Is Braggs stretching it with a felony?

[Care4all]

Russian interference that had nothing to do with Trump. After he won, that's when they used the dossier knowing it wasn't verified. They even got surveillance warrants based on it.

It had everything to do with trump.

The surveillance was started BEFORE Trump won, in October

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

34 X 4 years! That adds up! Maybe he”ll be good for the 2160 election.

Except for the fact Fat Alvin didn't cover 4 years. Every indictment contains "falsification of records."

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It had everything to do with trump.

Well a 30 million dollar investigation didn't conclude that.

 

[westwall]

there is no proof of that what so ever!

the information was given to the FBI when she was winning....

What absolute horse shit. The proof was all over the MSM you lying hack!

 

[Lisa558]

34 X 4 years! That adds up! Maybe he’ll be good for the 2160 election.

There’s no felony, let alone 34 of them. They’re all the same payment, in installments.

I question whether there’s even a misdemeanor, which has expired at any rate. What’s wrong with putting the cost of the non-disclosure contract, which is a legal contract, into legal expensss?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And are you saying the other two FEC commissioners differing, don't know elections better than anyone?

A difference of opinion. When the Supreme Court votes 5 to 4, does that mean the 4 justices in the minority didn't know what they were voting on?

 

[Leviticus]

Braggs didn't have enough for misdemeanors b/c the statute ran out so he's saying it's a felony to commit a crime for covering up another crime. You can't possibly prove that.

.You have it backwards. Falsifying business records becomes a felony if it is committed in connection to another crime regardless of whether that crime is a misdemeanor or a felony. The second crime being committed makes the original misdemeanor of felony.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

.You have it backwards. Falsifying business records becomes a felony if it is committed in connection to another crime regardless of whether that crime is a misdemeanor or a felony. The second crime being committed makes the original misdemeanor of felony.

Then why didn't he list what this supposed other crime was?

 

[kyzr]

The other two abstained from voting is what World watcher had said? Without a quorum, neither vote counts....

Quorum is not the right word.

Definition of QUORUM

the minimum number of officers or members of a body that is required to be present at a given meeting (as to transact business); a select group; a body of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints comprising those in the same grade of priesthood… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

There were 6 commissioners and 6 voting commissioners.
2 voted to indict
2 voted not to indict
2 voted to abstain

A majority voting NOT to indict.

 

[Lisa558]

If we had a president who respected the Constitution and citizens’ rights, he would stand up (holding onto the podium for balance), point out the travesty of a DA targeting an individual with a non-existent crime for political purposes, and condemn it. Instead, he smirks when asked about the government weaponization against his #1 political opponent.

 

[Leviticus]

Then why didn't he list what this supposed other crime was?

Because they aren't required Until the discovery process leading up to the trial. It's common practice in prosecution Use the bare minimum of evidence required In the indictment process. They don't want to show all the cards in their hand until they're legally required to do so.

I wouldn't be surprised if they went with a tax fraud route. That would be the obvious thing to go with. I mean it's obvious that trump was trying to pass the payments off as legitimate business expenses in order to allow him to take it off in his company's taxes.
But they might have evidence of any number of crimes that he committed in connection to the payments.

 

[Lisa558]

Because they aren't required Until the discovery process leading up to the trial. It's common practice in prosecution Use the bare minimum of evidence required In the indictment process. They don't want to show all the cards in their hand until they're legally required to do so.

I wouldn't be surprised if they went with a tax fraud route. That would be the obvious thing to go with. I mean it's obvious that trump was trying to pass the payments off as legitimate business expenses in order to allow him to take it off in his company's taxes.
But they might have evidence of any number of crimes that he committed in connection to the payments.

They were legitimate business expenses - the cost of an NDA.

 

[Care4all]

All 34 basically say the same thing.

All 34 are for three different cover ups of sexual encounters when Melania and he were still newly weds...

Stormy Daniel's $130,000

Karen McDougal, Nat.ional Enquirer CATCH AND KILL, for $150,000

The Bellman claims of Trump getting his maid pregnant, National Enquirer CATCH AND KILL STORY, for $30,000...

Boy oh boy, Trump seems to be his own little Harvey Weinstein....

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Because they aren't required Until the discovery process leading up to the trial. It's common practice in prosecution Use the bare minimum of evidence required In the indictment process. They don't want to show all the cards in their hand until they're legally required to do so.

I wouldn't be surprised if they went with a tax fraud route. That would be the obvious thing to go with. I mean it's obvious that trump was trying to pass the payments off as legitimate business expenses in order to allow him to take it off in his company's taxes.
But they might have evidence of any number of crimes that he committed in connection to the payments.

Or perhaps it's because like this phony charge, there really is no second crime. He needs time to try and find one.

 

[Care4all]

They were legitimate business expenses - the cost of an NDA.

No they were not.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

All 34 are for three different cover ups of sexual encounters when Melania and he were still newly weds...

Stormy Daniel's $130,000

Karen McDougal, Nat.ional Enquirer CATCH AND KILL, for $150,000

The Bellman claims of Trump getting his maid pregnant, National Enquirer CATCH AND KILL STORY, for $30,000...

Boy oh boy, Trump seems to be his own little Harvey Weinstein....

Well if you're going to use a tabloid as your source, it's a pretty weak argument.

 

[kyzr]

No they were not.

Link please. The USSC already said spending your own money is free speech.

 

[Lesh]

Yes the FEC said there was no crime. Both FEC commissioners Trainor & Smith explained it this way.
Campaign finance laws are VERY subjective and specific.
Looking at specific "campaign" items:
1. Buying a new very expensive suit to look good? NO
2. Teeth whitening? NO
3. Paying hush money? NO
4. Buying TV commercials? YES
5. Hiring a campaign manager? YES
6. Buying newspaper ads? YES

The FEC said there was no crime for the Stormy payment since Trump did NOT use campaign money.

They did not however rule that COHEN did not make a campaign contribution though did they?

And HE was where the direct payment to Daniels came from

Illegally

Trump’s crimes were on trying to hide that fact

 

[Care4all]

Quorum is not the right word.

Definition of QUORUM

the minimum number of officers or members of a body that is required to be present at a given meeting (as to transact business); a select group; a body of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints comprising those in the same grade of priesthood… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

There were 6 commissioners and 6 voting commissioners.
2 voted to indict
2 voted not to indict
2 voted to abstain

A majority voting NOT to indict.

that's not how it works....

Federal campaign finance watchdog has full slate for first time in years

The agency has been without a quorum for most of 2020.

www.politico.com

 

[Lesh]

1. Those two FEC commissioners know election laws better than anyone. Stop grasping at straws that are not there. What part of "there is no crime" don't you understand? If Trump committed ANY campaign finance violation the FEC would have prosecuted him.

2. You point to two partisan commission members instead of the actual Election Law. If the case went to the USSC we both know how it would end.

3. If those two "GOP" members voted not to indict, that still leaves a four member majority that could have indicted. Why did two abstain? Two commissioners couldn't block it, as you claim. Why didn't the DOJ indict? They're all democrats.

1. Those two commissioners did NOT say there was no crime. They said they “ declined to prosecute


2. Remains to be seen.

3.the DOJ DID PROSECUTE. Cohen