Trump has not committed a felony (this time)

[beefheart]

Sorry, it's the idiots who've tried to make the OP about me that are looking foolish.

Yes, it is about you because you made a really stupid thread. One where you have already exonerated Trump without knowing one word of what is in the indictment.

And now you are trying to be a martyr.

Comedy Gold.

 

[Deuce]

I understand what you're saying. I'm asking you to back up that assertion. What crime would Trump have committed if he paid Daniels not to speak of their affair publically? Please be specific and cite a source.

You know exactly what law he is accused of breaking. You mentioned it in your own OP. Dishonesty does not get you the response you are requesting. You have not earned this effort.

 

[beefheart]

I think it's time to say goodbye as you've become boring. Enjoy your day.

Yes, run away from the stupid thread because your original supposition got shot down repeatedly, and you have no answer for it.

I am enjoying my day, its good to start with a laugh.

 

[NatMorton]

This ridiculous political prosecution will quickly fall apart.

If what's being reported is all there is, yes, I agree with you. But keep in mind actually convicting Trump probably isn't the Democrats' aim. They're looking for this story to dominate the news cycle through to the '24 elections as it shifts media focus away from Biden's performance in office.

Speaking strictly on a political (not ethical) basis, it's a rather good strategy.

 

[NatMorton]

You know exactly what law he is accused of breaking. You mentioned it in your own OP. Dishonesty does not get you the response you are requesting. You have not earned this effort.

No, I don't. In fact, I think you're claim is wrong. Either you can prove it or you cannot, which is it?

 

[Deuce]

No, I don't. In fact, I think you're claim is wrong. Either you can prove it or you cannot, which is it?

You mentioned the law he is accused of breaking already. Sorry, you can't un-ring that bell. You can't pretend that you have no idea what crime he is accused of committing when you've already told us what it is.

 

[Rawley]

Tweety attempted a coup and fomented an insurrection. Those should have been the initial indictments, IMO. Either way, the fourteenth amendment prevents people who do that from running for office.



I'm not a fan of the sentence structure, but this amendment is exceptionally clear.

Yes. Your party has trained you well to stick with the "insurrection" label rather than riot., for this exact reason. Too bad it won't work.

 

[NatMorton]

You mentioned the law he is accused of breaking already. Sorry, you can't un-ring that bell. You can't pretend that you have no idea what crime he is accused of committing when you've already told us what it is.

Don't hurt yourself dragging those goalposts.

 

[Helix]

Yes. Your party has trained you well to stick with the "insurrection" label rather than riot., for this exact reason. Too bad it won't work.

I don't have a party. I do vote against yours, however. As for the insurrection, I don't waste time on the right's efforts to rewrite history.

 

[Rawley]

On what basis? We (the general public) don't know shit about the indictment.

"You guys" keep saying that, but we know exactly what the charges are going to be. THey are going to allege some bullshit criminality regarding business records relating to extortion money paid to a whore.

 

[Rawley]

I don't have a party.

Yeah, sure, right.

I do vote against yours, however. As for the insurrection, I don't waste time on the right's efforts to rewrite history.

LOL what are "you guys" calling what happened at the capitol in Tennessee this week? If you're not calling it an insurrection, why not?

 

[Lex Talionis]

"You guys" keep saying that, but we know exactly what the charges are going to be. THey are going to allege some bullshit criminality regarding business records relating to extortion money paid to a whore.

You are nowhere near qualified to make that statement, your emotions are clouding your judgement,

Also, 34 counts relating to "extortion money paid to a whore"? Are you sure about that?

 

[Rawley]

You are nowhere near qualified to make that statement, your emotions are clouding your judgement,

Also, 34 counts relating to "extortion money paid to a whore"? Are you sure about that?

Absolutely. What's confusing you?

 

[Lex Talionis]

LOL what are "you guys" calling what happened at the capitol in Tennessee this week? If you're not calling it an insurrection, why not?

This, is plain ****ing stupid.

 

[less right]

I will premise this by saying I have never been a Trump supporter or voter, I supported both impeachment probes against him, and believe there was a credible case to find him guilty in a Senate trial with the case made from the second impeachment. That said, I have trouble seeing how DA Bragg can turn the misdemeanor of Trump falsifying business records into a felony.

The charges seem to hinge on the assertion that Trump's falsifying of business records (recording repayment for his lawyer paying the hush money as "legal fees") rises to a felony because it was done to cover up another felony. That other felony allegedly being that the hush money as an illegal campaign contribution. The problem seems to be that the case for the hush money being a campaign contribution really can't be made.

There's a good piece on this in today's WSJ (sorry, paywall) but I'll try to post the gist of it here. There is an objective standard for what is a campaign contribution under Federal law and it is not merely a payment or service that helps a candidate's chances. It has to be an expense that both helps the candidate and can reasonably be determined an expense that would never be made but for being a candidate. Brag's problem is described as follows: (emphasis added):

Source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-...ecords-daniels-bdb5942c?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

The article goes on to give the example of a candidate wanting to look good and purchasing a $4,000 suit for a televised debate. The candidate cannot use campaign funds for such a purpose even though it can be reasonably argued they would never purchase such expensive clothing but for their desire to help their campaign. It's presumed the candidate would buy clothes whether they're a candidate or not.

Bragg must make the case that Trump would never have paid Daniels to keep quiet but for the campaign, but there are other perfectly valid reasons why Trump might want to keep a relationship with a porn star quiet that have nothing to do with his run for President, starting with this wife.

There's also the catch-22 Bragg is now arguing: he's claiming the Trump Organization made an illegal campaign contribution for something that could never be classified as a campaign contribution under federal campaign finance law.

IMO, Trump has not committed a felony here.

If Trump didn't pay all his other 'trysts' $130K Trump's got some 'splainin to do.

 

[Deuce]

Don't hurt yourself dragging those goalposts.

...they're your goalposts! LOL!!!

 

[iguanaman]

I will premise this by saying I have never been a Trump supporter or voter, I supported both impeachment probes against him, and believe there was a credible case to find him guilty in a Senate trial with the case made from the second impeachment. That said, I have trouble seeing how DA Bragg can turn the misdemeanor of Trump falsifying business records into a felony.

The charges seem to hinge on the assertion that Trump's falsifying of business records (recording repayment for his lawyer paying the hush money as "legal fees") rises to a felony because it was done to cover up another felony. That other felony allegedly being that the hush money as an illegal campaign contribution. The problem seems to be that the case for the hush money being a campaign contribution really can't be made.

There's a good piece on this in today's WSJ (sorry, paywall) but I'll try to post the gist of it here. There is an objective standard for what is a campaign contribution under Federal law and it is not merely a payment or service that helps a candidate's chances. It has to be an expense that both helps the candidate and can reasonably be determined an expense that would never be made but for being a candidate. Brag's problem is described as follows: (emphasis added):

Source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-...ecords-daniels-bdb5942c?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

The article goes on to give the example of a candidate wanting to look good and purchasing a $4,000 suit for a televised debate. The candidate cannot use campaign funds for such a purpose even though it can be reasonably argued they would never purchase such expensive clothing but for their desire to help their campaign. It's presumed the candidate would buy clothes whether they're a candidate or not.

Bragg must make the case that Trump would never have paid Daniels to keep quiet but for the campaign, but there are other perfectly valid reasons why Trump might want to keep a relationship with a porn star quiet that have nothing to do with his run for President, starting with this wife.

There's also the catch-22 Bragg is now arguing: he's claiming the Trump Organization made an illegal campaign contribution for something that could never be classified as a campaign contribution under federal campaign finance law.

IMO, Trump has not committed a felony here.

Or Bragg can bring credible witnesses to say that Trump told him that he needed to pay the hush money to help his chances in the election which was 2 weeks away.
There is also a tax evasion charge possible since he was disguising the payment as "lawyer fees". You also fail to realize that Trump's own DOJ said that Trump directed Cohen to make the payments and he went to jail for that.

 

[iguanaman]

Yes, I'm basing my opinion on what's known. If new facts come to light, I may change that opinion.

That said, I suspect there's very little risk of you ever changing yours on this matter, no matter what.

The question for you is whether tax evasion is a felony since falsely claiming that the payments were "lawyer fees" and having his company pay them made them a deductible expense.

 

[reflechissez]

To the best of my knowledge we're not prohibited from discussing or even -- gasp! -- speculating at this point.

It would be irresponsible not to speculate.

 

[Cardinal]

Yes. Your party has trained you well to stick with the "insurrection" label rather than riot., for this exact reason. Too bad it won't work.

When you have to resort to "riot" as your euphemism...

 

[NatMorton]

If Trump didn't pay all his other 'trysts' $130K Trump's got some 'splainin to do.

Whether he did or didn't has nothing to do with whether the charge of falsifying business records should be a misdemeanor or a felony.

 

[NatMorton]

Or Bragg can bring credible witnesses to say that Trump told him that he needed to pay the hush money to help his chances in the election which was 2 weeks away.

If he had an audio recording of Trump saying that it would likely not make the hush money payment a campaign contribution. You might want to read the OP again.

 

[NatMorton]

The question for you is whether tax evasion is a felony since falsely claiming that the payments were "lawyer fees" and having his company pay them made them a deductible expense.

That's not the charge that's being reported. If a tax evasion case can be made, that is something entirely different.

 

[Peter]

Whether he did or didn't has nothing to do with whether the charge of falsifying business records should be a misdemeanor or a felony.

That's what the case will decide.
Trump is going to be arrested and will face trial.
That's all we know at the moment.

 

[NatMorton]

What should be clear from this thread is that our friends on the left are struggling to process even the possibility that this indictment is politically motivated legal overreach.