Doc Posted May 3 Posted May 3 9 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said: The actual evidence at trial - I've been trying to follow the reporting of people who've actually been in the courtroom or overflow video room. So far, the prosecution case is pretty solid, but there's one big gap: no one has tied the hush money payment directly to Trump. Trump will still have the defense that he had deputized Michael Cohen to just take care of little things like this. A kind of, "Mike, I don't need to know everything that comes up, I trust your judgment to just take care of it." It seems that Cohen will be the only guy to actually testify that Trump himself o.k.'d (or dreamed up) the plan. And Cohen is a sleaze. So it'll all come down to that. 5 hours ago, ChiGoose said: Maybe it’s the dementia that keeps him from understanding basic things "Spillage."
ChiGoose Posted May 3 Posted May 3 5 minutes ago, Doc said: "Spillage." It must be tough struggling to understand very basic concepts. I hope someone close to you can help you with your struggles.
Doc Posted May 3 Posted May 3 3 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: It must be tough struggling to understand very basic concepts. I hope someone close to you can help you with your struggles. Sorry but have you proven that beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law? Seems like that's what you need to wrap your tiny mind around things.
ChiGoose Posted May 3 Posted May 3 Just now, Doc said: Sorry but have you proven that beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law? Seems like that's what you need to wrap your tiny mind around things. I’m sorry, I suppose the reality of how things actually work is a concept far too difficult for you to understand. Maybe grab some toy blocks to smash together and leave the rest of this to the adults.
Doc Posted May 3 Posted May 3 6 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: I’m sorry, I suppose the reality of how things actually work is a concept far too difficult for you to understand. Maybe grab some toy blocks to smash together and leave the rest of this to the adults. LOL! Sorry but the courtroom is so far from reality that to think it is reveals what a complete moron you are. 1
ChiGoose Posted May 3 Posted May 3 4 hours ago, Doc said: LOL! Sorry but the courtroom is so far from reality that to think it is reveals what a complete moron you are. Keep telling on yourself. It’s very funny
BillsFanNC Posted May 3 Posted May 3 ⬆️ And they've acknowledged mistakes and are committed to fixing things moving forward.. Right King?
All_Pro_Bills Posted May 3 Posted May 3 (edited) On 4/26/2024 at 1:34 PM, BillStime said: Definition of election interference. I keep hearing "a scheme to influence the election". What I don't understand is what is the specific Federal law or FEC statute that under penalty of fines or imprisonment requires everyone to publicly disclose all information, or perhaps withhold information, in their possession that might in one way or another be judged by a court of law to impact an election in any way, shape, or form? Edited May 3 by All_Pro_Bills
Doc Posted May 3 Posted May 3 6 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said: I keep hearing "a scheme to influence the election". What I don't understand is what is the specific Federal law or FEC statute that under penalty of fines or imprisonment requires everyone to publicly disclose all information, or perhaps withhold information, in their possession that might in one way or another be judged by a court of law to impact an election in any way, shape, or form? And on the flip side, are Dems OK with the 51 former intelligence officials being charged with election interference?
ChiGoose Posted May 3 Posted May 3 6 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said: I keep hearing "a scheme to influence the election". What I don't understand is what is the specific Federal law or FEC statute that under penalty of fines or imprisonment requires everyone to publicly disclose all information, or perhaps withhold information, in their possession that might in one way or another be judged by a court of law to impact an election in any way, shape, or form? Campaigns are required to disclose their spending. Paying for an in-kind contribution to the campaign from his business (instead of the campaign itself) and not properly reporting it, Trump violated the disclosure requirement. Had he paid Daniels from the campaign, Trump would not have this legal exposure to the Manhattan DA. He might have faced a fine at worst from the FEC. But then he would have to disclose the payments to the FEC, which makes the reports public. So he took actions to conceal a payment that he believed would help him win the election and thereby cause Hillary lose it. This creates legal exposure for Trump under a couple of laws, mainly: NY Law 17-152: Conspiracy to promote or prevent election 52 USC § 30118 Notably, the FEC reached a settlement with AMI over AMI's violation of 52 USC § 30118(a) for the catch and kill of the McDougal story 1
BillsFanNC Posted May 3 Posted May 3 1 hour ago, Doc said: And on the flip side, are Dems OK with the 51 former intelligence officials being charged with election interference? That was just a mistake that has been addressed and will be fixed going forward. The King insulting others intelligence when he buys the regime narrative every single time is pure iron law of projection comedy gold. 1
All_Pro_Bills Posted May 3 Posted May 3 15 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Campaigns are required to disclose their spending. Paying for an in-kind contribution to the campaign from his business (instead of the campaign itself) and not properly reporting it, Trump violated the disclosure requirement. Had he paid Daniels from the campaign, Trump would not have this legal exposure to the Manhattan DA. He might have faced a fine at worst from the FEC. But then he would have to disclose the payments to the FEC, which makes the reports public. So he took actions to conceal a payment that he believed would help him win the election and thereby cause Hillary lose it. This creates legal exposure for Trump under a couple of laws, mainly: NY Law 17-152: Conspiracy to promote or prevent election 52 USC § 30118 Notably, the FEC reached a settlement with AMI over AMI's violation of 52 USC § 30118(a) for the catch and kill of the McDougal story SECTION 17-152 Conspiracy to promote or prevent election - 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. 52 USC 30118: Contributions or expenditures by national banks, corporations, or labor organizations. It is unlawful for any national bank, or any corporation organized by authority of any law of Congress, to make a contribution or expenditure in connection with any election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, or for any corporation whatever, or any labor organization, to make a contribution or expenditure in connection with any election at which presidential and vice presidential electors or a Senator or Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, Congress are to be voted for, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any of the foregoing offices, or for any candidate, political committee, or other person knowingly to accept or receive any contribution prohibited by this section, or any officer or any director of any corporation or any national bank or any officer of any labor organization to consent to any contribution or expenditure by the corporation, national bank, or labor organization, as the case may be, prohibited by this section. I'm under the impression this wasn't campaign money. Trump transferred money to his personal attorney, not his campaign fund, and he made the payment to Daniels and her attorney.
BillStime Posted May 3 Author Posted May 3 7 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said: I keep hearing "a scheme to influence the election". What I don't understand is what is the specific Federal law or FEC statute that under penalty of fines or imprisonment requires everyone to publicly disclose all information, or perhaps withhold information, in their possession that might in one way or another be judged by a court of law to impact an election in any way, shape, or form? Ignorance isn’t an excuse. 1 hour ago, Doc said: And on the flip side, are Dems OK with the 51 former intelligence officials being charged with election interference? Not when they ended up being correct. 1
ChiGoose Posted May 3 Posted May 3 15 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said: SECTION 17-152 Conspiracy to promote or prevent election - 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. 52 USC 30118: Contributions or expenditures by national banks, corporations, or labor organizations. It is unlawful for any national bank, or any corporation organized by authority of any law of Congress, to make a contribution or expenditure in connection with any election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, or for any corporation whatever, or any labor organization, to make a contribution or expenditure in connection with any election at which presidential and vice presidential electors or a Senator or Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, Congress are to be voted for, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any of the foregoing offices, or for any candidate, political committee, or other person knowingly to accept or receive any contribution prohibited by this section, or any officer or any director of any corporation or any national bank or any officer of any labor organization to consent to any contribution or expenditure by the corporation, national bank, or labor organization, as the case may be, prohibited by this section. I'm under the impression this wasn't campaign money. Trump transferred money to his personal attorney, not his campaign fund, and he made the payment to Daniels and her attorney. Remember that Trump isn't charged with violating either of these statutes. He is charged with falsifying business records to conceal his violation of laws like these. The fact that Trump avoided using his campaign fund to pay for an in-kind contribution to the campaign is itself a violation of election law. As I stated, if he had just paid from the campaign fund, he'd be fine. Maybe a slap on the wrist from the FEC but probably not even that. But that would require the payment to be publicly disclosed in reporting. So to avoid disclosure of the payment, he paid from the Trump Organization and falsified business records to conceal it. 1
BillsFanNC Posted May 3 Posted May 3 I'm sure the King has come up with some great hand waving bloviating around this one.
All_Pro_Bills Posted May 3 Posted May 3 2 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Remember that Trump isn't charged with violating either of these statutes. He is charged with falsifying business records to conceal his violation of laws like these. The fact that Trump avoided using his campaign fund to pay for an in-kind contribution to the campaign is itself a violation of election law. As I stated, if he had just paid from the campaign fund, he'd be fine. Maybe a slap on the wrist from the FEC but probably not even that. But that would require the payment to be publicly disclosed in reporting. So to avoid disclosure of the payment, he paid from the Trump Organization and falsified business records to conceal it. That I understand. All the cases I've been pointed to up to now had clear legal violations attached to the charge of falsifying business records. Falsify business records to embezzle funds. Falsify business ecords to hide contribution channeled through other intermediaries. And so on. What specific crime did Trump commit that he's trying to conceal through the falsification of business records? Its not illegal to enter into an NDA agreement. Its not illegal to compensate the other party for signing the agreement. Its not illegal to not disclose the existence or terms of the NDA to the public, election or no election. For me, there's just too much smoke and fog to see through here. 1
The Frankish Reich Posted May 3 Posted May 3 13 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said: That I understand. All the cases I've been pointed to up to now had clear legal violations attached to the charge of falsifying business records. Falsify business records to embezzle funds. Falsify business ecords to hide contribution channeled through other intermediaries. And so on. What specific crime did Trump commit that he's trying to conceal through the falsification of business records? Its not illegal to enter into an NDA agreement. Its not illegal to compensate the other party for signing the agreement. Its not illegal to not disclose the existence or terms of the NDA to the public, election or no election. For me, there's just too much smoke and fog to see through here. You need to focus on the elements that will be in the judge's jury instructions. Of course, we don't have those yet. But we know it will include things like this: - were business records falsified? This one is a no-brainer. - did Trump cause those records to be falsified? There's some wiggle room there. The accountant did it at Cohen's urging, etc, with Trump strangely unaware. - was it done for the purpose of influencing the election? There's a lot of room there. Following generally, I see that Hope Hicks (a prosecution witness) testified that at one point Trump was calling her about whether the Stormy thing had hit the press and had stopped having the newspaper delivered to his residence in the hope that if it was, at least Melania wouldn't see it. So the defense can argue that Trump's motivation - even if they establish the other elements - was primarily to protect his family from embarrassment. The prosecution will, of course, argue that the furious activity right after the "grab 'em by the p[]ssy" tape - the expressed need to get it done immediately - shows that the election was the primary purpose. As I said above, I think the prosecution has already put on enough evidence for a reasonable juror to infer from the circumstantial evidence that the charge has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. There's also enough for the defense to argue that it hasn't. - here's where the jury instructions will be critical: is it enough that the prosecution shows that influencing the election was one purpose of the scheme, even if there were others? That's the most favorable instruction for the prosecution. Or maybe it has to be the primary purpose, or even the sole purpose; the defense would love that. I just don't know the law here since it hinges largely on NY State decisions (not my turf) and how much will fall on the judge vs. established case law. When the case was brought, I thought the legal theory was kind of a stretch. I think they've convinced me it's pretty solid, and that the verdict will turn on the instructions and how the 12 jurors make inferences from circumstantial evidence. 1
ChiGoose Posted May 3 Posted May 3 (edited) 30 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said: That I understand. All the cases I've been pointed to up to now had clear legal violations attached to the charge of falsifying business records. Falsify business records to embezzle funds. Falsify business ecords to hide contribution channeled through other intermediaries. And so on. What specific crime did Trump commit that he's trying to conceal through the falsification of business records? Its not illegal to enter into an NDA agreement. Its not illegal to compensate the other party for signing the agreement. Its not illegal to not disclose the existence or terms of the NDA to the public, election or no election. For me, there's just too much smoke and fog to see through here. The FEC caps the amounts that can be contributed for an election. In 2016, the cap for an individual to contribute to a campaign was $2,700. The FEC also prohibits corporations from donating to a candidate. The FEC defines contribution as "anything of value given, loaned or advanced to influence a federal election". This includes things of value that are not money, such as services: "Goods or services offered free or at less than the usual charge result in an in-kind contribution. Similarly, when a person pays for goods or services on the committee’s behalf, the payment is an in-kind contribution. An expenditure made by any person in cooperation, consultation or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate’s campaign is also considered an in-kind contribution to the candidate." In short, individuals can only contribute up to $2,700 to a campaign and corporations cannot contribute at all. If Donald Trump, through the Trump organization, spent $150,000 to quiet Stormy Daniels for the express purpose of benefitting (and therefore providing value to) the campaign, it would violate election law. In addition to that, since this is almost certainly an in-kind contribution to the Trump Campaign, the campaign would need to report it on their FEC filings. As I mentioned, had the payment come from the campaign itself, and was properly reported to the FEC, there would be no violation of law. Edited May 3 by ChiGoose
Recommended Posts