Cognitive dissonance and bias confirmation...

So in the ongoing debate over whether or not Trump committed a campaign finance crime, we can see first hand how cognitive dissonance and bias confirmation work. I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that those who believe Trump is guilty are relying 100% on cognitive dissonance and bias confirmation to come to their conclusions.

I will explain why:

They refuse to acknowledge that another argument exists.

This absolute refusal to acknowledge another side is the most extreme and most damning level of cognitive dissonance and bias confirmation that can take place.

It's one thing to acknowledge counter-arguments, take issue with the points involved, debate those points in an intelligent manner, and be able to establish in a logical manner why those counter-arguments are wrong.

But that isn't what is taking place here.

What is taking place is a complete refusal to accept other arguments, and a complete absolute dependency on the argument that they want to believe. This can be seen by the constant use of the Cohen plea as the absolute and only argument that matters. It is quite literally the "only" argument that they fall back on,

But of course it's not the only argument. It's simply the only argument that their cognitive dissonance and bias confirmation allows them to believe matters.

The reality is that there is a major disagreement here. The Federal Elections Commission for one has taken a stance that the NDA is not a campaign expense and therefore a refusal to report the use of the NDA not a criminal action.

The idea that the findings and legal determinations of the Federal agency responsible for overseeing campaign finance laws is irrelevant to this debate is laughable. Again, such an refusal to accept the FEC as a valid entity in this situation is little more than absolute proof that your belief is 100% guided by cognitive dissonance and bias confirmation.

Let's dispense of the back and forth between a variety of legal experts (with the acknowledgement that most agree with the FEC, rather than the prosecutors) - because in most ways it is just an extension of the two arguments.

So to be fair. For me (or anyone else) to suggest that they are attempting to remove the idea of cognitive dissonance and bias confirmation from their brain, you must at the very least acknowledge the argument being made by the other side.

I acknowledge it and I declare it weak for several reasons:

• Nobody has ever been convicted of this sort of crime in the past. The only person who was charged was aquitted. If this case was so solid, then John Edwards would have been found guilty. You are literally arguing that our history of campaign laws (and a jury) was wrong. 
• Moreover, there were incriminating circumstances in the Edwards case that do not exist today. Those payoffs went into seven figures, and it was unlikely that Edwards could have paid for this out of his own pocket. Edwards arguably used his position as Presidential candidate to attract donors to pay for something that benefited him personally. While I appreciate that this seems unethical, it was technically found to be not "illegal" and he was ultimately acquitted. 
• Trump on the other hand could easily pay for these NDAs. He didn't require the use of donors or any campaign money to pay for it. He ultimately reimbursed Cohen for the payments. As long as that money did not come from his campaign, then he committed no crime. 
• Dozens of politicians have paid out 17 million dollars for settlements that included NDAs. Again, not a single one of them was charged with a crime, in spite of executing the very same actions. If what Trump did was illegal, then so was the actions of these congressmen. 
• Lastly, there is literally no reason why the FEC would have reason to play politics with this situation. In fact, their conclusions regarding NDAs far precedes the situation with Trump. On the flip side,  there is every reason why an aggressive prosecutor would want to add more charges to a plea, especially if those charges can in any way implicate someone of prominence. It makes them look important. 
• One of the two is wrong. Either the independent Government agency (responsible for overseeing campaign finance laws) that made this determination long before Trump was in the picture, or SDNY prosecutor (with no formal affiliation with overseeing campaign finance laws) who has every reason to "trump" up charges on someone who is attempting to avoid jail time. There is literally no logical reason to believe that the former is wrong, and the latter is correct.

I have yet to see anyone come up with a logical and reasonable argument as to why Edwards, dozens of members of congress, and lord knows who else in politics might have paid hush money have not been convicted of crimes for their actions, if said actions were indeed a crime. Of course, it you are wondering why you have seen no such argument (other than it doesn't really exist),  cognitive dissonance and bias confirmation is the simple and correct answer. 

Btw... if your response to this post is to cut and paste documents from the prosecution, regurgitate the Cohen plea, or simply call me a name... then you are proving yourself to be under the direct and absolute influence of cognitive dissonance and bias confirmation.

If you want to prove me wrong. Accept that the argument of the Federal Elections Commission exists and is relevant. Then explain why their reasoning is wrong. 

It's really that simple. If you cannot (or refuse to try). Then you admit I am right!