Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: NY Preparing to Indict Trump

  1. #1

    Unhappy NY Preparing to Indict Trump

    The former president was told that he could appear before a Manhattan grand jury next week if he wishes to testify, a strong indication that an indictment could soon follow.

    More...

    Lying to the public, as Trump clearly did during the 2016 presidential campaign, about paying hush money to his porn star mistress was not a crime. The below described legal theory, if that is really the theory being pursued by the grand jury, seems like an attempt to shoehorn Trump's legal lies into the definition of an unrelated crime.

    Too many prosecutors recently are bring criminal charges because of public pressure. The Alec Baldwin case is an example. This case, if Trump is indicted under the legal theory described in the article, will be another example.

    In the federal case against Mr. Cohen, prosecutors said that Mr. Trump’s company “falsely accounted” for the monthly payments as legal expenses and that company records cited a retainer agreement with Mr. Cohen. Although Mr. Cohen was a lawyer, and became Mr. Trump’s personal attorney after he took office, there was no such retainer agreement and the reimbursement was unrelated to any legal services Mr. Cohen performed.

    In New York, falsifying business records can amount to a crime, albeit a misdemeanor. To elevate the crime to a felony charge, Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors must show that Mr. Trump’s “intent to defraud” included an intent to commit or conceal a second crime.

    In this case, that second crime could be a violation of New York State election law. While hush money is not inherently illegal, the prosecutors could argue that the $130,000 payout effectively became an improper donation to Mr. Trump’s campaign, under the theory that because the money silenced Ms. Daniels, it benefited his candidacy.

    Combining the criminal charge with a violation of state election law would be a novel legal theory for any criminal case, let alone one against the former president, raising the possibility that a judge or appellate court could throw it out or reduce the felony charge to a misdemeanor.
    Humanity, auf wiedersehen.
    It's time to say goodbye; the party's over.
    As the laughter dies, an angel cries.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In amazement
    Posts
    7,052

    Default

    LOL this is a bigger stretch than suggesting that Seran is a useful member of society.
    I asked for neither your Opinion,
    your Acceptance
    nor your Permission.

    "The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis." Dante Alighieri 3
    "It took 2000 mules to install one Jackass." Diamond and Silk Watch the Movie

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ClydeR View Post
    Lying to the public, as Trump clearly did during the 2016 presidential campaign, about paying hush money to his porn star mistress was not a crime. The below described legal theory, if that is really the theory being pursued by the grand jury, seems like an attempt to shoehorn Trump's legal lies into the definition of an unrelated crime.

    Too many prosecutors recently are bring criminal charges because of public pressure. The Alec Baldwin case is an example. This case, if Trump is indicted under the legal theory described in the article, will be another example.
    It'll be the use of campaign funds to pay the lawyer that paid the porn star to hush, that'll be the thing that makes this stick in my opinion.

    You can debate who paid who for what all day, but when the payment itself comes out of campaign funds the arguments are moot, if the services rendered are not campaign efforts.
    Make Shattered a $5 stand-alone subscription

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bhaalizmo View Post
    It'll be the use of campaign funds to pay the lawyer that paid the porn star to hush, that'll be the thing that makes this stick in my opinion.

    You can debate who paid who for what all day, but when the payment itself comes out of campaign funds the arguments are moot, if the services rendered are not campaign efforts.
    How many times are you going to be wrong and falling for the "OMG THIS IS IT!" headline?

    Fucking retard.
    PC RETARD HALL OF FAME

    Quote Originally Posted by Seran-the Current Retard Champion View Post
    Besides, Republicans also block abstinence and contraceptives anyway.
    Quote Originally Posted by Seran-the Current Retard Champion View Post
    Regulating firearms to keep them out of the hands of criminals, the unhinged, etc. meets the first test of the 2nd amendment, 'well-regulated'.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHAFT View Post
    You show me a video of me typing that and Ill admit it. (This was the excuse he came up with when he was called out for a really stupid post)
    Quote Originally Posted by Back View Post
    3 million more popular votes. I'd say the numbers speak for themselves. Gerrymandering won for Trump.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    yo mama
    Posts
    5,480

    Default

    Can’t wait for Time4Fun to pop into this thread with her walls of text lecturing us on how things are really heating up…for realz this time.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bhaalizmo View Post
    It'll be the use of campaign funds to pay the lawyer that paid the porn star to hush, that'll be the thing that makes this stick in my opinion.

    You can debate who paid who for what all day, but when the payment itself comes out of campaign funds the arguments are moot, if the services rendered are not campaign efforts.
    The money did not come out of the campaign. It is the opposite of that. The allegation is that the payment was a disguised contribution to the campaign, and the crime is that it was not reported. Same as the John Edwards case from 2011. I'm sure you all felt the same about the John Edwards case as you do about the Trump case. Right?

  7. #7

    Default

    Trump posted last night that he never had an affair with Daniels. "I did absolutely nothing wrong, I never had an affair with Stormy Daniels, nor would I have wanted to have an affair with Stormy Daniels. This is a political Witch-Hunt, trying to take down the leading candidate, by far, in the Republican Party."

    That was a dumb thing to post. Trump is not as good with social media as he was when he first ran for President in 2016.

    It depends on what the meaning of "affair" is. Deva vu!

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ClydeR View Post
    The money did not come out of the campaign. It is the opposite of that. The allegation is that the payment was a disguised contribution to the campaign, and the crime is that it was not reported. Same as the John Edwards case from 2011. I'm sure you all felt the same about the John Edwards case as you do about the Trump case. Right?
    How many years did John Edwards spend in jail.. or is he still in there?
    PC RETARD HALL OF FAME

    Quote Originally Posted by Seran-the Current Retard Champion View Post
    Besides, Republicans also block abstinence and contraceptives anyway.
    Quote Originally Posted by Seran-the Current Retard Champion View Post
    Regulating firearms to keep them out of the hands of criminals, the unhinged, etc. meets the first test of the 2nd amendment, 'well-regulated'.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHAFT View Post
    You show me a video of me typing that and Ill admit it. (This was the excuse he came up with when he was called out for a really stupid post)
    Quote Originally Posted by Back View Post
    3 million more popular votes. I'd say the numbers speak for themselves. Gerrymandering won for Trump.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ClydeR View Post
    Lying to the public, as Trump clearly did during the 2016 presidential campaign, about paying hush money to his porn star mistress was not a crime. The below described legal theory, if that is really the theory being pursued by the grand jury, seems like an attempt to shoehorn Trump's legal lies into the definition of an unrelated crime.

    Too many prosecutors recently are bring criminal charges because of public pressure. The Alec Baldwin case is an example. This case, if Trump is indicted under the legal theory described in the article, will be another example.
    I'm just waiting for his argument that as a candidate for president that he's immune from prosecution. Followed immediately by his fleeing the country when that fails.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Mars
    Posts
    34,106
    Blog Entries
    17

    Default

    This reminds me of when Republicans were constantly saying Hillary was about to be indicted.
    Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •