I get it. One-time Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards was once accused of campaign finance violations arising from hush payments to a mistress, but was not convicted. That makes people say maybe Donald Trump didn’t commit any crimes for which he can be convicted? That’s a take that makes a person sound “smart” and “lawyerly” and not tempted into hyperbole.

It’s also a surface-level analysis that ignores key differences between the Edwards case and the mounting evidence against Donald Trump. Comparing the two is like saying “Fran is sitting there drinking her third cup of coffee right now, so why are you on my case?” as you ram two lines up your nose in the break room.

The cases of John Edwards paying off his mistress and Donald Trump paying off his mistresses are easily distinguishable. Let’s roll through the three highlights:

1. TRUMP’S CO-CONSPIRATORS ADMIT TO THE FRAUDULENT CONSPIRACY

Do you remember that time John Edwards’s personal attorney pleaded in open court to violating campaign finance laws and lying to Congress at the behest of the candidate? No, you don’t remember that, because that DIDN’T HAPPEN to John Edwards.

Trump’s personal attorney, Michael Cohen, just got sent to jail. He admitted to paying off two women, Stephanie Clifford and Karen McDougal. He admitted to lying about it. He alleges that he did so at the behest of Donald Trump.

John Edwards did have co-conspirators rolling on him. But the prosecution could not show that either Edwards, or anybody on his staff, solicited campaign contributions specifically for the purposes of paying off his mistress, Rielle Hunter. There was no tape of Edwards telling his lawyer to make it “cash.” There was no tape of Edwards pretending to know nothing about the hush money payments that he himself ordered.

The key witness against Edwards was a junior staffer named Andrew Young. Young testified to a devious scheme he helped Edwards execute. But, crucially for distinguishing purposes, Young could not testify to giving Edwards the money to execute his expensive cover-up. From the Daily Beast:

In a stunning revelation, the witness alleged the multimillionaire Edwards first asked him for a loan knowing that the Youngs had recently come into a windfall of some $400,000 on the sale of their home. Asked for his response to Edwards by the prosecutor, Young replied, “I said, ‘No, sir.’ We needed that money to build our new house.” And, Young added, “We always had trouble getting reimbursed from the office. Giving him two or three hundred dollars once in a while was one thing, but …” His voice trailed off and the point was made. (To hear Young tell it, Edwards rarely dipped into his own pocket—not even the day Young drove the lovers to a clinic to get their shots prior to their alleged trip to Africa.) According to Young, after he turned down Edwards’s request for a loan the senator instructed him to approach a dear friend, David Kirby, and ask for money. That didn’t work. Young says he and Edwards discussed the idea of asking über-wealthy Texas lawyer Fred Baron for financial help since he had been generous in the past. The senator nixed that idea, said Young, saying Baron was too close to his political rivals—Bill and Hillary Clinton—and, besides, Baron was “too much of a gossip.” Then, serendipitously, a note from one of Edwards’ richest donors arrived offering help. Rachel “Bunny” Melon wanted John to be the next president so he could “rescue America.”

Compare that to Michael Cohen’s ADMISSION that he loaned Trump the money to pay off Stormy Daniels.

John Edwards’s main defense was that he didn’t know he was using “campaign” money when he paid off Hunter. He argued that he did not know that the “serendipitous” donation Young testified to was “campaign” money. I find that argument to be bollocks, but Trump cannot credibly make the same claim. That’s in part because of the OTHER co-conspirator who kind of rolled on Trump today.

2. THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER WAS PART OF THE HUSH MONEY SCHEME

You might remember that the National Enquirer actually broke the story about John Edwards’s sordid affair. The publication did not break the story on Trump’s affairs, because they were in on it.

American Media Inc., the publisher of the National Enquirer, has finally officially admitted to that, today. From Talking Points Memo:

After Michael Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York announced that prosecutors had previously reached an agreement not to prosecute the National Enquirer’s parent company over its payment to kill Karen McDougal’s story about her alleged affair with President Trump. As part of the agreement, American Media, Inc., admitted that it paid McDougal $150,000 in an attempt to influence the 2016 election, according to a statement from the U.S. attorney’s office. “The Office also announced today that it has previously reached a non-prosecution agreement with AMI, in connection with AMI’s role in making the above-described $150,000 payment before the 2016 presidential election,” the U.S. attorney’s office said in a statement on Cohen’s sentencing. “As a part of the agreement, AMI admitted that it made the $150,000 payment in concert with a candidate’s presidential campaign, and in order to ensure that the woman did not publicize damaging allegations about the candidate before the 2016 presidential election. AMI further admitted that its principal purpose in making the payment was to suppress the woman’s story so as to prevent it from influencing the election.”

You can tell me all you want that Donald Trump was too stupid to know that Michael Cohen’s money was a campaign contribution, but you cannot credibly say that Trump didn’t know the National Enquirer’s money was not a contribution, or that he didn’t recognize catching-and-killing McDougal’s story was an “in-kind” contribution.

So that means Trump is left with arguing that he didn’t know that the Enquirer was paying off mistresses on his behalf which… MAKES NO GODDAMN SENSE.

Karen McDougal has always been a bigger danger to Trump than Stormy Daniels because of AMI’s involvement. Trump’s defenses against campaign finance violations involving McDougal basically requires Cohen and David Pecker to organize expensive payments and underhanded schemes to kill McDougal’s story, without once asking Trump, “Hey, did you f**k Karen McDougal?”

People like to throw around the term “plausible deniability” like it inculcates wrongdoers who are smart enough to not keep notes about their criminal enterprises. But we shouldn’t read “plausible” out of the phrase. Trump can, of course, deny that he had any knowledge of what AMI was doing on his behalf, but NOBODY is required to believe him. If Cohen says that they paid off McDougal and AMI says that they paid off McDougal and everybody agrees that they did it to influence the election, and Trump was aware that there was a “Karen McDougal” running around with stories to tell, then Trump saying “I didn’t know they were trying to influence the election” is not an argument that passes the smell test.

John Edwards didn’t have this problem. Edwards’s defense did not rest on him not knowing who Reille Hunter was, or not knowing that people were trying to keep her quiet. Edwards was not asking people to disregard common freaking sense.

Instead, Edwards’s lawyers positioned the former candidate in a completely different position than lackeys are advocating we view Donald Trump.

3. JOHN EDWARDS ADMITTED TO BEING A HORRIBLE HUMAN

The key to John Edwards’s defense was not that he didn’t have an affair while his wife was stricken with cancer. He didn’t deny paying his mistress off in hopes that she would keep quiet. He admitted that he was a horrible human being who lacked the moral character to lead a nation. He just didn’t know that the money he used to support his gross life were campaign donations. From TIME:

The victory of the former North Carolina Senator and onetime presidential candidate was in part due to a shrewd tactical decision by the defense: it played up the bad person/criminal distinction brilliantly. Edwards never tried to clear his name. Even in his postverdict remarks, he declared: “While I do not believe I did anything illegal, or ever thought that what I was doing was illegal, I did an awful, awful lot that was wrong.” In case there was any doubt, he referred to his “sins,” which he insisted that he alone was responsible for. This approach played into the fundamental weakness of the prosecution’s case…. While the government presented a convincing case for Edwards’ general turpitude, what it failed to do was show that he had committed a crime. This prosecution was a stretch from the beginning. Edwards was accused of violating campaign-finance laws, but those laws are notoriously arcane. None directly addresses a candidate’s or his staff’s soliciting contributions to cover up a candidate’s affair. It was not surprising that, navigating this murky legal landscape, at least some jurors would accept the defense’s contention that the funds were gifts rather than campaign contributions — and that the campaign-finance laws therefore did not apply.

The only way out for Trump is… down. Like, figuratively on his knees, begging for forgiveness. Trump has yet to ADMIT to having these affairs with these women. The argument, last seen emanating from sentient canker sore Tucker Carlson, that Trump was “extorted” by Daniels and McDougal, plays into the hands of Trump’s (eventual) prosecutors.

Remember the facts of the story. These are undisputed: Two women approach Donald Trump and threaten to ruin his career and humiliate his family if he doesn’t give them money. That sounds like a classic case of extortion. Yet, for whatever reason, Trump caves to it, and he directs Michael Cohen to pay the ransom. Now, more than two years later, Trump is a felon for doing this. It doesn’t seem to make sense.

Dude, if Trump has an extortion case against Daniels or McDougal, he should bring it. Michael Avenatti is always happy to work. But in the meantime, the argument that Trump was afraid of these women is (wait for it) MOTIVE to engage in a criminal scheme to violate campaign finance laws.

There’s no “but it was a really bad story” exception to campaign finance rules. They’re just the rules. “I had a good reason for violating the rules” is… NOT A RULE.

And if it ever gets in front of an impartial jury (which it won’t, also because we don’t have a machine which allows up to go back to in time and abduct people with no opinions on President Trump), Trump’s repeated lies about the core affairs are what’s going to sink him.

John Edwards admitted to all of his dirty dealings, which gave him credibility when he argued that in the heat of all of his lust he wasn’t aware where all the money was coming from. Remember, the key “donation” that was at issue in the Edwards case was money that was washed through a number of sources to obscure its true origin.

Here, Trump is lying about all of these affairs, but we’re supposed to believe him when he says that he didn’t know where the money came from and/or he didn’t know using the money was a violation of law? Come on.

Edwards played his hand in a focused manner to get out of the specific charges of campaign finance violations. Trump is playing his hand randomly to… I don’t know, sell more hats? There has been no sound or even consistent legal strategy to deal with any of the allegations that have beset Trump for two years, and I don’t think he’ll come up with one any time soon.

Which is why Trump won’t “get away” with this like Edwards did. The two situations have almost nothing to do with each other anymore. John Edwards was a failed presidential candidate arguing a specific legal technicality to keep himself out of jail. Trump is a successful presidential candidate under investigation by seemingly every law enforcement agency in the country who isn’t in jail already because the Secret Service works for him. The legal danger the two men were in is not comparable.

The John Edwards defense cannot save Trump now.

Elie Mystal is the Executive Editor of Above the Law and the Legal Editor for More Perfect. He can be reached @ElieNYC on Twitter, or at elie@abovethelaw.com. He will resist.