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][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]

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

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.

[/quote]

"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."[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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

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. [/quote]

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.  [/quote]

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. 
[/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