they made the correct decision. The problem is…pretty much everything else about the case lol
Do you understand the difference?Yeah, it's an unconstitutional law that will ultimately be struck down on…
rogue judges can't convict you of a crime that was never specified or charged.
since the DOJ was already prosecuting Micheal Cohen for it, which amounts to a tacit admission that Trump was in fact in violation of the law.Like I can't even.... why are you hung up on the idea that in this country, you are guilty until proven innocent?
The DOJ dropped the FEDERAL case against Trump because it was clearly partisan, with no precedent, and it would have made Biden look like a subverter of democracy.
What's so monumentally hilarious is that this blunder has cost Biden an additional 1 to 2% of the black vote where Trump is set to get near 20% of the black vote this year, which is unprecedented for ANYONE on the Republican ticket.
New York State doesn’t get to decide what is a violation of federal law! That includes determining “intent to violate” a federal law
Yeah litigated in…New York State
The proper authorities chose not to pursue this matter, likely because Trump NOT using personal funds in this matter is what would’ve actually been illegal.
the question is whether NY can determine whether the NY crime someone did commit is considered more egregious because they did it with the intent of violating federal law.
The question is not whether NU gets to decide what is a violation of federal law, the question is whether NY can determine whether the NY crime someone did commit is considered more egregious because they did it with the intent of violating federal law. That’s a very different question, so if you’re going to keep responding to it please argue the actual topic.
The proper authorities already stated their reasons for why they didn’t pursue the matter, and it’s not even close to what you claim. I already provided you that link.They stated explicitly that they decided to move on simply because they thought their resources would be better spent elsewhere.They stated that the reason their resources would be better spent elsewhere was because the DOJ was already dealing with this to which they indicted the guy Trump ordered to do it.It’s pretty odd that the FEC took the position that this was not a campaign violation while expressly acknowledging that the DOJ was actively prosecuting someone for it and explicitly deferring to them.
The important point is that the authorities who actually have jurisdiction over this didn't pursue it. You not liking what you think is their reasoning has no bearing on what happened. There was an inquiry, the relevant authorities looked into it, and the inquiry was closed. The correct jurisdiction not prosecuting someone isn't a "technicality"...its the furthest possible thing from a technicality.
You see, if you put the word "intent" in there, that gives New York the authority to evaluate what actions are a violation of federal law.
What Cohen pled guilty to was (according to your link) "making an excessive contribution in violation of the Act by making the Clifford payment from his personal funds." Since there's no limit to how much a candidate can contribute to their own campaign, the exact same contribution by Trump would be legal.
The important point is that the authorities who actually have jurisdiction over this didn't pursue it. You not liking what you think is their reasoning has no bearing on what happened. There was an inquiry, the relevant authorities looked into it, and the inquiry was closed.
the question is whether NY can determine whether the NY crime someone did commit is considered more egregious because they did it with the intent of violating federal law.And the SCOTUS will decide if that is Constitutional; to have a state jury decide what a federal violation is. Not Merchan.
if [using large sums of money to] deceive voters [by engaging in a scheme to falsify the documents showing the nature and purpose of said payments] is a crimewe're going to need to build a lot of new prisons
This isn’t even about the law anymore, this is a matter of understanding basic common sense, yet no matter how many examples I give you just keep retreating to the same tired talking point without addressing anything I’ve said.At some point, after so many attempts to get you to engage, your intent to continue ignoring this element of the conversation becomes apparent, some might say beyond a reasonable doubt.
In other words, you are just wrong when you claim the authority here decided this wasn’t illegal. The authority who ultimately decides that is the DOJ, not the FEC. The FEC even said so themselves in their own ruling.
It's essentially the same as a "hung jury"In any case, it by no means indicates Trump violated anything.
if [using large sums of money to] deceive voters [by engaging in a scheme to falsify the documents showing the nature and purpose of said payments] is a crimewe're going to need to build a lot of new prisonsFixed.
When the relevant authorities, who have jurisdiction, chose not pursue the case, New York does not get to decide that in fact a violation did occur.
who cares how much money you use to deceive voters ?
What's scary is the E Jean trial essentially used the same tactic, insinuating rape when it was never charged.
who cares how much money you use to deceive voters ?The law. There is a reason we have rules governing campaign finances.
The relevant authority did decide this. The DOJ (as in the federal government) charged Cohen, and Cohen plead guilty and was sentenced to and served 3 years in prison. That by definition, means that Cohen is, legally speaking, guilty of violating federal law.Donald Trump was proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be involved in this adjudicated crime. So even if we apply the most charitable position towards Trump in this, he is still guilty.
You’re literally pointing to someone else pleading guilty to a crime as legal proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” that a different person is guilty of a crime.
The federal government didn’t pursue any charge against Trump, probably because the relevant authorities understand campaign finance law better than you do
There really isn’t a point in moving forward on this.
OJ was charged with murder. Trump wasn't charged of rape.
The law. There is a reason we have rules governing campaign finances.that's like saying murder is ONLY a crime if you pay someone to murder
Ah, so merely being charged for a crime is enough to substantiate further action taken by another legal entity.
What an egregious lie. I did not argue anything close to this.What I pointed out was that Cohen is officially, legally, guilty of committing a federal crime, and that per the evidence established through the trial, Trump at minimum, worked to conceal that crime by falsifying his business records.These facts satisfy every element of the crime as charged and does not require NY to adjudicate federal law, which is what you argued as your major concern here.
Micheal Cohen spent three years in prison in part because he pleaded guilty to the illegal campaign contribution as charged by the DOJ. So yes, I do think they understand campaign finance law better than I, and they locked someone up over it.The fact that the DOJ locked up Cohen for this crime but not the same guy who in their own charging documents stated that Cohen worked "in coordination with and at the direction of" when he committed it, if you were being honest, would tell you clearly that the decision to not charge Trump had nothing to do with whether the contribution was a campaign finance violation or whether Trump was involved in it. It was and he was. That is a fact according to the federal government that you've been appealing to as the authority this whole conversation.
