Why Alvin and not the Feds? Or, why Cohen and not Individual 1?

[Toddsterpatriot]

I found this article instructive.

Deadlock at Broken FEC Fails to Enforce Rule of Law on Trump-Daniels Violations​

Deadlock at Broken FEC Fails to Enforce Rule of Law on Trump-Daniels Violations

www.commoncause.org

Thanks for the link.

In 2018 Common Cause filed complaints with the FEC and DOJ detailing multiple violations of federal campaign finance laws committed by Donald J. Trump, the Trump Organization, Michael Cohen and others through their $130,000 “hush” payment to Stormy Daniels just weeks before the November 2016 presidential election.

Hush money payments aren't campaign contributions.
They weren't paid from campaign funds, like John Edwards did, so they weren't campaign spending.

 

[WorldWatcher]

However the candidate is still required to report such contributions of in-kind donations to the FEC as part of campaign finance laws.

The NDA was an in-kind donation?

Just days after the Busch "Grab'em by the Vagina" tape and 11 days before the election for the sole purpose of not having the story come out and have a negative impact?

Yes.

WW

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Just days after the Busch "Grab'em by the Vagina" tape and 11 days before the election for the sole purpose of not having the story come out and have a negative impact?

Yes.

WW

Still not a campaign donation.

 

[AntonToo]

Stormy was paid off by Trump Co. under fraudulent bussines expense records,

NDAs are legal business expenses.

I see you are having trouble keeping track all arguments fo convinience you make while trying to carry water for Trump.

BUSSINESS EXPENSE.... read that again and explain how the hell a tax-deductable bussiness expense can ever qualify as a personal campaign donation from Trump to his campaign.

Thats aside that it was never filed as NDA expense, but a retainer for Cohen.

 

[elektra]

The other crime is campaign finance violations. Thats what the fraudulent financial records were in furtherance of.

Trump is not charged with campaign finance violations. Hence there is no fraudulent record crime.

Thank you for providing the proof that my fact is a fact.

 

[AntonToo]

Trump is not charged with campaign finance violations. Hence there is no fraudulent record crime.

Thank you for providing the proof that my fact is a fact.

I suggest you quit your sandbox musings and read the indictment which lays out fraud Trump commited in furtherance of his 2016 presidential campaign. There is no legal requirement that Trump be convicted by the Feds for the camapaign finance violations, for them to be agravating factors for his financial fraud in NY.

Trump Indictment: Read the Full Document Here

Donald J. Trump, the 45th President of the United States, was indicted by a Manhattan grand jury.

www.nbcnewyork.com

 

[elektra]

I suggest you quit your sandbox musings and read the indictment which lays out fraud Trump commited in furtherance of his 2016 presidential campaign. There is no legal requirement that Trump be convicted by the Feds for the camapaign finance violations, for them to be agravating factors for his financial fraud in NY.

Trump Indictment: Read the Full Document Here

Donald J. Trump, the 45th President of the United States, was indicted by a Manhattan grand jury.

www.nbcnewyork.com

How about you quote your link and quit making lousy replies.

Campaign violations, gee, you are good at linking, so go link to the campaign law that was violated.

Your link says you are liar. That Trump can not be charged with felonies. Thank you for proving me right.

And yes, there is a legal requirement, that a crime must be committed in order to be charged with a felony under the state law.

 

[Lesh]

There is no proof of an affair. Nor is there a law requiring affairs are to become public knowledge.

Affair meaning “incident”

And yeah… there is proof they had a sexual relationship. Trump paid her to keep silent about it

Stupod

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I see you are having trouble keeping track all arguments fo convinience you make while trying to carry water for Trump.

BUSSINESS EXPENSE.... read that again and explain how the hell a tax-deductable bussiness expense can ever qualify as a personal campaign donation from Trump to his campaign.

Thats aside that it was never filed as NDA expense, but a retainer for Cohen.

NDAs have always been deductible business expenses.

Thats aside that it was never filed as NDA expense, but a retainer for Cohen.

Legal fees have always been deductible business expenses.

how the hell a tax-deductable bussiness expense can ever qualify as a personal campaign donation

You don't have to convince me it wasn't a campaign contribution.

 

[Dante]

And he still doesn't even know what the "underlying crime" he HAS to have to even pursue this is.

really?

Ken White: We know a lot more now about the D.A.’s theory of the case than we did before. There was a lot of speculation about whether the predicate crime — the one Trump was promoting by falsifying records — was going to be federal or state, and whether it was going to be campaign-finance related or election-interference related. Now the prosecutors have shown their hand, and their lead theory is going to be that Trump meant to interfere unlawfully with an election by concealing information that the voters might have considered. A case tends to look stronger after the prosecution picks a theory and commits to it. The evidence of deliberate falsification of records is going to be very strong.

Opinion | ‘It’s a Very Winnable Case’: Three Writers Dissect the Trump Trial

Debate and analysis about the case, jury selection and anticipation for a potential witness.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

really?

Ken White: We know a lot more now about the D.A.’s theory of the case than we did before. There was a lot of speculation about whether the predicate crime — the one Trump was promoting by falsifying records — was going to be federal or state, and whether it was going to be campaign-finance related or election-interference related. Now the prosecutors have shown their hand, and their lead theory is going to be that Trump meant to interfere unlawfully with an election by concealing information that the voters might have considered. A case tends to look stronger after the prosecution picks a theory and commits to it. The evidence of deliberate falsification of records is going to be very strong.

Opinion | ‘It’s a Very Winnable Case’: Three Writers Dissect the Trump Trial

Debate and analysis about the case, jury selection and anticipation for a potential witness.

www.nytimes.com

Trump meant to interfere unlawfully with an election by concealing information that the voters might have considered.

Like the MSM trying to bury the Hunter laptop story?

 

[Dante]

Trump meant to interfere unlawfully with an election by concealing information that the voters might have considered.

Like the MSM trying to bury the Hunter laptop story?

Trump was the government. Not sure you use such shitty false comparisons all the time.

Maybe because you only have shit, being in the MAGA sewer and cesspools?

 

[AntonToo]

how the hell a tax-deductable bussiness expense can ever qualify as a personal campaign donation

You don't have to convince me it wasn't a campaign contribution.

Paying off women to stfu during campaign WAS OF COURSE a significant campaign contribution. It OF COURSE WASN’T a legitimate bussiness expense.

Prosecutors will have no problem establishing that in this court of law, to the jury, beyond any reasonable doubt.

I keep forgetting what kind of degenerate partisan tool I’m dealing with and you keep reminding me without fail.

 

[AntonToo]

How about you quote your link and quit making lousy replies.

Campaign violations, gee, you are good at linking, so go link to the campaign law that was violated.

Your link says you are liar. That Trump can not be charged with felonies. Thank you for proving me right.

And yes, there is a legal requirement, that a crime must be committed in order to be charged with a felony under the state law.

How about NO.

Go read the indictment and stop wasting my time. It’s a couple of searchable pages in plain English. You can do it.

Campaign finance law violations were committed as charges against Trump clearly lay out and prosecutor will establish that to the jury in the course of the case.

 

[AntonToo]

Trump meant to interfere unlawfully with an election by concealing information that the voters might have considered.

Like the MSM trying to bury the Hunter laptop story?

What the hell? When has MSM tried to buy out hunter laptop story? (Never mind showing Joe Biden illicitly paying for it)

 

[elektra]

How about NO.

Go read the indictment and stop wasting my time. It’s a couple of searchable pages in plain English. You can do it.

Campaign finance law violations were committed as charges against Trump clearly lay out and prosecutor will establish that to the jury in the course of the case.

I get it, your link proves you wrong, either way. Thank you for helping me. The link says Trump is innocent.

 

[AntonToo]

I get it, your link proves you wrong, either way. Thank you for helping me. The link says Trump is innocent.

Link says innocent?…that link is to Trump’s indictment.

No moron, indictments do not say the accused is innocent, they claim the opposite.

 

[lantern2814]

When it's paid with business funds.

If FPOTUS#45 had issued a certified check from his personal account(s) and not gone through the Trump Organization, and then caused their records to be falsified, he wouldn't be in the legal jeopardy he's in today.



Yes.

WW

Now if only you had any proof that your fantasy actually happened....

 

[lantern2814]

The other crime is campaign finance violations. Thats what the fraudulent financial records were in furtherance of.

Which the FEC said there is no crime here. Next pathetic whining excuse....

 

[lantern2814]

How about NO.

Go read the indictment and stop wasting my time. It’s a couple of searchable pages in plain English. You can do it.

Campaign finance law violations were committed as charges against Trump clearly lay out and prosecutor will establish that to the jury in the course of the case.

No there were no campaign finance violations you know nothing parrot. Per the FEC. They have the say. Bragg doesn't even legally have the power to bring these kind of charges.