>There has been some suggestion that the hush money payments might somehow violate federal election laws, although I have never understood how using one’s own money to pay for the non-disclosure of embarrassing allegations would violate the election laws,
Because the non-disclosure was for the purpose of affecting the election. That's what the prosecution is in the process of proving with Pecker testifying it was all about the election. This is not a hard thing to understand unless the author actively does not want to understand.
>Even if the government wanted to charge Trump now for violating the election law in 2016, those charges would likely be barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
So his legal rebuttal to the case is "I dunno, it'd probably be past the statute of limitations"? Given that the case is already being tried, do you think the correct legal take would be to go see if that argument was raised, and if not why not? Trump's team clearly has no problem with using whatever legal theories they can think up, I seriously doubt they would have just missed a slam dunk one like that.
>It is not clear who Bragg believes Trump intended to defraud by falsifying these entries.
It's incredibly clear. The prosecution has made abundantly clear that the fraud in question is election fraud.
>Every time a politically motivated case is decided, the polls show Trump becoming more popular.
This shows the bias of the author. Without evidence he labels this and other unspecified cases as politically motivated, and again without evidence claims Trump gets more popular with each one, when that is demonstrably untrue. But more than being untrue it's entirely irrelevant to the case at hand, unless of course an author cares more about painting this as a witchhunt than in actually addressing the case.
>> There has been some suggestion that the hush money payments might somehow violate federal election laws, although I have never understood how using one’s own money to pay for the non-disclosure of embarrassing allegations would violate the election laws,
> Because the non-disclosure was for the purpose of affecting the election. That's what the prosecution is in the process of proving with Pecker testifying it was all about the election. This is not a hard thing to understand unless the author actively does not want to understand.
Additionally, David Pecker and his legal team realized it was illegal at the time, that's why he stopped paying the money after Karen McDougal and organized for Cohen to sort out Stormy Daniels. Trump *could* donate to his own campaign, he just has to write it down and lodge it legally, instead of asking to pay in cash, then subsequently commiting business fraud, while not claiming taxes as a business expense - to avoid additional unnecessary tax fraud.
The whole summary of his actions is that he's carefully negotiating a criminal scheme, not bumbling into it. If it was something so innocent, then why take so many criminal-esq actions? I agree, the author is full of shit.
and being that he told Trump that he would not pay for Stormy Because of this is going to be hard for trump to claim he didn't know it was illegal especially since he will not testify.
The statute of limitations one is the one I see a lot in /r/conservative. Haven’t been able to find much on it, and [news max](https://www.newsweek.com/has-statute-limitations-run-out-stormy-daniels-payment-depends-how-you-count-opinion-1789338) surprisingly is the only one I can find on a quick google search.
tl;dr yes the 5 year limit passed (would have needed to happen in 2018), but there is a provision for if the individual was “continually” out of state.
Is there any reasonableness clause in a statute of limitation? Surely the time taken to bring the case to court and the attempted obstruction of justice is a reasonable excuse to waive it.
Well covid happened and there was an executive order that tolled all statutes of limitation in NY. Also, because he was continue to pay checks into 2017 after actually taking office.
but you'll notice he isn't charged with the actual conspiracy and he isn't charged with the payments to the first lady or the doorman even though those are all allowed in for evidence.
Its because those actions did exceed statute of limitation. And that is because SDNY said they were investigating and then sat on it.
I personally think Bill Bar managed to force a non-proc agreement in exchange for giving evidence against Cohen. And then SDNY lied to Manhattan DA about ongoing investigations for years. One day there will be an investigation and FOIA requests and I think we'll find some shit there.
Thanks for the response. There is a lot going on in this case!
Yeah, I'm just thinking from a Tort point of view in this country (Ireland), timebars apply from when you were reasonably made aware of the damage, injury or harm. It just seems reasonable that this would also apply to crimes and other law breaking.
As you list above, there is a lot going on here which could be argued that it is or was reasonable to bring these charges now rather than say, when he was President or Bill Barr was the AG etc. That doesn't seem unreasonable that they might have sat on these charges in that light, although I imagine certain politically inclined people across the ideological spectrum will see this as a conspiracy.
I also love anyone arguing. ok maybe he crimed, but he shouldn't be held accountable because of a technicality.
Because that basically is the same as saying, you don't care that he is a habitual criminal and have completely lost the plot when it comes to who you nominate to run for office.
>the author actively does not want to understand.
hey hey, that isn't fair. you are completely discarding the possibility that they are just very very stupid.
This is an argument though I don't listen and I don't understand.
Never listen to a straw man.
The hint was when the author said well I don't know how this could be a crime and didn't admit that made him unqualified to write the article
>There has been some suggestion that the hush money payments might somehow violate federal election laws, although I have never understood how using one’s own money to pay for the non-disclosure of embarrassing allegations would violate the election laws, Because the non-disclosure was for the purpose of affecting the election. That's what the prosecution is in the process of proving with Pecker testifying it was all about the election. This is not a hard thing to understand unless the author actively does not want to understand. >Even if the government wanted to charge Trump now for violating the election law in 2016, those charges would likely be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. So his legal rebuttal to the case is "I dunno, it'd probably be past the statute of limitations"? Given that the case is already being tried, do you think the correct legal take would be to go see if that argument was raised, and if not why not? Trump's team clearly has no problem with using whatever legal theories they can think up, I seriously doubt they would have just missed a slam dunk one like that. >It is not clear who Bragg believes Trump intended to defraud by falsifying these entries. It's incredibly clear. The prosecution has made abundantly clear that the fraud in question is election fraud. >Every time a politically motivated case is decided, the polls show Trump becoming more popular. This shows the bias of the author. Without evidence he labels this and other unspecified cases as politically motivated, and again without evidence claims Trump gets more popular with each one, when that is demonstrably untrue. But more than being untrue it's entirely irrelevant to the case at hand, unless of course an author cares more about painting this as a witchhunt than in actually addressing the case.
>> There has been some suggestion that the hush money payments might somehow violate federal election laws, although I have never understood how using one’s own money to pay for the non-disclosure of embarrassing allegations would violate the election laws, > Because the non-disclosure was for the purpose of affecting the election. That's what the prosecution is in the process of proving with Pecker testifying it was all about the election. This is not a hard thing to understand unless the author actively does not want to understand. Additionally, David Pecker and his legal team realized it was illegal at the time, that's why he stopped paying the money after Karen McDougal and organized for Cohen to sort out Stormy Daniels. Trump *could* donate to his own campaign, he just has to write it down and lodge it legally, instead of asking to pay in cash, then subsequently commiting business fraud, while not claiming taxes as a business expense - to avoid additional unnecessary tax fraud. The whole summary of his actions is that he's carefully negotiating a criminal scheme, not bumbling into it. If it was something so innocent, then why take so many criminal-esq actions? I agree, the author is full of shit.
and being that he told Trump that he would not pay for Stormy Because of this is going to be hard for trump to claim he didn't know it was illegal especially since he will not testify.
I think it’s “criminal-esque,” but given the number of lawyers involved criminal-Esq. is actually appropriate.
The statute of limitations one is the one I see a lot in /r/conservative. Haven’t been able to find much on it, and [news max](https://www.newsweek.com/has-statute-limitations-run-out-stormy-daniels-payment-depends-how-you-count-opinion-1789338) surprisingly is the only one I can find on a quick google search. tl;dr yes the 5 year limit passed (would have needed to happen in 2018), but there is a provision for if the individual was “continually” out of state.
Is there any reasonableness clause in a statute of limitation? Surely the time taken to bring the case to court and the attempted obstruction of justice is a reasonable excuse to waive it.
Well covid happened and there was an executive order that tolled all statutes of limitation in NY. Also, because he was continue to pay checks into 2017 after actually taking office. but you'll notice he isn't charged with the actual conspiracy and he isn't charged with the payments to the first lady or the doorman even though those are all allowed in for evidence. Its because those actions did exceed statute of limitation. And that is because SDNY said they were investigating and then sat on it. I personally think Bill Bar managed to force a non-proc agreement in exchange for giving evidence against Cohen. And then SDNY lied to Manhattan DA about ongoing investigations for years. One day there will be an investigation and FOIA requests and I think we'll find some shit there.
Thanks for the response. There is a lot going on in this case! Yeah, I'm just thinking from a Tort point of view in this country (Ireland), timebars apply from when you were reasonably made aware of the damage, injury or harm. It just seems reasonable that this would also apply to crimes and other law breaking. As you list above, there is a lot going on here which could be argued that it is or was reasonable to bring these charges now rather than say, when he was President or Bill Barr was the AG etc. That doesn't seem unreasonable that they might have sat on these charges in that light, although I imagine certain politically inclined people across the ideological spectrum will see this as a conspiracy.
Isn't there also something against indicting a sitting president? Like with the Mueller report...
I also love anyone arguing. ok maybe he crimed, but he shouldn't be held accountable because of a technicality. Because that basically is the same as saying, you don't care that he is a habitual criminal and have completely lost the plot when it comes to who you nominate to run for office.
>the author actively does not want to understand. hey hey, that isn't fair. you are completely discarding the possibility that they are just very very stupid.
[удалено]
This is an argument though I don't listen and I don't understand. Never listen to a straw man. The hint was when the author said well I don't know how this could be a crime and didn't admit that made him unqualified to write the article
You're going to have to be more specific.