34 Felony Counts Guilty

The argument has never been that NDA’s are illegal.

Then how could Trump pay for an NDA?

By reporting it as a campaign contribution

Indictment unnecessary, guilty until proven... actually just guilty no proof will be accepted.

Apparently you missed the trial where they provided documents, played recordings and interviewed witnesses. You are free to use google you’d like to catch up.

He pleaded guilty to it

He was never charged with it, it is impossible to plead guilty to crimes you were never charged with.

Funny, the southern district of NY seems to think otherwise.

But why listen to them? The only person who understands how the law works is ADOL on debateart.com.

Because there exists a law where you do not have to be charged for an underlying crime to be found guilty.

The crime he was charged for was the falsification of business records *with the intent* to commit another crime. It is not a 6th amendment violation to say that he must have actually committed the other crime in order to be charged and convicted here.

If I am on house arrest and I leave my house, that’s bad. But if the reason I left my house was to mug someone....

The point of the law is that the reason you do something matters. If I am on house arrest and I leave my house, that’s bad. But if the reason I left my house was to mug someone, that is far worse than if I left my house because I saw someone being mugged and decided to come to their rescue.

By reporting it as a campaign contribution

And a campaign expenditure?

No charge of violating election law was brought against Donald Trump.

it's clear they tacked that on to get Trump. Guilty pleas are not binding legal precedent. Cohen was not punished for this, they combined the other charges into a plea deal to confuse the issue.

intent is anything a judge or jurist can decide in the fantasyland of their own minds, which isn't based on anything logically consistent with an evidentiary trial that our justice system is based on. This is the precise mechanism that allows the law to be weaponized.

By reporting it as a campaign contribution

And a campaign expenditure?

Sure

Your baseless speculation of their motives is irrelevant.

[Double_R] Not reporting it as the campaign contribution it actually was… that’s where it became illegal.

[ADOL] Indictment unnecessary, guilty until proven... actually just guilty no proof will be accepted.

[Double_R] Apparently you missed the trial where they provided documents, played recordings and interviewed witnesses. You are free to use google you’d like to catch up.

[ADOL] No charge of violating election law was brought against Donald Trump.

[Double_R] Because that wasn’t necessary.

[Double_R] Not reporting it as the campaign contribution it actually was… that’s where it became illegal.

[ADOL] Indictment unnecessary, guilty until proven... actually just guilty no proof will be accepted.

[Double_R] Apparently you missed the trial where they provided documents, played recordings and interviewed witnesses. You are free to use google you’d like to catch up.

[ADOL] No charge of violating election law was brought against Donald Trump.

[Double_R] Because that wasn’t necessary.

Sure

...and if it was a campaign expenditure then he could have used donation money correct?

Your baseless speculation of their motives is irrelevant.

Suddenly intent and context don't matter

So it became illegal when it was not reported, that means without that element it was not illegal.

Double_R is trying to gaslight people into believing that even if an element is necessary for illegality it does not need to be charged.

Sure

...and if it was a campaign expenditure then he could have used donation money correct?

If the money was donated to the campaign? Sure.

In fact, it doesn’t even require that the defendant did in fact rob their victim, only that the murder occurred during the course of the robbery. In other words, the prosecution only needs to show their intent to rob, not the actual commission of the underlying crime.

This is the exact same thing.

Double_R is trying to gaslight people into believing that even if an element is necessary for illegality it does not need to be charged.

Let me know if anything stands out.

There was no falsification and NDAs aren't campaign spending

6th Amendment exists.

[FEC] In specific situations the Commission has concluded that campaign funds may be used to pay for up to 50 percent of legal expenses that do not relate directly to allegations arising from campaign or officeholder activity (for example, activity prior to becoming a candidate or officeholder or activity of a business owned by the candidate/officeholder) if the candidate or officeholder is required to provide substantive responses to the press regarding the allegations of wrongdoing.

I decided to stop wasting my time.

There was no falsification and NDAs aren't campaign spending

Paying $130k to a porn star to stay quiet is not a legal expense, it’s a campaign contribution.

6th Amendment exists.

Yes it does. So are you going to make an argument as to how it’s relevant or just keep implying it?

6th Amendment exists.

Yes it does. So are you going to make an argument as to how it’s relevant or just keep implying it?

[FEC] In specific situations the Commission has concluded that campaign funds may be used to pay for up to 50 percent of legal expenses that do not relate directly to allegations arising from campaign or officeholder activity (for example, activity prior to becoming a candidate or officeholder or activity of a business owned by the candidate/officeholder) if the candidate or officeholder is required to provide substantive responses to the press regarding the allegations of wrongdoing.

Try that.

Well you god damn cultist, in order to defend yourself from the accusation of a crime or the accusation of the intent to commit a crime; that crime has to be specified.

Because there exists a law where you do not have to be charged for an underlying crime to be found guilty.

6th Amendment strictly prohibits this.

All nine justices in Schad, then, believed unanimity is required to convict when the means by which a crime can be committed are so broad that the accused doesn’t receive fair notice of the basis of the charge. New York’s election law requires that the violation occur “by unlawful means,” so any “unlawful” act—including, in Scalia’s example, either robbery of failure to file a tax return—can qualify. That’s clearly overbroad. Thus, Judge Merchan’s instruction that the jury “need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were” was unconstitutional.

[FEC] In specific situations the Commission has concluded that campaign funds may be used to pay for up to 50 percent of legal expenses that do not relate directly to allegations arising from campaign or officeholder activity (for example, activity prior to becoming a candidate or officeholder or activity of a business owned by the candidate/officeholder) if the candidate or officeholder is required to provide substantive responses to the press regarding the allegations of wrongdoing.

Try that.

It allows for 50%, Trump paid it all himself.

It requires him to provide “substantive responses to the press” regarding the allegations. That’s the complete opposite of everything this was about.

I wonder if in some convoluted court, judge Merchan could be charged with the crime of "concealing information helpful or detrimental to an election" when he gagged Trump.

Ah, so he wasn't required to provide "substantive responses to the press" regarding the allegations and what does that imply in the context of that publication?

Hint: Trump wouldn't be allowed to do something, he would not be allowed to pay 50% of the expense with X funds. What is X?

I wonder if in some convoluted court, judge Merchan could be charged with the crime of "concealing information helpful or detrimental to an election" when he gagged Trump.

So what is your point?

So if the payment to Stormy Daniels was a legal expense (it’s not) then the campaign can pay half of it provided it meets the proceeding requirements (it didn’t).

I wonder if in some convoluted court, judge Merchan could be charged with the crime of "concealing information helpful or detrimental to an election" when he gagged Trump.

[Double_R] It’s always amusing watching MAGA cultists purposefully strawman the legal arguments applied as a means to make them sound as stupid as possible, to then use their own made up stupid interpretations as an excuse to impose their own stupid arguments.

Stupidity on top of stupidity.