2 ms·

If the payment itself is not a crime (as admitted) just the alleged mis-accounting. Then how can the mis-accounting possibly be a campaign contribution, when th

If the payment itself is not a crime (as admitted) just the alleged mis-accounting. Then how can the mis-accounting possibly be a campaign contribution, when the entry happened in 2017 and Trump won the election in 2016? Are they going to discern future intent of his accountants? And does "future crime" require Time travelling Trump? Perhaps this legal theory that the prosecutor is basing this on is just political hackery as it appears to be? Is that possible? I also think you're answering your own question. You can either have non disclosure agreements or you have to make them public, which would defeat the whole purpose of non disclosure agreements. On a side note, normally...your past lovers can't threaten to expose your affair unless you pay them. Extortion is a crime.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> If the payment itself is not a crime (as admitted) No one admitted that. > just the alleged mis-accounting. No one said that, either, in fact, two separate crimes were identified, not one. > Then how can the mis-accounting possibly be a campaign contribution No one said the misaccounting was a campaign cobtribution (how would that work?) You claimed that the payment was a campaign expenditure funded by a contribution by the candidate, and that that was perfectly legal. Whether or not the payment was otherwise legal, both contributions to a campaign and expenditures by a campaign must be disclosed in periodic campaign finance reports to the FEC (which are public records which are closely scrutinized), and, for expenditures, itemized at a level which includes the specific recipient, amount, and purpose of each payment. Wilfully failing to report donations or expenditures is a crime. So, if this was as you describe, there should be a public FEC filing for Trumo for the contribution and expenditure. Is there? > You can either have non disclosure agreements or you have to make them public, which would defeat the whole purpose of non disclosure agreements. Yes, I agree that campaign finance law makes it practically legally impossible for a federal candidate to make effective hush money payments associated with a campaign. (Other NDAs are, actually, fairly viable, and regular parts of cobtracts for services associated with a campaign.) This may be inconvenient for people trying to conceal things that would be material to the electorate, but that’s a feature, not a bug. > On a side note, normally...your past lovers can't threaten to expose your affair unless you pay them. Extortion is a crime. While the term is sometimes used more broadly informally, the crime of extortion involves obtaining money or things of value under threat of violence, not under threat of revealing true facts. You may be thinking of blackmail, but again, while informally used more broadly, as a crime that generally refers to getting money via threat to inform about a violation of the law. Unless the sex act was illegal in some way, threatening to reveal it unless paid wouldn’t be that, either.
- dukeofdoom 3y ago
  I'm in a little bit of a hurry: 1. No, the Second crime has not been disclosed, it's been with held from the defendant by the prosecutor. Imagine having to defend criminal charges, but you're not told of the crimes you've committed. Does that sound at all like a fair process, one that meets the US constitutional standards? 2. The equal application of law is what is at question too. Which other candidate needed to disclose their NDAs as campaign contributions? Or is this just Trump targeted. You can take interpretation of the law to extreme's if you want to target someone: Surly Trump buying lunch for himself is a non disclosed campaign contribution too, right. 3. You're wrong about extortion requiring violence. Too lazy, here's chatGPT summary. " No, extortion does not always require violence. While the use of violence or threats of physical harm is a common means of extortion, it is not necessary for the offense to occur. Extortion can also involve the use of other forms of coercion or intimidation, such as threats to harm a person's reputation, property, or financial interests. In essence, any action or statement that is designed to put someone in fear of harm or loss, and to use that fear to gain something of value, can be considered extortion. It is important to note that the use of violence or the threat of violence can aggravate the offense and result in more severe penalties. "
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > No, the Second crime has not been disclosed, it's been with held from the defendant by the prosecutor. There were two crimes identified upthread (did you lose context of the discussion, again?) And, also, no, all 34 of the crimes Trump is charged with were disclosded by the prosecutor (I mean, there could be more in sealed indictments, but then, we wouldn't know that or their number if there were.) > Imagine having to defend criminal charges, but you're not told of the crimes you've committed. Does that sound at all like a fair process, one that meets the US constitutional standards? It doesn’t sound remotely relevant to reality. > The equal application of law is what is at question too. Which other candidate needed to disclose their NDAs as campaign contributions? No one has said Trump is required to do that. If your description is true (not my claim, yours), that the payment was lawful because it was Trump purchasing an agreement on behalf of the campaign, with hia own funds, which is he permitted to contribute in unlimited quantities as the candidate, then Trump would be required, as is any federal candidate, both the contribution of funds, and their expenditure (including the amount and purpose) in campaign disclosures. Every federal candidate is required to do that, for every NDA or other service purchased. Normally, campaign-related NDAs aren’t separate purchases as hush-money for past acts, though, they are parts of employment contracts for campaign-related work. Disclosing them isn’t much of a problem. The law is inconvenient for hush-money payments, but, again, that’s a bug, not a feature: it is not intended to conveniently accommodate them. > You're wrong about extortion requiring violence You are free to try to find a federal or state criminal statute that would be applicable to the event in question to support your argument, but, on top of using the worst source on the planet for reliable information, you again are failing to note that there are mant senses of extortion, but the one you specifically invoked upthread by claiming that asking for payment to keep quite about sex is a crimen is the narrow definition in criminal law, not the broader definition the word has in other contexts. Asking for money to keeo quiet about true, legal acts, for which the party involved has no prior legal secrecy requirement, is not a crime, extortion or otherwise.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> If the payment itself is not a crime (as admitted) No one admitted that. > just the alleged mis-accounting. No one said that, either, in fact, two separate crimes were identified, not one. > Then how can the mis-accounting possibly be a campaign contribution No one said the misaccounting was a campaign cobtribution (how would that work?) You claimed that the payment was a campaign expenditure funded by a contribution by the candidate, and that that was perfectly legal. Whether or not the payment was otherwise legal, both contributions to a campaign and expenditures by a campaign must be disclosed in periodic campaign finance reports to the FEC (which are public records which are closely scrutinized), and, for expenditures, itemized at a level which includes the specific recipient, amount, and purpose of each payment. Wilfully failing to report donations or expenditures is a crime. So, if this was as you describe, there should be a public FEC filing for Trumo for the contribution and expenditure. Is there? > You can either have non disclosure agreements or you have to make them public, which would defeat the whole purpose of non disclosure agreements. Yes, I agree that campaign finance law makes it practically legally impossible for a federal candidate to make effective hush money payments associated with a campaign. (Other NDAs are, actually, fairly viable, and regular parts of cobtracts for services associated with a campaign.) This may be inconvenient for people trying to conceal things that would be material to the electorate, but that’s a feature, not a bug. > On a side note, normally...your past lovers can't threaten to expose your affair unless you pay them. Extortion is a crime. While the term is sometimes used more broadly informally, the crime of extortion involves obtaining money or things of value under threat of violence, not under threat of revealing true facts. You may be thinking of blackmail, but again, while informally used more broadly, as a crime that generally refers to getting money via threat to inform about a violation of the law. Unless the sex act was illegal in some way, threatening to reveal it unless paid wouldn’t be that, either.

dukeofdoom 3y ago
I'm in a little bit of a hurry: 1. No, the Second crime has not been disclosed, it's been with held from the defendant by the prosecutor. Imagine having to defend criminal charges, but you're not told of the crimes you've committed. Does that sound at all like a fair process, one that meets the US constitutional standards? 2. The equal application of law is what is at question too. Which other candidate needed to disclose their NDAs as campaign contributions? Or is this just Trump targeted. You can take interpretation of the law to extreme's if you want to target someone: Surly Trump buying lunch for himself is a non disclosed campaign contribution too, right. 3. You're wrong about extortion requiring violence. Too lazy, here's chatGPT summary. " No, extortion does not always require violence. While the use of violence or threats of physical harm is a common means of extortion, it is not necessary for the offense to occur. Extortion can also involve the use of other forms of coercion or intimidation, such as threats to harm a person's reputation, property, or financial interests. In essence, any action or statement that is designed to put someone in fear of harm or loss, and to use that fear to gain something of value, can be considered extortion. It is important to note that the use of violence or the threat of violence can aggravate the offense and result in more severe penalties. "
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > No, the Second crime has not been disclosed, it's been with held from the defendant by the prosecutor. There were two crimes identified upthread (did you lose context of the discussion, again?) And, also, no, all 34 of the crimes Trump is charged with were disclosded by the prosecutor (I mean, there could be more in sealed indictments, but then, we wouldn't know that or their number if there were.) > Imagine having to defend criminal charges, but you're not told of the crimes you've committed. Does that sound at all like a fair process, one that meets the US constitutional standards? It doesn’t sound remotely relevant to reality. > The equal application of law is what is at question too. Which other candidate needed to disclose their NDAs as campaign contributions? No one has said Trump is required to do that. If your description is true (not my claim, yours), that the payment was lawful because it was Trump purchasing an agreement on behalf of the campaign, with hia own funds, which is he permitted to contribute in unlimited quantities as the candidate, then Trump would be required, as is any federal candidate, both the contribution of funds, and their expenditure (including the amount and purpose) in campaign disclosures. Every federal candidate is required to do that, for every NDA or other service purchased. Normally, campaign-related NDAs aren’t separate purchases as hush-money for past acts, though, they are parts of employment contracts for campaign-related work. Disclosing them isn’t much of a problem. The law is inconvenient for hush-money payments, but, again, that’s a bug, not a feature: it is not intended to conveniently accommodate them. > You're wrong about extortion requiring violence You are free to try to find a federal or state criminal statute that would be applicable to the event in question to support your argument, but, on top of using the worst source on the planet for reliable information, you again are failing to note that there are mant senses of extortion, but the one you specifically invoked upthread by claiming that asking for payment to keep quite about sex is a crimen is the narrow definition in criminal law, not the broader definition the word has in other contexts. Asking for money to keeo quiet about true, legal acts, for which the party involved has no prior legal secrecy requirement, is not a crime, extortion or otherwise.