Yep, as Dave Mason said ( sang), “ We just disagree “
It’s good to have respectful back and forths.
Y’all have a great weekend.
OT: trump verdict reached nm
- Thread starter Dadar
- Start date
It’s good to have respectful back and forths.
Y’all have a great weekend.
Clinton settled a civil lawsuit. No hush money. The alleged assault was that he showed her his penis after she asked to meet him in his hotel room. There was no consensual sex. The sinful motive is similar or same, but an entirely different breed of cat legally.
Ah yes. The Classic 1% scenario.
99% of the time the situations have nothing to do with mommas life but you choose to give the 1% example instead of the “oops made a mistake” scenario.
Typical.
And nut bag libs like on this board use the abortion debate as a justification to vote for China Joey shitbag biden.
“China” Joe hurt China big time with the chips ban.
It’s ok, Trump was focused on soybean tariffs, the great debate of the 21st century
Quit being a dumb@$$ Mr high iq. You have to try and live up to your self anointed status. Trump's performance and handling of China was far superior to Joey's. Joey is like Xi's little yard dog bought and paid for.
Why didn’t Donnie boy prevent American chip technology from being exported to China? Give me a good reason
The people working hardest against China are the three letter agencies you bitch and moan about to no end, the CIA, the FBI, and the NSA.
Wtf are you talking about? The situation with chip production was in place when Trump got in office and Taiwan to this day is still producing near 80% of the chips being made. China Joe hasn't done shit in reality.
CNN Senior Legal Analyst Describes How The Trump Conviction Was A Political Hit Job
1. "The judge donated money... in plain violation of a rule prohibiting New York judges from making political donations—to a pro-Biden, anti-Trump political operation."
2. Alvin Bragg boasted on the campaign trail in an overwhelmingly Democrat county, “It is a fact that I have sued Trump over 100 times.”
3. "Most importantly, the DA’s charges against Trump push the outer boundaries of the law and due process."
4. "The charges against Trump are obscure, and nearly entirely unprecedented. In fact, no state prosecutor — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever."
5. The DA inflated misdemeanors past the statute of limitations and "electroshocked them back to life" by alleging the falsification of business records was committed 'with intent to commit another crime.'
6. "Inexcusably, the DA refused to specify what those unlawful means actually were — and the judge declined to force them to pony up — until right before closing arguments. So much for the constitutional obligation to provide notice to the defendant of the accusations against him in advance of trial."
7. "In these key respects, the charges against Trump aren’t just unusual. They’re bespoke, seemingly crafted individually for the former president and nobody else."
8. "The Manhattan DA’s employees reportedly have called this the “Zombie Case” because of various legal infirmities, including its bizarre charging mechanism. But it’s better characterized as the Frankenstein Case, cobbled together with ill-fitting parts into an ugly, awkward, but more-or-less functioning contraption that just might ultimately turn on its creator."
Link to full article below.
No Growls, it wasn’t
Updated October 7 Semiconductor Export Controls
The Biden administration has put forth three new rules that close gaps in the October 7, 2022, export controls on advanced AI chips. The goal post has not moved, although the methods of achieving the original intentions have widened significantly.
You’ll never bring yourself to accept that Biden administration did something tougher towards China than your idol.
And yeah, Nvidia has chips made in Taiwan. So does AMD. American companies are allowed to do business overseas, and Biden signed a large bill to boost domestic production. Trump didn’t
It’s ok though, everything at Walmart got more expensive! That will show em
What effect has it had? This is more Democrat smoke and mirrors. Nothing has actually happened substantial to this point but if it does go well for the United States then I am going to be happy about it. Nothing that China Joe could do would clear him for what he has done in my mind.No Growls, it wasn’t
Updated October 7 Semiconductor Export Controls
The Biden administration has put forth three new rules that close gaps in the October 7, 2022, export controls on advanced AI chips. The goal post has not moved, although the methods of achieving the original intentions have widened significantly.www.csis.org
You’ll never bring yourself to accept that Biden administration did something tougher towards China than your idol.
FJB!!!!!!!
Trump could have been sipping pina coladas at Mar a Lago for the past 4 years, and the country would be in a healthier state than we are now.
Statistically impossible…
🚨 Judge Merchan was “Randomly Selected” for Two of Donald Trumps Cases, from a List he Wasn’t even On
• From a list of 24 sitting judges, one judge was supposed to be “randomly selected” to take this case — Judge Merchan was selected, but he wasn’t even on the List…
—— “he’s an “acting judge” 🤔
• Judge Merchan is not only a Biden Donor, he donated to an organization called “Stop Trump”
• Judge Merchan was “randomly selected” for the following cases
— Trump Hush Money Hoax Case
— Trump organization Fraud Case
— Steve Bannon Case
As Trump says, it’s rigged!
Joey shitbag Biden when questioned today about Trump just grins like he just come from eating ice cream all day at an elementary school. What a sick travesty.
If you really need for me to explain at this point, you are either behind the times or you cannot read an indictment nor a jury verdict form.
Call me when is a convicted felon 34 times over and lets talk about it.
When you watch this, keep in mind that one of the two attorney's on the jury was in fact a Corporate Attorney who is educated on ledgers and registries and he knew that Trump never filled out the ledger and that the bill was for legal fees that was entered in the ledger correctly.
That leads me to believe that the attorney's were planted on that jury there to convince the rest of the jury that Trump committed a crime that they knew he didn't commit.
Never forget that Alvin Bragg lowered 60% of all felonies to misdemeanors in his jurisdiction last year.
Let that sink in: 60% of all people arrested for felonies got their charges lowered by Fat Alvin.
But for Donald Trump, he elevated a misdemeanor to felony by claiming he committed a second crime that doesn't exist.
If you stabbed somebody on the street in Manhattan, you were more likely to get off with a misdemeanor from Alvin Bragg than Donald Trump.
The Biden Bipartisan Chips Legislation is already paying off, and will even more so in the next couple of years. News reports from a week or two ago say that China now is investing billions more into their chips. Looks like we are now competing in the right area.
Not only an adult woman but someone's daughter, child, wife, sister. These people are deranged as fvck.
To hell with due process. Just get Trump any way possible so shitbag joey can campaign on it. Its got to be very bad when you hear this on cnn.
This is the expert witness that Merchan would not allow to testify.
FEC Commish Blasts Trump Conviction, Debunks Claim He Violated Elections Law
"There was no illegal contribution or expenditure made, and no failure to report an expenditure... the prosecution’s theory made no sense, suggesting no criminal intent."
Former Commissioner of the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) @CommishSmith, a preeminent expert on campaign finance law has taken to social media to lash out against the Manhattan trial that led to the conviction of former President Donald Trump.
Judge Juan Merchan had prevented Trump’s defense team from seating Smith as a witness or even submitting his testimony to the jury. Smith had planned on testifying that Donald Trump’s filing of a “hush money” payment as a “legal expense” was not a crime against federal elections law.
Indeed, federal prosecutors had passed up on the case prior to Alvin Bragg, the District Attorney in Manhattan, bringing the case by claiming that Trump had “falsified business records” in the furtherance of committing a crime. One of the implicit crimes that Bragg had left open as an option was covering up Trump’s alleged affair with an adult actress “Stormy Daniels” (Stephanie Cliffords) so that it would not negatively impact the 2016 election.
However, among the controversies in the case, beyond it hinging on Michael Cohen’s unreliable testimony, was that Trump had purportedly used “unlawful” means to impact the election.
Former Commissioner Smith put this notion to rest in a lengthy thread that he posted on social media. It is reposted in its entirety below (lightly edited for readability):
Let’s take a stab… Falsifying business records under NY law is a misdemeanor, unless done to hide a crime. Bragg says that crime was a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), or of a NY statute making it illegal to influence an election by “unlawful” means.
But if the latter, what is the “unlawful means?” An alleged violation of FECA. So it comes down to FECA. There are two potential violations here. One is acceptance of an unlawful contribution by the campaign. The other is incorrect reporting of a contribution by the campaign.
Either way, we have to have a campaign contribution. That allegedly occurred when Cohen advanced money to pay the Stormy Daniels settlement. FECA defines a contribution as any payment made “for the purpose of influencing an election.” The 2016 max legal contribution was $2700.
This looks bad for Trump–it’s pretty easy to conclude the payment was made to influence the election by buying Daniels’ silence, right? And Cohen paid Daniels $130K, way over the limit. Well, it’s not so simple.
1st, let’s clear up something. Cohen just loaned the money–he was paid back and then some. So where, some ask, is the contribution? But this is not a winner for Trump–under the law a “contribution” includes a loan, unless made in the ordinary course of business (e.g. a bank)
But, for context, note that there is no limit on how much Trump can contribute to his own campaign. By Oct 27, when Daniels was paid, Trump had already spent >$60 million of his own $$ on the campaign. It would have been easy for him to toss in another $130K.
Now, back to that definition of “contribution.” If they bought Daniels silence to “influence an election”–what the prosecution alleged–isn’t that a “contribution?” (And also a campaign “expenditure,” which mirrors the contribution definition?) Well, no.
1st, Common Sense. We know that a campaign expense is not literally any payment made “for the purpose of influencing an election,” and reading the statute that way would be WAY too broad. For example, in 1999, Bill & Hillary Clinton bought a house in New York.
One reason they did so was that Hillary could run for U.S. Senate from New York. In other words, the expenditure was clearly done, in part, “for the purpose of influencing an election.” Is it a campaign expenditure under FECA? Of course not. Common sense.
How about if a would-be candidate pays a lawyer to seal old divorce records, because he is afraid that, if revealed, they would be damaging to his candidacy. Campaign expense? No, clearly not–even though done “for the purpose of influencing an election.”
Or suppose a business owner wants to settle pending lawsuits against his business before running for Congress. He think the lawsuits are BS–but he’s afraid the press will make a big deal of the allegations. Can he pay the settlements with campaign funds?
The answer, obviously, is no–even though there is no legal obligation to pay them, and the settlements would be paid specifically to “influence an election.” In fact, in each of these examples, it would be unlawful to make the payments with campaign funds.
This is because FECA also prohibits using campaign funds for “personal use.” What is “personal use?” Under Federal Election Commission regulations–and the FEC has primary authority-for interpreting the law-it is any obligation that would exist “irrespective” of the candidacy.
Indeed the FEC regulations make clear that a mixed motive doesn’t make something a campaign expense-if the obligation would exist “irrespective” of the campaign, paying it with campaign funds is “personal use,” and therefore illegal.
Certainly Daniels used the campaign to pressure Trump and for the most $$ she could. The timing affected the *value* of her allegations, but the *obligation* did not exist because Trump was a candidate. It predated his candidacy, & was not created by him being a candidate.
Let’s use common sense. Is it a “campaign” expense to pay for a non-disclosure agreement for something arising out of events 10 years earlier, and not caused by the act of being a candidate? Is paying “hush money” a campaign expense? Duh, no.
And we wouldn’t want it to be. We don’t want candidates using campaign funds to pay personal expenses, whether new clothes, a weight loss program, or a gym membership (purchased to help the candidate look better, and therefore “for the purpose of influencing an election.”)
And certainly not to pay non-disclosure agreements to keep embarrassing info hidden. In summary, “for the purpose of influencing an election is an objective standard. The motive of the donor or spender doesn’t matter. So what are expenditures?
Paying campaign staff is a campaign expenditure. Buying ads for the candidate. Paying fundraising costs. Paying a campaign accountant. Paying for polling. Travel to campaign events. Basically, all the obligations you incur solely because you are campaigning for office.
The FEC’s approach is consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court, has consistently held, in every case since FECA was passed 50 years ago, that it’s definitions of “contribution” and “expenditure” must be objective, not subjective, to avoid being unconstitutionally vague.
After all, almost any political act or communication could be considered a “campaign contribution” or “expenditure.” Protesting “Genocide Joe” for Biden’s Israel policy? That could, and could have the purpose of, influencing this fall’s election.
If an environmental group advocates for green energy policies, is that a campaign contribution? Doing so could shape views on the issue, and so how people vote this fall–that might even be its purpose. Campaign contribution? Expenditure?
So none of these things violate FECA, even though they are what we would normally call “expenditures,” and even though done “for the purpose of influencing an election.” Again, its an objective standard. But none of this went to the jury, either as evidence or in instructions.
Instead, the jury heard only from Michael Cohen and the prosecutors, who claimed this was clearly a violation of FECA. In a second thread, I’ll explain why there was no FECA reporting violation.
The second thread is also posted below:
In another thread, , I explain why payments to Stormy Daniels were not a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). In this thread, I’ll explain why no FECA reporting obligations were violated, and why the prosecution’s theory makes no sense.
M. Cohen testified that Trump wanted to keep Daniels allegations under wraps until after the election. Prosecutors claim they therefore illegally did not report the campaign expenditure, and by doing so intended to, and did, have “the purpose of influencing an election.”
Presidential campaigns file monthly reports with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). These are filed on the 20th of each month, and cover expenditures and contributions for the prior month. So in 2016, the Sep. report was filed 9/20, and covered expenditures made in August.
The Oct. report was filed 10/20, reporting expenditures made in September. But after the October monthly report, the schedule changes. 12 days before the election, campaigns file a Pre-Election Report, covering expenditures up to 20 days before the election.
In 2016, the Pre-election Report was filed on October 27, covering expenditures made only through Oct. 19. The payment to Daniels was made on Oct. 27. So the payment would not have been reported on the Pre-election report.
The next report is the Post-Election Report. This covers expenditures made from 20 days before the election until 20 days after the election, and is filed 10 days after that. So this was the 1st report that would have included any expenditure to Cohen for paying Daniels.
In 2016, the Post-Election Report was required to be filed on December 8, one month after the election. So the prosecution’s theory, that Trump wanted to hide the expenditure until after the election, makes no sense at all.
Even if we assume, incorrectly, that it was a campaign expenditure, it wouldn’t have been reported until 30 days after the election. But again, none of this got to the jury, either through testimony or the judge’s instructions.
Merchan was rather obviously biased here, but I’ll give him the benefit of a doubt and say he was just thoroughly ignorant of campaign finance law, and had no interest in boning up on it to properly instruct the jury.
There was no illegal contribution or expenditure made, and no failure to report an expenditure. And even if we assume otherwise, the prosecution’s theory made no sense, suggesting no criminal intent.
I’m not a criminal law guy. But I do know campaign finance law. The failure to properly instruct the jury on the law would seem to be reversible error.
Donald Trump was found guilty in the Manhattan trial of 34 counts of falsification of business records and potentially faces prison time in his sentencing on July 11th.
The Trump legal team intends to file an appeal to the New York State Appellate Court.
FEC Commish Blasts Trump Conviction, Debunks Claim He Violated Elections Law
"There was no illegal contribution or expenditure made, and no failure to report an expenditure... the prosecution’s theory made no sense, suggesting no criminal intent."
Former Commissioner of the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) @CommishSmith, a preeminent expert on campaign finance law has taken to social media to lash out against the Manhattan trial that led to the conviction of former President Donald Trump.
Judge Juan Merchan had prevented Trump’s defense team from seating Smith as a witness or even submitting his testimony to the jury. Smith had planned on testifying that Donald Trump’s filing of a “hush money” payment as a “legal expense” was not a crime against federal elections law.
Indeed, federal prosecutors had passed up on the case prior to Alvin Bragg, the District Attorney in Manhattan, bringing the case by claiming that Trump had “falsified business records” in the furtherance of committing a crime. One of the implicit crimes that Bragg had left open as an option was covering up Trump’s alleged affair with an adult actress “Stormy Daniels” (Stephanie Cliffords) so that it would not negatively impact the 2016 election.
However, among the controversies in the case, beyond it hinging on Michael Cohen’s unreliable testimony, was that Trump had purportedly used “unlawful” means to impact the election.
Former Commissioner Smith put this notion to rest in a lengthy thread that he posted on social media. It is reposted in its entirety below (lightly edited for readability):
Let’s take a stab… Falsifying business records under NY law is a misdemeanor, unless done to hide a crime. Bragg says that crime was a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), or of a NY statute making it illegal to influence an election by “unlawful” means.
But if the latter, what is the “unlawful means?” An alleged violation of FECA. So it comes down to FECA. There are two potential violations here. One is acceptance of an unlawful contribution by the campaign. The other is incorrect reporting of a contribution by the campaign.
Either way, we have to have a campaign contribution. That allegedly occurred when Cohen advanced money to pay the Stormy Daniels settlement. FECA defines a contribution as any payment made “for the purpose of influencing an election.” The 2016 max legal contribution was $2700.
This looks bad for Trump–it’s pretty easy to conclude the payment was made to influence the election by buying Daniels’ silence, right? And Cohen paid Daniels $130K, way over the limit. Well, it’s not so simple.
1st, let’s clear up something. Cohen just loaned the money–he was paid back and then some. So where, some ask, is the contribution? But this is not a winner for Trump–under the law a “contribution” includes a loan, unless made in the ordinary course of business (e.g. a bank)
But, for context, note that there is no limit on how much Trump can contribute to his own campaign. By Oct 27, when Daniels was paid, Trump had already spent >$60 million of his own $$ on the campaign. It would have been easy for him to toss in another $130K.
Now, back to that definition of “contribution.” If they bought Daniels silence to “influence an election”–what the prosecution alleged–isn’t that a “contribution?” (And also a campaign “expenditure,” which mirrors the contribution definition?) Well, no.
1st, Common Sense. We know that a campaign expense is not literally any payment made “for the purpose of influencing an election,” and reading the statute that way would be WAY too broad. For example, in 1999, Bill & Hillary Clinton bought a house in New York.
One reason they did so was that Hillary could run for U.S. Senate from New York. In other words, the expenditure was clearly done, in part, “for the purpose of influencing an election.” Is it a campaign expenditure under FECA? Of course not. Common sense.
How about if a would-be candidate pays a lawyer to seal old divorce records, because he is afraid that, if revealed, they would be damaging to his candidacy. Campaign expense? No, clearly not–even though done “for the purpose of influencing an election.”
Or suppose a business owner wants to settle pending lawsuits against his business before running for Congress. He think the lawsuits are BS–but he’s afraid the press will make a big deal of the allegations. Can he pay the settlements with campaign funds?
The answer, obviously, is no–even though there is no legal obligation to pay them, and the settlements would be paid specifically to “influence an election.” In fact, in each of these examples, it would be unlawful to make the payments with campaign funds.
This is because FECA also prohibits using campaign funds for “personal use.” What is “personal use?” Under Federal Election Commission regulations–and the FEC has primary authority-for interpreting the law-it is any obligation that would exist “irrespective” of the candidacy.
Indeed the FEC regulations make clear that a mixed motive doesn’t make something a campaign expense-if the obligation would exist “irrespective” of the campaign, paying it with campaign funds is “personal use,” and therefore illegal.
Certainly Daniels used the campaign to pressure Trump and for the most $$ she could. The timing affected the *value* of her allegations, but the *obligation* did not exist because Trump was a candidate. It predated his candidacy, & was not created by him being a candidate.
Let’s use common sense. Is it a “campaign” expense to pay for a non-disclosure agreement for something arising out of events 10 years earlier, and not caused by the act of being a candidate? Is paying “hush money” a campaign expense? Duh, no.
And we wouldn’t want it to be. We don’t want candidates using campaign funds to pay personal expenses, whether new clothes, a weight loss program, or a gym membership (purchased to help the candidate look better, and therefore “for the purpose of influencing an election.”)
And certainly not to pay non-disclosure agreements to keep embarrassing info hidden. In summary, “for the purpose of influencing an election is an objective standard. The motive of the donor or spender doesn’t matter. So what are expenditures?
Paying campaign staff is a campaign expenditure. Buying ads for the candidate. Paying fundraising costs. Paying a campaign accountant. Paying for polling. Travel to campaign events. Basically, all the obligations you incur solely because you are campaigning for office.
The FEC’s approach is consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court, has consistently held, in every case since FECA was passed 50 years ago, that it’s definitions of “contribution” and “expenditure” must be objective, not subjective, to avoid being unconstitutionally vague.
After all, almost any political act or communication could be considered a “campaign contribution” or “expenditure.” Protesting “Genocide Joe” for Biden’s Israel policy? That could, and could have the purpose of, influencing this fall’s election.
If an environmental group advocates for green energy policies, is that a campaign contribution? Doing so could shape views on the issue, and so how people vote this fall–that might even be its purpose. Campaign contribution? Expenditure?
So none of these things violate FECA, even though they are what we would normally call “expenditures,” and even though done “for the purpose of influencing an election.” Again, its an objective standard. But none of this went to the jury, either as evidence or in instructions.
Instead, the jury heard only from Michael Cohen and the prosecutors, who claimed this was clearly a violation of FECA. In a second thread, I’ll explain why there was no FECA reporting violation.
The second thread is also posted below:
In another thread, , I explain why payments to Stormy Daniels were not a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). In this thread, I’ll explain why no FECA reporting obligations were violated, and why the prosecution’s theory makes no sense.
M. Cohen testified that Trump wanted to keep Daniels allegations under wraps until after the election. Prosecutors claim they therefore illegally did not report the campaign expenditure, and by doing so intended to, and did, have “the purpose of influencing an election.”
Presidential campaigns file monthly reports with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). These are filed on the 20th of each month, and cover expenditures and contributions for the prior month. So in 2016, the Sep. report was filed 9/20, and covered expenditures made in August.
The Oct. report was filed 10/20, reporting expenditures made in September. But after the October monthly report, the schedule changes. 12 days before the election, campaigns file a Pre-Election Report, covering expenditures up to 20 days before the election.
In 2016, the Pre-election Report was filed on October 27, covering expenditures made only through Oct. 19. The payment to Daniels was made on Oct. 27. So the payment would not have been reported on the Pre-election report.
The next report is the Post-Election Report. This covers expenditures made from 20 days before the election until 20 days after the election, and is filed 10 days after that. So this was the 1st report that would have included any expenditure to Cohen for paying Daniels.
In 2016, the Post-Election Report was required to be filed on December 8, one month after the election. So the prosecution’s theory, that Trump wanted to hide the expenditure until after the election, makes no sense at all.
Even if we assume, incorrectly, that it was a campaign expenditure, it wouldn’t have been reported until 30 days after the election. But again, none of this got to the jury, either through testimony or the judge’s instructions.
Merchan was rather obviously biased here, but I’ll give him the benefit of a doubt and say he was just thoroughly ignorant of campaign finance law, and had no interest in boning up on it to properly instruct the jury.
There was no illegal contribution or expenditure made, and no failure to report an expenditure. And even if we assume otherwise, the prosecution’s theory made no sense, suggesting no criminal intent.
I’m not a criminal law guy. But I do know campaign finance law. The failure to properly instruct the jury on the law would seem to be reversible error.
Donald Trump was found guilty in the Manhattan trial of 34 counts of falsification of business records and potentially faces prison time in his sentencing on July 11th.
The Trump legal team intends to file an appeal to the New York State Appellate Court.
