-->
@Double_R
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
34 Felony Counts Guilty
Posts
Total:
400
-->
@3RU7AL
obviously, you can't prove that you had no malice
And once again, I don’t need to. Those who are accusing me of malice have that burden.
This is every bit as silly as asking me to prove Bigfoot doesn’t exist. If they can’t substantiate their claim because they have no evidence of this then their belief isn’t based in reason, which is to say they are just believing whatever they want because they want to. At that point, I couldn’t care less about what they believe and no one else should either.
So now that we’ve beaten this horse to death, can you now tell me what this has to do with our original conversion (the Trump trial)?
-->
@Double_R
"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 ?
-->
@3RU7AL
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 ?
It depends on what kind of behavior they are prone to engage in. But generally speaking, someone who does think and still does wrong is worse. Because that person is beyond help, the person who doesn’t think can in most cases be helped.
Since this comment was made in regards to our discussion about the criminal trial, what you’re implying here is ridiculous. That is that Trump engaged in this carefully crafted scheme by accident. The circumstances as demonstrated by the evidence presented at trial showed clearly what the circumstances were, how aware Trump was of those circumstances, how intent Trump was on not letting this impede his candidacy, and the sophistication with which they worked to cover this whole thing up. To suggest he did all this without thinking is like me telling my wife that I got lost on my drive home and accidentally ended up in another woman’s bedroom.
-->
@3RU7AL
ok, do you have a proposal to perhaps REFORM democracy ?
Nope. Sorry if you thought I was suggesting such
15 days later
-->
@Double_R
My resurrection of this thread was inevitable *snaps fingers*
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 FECThere is no literature anywhere that supports this interpretation.
Logic says it. All other interpretations create contradictions with precedent, law, or FEC guidance.
Nothing about the law or FEC page says if something is not singled out to be excluded then it’s fair game.
It's called liberty and the presumption of innocence. Nothing is a violation of law until proven otherwise.
Spending personal money on an expense that could exist without a campaign regardless of motivation admitted or otherwise is a personal expense, often a mandatory personal expense. This is already proven in this thread by specific examples. You have proven your interpretation fails to predict precedent. When predictions fail, so does the hypothesis.
A contribution is anything of value given, loaned or advanced to influence a federal election.
Like a suit meant to win an election?
Note how it does not say “a contribution occurs only if it’s specified below”.
Explain why it doesn't apply to a suit.
Again, does not say “if it’s not listed here then the expense is whatever the candidate says”
Notice how it also doesn't say that a candidate is no longer allowed to buy a suit.
The FEC can deliberate but to the extent their deliberations are misinterpretations of federal law their decisions hold no force of law, which would matter if the FEC did deliberate on this point, and even then it would not retroactively criminalize something which was clearly not criminal before.
Bla bla sophistryIt 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”.
When you watch reruns, that doesn't mean the season didn't end. Reminding you of how you lost the debate is what I am and will be doing.
“Will determine” =/= “automatic”
"will determine" =/= "retroactively guilty of federal crimes without a determination or charge"
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”.
The FEC has not singled out shoes or suits to be exempt from any guideline or rule. <- cite to the contrary if you can
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.
"determine for themselves" yet when I gotcha (and you are still got), you clearly believed that intent of the candidate was a determiner. If he admitted it was for campaign purposes you thought that meant he had to report it as an in-kind contribution to himself.
It's you who believe the candidate determines by intent, and you believe you know Trump to be capable only of malintent.
I never said intent (alone) has any relevance, I said what money is used has relevance.
My interpretation (the only rational or acceptable interpretation) of federal campaign finance law:
1.) When the expense has nothing to do with a campaign, only personal funds may be used.
2.) When the expense could aid the campaign but also might exist without a campaign personal funds or campaign funds may be used unless specifically determined (beforehand) to be automatic personal expenses in which case route to (2.a).
2.a If campaign money is used for an expense in this category, that makes it a campaign expense. Not the intent to be personal, not the intent to be campaign. The act of using donations makes it reportable.
2.a If campaign money is used for an expense in this category, that makes it a campaign expense. Not the intent to be personal, not the intent to be campaign. The act of using donations makes it reportable.
2.b If personal money is used for an expense in this category, that makes it a personal expense. Not the intent to be personal, not the intent to be campaign. It is not the use of personal funds that prove a personal intent (for indeed a candidate can say that the suit is to win a campaign and still use personal funds) but the lack of using campaign funds that classifies the expense as personal when it doesn't fit into (3).
3.) When the expense could only exist when a campaign exists, it is a mandatory campaign expense which can only be paid for with campaign donations be they monetary or in-kind.
I make no warranty as to the wisdom or efficacy of framing these laws and FEC guidance using these concepts, but if they mean anything coherent; this is what they mean.
Oh, and it also plainly contradicts the FEC’s interpretation when they stated “the commission will determine…”
They are determining which of the three categories the expense is in, not making a big list of exceptions. In either case their decisions could not retroactively create criminal liability, but that would be especially true if they claimed to be creating exceptions to general rules (which they do not).
When it comes to campaign finance law, the essence of what separates the personal from the campaign comes down to intent,
Like I was saying, you're still "got".
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
Or your interpretation is wrong.
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
I agree that your interpretation leads to absurdities. That's why I had the hypothetical candidate explicitly state his intent to influence his campaign. You have and you just admitted again that one could certainly buy apparel to influence a campaign so you can't call a candidate a liar for saying that.
Now what if the candidate is named Trump before they decided clothing is automatic personal use and candidates aren't allowed to intend to influence campaigns by buying apparel?
Under your interpretation would some kangaroo court get to retroactively call something a campaign finance violation after you have admitted it's an exception to the rule?
It’s a practical reality, not the purpose of the law.
I've already stated the only legitimate purposes of the law:
1.) Keep candidates from stealing donor money by using it for things that don't affect campaigns
2.) Inform the public of special interests
"Getting Trump" is not one of the legitimate purposes. A candidate is not his own special interest. That is why there is no self-donation limit. The only reason there is a reporting requirement is to balance the books since campaign expenditures and campaign donations are two different enumerations.
1.) Keep candidates from stealing donor money by using it for things that don't affect campaigns
2.) Inform the public of special interests
"Getting Trump" is not one of the legitimate purposes. A candidate is not his own special interest. That is why there is no self-donation limit. The only reason there is a reporting requirement is to balance the books since campaign expenditures and campaign donations are two different enumerations.
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
Alright, let's say that that is what the law means:
"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; or
(ii) the payment by any person of compensation for the personal services of another person which are rendered to a political committee without charge for any purpose."
(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; or
(ii) the payment by any person of compensation for the personal services of another person which are rendered to a political committee without charge for any purpose."
Where in the law does it except suits?... because if the law says that intent is what matters, and you claim that suits are indeed an exception to this law, then the exception must also be in law.
It's not like the FEC can contradict federal law at will right?
-->
@Double_R
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.
If you could shoot baby hitler huh?
The problem is Trump's purported acts are not unprecedented, only the lawfare. Clinton paid a huge sum to make an accuser go away, I would say "too" if I believed Trump actually authorized Cohen's machinations.
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.
and then RICO being used against political rivals, so maybe the supposed mob bosses had a point. "he's guilty we all know it, just make something up" was bound to 'poison the blood' of our legal system.
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.
rofl
"Damn it my sophistry is too complicated for the plebeians, can't they see that signing a check to a lawyer and your accountant labeling it as a legal expense is basically 1933 all over again?!"
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.
Paying a lawyer and labeling it a legal expense was done with the intent of covering up that he paid the lawyer with the intent of influencing an election.
<sarcasm>I can't believe the common man doesn't get it?</sarcasm>
Just amazing how your fake jurists have cobbled together laws in such a way that it's all intent and zero fact. The only real question is "do you believe Trump's heart is black as night?"
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.
Slight causality problem, Cohen pleading guilty doesn't travel against the flow of time to be a reason Trump should have known that paying Cohen was somehow illegal because Cohen might seek a compensated NDA which is illegal if you're a candidate named Trump.
"Trump, I have to tell you something; I'm going to plead guilty to a made up crime in a few years."
"Shit, I guess that means I'm breaking the law by paying you"
"Yep, that's exactly what that means WHUAHUAHUAUHAUHA"
"WHUAHUAUAHA"
"AHHAAAUAHHHH WHWUAHU AA" <- at this point Trump is rubbing his hands together
-->
@thett3
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
I said earlier in the thread that you know you've either got bad law or bad interpretation if being a candidate removes rights, and it's illegal to buy something you could before if you aren't allowed to pay for something with campaign or personal money.
I think it is far less of a stretch to say paying under an NDA is mandatory personal use than to say it is mandatory campaign spending. In other words if Trump had used campaign funds I think the case against him would have been more rational, still profoundly irrational if they couldn't prove he actually approved paying stormy as they failed to in reality.
“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. /8One 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
Sounds like sane Brad Smith has an issue with Double_R's insane interpretation.
-->
@Double_R
Jurors do not have to agree on what actually happened
Clown world continues apace.
they only need to agree on the components that make up the crime
and if the component is "intent to obscure another crime" they don't need to agree on that crime, hell (and this is something you actually claimed, and claim it again in this post #280) there doesn't even need to be another crime.
All you have to do is believe that Trump wanted to be a criminal in his heart.
The Trump team knew exactly what the prosecution’s case was because they laid it out in painstaking detail 5 months before the trial.
Nobody knew what the prosecutions case was because rambling contradictions can't be understood.
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.
So if the fake jury claimed to believe that they thought Trump thought drinking a diet pepsi was a crime, then they could consider that intent to commit a crime.
intent to commit another crime
The intent to do something which may or may not be a crime don't worry about that. Focus on the evil which resides in the breast of the orange-man.
intent to commit =/= actually committed
Or actually a crime.
I think my house arrest analogy works perfectly here of we tweak it.
Problem is that leaving your house while under house arrest might actually be illegal. Tweak it this way: You aren't under house arrest, but a fake jury claims that you thought you were under house arrest. No evidence needed except one witness who plead guilty under threat of further severe punishment.
Also your "falsification" was writing "pizza" in quicken when IN FACT you tipped and paid for delivery.
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.
Uh... I think the real problem is that the other jurisdiction didn't charge the defendant much less convict him. That's the really unprecedented thing.
"Well, homosexual sex is a crime in Saudi Arabia, and true they didn't charge him with it, but you can assume he's guilty in his heart. Therefore when he failed to put a pride sticker on in Seattle that was to obscure his intent to commit sodomy in saudi arabia"
Super clear, why don't people get it? The polls must be wrong.
58 days later
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
My resurrection of this thread was inevitable *snaps fingers*
So was your destruction *pulls out the real stones*.
You didn't think I forgot about this thread did you? Well yeah I did actually...
Spending personal money on an expense that could exist without a campaign...
Once again, this is not the standard, says the law, the FEC, and common sense.
The mere fact that A could be B doesn't mean we pretend A is B. If that were the case then criminal convictions wouldn't exist because "beyond a reasonable doubt" =/= "the defendant could not be innocent"
This has been your go to throughout this entire conversation no matter how many times it's pointed out to you. And you continue to claim that my interpretation (the same one the FEC spelled out in plain English) would violate precedent yet you haven't provided a single example anywhere in this thread. You're clearly just making shit up to avoid taking the L while projecting that very idea into me.
The FEC has not singled out shoes or suits to be exempt from any guideline or rule. <- cite to the contrary if you can
It's in the link you provided. Are you really that dishonest that you need me to dig up your own post to show you in your own source where the FEC singles out clothing for exclusion?
Clearly you are, because you even go on to reference it later in this same post:
I agree that your interpretation leads to absurdities. That's why I had the hypothetical candidate explicitly state his intent to influence his campaign. You have and you just admitted again that one could certainly buy apparel to influence a campaign
Correct, which is exactly why the FEC singled apparel out as an exception to the rule. My interpretation doesn't lead to absurdities, it leads to what logically follows from the law. The FEC recognized that, so to prevent candidates from abusing the law they singled out a few different expense types (including clothing) as an automatic personal expense. They wouldn't have had to do that if clothing wouldn't have been deemed a legitimate campaign expenditure under a strict reading of the law given examples like yours along with their own irrespective test.
In other words, your example proves me right on my interpretation, I just missed their exceptions. So you claiming that your gotcha proves my interpretation wrong demonstrates that you're either woefully dishonest or deeply confused.
"determine for themselves" yet when I gotcha (and you are still got), you clearly believed that intent of the candidate was a determiner. If he admitted it was for campaign purposes you thought that meant he had to report it as an in-kind contribution to himself.
He does, for anything that the FEC didn't single out as an exception. Says the FEC, in the link you provided.
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 contributionOr your interpretation is wrong.
Because they singled it out genius.
Where in the law does it except suits?... because if the law says that intent is what matters, and you claim that suits are indeed an exception to this law, then the exception must also be in law.It's not like the FEC can contradict federal law at will right?
Everything I've been arguing on this topic came from the FEC pages you brought into this conversation as your source for your argument. Now you're challenging me to prove it legitimate? Really?
I've already stated the only legitimate purposes of the law:1.) Keep candidates from stealing donor money by using it for things that don't affect campaigns2.) Inform the public of special interests
Citation please.
And no, "my ass" does not count.
Just amazing how your fake jurists have cobbled together laws in such a way that it's all intent and zero fact.
Zero fact... Wow. We had a whole trial over this. Even you aren't this stupid.
and this is something you actually claimed, and claim it again in this post #280) there doesn't even need to be another crime.
You do not need to succeed in killing someone to be convicted of attempted murder. This is really basic stuff.
Problem is that leaving your house while under house arrest might actually be illegal.
So is falsifying business records.
Uh... I think the real problem is that the other jurisdiction didn't charge the defendant much less convict him.
This is insane. There is no way you've spent weeks arguing this trial with me and was unaware that the DOJ indicted Cohen for this (did you forget about Individual 1?) and that Cohen plead guilty. This crime has been fully adjudicated. NY did not need to adjudicate this crime, it was already right there.