fka ftc said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

This case seems to be determined by whether the payments were made to benefit the campaign or to keep it away from his family. If it's the campaign, he's going to have a more difficult time winning.

---

He can make any payments he wants to benefit his campaign. What law was he violating?

The law is meant to cover payments made by others for the exclusive benefit of his campaign must follow campaign guidelines and be a legitimate campaign expense. Paying for stories to go away is a legitimate campaign expense BTW.

But that is not what Bragg is charging. He says Trump ordered or recorded himself the transactions with Cohen as something other than payments for an NDA, which is not true or at best debatable. Since those records are private and nobody is shown to have knowledge of nor relied upon those statements and no one was harmed by the alleged bookkeeping error, then there is NO case.

Would be nice if people quit listening to Rachel Maddow legal analysis then posting on f16.

---

You are correct that the broad sense of the law can play a role but the reason for the payment still matters. Now the first amendment could limit the interpretation of the law. If the payments is legit, why try and hide it the way he did?

And stop acting like a child and saying everyone who has a slightly different take than you is listening to some liberal rag.

I personally think Trump probably broke the law but he won't be convicted. The way the law is written is hard to prove, from what I understand.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

You are correct that the broad sense of the law can play a role but the reason for the payment still matters. Now the first amendment could limit the interpretation of the law. If the payments is legit, why try and hide it the way he did?

And stop acting like a child and saying everyone who has a slightly different take than you is listening to some liberal rag.

I personally think Trump probably broke the law but he won't be convicted. The way the law is written is hard to prove, from what I understand.

---

Nothing has been offered to support any allegation he tried to hide the payment. Zero, zip. Well, other than innuendo by a convicted perjurer.

Not acting like a child in any sense, but sometimes folks have to result to an ad hom when their points fall flat.

Since you think Trump broke some law, what law and what evidence?

Spreading misinformation by saying "The way the law is written is hard to prove, from what I understand" is not cool but is technically allowed.

fka ftc said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

You are correct that the broad sense of the law can play a role but the reason for the payment still matters. Now the first amendment could limit the interpretation of the law. If the payments is legit, why try and hide it the way he did?

And stop acting like a child and saying everyone who has a slightly different take than you is listening to some liberal rag.

I personally think Trump probably broke the law but he won't be convicted. The way the law is written is hard to prove, from what I understand.

---

Nothing has been offered to support any allegation he tried to hide the payment. Zero, zip. Well, other than innuendo by a convicted perjurer.

Not acting like a child in any sense, but sometimes folks have to result to an ad hom when their points fall flat.

Since you think Trump broke some law, what law and what evidence?

Spreading misinformation by saying "The way the law is written is hard to prove, from what I understand" is not cool but is technically allowed.

---

Nothing I said fell flat, it's just my understanding of the case. I'm not trying to argue with anyone, just give what I understand from people who know more about the law than I do. This case is very difficult to prosecute and I think Trump wins because it's going to be tough to prove and then also get 12 jurors to agree. What campaign money can be used for is very dubious.

This isn't combat.

Quote:

---

Nothing I said fell flat, it's just my understanding of the case. I'm not trying to argue with anyone, just give what I understand from people who know more about the law than I do. This case is very difficult to prosecute and I think Trump wins because it's going to be tough to prove and then also get 12 jurors to agree. What campaign money can be used for is very dubious.

This isn't combat.

---

Even lefty legal pundits believe this indictment is very flimsy, dubious and presenting far too novel of statutory interpretation. IOW, it is a s*** case.

But if it actually goes to trial in Manhattan, no doubt in anyone's mind he will be convicted, irrespective of the flaws.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Nothing I said fell flat, it's just my understanding of the case. I'm not trying to argue with anyone, just give what I understand from people who know more about the law than I do. This case is very difficult to prosecute and I think Trump wins because it's going to be tough to prove and then also get 12 jurors to agree. What campaign money can be used for is very dubious.

This isn't combat.

---

Even lefty legal pundits believe this indictment is very flimsy, dubious and presenting far too novel of statutory interpretation. IOW, it is a s*** case.

But if it actually goes to trial in Manhattan, no doubt in anyone's mind he will be convicted, irrespective of the flaws.

---

Well, I doubt it.

Ags77 said:

---

Gigem314 said:

---

Ags77 said:

---

In about 2-3 weeks, trump will likely be indicted again. This ridiculous one now will fade out of the news then.

---

Well when someone runs for office on the premise of "getting Trump", they're going to throw anything against the wall to see if it sticks. I'm sure if democrats donate more they'll finally get him this time.

---

Yes, that's why i said this RIDICULOUS one will go away soon. This indictment was completely political and illegitimate, imo.

The likely next indictment will be in a few weeks in Georgia. Much more legit, but still not an easy conviction, imo.

---

What charges are "much more legit" in Georgia? What specific laws were allegedly broken?

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

This case seems to be determined by whether the payments were made to benefit the campaign or to keep it away from his family. If it's the campaign, he's going to have a more difficult time winning.

---

He can make any payments he wants to benefit his campaign. What law was he violating?

The law is meant to cover payments made by others for the exclusive benefit of his campaign must follow campaign guidelines and be a legitimate campaign expense. Paying for stories to go away is a legitimate campaign expense BTW.

But that is not what Bragg is charging. He says Trump ordered or recorded himself the transactions with Cohen as something other than payments for an NDA, which is not true or at best debatable. Since those records are private and nobody is shown to have knowledge of nor relied upon those statements and no one was harmed by the alleged bookkeeping error, then there is NO case.

Would be nice if people quit listening to Rachel Maddow legal analysis then posting on f16.

---

You are correct that the broad sense of the law can play a role but the reason for the payment still matters. Now the first amendment could limit the interpretation of the law. If the payments is legit, why try and hide it the way he did?

And stop acting like a child and saying everyone who has a slightly different take than you is listening to some liberal rag.

I personally think Trump probably broke the law but he won't be convicted. The way the law is written is hard to prove, from what I understand.

---

If making a payment for something in order to benefit your campaign is a crime, then the Clinton campaign committed a crime when they commissioned the Steele Dossier - they made payments with the intent to benefit the Clinton campaign.

Call me when she gets indicted for that...and remember...she's from NY, the same state that indicted Trump...

Quote:

---

The complaints in these matters, filed in 2018 and 2019, cite a series of publicly reported facts about the payment made to Ms. Clifford. In short, Michael Cohen established Essential Consultants, LLC on October 17, 2016, and later that month, Essential Consultants, LLC made a payment in the amount of $130,000 to Ms. Clifford as part of a non-disclosure agreement pursuant to which Ms. Clifford would be precluded from publicly discussing her relationship with Mr. Trump. Based on these facts, the complainants assert various violations of the Act. 1

Before the Commission could consider the Office of General Counsel's ("OGC") recommendations in these matters, Mr. Cohen pleaded guilty to an eight-count criminal information,2 and in connection thereto admitted, among other things, to making an excessive contribution in violation of the Act by making the Clifford payment from his personal funds. 3

The plea hearing transcript includes a step by step review of how U.S. District Judge William Pauley verified the plea, confirming that a federal judge was sufficiently satisfied with the circumstances surrounding the plea deal and the responses given by Cohen at the hearing, including the explanations given by Cohen, count by count, during his allocution.4

Ultimately Mr. Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison and ordered to pay $1.39 million in restitution, $500,000 in forfeiture, and $100,000 in fines for two campaign finance violations (including the payment at issue in these matters) and other charges. In sum, the public record is complete with respect to the conduct at issue in these complaints, and Mr. Cohen has been punished by the government of the United States for the conduct at issue in these matters.

Thus, we concluded that pursuing these matters further was not the best use of agency resources.5 The Commission regularly dismisses matters where other government agencies have already adequately enforced and vindicated the Commission's interests.6

---

LINK

Maybe having Cohen plead to that campaign finance violation was not the smartest thing after all?

Its all based on turning minor book keeping errors into major crimes.

Quote:

---

"I don't know how you get around the evidence that both the Department of Justice in their investigation of the federal campaign finance issues and the Federal Election Commission in their ultimate jurisdiction over campaign finance issues, neither of them found there to be any violations whatsoever."

---

LINK

Casual Cynic said:

---

Its all based on turning minor book keeping errors into major crimes.

---

To be factual, there are only allegations of bookkeeping errors. No evidence has been presented of actual errors and Mr Bragg is so vague in his indictment he does not even cite what they are.

Heck, they are likely trying to claim Trump team made an error by NOT recording it as a campaign contribution, since they need it to be a campaign contribution to tie it to the potential felony charge.

So... Mr. Trump made a personal payment to his lawyer to reimburse him for a payment in relation to an NDA. Cohen cops to some BS campaign finance charge... even though Trump reimbursed him to ensure it was NOT a campaign related expense nor contribution.

Bragg and team said no way it has to be campaign because thats what Capt Perjury said in his confession. Since Trump team recorded is correctly as a legal expense, then that is a crime because Bragg thinks it should have said "payment to keep sex with horse face porn star secrete with intent to accept campaign contribution in 2016 and hide a story defrauding electors and misleading his internal accounting department".

Seems all very legit. Good job CMs and libs! Got him!!

I'm not sure why you think I'm against Trump or against Clinton being indicted. Weird assumption on your part.

Judges are prohibited under ethics rules from donating to political campaigns and organizations. Accordingly, there are legitimate concerns about Judge Merchan's reported political contributions while a sitting judge to Biden and Democratic causes.

— Tom Fitton (@TomFitton) April 6, 2023

I am not sure that is a hard and fast rule when applied to state court judges?

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

I'm not sure why you think I'm against Trump or against Clinton being indicted. Weird assumption on your part.

---

You posted the following:

Quote:

---

You are correct that the broad sense of the law can play a role but the reason for the payment still matters.

---

What was the reason? To help his campaign look good...

So, If I hired YOU to go on TV and say nice things about me, I hired you to make my campaign look good. Apparently, in your view, I have committed a crime...

Basically, it's a ridiculous take on the law...

Ag with kids said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

I'm not sure why you think I'm against Trump or against Clinton being indicted. Weird assumption on your part.

---

You posted the following:

Quote:

---

You are correct that the broad sense of the law can play a role but the reason for the payment still matters.

---

What was the reason? To help his campaign look good...

So, If I hired YOU to go on TV and say nice things about me, I hired you to make my campaign look good. Apparently, in your view, I have committed a crime...

Basically, it's a ridiculous take on the law...

---

So for Trump, the reason for the payment matters. For Bidens, Burisma and the Chicoms with 10% for the big guy, its their private, personal business what the payments are for.

Watching never-trumpers and libs twist themselves all up in a pretzel trying to justify Fat Alvin Bragg is kind of entertaining.

Ag with kids said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

I'm not sure why you think I'm against Trump or against Clinton being indicted. Weird assumption on your part.

---

You posted the following:

Quote:

---

You are correct that the broad sense of the law can play a role but the reason for the payment still matters.

---

What was the reason? To help his campaign look good...

So, If I hired YOU to go on TV and say nice things about me, I hired you to make my campaign look good. Apparently, in your view, I have committed a crime...

Basically, it's a ridiculous take on the law...

---

The motive behind the payment matters according to what I've heard people say about the law. It's not my take.

He's accused of breaking campaign finance reform laws. Which one I don't know. I don't need to know it specifically. It sounds like he's been accused of using campaign money for personal use, which is apparently a no no. I could be wrong and I'll admit it if I'm presented information to the contrary.

I'm not sure what your point is. You're all over the place. If it's just about you knowing the specific laws, congrats.

Quote:

---

I don't need to know it specifically.

---

Under the Sixth Amendment, due process absolutely requires that the defendant knows it specifically. If you read the indictment and know it specifically, then it would be there. It isn't.

Thus the indictment as it stands now for state felony counts, is insufficient on its face.

So you are pooh-poohing a basic due process Constitutional violation.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

He's accused of breaking campaign finance reform laws. Which one I don't know. I don't need to know it specifically. It sounds like he's been accused of using campaign money for personal use, which is apparently a no no. I could be wrong and I'll admit it if I'm presented information to the contrary.

I'm not sure what your point is. You're all over the place. If it's just about you knowing the specific laws, congrats.

---

Read the damn indictment. The money to Cohen came from the Trump Revocable Trust. Trump was not a trustee, his sons and the CFO were. They signed the checks after Trump was inaugurated. No campaign money was used. Nor does the indictment say anywhere that they were.

Face it, you are preferring to be completely uninformed but opining about things that have been spoon fed to you but you cannot be bothered to click a link and actually read it.

Indictment

Statement of Facts

Quote:

---

If you inferred that I want someone to have their constitutional rights taken from them, you need some work on those skills of yours. Trump is a politician with low morals and character but that doesn't mean he should be thrown in jail without due process. Nor should any of his rights be taken away to make that happen.

---

Then you agree that this indictment is FOS and should be dismissed.

All righty then. Have a nice evening.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

I'm not sure why you think I'm against Trump or against Clinton being indicted. Weird assumption on your part.

---

You posted the following:

Quote:

---

You are correct that the broad sense of the law can play a role but the reason for the payment still matters.

---

What was the reason? To help his campaign look good...

So, If I hired YOU to go on TV and say nice things about me, I hired you to make my campaign look good. Apparently, in your view, I have committed a crime...

Basically, it's a ridiculous take on the law...

---

The motive behind the payment matters according to what I've heard people say about the law. It's not my take.

---

The motive only matters if it's done to COVER UP A CRIME.

Absent that, the motive is moot...

Trump seems so worried, lol

https://instagr.am/p/CqzNfq9MIMT

Trump's lawyer (former DOJ guy) focused on MAL docs proceeded to through a bar of soap on the ground and order Chuck Todd to derive and pick it up during the interview this morning on Meet the Press.

Not sure who the guy is, but Chuck is going to need some rest, comforting and counseling after the exchange. Good to see folks fighting these libs who lie, mischaracterize, exploit, mislead with reckless abandon.

Quote:

---

Statutes of limitations are firm dates. There is little leeway for a prosecutor to ask a judge to set aside the statute to allow a time-barred charge to still proceed to trial. Putative criminal defendants have a right to rely on the passage of time as a complete defense to potential charges. Prosecutors must work in a timely fashion and are perpetually on the clock. That does not change simply because their target is an important person.

Bragg is largely also stuck with the formal findings of other courts regarding when certain events occurred on which he premises his charges. Everyone but Bragg, including his predecessor as Manhattan D.A., federal prosecutors, and the Federal Election Commission, had years to charge Trump with crimes within various statutory limitations periods and decided not to do so. Federal prosecutors did, however, charge candidate Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen, with crimes related to the same "hush money," and he went to prison. That was a document-intensive process, and the official papers filed in that case do not help Bragg's case against Trump.

---

Quote:

---

According to Cohen's filed-in-federal-court sentencing memorandum, the Trump Organization "falsely accounted for these (hush money) payments as 'legal expenses'" sometime in 2017. Thus, the D.A. had to bring any misdemeanor charge related to that transaction in 2019 and any felony charge in 2022 to survive a defense motion to dismiss. Bragg's grand jury handed up charges in 2023 after the five-year limitations period expired.

---

Quote:

---

CNN has been telling us since 2021, two years before Bragg's indictment of the former president, that the time Trump spent in the White House would be tacked on to the New York statute of limitations to keep the prospect of criminal charges against Trump alive. Other networks have mimicked that conclusion. Each has focused on the contention that any period following the commission of the offense during which a defendant resided outside of New York will serve to extend the statutory time bar. I heard and saw this quoted several times last week. In some cases that conclusion is wrong. In others, depending on the source, it is intentionally misleading.

---

Quote:

---

New York law, in fact, addresses this concept in its Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provide that if the defendant was "continuously outside" the state or "the whereabouts of the defendant were continuously unknown and continuously unascertainable by the exercise of reasonable diligence," the time for the state to bring charges against a person may be extended.

---

Quote:

---

Suppose the D.A. informed you that you were the target of a criminal investigation, and you promptly fled New York to a non-extradition country until the statute of limitation on your alleged crimes expired. Then you came home to Manhattan. In that case, provided you remained continuously outside of New York and purposely hid from the D.A.'s diligent pursuit, the law might extend the statute of limitations and provide the prosecutor more time to indict you.

---

That is the intent for tolling of the SOL. And it certainly doesn't appear to apply to Trump.

Quote:

---

There will be a day when Bragg has to explain himself in court. Best guess is that he will sit in the second row while one of his deputies argues the case, as weak arguers tend to do in court.

Whoever argues for Bragg in court will have to ask the judge to make new law in New York to allow up-charging to felonies by linking them to a federal election crime the D.A. cannot prosecute, and the feds who have jurisdiction did not prosecute. Then prove Trump hid from them while president as they diligently searched for him to no avail.

Team Trump's arguments are basic and direct. They will contend the time for Bragg to charge Trump for the crimes listed in the indictment expired months or years ago and can no longer be pursued. They will argue that the D.A. lacks jurisdiction or legal support to up-charge a paperwork misdemeanor to a felony by conflating it with a federal election violation over which a state prosecutor lacks jurisdiction. Only the federal government could charge such a crime and did not.

---

LINK

Great post Hawg.

But I can see talking points now, "Guilty Trump skirts charges due to judge's ruling on SOL technicality"... followed by "now the focus will move to Georgie and DOJ special counsel where the SOL is not an issue".

Easy segway without finding Trump "innocent" nor "exonerating" just merely he would have been conflicted but for judges wild interpretation of the SOL.

Book it.

fka ftc said:

---

Great post Hawg.

But I can see talking points now, "Guilty Trump skirts charges due to judge's ruling on SOL technicality"... followed by "now the focus will move to Georgie and DOJ special counsel where the SOL is not an issue".

Easy segway without finding Trump "innocent" nor "exonerating" just merely he would have been conflicted but for judges wild interpretation of the SOL.

Book it.

---

The charges if any in Georgia would have to be felonies carrying a 4 year SOL. Misdemeanors ther have a two year SOL.

The general federal SOL is five years.

FWIW.

So then, at 5 years even the Fed SOL has expired??

ravingfans said:

---

So then, at 5 years even the Fed SOL has expired??

---

Absent violent crimes, yes.

One Caveat: Manafort. He had been investigated and dropped when Yanukovych fled Ukraine in February 2014 after the CIA and State Department organized the Orange Revolution.

When Mueller was first appointed, first move was to SECRETLY apply for a tolling of the SOL.

When Manafort's attorney naturally applied for a dismissal due to SOL, that secret filed ruling was revealed for the first time.

Gobsmacked. And still questionable on a legal basis.

Mueller another glaring example of a DOJ bias against Trump. Biased at all costs.

What makes mad as hell is that Mueller had bipartisan support meaning there are Rs out there whom many here still support who told Mueller how to get after Trump and tacitly approved the shenanigans with Manafort.

Its sad, but we scoffed when the UN indicated the US legal system and policing may not be all its cracked up to be. Seems they be right.

ravingfans said:

---

So then, at 5 years even the Fed SOL has expired??

---

The special counsel if looking at charges over the Mar-a-Lago docs. That's well within the limitations period.


Feds decided long ago there was nothing on Trump as to this Stormy payment.

There is nothing on Trump related to MAL docs either which is why the smoke signals are out that they are only looking at the obstruction angle. That also has problems because NARA disputes are a civil matter so the subpoena for the docs is likely invalid as would the raid then be. Another totally manufactured crime.

No statute of limitations on the GA case though, so he likely will get the chair for telling people to do their jobs in a phone call.

Quote:

---

No statute of limitations on the GA case though, so he likely will get the chair for telling people to do their jobs in a phone call.

---

There is but has it run yet? For a misdemeanor charge, it has.

For a state felony, December 2024.

The ability on display over the past few years and now reaching new heights, of the legal system to be so arbitrarily applied to decide serious crimes like race and assault are not prosecuted because of something called systemic racism and a political candidate is harassed continuously for phone calls, bookkeeping errors and document storage.

Nice article in The Federalist outlining all the Dems involved.

https://thefederalist.com/2023/04/12/manhattan-d-a-enlisted-a-whos-who-of-biden-admin-buddies-for-trump-takedown/

This has less to do with punishing Trump, and more to do with secretly, helping his chances in the polls, so he can beat another republican candidate.