Is Braggs stretching it with a felony?

[Faun]

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?

LOL

Cries Baghdad Lisa.

 

[Leviticus]

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

If I own a company And try to use that company to repay a personal debt, Which is what trump did, While at the same time forging documentation to make it seem like the payments. The company is making have nothing to do with that debt and are a completely separate issue, That is a crime.

Trump paying them back is not illegal. But the payments are not a business expense. They had nothing to do with the company. They were a personal debt held by trump. He isn't allowed to claim repayment Of a personal debt that had nothing to do with his business as a business expense. He would have been fully within His rights to Pay back to debts with money from his private business, But the moment he tried to forge documents to make It looked like the company was paying a separate, completely unrelated expense, he broke the law.

 

[Faun]

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?

No, but it does mean the Supreme Court is NOT saying, there's nothing there.

 

[Nostra]

Some might say once or twice, maybe three times, are misdemeanors, but 34 times?!?!

Could have been 1000 times, Simp.

Still a misdemeanor.

 

[kyzr]

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

State charges expired.

1. You want links? Its called google. I can post 20 more if needed.

FEC: Trump-Stormy case ‘not a campaign finance violation’ - Washington Examiner

A key member of the Federal Election Commission today rejected the Manhattan district attorney’s indictment of former President Donald Trump as a violation of federal election laws.“It's not a campaign finance violation. It's not a reporting violation of any kind,” said FEC Commissioner James E...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

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.

www.westernjournal.com

You want to read what a Law Professor said about Bragg's case? Read this link:

Plan B From Outer Manhattan: Why the Court Should Move the Trump Trial Out of Manhattan

Below is my column in the Hill on why I believe the Trump prosecution would warrant an admittedly rare venue change. I am still hoping that Judge Juan Merchan has the integrity to dismiss this clea…

jonathanturley.org

2. The USSC doesn't give a shit about what Cohen fessed to. The USSC rules on letter of THE LAW.

3. Cohen/Trump are not related. Cohen said in a letter that Trump did not know about the legal hush payments. Legal since campaign funds were not used.

 

[Nostra]

of course she had opposition research done on Trump! It is what candidates do....they even run it on themselves, to see what bad stuff may be showing up on themselves... Trump did oppo on Clinton as well....and USED IT

She didn't use it, because it had not been verified...
it was raw intelligence, thus giving what Fusion GPS had to the Fbi.

The FBI had already started an investigation of their own in to Russian election interference from other sources.

Hitlery had to pay a fine for her illegal “opposition research”.

 

[kyzr]

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

Correct. It would take 4-voted to pursue. 2 < 4

 

[Faun]

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.

Quote them saying he didn't use campaign money...

 

[kyzr]

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

It takes 4-votes to investigate/indict. 2 <<<<< 4, 3 <<<<<< 4 Therefore, the campaign finance law was not broken.

 

[Lisa558]

If I own a company And try to use that company to repay a personal debt, Which is what trump did, While at the same time forging documentation to make it seem like the payments. The company is making have nothing to do with that debt and are a completely separate issue, That is a crime.

Trump paying them back is not illegal. But the payments are not a business expense. They had nothing to do with the company. They were a personal debt held by trump. He isn't allowed to claim repayment Of a personal debt that had nothing to do with his business as a business expense. He would have been fully within His rights to Pay back to debts with money from his private business, But the moment he tried to forge documents to make It looked like the company was paying a separate, completely unrelated expense, he broke the law.

So we are back to falsifying records, which is a misdemeanor. Expired.

 

[kyzr]

You're mistaken. Trump is charged with a felony which carries a 5 year statute of limitations.

What felony was Trump charged with? It was not specified. The Bragg indictment is total bullshit.

Plan B From Outer Manhattan: Why the Court Should Move the Trump Trial Out of Manhattan

Below is my column in the Hill on why I believe the Trump prosecution would warrant an admittedly rare venue change. I am still hoping that Judge Juan Merchan has the integrity to dismiss this clea…

jonathanturley.org

 

[Faun]

1. Posting a democrat whine by 2 democrat commissioners about democrat claimed campaign violations doesn't prove anything.
2. As I proved before, with examples, of allowed and disallowed campaign funds. Hush money payments with your own money is NOT a violation.

Did you see where Hillary got nailed for using campaign funds to pay Russians for the Steele Dossier? That's a crime.

Denying it was campaign money is simply absurd. Cohen was convicted of a related charge because it was campaign money.

You're doing a better job here than the left showing how partisan those 2 Republican FEC members, who protected Trump, were for citing convicting Cohen's prosecution as their reason to not pursue a case against Trump.

 

[Faun]

I asked you two questions, Simp.

You pathetically dodged both.

You came up with what you thought, not facts, Dumbass.

 

[kyzr]

LOL This Trainor...?
No, the FEC never said there was nothing there. A majority vote was needed to proceed with a case but the 6 member commission failed to achieve that majority with 2 Democrats voting to proceed, 2 Republicans voting to not proceed and 2 others recusing themselves.
And the reason cited by the 2 Republicans was that the matter was settled for them by the DOJ prosecuting Cohen for it.

The FEC majority voted not to indict for campaign violations. That two partisan democrats voted to proceed just shows that they are hacks.
I saw Trainor and Smith explain what expenses are campaign and what are not. Hush payments are clearly not.
You want the FEC to vote to indict, but don't explain how the hush payments are illegal.

 

[Leviticus]

So we are back to falsifying records, which is a misdemeanor. Expired.

It's only a misdemeanor if there was no other crime committed in concert with it. And to meet that requirement, .All that matters is that another crime was committed. He doesn't need to be convicted of that crime, And it doesn't matter whether or not the statute of limitations has expired on that crime. If they can prove the crime was committed, Regardless of when it happened Or whether or not he was convicted, Then They can raise the misdemeanor charges to felony charges.
The mere existence of a second crime Connected to the falsifying of business records makes the falsifying of business records a felony.

 

[kyzr]

They didn't say there was no crime. They acknowledged there was a crime. But 2 Republicans blocked proceeding, citing Cohen's prosecution for that crime being sufficient for them.

Two repubs and 2 _____ blocked proceeding. Only 2 dems voted to proceed. 2 <<<< 4

 

[kyzr]

That's false. Two of the other 4 didn't vote on the matter. The vote ended in a 2-2 tie.

Not voting to indict means no violation. 2 <<<<4 There were 6 commissioners, 4 required to indict.

 

[WorldWatcher]

It takes 4-votes to investigate/indict. 2 <<<<< 4, 3 <<<<<< 4 Therefore, the campaign finance law was not broken.

Campaign finance laws were broken, Cohen was convicted of it. Felony conviction >>>>>>> GOP FEC commissioner personal opinion.

WW

 

[Leviticus]

Denying it was campaign money is simply absurd. Cohen was convicted of a related charge because it was campaign money.

You're doing a better job here than the left showing how partisan those 2 Republican FEC members, who protected Trump, were for citing convicting Cohen's prosecution as their reason to not pursue a case against Trump.

You're mistaken on that point. He wasn't convicted for taking Money. He used his own money to make the payments to stormy Daniels.. He was charged with making Illegal campaign contributions. The payments made to stormy Daniels and other women buy him with his own money Constituted inclined donations to donald trump's campaign, Which exceeded the amount of money he was Legally allowed to donate to donald trump's campaign. They didn't literally take money out of the campaign to make the payments. cohen Took out A-line of credit on his own house with the promise that Donald Trump would repay him.

That's where the whole issue arises because donald trump repaid him by Having the company give him money, While forging documents saying that the money was Completely unrelated legal work that he had done for the company. Except he had done no legal work for the company. He had no legal relationship with the trump organization at all. He had only represented Donald Trump on personal cases and had never had any retainer agreement with the trump organization as a company.

 

[kyzr]

Denying it was campaign money is simply absurd. Cohen was convicted of a related charge because it was campaign money.
You're doing a better job here than the left showing how partisan those 2 Republican FEC members, who protected Trump, were for citing convicting Cohen's prosecution as their reason to not pursue a case against Trump.

Now were getting somewhere.
Cohen paid Stormy from his personal money, then charged Trump ~$400,000 in "legal fees"
That's a bookkeeping error, not campaign money.

Trump lawyer Michael Cohen: I paid Stormy Daniels out of my own pocket

In a statement to "The New York Times," Michael Cohen said he paid Stormy Daniels and was not reimbursed by the Trump campaign or the Trump organization.

www.usatoday.com