Is Braggs stretching it with a felony?

[kyzr]

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

Since campaign funds were not used, the hush money payments did NOT break Federal campaign finance laws, period.
So said the FEC.

copied from post #340:
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.

 

[kyzr]

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

1. They said there was no crime, how many fucking times do you want me to post that link?
2. Election finance laws are clear on what may or may not use campaign funds.
3. We're discussing Trump not Cohen.

 

[kyzr]

that's not how it works....

The FEC already voted on Trump's hush money payment. That's where the 2,2,2 vote came from. There was a quorum at that time for that vote.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/7784/7784_43.pdf

And here is the FEC documenting the failed vote and that charges should be pursued.

To quote a well respected poster: "Those two FEC commissioners know election laws better than anyone."


WW

 

[konradv]

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?

That’s why we need a trial, to clear up these issues.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That’s why we need a trial, to clear up these issues.

No, that's why we need this case thrown out of court on day one.

 

[Lesh]

1. They said there was no crime, how many fucking times do you want me to post that link?
2. Election finance laws are clear on what may or may not use campaign funds.
3. We're discussing Trump not Cohen.

1. They did NOT. Post a link to that. You can’t

2. Will the SC vacate Cohen’s conviction?

3. They are related. And no. The FEC has not weighed in on a state matter. The “F’ stands for Federal. Trump faces state charges

 

[konradv]

No, that's why we need this case thrown out of court on day one.

I wouldn’t count on that. If dismissal were a possibility, it would already have happened.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I wouldn’t count on that. If dismissal were a possibility, it would already have happened.

You don't file for a dismissal during the grand jury or plea hearings. You do that when the case goes to court at the end of this year.

 

[Lisa558]

That’s why we need a trial, to clear up these issues.

I think we need to put you on trial to see if the money you spent on your new suit was legal, since you bought it to cover up a crime I haven’t dreamed up yet.

 

[Lesh]

No, that's why we need this case thrown out of court on day one.

Which won’t happen. Wanna bet?

Since campaign funds were not used, the hush money payments did NOT break Federal campaign finance laws, period.
So said the FEC.

copied from post #340:
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.

Are you talking about TRUMP?

He’s not being charged with campaign contribution violations.

That’s irrelevant

 

[konradv]

I think we need to put you on trial to see if the money you spent on your new suit was legal, since you bought it to cover up a crime I haven’t dreamed up yet.

Not dreamt up, rather someone already went to prison for it and now refuses to continue to cover up for the principal of the crime.

 

[Lisa558]

Not dreamt up, rather someone already went to prison for it and now refuses to continue to cover up for the principal of the crime.

He said Trump didn’t know about it, and it’s certainly possible. That’s what “fixers” do - sleezy lawyers who see problems coming and pay them to go away. Then he billed Trump for the NDA.

 

[konradv]

He said Trump didn’t know about it, and it’s certainly possible. That’s what “fixers” do - sleezy lawyers who see problems coming and pay them to go away. Then he billed Trump for the NDA.

Why would Cohen pay without Trump’s direction? He wasn’t the one playing hide the pickle with a porn star.

 

[Lesh]

He said Trump didn’t know about it, and it’s certainly possible. That’s what “fixers” do - sleezy lawyers who see problems coming and pay them to go away. Then he billed Trump for the NDA.

That’s certainly a defense. However the prosecution seems to believe that they have evidence to show that narrative to be bullshit

 

[Lisa558]

Why would Cohen pay without Trump’s direction? He wasn’t the one playing hide the pickle with a porn star.

So let’s say he did? What of it? Trump can use his own money for any legal purpose, and paying off a porn star with an NDA agreement is legal.

This is all a distraction to shift attention from the corruption in the Biden Crime Family, the weaponization of the government against Republicans, and Biden’s theft of classified info from the SCIF when he was a senator. All that is much worse than two consenting adults playing hide the pickle.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The other 4 voted NOT to pursue campaign violations. So there were two partisan hacks.

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

False, on the issue to pursue: 2 voted to reject, 2 voted to pursue, and 2 didn't vote at all.

Therefore the vote was deadlocked at 2 and 2, not action could be taken because it requires a majority of 4 of 6.

WW

 

[Lesh]

So let’s say he did? What of it? Trump can use his own money for any legal purpose, and paying off a porn star with an NDA agreement is legal.

This is all a distraction to shift attention from the corruption in the Biden Crime Family, the weaponization of the government against Republicans, and Biden’s theft of classified info from the SCIF when he was a senator. All that is much worse than two consenting adults playing hide the pickle.

You just admitted Trump’s guilt

Congratulations

 

[WorldWatcher]

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

Because Trump isn't being charged with the other crime. The other crime has already been charged and the individual (Cohen) convicted.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

False. 2 to indict, 2 to non indict. And two abstained which is not vote.

That means the vote was dead locked, not that it was a vote to non charge.

WW