6 ms·

Campaign finance violates are a dime a dozen. I don't think any serious candidate didn't have values similar or greater than what's discussed in this case. None

Campaign finance violates are a dime a dozen. I don't think any serious candidate didn't have values similar or greater than what's discussed in this case. None of them got indicted criminally they all just paid fines. `The commission documents said Perkins Coie — where a partner at the time, Marc Elias, was representing the Clinton campaign — paid Fusion GPS slightly more than $1 million in 2016, and the law firm was in turn paid $175,000 by the campaign and about $850,000 by the party during six weeks in July and August 2016. Campaign spending disclosure reports described most of those payments to Perkins Coie as having been for “legal services” and “legal and compliance consulting.”` https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/30/us/politics/hillary-clinton-democrats-campaign-spending.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/30/us/politics/hillary-clint...

sanderjd 4y ago
If they're a dime a dozen (I don't think they are), then we should either make sure to provide high visibility instances in order to dissuade others from breaking the law, or we should change the laws if we don't think they are worth enforcing.
- carlivar 4y ago
  Note that Hillary Clinton's campaign was fined for a campaign finance violation. https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2022-03-30/dnc-clinton-campaign-agree-to-steele-dossier-funding-fine https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2022-03-30/dnc...
  - ed_elliott_asc 4y ago
    How is it relevant what someone else has done to this indictment?
    - brigandish 4y ago
      Because it shows politically motivated use of legal power, which is especially bad. I'm all for prosecuting Trump and Clinton and all the rest of them, but to only prosecute Trump when there's a sea of malfeasance stinking up the place seems like an overwhelmingly bad idea.
      - XorNot 4y ago
        How does it show that? The campaign broke the law, was caught, and punished (fined). Degree of severity and attempts to conceal a crime are both considered serious factors in punishment a crime merits.
        koolba 4y ago
        > How does it show that? The campaign broke the law, was caught, and punished (fined). > Degree of severity and attempts to conceal a crime are both considered serious factors in punishment a crime merits. Which do you consider a more direct violation of campaign finance law with direct intent to benefit a campaign? 1. Paying a lawyer to pay a woman to not speak about an elicit affair from a decade prior. 2. Paying a lawyer to pay a private investigator to compile a negative dossier about your political opponent in the, at the time, current US general election.
        XorNot 4y ago
        As you have written it, neither of those two things are illegal to do, funnily enough. Maybe reflect then on why one campaign settled a law suit, and Trump is being indicted at the moment, if again, neither is actually illegal under campaign finance law. Hint: it's legal to pay for opposition research, but a violation to not disclose that you're doing it. It's also legal to pay for an NDA, but not legal for the NDA to be created by direction of one's private lawyer, and then subsequently to use campaign finances to reimburse and list bonuses to that lawyer for legal services they never rendered to the campaign.
        koolba 4y ago
        The comparison is that if it’s indeed illegal, how is one that is clearly only directly benefiting the campaign a mere misdemeanor fine and the other a felony?
        mrguyorama 4y ago
        It's very likely Bragg's attempt to push this to a felony fails. It's just speculation (SINCE WE DON'T KNOW THE CHARGES) about what evidence is available and what people might be doing. If Trump gets a $1000 fine for this, I feel like that's justice.
  - sanderjd 4y ago
    That's compatible with my comment.
  - Truthisthis 4y ago
    [flagged]
- sanderjd 4y ago
  Bah, I can't edit anymore, but I just noticed I wrote "provide" in this comment when I meant to write "prosecute".
skellington 4y ago
Yeah but they weren't being persecuted for obviously political reasons. Usually the ruling class avoids eating their own because they know then that the guillotine can come for them. But in this case, Trump is too much of a danger to the war-machine establishment. Hillary paid for the Steele Dossier and improperly reported it and was fined for it. They didn't try to press criminal charges against her for that or for mishandling classified emails (also a crime technically). Did you notice how talk of Trump's crimes related to classified documents disappeared completely after Biden was found with improperly handled classified documents? It's all theater.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Sai_ 4y ago
  > Did you notice how talk of Trump's crimes related to classified documents disappeared completely after Biden was found with improperly handled classified documents? Well, it could also be because Biden's discovery (a) was smaller and self-reported, (b) his legal team helped in resolving the situation, AND (c) the documents have been recovered in both cases and the ball is now in competent authority's court. It's like this - say you and I both run over someone. I hide the evidence and try my best to prevent my guilt from surfacing. You, on the other hand, co-operate with the authorities and accept your blame. Which story is more likely to linger longer in the papers? I'd say mine simply because I'm being obstinate and refusing to do the right thing as expected by the law and by common decency. I'd say that's why Biden's story died because of this.
  - FPGAhacker 4y ago
    Analogies are imperfect, but I think a little more detail would make it the analogy fair. Let me restate your example of running over someone: Let's say you and I both run over someone. I did it last year, and you did it 6 years ago. You say nothing for 6 years, I say nothing for 1 year. I get caught, and provide no cooperation whatsoever. You watch me get caught and excoriated in the press and decide you need to fess up and cooperate. 6 years after the fact.
bayesian_horse 4y ago
Violations like that are charged all the time. This particular offense was already charged against Trump's lawyer, so it makes sense to charge Trump who directed Trump to do it. It wasn't just a campaign finance violation. It also was a major financial misstatement, even fraud telling the election bureau, the IRS and state officials this was legal expenses, which it clearly wasn't. There's no way no how one can make the claim "not a big enough deal to charge". Things like that and even more minor get charged all day long. It's just that there is a very long history of Trump and his goons interfering with this charge getting brought and making a much bigger deal about it.
Tangurena2 4y ago
As someone who ran for a state-level elected office, I can tell you that campaign finance violations are not "a dime a dozen".

sanderjd 4y ago

If they're a dime a dozen (I don't think they are), then we should either make sure to provide high visibility instances in order to dissuade others from breaking the law, or we should change the laws if we don't think they are worth enforcing.

carlivar 4y ago
Note that Hillary Clinton's campaign was fined for a campaign finance violation. https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2022-03-30/dnc-clinton-campaign-agree-to-steele-dossier-funding-fine https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2022-03-30/dnc...
- ed_elliott_asc 4y ago
  How is it relevant what someone else has done to this indictment?
  - brigandish 4y ago
    Because it shows politically motivated use of legal power, which is especially bad. I'm all for prosecuting Trump and Clinton and all the rest of them, but to only prosecute Trump when there's a sea of malfeasance stinking up the place seems like an overwhelmingly bad idea.
    - XorNot 4y ago
      How does it show that? The campaign broke the law, was caught, and punished (fined). Degree of severity and attempts to conceal a crime are both considered serious factors in punishment a crime merits.
      - koolba 4y ago
        > How does it show that? The campaign broke the law, was caught, and punished (fined). > Degree of severity and attempts to conceal a crime are both considered serious factors in punishment a crime merits. Which do you consider a more direct violation of campaign finance law with direct intent to benefit a campaign? 1. Paying a lawyer to pay a woman to not speak about an elicit affair from a decade prior. 2. Paying a lawyer to pay a private investigator to compile a negative dossier about your political opponent in the, at the time, current US general election.
        XorNot 4y ago
        As you have written it, neither of those two things are illegal to do, funnily enough. Maybe reflect then on why one campaign settled a law suit, and Trump is being indicted at the moment, if again, neither is actually illegal under campaign finance law. Hint: it's legal to pay for opposition research, but a violation to not disclose that you're doing it. It's also legal to pay for an NDA, but not legal for the NDA to be created by direction of one's private lawyer, and then subsequently to use campaign finances to reimburse and list bonuses to that lawyer for legal services they never rendered to the campaign.
        koolba 4y ago
        The comparison is that if it’s indeed illegal, how is one that is clearly only directly benefiting the campaign a mere misdemeanor fine and the other a felony?
        mrguyorama 4y ago
        It's very likely Bragg's attempt to push this to a felony fails. It's just speculation (SINCE WE DON'T KNOW THE CHARGES) about what evidence is available and what people might be doing. If Trump gets a $1000 fine for this, I feel like that's justice.
- sanderjd 4y ago
  That's compatible with my comment.
- Truthisthis 4y ago
  [flagged]
sanderjd 4y ago
Bah, I can't edit anymore, but I just noticed I wrote "provide" in this comment when I meant to write "prosecute".

skellington 4y ago

Yeah but they weren't being persecuted for obviously political reasons. Usually the ruling class avoids eating their own because they know then that the guillotine can come for them. But in this case, Trump is too much of a danger to the war-machine establishment. Hillary paid for the Steele Dossier and improperly reported it and was fined for it. They didn't try to press criminal charges against her for that or for mishandling classified emails (also a crime technically). Did you notice how talk of Trump's crimes related to classified documents disappeared completely after Biden was found with improperly handled classified documents? It's all theater.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Sai_ 4y ago
> Did you notice how talk of Trump's crimes related to classified documents disappeared completely after Biden was found with improperly handled classified documents? Well, it could also be because Biden's discovery (a) was smaller and self-reported, (b) his legal team helped in resolving the situation, AND (c) the documents have been recovered in both cases and the ball is now in competent authority's court. It's like this - say you and I both run over someone. I hide the evidence and try my best to prevent my guilt from surfacing. You, on the other hand, co-operate with the authorities and accept your blame. Which story is more likely to linger longer in the papers? I'd say mine simply because I'm being obstinate and refusing to do the right thing as expected by the law and by common decency. I'd say that's why Biden's story died because of this.
- FPGAhacker 4y ago
  Analogies are imperfect, but I think a little more detail would make it the analogy fair. Let me restate your example of running over someone: Let's say you and I both run over someone. I did it last year, and you did it 6 years ago. You say nothing for 6 years, I say nothing for 1 year. I get caught, and provide no cooperation whatsoever. You watch me get caught and excoriated in the press and decide you need to fess up and cooperate. 6 years after the fact.

bayesian_horse 4y ago

Violations like that are charged all the time. This particular offense was already charged against Trump's lawyer, so it makes sense to charge Trump who directed Trump to do it. It wasn't just a campaign finance violation. It also was a major financial misstatement, even fraud telling the election bureau, the IRS and state officials this was legal expenses, which it clearly wasn't. There's no way no how one can make the claim "not a big enough deal to charge". Things like that and even more minor get charged all day long. It's just that there is a very long history of Trump and his goons interfering with this charge getting brought and making a much bigger deal about it.

Tangurena2 4y ago

As someone who ran for a state-level elected office, I can tell you that campaign finance violations are not "a dime a dozen".