Merrick Garland Let Trump Get Away With It. The Bad Guys Have Won.

[Contumacious]

That was the DOJ putting the screws to Cohen.
The FEC declined to prosecute Trump, probably because he has no limit on using his own money, the USSC said that is "free speech"

I already posted their decision refusing to prosecute because of lack of evidence

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Because the FBI said Trump did not incite the J6 riot,

Lie.

 

[Contumacious]

Lie.

Typical Socialist Demon Rat response - they propangandize all the time and are unable to marshall the FACTS upon which their "conclusions" are based

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Typical Socialist Demon Rat response - they propangandize all the time and are unable to marshall the FACTS upon which their "conclusions" are based

Vapid crybabying

 

[dudmuck]

The FEC voted 4-1 to close the inquiry after failing to find that Trump or his campaign “knowingly and willfully” violated campaign finance law when his former attorney Michael Cohen paid $130,000 to porn star Stormy Daniels to keep her from disclosing an alleged affair.

FEC drops investigation into Trump hush money payments

The Federal Elections Commission (FEC) has closed its investigation into whether former President Trump illegally made hush money payments to women prior to the 2016 election. The FEC vot…

thehill.com

The Democratic commissioners, Shana M. Broussard and Ellen L. Weintraub, argued that the charges against Trump — that he "knowingly and willfully accepted contributions nearly 5,000% over the legal limit to suppress a negative story mere days before Election Day" — were "well-grounded."

The Republican commissioners, Sean J. Cooksey and James E. Trainor III, didn’t address the charges’ validity, but instead argued that Cohen’s guilty plea in federal court made the public record "complete." This, they argued, made moot any actions by the commission, including action against Trump.

"We concluded that pursuing these matters further was not the best use of agency resources," Cooksey and Trainor wrote. "The commission regularly dismisses matters where other government agencies have already adequately enforced and vindicated the commission’s interests. Furthermore, by the time (the general counsel’s) recommendations came before us, the commission was facing an extensive enforcement docket backlog resulting from a prolonged lack of a quorum."

 

[struth]

Say something, white trash MAGA pussy?

Wow, you dembots need to get a grip

 

[struth]

The Democratic commissioners, Shana M. Broussard and Ellen L. Weintraub, argued that the charges against Trump — that he "knowingly and willfully accepted contributions nearly 5,000% over the legal limit to suppress a negative story mere days before Election Day" — were "well-grounded."

The Republican commissioners, Sean J. Cooksey and James E. Trainor III, didn’t address the charges’ validity, but instead argued that Cohen’s guilty plea in federal court made the public record "complete." This, they argued, made moot any actions by the commission, including action against Trump.

"We concluded that pursuing these matters further was not the best use of agency resources," Cooksey and Trainor wrote. "The commission regularly dismisses matters where other government agencies have already adequately enforced and vindicated the commission’s interests. Furthermore, by the time (the general counsel’s) recommendations came before us, the commission was facing an extensive enforcement docket backlog resulting from a prolonged lack of a quorum."

Chasing waterfalls isn’t a good use of agency resources

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The charges relate to secret payments Cohen facilitated to two women during the presidential election campaign in 2016, to keep them from disclosing their affairs with Donald Trump. One of the women was the adult film actress Stephanie Clifford, who works under the name Stormy Daniels. She was paid $130,000. The other woman was the model Karen McDougal; she received $150,000. The payment to Karen McDougal came from the National Enquirer, with Cohen’s encouragement and assistance. Cohen paid Clifford himself, and then got disguised reimbursements from the Trump Organization.


In effect, the payments to Stephanie Clifford and Karen McDougal were contributions to Donald Trump’s campaign: they were hush money designed to help Donald Trump get elected. And that violated campaign finance laws, because corporations aren’t allowed to contribute directly to presidential campaigns, and individuals can’t contribute more than $2,700.

Secret payments to women aren't campaign contributions.

In effect, the payments to Stephanie Clifford and Karen McDougal were contributions to Donald Trump’s campaign:

But they weren't.

And that violated campaign finance laws, because corporations aren’t allowed to contribute directly to presidential campaigns,

Legal fees are allowed, so are NDAs. Corporations pay those all the time.

and individuals can’t contribute more than $2,700.

How much could Trump contribute?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Secret payments to women aren't campaign contributions.

Except for when they are, as the court sorted out for us.

 

[Foxfyre]

Garland should have started his Jan 6 criminal investigations of Trump on 20 Jan 2021, as soon as Joe Biden entered office. Instead, Garland wasted over 2 years prosecuting all of the imbecile MAGA bumpkins who attacked the Capitol on Jan 6.

Garland would have done absolutely nothing to prosecute Trump if it had not been for the House Jan 6 Committee putting pressure on Garland during the summer of 2022.

History is going to crucify both Merrick Garland and Joe Biden for letting Trump get away with this. It is like Jefferson Davis being allowed to run for President in 1868, as if nothing had ever happened. Biden campaigned in 2020 and 2022 and 2024 talking about what a threat to democracy Trump was....and then did nothing about it.

Biden and Garland actually gave Trump legitimacy to run for president, by failing to take action immediately in 2021. President Bernie Sanders would have thrown Trump's ass in jail in 2021 or 2022 and permanently lost the key.

Don't take my word for it...listen to Elie Mystal on this podcast with Michael Steel, starting at about 49:20.

The bad guys have won. It's a very bitter pill to swallow.

Newsflash. You need a crime to prosecute. There was zero crime in evidence re Trump and J6. Garland appointed Jack Smith as special counsel to investigate--can we say manufacture some crimes to prosecute? He failed miserably as Judge Cannon pointed out, and he is now is backpedaling like mad and probably shredding evidence of malicious prosecution by Garland and himself as we speak.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

FBI resisted opening probe into Trump’s role in Jan. 6 for more than a year​

Hours after he was sworn in as attorney general, Merrick Garland and his deputies gathered in a wood-paneled conference room in the Justice Department for a private briefing on the investigation he had promised to make his highest priority: bringing to justice those responsible for the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

In the two months since the siege, federal agents had conducted 709 searches, charged 278 rioters and identified 885 likely suspects, said Michael R. Sherwin, then-acting U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, ticking through a slide presentation. Garland and some of his deputies nodded approvingly at the stats, and the new attorney general called the progress “remarkable,” according to people in the room.

Sherwin’s office, with the help of the FBI, was responsible for prosecuting all crimes stemming from the Jan. 6 attack. He had made headlines the day after by refusing to rule out the possibility that President Donald Trump himself could be culpable. “We are looking at all actors, not only the people who went into the building,” Sherwin said in response to a reporter’s question about Trump. “If the evidence fits the elements of a crime, they’re going to be charged.”
But according to a copy of the briefing document, absent from Sherwin’s 11-page presentation to Garland on March 11, 2021, was any reference to Trump or his advisers — those who did not go to the Capitol riot but orchestrated events that led to it.

A Washington Post investigation found that more than a year would pass before prosecutors and FBI agents jointly embarked on a formal probe of actions directed from the White House to try to steal the election. Even then, the FBI stopped short of identifying the former president as a focus of that investigation.

A wariness about appearing partisan, institutional caution, and clashes over how much evidence was sufficient to investigate the actions of Trump and those around him all contributed to the slow pace. Garland and the deputy attorney general, Lisa Monaco, charted a cautious course aimed at restoring public trust in the department while some prosecutors below them chafed, feeling top officials were shying away from looking at evidence of potential crimes by Trump and those close to him, The Post found.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2023/06/19/fbi-resisted-opening-probe-into-trumps-role-jan-6-more-than-year/

Why did it take the DOJ more than two years to indict Donald Trump in the 2020 election case?​

Why did it take 2.5 years to indict Trump in election case?

Former President Donald Trump and his fiercest critics agree on this: It took a long time to bring charges against Trump

www.politifact.com

Had Garland & CO not sat on their hands trump would be convicted by now.

Peacefully and patriotically.

 

[Failzero]

Sounds like you Democommies are glad he did not wind up on the SCOTUS ?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Except for when they are, as the court sorted out for us.

Which court?

 

[BluesLegend]

J6 wasn't an investigation, it was a Dem smear campaign disguised as an investigation to force Trump to give up and leave politics.

 

[dudmuck]

Secret payments to women aren't campaign contributions.

In effect, the payments to Stephanie Clifford and Karen McDougal were contributions to Donald Trump’s campaign:

But they weren't.

And that violated campaign finance laws, because corporations aren’t allowed to contribute directly to presidential campaigns,

Legal fees are allowed, so are NDAs. Corporations pay those all the time.

and individuals can’t contribute more than $2,700.

How much could Trump contribute?

they payment purpose was to prevent damaging info coming out during an election campaign, which makes it a contribution to the campaign. Since Michael Cohen went to jail for it, this is not in dispute.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

they payment purpose was to prevent damaging info coming out during an election campaign, which makes it a contribution to the campaign. Since Michael Cohen went to jail for it, this is not in dispute.

Preventing damaging info from coming out is a contribution?
How much were the contributions for censoring posts about Hunter's laptop?

Since Michael Cohen went to jail for it, this is not in dispute.

He went to jail for hiding millions in income.

 

[Contumacious]

The Democratic commissioners, Shana M. Broussard and Ellen L. Weintraub, argued that the charges against Trump — that he "knowingly and willfully accepted contributions nearly 5,000% over the legal limit to suppress a negative story mere days before Election Day" — were "well-grounded."

The Republican commissioners, Sean J. Cooksey and James E. Trainor III, didn’t address the charges’ validity, but instead argued that Cohen’s guilty plea in federal court made the public record "complete." This, they argued, made moot any actions by the commission, including action against Trump.

"We concluded that pursuing these matters further was not the best use of agency resources," Cooksey and Trainor wrote. "The commission regularly dismisses matters where other government agencies have already adequately enforced and vindicated the commission’s interests. Furthermore, by the time (the general counsel’s) recommendations came before us, the commission was facing an extensive enforcement docket backlog resulting from a prolonged lack of a quorum."

"The plain fact is that neither the FEC (Federal Election Commission) nor former chairs of the commission believe that paying hush money is a campaign-related expense. It’s a personal expense. It’s the same as a business expense of a business owner. It’s not related to the campaign…that was certainly the attitude of the FEC towards John Edwards when his contributors actually paid a million dollars to his mistress. So, it’s not a campaign-related expense no matter what the U.S. attorney in New York has persuaded [Michael Cohen] to plead guilty to.

Second guest (Democratic attorney Julian Epstein): …the statute isn’t clear, and further, the regulations that the FEC has adopted are also really not clear…There has never really been a successful criminal prosecution for the payment of hush money, which could be a personal expenditure, maybe a campaign expenditure, it’s very vague and not defined…as to whether it is a violation of criminal law, I am very skeptical as to whether that would stand up in a court of law."

Former FEC Official: Trump's Hush-Money Payments Not a Campaign-Related Expense - LRC Blog

Former official: The plain fact is that neither the FEC (Federal Election Commission) nor former chairs of the commission believe that paying hush money is a campaign-related expense. It’s a personal expense. It’s the same as a business expense of a business owner. It’s not related to the...

www.lewrockwell.com

 

[dudmuck]

"The plain fact is that neither the FEC (Federal Election Commission) nor former chairs of the commission believe that paying hush money is a campaign-related expense. It’s a personal expense. It’s the same as a business expense of a business owner. It’s not related to the campaign…that was certainly the attitude of the FEC towards John Edwards when his contributors actually paid a million dollars to his mistress. So, it’s not a campaign-related expense no matter what the U.S. attorney in New York has persuaded [Michael Cohen] to plead guilty to.

Second guest (Democratic attorney Julian Epstein): …the statute isn’t clear, and further, the regulations that the FEC has adopted are also really not clear…There has never really been a successful criminal prosecution for the payment of hush money, which could be a personal expenditure, maybe a campaign expenditure, it’s very vague and not defined…as to whether it is a violation of criminal law, I am very skeptical as to whether that would stand up in a court of law."

Former FEC Official: Trump's Hush-Money Payments Not a Campaign-Related Expense - LRC Blog

Former official: The plain fact is that neither the FEC (Federal Election Commission) nor former chairs of the commission believe that paying hush money is a campaign-related expense. It’s a personal expense. It’s the same as a business expense of a business owner. It’s not related to the...

www.lewrockwell.com

this straight from the Heritage Foundation. Hans Vons Spakovsky is from the heritage foundation.

Michael Cohen was convicted of violating campaign finance law.

 

[Failzero]

this straight from the Heritage Foundation. Hans Vons Spakovsky is from the heritage foundation.

Michael Cohen was convicted of violating campaign finance law.

They thought if he flipped it would work , it failed .

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Which court?

Sorry, but you're expected to have a baseline of knowledge about a topic, before attempting to discuss it.