Zone1 NY State's politically selectively prosecution of Trump?

[AZrailwhale]

elektra


Elektra, paymentof “hush money” was considered as payment (in-kind), for the purpose of contributing payments exceeding the then current permissible maximum value of contributions to a federal election campaign. that's a motive and a crime that's likely to survive any appeal of the NY State's criminal trial verdict against Trump. Respectfully, Supposn

Except the FEC said it wasn’t a violation and refused to prosecute it.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Elecktra, I doubt that. However, if you have a link to whatever you consider as an authoritative or a credible source, please post it for all of us to read. Respectfully, Supposn

The judge prevented the FEC expert from testifying that it wasn’t a crime.

 

[Supposn]

The judge prevented the FEC expert from testifying that it wasn’t a crime.

AZrailwhale, I won't comment further on any assertions or information until I read whatever's on the supporting link or links that should be provided. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[elektra]

Elektra, you contend no links to a source is comparatively any more or any less authoritative and/or credible than any other source?
You also contend regardless of what source I choose to quote from, because it's my choice, the source's quoted assertions are all false assertions?

Its been said that thieves and liars believe everyone's a thief and a liar; but I suppose you don't believe that adage may apply to you?
Respectfully, Supposn

Such eloquent prose, I suppose, dont you?

In a thread where the OP, being you, I suppose, has not posted one link, now you demand links of me?

I guess there is not a bit of truth, not one shred of truth, in anything you have based your OP on, no truth at all in any o your comments, seeing's how there is not one link to support what you suppose.

 

[elektra]

In my unprofessional legal opinion, the accusation of NY State in this case having politically selectively prosecuted Trump is not without some merit.
I'm supposing NY State rarely indicts anyone of falsifying business records for the underlying purpose of obtaining more favorable loan rates. NY may not have sufficient judges and courts to prosecute all such cases.

What is your legal experience? What do you base your opinion on. I say endless headlines, on the television.

 

[elektra]

Elektra, if you're ashamed to name your source of information, you better than anyone else knows what there is to be ashamed of. I don't intend to guess what you don't wish to divulge. Perhaps you've accepted an unconfirmed rumor to be in fact true? That's your secret.
Respectfully, Supposn

ashamed, why apply feeling to me that I do not have, is that how you win your arguments, by not linking, and then projecting feelings to another

 

[Supposn]

Such eloquent prose, I suppose, dont you?

In a thread where the OP, being you, I suppose, has not posted one link, now you demand links of me?

I guess there is not a bit of truth, not one shred of truth, in anything you have based your OP on, no truth at all in any o your comments, seeing's how there is not one link to support what you suppose.

Elektra, you never before asked for a link. Here's a link:
https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/trump-indictment-ny.pdf
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[elektra]

Elektra, you never before asked for a link. Here's a link:
https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/trump-indictment-ny.pdf
Respectfully, Supposn

I dont need links, that is why I do not ask for them, somebody either knows all the facts and is non-partisan or they are not.

Here is the key, intent to commit another crime? Did they prove intent? Intent would of been if the payments were made with cash, so that it is not traceable. Or, had Trump used one of his dozens of corporations to make the payment, so that it was hidden. That would be intent to conceal the transaction. Yet Trump put his name on a check, and the name of the felon who admitted guilt, the scumbag lawyer.

intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof,

The other crime? There was no other crime committed. Boom, there goes the entire case. How can you have intent to conceal a crime when there was no other crime?

 

[Supposn]

I dont need links, that is why I do not ask for them, somebody either knows all the facts and is non-partisan or they are not. ...

Elektra, you don't need or ask for links because you know all the facts and you're absolutely non-partisan? Do you know of many other or any other people who, as you do know all the facts and are absolutely non-partisan?

Prior to this among your responses, I was assuming you're only pretending to be an ignorant fool.

Thus far you're still unable or unwilling to provide any of what you consider to be any authoritative or credible links supporting any of your assertions.
Ignorant fools are not entirely responsible for their condition. I still strive to be respect you, but you continue to make that more difficult for me. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[WorldWatcher]

You are speaking of Federal Election Laws. The Federal Election Commission investigated this and stated that no violation occurred.

Actually they didn't.

A complaint was made, the professional investigators at the FEC said there should be an investigation. The GOP members of the commission voted shut down the professionals from investigating which resulted in no violation cited by the FEC.

WW

 

[Supposn]

I dont need links, that is why I do not ask for them, somebody either knows all the facts and is non-partisan or they are not.

Here is the key, intent to commit another crime? Did they prove intent? Intent would of been if the payments were made with cash, so that it is not traceable. Or, had Trump used one of his dozens of corporations to make the payment, so that it was hidden. That would be intent to conceal the transaction. Yet Trump put his name on a check, and the name of the felon who admitted guilt, the scumbag lawyer.

The other crime? There was no other crime committed. Boom, there goes the entire case. How can you have intent to conceal a crime when there was no other crime?

Elektra, although you claim to know it all, I provided the link with the wording of NY States criminal indictment of Donald Trump. The jury upheld their oaths and unanimously found Trump guilty of the indictment's entire 34 counts of crimes.

The jury was satisfied with the testimony and evidence supporting the indictments accusation of Trump reimbursed his lawyer for paying to obtain a non-disclosure agreement, and the purpose of obtaining the agreement was to reduce harm to Trump's reputation among the voters prior to the 2016 general elections.

The payment to acquire the non-disclosure was considered to be “in-kind” payment, (i.e. other than usual methods of compensation) for the effective benefit of a candidate for a federal elected office. Those payments themselves weren't illegal; but they exceeded the legally permissible limits of such political contributions. That was an underlying crime referred to in the indictment.
It's believed this NY State conviction of Donald Trump will be sustained over any appeals by Trump's lawyers. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Actually they didn't.

A complaint was made, the professional investigators at the FEC said there should be an investigation. The GOP members of the commission voted shut down the professionals from investigating which resulted in no violation cited by the FEC.

WW

WorldWatcher, thank you for your response, But I won't comment further on any assertions or information until I read whatever's on the supporting link or links that should be provided. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[WorldWatcher]

WorldWatcher, thank you for your response, But I won't comment further on any assertions or information until I read whatever's on the supporting link or links that should be provided. Respectfully, Supposn

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

WW

 

[AZrailwhale]

AZrailwhale, I won't comment further on any assertions or information until I read whatever's on the supporting link or links that should be provided. Respectfully, Supposn

All you have to do is read the news stories from the trial. The defense wanted to call an EXPERT on election law who had been on the governing board of the FEC and the judge ruled he couldn't testify on anything regarding federal election law.

 

[WorldWatcher]

All you have to do is read the news stories from the trial. The defense wanted to call an EXPERT on election law who had been on the governing board of the FEC and the judge ruled he couldn't testify on anything regarding federal election law.

That's not true. The expert was allowed to testify about what the law said.

What he was NOT allowed to do was testify that crimes committed, charged, and convicted by a court of law weren't really crimes.

WW

 

[elektra]

Actually they didn't.

A complaint was made, the professional investigators at the FEC said there should be an investigation. The GOP members of the commission voted shut down the professionals from investigating which resulted in no violation cited by the FEC.

WW

hahahahaha, same people but democrats are professionals, hahahahahaha
everything a person now does is considered a campaign donation, nice, we have a long list to charge democrats with, including hundreds of hush money payments, thousands

and all those false stories on CNN, campaign donations, you know, the story about the laptop being russian disinformation

everything biden says, is a campaign donation, when CNN repeats the statements, airtime minutes being worth millions

 

[Supposn]

That's not true. The expert was allowed to testify about what the law said.

What he was NOT allowed to do was testify that crimes committed, charged, and convicted by a court of law weren't really crimes.

WW

hahahahaha, same people but democrats are professionals, hahahahahaha
everything a person now does is considered a campaign donation, nice, we have a long list to charge democrats with, including hundreds of hush money payments, thousands

and all those false stories on CNN, campaign donations, you know, the story about the laptop being russian disinformation

everything Biden says, is a campaign donation, when CNN repeats the statements, airtime minutes being worth millions

Elektra, you can't restrain yourself? You compulsively continue to not consider, but rather ignore or neglect facts?
It was Trump's lawyers that wanted to call those "experts", Republican members of the Federal Election Commision, on the stand to testify on behalf of Trump's defense.

As you pointed out, what "Biden says" is not a "paid for" contribution that exceeds the legally maximum permissible monetary value of contributions for a candidate running in a federal election.

Thus far you're still unable or unwilling to provide any of what you consider to be any authoritative or credible links supporting any of your assertions. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Elektra, I'm firmely opposed to Donald Trump but I do agree with at least one of your assertions. I also believe NY State's criminal prosecutuion of Donald Trump will likely net increase 2024 general election votes in his favor in what Is expected to be the winning candidate's extremely slim plurality.
Although eventually, Trump's conviction is likely to remain legally sustained, NY State's decision to prosecute him on these charges was ill conceived, effectively pointless, and politically contra-productive.

I contend if and when the judge as he announced his intention to do, pronounces sentence upon Trump prior to the 2024 general election, that decision may be the final difference causing Donald Trump to again be elected president of the United States. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[elektra]

Elektra, I'm firmely opposed to Donald Trump but I do agree with at least one of your assertions. I also believe NY State's criminal prosecutuion of Donald Trump will likely net increase 2024 general election votes in his favor in what Is expected to be the winning candidate's extremely slim plurality.
Although eventually, Trump's conviction is likely to remain legally sustained, NY State's decision to prosecute him on these charges was ill conceived, effectively pointless, and politically contra-productive.

I contend if and when the judge as he announced his intention to do, pronounces sentence upon Trump prior to the 2024 general election, that decision may be the final difference causing Donald Trump to again be elected president of the United States. Respectfully, Supposn

New York made up charges claiming Trump commited a crime to cover up a crime that was not commited and a crime that was outside New York's jurisdiction.

 

[elektra]

Thus far you're still unable or unwilling to provide any of what you consider to be any authoritative or credible links supporting any of your assertions. Respectfully, Supposn

This is your OP. I suppose you should know all the facts that are relevant to your OP.

Further, I used your link showing the court pretended this "crime," was based on a Federal crime that was not committed.