Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The FEC never even investigated ANYTHING
Not according to what the board members stated.
Technically the FEC did investigate and the Office of General Counsel recommended charges, the commissioners though blocked further action politically - not based on the recommendation of the investigators.
Just say'n.
WW
You are still confused. Trump was NOT charged.
FEC drops investigation into Trump hush money payments
The Federal Elections Commission (FEC) has closed its investigation into whether former President Trump illegally made hush money payments to women prior to the 2016 election. The FEC vot…thehill.com
No it didn't. The FEC deadlock on charging Trump 2 voting for charges, 2 voting against, and 2 not voting. It takes a majority of the 6 commissioners to issue a ruling.
Actually the Office of the FEC General Counsel reported and recommend filing charges against Trump.
But that is irrelevant anyway as New York isn't charging Trump based on Federal Campaign Finance laws. They charged Trump under Section 175.10 of the New York State Penal Code for Falsification of Business Records.
Possibly, we will have to wait and see.
Because the defense requested later times, the Defense is reported as requesting a Trial in spring.
There is a lot that will occur in the coming months. First of all the evidence has to be turned over to the Defense, the Defense has to review all the evidence (and there is a lot that was presented to the Grand Jury), then the Defense has to file it's motions (Motions to Dismiss, Motions to Suppress Evidence, etc.).
Since the Prosecution is ready to go, they've already presented the evidence to the Grand Jury, the time is for the Defense to build their case.
WW
Link to your post. It looks like it has nothing to do with Stormy. WTF does 5,000% over legal limits have to do with anything?????WHY do you think they stated there wasn't a crime, moron?
“Several of our colleagues instead voted to dismiss the allegations,” Broussard and Weintraub added in their statement. “The Commission therefore did not have enough votes to pursue well-grounded charges that the former President of the United States knowingly and willfully accepted contributions nearly 5,000% over the legal limit to suppress a negative story mere days before Election Day.”
The six-member commission’s vote – which was taken last month, but the results of which were first made public Thursday – was 2-2. Broussard and Weintraub voted yes, Independent Steven Walther did not vote, and Republican Allen Dickerson recused himself.
The FEC never even investigated ANYTHING..........DUMBASS.
Teabaggers protecting their dear leader.........AGAIN.
www.westernjournal.com
The FEC said no such thing.The FEC said he was not charged with that crime because it was NOT illegal. That is basing a felony charge on a non-criminal act. Paying hush money is perfectly legal. You can't seem to realize that Cohen pleaded guilty to something that was not a crime. There are many Democrats that think I am correct and Bragg is an idiot.
You are about to get an education in December, or even before that, when these charges die an agonizing death.
Why do you think the judge is not having the next court date until December and a possible trial starting in January? It is to keep the fake news alive until deep into the election cycle. Think about 8 months delay. Trump's lawyers should make a motion that his right to speedy trial is being violated.
According to a................."Acting" Trump appointee.Link to your post. It looks like it has nothing to do with Stormy. WTF does 5,000% over legal limits have to do with anything?????
“It’s not a campaign finance violation. It’s not a reporting violation of any kind,” Trainor told the Washington Examiner in an article published Wednesday, a day after the legal and media circus of Trump’s arraignment in Manhattan Criminal Court in New York City. Bragg, Trainor said, is “really trying to make a square peg fit into a round hole.”Ex-FEC Chairman Dismantles Alvin Bragg Case After Tweeting Photo, Says Not a Campaign Violation
The Manhattan district attorney is taking a case to court that the FEC decided against pursuing more than two years ago.
Trainor is talking about this current STATE case using Federal standards . Not only that he is trying to make a case that there is no campaign violation HERE when Trump is not charged with campaign violations.Link to your post. It looks like it has nothing to do with Stormy. WTF does 5,000% over legal limits have to do with anything?????
“It’s not a campaign finance violation. It’s not a reporting violation of any kind,” Trainor told the Washington Examiner in an article published Wednesday, a day after the legal and media circus of Trump’s arraignment in Manhattan Criminal Court in New York City. Bragg, Trainor said, is “really trying to make a square peg fit into a round hole.”Ex-FEC Chairman Dismantles Alvin Bragg Case After Tweeting Photo, Says Not a Campaign Violation
The Manhattan district attorney is taking a case to court that the FEC decided against pursuing more than two years ago.
Because I HAVE said it repeatedly and you’re getting tiresome
I’m talking about for trump. They’ve already refused to push the matter for him.The DOJ HAS taken it up and convicted Cohen
Keep up
Yes, it was but they didn't refuse,
Trump's lawyer and leader of the DOJ shut everything down.
William Barr Turns DOJ Into Donald Trump's Law Firm
View attachment 774071
The Intercept
https://theintercept.com › 2020/06/22 › william-barr-h...
Jun 22, 2020 — He quickly saw Barr's move for exactly what it was: a raw attempt to shut down ongoing Trump-related investigations.
They did...........hence.........THE INDICTMENT.
The DOJ does not involve itself in state crimesI’m talking about for trump. They’ve already refused to push the matter for him.
All charges against Trump were presented, in the indictment.
As part of the indictment arraignment process? No.
Will at be addressed probably as part of the defenses Motion to Dismiss? Most assuredly. The prosecution will then be able to file a rebuttal and then it will be up to the Judge to rule.
It was, the connection to election law and campaign violations as the basis for First Degree (felony) Business Record Falsification instead of Second Degree (misdemeanor) were file with the court of the same time. So say that the defendant has not been informed of the basis of the first degree enhancement isn't true. He has been. The particulars of the DA's legal theory on how that justifies the enhancement is strategy that will be part of later proceedings.
The accused does know the charges against him 34 counts of Falsification of Business Records in the First Degree (Class E Felony).
Remember this is the indictment stage based on a Grand Jury of his peers voting to indict. This is not the trial stage were evidence all evidence has to be laid out by the DA.
Some people want trial level details, but that won't happen yet.
WW
All charges against Trump were presented, in the indictment.
The particulars of the DA's legal theory on how that justifies the enhancement is strategy that will be part of later proceedings.
You are still confused. Trump was NOT charged.
Also, it is already spring and has been before the indictment. Do you have a link to your fiction regarding Trump's defense asking for a trial in December, weeks before the primaries?
www.cbsnews.com
wibqam.com
Agreed, but those charges are only felonies if they are hinged on another crime, which the indictment fails to name, and Bragg hasn’t named them either. He simply refuses to say one way or another, which is why the media is even confused about the underlying crime. I’ve basically made an indictment in one document that points to some information in another document, but Bragg hasnt actually said that the information in the SOF is indeed the underlying crime. I mean, we can speculate, but we really don’t know, and neither does the defense. For all we know, Bragg may have a completely different reason he could spring on them at a later date, and judging by the talk in the media, one would be correct in suspecting that., and here is why:
Your statement is exactly what people are talking about. Those “particulars” are the problem here, because those particulars are how Bragg elevated a state misdemeanor to a felony, and that information is extremely relevant to how Bragg came up with the charge and should have been a part of why the defendant should have been informed of it.
What bragg is doing is saying “I’ve laid out the charge, but I’ll tell you the crime I used to get that charge at a later date”. What I’m saying is, the entire charge, including the crimes he is using to get there, should have been spelled out in the indictment, because to get to the felony level, it has to be based on another crime. Until he lays out the crime it’s hinged upon, the indictment he specified is just a misdemeanor.
The accused has a right to know exactly what he’s being charged with and why. Things like evidence and all that will come out later in the trial stage.
They will act like they never saw thisView attachment 774415
He did. Trump's charges are in the indictment. The link to Cohen's case is clearly state in the Statement of Facts.
WW
No, they are not. That is why the feds would not charge him with a campaign law violation, because he did not use campaign funds.
How NY sets up their laws is just plain stupid. Any lawyer will tell you a business records violation is a misdemeanor usually resulting in a small fine.
View attachment 774415
He did. Trump's charges are in the indictment. The link to Cohen's case is clearly state in the Statement of Facts.
WW
They will act like they never saw this
If the indictment is too difficult to comprehend, here is the statement of facts: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000187-4dd5-dfdf-af9f-4dfda6e80000
In NY the indictment does not have to specify that crime
