Is Braggs stretching it with a felony?

[Nostra]

It's been explained to you repeatedly. That you still don't understand is on you.

No crime, right?

 

[Faun]

No crime, right?

Wrong.

 

[Nostra]

Wrong.

Ok, so what crime did the FEC charge him with, Simp?

 

[Faun]

Ok, so what crime did the FEC charge him with, Simp?

LOL

Try asking me a question about something I actually said.

 

[Nostra]

LOL

Try asking me a question about something I actually said.

Pathetic dodge noted, Simp.

 

[Faun]

Pathetic dodge noted, Simp.

LOLOL

You're such a dumbfuck, it cracks me up.

Not answering questions about things I DIDN'T say or discuss is not a dodge, Dumbfuck. Your question is irrelevant to what I actually did say.

So again, try asking me a question about something I actually said.

 

[Nostra]

LOLOL

You're such a dumbfuck, it cracks me up.

Not answering questions about things I DIDN'T say or discuss is not a dodge, Dumbfuck. Your question is irrelevant to what I actually did say.

So again, try asking me a question about something I actually said.

Hmmmm…..the discussion was about why the FEC didn’t bring charges against Trump. Your response was that there were crimes.

Now when asked what crimes all you can do is tap dance like you always do.

You are a pathetic Fuckwit.

 

[Faun]

Hmmmm…..the discussion was about why the FEC didn’t bring charges against Trump. Your response was that there were crimes.

Now when asked what crimes all you can do is tap dance like you always do.

You are a pathetic Fuckwit.

You didn't ask what crimes, Dumbfuck. Bizarre, but revealing, how you're altering what you really asked; which was with what crime did the FEC charge him.

I never once said the FEC charged him with a crime.

So for the third time, try asking me a question about something I actually said.

 

[Delldude]

From the Statement of Facts it will be very easy to link Trumps (alleged) action to aid in and or concealing the crimes that Cohen and Pecker were found quilty of (Cohen through criminal prosecution, Pecker through FEC fines).

You are aware Cohen was charged and plead guilty to exceeding federal campaign contribution limits and not some nefarious scheme to hide and/or falsify records, don't you?

A criminal case would have required proving that Trump "knowingly and willfully" violated federal election law. But it is not clear that Trump had the requisite intent, because he seemed confused about what federal election law requires.
Such confusion would be understandable. "The best interpretation of the law is that it simply is not a campaign expense to pay blackmail for things that happened years before one's candidacy—and thus nothing Cohen (or, in this case, Trump, too) did is a campaign finance crime," former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith wrote in a 2018 Reason essay. "But at a minimum, it is unclear whether paying blackmail to a mistress is 'for the purpose of influencing an election,' and so must be paid with campaign funds, or a 'personal use,' and so prohibited from being paid with campaign funds."
The New York case against Trump is based on a state law that makes it a misdemeanor to falsify business records "with intent to defraud." Trump did that, Bragg thinks, when his business falsely identified Cohen's reimbursement as payment for legal services. The misdemeanor becomes a Class E felony, punishable by up to four years in prison, when the defendant's "intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof." But if Trump did not think the payment to Daniels violated federal election law—and if it is in fact unclear that it did, as Smith argues—it is hard to see how he could have intended to "conceal" that alleged crime.

Bragg does not have to prove that Trump committed campaign finance violations because Trump hasn't been charged with those.

You seriously think so?

Nothing in the statutes say the defendant has to be the one that committed the other crime, it can be committed by someone else with the defendant aiding in and or conceal the other crime.

You are reaching, provide context.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You are aware Cohen was charged and plead guilty to exceeding federal campaign contribution limits and not some nefarious scheme to hide and/or falsify records, don't you?

A criminal case would have required proving that Trump "knowingly and willfully" violated federal election law. But it is not clear that Trump had the requisite intent, because he seemed confused about what federal election law requires.
Such confusion would be understandable. "The best interpretation of the law is that it simply is not a campaign expense to pay blackmail for things that happened years before one's candidacy—and thus nothing Cohen (or, in this case, Trump, too) did is a campaign finance crime," former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith wrote in a 2018 Reason essay. "But at a minimum, it is unclear whether paying blackmail to a mistress is 'for the purpose of influencing an election,' and so must be paid with campaign funds, or a 'personal use,' and so prohibited from being paid with campaign funds."
The New York case against Trump is based on a state law that makes it a misdemeanor to falsify business records "with intent to defraud." Trump did that, Bragg thinks, when his business falsely identified Cohen's reimbursement as payment for legal services. The misdemeanor becomes a Class E felony, punishable by up to four years in prison, when the defendant's "intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof." But if Trump did not think the payment to Daniels violated federal election law—and if it is in fact unclear that it did, as Smith argues—it is hard to see how he could have intended to "conceal" that alleged crime.


You seriously think so?


You are reaching, provide context.

Remind me tomorrow.

I’ll post the statement of facts which provides the background and context.

Computer is shut down and I’m on my phone.

WW

 

[Nostra]

You didn't ask what crimes, Dumbfuck. Bizarre, but revealing, how you're altering what you really asked; which was with what crime did the FEC charge him.

I never once said the FEC charged him with a crime.

So for the third time, try asking me a question about something I actually said.

You must be too stupid to realize what we post here stays here, Dumbass.

Ok, so what crime did the FEC charge him with, Simp?

 

[SeaMajor7]

Remind me tomorrow.

I’ll post the statement of facts which provides the background and context.

Computer is shut down and I’m on my phone.

WW

Remind us all how you know EVERYTHING.....again.

 

[Faun]

You must be too stupid to realize what we post here stays here, Dumbass.

Great, now show where I ever said the FEC charged him with a crime...

 

[Nostra]

Great, now show where I ever said the FEC charged him with a crime...

That was the discussion, Simp.

Once again your zero reading comprehension skills bite you in the ass.

 

[Faun]

That was the discussion, Simp.

Once again your zero reading comprehension skills bite you in the ass.

LOL

You think I was discussing something I never said? If I never said it, how could it have been part of the discussion?

Are you ever not a dumbfuck?

Ever??

 

[Nostra]

LOL

You think I was discussing something I never said? If I never said it, how could it have been part of the discussion?

Are you ever not a dumbfuck?

Ever??

Learn to read, Simp.

 

[Faun]

Learn to read, Simp.

LOLOL

You poor thing.

I still never said that.

 

[Delldude]

I’ll post the statement of facts which provides the background and context.

What is odd here, is the fact that out of all the commentators in media, both left and right, both pro and anti-Trump, ex US Atty's, constitutional legal scholars on both sides, out of all this, all share the same opinions, as previously layed out in many posted articles here, totally dispute your 'facts' and that it sure looks like you are the only one with this cockamamie 'legal' opinion.

I go with the aforementioned commentators.

 

[WorldWatcher]

What is odd here, is the fact that out of all the commentators in media, both left and right, both pro and anti-Trump, ex US Atty's, constitutional legal scholars on both sides, out of all this, all share the same opinions, as previously layed out in many posted articles here, totally dispute your 'facts' and that it sure looks like you are the only one with this cockamamie 'legal' opinion.

I go with the aforementioned commentators.

Feel free to have other people decide what to believe.

I prefer to look at the law and the documents filed in court.

Do I know if Trump will be convicted? Nope, haven't seen the evidence because it's not in the public sphere and neither have the talking heads you rely on.

You will notice I've made no predictions about conviction, and truthfully I'd give it about:

• 20% Conviction of a felony,
• 30% of a plea deal down to a misdemeanor,
• 50% chance it gets tossed based on motions.

I disagree with those you choose to listen to for a couple of reasons:

• There were months of investigation (actually years),
• There is documentation in the form of texts, emails, correspondence, contemporaneous notes, invoice, ledger entries, and checks,
• There were months of testimony by witness in front of the Grand Jury (many of the witness called back to answer further questions),
• There was testimony not only be Cohen (Trump's personal fixer), but David Pecker of AMI Media, and Allen Weisselberg (Trump Organization Chief Financial Officer)
• The Manhattan DA indicted a former President, he knows that every step will sliced and diced by people like your talking heads looking for print and air time. But the DA would be smart enough not to bring the case unless it was on solid legal footing.

So either Bragg is a total idiot, or he's got the smoking gun. Which, IMHO might be more audio tapes (which we know he sometimes made) that have been turned over.

As I said, I doubt Trump will be convicted of a felony, and if he is he will never see the inside of a prison.

WW

 

[Flopper]

Bragg will have to prove that Donald J Trump, Himself, not two others, committed the crime of falsification of business records to conceal what Bragg believes is a federal election law violation, which he has to prove Trump did.

Maybe try it on for size.