We Finally Know the Case Against Trump, and It Is Strong

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you secretly make an in-kind contribution to a campaign, and it is not reported, that is a federal violation of campaign finance laws.

Did CNN report their contributions to the Clinton campaign?

 

[g5000]

David Pecker, Trump's personal friend who owns the National Enquirer, is also guilty of violating campaign finance laws. His payoff to Karen McDougal, the Playboy playmate, was an in-kind contribution to the Trump campaign.

He has been granted immunity for testifying what he knew about Trump, Cohen, and the payments.

 

[g5000]

Did CNN report their contributions to the Clinton campaign?

 

[Rumpole]

the intention of the payoff was to influence the election.

Anything that is intended to "influence" the election is illegal?

The simple answer is no. Not all attempts to influence an election are criminal.

Speaking at a podium, is an attempt to influence the election, but that is not deception.

Deception is required, I would think. And on that score, (not a lawyer) but my guess is that it would depend on severity and a scheme or conspiracy.

While Santos fits the above description, he was just lying, which might be criminal, I don't know, but unlike Trump, it wasn't part of a scheme, a conspiracy where cash is changing hands, and other complicating factors.

 

[Rumpole]

The Dossier was intended to influence the election.

All 'oppo research' is for influencing elections. Influencing elections, per se, isn't criminal.

 

[excalibur]

If you secretly make an in-kind contribution to a campaign, and it is not reported, that is a federal violation of campaign finance laws.

And a Federal matter, not a NY matter, and 99.999% are simply ended with fines. LIke Øbama.

Obama 2008 campaign fined $375,000

The fine for violations is one of the largest ever against a presidential campaign.

www.politico.com

 

[Rumpole]

No. No it isn't. Biden recently got millions from China

There is zero evidence for that claim.

after letting a spy balloon float over America with NO explanation whatsoever.

Biden ordered it taken down, it was the Military that delayed the action.

Mods insist I need links?

You should, when making claims of fact, in order to substantiate your claims.

Cheers,
Rumpole

 

[Rumpole]

And a Federal matter, not a NY matter, and 99.999% are simply ended with fines. LIke Øbama.

Obama 2008 campaign fined $375,000

The fine for violations is one of the largest ever against a presidential campaign.

www.politico.com

Campaign fines are not that uncommon. Bob Dole was fined $100,000.

But they aren't similar to the Trump indictment.

 

[g5000]

And a Federal matter, not a NY matter, and 99.999% are simply ended with fines. LIke Øbama.

Obama 2008 campaign fined $375,000

The fine for violations is one of the largest ever against a presidential campaign.

www.politico.com

Late filings.

From your link:

The major sticking point for the FEC appeared to be a series of missing 48-hour notices for nearly 1,300 contributions totaling more than $1.8 million — an issue that lawyers familiar with the commission’s work say the FEC takes seriously. The notices must be filed on contributions of $1,000 or more that are received within the 20-day window of Election Day.

Also:

The document outlined other violations, such as erroneous contribution dates on some campaign reports. The Obama campaign was also late returning some contributions that exceeded the legal limit.


No attempt at fraud or concealment. When you have a billion dollar campaign, there are going to be some mistakes.

Trump's falsifications were deliberate.

 

[Rumpole]

That' odd, i deleted the meme and nothing remained. Care to say something to the forum? A point, maybe?

 

[Rumpole]

Federal law is being used by a local DA. Uh-huh. NY tax laws? Where is that in the indictment?

Read the SOF, page 1, section 2.

 

[Rust_Cohle]

There is zero evidence for that claim.

Biden ordered it taken down, it was the Military that delayed the action.


You should, when making claims of fact, in order to substantiate your claims.

Cheers,
Rumpole

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/16/politics/house-gop-memo-biden-family/index.html

 

[Rumpole]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/16/politics/house-gop-memo-biden-family/index.html

Ah, Rust_Cohle, it seems that CNN article you've provide the link for lacks any concrete evidence to directly implicate President Joe Biden in the transactions involving certain members of his family and the Chinese company. The memo, you see, delves into payments made to the likes of Hallie Biden, Hunter Biden, and James Biden, from their associate, John Robinson Walker. However, one must note that it fails to forge a connection between these transactions and President Biden himself, nor does it insinuate that the President had any involvement or awareness of these financial dealings.

Allow me to reiterate that despite the inquisitive nature of the essay, it has yet to provide any conclusive evidence that good old Joe Biden was entangled in his son's business matters, or that he had abused the powers vested in his public office to line his family's pockets. Yes, indeed, the plot thickens, but the case remains unproven.

However, if you can quote the precise line in that article that refutes my opinion, given above, you are welcome to do so, and if you succeed, I will gladly adjust my opinion accordingly.

Cheers,
Rumpole

 

[Rust_Cohle]

Ah, Rust_Cohle, it seems that CNN article you've provide the link for lacks any concrete evidence to directly implicate President Joe Biden in the transactions involving certain members of his family and the Chinese company. The memo, you see, delves into payments made to the likes of Hallie Biden, Hunter Biden, and James Biden, from their associate, John Robinson Walker. However, one must note that it fails to forge a connection between these transactions and President Biden himself, nor does it insinuate that the President had any involvement or awareness of these financial dealings.

Allow me to reiterate that despite the inquisitive nature of the essay, it has yet to provide any conclusive evidence that good old Joe Biden was entangled in his son's business matters, or that he had abused the powers vested in his public office to line his family's pockets. Yes, indeed, the plot thickens, but the case remains unproven.

Cheers,
Rumpole

And 10% for the Big Guy means Joe also got paid you'd have to be a naive fool to think otherwise

Oh wait

 

[Dekster]

And this is what trials are for. Right, Dekster? Like you say, 'We shall see'. I'm' curious, myself.
Yes, there's always a potential for a hung jury. But, alas, Trump Org was indicted and CFO Weisselberg sits in Rikers.

It's possible that a unanimous verdict, one way or the other, is achievable.

Cheers,
Rumpole

Well it is what trials are for, but this feels more comparable to a Grand Jury indicting the guy at the pawn shop who bought stolen goods based on the testimony of the guy who broke into a house and stole the TV who was given immunity because he was on the DA's bowling team.

 

[excalibur]

Campaign fines are not that uncommon. Bob Dole was fined $100,000.

But they aren't similar to the Trump indictment.

Because the Trump indictment is pure BS, and time-barred.

 

[Rumpole]

Well it is what trials are for, but this feels more comparable to a Grand Jury indicting the guy at the pawn shop who bought stolen goods based on the testimony of the guy who broke into a house and stole the TV who was given immunity because he was on the DA's bowling team.

No, dekster, and actually, the DA NY office prosecuted over 100 similar such cases last year (I'm told). The DA is NY's top law enforcement officer, and from his perspective, Trump, committing a comparable level 'bread and butter' crime (meaning common to the office) should not be let off the hook just because he is President. NY is one of the largest business centers in the world, and these types of crime, at this comparable magnitude, are quite common. No man is above the law, is the operative phrase. Justice is blind, remember?

Now, I hear you, dekster, we all want someone of the stature of the ex president, that if they are to be indicted, we imagine it should be for something big, but that's not how the law works. However, with a modicum of patience, I do feel more serious crimes are going to be handed down, soon. Just wait.

Cheers,
Rumpole

 

[Rumpole]

Because the Trump indictment is pure BS, and time-barred.

No, per the facts listed in the OP.

Cheers,
Rumpole,

 

[excalibur]

No, per the facts listed in the OP.

Cheers,
Rumpole,

No, pure BS and time-barred too.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Ah, yes, so it appears that the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, has been receiving quite a bit of flak for pursuing a case against none other than Donald Trump. However, I must say that upon closer inspection, the charges brought against Mr. Trump are anything but weak. In fact, the charge of creating false financial records is not novel and has been used time and time again in New York to prosecute individuals who create fake documentation to cover up campaign finance violations - precisely the accusation leveled against Mr. Trump, or rather, defendant Trump.

It's worth noting that the Manhattan D.A.'s office is hardly your run-of-the-mill local cog in the judicial system. Rather, it is unique, with jurisdiction over the financial capital of the world, which means the office regularly deals with complex white-collar crimes, including those involving high-profile individuals. Indeed, the office recently secured a conviction of the Trump Organization and a guilty plea from one of its top executives, Allen Weisselberg, on charges related to a tax fraud scheme.

Moreover, the books and records counts laid out in the charging papers against Mr. Trump are the bread and butter of the D.A.'s office. He is the 30th defendant to be indicted on false records charges by Mr. Bragg since he took office just over a year ago, with the D.A. bringing 151 counts under the statute so far. Indeed, the Trump Organization conviction and the Weisselberg plea included business falsification felonies.

The 34 felony books and records counts in the Trump indictment turn on the misstatement of the hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels arranged by Michael Cohen in the waning days of the 2016 election and the repayment of that amount by Mr. Trump to Mr. Cohen, ostensibly as legal expenses. There are 11 counts for false invoices, 11 for false checks and check stubs and 12 for false general ledger entries. This allegedly violated the false records statute when various entries were made in business documents describing those repayments as legal fees.

While Mr. Trump's case may be unique in its particulars, his behavior is not. Individuals have often attempted to skirt the disclosure and dollar limit requirements of campaign finance regulations and falsified records to hide it. Contrary to Mr. Trump's protestations, New York prosecutors regularly charge felony violations of the books and records statute and win convictions when the crimes covered up were campaign finance violations, resulting in false entries in business records to conceal criminal activity.

All in all, my fellow members of this illustrious snakepit and a few ladies and gentlemen, it seems that Mr. Bragg is hardly navigating uncharted waters. His actions are supported by previous prosecutions in New York and elsewhere, which have demonstrated that state authorities can enforce state law in cases relating to federal candidates. It remains to be seen what will come of this case, but one thing is certain - Mr. Trump cannot persuasively argue that he is being singled out for some unprecedented theory of prosecution. He is being treated like any other New Yorker would be with similar evidence against him.

And let the war begin, the war of words, that is.

Cheers,
Rumpole.

Opinion | We Finally Know the Case Against Trump, and It Is Strong (Published 2023)

There’s nothing novel or weak about Alvin Bragg’s case.

www.nytimes.com

For weeks, Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, has come under heavy fire for pursuing a case against Donald Trump. Potential charges were described as being developed under a novel legal theory. And criticism has come not only from Mr. Trump and his allies, as expected, but also from many who are usually no friends of the former president but who feared it would be a weak case.

With the release of the indictment and accompanying statement of facts, we can now say that there’s nothing novel or weak about this case. The charge of creating false financial records is constantly brought by Mr. Bragg and other New York D.A.s. In particular, the creation of phony documentation to cover up campaign finance violations has been repeatedly prosecuted in New York. That is exactly what Mr. Trump stands accused of.

The case may be strong yet the infraction severity is like a parking ticket. No one cares except for the political hacks. He is no longer President. Your side won. The more Trump is hot and demonized, the more you are going to give him energy and hope to run again as President; a scenario I don’t prefer since I am banking DeSantis.