BULLSHIT. Let's see the felony statute.
Hillary only got a FINE for the same thing when her campaign paid for the Steele Dossier...and she tried to pass it off as "LEGAL EXPENSES".
A City Lawyer, Trying to Prosecute a Federal Midemeanor as a Felony
- Thread starter Grokmaster
- Start date
BULLSHIT. Let's see the felony statute.
Hillary only got a FINE for the same thing when her campaign paid for the Steele Dossier...and she tried to pass it off as "LEGAL EXPENSES".
The expected criminal charges against former President Donald Trump in New York reportedly hinge on a violation of federal election law with which Trump was never charged. That fact in itself suggests how dubious the case against Trump is: To convert a state misdemeanor involving falsification of business records into a felony, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, is relying on the theory that Trump was trying to cover up another crime. But federal prosecutors apparently did not think the evidence of that second crime was strong enough to charge Trump.
The New York case is based on a 2016 hush payment to porn star Stormy Daniels, who claims she had a sexual affair with Trump in 2006, when he was married to his current wife, former First Lady Melania Trump. Although Trump denies the affair, his lawyer at the time, Michael Cohen, paid Daniels $130,000 to keep the story out of the press. While that payment was not inherently criminal, federal prosecutors viewed it as an illegal campaign contribution because, they said, its "principal purpose" was "influencing [the] election," as opposed to avoiding personal embarrassment for Trump or sparing his wife's feelings.
Cohen accepted that characterization in 2018, when he pleaded guilty to violating federal limits on campaign contributions. Based on that view of the transaction, Trump, who reimbursed Cohen for the money he paid to Daniels, could have been charged with soliciting or accepting an illegal campaign contribution. But in the five years since Cohen's guilty plea, the Justice Department has conspicuously declined to charge Trump. In 2021, an evenly divided Federal Election Commission (FEC) declined to pursue charges against Trump, his business, or his campaign.
A criminal case would have required proving that Trump "knowingly and willfully" violated federal election law. But it is not clear that Trump had the requisite intent, because he seemed confused about what federal election law requires.
Such confusion would be understandable. "The best interpretation of the law is that it simply is not a campaign expense to pay blackmail for things that happened years before one's candidacy—and thus nothing Cohen (or, in this case, Trump, too) did is a campaign finance crime," former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith wrote in a 2018 Reason essay. "But at a minimum, it is unclear whether paying blackmail to a mistress is 'for the purpose of influencing an election,' and so must be paid with campaign funds, or a 'personal use,' and so prohibited from being paid with campaign funds."
The New York case against Trump is based on a state law that makes it a misdemeanor to falsify business records "with intent to defraud." Trump did that, Bragg thinks, when his business falsely identified Cohen's reimbursement as payment for legal services. The misdemeanor becomes a Class E felony, punishable by up to four years in prison, when the defendant's "intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof." But if Trump did not think the payment to Daniels violated federal election law—and if it is in fact unclear that it did, as Smith argues—it is hard to see how he could have intended to "conceal" that alleged crime.
Nor is it clear that the uncharged and unproven federal violation counts as "another crime" under New York's statute. Last November, The New York Times reported that prosecutors working for Bragg's predecessor, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., "concluded that the most promising option for an underlying crime was the federal campaign finance violation to which Mr. Cohen had pleaded guilty." But "the prosecutors ultimately concluded that approach was too risky—a judge might find that falsifying business records could only be a felony if it aided or concealed a New York state crime, not a federal one." While "the prosecutors briefly mulled using a state election law violation," the Times said, they rejected that idea: "Since the presidential race during which the hush-money payment occurred was a federal election, they concluded it was outside the bounds of state law."
https://reason.com/2023/03/20/is-th...louting-the-rule-of-law-by-prosecuting-trump/
FUCKING BRAGG IS A MORON, AND ANYONE PRTETENDING HE ISN'T, ARE IDIOTS .
The New York case is based on a 2016 hush payment to porn star Stormy Daniels, who claims she had a sexual affair with Trump in 2006, when he was married to his current wife, former First Lady Melania Trump. Although Trump denies the affair, his lawyer at the time, Michael Cohen, paid Daniels $130,000 to keep the story out of the press. While that payment was not inherently criminal, federal prosecutors viewed it as an illegal campaign contribution because, they said, its "principal purpose" was "influencing [the] election," as opposed to avoiding personal embarrassment for Trump or sparing his wife's feelings.
Cohen accepted that characterization in 2018, when he pleaded guilty to violating federal limits on campaign contributions. Based on that view of the transaction, Trump, who reimbursed Cohen for the money he paid to Daniels, could have been charged with soliciting or accepting an illegal campaign contribution. But in the five years since Cohen's guilty plea, the Justice Department has conspicuously declined to charge Trump. In 2021, an evenly divided Federal Election Commission (FEC) declined to pursue charges against Trump, his business, or his campaign.
A criminal case would have required proving that Trump "knowingly and willfully" violated federal election law. But it is not clear that Trump had the requisite intent, because he seemed confused about what federal election law requires.
Such confusion would be understandable. "The best interpretation of the law is that it simply is not a campaign expense to pay blackmail for things that happened years before one's candidacy—and thus nothing Cohen (or, in this case, Trump, too) did is a campaign finance crime," former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith wrote in a 2018 Reason essay. "But at a minimum, it is unclear whether paying blackmail to a mistress is 'for the purpose of influencing an election,' and so must be paid with campaign funds, or a 'personal use,' and so prohibited from being paid with campaign funds."
The New York case against Trump is based on a state law that makes it a misdemeanor to falsify business records "with intent to defraud." Trump did that, Bragg thinks, when his business falsely identified Cohen's reimbursement as payment for legal services. The misdemeanor becomes a Class E felony, punishable by up to four years in prison, when the defendant's "intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof." But if Trump did not think the payment to Daniels violated federal election law—and if it is in fact unclear that it did, as Smith argues—it is hard to see how he could have intended to "conceal" that alleged crime.
Nor is it clear that the uncharged and unproven federal violation counts as "another crime" under New York's statute. Last November, The New York Times reported that prosecutors working for Bragg's predecessor, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., "concluded that the most promising option for an underlying crime was the federal campaign finance violation to which Mr. Cohen had pleaded guilty." But "the prosecutors ultimately concluded that approach was too risky—a judge might find that falsifying business records could only be a felony if it aided or concealed a New York state crime, not a federal one." While "the prosecutors briefly mulled using a state election law violation," the Times said, they rejected that idea: "Since the presidential race during which the hush-money payment occurred was a federal election, they concluded it was outside the bounds of state law."
https://reason.com/2023/03/20/is-th...louting-the-rule-of-law-by-prosecuting-trump/
FUCKING BRAGG IS A MORON, AND ANYONE PRTETENDING HE ISN'T, ARE IDIOTS .
Last edited:
Althea
Althea told me...
Lie. The Republicans on the FEC refused to bring charges against trump
Very different facts and situation.
Port Tack
Verified User
what a dumbass. Do you actually think the statue of limitations has run out while the new york prosecutor has a grand jury hearing the case? It was extended long ago.
THE FEC REFUSED TO PROSECUTE THE CASE. PERIOD.
THERE IS NO FELONY STATUTE FOR IT....BUT THERE IS A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, WHICH IS LONG PAST.
HILLARY GOT A FINE FOR THE SAME THING....
THE WHOLE WORLD SEES THIS PARTISAN, DOG and PONY SHOW WITCH HUNT FOR WHAT IT IS.
Yeah, she was actually guilty.
There was NO NEW YORK CRIME.
"
Nor is it clear that the uncharged and unproven federal violation counts as "another crime" under New York's statute. Last November, The New York Times reported that prosecutors working for Bragg's predecessor, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., "concluded that the most promising option for an underlying crime was the federal campaign finance violation to which Mr. Cohen had pleaded guilty." But "the prosecutors ultimately concluded that approach was too risky—a judge might find that falsifying business records could only be a felony if it aided or concealed a New York state crime, not a federal one." While "the prosecutors briefly mulled using a state election law violation," the Times said, they rejected that idea: "Since the presidential race during which the hush-money payment occurred was a federal election, they concluded it was outside the bounds of state law."
https://reason.com/2023/03/20/is-th...louting-the-rule-of-law-by-prosecuting-trump/
What a ridiculously desperate grasping at straws by the laughinstock lawyers in New York.
They have NO CASE, and the world knows.
It's a fucking Clown Show.
Why Even Some of Trump’s Critics Think the Stormy Daniels Case Is Weak
Donald Trump may be days, or even hours, away from becoming the first former President to be criminally indicted. It’s what Trump critics have been waiting years for. But this was not the case they were envisioning as the one leading to that coveted Trump mugshot.
Democrats privately are worried that the case before a Manhattan grand jury—based on Trump’s alleged role in hush-money payments made to an adult film star to cover up an affair—might be the weakest of all of the investigations into Trump and his orbit. It’s also not connected to the aspects of the former President’s behavior that his detractors find most galling, such as his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Even Republican NeverTrumpers who are eager to crown a new leader of their party fear that a case seen as less-than-rock-solid could undermine future, potentially more damning ones.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is widely expected to be preparing an indictment of Trump on a felony for bookkeeping fraud, a charge based on his companies’ ledgers listing legal retainers which were actually hush money about an affair with Stormy Daniels. Prosecutors would have to prove that Trump ordered his lieutenants to make the false entries with the express purpose to defraud. To reach the felony threshold, those prosecutors would also have to prove that Trump made those false entries to sanction another crime—a potentially easy spot for Trump’s defense to discredit.
https://time.com/6264605/trump-critics-stormy-daniels-case-weak/
Why Even Some of Trump’s Critics Think the Stormy Daniels Case Is Weak
Donald Trump may be days, or even hours, away from becoming the first former President to be criminally indicted. It’s what Trump critics have been waiting years for. But this was not the case they were envisioning as the one leading to that coveted Trump mugshot.
Democrats privately are worried that the case before a Manhattan grand jury—based on Trump’s alleged role in hush-money payments made to an adult film star to cover up an affair—might be the weakest of all of the investigations into Trump and his orbit. It’s also not connected to the aspects of the former President’s behavior that his detractors find most galling, such as his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Even Republican NeverTrumpers who are eager to crown a new leader of their party fear that a case seen as less-than-rock-solid could undermine future, potentially more damning ones.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is widely expected to be preparing an indictment of Trump on a felony for bookkeeping fraud, a charge based on his companies’ ledgers listing legal retainers which were actually hush money about an affair with Stormy Daniels. Prosecutors would have to prove that Trump ordered his lieutenants to make the false entries with the express purpose to defraud. To reach the felony threshold, those prosecutors would also have to prove that Trump made those false entries to sanction another crime—a potentially easy spot for Trump’s defense to discredit.
https://time.com/6264605/trump-critics-stormy-daniels-case-weak/
Edwards was looking at 30 years, so hardly a misdemeanor. On most federal laws, there are no statute of limitations. On the state law that does have a 5 year statute of limitations, the clock stopped on the statute of limitations because trump left the state. he only got through 3 of the 5 years.
The "Feds" did not pass on this case. The SEC found enough evidence to prosecute, but the Republican political appointees blocked them from prosecuting.
https://www.politifact.com/article/2023/mar/21/fact-checking-trump-stormy-daniels-deflections/
“Even with tolling, most states will still set a maximum amount of time to file charges. Florida's maximum extension for their criminal statutes of limitation is three years; New York's is five.”
law info.com
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Tolling_(law)
Tolling is a legal doctrine that allows for the pausing or delaying of the running of the period of time set forth by a statute of limitations, ...
Poor Walter.
law info.com
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Tolling_(law)
Tolling is a legal doctrine that allows for the pausing or delaying of the running of the period of time set forth by a statute of limitations, ...
Poor Walter.
Last edited:
"I think Bragg is out of time. The statute of limitations is about two years on this offense. That has already run," Turley explained. "You can extend it to five years if you connect it as a felony to another crime. Even at five years, I'm not sure the time has not run out. So there's going to be some very intense challenges here.”
Professor Turley
Poor Walter
Professor Turley
Poor Walter
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
I don't vote for people. What politician of any ideology is likely to be a tolerable person?
I vote for policy positions and ideology, with competence also being an important factor.
Personal character is a secondary or tertiary issue at best in practical terms.
America has literally tens of millions of perverts and troglodytes who actually share ideology with Trump,
at least to the extent that they're able to understand it,
are nowhere near intellectually capable to assess competence,
and thus, even if they find Trump as disgusting as normal, decent people would,
they would understandably want to vote for him.
What's remarkable to me is that the vast majority of them DON'T hold their noses while voting for Trump.
They regard him to be a tolerable human being as well, completely oblivious to what should be the obvious fact that he's a demented orangutan.
I vote for policy positions and ideology, with competence also being an important factor.
Personal character is a secondary or tertiary issue at best in practical terms.
America has literally tens of millions of perverts and troglodytes who actually share ideology with Trump,
at least to the extent that they're able to understand it,
are nowhere near intellectually capable to assess competence,
and thus, even if they find Trump as disgusting as normal, decent people would,
they would understandably want to vote for him.
What's remarkable to me is that the vast majority of them DON'T hold their noses while voting for Trump.
They regard him to be a tolerable human being as well, completely oblivious to what should be the obvious fact that he's a demented orangutan.
Port Tack
Verified User
Bragg is not going to indict anyone unless those 23 members of the grand jury who have heard all the evidence say he is a criminal deserving of indictment. The Trump crowd likes to blame that black prosecutor because they are a bunch of fucking racists but they won't touch those jurors who are responsible for his indictment.
Port Tack
Verified User
Amazing that idiots are arguing over a statue of limitations when the case would have been over on day 1 if that were true. I wonder why the only place you hear this fucking stupid argument is on a political board from ignorant right wingers who haven't a clue what they are talking about? Are they actually fucking stupid enough to think the state would have a grand jury meet and a prosecutor pursue an indictment for something that had passed the statue of limitations?
trump left the state, so the clock on the statute of limitation stopped. Sorry.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-st...ent-new-york-f3ce87a1b4ec50fbeaefcbe21f87ab0b
trump will have to prove he lived in the state, which opens him up to tax charges for not paying taxes in New York State.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
case on all fours, cuntselor......