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

[WorldWatcher]

As to positive stories? Good question, if they are generally available to the media and widely reported, probably not.

A publisher spends $150,000 to get a negative story, doesn't publish, illegal benefit to Trump?

A publisher spends $150,000 to get a negative story, does publish, illegal benefit to Hillary?

Since that is exactly what Cogen was convicted off, I’d say yes.

In the Hillary example, that would bring in a first amendment factor under free speech and freedom of the press not involved with the suppression side of the coin. In one example the intent is to hide information. In the other it involves providing information.

WW

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Since that is exactly what Cogen was convicted off, I’d say yes.

In the Hillary example, that would bring in a first amendment factor under free speech and freedom of the press not involved with the suppression side of the coin. In one example the intent is to hide information. In the other it involves providing information.

WW

If providing information is a benefit to one candidate, it has to be reported as a contribution.

Right?

 

[WorldWatcher]

If providing information is a benefit to one candidate, it has to be reported as a contribution.

Right?

Already addressed. There are first amendment issues.

Are we done with the sealioning yet?

WW

 

[bripat9643]

Ya, you can hem and haw all you want.

But at the end of the day Trump is still under indictment and the legal process will play out. We are at the indictment/arraignment stage and there is a long road ahead. We in the public sphere actually have very little information to go from via source materials (i.e. the indictment, Statement of Facts, and arraignment proceedings). It's going to get a lot more interesting as more details come out as part of pre-trial motions. Then when we (and if) we get to Trial life will be a hoot.

WW

Like I said, did you have a point? You might as well claim that water is wet. No one is contesting anything in your post.

 

[bripat9643]

If providing information is a benefit to one candidate, it has to be reported as a contribution.

Right?

It's only counted as an in-kind contribution if benefitting the campaign is the only reason for it. For example, if Trump bought a new suit, that would benefit the campaign, but it wouldn't be an in-kind benefit because he also benefits personally. If beneiftting the campaign was the only justification required, then every dime spent could be considered an in-kind contribution. That's why the payment to Denials is not an in-kind benefit.

These progs talking about the Trump indictment are all a bunch of ignoramuses who don't know their asses from a hole in the ground. They are spewing Dim talking points, which are all lies. That's proof that they are all scum bags.

 

[bripat9643]

Already addressed. There are first amendment issues.

Are we done with the sealioning yet?

WW

You addressed it with your usual idiocies.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Already addressed. There are first amendment issues.

Are we done with the sealioning yet?

WW

Some unreported benefits are allowed? Good to know.

 

[bripat9643]

Some unreported benefits are allowed? Good to know.

This guy is a dumbass. He doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

This guy is a dumbass. He doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

He has embarrassed both of you.

 

[bripat9643]

He has embarrassed both of you.

You embarassed yourself.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You embarassed yourself.

Sorry, trumpers just don't have any credibility.

 

[watchingfromafar]

Sorry, trumpers just don't have any credibility.

amen
-

 

[Flopper]

The DOJ and the previous Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance Jr. both looked at the NDA and concluded they couldn't call it a campaign finance violation. The SoF focuses almost entirely on the NDA, so based on that, I'd say Bragg has his work cut out for him.

Classifying the Cohen payments as legal expenses on the books might be tax evasion if Trump deducted the money as a business expense- but the SoF says he paid it from his personal account. Vance had his tax records, so I would guess that Trump probably didn't deduct the payments- Vance should have bounced on that if it was there.

Lots of inferences, not much in the way of real evidence that I can see...

When the IRS audits a business, it doesn't usually at look at the personal accounts of the owner. However, with all the shading dealings in Trump's past, it probably wouldn't provide much protection to use a personal account.

When you record in the company books paying hush money to a porn star as a legal expense of the business, that is certainly evidence of falsification of business records.

 

[Chillicothe]

The underlying “crime,” which was never prosecuted against Trump due to lack of evidence,

"due to lack of evidence"????

And the earnest poster 'Lisa'...... knows that how?

Your sources, Lisa?

And what crime are you referring to?

 

[Flopper]

Well dummy, falsification of business records is a misdemeanor in NY "unless" it is done in the furtherance of a separate crime. The indictments hint at another, crime but doesn't name it. That's a violation of the 6th amendment.

.

No, hints of a crime are not covered by the 6th amendment.

 

[Lisa558]

"due to lack of evidence"????

And the earnest poster 'Lisa'...... knows that how?

Your sources, Lisa?

And what crime are you referring to?

Illegal campaign contributions. Trump was never charged with that.

 

[Flopper]

Bimbo payoffs aren't a crime.

Hush money payments paid by the candidate, not the campaign is considered an illegal campaign contribution if it's over $2700.

 

[Lisa558]

The hush money payments paid the candidate, not campaign is considered an illegal campaign contribution.

A lot of to-do over some slut while the Ximmunist-enriched Biden lets a Chinese spy balloon gather sensitive military intelligence for an entire week.

 

[Flopper]

No. It obviously wasn’t.

Regardless of weather the money was paid by Trump or his lawyer on his behalf, paying hush money in the amount of $130,000 is an illegal campaign contribution. If the campaign had paid it, it would have been considered a campaign expense. Of course that might have been embarrassing since all campaign expenses have to be reported.

 

[Lisa558]

Regardless of weather the money was paid by Trump or his lawyer on his behalf, paying hush money in the amount of $130,000 is an illegal campaign contribution. If the campaign had paid it, it would have been considered a campaign expense. Of course that might have been embarrassing since all campaign expenses have to be reported.

It’s a stretch to “get Trump.” Too bad the DA isn‘t focused on dangerous criminals, other than to let them off.