34 Felony Counts Guilty

What does any of this have to do with our conversation? You asked me if I’ve even been accused of malice when there was none. What is your point?

obviously, you can't prove that you had no malice

"That’s an absurd proposal. Intent isn’t just the most basic element of most crimes, it it also the central notion that we assess in everyday life as we determine whether someone’s actions are morally wrong. Intent is the difference between a mistake and malice. It’s the difference that tells us whether someone is trustworthy vs untrustworthy. It is the difference between someone who is a danger to society vs someone who is not." [[]]

do you think that someone who doesn't think before acting is generally more of a "danger to society" than someone who does think before acting ? 

ok, do you have a proposal to perhaps REFORM democracy ?

It [FEC excludes NDA payments from campaign contributions] doesn't, but it doesn't exclude them from personal expenses either which means they are in the overlap which means nobody can convict anybody of anything without getting a change in policy from the FEC

There is no literature anywhere that supports this interpretation.

Nothing about the law or FEC page says if something is not singled out to be excluded then it’s fair game.

A contribution is anything of value given, loaned or advanced to influence a federal election.

Note how it does not say “a contribution occurs only if it’s specified below”.

Again, does not say “if it’s not listed here then the expense is whatever the candidate says”

Bla bla sophistry

It doesn’t take sophistry to recognize that the negation of “this debate will be over” is “this debate will not be over”. As in, we will continue the conversation. Not “this debate will be over and I win”.

“Will determine” =/= “automatic”

The term “contribution” includes— (i) any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office;

Apply it to a tuxedo bought for a campaign rally.

I did, that was the gotcha you laid out for me and I fell into. That’s why the FEC singled this out for exclusion, which follows from the word “automatic”.

My interpretation doesn't require the automatic personal expenses to be in contradiction with the default (irrespective test).

Your interpretation of campaign finance law is that a bunch of lawmakers sat around and wrote thousands of pages explaining what are campaign expenses vs personal expenses just so that the candidates can chuck it all in the trash and determine it for themselves. That’s absurd.

Oh, and it also plainly contradicts the FEC’s interpretation when they stated “the commission will determine…”

When it comes to campaign finance law, the essence of what separates the personal from the campaign comes down to intent,

If the candidate bought a pair of shoes for the exclusive purpose of propping up his own campaign then that does meet the legal definition of a campaign contribution

but it would be absurd for the FEC or anyone else to sit around trying to figure out what the purpose was of every shoe or pair of pants every candidate purchased

It’s a practical reality, not the purpose of the law.

You have asserted/implied that if someone intends to help their campaign by spending money, then whatever they are spending money on is a mandated campaign expense.

 That’s literally how the law defines it

this legal analyst for CNN made the point that no prosecution in all fifty states had ever used a federal elections violation as a predicate for a state crime. None, ever, zero.

I am quite frankly, just tired of this argument. Trump is the most unprecedented political figure in our lifetime and probably in the nation’s history. Of course the way he is dealt with would be unprecedented as well.

This argument is essentially one big question begging fallacy. It’s like mob bosses from the 40’s claiming that they are being persecuted because RICO laws are being written specifically to take them down.

The issues seem so immense because there is a concerted effort on the political right to ensure people remain confused about it rather than to educate people on what the charges were and how they can be interpreted reasonably.

The law Trump was convicted of is falsifying business records with the intent of covering up another crime. They did not need to adjudicate whether he actually committed a federal crime, because the intent is the only thing that was required.

And yes Trump knew what these second charges were because everyone in earth did given that his personal attorney who handled this exact violation already pleaded guilty to it.

Wouldn't that mean under New York law that pretty much every expenditure would have to be handled this way as there's always an argument that any candidate's purchase would affect the election to some degree, even if it is just buying food. (people have a right to know what goes inside their candidate as well as what he puts into other people)

It's such a whacky interpretation of the law you would typically see in fantasy dystopian novels or some obscure 1800's wild west laws. You wouldn't normally expect this in 2024 New York law.

That’s what Brad Smith (former FEC commissioner) was prepared to testify. In fact, Trump paying for this NDA with campaign funds which he was apparently supposed to do may have actually been illegal under federal law. On the other hand, New York State is the final arbiter of federal law everybody knows that

“1st, Common Sense. We know that a campaign expense is not literally any payment made "for the purpose of influencing an election," and reading the statute that way would be WAY too broad. For example, in 1999, Bill & Hillary Clinton bought a house in New York. /8

One reason they did so was that Hillary could run for U.S. Senate from New York. In other words, the expenditure was clearly done, in part, "for the purpose of influencing an election." Is it a campaign expenditure under FECA? Of course not. Common sense. /9

Jurors do not have to agree on what actually happened

they only need to agree on the components that make up the crime

The Trump team knew exactly what the prosecution’s case was because they laid it out in painstaking detail 5 months before the trial.

Trump does not have to commit the crime in order for it to apply because the law makes clear that the only requirement was for him to have had the intent when he committed the falsification of records.

intent to commit another crime

intent to commit =/= actually committed

I think my house arrest analogy works perfectly here of we tweak it.

And btw, this whole concept of using an out of jurisdiction crime as the underlying crime was litigated prior to the trial. If you are actually interested see below.