I set the odds at 2:1 that Trump will be indicted. Less than 50/50.
Cooler heads will prevail Bragg is a smart guy, not an idiot.
But, if he is indicted, I expect after all is said and done, he will sue NYC for about $2 Billion or malicious prosecution.

Here's how that plays out.

The underlying charge is that the Trump Org listed the reimbursement as a legal expense. Supposedly, that was incorrect. A misdemeanor and the statute of limitations passed a few years ago,

So, Bragg wants to add on a campaign finance violation, extending the statute of limitations, saying that the payment to Daniels was an unreported campaign contribution and the reimbursement was an unreported campaign expense.

Problem with that is that a Non Disclosure agreement hush money payment is not an allowable campaign expense. Campaign expenses are very strictly constrained to prevent personal expenses from being paid as campaign expenses. An example, given by a
former FEC commissioner is that even buying a suit to wear ta campaign debate is strictly personal. So, the Daniels payment could not be construed as a campaign expense.

so, Trump is being hounded because he didn't declare it as a campaign expense. But, had he done the opposite and did declare it as a campaign expense, that would be an actual violation. so, Trump did the right thing by not declaring it as a campaign
expense,

There is nothing illegal about the payment. He is allowed to do that. It was personal. It could not have been made by the campaign.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/23/23 8:13 PM, Art Sackman wrote:

I set the odds at 2:1 that Trump will be indicted. Less than 50/50.
Cooler heads will prevail Bragg is a smart guy, not an idiot. But,
if he is indicted, I expect after all is said and done, he will sue
NYC for about $2 Billion or malicious prosecution.

Here's how that plays out.

A better overview:

https://dnyuz.com/2023/03/19/dissecting-charges-that-could-arise-from-the-trump-investigations/

The underlying charge is that the Trump Org listed the reimbursement
as a legal expense. Supposedly, that was incorrect. A misdemeanor and
the statute of limitations passed a few years ago,

"New York law extends those limits to cover periods when a defendant was continuously out of state... In addition, during the pandemic, New
York’s statute of limitations was extended by more than a year."

So, Bragg wants to add on a campaign finance violation, extending the
statute of limitations, saying that the payment to Daniels was an
unreported campaign contribution and the reimbursement was an
unreported campaign expense.

It also allows a felony charge with a longer statute of limitations.

Problem with that is that a Non Disclosure agreement hush money
payment is not an allowable campaign expense. Campaign expenses are
very strictly constrained to prevent personal expenses from being
paid as campaign expenses. An example, given by a former FEC
commissioner is that even buying a suit to wear ta campaign debate is strictly personal. So, the Daniels payment could not be construed as
a campaign expense.
so, Trump is being hounded because he didn't declare it as a campaign expense. But, had he done the opposite and did declare it as a
campaign expense, that would be an actual violation. so, Trump did
the right thing by not declaring it as a campaign expense,

There is nothing illegal about the payment. He is allowed to do that.
It was personal. It could not have been made by the campaign.

Trump didn't make the payment to Daniels. Cohen did and was reimbursed
by Trump.

"Michael D. Cohen, Mr. Trump’s former lawyer and fixer, sent the money
to Ms. Daniels, and the Trump Organization reimbursed him over the
course of 2017, according to a 2018 federal court filing in Mr. Cohen’s
case. Mr. Trump’s business concealed the true purpose of the payments,
the filing said, by recording them as having been for a legal retainer
that did not exist."

Inducing Daniels to stay quiet was a benefit to the campaign.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

mINE109 wrote:

There is nothing illegal about the payment. He is allowed to do that.
It was personal. It could not have been made by the campaign.

Trump didn't make the payment to Daniels. Cohen did and was reimbursed
by Trump.
Inducing Daniels to stay quiet was a benefit to the campaign.

I applaud your continuing efforts to inject reality into Shmoo Sacko's
deluded ravings. Here's a chance for the poor schlub to embrace the
rule of law.

"Trump warns of ‘potential death and destruction’ if he’s indicted"
More of the story:
https://tinyurl.com/3c9djvby

Also, another journey into Trumpstory:

https://www.politico.com/gallery/2023/03/24/the-nations-cartoonists-on-the-week-in-politics-00088502?slide=6

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/24/23 12:05 PM, Fascist Flea wrote:

Also, another journey into Trumpstory:

https://www.politico.com/gallery/2023/03/24/the-nations-cartoonists-on-the-week-in-politics-00088502?slide=6

The politics are so familiar that my response is now a cliche: What
drugs will turn him into a T. Rex?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Inducing Daniels to stay quiet was a benefit to the campaign.

It does not matter. It is not an allowable campaign expense.
Buying a nice shiny new suit is also a benefit to a campaign.
That is also not allowable as a campaign expense.
Both are items that personally benefit the candidate.
If the candidate tried to charge either of those two expenses to the campaign, those
would be the violation.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/24/23 3:55 PM, Art Sackman wrote:

Inducing Daniels to stay quiet was a benefit to the campaign.

It does not matter. It is not an allowable campaign expense.

That's why they hid it as a retainer payment to Cohen from the Trump Organization.

Buying a nice shiny new suit is also a benefit to a campaign.
That is also not allowable as a campaign expense.
Both are items that personally benefit the candidate.
If the candidate tried to charge either of those two expenses to the campaign, those
would be the violation.

Your argument is the fraud involved but not yet charged shouldn't be
charged because a direct payment would have been illegal?

Also, too:

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/catch-and-kill-explained-inside-the-practice-of-burying-negative-news-stories

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 9:11:11 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/24/23 3:55 PM, Art Sackman wrote:

Inducing Daniels to stay quiet was a benefit to the campaign.

It does not matter. It is not an allowable campaign expense.

That's why they hid it as a retainer payment to Cohen from the Trump Organization.

You are severely confused.
It is an allowable payment. It is just not an allowable campaign expense.
So, marking the repayment it as a legal expense was done to......ta da.... compy with the
campaign finance law.

Buying a nice shiny new suit is also a benefit to a campaign.
That is also not allowable as a campaign expense.
Both are items that personally benefit the candidate.
If the candidate tried to charge either of those two expenses to the campaign, those
would be the violation.

Your argument is the fraud involved but not yet charged shouldn't be
charged because a direct payment would have been illegal?

No, a direct payment WOULD be legal.

Also, too:

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/catch-and-kill-explained-inside-the-practice-of-burying-negative-news-stories

Whatever Hillary did in that regard has ne bearing on this matter.
Let's keep the Clinton's out of this. Especially since Bill's $850,000 settlement with Paula Jone
was a perfectly legal, a private matter, and was not a campaign expense, although it
undoubtedly helped his campaign.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/25/23 11:44 PM, Art Sackman wrote:

On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 9:11:11 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/24/23 3:55 PM, Art Sackman wrote:

Inducing Daniels to stay quiet was a benefit to the campaign.

It does not matter. It is not an allowable campaign expense.

That's why they hid it as a retainer payment to Cohen from the Trump
Organization.

You are severely confused.

No, not at all.

It is an allowable payment. It is just not an allowable campaign expense.
So, marking the repayment it as a legal expense was done to......ta da.... compy with the
campaign finance law.

By means of bookkeeping fraud. Since you didn't follow the link and have snipped it, I'll quote:

https://dnyuz.com/2023/03/19/dissecting-charges-that-could-arise-from-the-trump-investigations/

"The New York Times has reported that the case may include a potential
charge of falsifying business records under Article 175 of the New York
Penal Law. A conviction for a felony version of bookkeeping fraud
carries a sentence of up to four years.

To prove that Mr. Trump committed that offense, prosecutors would
seemingly need evidence showing that he had knowingly caused
subordinates to make a false entry in his company’s records “with intent
to defraud.” For the action to be a felony rather than a misdemeanor, prosecutors would also need to show that Mr. Trump falsified the
business records with the intention of committing, aiding or concealing
a second crime."

Cohen paid Daniels out his own money and was reimbursed by the Trump Org falsely as a "legal retainer."

Buying a nice shiny new suit is also a benefit to a campaign.
That is also not allowable as a campaign expense.
Both are items that personally benefit the candidate.
If the candidate tried to charge either of those two expenses to the campaign, those
would be the violation.

Your argument is the fraud involved but not yet charged shouldn't be
charged because a direct payment would have been illegal?

No, a direct payment WOULD be legal.

Then why didn't they do it?

Also, too:

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/catch-and-kill-explained-inside-the-practice-of-burying-negative-news-stories

Whatever Hillary did in that regard has ne bearing on this matter.
Let's keep the Clinton's out of this. Especially since Bill's $850,000 settlement with Paula Jone
was a perfectly legal, a private matter, and was not a campaign expense, although it
undoubtedly helped his campaign.

"The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York also announced Wednesday that it had reached a non-prosecution agreement with
AMI, the parent company of the National Enquirer. AMI admitted to making
the $150,000 payment “in concert with [Trump’s] presidential campaign”
as part of an effort to hide Playboy playmate Karen McDougal’s alleged
affair with the now-president from voters. The company has agreed to
cooperate with prosecutors."

Not Hillary. More from PolitiFact:

https://www.politifact.com/article/2023/mar/21/how-bill-clintons-settlement-with-paula-jones-diff/

"Clinton personally paid Jones to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit
after Jones publicly aired her allegations, and after Clinton had
already been elected president.

By comparison, Trump used his longtime personal lawyer, Michael Cohen,
to secretly pay Daniels days before the 2016 presidential election to
prevent her allegations of an affair from becoming public. Legal experts
said the district attorney might argue that Trump falsified business
records or violated campaign finance law in the process."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 2:42:33 PM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/25/23 11:44 PM, Art Sackman wrote:

On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 9:11:11 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/24/23 3:55 PM, Art Sackman wrote:

Inducing Daniels to stay quiet was a benefit to the campaign.

It does not matter. It is not an allowable campaign expense.

That's why they hid it as a retainer payment to Cohen from the Trump
Organization.

You are severely confused.

No, not at all.

It is an allowable payment. It is just not an allowable campaign expense. So, marking the repayment it as a legal expense was done to......ta da.... compy with the
campaign finance law.

By means of bookkeeping fraud. Since you didn't follow the link and have snipped it, I'll quote:

https://dnyuz.com/2023/03/19/dissecting-charges-that-could-arise-from-the-trump-investigations/

"The New York Times has reported that the case may include a potential charge of falsifying business records under Article 175 of the New York Penal Law. A conviction for a felony version of bookkeeping fraud
carries a sentence of up to four years.

To prove that Mr. Trump committed that offense, prosecutors would
seemingly need evidence showing that he had knowingly caused
subordinates to make a false entry in his company’s records “with intent to defraud.” For the action to be a felony rather than a misdemeanor, prosecutors would also need to show that Mr. Trump falsified the
business records with the intention of committing, aiding or concealing
a second crime."

Cohen paid Daniels out his own money and was reimbursed by the Trump Org falsely as a "legal retainer."

Buying a nice shiny new suit is also a benefit to a campaign.
That is also not allowable as a campaign expense.
Both are items that personally benefit the candidate.
If the candidate tried to charge either of those two expenses to the campaign, those
would be the violation.

Your argument is the fraud involved but not yet charged shouldn't be
charged because a direct payment would have been illegal?

No, a direct payment WOULD be legal.

Then why didn't they do it?

Also, too:

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/catch-and-kill-explained-inside-the-practice-of-burying-negative-news-stories

Whatever Hillary did in that regard has ne bearing on this matter.
Let's keep the Clinton's out of this. Especially since Bill's $850,000 settlement with Paula Jone
was a perfectly legal, a private matter, and was not a campaign expense, although it
undoubtedly helped his campaign.

"The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York also announced Wednesday that it had reached a non-prosecution agreement with AMI, the parent company of the National Enquirer. AMI admitted to making
the $150,000 payment “in concert with [Trump’s] presidential campaign” as part of an effort to hide Playboy playmate Karen McDougal’s alleged affair with the now-president from voters. The company has agreed to cooperate with prosecutors."

Not Hillary. More from PolitiFact:

https://www.politifact.com/article/2023/mar/21/how-bill-clintons-settlement-with-paula-jones-diff/

"Clinton personally paid Jones to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit
after Jones publicly aired her allegations, and after Clinton had
already been elected president.

By comparison, Trump used his longtime personal lawyer, Michael Cohen,
to secretly pay Daniels days before the 2016 presidential election to prevent her allegations of an affair from becoming public. Legal experts said the district attorney might argue that Trump falsified business
records or violated campaign finance law in the process."

There is NO SECOND CRIME.

AND

Trump did not USE Cohen.
Cohen did it without advance Trump knowledge.
This has been verified by several distinct documents and sworn testimony.
And it does not matter that Cohen paid it.

Stop with your pretzel logic.

I repeat to you many times that is a violation to use campaign funds for personal use. And that goes for when the use can be both personal and
campaign at the same time. I got that from a former FEC commissioner,
not from an ignorant partisan hack like you.

This is not a matter of whether Trump was guilty of a crime.
There was no crime.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/27/23 6:03 PM, Art Sackman wrote:

On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 2:42:33 PM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/25/23 11:44 PM, Art Sackman wrote:

On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 9:11:11 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:

More from PolitiFact:

https://www.politifact.com/article/2023/mar/21/how-bill-clintons-settlement-with-paula-jones-diff/

"Clinton personally paid Jones to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit
after Jones publicly aired her allegations, and after Clinton had
already been elected president.

By comparison, Trump used his longtime personal lawyer, Michael Cohen,
to secretly pay Daniels days before the 2016 presidential election to
prevent her allegations of an affair from becoming public. Legal experts
said the district attorney might argue that Trump falsified business
records or violated campaign finance law in the process."

There is NO SECOND CRIME.

There hasn't even been a first crime charged.

AND

Trump did not USE Cohen.
Cohen did it without advance Trump knowledge.

Bless your heart.

This has been verified by several distinct documents and sworn testimony.
And it does not matter that Cohen paid it.

There's Cohen's book and, more importantly, his guilty plea.

Stop with your pretzel logic.

I repeat to you many times that is a violation to use campaign funds for personal use. And that goes for when the use can be both personal and campaign at the same time. I got that from a former FEC commissioner,
not from an ignorant partisan hack like you.

Since I haven't disagreed with you on this point, there's no need to
repeat yourself.

This is not a matter of whether Trump was guilty of a crime.
There was no crime.

I'll wait for the charges, but

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/03/stormy-daniels-trump-cohen-hush-money-trial-witnesses/

Several sources chronicle the sequence of events that led to Trump’s consiglieri wiring $130,000 to an adult film director and actress, most
notably a search warrant filed in Cohen’s case and Cohen’s own account
in his 2020 book, Disloyal: A Memoir: The True Story of the Former
Personal Attorney to President Donald J. Trump. According to both, this
episode was triggered by the worst moment in the 2016 campaign for the Republican presidential nominee: When the Washington Post on October 7
revealed the existence of the Access Hollywood outtake in which Trump
boasted that his celebrity afforded him the license with women to “grab
’em by the pussy.” For weeks prior to this explosive disclosure, Daniels had considered going public with the story of her alleged sexual affair
with Trump, which supposedly began at a celebrity golf tournament in
2006. She had been talking to various media outlets about selling her
tale; this bombshell upped the value of her story and intensified her
interest in profiting off her alleged romp with Trump.

Trump and Cohen had dealt with Daniels before. In 2011, a website called thedirty.com published an uncorroborated article claiming Daniels and
Trump had a sexual encounter at a “golfing event.” ... After consulting with Trump, Cohen drafted a statement from Trump denying the affair,
though Cohen suspected the tryst had transpired. Cohen also called an
agent who was peddling the Daniels allegation and threatened her,
demanding that she stop. As a potential problem for Trump, the Stormy
Daniels story faded away.

Until the Access Hollywood video appeared. The next evening, over the
course of about 90 minutes, Cohen, according to the search warrant, had
a flurry of calls with Trump, campaign aide Hope Hicks; David Pecker, a
Trump confidante and president of American Media, Inc. (AMI), which
published the National Enquirer; and Dylan Howard, its editor-in-chief.
The search warrant doesn’t note what was said in these conversations.

End quote.

That's the setup. The criming was in how the payoff was paid for.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 8:55:00 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/27/23 6:03 PM, Art Sackman wrote:

On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 2:42:33 PM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/25/23 11:44 PM, Art Sackman wrote:

On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 9:11:11 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:

More from PolitiFact:

https://www.politifact.com/article/2023/mar/21/how-bill-clintons-settlement-with-paula-jones-diff/

"Clinton personally paid Jones to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit
after Jones publicly aired her allegations, and after Clinton had
already been elected president.

By comparison, Trump used his longtime personal lawyer, Michael Cohen,
to secretly pay Daniels days before the 2016 presidential election to
prevent her allegations of an affair from becoming public. Legal experts >> said the district attorney might argue that Trump falsified business
records or violated campaign finance law in the process."

There is NO SECOND CRIME.

There hasn't even been a first crime charged.

AND

Trump did not USE Cohen.
Cohen did it without advance Trump knowledge.

Bless your heart.

This has been verified by several distinct documents and sworn testimony. And it does not matter that Cohen paid it.

There's Cohen's book and, more importantly, his guilty plea.

Stop with your pretzel logic.

I repeat to you many times that is a violation to use campaign funds for personal use. And that goes for when the use can be both personal and campaign at the same time. I got that from a former FEC commissioner,
not from an ignorant partisan hack like you.

Since I haven't disagreed with you on this point, there's no need to
repeat yourself.

This is not a matter of whether Trump was guilty of a crime.
There was no crime.

I'll wait for the charges, but

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/03/stormy-daniels-trump-cohen-hush-money-trial-witnesses/

Several sources chronicle the sequence of events that led to Trump’s consiglieri wiring $130,000 to an adult film director and actress, most notably a search warrant filed in Cohen’s case and Cohen’s own account in his 2020 book, Disloyal: A Memoir: The True Story of the Former
Personal Attorney to President Donald J. Trump. According to both, this episode was triggered by the worst moment in the 2016 campaign for the Republican presidential nominee: When the Washington Post on October 7 revealed the existence of the Access Hollywood outtake in which Trump boasted that his celebrity afforded him the license with women to “grab ’em by the pussy.” For weeks prior to this explosive disclosure, Daniels had considered going public with the story of her alleged sexual affair
with Trump, which supposedly began at a celebrity golf tournament in
2006. She had been talking to various media outlets about selling her
tale; this bombshell upped the value of her story and intensified her interest in profiting off her alleged romp with Trump.

Trump and Cohen had dealt with Daniels before. In 2011, a website called thedirty.com published an uncorroborated article claiming Daniels and
Trump had a sexual encounter at a “golfing event.” ... After consulting with Trump, Cohen drafted a statement from Trump denying the affair,
though Cohen suspected the tryst had transpired. Cohen also called an
agent who was peddling the Daniels allegation and threatened her,
demanding that she stop. As a potential problem for Trump, the Stormy Daniels story faded away.

Until the Access Hollywood video appeared. The next evening, over the
course of about 90 minutes, Cohen, according to the search warrant, had
a flurry of calls with Trump, campaign aide Hope Hicks; David Pecker, a Trump confidante and president of American Media, Inc. (AMI), which published the National Enquirer; and Dylan Howard, its editor-in-chief.
The search warrant doesn’t note what was said in these conversations.

End quote.

That's the setup. The criming was in how the payoff was paid for.

No. There is no crime based upon how a NDA is paid for.
Nor is Bragg even looking for that.
NDA's are perfectly legal, and it matters not how they are paid for
He is looking at this situation as being a reporting crime, in that
it was not reported as a campaign expense, nor the payment as a campaign contribution. Actually, had those been the case, then that would have been illegal.

Campaign laws are designed to prevent campaign funds from being used for personal expensee.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/28/23 11:49 PM, Art Sackman wrote:

On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 8:55:00 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/27/23 6:03 PM, Art Sackman wrote:

On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 2:42:33 PM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/25/23 11:44 PM, Art Sackman wrote:

On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 9:11:11 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:

There is NO SECOND CRIME.

There hasn't even been a first crime charged.

AND

Trump did not USE Cohen.
Cohen did it without advance Trump knowledge.

Bless your heart.

This has been verified by several distinct documents and sworn testimony. >>> And it does not matter that Cohen paid it.

There's Cohen's book and, more importantly, his guilty plea.

Stop with your pretzel logic.

I repeat to you many times that is a violation to use campaign funds for >>> personal use. And that goes for when the use can be both personal and
campaign at the same time. I got that from a former FEC commissioner,
not from an ignorant partisan hack like you.

Since I haven't disagreed with you on this point, there's no need to
repeat yourself.

This is not a matter of whether Trump was guilty of a crime.
There was no crime.

I'll wait for the charges, but

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/03/stormy-daniels-trump-cohen-hush-money-trial-witnesses/

End quote.

That's the setup. The criming was in how the payoff was paid for.

No. There is no crime based upon how a NDA is paid for.

Bookkeeping fraud. Obstruction of justice. Tax fraud. All possible but
we'll have to wait to see.

Nor is Bragg even looking for that.

The grand jury is private.

NDA's are perfectly legal, and it matters not how they are paid for

Yes, it does. See the list above.

He is looking at this situation as being a reporting crime, in that
it was not reported as a campaign expense, nor the payment as a campaign contribution. Actually, had those been the case, then that would have been illegal.

Under federal campaign law.

Campaign laws are designed to prevent campaign funds from being used for personal expensee.

That's not the only thing they're for. LA Times:

"FEC’s nonpartisan career attorneys in its Office of General Counsel recommended that the commission find reason to believe that Trump, his
campaign and the Trump Organization knowingly and willfully violated
multiple campaign finance laws by orchestrating the Daniels payment,
including by obscuring the source of the money, violating contribution
limits and violating the corporate contribution ban."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 11:12:41 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/28/23 11:49 PM, Art Sackman wrote:

On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 8:55:00 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/27/23 6:03 PM, Art Sackman wrote:

On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 2:42:33 PM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/25/23 11:44 PM, Art Sackman wrote:

On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 9:11:11 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:

That's the setup. The criming was in how the payoff was paid for.

No. There is no crime based upon how a NDA is paid for.

Bookkeeping fraud. Obstruction of justice. Tax fraud. All possible but
we'll have to wait to see.

The bookkeeping issue: a misdemeanor, the statute of limitations has expired. Obstruction: no crime, hence no obstruction
Tax fraud: no mentions that this is on the table. BUT!!!!!, That
would also apply to Biden family issues, considering all
the money Hunter, Joe, Hallie, JAmes and Jill raked in.

I see you have fallen for the (Don) Lemon Trap.
You use criteria to drill your opponent, and forget that the same criteria has to be
applied to your allies.

Nor is Bragg even looking for that.

The grand jury is private.

But leaky

NDA's are perfectly legal, and it matters not how they are paid for

Yes, it does. See the list above.

I don't see any substance. I have heard from at least ten legal experts that NDA's are legal.
No mention of limiting payment methods.

He is looking at this situation as being a reporting crime, in that
it was not reported as a campaign expense, nor the payment as a campaign contribution. Actually, had those been the case, then that would have been illegal.

Under federal campaign law.

Campaign laws are designed to prevent campaign funds from being used for personal expensee.

That's not the only thing they're for. LA Times:

But they ARE FOR THAT.

"FEC’s nonpartisan career attorneys in its Office of General Counsel recommended that the commission find reason to believe that Trump, his campaign and the Trump Organization knowingly and willfully violated multiple campaign finance laws by orchestrating the Daniels payment, including by obscuring the source of the money, violating contribution limits and violating the corporate contribution ban."

FEC dropped its investigations. Nothing burger

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/29/23 11:31 AM, Art Sackman wrote:

On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 11:12:41 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/28/23 11:49 PM, Art Sackman wrote:

On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 8:55:00 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/27/23 6:03 PM, Art Sackman wrote:

On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 2:42:33 PM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/25/23 11:44 PM, Art Sackman wrote:

On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 9:11:11 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:

That's the setup. The criming was in how the payoff was paid for.

No. There is no crime based upon how a NDA is paid for.

Bookkeeping fraud. Obstruction of justice. Tax fraud. All possible but
we'll have to wait to see.

The bookkeeping issue: a misdemeanor, the statute of limitations has expired.

Misdemeanors are crimes, yes? And the statute of limitations can be
extended in NY state.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/12/politics/trump-statute-of-limitations/index.html

Obstruction: no crime, hence no obstruction

We know that's not how obstruction works. To begin with, obstruction is
a crime.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1519

Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up,
falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible
object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the
investigation or proper administration of any matter within the
jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States...

Like saying a reimbursement for an NDA is really a legal retainer.

Tax fraud: no mentions that this is on the table. BUT!!!!!, That
would also apply to Biden family issues, considering all
the money Hunter, Joe, Hallie, JAmes and Jill raked in.

None of which was paid to Stormy Daniels in return for her pre-election silence.

I see you have fallen for the (Don) Lemon Trap.
You use criteria to drill your opponent, and forget that the same criteria has to be
applied to your allies.

No, I haven't. When there's a grand jury for Hunter Biden, get back to me.

Nor is Bragg even looking for that.

The grand jury is private.

But leaky

What leaks? We don't even know what charges are being considered.

NDA's are perfectly legal, and it matters not how they are paid for

Yes, it does. See the list above.

I don't see any substance. I have heard from at least ten legal experts that NDA's are legal.

No one has said NDAs aren't legal, although some aren't as binding as
they used to be according to a recent court ruling.

No mention of limiting payment methods.

The limitation to legal methods is implicit.

He is looking at this situation as being a reporting crime, in that
it was not reported as a campaign expense, nor the payment as a campaign >>> contribution. Actually, had those been the case, then that would have been illegal.

Under federal campaign law.

Campaign laws are designed to prevent campaign funds from being used for personal expensee.

That's not the only thing they're for. LA Times:

But they ARE FOR THAT.

Not only for that and a legal NDA can be an illegal campaign expenditure.

"FEC’s nonpartisan career attorneys in its Office of General Counsel
recommended that the commission find reason to believe that Trump, his
campaign and the Trump Organization knowingly and willfully violated
multiple campaign finance laws by orchestrating the Daniels payment,
including by obscuring the source of the money, violating contribution
limits and violating the corporate contribution ban."

FEC dropped its investigations. Nothing burger

The partisan board ignored the recommendation of the non-partisan Office
of General Counsel. That lets Trump off the legal hook but it doesn't
change the facts of the matter.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 9:31:04 AM UTC-7, Art Sackman wrote:

On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 11:12:41 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/28/23 11:49 PM, Art Sackman wrote:

On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 8:55:00 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/27/23 6:03 PM, Art Sackman wrote:

On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 2:42:33 PM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/25/23 11:44 PM, Art Sackman wrote:

On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 9:11:11 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:

That's the setup. The criming was in how the payoff was paid for.

No. There is no crime based upon how a NDA is paid for.

Bookkeeping fraud. Obstruction of justice. Tax fraud. All possible but we'll have to wait to see.

The bookkeeping issue: a misdemeanor, the statute of limitations has expired.
Obstruction: no crime, hence no obstruction
Tax fraud: no mentions that this is on the table. BUT!!!!!, That
would also apply to Biden family issues, considering all
the money Hunter, Joe, Hallie, JAmes and Jill raked in.

I see you have fallen for the (Don) Lemon Trap.
You use criteria to drill your opponent, and forget that the same criteria has to be
applied to your allies.

Nor is Bragg even looking for that.

The grand jury is private.

But leaky

NDA's are perfectly legal, and it matters not how they are paid for

Yes, it does. See the list above.

I don't see any substance. I have heard from at least ten legal experts that NDA's are legal.
No mention of limiting payment methods.

He is looking at this situation as being a reporting crime, in that
it was not reported as a campaign expense, nor the payment as a campaign contribution. Actually, had those been the case, then that would have been illegal.

Under federal campaign law.

Campaign laws are designed to prevent campaign funds from being used for personal expensee.

That's not the only thing they're for. LA Times:

But they ARE FOR THAT.

"FEC’s nonpartisan career attorneys in its Office of General Counsel recommended that the commission find reason to believe that Trump, his campaign and the Trump Organization knowingly and willfully violated multiple campaign finance laws by orchestrating the Daniels payment, including by obscuring the source of the money, violating contribution limits and violating the corporate contribution ban."

FEC dropped its investigations. Nothing burger

and now the Grand Jury is out for a month....no indictment.
I think they may have decided they will lose and would rather have Trump under indictment
as the election approaches than crowing of his case being tossed out of court.

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

but it doesn't

change the facts of the matter.

which is that this is a blown up farce that will eventually become unraveled.

But now that the gloves are off, when we return to power, we will
unmercifully hound the Biden clan for their treasonous crimes.

Jill will be sharing a cell with a convicted transgendered rapist.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, March 23, 2023 at 9:13:31 PM UTC-4, Art Sackman wrote:

I set the odds at 2:1 that Trump will be indicted. Less than 50/50.
Cooler heads will prevail Bragg is a smart guy, not an idiot.
But, if he is indicted, I expect after all is said and done, he will sue NYC for about $2 Billion or malicious prosecution.

Here's how that plays out.

The underlying charge is that the Trump Org listed the reimbursement as a legal expense. Supposedly, that was incorrect. A misdemeanor and the statute of limitations passed a few years ago,

So, Bragg wants to add on a campaign finance violation, extending the statute of limitations, saying that the payment to Daniels was an unreported campaign contribution and the reimbursement was an unreported campaign expense.

Problem with that is that a Non Disclosure agreement hush money payment is not an allowable campaign expense. Campaign expenses are very strictly constrained to prevent personal expenses from being paid as campaign expenses. An example, given by a

former FEC commissioner is that even buying a suit to wear ta campaign debate is strictly personal. So, the Daniels payment could not be construed as a campaign expense.

so, Trump is being hounded because he didn't declare it as a campaign expense. But, had he done the opposite and did declare it as a campaign expense, that would be an actual violation. so, Trump did the right thing by not declaring it as a campaign

expense,

There is nothing illegal about the payment. He is allowed to do that. It was personal. It could not have been made by the campaign.

Democrats, cooler heads??? What was I thinking.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Sack-o-Shmoo has stoked his personal red noise generator.

Democrats, cooler heads??? What was I thinking.

"Thinking" - heh. Good one. Some day, you should try explaining what
that word means in your dimension.

Meanwhile, the Anti-Abortion Crusaders have notched another save.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/40182498013_b5ea1594d8_b.jpg

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/1/23 12:08 AM, Fascist Flea wrote:

Sack-o-Shmoo has stoked his personal red noise generator.

Democrats, cooler heads??? What was I thinking.

"Thinking" - heh. Good one. Some day, you should try explaining what
that word means in your dimension.

Wisdom, well, snark, from the left interwebs:

"The funniest thing about the Trump indictment is the three-ring circus
of Cope and Seethe in which the dumbest people in the universe are
currently engaged.

Normally, expressions of thuggishness from the big names of the
conservative internet are at least slightly disturbing, because they
remind us that a large minority of our fellow Americans have lost their
reason and dignity. But under the circumstances they’re just a laugh"

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/31/23 1:37 AM, Art Sackman wrote:

but it doesn't change the facts of the matter.

which is that this is a blown up farce that will eventually become unraveled.

But now that the gloves are off, when we return to power, we will unmercifully hound the Biden clan for their treasonous crimes.

More borrowed wisdom: "Nothing demonstrates a sincere devotion to the
sanctity of the criminal justice system like calling for retaliatory prosecutions"

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, April 1, 2023 at 6:50:20 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/31/23 1:37 AM, Art Sackman wrote:

but it doesn't change the facts of the matter.

which is that this is a blown up farce that will eventually become unraveled.

But now that the gloves are off, when we return to power, we will unmercifully hound the Biden clan for their treasonous crimes.

More borrowed wisdom: "Nothing demonstrates a sincere devotion to the sanctity of the criminal justice system like calling for retaliatory prosecutions"

Explain to us how Bragg would still be on this case if Trump wasn't or hadn't been president.

GMAFB you sanctimonious hypocrite.

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/1/23 12:22 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Saturday, April 1, 2023 at 6:50:20 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/31/23 1:37 AM, Art Sackman wrote:

but it doesn't change the facts of the matter.

which is that this is a blown up farce that will eventually become unraveled.

But now that the gloves are off, when we return to power, we will
unmercifully hound the Biden clan for their treasonous crimes.

More borrowed wisdom: "Nothing demonstrates a sincere devotion to the
sanctity of the criminal justice system like calling for retaliatory
prosecutions"

Explain to us how Bragg would still be on this case if Trump wasn't or hadn't been president.

True. Trump would have been charged as part of the Trump Organization
for his role in the Michael Cohen case had he not been President.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, April 1, 2023 at 9:50:20 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/31/23 1:37 AM, Art Sackman wrote:

but it doesn't change the facts of the matter.

which is that this is a blown up farce that will eventually become unraveled.

But now that the gloves are off, when we return to power, we will unmercifully hound the Biden clan for their treasonous crimes.

More borrowed wisdom: "Nothing demonstrates a sincere devotion to the sanctity of the criminal justice system like calling for retaliatory prosecutions"

They are a Kriminal Klan. They won't get a pass.
The only reason they are safe today is because they presently control the justice system

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)