I feel like this case will rise or sink on its own merit. Georgia should as well. I agree the charges in Georgia are so much more substantial. But I don't feel like whatever happens in this case should have an effect on the Georgia case one way or the other. Isn't it the job of judge, jury and attorneys in Georgia to make sure there is an independent examination of the evidence in that case?
I feel like this case will rise or sink on its own merit. Georgia should as well. I agree the charges in Georgia are so much more substantial. But I don't feel like whatever happens in this case should have an effect on the Georgia case one way or the other. Isn't it the job of judge, jury and attorneys in Georgia to make sure there is an independent examination of the evidence in that case?
If he promised to charge trump during his campaign, I don't know about it. He bragged about suing Trump in the past. Not sure what stretching the law would mean. If his case sucks, I expect it to fail in court.
When you have time do some research on new york law. Under new york law whatever time frame the defendant is out of state continously for whatever purpose the statue of limitations pauses. Doesn't matter what it for.. Appeals courts have confirmed this many times Harvey weinstein used that argument and the NY courts confirmed that it pauses. Read the trial judge and appeal judges rulings
"This is routine, trust me bro" - Alvin Bragg, you're saying I should take the word of the person who has the most vested interest in the world of making this case seem routine and non-partisan that this case is routine and non-partisan and then throw a bunch of case names at me that I'm suppose to read, review and come to a legal conclusion about how these cases compare to the Trump case? lmao. Or how about I take it from Vox, a notoriously left wing publication and the NYT, another notoriously left wing publication that, "But the New York Times’s assessment a few weeks before the indictment came down was that “the case against the former president hinges on an untested and therefore risky legal theory involving a complex interplay of laws, all amounting to a low-level felony.” Yea, I'm sure this would totally be being pursued by Alvin Bragg if it was just some dude. This isn't political at all. Right guys? Just blind justice!
He'd could just beg the rubes such as @Commodore and @CrixusTheUndefeatedGaul. Wait Crixus doesn't have the 50 bucks he owes already. No wonder he loves Trump.
One thing. The FEC investigators did recommend charges against Trump. However, the Commisioners deadlocked 2-2 along party lines. So the FEC investigators believed Federal Crimes had been committed. However, I do realize these are State, not Federal charges. Thank you for your analysis.
And Jack Smith's case is going to tell both the GA and NY cases "You think YOU have something? Hold my beer."
You don't actually believe Trump is innocent do you? Do you believe him when he said he won the election? Do you believe anything out of Trump's mouth? Just curious. I know some fools actually still believe Trump is an honest and patriotic man.
If the DA can prove this, it shows he wasn't concerned about personal embarrassment but the election. And dang, what a cheapskate and a serial cheater.
Well he now gets to dominate the news cycle again for the next 18 months.. and this helps his fund raising… and it firms up his base. Not a bad deal for him.
If Trump would have retired from politics in 2021, do you think these 34 cases would have been pursued?
In 2023? Yeah I do…. In 2000? Nope. There are a lot of people that hate him, have been screwed by him and want him to pay. He has done some really shady things but at this point I don’t care what happens. Honestly I am ready for this period of politics to just end.
I mean, at minimum, this should all be very embarassing, but the man is deluded and has no shame. That said, I still think it's a weak case. Yes, if the DA can prove the above, that strengthens the case, but I still think even if that leads to a conviction, it'll be overturned 9-0 or close to that by SCOTUS. By definition, Trump used personal expenses to pay off embarassing information. Even if those personal expenditures were to "influence the election," they don't count as campaign expenditures. They can't. They're personal expenditures. FECA is written to prevent using campaign money on presonal stuff. If these are campaign expenditures, then in theory, Trump or a Trump-like person, can use campaign funds to pay-off affairs as long as they are under the spending limit and declared to the FEC. That's impossible. That is why John Edwards was acquitted and that is why even if he was convicted, SCOTUS would have overturned it like SCOTUS did 8-0 to McDonnell (though a different charge). From Supreme Court precendents...well, I'm about to ChatGPT it: The Court also established a definition of "expenditure" for the purposes of campaign finance law. The Court held that an expenditure was only made "for the purpose of influencing any election" if it involved express advocacy of the election or defeat of a candidate. In other words, only messages that contained phrases like "vote for" or "vote against" or their functional equivalent would be considered expenditures for the purpose of campaign finance law. This holding was later reaffirmed in the case of FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (2007), in which the Court struck down a provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 that banned corporations and unions from airing electioneering communications in the 30 days before a primary election or 60 days before a general election. The Court held that the ban was unconstitutional because it applied to communications that were not the functional equivalent of express advocacy. In summary, Supreme Court precedents have established that the "for the purpose of influencing any election" language in campaign finance laws must be narrowly construed to apply only to express advocacy or its functional equivalent. This means that messages that do not contain explicit phrases advocating for or against a candidate are generally not considered expenditures for the purpose of campaign finance law. My point is the Cohen plea deal is a legally incorrect interpretation of FEC regulation, and even if the feds went to trial and Cohen was convicted, SCOTUS would probably overturn it. So if Trump secretly gave money to Stormy to go out and make "vote for Trump" ads and never reported it to the FEC and lied about it, that would be a violation of FECA. Or if Trump took your donations and paid Stormy to bang him or go away or whatever, then that would be a FECA violation. But using his own money to cover up his lies and indiscretions is only a FECA violation if you stretch the law, and ultimately, that would get struck down. And if the NY AG is using that violation to bring 30+ felony charges, then that's really stretching the law, which is bad imo. The misdemeanor cases are much stronger if it passes the statute of limitations with that time pause exception.
No, you didn't. You posted a bunch of case titles and said they are the "same thing" - "trust me bro."
It’s amazing to think one of those ancient men could be President 6 years from now. I don’t understand how this is even possible. If Biden lives that long he will be unintelligible that will be the laughing stock the world over. While Trump will likely be so blabbing/incoherent/volatile at that point that it could lead to some unbelievable and unforeseen catastrophe. Can’t they just *****ing find someone in their 40s or 50s?
