4 ms·

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 def

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

> 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.