Got a link? But if she did say Trump didn't screw her I'd say that was a lie. I'm sure you're as gratified as I am that she decided to straighten up and fly right.Was she telling the truth when she signed a statement saying no affair took place?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Got a link? But if she did say Trump didn't screw her I'd say that was a lie. I'm sure you're as gratified as I am that she decided to straighten up and fly right.Was she telling the truth when she signed a statement saying no affair took place?
That's the LOTUS's entire business model.The only fool in here are you progressives hell bent on making up elaborate schemes, and using the justice system to perpetuate a fraud on the American voter.
You know, this does bring to mind an interesting observation. And this is what you may have been eluding to, but, the book keeping error was a misdemeanor that had run its statute of limitations, however, Bragg is reviving that by saying if it was done in furtherance of another crime, this reinstated the statute of limitations.
Now, Bragg never specified the underlying crime in the indictment, only in the supporting documents. However, even if he had, I’m not sure it would have validated his case because the underlying crime he’s using (allleged campaign finance violations), is not a crime for which Trump has been charged, or convicted.
In essence, Bragg case is assuming a further felony that trump hasn’t been convicted of, and he’s trying to use his case to assert that crime.
I’m not sure that’s how it works. First, Trump would have to be charged and found guilty of committing the crime if campaign finance violations, Bragg could then use that felony as his underlying crime for his book keeping misdemeanor case.
Is this not right ?
Trump could have told her pound sand, called the proper law enforcement agency to have it investigated. But he chose the wrong path and is now dealing with those choices
FyiNo campaign funds were spent on payoffs, and Bragg does not even try to allege that. Cohen used a home equity line of credit to pay Daniels and was reimbursed by Trump from personal funds. AMI used their own funds, and were never reimbursed by anyone.
You have Trump confused with Hillary again- the only candidate in 2016 who actually DID illegally use campaign funds to create the Russia Collusion Hoax...
Correct, this is not right.
#1 FPOTUS#45 doesn't have to have committed the crime(s) that FPOTUS#45 has to have intended to hide/aid in. Cohen was convicted for criminal campaign contributions and went to prison. That is an established fact, therefore the DA has to show that the falsification of Trump Organization business records was to conceal/hide/aid the commission of Cohen's crimes.
#2 There is also the case - which is one the prosecution is using - is that FPOTUS#45 violated New York election law (not federal) in conspiring to influence the election through illegal means. Again that can go back to Cohen as the crime, the support of Cohen's crimes and the falsification of business records being the "illegal means".
.
.
.
FPOTUS#45 does not have to be charged or convicted of the secondary crime for the falsification enhancement to the felony, the DA only has to show that the intent of the falsification was to cover-up/hide/aid in the commission of other crimes by himself or others. Not that he had to succeed in those other crimes.
WW
no crimes there! Soros donations are on the up and up. All above board and recorded.... We know the non profits he donates to....It is not hidden.Go tell Soros.
Yeah Trump should be keeping better company. He laid down with dogs now he is dealing with the fleas. Not having an affair would have been the better choice to make.
Correct, this is not right.
#1 FPOTUS#45 doesn't have to have committed the crime(s) that FPOTUS#45 has to have intended to hide/aid in. Cohen was convicted for criminal campaign contributions and went to prison. That is an established fact, therefore the DA has to show that the falsification of Trump Organization business records was to conceal/hide/aid the commission of Cohen's crimes.
#2 There is also the case - which is one the prosecution is using - is that FPOTUS#45 violated New York election law (not federal) in conspiring to influence the election through illegal means. Again that can go back to Cohen as the crime, the support of Cohen's crimes and the falsification of business records being the "illegal means".
.
.
.
FPOTUS#45 does not have to be charged or convicted of the secondary crime for the falsification enhancement to the felony, the DA only has to show that the intent of the falsification was to cover-up/hide/aid in the commission of other crimes by himself or others. Not that he had to succeed in those other crimes.
WW
That makes sense, but the campaign finance violation is a bogus charge.
Biden was fined at least twice for it and wouldn’t the fund raiser be just had also be a campaign finance violation? Where he was getting up to $500,000 per ticket.
Question though…
From what I’ve read, the indictment against Trump was falsifying business records, with intent to defraud, in the first/second degree. However, wasn’t the records he changed merely internal records? In other words, records that nobody else would see? That kind of takes away the “intent to defraud” stipulation out of the indictment doesn’t it? How can you “intend to defraud” if the records you falsified were internal only? If the false entries were tax violations, perhaps they can fine him for a tax code issue, but if the records were for internal purposes, then who was he trying to defraud, for the purposes of the NY indictment?
Doesn’t that take the wind out of the sails of his indictment?
I still don’t understand why Bragg never mentions the underlying felony in his indictment. He says it’s because the law doesn’t require him to, but, wouldn’t you, in an effort to be transparent, wasn’t to include it? I can’t see a reason why he wouldn’t want to put it in there.
Also, I’m curious what law or exemption he’s referring to when he says that the law doesn’t require him to state the underlying crime in the indictment.
AMI, maybe in theory if the NDA's for McDougal and the Doorman were not intended to be reimbursed. Pecker said that was not the case- he initially expected to be reimbursed based on his discussions with Cohen. Trump told him at first, "don't pay it, these things never stay secret anyway."Fyi
It was the opposite. They were SUPPOSE to claim the donation / expense as a campaign donation, not a business expense in the false manner that they did.
Why do you need to lie to try and make a point? I have never supported anyone expos themselves to kids. That is your fantasy.So you have morals now, affairs bad, drag queens reading to young children and exposing themselves, awesome.
If you want to try every politician who paid someone off during a campaign to keep them quiet about unscrupulous activities, you'd have to line up all of DC, who do you want to start with?
It’s been posted on this site. Look it up…Got a link?
Oh, im sure you do think that, because you so badly want to “get Trump “ you’ll accept lies if it achieves your ends…But if she did say Trump didn't screw her I'd say that was a lie.
If you say so…I'm sure you're as gratified as I am that she decided to straighten up and fly right.
FPOTUS#45 isn't charged with campaign finance volitions under federal law.
If the funds went to the campiagn? I assume so.
Wanna bet that the funds went to a PAC which isn't subject to campaign limitations.
You know, like the $50,000,000 that FPOTUS#45 just raised for his PAC by hosting donors as MAL/
WW
Very possible to a PAC, none of the articles ever mention a pac though. Still Biden has been fined at least twice for campaign violations…it appears to be be fairly standard thing. Just pay the fine, you’ll be ok, except for trump…
Not really.
View attachment 940045
You'd have to research New York law and case precedent.
But as fare as I know, I could be wrong, the defense didn't even bother to challenge it in court filings as it's well established.
However, the logic was mentioned in the accompanying Statement of Facts wiled with the court and made available to the public at the time the indictment was filed.
WW
However, the logic was mentioned in the accompanying Statement of Facts wiled with the court and made available to the public at the time the indictment was filed.
FPOTUS#45 hasn't been fined by the FEC.
Nor is FPOTUS#45 on trial for violating federal campaign finance laws. Although part of Cohens crimes he was convicted of were criminal federal campaign finance and he went to prison.
WW
I understand that, but braggs case hinges on campaign finance violations…which other presidents have been guilty of, yet faced only fines for.
Even Vox says this is a highly unproven legal theory and that they think his case will fail because of it…this is VOX saying that…vox is a left wing site.
Influencing an election isn't a crime. Influencing elections is literally what campaigns do...lolNo, it's for falsifying business records - to influence an election.