Reply to Indictment Monday?

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Indictment Monday?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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.[/quote]

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.........[/quote]
Psssst… there are also state laws against election-related crimes.
[twitter]https://x.com/lawofruby/status/1782812389517218012?s=46&t=kf1qYlCXQnKgUhJWEIu2vg[/twitter][/quote]
Using the word conspiracy does not mean Trump has violated this state law.  There was no crime, no 'unlawful means'.  What Bragg has shown Trump has done is not in violation of this law.
And the grand jury did not indict Trump as being in violation of this law.
On top of that the NY law is a misdemeanor.  Bragg has taken a misdemeanor, argued it was in pursuit of committing another misdemeanor,. to produce 34 felony counts.[/quote]
You’re replying to a post that explains what you clearly don’t understand. Here it is again: “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.” Hope that helps! 🙂[/quote]

Not indicted by the grand jury.  Indeed Bragg can't enforce federal campaign finance law.  The Feds looked at it and passed.  It is not a campaign expenditure.  Not everything that helps a campaign counts as campaign expenditure.
However, this is not the crime Bragg is arguing, but a NY election law.  This NY election law requires unlawful means, at which point Bragg is back to trying to enforce federal law.

The surprising part is that the NYT editorial page ran a column by a liberal arguing how weak this case is.  The whole point is to try and get a jury full of Democrats to convict Trump for election headlines, regardless of how weak the case is and that it will fall on appeal.  Having the jury's main news source explaining the weak case is unexpected.[/quote]

Bragg isn’t enforcing federal law.  Under NY law, the second crime that leads to the felony upgrade can be a federal crime.  You may not like that, but that’s the law.  Bragg submitted a declaration listing dozens of cases where this statute has successfully been used in conjunction with federal crimes.[/quote]
And Pecker testified today that he knew this was a crime because he had done the same thing for Arnold Schwarzenegger while he was running for governor and he asked two different lawyers about it. He still did it because it was good for business, but he knew what he was doing was an illegal in kind undisclosed campaign contribution.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics