It’s not the reason I missed it. But I do appreciate your thoughts. The media outlets are sure portraying it as if it’s true. I don’t see why it isn’t at least a strong likelihood. None of us are on the jury.
It’s not the reason I missed it. But I do appreciate your thoughts. The media outlets are sure portraying it as if it’s true. I don’t see why it isn’t at least a strong likelihood. None of us are on the jury.
Oh.....I missed that one. Yep. That is pretty darn clear. Yeah...she helped cover it all up as well. I have zero doubt that she knew what she was doing was wrong. If nothing else, she said she was treated like family, but doesn't seem to have the gumption to tell Melania about what was going on (as a friend/family member would).
No, it was pretty clear. As soon as she said Trump knew about the payment to Daniels, she said "I'm sorry Mr President" she knew that was damning and started crying. I could feel sorry for her if it was possible for me to feel sorry for a Trump devotee...but I can't.
Can a candidate use his or personal business to hide campaign contributions made by their personal lawyer?
He coordinated with an outside agency to make deals to suppress information ahead of the election. That by itself would have been a misdemeanor. Agencies can do as they will of course, but I’m confident it is illegal to actively work with them to do so while campaigning.
Because he falsified the records makes it a bigger deal. I think it is the actively cooperating with the outside agency that does it.
But again, the second crime could also be the illegal campaign finance, or breaking law on taxes (though I haven’t heard a case for either of these).
Yes there is .......you need to educate yourselfIt's campaign finance.
There is no tax component to the charge.
Yes there is .......you need to educate yourself
I have always said hung jury and I still think so. I agree with all that you say and the case is looking better and better as they proceed but a hung jury only needs one and I can see how one might be having trouble with "beyond a reasonable doubt". I'm there on the intent, it is very clear he wanted to do this because of the election but is that a crime?
I'm still not understanding the "illegally influence" part....except as it relates to not calling it an campaign expense.
Pecker's lawyers did tell him he was likely interfering in the election and he signed a non prosecutorial agreement with the DOJ so there must be something in the statutes about what constitutes illegal influence but I haven't connected those dots.
The Hicks testimony went really well for the defense and established a lot with regards to Trump, his intent and involvement. A reporter in the room said the jury was absolutely transfixed (my words) by her testimony ans wasn't even taking notes. Great day to end the week on especially after the mess with Davidson.
That's not the statute Trump is being charged under. Swing and a miss.
You asked how New York defines fraud.
That's the answer.
Wrong. That's how New York defines a specific crime - "Scheme to Defraud". Which Trump is not charged with.
It's exactly what he has been charged with. Using his business records to cover up Cohen's campaign contribution (Stormy payoff).Beats me.
But as Trump is not so charged...
Or aid someone else in their crime.as well as the intent to conceal or commit another crime
You assumed correctly. You also added that - in your opinion- you thought it wasn’t true. I disagree.Maybe I'm misunderstanding your comment 2175 (quoted just below) -
What, specifically did you mean when you said "Oh.....I missed that one."? You were responding to comment 2166 (quoted just below). I assumed you meant you missed Hope supposedly saying "I'm sorry Mr President". Did I assume correctly?
I’m pretty sure that’s what I said. Thank you for confirming all that.It isn't.
It's campaign finance.
There is no tax component to the charge.
Read the Statement of Facts and the Judges decision on the charges.....it's all there. I have provided the links . The fact you chose not to inform yourself is not my problem. A tax violation is definitely part of the charges.Mr. Bragg has settled on NY 17-152 as the other crime.
It's an election law statute.
Nothing to do with taxes.
Okay, that's what I thought you meant. Now, can you please show me any print or video sources or links which demonstrate "media outlets are sure portraying it as it's true". It looked as if maybe you bought into tossed out false info (a lie) that was within a comment entered by another poster. I've looked pretty hard and can find no verification of Hope Hicks saying before she started crying, "I'm sorry Mr President". Callen provided that info. Hopefully she will provide her source, because as you said, you missed it as did I.You assumed correctly. You also added that - in your opinion- you thought it wasn’t true. I disagree.
It’s not the reason I missed it. But I do appreciate your thoughts. The media outlets are sure portraying it as if it’s true. I don’t see why it isn’t at least a strong likelihood. None of us are on the jury.
Read the Statement of Facts and the Judges decision on the charges.....it's all there. I have provided the links . The fact you chose not to inform yourself is not my problem. A tax violation is definitely part of the charges.
Or aid someone else in their crime.
Cohen was convicted for campaign finance violations related to hush money payments
JFC ya'll are so lost, or trolling. I can only hope the latter.And...?
It has no bearing on Trump.
On another thread I said that it didn't appear this was true. In fact I said it twice. I forgot about this thread...perhaps you should pay attention to all my post posts.....not just the ones you think might be a gotcha.Okay, that's what I thought you meant. Now, can you please show me any print or video sources or links which demonstrate "media outlets are sure portraying it as it's true". It looked as if maybe you bought into tossed out false info (a lie) that was within a comment entered by another poster. I've looked pretty hard and can find no verification of Hope Hicks saying before she started crying, "I'm sorry Mr President". Callen provided that info. Hopefully she will provide her source, because as you said, you missed it as did I.
Wrong again, read the judges ruling. I posted tye link three next times.What actually matters here is the actual indictment.
Which does not say anything about tax charges
What you are referring to with that is Merchan's ruling saying what Bragg could say was the other 'crime' that was allegedly being concealed or committed to make the actual charge a felony. Taxes was an option.
Bragg settled on election law.
Why did you post it - and as an actual quote of Hope Hicks? That's a very bold way to post untrue info. Did you notice others, like triharder, following you down that untrue rabbit hole on this thread? Why would you allow your misinformation to hang and even progress and multiply?On another thread I said that it didn't appear this was true. In fact I said it twice. I forgot about this thread...perhaps you should pay attention to all my post posts.....not just the ones you think might be a gotcha.
Good luckread
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?