So are we alleging now Trump violated campaign laws by making a contribution to... his own campaign?

Seems legit. So I make a nuisance go away, but it supposedly only benefited my campaign, it was paid to a lawyer as reimbursement related to a legal agreement / settlement, involved a private business, several private sentences, and is only related to a campaign violation because there is an association with an active candidate?

FYI - The Just Security is group of swamp rat retreads. Read their analysis of case law at your own peril.

I have a question: For the payments made after Jan 20, 2017 is their theory that he was covering up the earlier payments/alleged relationship in order to STAY in office?

— Leslie McAdoo Gordon 🇺🇸 (@McAdooGordon) April 4, 2023

I think we now know what Mark May has been up to lately …..changed his name to Bragg and is a DA?

Key paragraph.

Quote:

---

Applying this broad concept of "intent to defraud" in false business records cases, New York state courts have found such intent in a wide range of cases including when a defendant: made covert contributions to a political campaign, covered up an alleged rape, misled the relatives of a patient about the individual's treatment, operated a motor vehicle without a license, obtained credit cards through false documents but with no proof of intention to miss payments, frustrated the regulatory authorities of the New York City Transit Authority, and much more. We detail all these judicial opinions below.

---

Other than the last one, all of those are actual crimes. The Transit Authority one woud be very fact specific. Trump didn't have much to do with the Transit Authority while he was President, that I know of.

So what was the "crime" (and it has to be a NY state crime, not federal) that was the basis here? Bragg refuses to say.

valvemonkey91 said:

---

A concerned moderate is worse than a leftist. HTH.

---

all that matters is we'll both be pulling the lever for desantis against biden 19 months from now

back on topic, i find it incredibly unlikely anything else comes of this indictment. maybe puts some wind in trump's sail for a couple months but ultimately fizzles out like the russia hoax, the impeachments, and the fbi raid.

Old McDonald said:

---

valvemonkey91 said:

---

A concerned moderate is worse than a leftist. HTH.

---

all that matters is we'll both be pulling the lever for desantis against biden 19 months from now

back on topic, i find it incredibly unlikely anything else comes of this indictment. maybe puts some wind in trump's sail for a couple months but ultimately fizzles out like the russia hoax, the impeachments, and the fbi raid.

---

I'd rather pull the lever for DeSantis, but I will pull for Trump if he's the nominee against Dementia Joe, Vanquisher Of Corn Pop, Sniffer of Kids, Father Of Neice-Hunter Hunter, etc. etc. etc.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/who-donald-trumps-lawyer-joe-tacopina

He has a pretty good lawyer

So good they brought some one else to be over him

Quote:

---

Also, do we know if the charges are for his actual company, or his campaign LLC?

---

Neither.

Was this a troll? Hard to tell these days.

Okay so if the charges aren't for fraudulent dealings using Trump Enterprises or his Campaign LLC, then are these just personally fraudulent charges.

And no, how would that have seemed like a troll?

Stop. At least go read the basics of what happened today before asking basic questions like you are asking.

That does seem like trolling to show up on page 22 like you just rolled out of a 7 year coma.

fka ftc said:

---

So are we alleging now Trump violated campaign laws by making a contribution to... his own campaign?

Seems legit. So I make a nuisance go away, but it supposedly only benefited my campaign, it was paid to a lawyer as reimbursement related to a legal agreement / settlement, involved a private business, several private sentences, and is only related to a campaign violation because there is an association with an active candidate?

FYI - The Just Security is group of swamp rat retreads. Read their analysis of case law at your own peril.

---

If you have contrary analysis of NY criminal law on this standard, I am interested as I am unfamiliar with NY criminal law.

Quote:

---

By end of week there will be more rhetoric about the Union splitting.

---

If anyone wants to watch Trump...

RSBN on Rumble

will25u said:

---

If anyone wants to watch Trump...

RSBN on Rumble

---

We need to get that reward money from TAMU and pay TexAgs to allow Rumble embeds. Youtube is going to become increasingly irrelevant.

Joseydog said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

So are we alleging now Trump violated campaign laws by making a contribution to... his own campaign?

Seems legit. So I make a nuisance go away, but it supposedly only benefited my campaign, it was paid to a lawyer as reimbursement related to a legal agreement / settlement, involved a private business, several private sentences, and is only related to a campaign violation because there is an association with an active candidate?

FYI - The Just Security is group of swamp rat retreads. Read their analysis of case law at your own peril.

---

If you have contrary analysis of NY criminal law on this standard, I am interested as I am unfamiliar with NY criminal law.

---

Yes

Analysis: Alvin Bragg, known as Fat Alvin by those closest to him, ran on a campaign of free donuts and persecuting Donald Trump, his family, his friends, his business associates and his companies.

The criminal law Alvin Bragg refers to is a misdemeanor statute for which the statute of limitations has long since run out. He is trying to conjure up a fantasy crime by saying Trump committed some undisclosed other crime that has not been charged nor even alleged.

There is no case law as it has never been done with these circumstances. A left wing think tank funded by the most degenerate of sorts writes 100 pages out of thin air citing some pretty weak case references, none of which directly apply.

Its a total sham not even worthy of further legal analysis. Bragg didn't even indict a ham sandwich. He indicted crumbs left behind when one makes a ham sandwich.

will25u said:

---

The Supreme Court quashed that theory under the federal fraud statutes a long time ago in Skilling. Such a theory makes fraud statutes so broad that no one can know what is criminal and what isn't, so it's a violation of due process & the First Amendment.

— Leslie McAdoo Gordon 🇺🇸 (@McAdooGordon) April 4, 2023

---

Can someone translate this into English?

Explain it to me like I'm five.

Lmfaooo, why did you explain it then delete the explanation? I thought this was a discussion post.

Your explanation made sense, these seem like pretty stupid charges. For the Dems, I think the NY DA overstepping like this is gonna backfire pretty hard come election season.

Quote:

---

Analysis: Alvin Bragg, known as Fat Alvin

---

Hey hey hey!

Quote:

---

PRIMARY HOLDING
Bribes or kickbacks are the only situations in which the honest services doctrine may apply to prohibit the use of mails or wire to further fraudulent schemes. The doctrine should not arise in situations when a public official or private employee engages in undisclosed self-dealing.

FACTS
As the CEO of Enron, Skilling agreed to prevent its stock prices from falling by providing exaggerated reports of the company's financial situation. He was eventually charged with securities fraud, wire fraud, insider trading, and false representations. One of the counts on which he was convicted was an honest services fraud conspiracy charge. He argued that the statute giving rise to the conviction was unconstitutionally vague because it did not clearly enumerate the types of actions that it prohibited.

---

LINK

Without the second alleged "crime" that was being "covered up" the indictment should fail.

Convict him with a couple of those felony counts. It will take him a while to clean it up, by that time. 2024 has come and gone.

I'm dying to know the identity of "Lawyer A" from the indictment document.

BadMoonRisin said:

---

will25u said:

---

There's a curious omission in the Donald Trump indictment and statement of facts -

The specific federal law Trump violated. pic.twitter.com/bsM32x4jhn

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) April 4, 2023

---

This is literally what Hillary Clinton's campaign did, except orders of magnitude worse. Intentionally "misleading" the intelligence agencies to illegally spy on an opponents campaign. I put "misleading" in quotes because they knew it was fake and did it anyway.

---

Also, Joe Biden also did this with Hunter's Laptop. Literally both of the last two DNC candidates did this. Also several orders of magnitude worse. Used the intelligence agencies and connections within twitter, Facebook, and the mainstream media to spike the story and label it "Russian disinformation".

torrid said:

---

I'm dying to know the identity of "Lawyer A" from the indictment document.

---

You serious Clark?

One of the bigger problems with this is that literally every campaign does this. They all request bad stories to be downplayed, has happened since print media. It's like step 2 of running a campaign.

Im Gipper said:

---

torrid said:

---

I'm dying to know the identity of "Lawyer A" from the indictment document.

---

You serious Clark?

---

I think I may know the identity of the unnamed porn star.

So forgive me if this is general knowledge but I haven't seen where they found these business documents if they weren't formal filings or tax returns.

Did they find these in the Mar a Lago raid?

I didn't say anything about wire taps lmfao, calm down.

But the first two steps of a campaign are:
1. Have the public think I'm good.
2. Have the public not think I'm bad.

Every single presidential campaign does exactly what Trump's campaign did, ask people to not talk about the bad stuff. It is extremely common and not against the law. If the fed was doing it, yeah that would be bad. If a private corporation did it I.e: the Trump or Biden campaigns, it is legal.

PA24 said:

---

Convict him with a couple of those felony counts. It will take him a while to clean it up, by that time. 2024 has come and gone.

---

So you are a lawfare proponent? And drawing it out just because they can?

aggiehawg said:

---

PA24 said:

---

Convict him with a couple of those felony counts. It will take him a while to clean it up, by that time. 2024 has come and gone.

---

So you are a lawfare proponent? And drawing it out just because they can?

---

Not nearly that complicated!

He's a troll.

BadMoonRisin said:

---

BadMoonRisin said:

---

will25u said:

---

There's a curious omission in the Donald Trump indictment and statement of facts -

The specific federal law Trump violated. pic.twitter.com/bsM32x4jhn

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) April 4, 2023

---

This is literally what Hillary Clinton's campaign did, except orders of magnitude worse. Intentionally "misleading" the intelligence agencies to illegally spy on an opponents campaign. I put "misleading" in quotes because they knew it was fake and did it anyway.

---

Also, Joe Biden also did this with Hunter's Laptop. Literally both of the last two DNC candidates did this. Also several orders of magnitude worse. Used the intelligence agencies and connections within twitter, Facebook, and the mainstream media to spike the story and label it "Russian disinformation".

---

When you think about it, it's laughable that Bragg is hyperventilating about Trump's "Catch and Kill" actions by writing a check to a Doorman or hooker; yet, has absolutely no curiosity about HIS team using the DOJ and intelligence services to execute their own version of "Catch and Kill" on Hunter's laptop.

Has the committee that's been working on that for the last two years come up with anything major yet? Or will there need to be a fed step in?