FEC: Trump-Stormy Case ‘Not A Campaign Finance Violation’

You missed my point.

Convictions aren't made on a biased prosecutor's interpretation or the reading into Trump's words with Raffensberger during a phone call. Convictions are made by 12 jurors who will all agree that the evidence presented and the arguments put forward by the prosecution establish the defendant's guilt so clearly that they must be accepted as fact by any rational person that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

So in 2024 you'll be fine with Biden calling up a sec of state of a close swing state as the votes are being tallied....

 

Bragg's statement was not a "lie".

 

Bragg doesn't have jurisdiction in Federal campaign finance laws. Bragg can't pursue any involving FEC regulations.

But, since a majority the FEC said no crime, then there's no crime. Bragg doesn't have the authority to overrule the FEC.

 

Seems we've missed each others points... You're making a legal point and you may end of being correct in the end as I'm not a lawyer but I'm making a moral/ ethical one. Its completely unethical to call a person charged with certifying a vote during the vote tallying process. Frankly I find that and Trumps truth social post about suspending the constitution the main reasons why no one should ever vote for Trump for any position of leadership

 

When you're running for federal office, which election finance laws apply? It's okay. You can say it, we all know the answer already. I know it's embarrassing, but it's time people rip the Band-Aid off already and come back down to reality.

 

Sure it is, because he has no evidence to back it up. The Constitution requires that he has evidence to support his claims that are used to make an arrest.

 

We don't have leaders. We have representatives.

 

1. Honesty and integrity do not come into focus whatsoever in a court of law. that is a political point, in which that argument is used by someone running against him for the office. But it has absolutely nothing to do with the case at hand. The defense team will file motions to get rid as much evidence as possible, dismiss the case usiong pionts of legal facts, and so roth. The judge will rule on those motions, and in my opinion, will probably be all denied.
2. That is that person's opinion, whether it be Dersherwitz or Turley. But the fact is they are not the attorney of record. Even the attorney of record may make those claimes, but they are neither true nor false, just opinions. But I will not doubt that he will file motions to dismiss and so forth, and if denied, will make similar statements to the court of public opinion. The key fact here is the court of law, nowhere else.
3. I did not bring Bragg's campaign into this. I brought up what the Grand Jury did and what Bragg presented to them. That is the basic, pure essence of any Grand Jury indictment no matter who the person is. The police can arrest and charge a person, but eventually, the grand jury in some jurisdictions has to indict for it to go forward legally. In this case, the Grand Jury indicted first, and then it became a legal matter.

Finally, I am not backing anyone here. I am explaining the basic jurisprudence of our judicial system. You can try to muck it up by bringing politics into it, but all that tells me is you know absolutely nothing how our judicial system works in reality and you are relying on the entertainment version of our judicial system.

 

Semantics

 

Nothing in that post was "rule of law." If the Grand Jury indicts, there is very, very little a DA can do to ignore the Grand Jury indictment.

 

Game, set, match. Well done destroying this pathetic OP.

 

The grand jury indicts based on the evidence the DA gives them. If he DA gives them false evidence, that's a crime.

If the DA obtains an arrest warrant based on false charges, that's a crime.

 

According to Michael Cohen, they were not. They were provided to the DA Bragg after Cohen pled guilty, not before. The only thing the FEC was provided was a letter by Stormy Daniels Attorney, Michael Cohen's letter, and a letter from the President of the United States personal attorney at that time to the FEC. Then the FEC decided not to investigate per the statement offended act by the FEC that I posted. In fact, it explicily states there was no investigation. They just voted "not to investigate" for political reasons according to the FEC statement of facts.

 

AND? That is what every Grand Jury does billyboy. However, there is rules, namely with the state bar, that a lawyer can get into serious trouble if they outright lie. And no one, not even Trump's own defense team is making that argument. And they know better not to do it. His current criminal defense attorney is a very good one. I expected as much from Trump,. HIs right to defend himself in a court of law is tantamount and I want that fair trial if or when it gets there.

 

If s prosecutor lied, it's called perjury and he can go to prison for it.

 

No, words have meanings.

 

That is obvious. No one is arguing that. But the point is the jury is going to have to decide along with whoever the other witnesses the prosecution may have. then there are defense witnesses in which Trump may choose to testify. I don't think he will. But he can choose to.

But these types of witnesses are used all the time. You may want to look into a person's name Paul Skalnik, a very famous jailhouse snitch who has helped convict several people in his lifetime. It appears that he was the go to person Pinellas County in Florida on several key trials by the DA. And it was his testimony that got the defendant to be found guilty.

 

If the prosecutor lied, it can get him disbarred permenantly, not to mention question every case, and I do mean every case that DA tried or had a hand int it.

But your operative word is "If" which is not a point of fact. And you must prove Bragg lied in a court of law to get that way.

 

If he lied under oath, it's perjury. It'll get him jailed.

 

Fantastic.

Now prove it.

 

Do you ever get tired of getting caught falsifying information?
Wasn't it you I had to provide information from the DOJ because of your wild claims about Special counsels?
Now you're hear KNOWINGLY making up claims about Cohen because my post doesn't fit your narrative.

So here ya go. (again)

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/20/us/politics/michael-cohen-trump-tape.html

June 20, 2018
The F.B.I. seized the recording this year during a raid on Mr. Cohen’s office. The Justice Department is investigating Mr. Cohen’s involvement in paying women to tamp down embarrassing news stories about Mr. Trump ahead of the 2016 election. Prosecutors want to know whether that violated federal campaign finance laws, and any conversation with Mr. Trump about those payments would be of keen interest to them.

The recording’s existence appears to undercut the Trump campaign’s denial of any knowledge of payments to the model. It further draws Mr. Trump into questions about tactics he and his associates used to keep aspects of his personal and business life a secret. And it highlights the potential legal and political danger that Mr. Cohen represents to Mr. Trump. Once the keeper of many of Mr. Trump’s secrets, Mr. Cohen is now seen as increasingly willing to consider cooperating with prosecutors.

December 12, 2018
Robert Khuzami, Attorney for the United States, Acting Under Authority Conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 515, announced that MICHAEL COHEN was sentenced today to three years in prison for tax evasion, making false statements to a federally insured bank, and campaign finance violations.

 

I did, in the OP

 

That may be his opinion, but some on this board are taking that opinion as gospel truth. From the Statement of Facts from the current FEC in an official document, they stated by the members of the board at that time that the vote was "not to investigate whatsoever, based on the letters they received. Since there was no investigation, then one cannot reasably say the FEC investigated, can they? They may feel there was no case, but then we get into the muddy waters of what conservatives are doing to Bragg and questioning his "integrity." Althogh not the same, a regulatory agency with political appointees vs a law enforcement position elected by the residents of the county.

The only facts to come out of this is going to be a court of law, specifically the Manhattan Supreme Court where Trump was arraigned. I don't think the Judge will recuse himself, nor that argument will win on appeal by Trump's legal team. The judge is a stern jurist with a sense of kindness if warranted.

And the one indistinguishable fact you must realize. Trump has lost more than he has won legally no matter if there is a judge that is conservative or liberal. But all were based on the evidnce at hand no matter what the outcome was. So, you really can't make the argument that "certain judges are out to get him" because that denies the reality of the facts presented in those cases.

 

Lying to what I might add. That post does not exonerate Trump, does it. The FBI and the special prosecutor are still investigating Trump on several possible crimes. And yes, that is what the case was for Michael Cohen is, but that does not nullify what the tape recordings say, does it. Nor does it go to the appearance of getting those tapes, very damaging evidence the defense will have to contend with in Trum's trial, which means the case will not get dismissed at all.

And what you have done is prove Bragg has a case without even realizing it in your zealous appeal to Trump. Nice going