Donald Trump indicted by Manhattan grand jury

[Pommer]

Which is a misdemeanor without the campaign finance violation.
I was not even planning on voting for Trump and thought he had no chance in the general but these charges are helping him

This was addressed yesterday (04-25-2024) ruling from the judge, a conviction for the campaign finance charge isn’t necessary, only that the actions (of hiding the repayment to Cohen the monies he fronted), amounted to an illegal campaign contribution, thus the false entries into the Trump Org. daily ledger, rise to felonious activity.

 

[BPPLEE]

This was addressed yesterday (04-25-2024) order from the judge, a conviction for the campaign finance charge isn’t necessary, only that the actions (of hiding the repayment to Cohen the monies he fronted), amounted to an illegal campaign contribution, thus the false entries into the Trump Org. daily ledger, rise to felonious activity.

That’s the same thing I said

 

[Pommer]

That’s the same thing I said

Yes, you were correct that a conviction (or even prosecution) of the crime that is being “hidden” isn’t necessary.

 

[BPPLEE]

Yes, you were correct that a conviction (or even prosecution) of the crime that is being “hidden” isn’t necessary.

I’ve listened to so much speculation about this trial I will just wait and see what happens.

 

[BPPLEE]

I'm stepping off the merry-go-round.

I’ll be more careful not to pay attention to the experts and get the facts myself before commenting any further on this case.

 

[camille70]

He paid Cohen in payments totaling more than what was paid to Daniels. They will probably get a conviction with this jury but it will be appealed

Here is a helpful video. It's only 2 1/2 minutes.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782579850059915414

 

[camille70]

Afraid not

DNC, Clinton campaign agree to Steele dossier funding fine

Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee have agreed to pay $113,000 to settle a Federal Election Commission investigation.

apnews.com

Shouldn’t Trump be treated the same?

That's not even close to the same situation.

 

[BPPLEE]

That's not even close to the same situation.

It’s the exact same thing

“By intentionally obscuring their payments through Perkins Coie and failing to publicly disclose the true purpose of those payments,” the campaign and DNC “were able to avoid publicly reporting on their statutorily required FEC disclosure forms the fact that they were paying Fusion GPS to perform opposition research on Trump with the intent of influencing the outcome of the 2016 presidential election,” the initial complaint had read.

 

[BPPLEE]

Here is a helpful video. It's only 2 1/2 minutes.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782579850059915414

I don’t listen to MadCow

 

[BPPLEE]

Yes, you were correct that a conviction (or even prosecution) of the crime that is being “hidden” isn’t necessary.

Has this “law” which upgrades to a felony ever been used before or is this like the other NY case against Trump, a first time use ?

 

[essentialsaltes]

It’s the exact same thing

“By intentionally obscuring their payments through Perkins Coie and failing to publicly disclose the true purpose of those payments,” the campaign and DNC “were able to avoid publicly reporting on their statutorily required FEC disclosure forms the fact that they were paying Fusion GPS to perform opposition research on Trump with the intent of influencing the outcome of the 2016 presidential election,” the initial complaint had read.

It depends on what "the thing" is.

For the purposes of this thread, it is falsifying business documents, which did not occur in the Clinton case, which was about campaign/FEC rules.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Has this “law” which upgrades to a felony ever been used before or is this like the other NY case against Trump, a first time use ?

Yes

What, like being charged with multiple counts of falsifying business records to cover up illegal campaign donations in New York state?

 

[BPPLEE]

It depends on what "the thing" is.

For the purposes of this thread, it is falsifying business documents, which did not occur in the Clinton case, which was about campaign/FEC rules.

Obscuring the payments sounds very much like the same thing

 

[wing2000]

There may be other reasons to keep a negative story from coming out.

Such as?

 

[BPPLEE]

Such as?

The testimony showed that they had been burying negative stories for years, long before Trump was running for president and that this was done for other celebrities like Tiger Woods, which had nothing to do with elections

 

[essentialsaltes]

Obscuring the payments sounds very much like the same thing

I hope someone who has a better legal grasp comments. But I see a difference between the civil administration of elections through the FEC and the criminal charges relevant to this case.

Clinton campaign gives money to lawyers, lists expense as legal fees; FEC complains, campaign settles without admitting anything.

Trump Organization (via Cohen) gives money to hussy to influence campaign; FEC considers complaining but doesn't. The end.
Feds charge Cohen under the Federal Election Campaign Act for donation of an illegal amount; he pleads guilty.
Trump Organization business documents (not campaign expense disclosures) disguise the repayments to Cohen with false documentation. <--- we are here

 

[essentialsaltes]

which had nothing to do with elections

Which is why nobody cares (or at least it isn't illegal). If these expenses are considered campaign donations (and they are -- part of Pecker's testimony about Schwarzenegger brings that to light) then they are subject to the laws about campaign spending.

 

[BPPLEE]

I hope someone who has a better legal grasp comments. But I see a difference between the civil administration of elections through the FEC and the criminal charges relevant to this case.

Clinton campaign gives money to lawyers, lists expense as legal fees; FEC complains, campaign settles without admitting anything.

Trump Organization (via Cohen) gives money to hussy to influence campaign; FEC considers complaining but doesn't. The end.
Feds charge Cohen under the Federal Election Campaign Act for donation of an illegal amount; he pleads guilty.
Trump Organization business documents (not campaign expense disclosures) disguise the repayments to Cohen with false documentation. <--- we are here

Clinton campaign gives money to lawyers, lists expense as legal fees when it was actually a campaign related expense
Trump Organization gives money to lawyer, lists expense as legal fees when it was actually a campaign related expense.
But you are saying paying for the dossier was not illegal but paying Daniels was. Is that the difference you are pointing out?

 

[camille70]

I don’t listen to MadCow

Not just "MadCow" it seems. This is why you are confused over how the plan and repayment was illegal and everyone else has grasped the basics.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Clinton campaign gives money to lawyers, lists expense as legal fees when it was actually a campaign related expense
Trump Organization gives money to lawyer, lists expense as legal fees when it was actually a campaign related expense.
But you are saying paying for the dossier was not illegal but paying Daniels was. Is that the difference you are pointing out?

Campaigns can spend whatever they want on campaigns. That's what they're for.

A campaign donation is subject to entirely different laws.

A campaign submits its campaign documents to the FEC.
A company submits its financial documents to the state of NY.