtain a subpoena in secrecy.

Journalists were shooed away, Politico reported, and hungrily waited for scoops--apparently none came.

As Mueller's team waged battle behind closed doors, there was speculation that Trump himself was the target of the subpoena.

"At every level, this matter has commanded the immediate and close attention of the judges involved -- suggesting that no ordinary witness and no ordinary issue is involved," former federal