Indictment Monday?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This is who magas defend thinking it gets one over on us. It doesn’t. It just tells everyone that magas have no morals, no ethics and no brains.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just a reminder that Trump is being tried for two things: first, for falsifying business records, which he did to cover up the fact that he paid off Stormy Daniels so that she couldn’t tell the world he’d had an affair with her when Melania was home nursing his infant son. Such falsification would normally be a misdemeanor, but because it was in pursuance of a second crime—in this case not reporting campaign expenditures, which are what Alvin Bragg is arguing those payments were—it incurs a second, felony charge.

It’s also why this is election interference.

The key part of your statement is "what Alvin Bragg is arguing" the payments were.
And, that would be a federal crime..... so, not in Alvin Bragg's domain.

I agree it is election interference. By Bragg.

Now, explain why this case was not taken up by the former prosecutor and actually passed over by Bragg himself initially.........

Psssst… there are also state laws against election-related crimes.

Suppressing stories, even to influence an election, is NOT a crime.
Bragg is hoping the jury will not understand this fact.

Good thing that's not what he is charged with, then.

He is charged with falsifying business records to conceal hush money paid to porn star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election.

"The conduct in question here, namely, the recordkeeping, and the failure to disclose this, if there was any obligation as a campaign contribution, all occurred in 2017."

The election was already over if indeed he "falsified business records."

The payments made by Pecker and Cohen in 2016 were illegal campaign contributions. The falsified business reports in 2017 were fraudulent business records in New York for the purpose of covering up the illegal campaign contributions made in 2016. Also the 2017 reimbursements to Cohen for his 2016 illegal campaign contributions are new illegal campaign contributions. You lose.

You have not explained how falsifying records in 2017, after the election, could influence the election that has already happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole case is built on a house of cards and is a travesty.
This is a case searching for a crime.

How can Trump be charged under a NY State election law when he was never running for a state office? (and, it is a misdemeanor that has expired even if it did apply)
An NDA is totally legal - Bragg is trying to imply that it was illegal.
There has been no evidence of any criminal activity.

You know nothing about election law or any other law.

Democratic attorney and former chief counsel to Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee Julian Epstein joined "Brian Kilmeade Radio" Wednesday to discuss why he believes New York City's case against former President Trump is "outrageous" and an "embarrassment to the legal system."

JULIAN EPSTEIN: This is an outrageous case. It's an embarrassment to the legal system that this case is being brought. The notion, the theory that we heard on Monday from the prosecution, that this is about election interference because the Trump campaign was trying to suppress bad stories. Suppressing bad stories is not election interference. Everyone does it. Nondisclosure agreements are perfectly legal. If suppressing bad news were election interference, then what would one say about the Biden campaign in 2020 that actively used all of its resources to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop case? I mean, that had much more serious implications in terms of the election than the alleged affair with Donald Trump in 2016. You know, everything falls apart, Brian. I mean, the idea that this was election interference, the conduct, the election occurred in November of 2016. The conduct in question here, namely, the recordkeeping, and the failure to disclose this, if there was any obligation as a campaign contribution, all occurred in 2017.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/democratic-lawyer-calls-ny-trump-trial-embarrassment-legal-system

Wonder how much Fox charged Trump for this? The national enquirer has more credibility vs fox.

What in the hell are you talking about?
This was a piece about a DEMOCRATIC lawyer calling this case an embarrassment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole case is built on a house of cards and is a travesty.
This is a case searching for a crime.

How can Trump be charged under a NY State election law when he was never running for a state office? (and, it is a misdemeanor that has expired even if it did apply)
An NDA is totally legal - Bragg is trying to imply that it was illegal.
There has been no evidence of any criminal activity.

You know nothing about election law or any other law.

Democratic attorney and former chief counsel to Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee Julian Epstein joined "Brian Kilmeade Radio" Wednesday to discuss why he believes New York City's case against former President Trump is "outrageous" and an "embarrassment to the legal system."

JULIAN EPSTEIN: This is an outrageous case. It's an embarrassment to the legal system that this case is being brought. The notion, the theory that we heard on Monday from the prosecution, that this is about election interference because the Trump campaign was trying to suppress bad stories. Suppressing bad stories is not election interference. Everyone does it. Nondisclosure agreements are perfectly legal. If suppressing bad news were election interference, then what would one say about the Biden campaign in 2020 that actively used all of its resources to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop case? I mean, that had much more serious implications in terms of the election than the alleged affair with Donald Trump in 2016. You know, everything falls apart, Brian. I mean, the idea that this was election interference, the conduct, the election occurred in November of 2016. The conduct in question here, namely, the recordkeeping, and the failure to disclose this, if there was any obligation as a campaign contribution, all occurred in 2017.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/democratic-lawyer-calls-ny-trump-trial-embarrassment-legal-system

Wonder how much Fox charged Trump for this? The national enquirer has more credibility vs fox.

What in the hell are you talking about?
This was a piece about a DEMOCRATIC lawyer calling this case an embarrassment.

Is he Democratic like Dershowitz? You magas put so much emphasis on this stuff as if it proves your arguments. It doesn’t, for one thing (although good to know you put more stock in what a Democrat says and thinks) and for another, this court case shows what blackmail can make a person do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just a reminder that Trump is being tried for two things: first, for falsifying business records, which he did to cover up the fact that he paid off Stormy Daniels so that she couldn’t tell the world he’d had an affair with her when Melania was home nursing his infant son. Such falsification would normally be a misdemeanor, but because it was in pursuance of a second crime—in this case not reporting campaign expenditures, which are what Alvin Bragg is arguing those payments were—it incurs a second, felony charge.

It’s also why this is election interference.

The key part of your statement is "what Alvin Bragg is arguing" the payments were.
And, that would be a federal crime..... so, not in Alvin Bragg's domain.

I agree it is election interference. By Bragg.

Now, explain why this case was not taken up by the former prosecutor and actually passed over by Bragg himself initially.........

Psssst… there are also state laws against election-related crimes.

Suppressing stories, even to influence an election, is NOT a crime.
Bragg is hoping the jury will not understand this fact.

Good thing that's not what he is charged with, then.

He is charged with falsifying business records to conceal hush money paid to porn star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election.

"The conduct in question here, namely, the recordkeeping, and the failure to disclose this, if there was any obligation as a campaign contribution, all occurred in 2017."

The election was already over if indeed he "falsified business records."

The payments made by Pecker and Cohen in 2016 were illegal campaign contributions. The falsified business reports in 2017 were fraudulent business records in New York for the purpose of covering up the illegal campaign contributions made in 2016. Also the 2017 reimbursements to Cohen for his 2016 illegal campaign contributions are new illegal campaign contributions. You lose.

You have not explained how falsifying records in 2017, after the election, could influence the election that has already happened.

You are slow. The 2016 payments were illegal campaign contributions that influenced the election. The falsified records were an illegal fraud to cover-up the illegal payments that influenced the election. The cover-up is both a new crime and a continuation of the previous crime it is covering up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just a reminder that Trump is being tried for two things: first, for falsifying business records, which he did to cover up the fact that he paid off Stormy Daniels so that she couldn’t tell the world he’d had an affair with her when Melania was home nursing his infant son. Such falsification would normally be a misdemeanor, but because it was in pursuance of a second crime—in this case not reporting campaign expenditures, which are what Alvin Bragg is arguing those payments were—it incurs a second, felony charge.

It’s also why this is election interference.

The key part of your statement is "what Alvin Bragg is arguing" the payments were.
And, that would be a federal crime..... so, not in Alvin Bragg's domain.

I agree it is election interference. By Bragg.

Now, explain why this case was not taken up by the former prosecutor and actually passed over by Bragg himself initially.........

Psssst… there are also state laws against election-related crimes.

Suppressing stories, even to influence an election, is NOT a crime.
Bragg is hoping the jury will not understand this fact.

Good thing that's not what he is charged with, then.

He is charged with falsifying business records to conceal hush money paid to porn star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election.

"The conduct in question here, namely, the recordkeeping, and the failure to disclose this, if there was any obligation as a campaign contribution, all occurred in 2017."

The election was already over if indeed he "falsified business records."

The payments made by Pecker and Cohen in 2016 were illegal campaign contributions. The falsified business reports in 2017 were fraudulent business records in New York for the purpose of covering up the illegal campaign contributions made in 2016. Also the 2017 reimbursements to Cohen for his 2016 illegal campaign contributions are new illegal campaign contributions. You lose.

You have not explained how falsifying records in 2017, after the election, could influence the election that has already happened.

You are slow. The 2016 payments were illegal campaign contributions that influenced the election. The falsified records were an illegal fraud to cover-up the illegal payments that influenced the election. The cover-up is both a new crime and a continuation of the previous crime it is covering up.

When Cohen made the payment to Stormy Daniels he did so with the agreement that Trump would reimburse him and then some, so the reimbursement agreement was part of the crime. Trump Org “repaid” Cohen $420k for his $130k payment to Daniels and Weisselberg left notes detailing the math to $420k including the extra added because by laundering it as legal fees it would be taxable income for Cohen. The business fraud was a key part of the election fraud.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole case is built on a house of cards and is a travesty.
This is a case searching for a crime.

How can Trump be charged under a NY State election law when he was never running for a state office? (and, it is a misdemeanor that has expired even if it did apply)
An NDA is totally legal - Bragg is trying to imply that it was illegal.
There has been no evidence of any criminal activity.

You know nothing about election law or any other law.

Democratic attorney and former chief counsel to Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee Julian Epstein joined "Brian Kilmeade Radio" Wednesday to discuss why he believes New York City's case against former President Trump is "outrageous" and an "embarrassment to the legal system."

JULIAN EPSTEIN: This is an outrageous case. It's an embarrassment to the legal system that this case is being brought. The notion, the theory that we heard on Monday from the prosecution, that this is about election interference because the Trump campaign was trying to suppress bad stories. Suppressing bad stories is not election interference. Everyone does it. Nondisclosure agreements are perfectly legal. If suppressing bad news were election interference, then what would one say about the Biden campaign in 2020 that actively used all of its resources to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop case? I mean, that had much more serious implications in terms of the election than the alleged affair with Donald Trump in 2016. You know, everything falls apart, Brian. I mean, the idea that this was election interference, the conduct, the election occurred in November of 2016. The conduct in question here, namely, the recordkeeping, and the failure to disclose this, if there was any obligation as a campaign contribution, all occurred in 2017.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/democratic-lawyer-calls-ny-trump-trial-embarrassment-legal-system

Wonder how much Fox charged Trump for this? The national enquirer has more credibility vs fox.

What in the hell are you talking about?
This was a piece about a DEMOCRATIC lawyer calling this case an embarrassment.

lol sure. If you are on fox you are a paid to produce fake news.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just a reminder that Trump is being tried for two things: first, for falsifying business records, which he did to cover up the fact that he paid off Stormy Daniels so that she couldn’t tell the world he’d had an affair with her when Melania was home nursing his infant son. Such falsification would normally be a misdemeanor, but because it was in pursuance of a second crime—in this case not reporting campaign expenditures, which are what Alvin Bragg is arguing those payments were—it incurs a second, felony charge.

It’s also why this is election interference.

The key part of your statement is "what Alvin Bragg is arguing" the payments were.
And, that would be a federal crime..... so, not in Alvin Bragg's domain.

I agree it is election interference. By Bragg.

Now, explain why this case was not taken up by the former prosecutor and actually passed over by Bragg himself initially.........

Psssst… there are also state laws against election-related crimes.

Suppressing stories, even to influence an election, is NOT a crime.
Bragg is hoping the jury will not understand this fact.

Good thing that's not what he is charged with, then.

He is charged with falsifying business records to conceal hush money paid to porn star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election.

"The conduct in question here, namely, the recordkeeping, and the failure to disclose this, if there was any obligation as a campaign contribution, all occurred in 2017."

The election was already over if indeed he "falsified business records."

The payments made by Pecker and Cohen in 2016 were illegal campaign contributions. The falsified business reports in 2017 were fraudulent business records in New York for the purpose of covering up the illegal campaign contributions made in 2016. Also the 2017 reimbursements to Cohen for his 2016 illegal campaign contributions are new illegal campaign contributions. You lose.

You have not explained how falsifying records in 2017, after the election, could influence the election that has already happened.

The records in 2017 were laundered reimbursement for the payment that Cohen made in 2016 before the election. Cohen paid Stormy Daniels in 2016. Trump waited until after the election to reimburse Cohen so that it would help conceal the illegal payments. But by paying Stormy Daniels in 2016 to prevent her from going to the media with a story that might have had a detrimental effect on his campaign, Trump tried to illegally influence his election. The agreement made in 2016 was the illegal action. The payments made in 2017 are just proof that there was an agreement and payment made for the NDA that prevented Daniels from going to the press before the election.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just a reminder that Trump is being tried for two things: first, for falsifying business records, which he did to cover up the fact that he paid off Stormy Daniels so that she couldn’t tell the world he’d had an affair with her when Melania was home nursing his infant son. Such falsification would normally be a misdemeanor, but because it was in pursuance of a second crime—in this case not reporting campaign expenditures, which are what Alvin Bragg is arguing those payments were—it incurs a second, felony charge.

It’s also why this is election interference.

The key part of your statement is "what Alvin Bragg is arguing" the payments were.
And, that would be a federal crime..... so, not in Alvin Bragg's domain.

I agree it is election interference. By Bragg.

Now, explain why this case was not taken up by the former prosecutor and actually passed over by Bragg himself initially.........

Psssst… there are also state laws against election-related crimes.

Suppressing stories, even to influence an election, is NOT a crime.
Bragg is hoping the jury will not understand this fact.

Good thing that's not what he is charged with, then.

He is charged with falsifying business records to conceal hush money paid to porn star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election.

"The conduct in question here, namely, the recordkeeping, and the failure to disclose this, if there was any obligation as a campaign contribution, all occurred in 2017."

The election was already over if indeed he "falsified business records."

The payments made by Pecker and Cohen in 2016 were illegal campaign contributions. The falsified business reports in 2017 were fraudulent business records in New York for the purpose of covering up the illegal campaign contributions made in 2016. Also the 2017 reimbursements to Cohen for his 2016 illegal campaign contributions are new illegal campaign contributions. You lose.

You have not explained how falsifying records in 2017, after the election, could influence the election that has already happened.

You are slow. The 2016 payments were illegal campaign contributions that influenced the election. The falsified records were an illegal fraud to cover-up the illegal payments that influenced the election. The cover-up is both a new crime and a continuation of the previous crime it is covering up.

Help me understand the difference here......

The Clinton Campaign and the DNC paid for the dossier and listed it as "attorney fees." The FEC investigated, found that they were in violation of campaign finance laws and fined the campaign and the DNC.
https://www.axios.com/2022/03/30/fec-clinton-dnc-steele-dossier-funding

The same FEC investigated the Trump campaign and dropped the investigation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/06/us/politics/trump-michael-cohen-fec.html

So, now, Trump is being criminally charged for an infraction that he supposedly made when Clinton was simply fined?

Explain this, please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just a reminder that Trump is being tried for two things: first, for falsifying business records, which he did to cover up the fact that he paid off Stormy Daniels so that she couldn’t tell the world he’d had an affair with her when Melania was home nursing his infant son. Such falsification would normally be a misdemeanor, but because it was in pursuance of a second crime—in this case not reporting campaign expenditures, which are what Alvin Bragg is arguing those payments were—it incurs a second, felony charge.

It’s also why this is election interference.

The key part of your statement is "what Alvin Bragg is arguing" the payments were.
And, that would be a federal crime..... so, not in Alvin Bragg's domain.

I agree it is election interference. By Bragg.

Now, explain why this case was not taken up by the former prosecutor and actually passed over by Bragg himself initially.........

Psssst… there are also state laws against election-related crimes.

Suppressing stories, even to influence an election, is NOT a crime.
Bragg is hoping the jury will not understand this fact.

Good thing that's not what he is charged with, then.

He is charged with falsifying business records to conceal hush money paid to porn star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election.

"The conduct in question here, namely, the recordkeeping, and the failure to disclose this, if there was any obligation as a campaign contribution, all occurred in 2017."

The election was already over if indeed he "falsified business records."

The payments made by Pecker and Cohen in 2016 were illegal campaign contributions. The falsified business reports in 2017 were fraudulent business records in New York for the purpose of covering up the illegal campaign contributions made in 2016. Also the 2017 reimbursements to Cohen for his 2016 illegal campaign contributions are new illegal campaign contributions. You lose.

You have not explained how falsifying records in 2017, after the election, could influence the election that has already happened.

You are slow. The 2016 payments were illegal campaign contributions that influenced the election. The falsified records were an illegal fraud to cover-up the illegal payments that influenced the election. The cover-up is both a new crime and a continuation of the previous crime it is covering up.

Help me understand the difference here......

The Clinton Campaign and the DNC paid for the dossier and listed it as "attorney fees." The FEC investigated, found that they were in violation of campaign finance laws and fined the campaign and the DNC.
https://www.axios.com/2022/03/30/fec-clinton-dnc-steele-dossier-funding

The same FEC investigated the Trump campaign and dropped the investigation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/06/us/politics/trump-michael-cohen-fec.html

So, now, Trump is being criminally charged for an infraction that he supposedly made when Clinton was simply fined?

Explain this, please.

Clinton didn’t have her business falsify records to cover up the payment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just a reminder that Trump is being tried for two things: first, for falsifying business records, which he did to cover up the fact that he paid off Stormy Daniels so that she couldn’t tell the world he’d had an affair with her when Melania was home nursing his infant son. Such falsification would normally be a misdemeanor, but because it was in pursuance of a second crime—in this case not reporting campaign expenditures, which are what Alvin Bragg is arguing those payments were—it incurs a second, felony charge.

It’s also why this is election interference.

The key part of your statement is "what Alvin Bragg is arguing" the payments were.
And, that would be a federal crime..... so, not in Alvin Bragg's domain.

I agree it is election interference. By Bragg.

Now, explain why this case was not taken up by the former prosecutor and actually passed over by Bragg himself initially.........

Psssst… there are also state laws against election-related crimes.

Suppressing stories, even to influence an election, is NOT a crime.
Bragg is hoping the jury will not understand this fact.

Good thing that's not what he is charged with, then.

He is charged with falsifying business records to conceal hush money paid to porn star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election.

"The conduct in question here, namely, the recordkeeping, and the failure to disclose this, if there was any obligation as a campaign contribution, all occurred in 2017."

The election was already over if indeed he "falsified business records."

The payments made by Pecker and Cohen in 2016 were illegal campaign contributions. The falsified business reports in 2017 were fraudulent business records in New York for the purpose of covering up the illegal campaign contributions made in 2016. Also the 2017 reimbursements to Cohen for his 2016 illegal campaign contributions are new illegal campaign contributions. You lose.

You have not explained how falsifying records in 2017, after the election, could influence the election that has already happened.

You are slow. The 2016 payments were illegal campaign contributions that influenced the election. The falsified records were an illegal fraud to cover-up the illegal payments that influenced the election. The cover-up is both a new crime and a continuation of the previous crime it is covering up.

Help me understand the difference here......

The Clinton Campaign and the DNC paid for the dossier and listed it as "attorney fees." The FEC investigated, found that they were in violation of campaign finance laws and fined the campaign and the DNC.
https://www.axios.com/2022/03/30/fec-clinton-dnc-steele-dossier-funding

The same FEC investigated the Trump campaign and dropped the investigation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/06/us/politics/trump-michael-cohen-fec.html

So, now, Trump is being criminally charged for an infraction that he supposedly made when Clinton was simply fined?

Explain this, please.

Clinton didn’t have her business falsify records to cover up the payment.

Her campaign did!!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just a reminder that Trump is being tried for two things: first, for falsifying business records, which he did to cover up the fact that he paid off Stormy Daniels so that she couldn’t tell the world he’d had an affair with her when Melania was home nursing his infant son. Such falsification would normally be a misdemeanor, but because it was in pursuance of a second crime—in this case not reporting campaign expenditures, which are what Alvin Bragg is arguing those payments were—it incurs a second, felony charge.

It’s also why this is election interference.

The key part of your statement is "what Alvin Bragg is arguing" the payments were.
And, that would be a federal crime..... so, not in Alvin Bragg's domain.

I agree it is election interference. By Bragg.

Now, explain why this case was not taken up by the former prosecutor and actually passed over by Bragg himself initially.........

Psssst… there are also state laws against election-related crimes.

Suppressing stories, even to influence an election, is NOT a crime.
Bragg is hoping the jury will not understand this fact.

Good thing that's not what he is charged with, then.

He is charged with falsifying business records to conceal hush money paid to porn star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election.

"The conduct in question here, namely, the recordkeeping, and the failure to disclose this, if there was any obligation as a campaign contribution, all occurred in 2017."

The election was already over if indeed he "falsified business records."

The payments made by Pecker and Cohen in 2016 were illegal campaign contributions. The falsified business reports in 2017 were fraudulent business records in New York for the purpose of covering up the illegal campaign contributions made in 2016. Also the 2017 reimbursements to Cohen for his 2016 illegal campaign contributions are new illegal campaign contributions. You lose.

You have not explained how falsifying records in 2017, after the election, could influence the election that has already happened.

You are slow. The 2016 payments were illegal campaign contributions that influenced the election. The falsified records were an illegal fraud to cover-up the illegal payments that influenced the election. The cover-up is both a new crime and a continuation of the previous crime it is covering up.

Help me understand the difference here......

The Clinton Campaign and the DNC paid for the dossier and listed it as "attorney fees." The FEC investigated, found that they were in violation of campaign finance laws and fined the campaign and the DNC.
https://www.axios.com/2022/03/30/fec-clinton-dnc-steele-dossier-funding

The same FEC investigated the Trump campaign and dropped the investigation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/06/us/politics/trump-michael-cohen-fec.html

So, now, Trump is being criminally charged for an infraction that he supposedly made when Clinton was simply fined?

Explain this, please.

It is pretty simple. Pecker/AMI, Michael Cohen, and the Trump Organization made illegal campaign contributions for the benefit of Trump's campaign that were not reported by them or by the Trump campaign as campaign contributions or expenditures. They were illegal contributions and they were illegally covered-up.

As you said, the Clinton campaign and the DNC reported their payments as campaign expenses on their campaign finance reports. The payments were legal campaign expenses and did not involve illegal contributions.

The feds did not drop the investigation of the Trump contributions. They went after Pecker and Cohen but let Trump skate by as an unindicted co-conspirator because his DOJ protected him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just a reminder that Trump is being tried for two things: first, for falsifying business records, which he did to cover up the fact that he paid off Stormy Daniels so that she couldn’t tell the world he’d had an affair with her when Melania was home nursing his infant son. Such falsification would normally be a misdemeanor, but because it was in pursuance of a second crime—in this case not reporting campaign expenditures, which are what Alvin Bragg is arguing those payments were—it incurs a second, felony charge.

It’s also why this is election interference.

The key part of your statement is "what Alvin Bragg is arguing" the payments were.
And, that would be a federal crime..... so, not in Alvin Bragg's domain.

I agree it is election interference. By Bragg.

Now, explain why this case was not taken up by the former prosecutor and actually passed over by Bragg himself initially.........

Psssst… there are also state laws against election-related crimes.

Suppressing stories, even to influence an election, is NOT a crime.
Bragg is hoping the jury will not understand this fact.

Good thing that's not what he is charged with, then.

He is charged with falsifying business records to conceal hush money paid to porn star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election.

"The conduct in question here, namely, the recordkeeping, and the failure to disclose this, if there was any obligation as a campaign contribution, all occurred in 2017."

The election was already over if indeed he "falsified business records."

The payments made by Pecker and Cohen in 2016 were illegal campaign contributions. The falsified business reports in 2017 were fraudulent business records in New York for the purpose of covering up the illegal campaign contributions made in 2016. Also the 2017 reimbursements to Cohen for his 2016 illegal campaign contributions are new illegal campaign contributions. You lose.

You have not explained how falsifying records in 2017, after the election, could influence the election that has already happened.

You are slow. The 2016 payments were illegal campaign contributions that influenced the election. The falsified records were an illegal fraud to cover-up the illegal payments that influenced the election. The cover-up is both a new crime and a continuation of the previous crime it is covering up.

Help me understand the difference here......

The Clinton Campaign and the DNC paid for the dossier and listed it as "attorney fees." The FEC investigated, found that they were in violation of campaign finance laws and fined the campaign and the DNC.
https://www.axios.com/2022/03/30/fec-clinton-dnc-steele-dossier-funding

The same FEC investigated the Trump campaign and dropped the investigation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/06/us/politics/trump-michael-cohen-fec.html

So, now, Trump is being criminally charged for an infraction that he supposedly made when Clinton was simply fined?

Explain this, please.

It is pretty simple. Pecker/AMI, Michael Cohen, and the Trump Organization made illegal campaign contributions for the benefit of Trump's campaign that were not reported by them or by the Trump campaign as campaign contributions or expenditures. They were illegal contributions and they were illegally covered-up.

As you said, the Clinton campaign and the DNC reported their payments as campaign expenses on their campaign finance reports. The payments were legal campaign expenses and did not involve illegal contributions.

The feds did not drop the investigation of the Trump contributions. They went after Pecker and Cohen but let Trump skate by as an unindicted co-conspirator because his DOJ protected him.

Well Trump has immunity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just a reminder that Trump is being tried for two things: first, for falsifying business records, which he did to cover up the fact that he paid off Stormy Daniels so that she couldn’t tell the world he’d had an affair with her when Melania was home nursing his infant son. Such falsification would normally be a misdemeanor, but because it was in pursuance of a second crime—in this case not reporting campaign expenditures, which are what Alvin Bragg is arguing those payments were—it incurs a second, felony charge.

It’s also why this is election interference.

The key part of your statement is "what Alvin Bragg is arguing" the payments were.
And, that would be a federal crime..... so, not in Alvin Bragg's domain.

I agree it is election interference. By Bragg.

Now, explain why this case was not taken up by the former prosecutor and actually passed over by Bragg himself initially.........

Psssst… there are also state laws against election-related crimes.

Suppressing stories, even to influence an election, is NOT a crime.
Bragg is hoping the jury will not understand this fact.

Good thing that's not what he is charged with, then.

He is charged with falsifying business records to conceal hush money paid to porn star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election.

"The conduct in question here, namely, the recordkeeping, and the failure to disclose this, if there was any obligation as a campaign contribution, all occurred in 2017."

The election was already over if indeed he "falsified business records."

The payments made by Pecker and Cohen in 2016 were illegal campaign contributions. The falsified business reports in 2017 were fraudulent business records in New York for the purpose of covering up the illegal campaign contributions made in 2016. Also the 2017 reimbursements to Cohen for his 2016 illegal campaign contributions are new illegal campaign contributions. You lose.

You have not explained how falsifying records in 2017, after the election, could influence the election that has already happened.

You are slow. The 2016 payments were illegal campaign contributions that influenced the election. The falsified records were an illegal fraud to cover-up the illegal payments that influenced the election. The cover-up is both a new crime and a continuation of the previous crime it is covering up.

Help me understand the difference here......

The Clinton Campaign and the DNC paid for the dossier and listed it as "attorney fees." The FEC investigated, found that they were in violation of campaign finance laws and fined the campaign and the DNC.
https://www.axios.com/2022/03/30/fec-clinton-dnc-steele-dossier-funding

The same FEC investigated the Trump campaign and dropped the investigation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/06/us/politics/trump-michael-cohen-fec.html

So, now, Trump is being criminally charged for an infraction that he supposedly made when Clinton was simply fined?

Explain this, please.

Clinton didn’t have her business falsify records to cover up the payment.

Her campaign did!!!!!

You don't get it. The crimes with Trump were using his business, not his campaign (a) to pay for campaign expenses and (b) to fraudulently claim that the business was paying Cohen for business-related legal expenses rather than illegally reimbursing him for making illegal campaign contributions.

Clinton's campaign paid legal campaign expenses with campaign money. The FEC was badgered into making a case about the Clinton campaign reporting the payments as campaign legal expenses rather than as opposition research expenses. It is a stupid point that is never prosecuted. The payments were legal, unlike in Trump's case. The Clinton campaign decided that it wasn't worth the cost of fighting over the description, so the they agreed to pay an $8,000 fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just a reminder that Trump is being tried for two things: first, for falsifying business records, which he did to cover up the fact that he paid off Stormy Daniels so that she couldn’t tell the world he’d had an affair with her when Melania was home nursing his infant son. Such falsification would normally be a misdemeanor, but because it was in pursuance of a second crime—in this case not reporting campaign expenditures, which are what Alvin Bragg is arguing those payments were—it incurs a second, felony charge.

It’s also why this is election interference.

The key part of your statement is "what Alvin Bragg is arguing" the payments were.
And, that would be a federal crime..... so, not in Alvin Bragg's domain.

I agree it is election interference. By Bragg.

Now, explain why this case was not taken up by the former prosecutor and actually passed over by Bragg himself initially.........

Psssst… there are also state laws against election-related crimes.

Suppressing stories, even to influence an election, is NOT a crime.
Bragg is hoping the jury will not understand this fact.

Good thing that's not what he is charged with, then.

He is charged with falsifying business records to conceal hush money paid to porn star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election.

"The conduct in question here, namely, the recordkeeping, and the failure to disclose this, if there was any obligation as a campaign contribution, all occurred in 2017."

The election was already over if indeed he "falsified business records."

The payments made by Pecker and Cohen in 2016 were illegal campaign contributions. The falsified business reports in 2017 were fraudulent business records in New York for the purpose of covering up the illegal campaign contributions made in 2016. Also the 2017 reimbursements to Cohen for his 2016 illegal campaign contributions are new illegal campaign contributions. You lose.

You have not explained how falsifying records in 2017, after the election, could influence the election that has already happened.

You are slow. The 2016 payments were illegal campaign contributions that influenced the election. The falsified records were an illegal fraud to cover-up the illegal payments that influenced the election. The cover-up is both a new crime and a continuation of the previous crime it is covering up.

Help me understand the difference here......

The Clinton Campaign and the DNC paid for the dossier and listed it as "attorney fees." The FEC investigated, found that they were in violation of campaign finance laws and fined the campaign and the DNC.
https://www.axios.com/2022/03/30/fec-clinton-dnc-steele-dossier-funding

The same FEC investigated the Trump campaign and dropped the investigation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/06/us/politics/trump-michael-cohen-fec.html

So, now, Trump is being criminally charged for an infraction that he supposedly made when Clinton was simply fined?

Explain this, please.

It is pretty simple. Pecker/AMI, Michael Cohen, and the Trump Organization made illegal campaign contributions for the benefit of Trump's campaign that were not reported by them or by the Trump campaign as campaign contributions or expenditures. They were illegal contributions and they were illegally covered-up.

As you said, the Clinton campaign and the DNC reported their payments as campaign expenses on their campaign finance reports. The payments were legal campaign expenses and did not involve illegal contributions.

The feds did not drop the investigation of the Trump contributions. They went after Pecker and Cohen but let Trump skate by as an unindicted co-conspirator because his DOJ protected him.

They reported it as "attorney fees" when it had nothing to do with attorneys.
They falsely represented the payments - in an effort to cover them up. That is why the Clinton campaign and the DNC were fined over $100,000. $113,000 to be exact.
The FEC absolutely did drop the investigation of the Trump campaign WRT the "hush money" payments. Read the article linked above.
And, hush money payments and NDAs are absolutely LEGAL, despite what the prosecutors will try to tell you.
The only reason Bragg brought the case was because of the temper tantrum by Pomerantz, who has quite the reputation himself.....

Bragg succeeded Vance as district attorney in January 2022. Two people familiar with the matter told NBC News that Bragg and several career prosecutors soon had concerns about the case Pomerantz was building, including his interpretation of the law and a lack of key facts in memos about the potential indictment. The people familiar with the matter said four prosecutors left the team investigating Trump over the way Pomerantz was running it.

The sources said Pomerantz did not provide Bragg with a prosecution memo or an order of proof, a list of claims that needed to be proved to make the case, when Bragg took office. They said the Pomerantz team ultimately produced an order of proof when Bragg asked for one.

Career prosecutors at the Manhattan office also felt distanced from Pomerantz and his team of outside hired attorneys, the people said. They said some declined to join the team because of concerns about Pomerantz’s leadership and investigative process.

The sources said that the Manhattan office’s appellate attorneys — tasked with assessing indictments and cases for any potential challenges in court — had been left out of the process as Pomerantz’s team had pushed for prosecution.

Pomerantz left his post in February 2022, saying in his resignation letter to Bragg: “I believe that your decision not to prosecute Donald Trump now, and on the existing record, is misguided and completely contrary to the public interest.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/manhattan-da-ex-prosecutor-trade-barbs-prosecuting-trump-rcna69599