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.
Thank you for update. If they chose to not plod along then 6 attorneys could review everything in 40 days. Believe me that if expediency was of benefit to them, they would finish quickly.
Otherwise it’s perfect to have this with a huge dog and pony show flourish 5-6 weeks ago and now nothing for SEVEN months to come.
Pre plotted perfection to get this rolling again early next year with introductions of all sorts of proposals to ban him from running because of “ongoing lengthy extensive investigation”
I think you're missing what the FEC considers legal and illegal.
1. Simply put, if Cohen paid hush money for Trump, that is illegal, but if Trump paid any hush money using his own money its legal.
2. Nor was it legal for AMI (David Pecker) to pay $150,000 hush money. He got fined $187,000. But Trump could use his own money and its perfectly legal.
What part of Trump can do whatever he wants with his own money don't you understand?Cohen committed a crime. Trump aided & abetted him.
What part of Trump can do whatever he wants with his own money don't you understand?
If you buy something for Trump it needs to be considered a campaign contribution.
David Pecker paid a $187,000 fine for $150,000 in hush money.
THE FEC DID NOT PROSECUTE TRUMP, DUH.
Most of the time, the defense opts for more time prior to any trial. This is no exception.It's not the prosecution that requested a later time frame.
And Alvin can't wade into Federal territory pursuing a felony.Cohen committed a crime. Trump aided & abetted him.
And Alvin can't wade into Federal territory pursuing a felony.
Most of the time, the defense opts for more time prior to any trial. This is no exception.
And Alvin can't wade into Federal territory pursuing a felony.
He is trying to base these charges on a FEC violation, of which he has no authority.He's not, Trump is charged with state business law violations.
For the felony enhancement there is nothing in the law that proven federal law violations can't be the crime the defendant intended to aid or conceal. Cohen violated campaign finance laws, was convicted, and went to jail. Pecker violated campaign finance laws and was fined by the FEC. Both could be used as the base crime Trump is charged with.
WW
reason.com
He is trying to base these charges on a FEC violation, of which he has no authority.
The expected criminal charges against former President Donald Trump in New York reportedly hinge on a violation of federal election law with which Trump was never charged. That fact in itself suggests how dubious the case against Trump is: To convert a state misdemeanor involving falsification of business records into a felony, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, is relying on the theory that Trump was trying to cover up another crime. But federal prosecutors apparently did not think the evidence of that second crime was strong enough to charge Trump.
Is the Manhattan D.A. upholding or flouting the rule of law by prosecuting Trump?
The New York case hinges on the claim that former President Donald Trump tried to cover up a campaign finance violation with which he was never charged.
Bragg is operating from Trump intended to do something later on
Political witch hunt
Some type of though police thing
You still fail to think and comprehend that potential future events maybe don’t get you put on trial. Actually occurred events do,
Some type of though police thing
In fact that is the case. Just like with Babbit, it’s not what has been done but rather speculation about the potential of what Might be done.Where does this potential future events come from.
One can take actions now to aid an or conceal crimes that occurred in the past.
Make a motion to dismiss to a Judge in New York that Section 175.10 ONLY applies to future events and your motion will be dismissed and the Judge will be telling that funny story for years.
WW
In fact that is the case. Just like with Babbit, it’s not what has been done but rather speculation about the potential of what Might be done.
I don’t elevate you to understanding mode
Refute the comment.
Babbit provided no armed lethal threat and many other law enforcement were within feet and did not fireWith Babbit - It was about what she did. Which was breaking through the final law enforcement barricade with the door to the House Chamber just steps away. As the first of a mob to breach the barrier she presented a clear and present danger to law enforcement, Members of Congress, and other staff.
I'm still not getting what you are trying to say here because Trumps (allegedly) actions at the time aided Cohen and Pecker in their crimes by agreeing to the money laundering in 2016, then further actions (allegedly) were taken in 2017 to conceal the crimes committed in 2016. Those are past tense, not future tense.
WW
Oh sorry baby doll man that I missed the T on thought. That’s a major victory for youIt's not possible to understand, no less refute, incomprehensible English.
"Some type of though police thing"
