Can anyone explain the crime Trump did?

a reply to: JinMI

No big deal, cuz presidential campaigning and duties can be carried out from jail, is what I found you to be saying.

originally posted by: ByeByeAmericanPie
a reply to: JinMI

No big deal, cuz presidential campaigning and duties can be carried out from jail, is what I found you to be saying.

You don't understand how any of this works.

Which is fine. But you're going to have to wrestle with the fact that you have strong opinions based on ignorance.

a reply to: JinMI

Did you not imply Trump can campaign and be president from jail?

a reply to: ByeByeAmericanPie

I said run and win.

Reading is fundamental.....

Should he win, his sentence would be at least suspended.

originally posted by: ByeByeAmericanPie
a reply to: network dude

Blowback effect?

Less voter participation? Shame or embarrassment for being a part of the charade?

Sadly, last election voter participation was tabulated to be at an all time high.

Not since Kennedy was elected was there greater enthusiasm for the election!

and if you are right, you win. You win 4 more years of this garbage. Plus you will have to change user names multiple times due to being banned for getting angry when trying to justify a Harris presidency that is worse then a Biden one.

But I feel like you are lost and clueless, and Joetatoe won't be getting his 81 trillion votes this time around. There is no pandemic to facilitate the rules changes, and as voters have had 3.5 years of Biden to know what he's about and capable of, it sure sounds like they aren't ready to suck his toes like they did the first run.

I'm optimistic that we might have a fair election, at least one without the blatant ballot collecting and silly games the idiot left played last time. Folks will be watching pretty close this time. Like little hawks. as the kids say, # around and find out.

a reply to: JinMI

If he was convicted of state crimes, he couldn't pardon himself, but since they tacked on the federal charges to raise felonies for his accountants book keeping error, I believe he can in fact pardon himself. But that's a guess.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: JinMI

If he was convicted of state crimes, he couldn't pardon himself, but since they tacked on the federal charges to raise felonies for his accountants book keeping error, I believe he can in fact pardon himself. But that's a guess.

I've heard that argument being made.

Yet if I understand correctly the NY election law is the one being supplied. No case law exists on it however.

The best the prosecution could do us applying burglary and insurance fraud cases which have an implied mens rea component.

However if they did invoke a federal statue, I'd like to see it.

originally posted by: ByeByeAmericanPie
a reply to: network dude

Blowback effect?

Less voter participation? Shame or embarrassment for being a part of the charade?

Sadly, last election voter participation was tabulated to be at an all time high.

Not since Kennedy was elected was there greater enthusiasm for the election!

Heh...yeah, 81 million dead people will tend to do that!!

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: JinMI

If he was convicted of state crimes, he couldn't pardon himself, but since they tacked on the federal charges to raise felonies for his accountants book keeping error, I believe he can in fact pardon himself. But that's a guess.

I've heard that argument being made.

Yet if I understand correctly the NY election law is the one being supplied. No case law exists on it however.

The best the prosecution could do us applying burglary and insurance fraud cases which have an implied mens rea component.

However if they did invoke a federal statue, I'd like to see it.

A President not being able to pardon state crimes is not a settled argument.
I know it's commonly understood to be that way, but there is nothing in the Constitution that limits the Presidents pardon power to Federal crimes.

Also, the other crime that the Judge referenced in his jury instructions was the Federal elections campaign violation (of which there was none, but that is what he explicitly referenced).

a reply to: UKTruth

A President not being able to pardon state crimes is not a settled argument.
I know it's commonly understood to be that way, but there is nothing in the Constutiuon that limits the Presidents pardon power to Federal crimes.

The exact verbiage is that the President can pardon crimes against the United States. It does provoke some interesting arguments especially as it applies to elections for the President. Which ironically is the same hole in applying NY election law.

Also, the specific crime , the other crime, that the Judge referenced in his jury instructions was the Federal elections campaign violation (of which there was none, bit that is what he explicitly referenced).

Were there a specific crime, we wouldn't be having all these discussions. I do recall them bringing FECA into it. I also remember the NY statute as well.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: UKTruth

A President not being able to pardon state crimes is not a settled argument.
I know it's commonly understood to be that way, but there is nothing in the Constutiuon that limits the Presidents pardon power to Federal crimes.

The exact verbiage is that the President can pardon crimes against the United States. It does provoke some interesting arguments especially as it applies to elections for the President. Which ironically is the same hole in applying NY election law.

Also, the specific crime , the other crime, that the Judge referenced in his jury instructions was the Federal elections campaign violation (of which there was none, bit that is what he explicitly referenced).

Were there a specific crime, we wouldn't be having all these discussions. I do recall them bringing FECA into it. I also remember the NY statute as well.

In the instructions the judge specifically referenced FECA.

The entire case SHOULD have been thrown out and of course, should be immediately quashed on appeal.
The main reason for this is that IF Trump had used campaign funds to pay off Stormy Daniels, instead of private funds, that WOULD have been a federal elections crime. Trump did exactly the right thing in accounting for the expense.

The rules are quite clear - a personal expense that is not incurred as a direct result of the campaign, and could occur regardless of a campaign, is not allowed to be paid for with campaign funds.
This is a key part of the campaign finance regulations that the judge refused to permit any discussion of in the trial and even left it out of his jury instructions.

a reply to: UKTruth

In determining whether the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you may consider the following: (1) violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FECA; (2) the falsification of other business records; or (3) violation of tax laws.

I stand corrected.

New York statute 17-152:

17-152. Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. Any two or more
persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to
a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by
one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: UKTruth

In determining whether the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you may consider the following: (1) violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FECA; (2) the falsification of other business records; or (3) violation of tax laws.

I stand corrected.

The crazy thing is that Bragg also introduced 2 other 'other crimes' that were not even charged or laid out. More business records falsified and tax violation. Basically the same as the FECA violation
No crime articulated.
Merchan literally just told the jury ' if you think Trump might have committed any of these 3 other crimes listed, of which there is no evidence presented to you, you can find him guilty and you don't need to agree on which one.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: UKTruth

In determining whether the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you may consider the following: (1) violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FECA; (2) the falsification of other business records; or (3) violation of tax laws.

I stand corrected.

New York statute 17-152:

17-152. Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. Any two or more
persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to
a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by
one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Yep - the NY law is for any election and it is important to note that Trump was not running in any state election.
He was running in the Federal Election for the state of NY, not a NY office.

a reply to: UKTruth

The tax violation was for ....overpayment! If...and that's a big if because there was no evidence for it.

It's a mess.

a reply to: network dude
That is the case.
You're exactly correct.
He wrote the checks and it was listed as a legal expense which was a bookkeeping mistake.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: UKTruth

The tax violation was for ....overpayment! If...and that's a big if because there was no evidence for it.

It's a mess.

Yup and there is a suggestion that they used the 34 counts to say there was more than one crime.
i.e. the same payment paid in installments constituted the other crime when the second one was made.
The 'other crimes' are absolutely crazy and should never have got anywhere near a court room - and indeed they were not even mentioned to the defence until after the defence had rested!
Never seen or heard anything like it.

a reply to: UKTruth

This why the same guy who sentenced Weisselberg also got this case....

originally posted by: Hey19
a reply to: network dude
That is the case.
You're exactly correct.
He wrote the checks and it was listed as a legal expense which was a bookkeeping mistake.

It wasn't a mistake - it was exactly right.

Federal Election campaign finance rules strictly prohibit the use of campaign funds to pay private expenses.

Trump would have been breaking the law if he paid Stormy Daniels with campaign money.

Specific text

a third-party’s payment of a candidate’s campaign or personal expense qualifies as a “contribution,” except where “the payment would have been made irrespective of the candidacy”

We need more fearless, intelligent fighters like MTG in top-tier GOP ranks!

MAGA GOP "firebrand" Marjorie Taylor-Greene shut down an interviewer today by pointing out that GEORGE FLOYD was a convicted felon, after the interviewer used the newly available "Trump's a convicted felon" wording.

This would make Maxine Waters throw her wig at the TV in anger.
😈

www.westernjournal.com...