3 ms·

There was nothing wrong or illegal about the payment. No one has ever pointed to a charge that related to the payment itself that I’ve heard. They are targetin

by zaroth 4y ago

There was nothing wrong or illegal about the payment. No one has ever pointed to a charge that related to the payment itself that I’ve heard. They are targeting the record keeping.

dmix 4y ago
34 charges for just record keeping must be a pretty serious lack of accounting. I’m looking forward to reading the full indictment to understand the details better.
- zaroth 4y ago
  I completely agree! > JOHN MILLER: I am told by my sources that this is 34 counts of falsification of business records, which is probably a lot of charges involving each document,, each thing that was submitted as a separate count and a couple of matters.
- dukeofdoom 4y ago
  In the mean time, you can watch David Frum, he's one of the connected neocons that championed the invasion of Iraq. These are the people behind this strategy, so critically listening to his projections, will give you a good idea what this is all about. He seems okay with civil war, if that's the price you have to pay to defeat Trump. https://youtu.be/xvbwKtrdcmc?t=457 https://youtu.be/xvbwKtrdcmc?t=457
  - wholinator2 4y ago
    Well I've certainly heard most eager civil war talk coming from the same side that did it last time.
    - dukeofdoom 4y ago
      You should care when elite people that directly influence policy are okay with it.
- rco8786 4y ago
  > a pretty serious lack of accounting Trump has a long, long, long history of illegal accounting incidents many of which he's gotten in trouble for in civil court. This is just the first time it's been in criminal court.
thaumasiotes 4y ago
> No one has ever pointed to a charge that related to the payment itself that I’ve heard. When the story rolled around the first time, people did indeed make the argument that the payment itself was illegal. The campaign finance laws require expenditures that help your electoral chances to be declared as campaign expenditures. They also prohibit declaring any expenditures that help you in your personal life. This leads to the obviously terrible result that while you're campaigning for office, it's illegal to pay for anything that simultaneously helps you electorally ("the voters will never hear about my affair with a stripper!") and in your personal life ("my wife will never hear about my affair with a stripper!"). If you don't declare the campaign expense, you're violating the disclosure laws. If you do declare it, you're embezzling from the campaign.
- zaroth 4y ago
  The Feds specifically declined to prosecute for this. It’s a very bizarre legal theory, and also I believe entirely untested and hugely problematic as you say. Edwards used actual campaign donations to payoff his mistress to the tune of $1mm and they brought charges and he was found not guilty by the jury. Here we have a long-standing “fixer” for Trump doing something he had always done and had a history of doing for Trump, with or without a campaign ongoing. Calling it a campaign finance violation for a business partner to do the legal things that they always did is absurd on its face, besides the fact that such a law would put every politician everywhere in legal jeopardy, and yet surprisingly this theory seems to only be trotted out against Trump!

by zaroth 4y ago

There was nothing wrong or illegal about the payment. No one has ever pointed to a charge that related to the payment itself that I’ve heard. They are targeting the record keeping.

dmix 4y ago

34 charges for just record keeping must be a pretty serious lack of accounting. I’m looking forward to reading the full indictment to understand the details better.

zaroth 4y ago
I completely agree! > JOHN MILLER: I am told by my sources that this is 34 counts of falsification of business records, which is probably a lot of charges involving each document,, each thing that was submitted as a separate count and a couple of matters.
dukeofdoom 4y ago
In the mean time, you can watch David Frum, he's one of the connected neocons that championed the invasion of Iraq. These are the people behind this strategy, so critically listening to his projections, will give you a good idea what this is all about. He seems okay with civil war, if that's the price you have to pay to defeat Trump. https://youtu.be/xvbwKtrdcmc?t=457 https://youtu.be/xvbwKtrdcmc?t=457
- wholinator2 4y ago
  Well I've certainly heard most eager civil war talk coming from the same side that did it last time.
  - dukeofdoom 4y ago
    You should care when elite people that directly influence policy are okay with it.
rco8786 4y ago
> a pretty serious lack of accounting Trump has a long, long, long history of illegal accounting incidents many of which he's gotten in trouble for in civil court. This is just the first time it's been in criminal court.

thaumasiotes 4y ago

> No one has ever pointed to a charge that related to the payment itself that I’ve heard. When the story rolled around the first time, people did indeed make the argument that the payment itself was illegal. The campaign finance laws require expenditures that help your electoral chances to be declared as campaign expenditures. They also prohibit declaring any expenditures that help you in your personal life. This leads to the obviously terrible result that while you're campaigning for office, it's illegal to pay for anything that simultaneously helps you electorally ("the voters will never hear about my affair with a stripper!") and in your personal life ("my wife will never hear about my affair with a stripper!"). If you don't declare the campaign expense, you're violating the disclosure laws. If you do declare it, you're embezzling from the campaign.

zaroth 4y ago
The Feds specifically declined to prosecute for this. It’s a very bizarre legal theory, and also I believe entirely untested and hugely problematic as you say. Edwards used actual campaign donations to payoff his mistress to the tune of $1mm and they brought charges and he was found not guilty by the jury. Here we have a long-standing “fixer” for Trump doing something he had always done and had a history of doing for Trump, with or without a campaign ongoing. Calling it a campaign finance violation for a business partner to do the legal things that they always did is absurd on its face, besides the fact that such a law would put every politician everywhere in legal jeopardy, and yet surprisingly this theory seems to only be trotted out against Trump!