that still means, as i originally argued, that they are saying there's a felony, just because they say there's a felony. there is no coherent way of saying what they felony is, because the jury didn't even agree to that, to my knowledge.
For the third time, no one knows if the jury agreed on the underlying crime because no one aside from those 12 jurors knows what went on in those deliberations. This is a silly point to keep harping on because even setting aside that we have no way of knowing whether you’re right, it is still meaningless.
The law doesn’t say it’s a felony because it’s a felony. It says it’s a felony because of the intent behind it, which is how all wrongdoing in every other aspect of our lives is determined.
I used this example somewhere else before but will just repeat it here; Imagine I were on house arrest and I left my house, in that case I would be in violation and face legal consequences. But what should those consequences be? Answer: that depends.
If I left my house because I looked out my window and saw someone getting mugged and ran out to save them, then my violation would be considered reasonable and any sanction against me would likely be minimal. But if I left my house to mug someone else, then my violation would come with a maximum penalty. Why? Because my violation was done with the purpose of committing another crime which makes it far far worse. And it doesn't matter whether I succeeded either, my intentions behind the act of leaving my house is the point.
Same exact thing here. Trump falsified business records. That’s a misdemeanor, but the reason he falsified them matters, and when done to cover up another crime that makes it worse.
I haven’t read the transcripts so I don’t know the entirety the judge’s instructions to the jury but assuming he didn’t actually go through the specific criminal statutes of the federal campaign law at the heart of this or the other two laws on the table, it all makes perfect sense. The law Trump is charged with only requires that the falsification of records be done with the intent to impact the election “through unlawful means”. You do not need to know the specific criminal statute to determine that because the defendant himself didn’t need to know what specific statute it was. Only that Trump was trying to get around the law when he did it, which he obviously was.
i see that the payment to stormy was suppose to be a campain donation, but that's super tenuous. it's like the urakrine thing not disclosing a finanical gain... to call hush money a campaign donation is just stupid.
How is that stupid? Do you even understand the concept of what a campaign donation is?
Any money that is given for the purposes of promoting the campaign is a campaign donation, or as it is often stated “anything of value” to the campaign. The legal definitions used are intentionally vague because there is no way to know when crafting such laws what would be of value to any political campaign.
Establishing that the Stormy Daniels payment was in fact a campaign contribution was half the trial. That’s why they brought in David Pecker to establish that Trump was heavily involved in the catch and kill scheme which was all about the campaign. That’s why they brought in Hope Hicks to establish the campaign’s view of the threat the Stormy deal posed to the campaign. And ironically, Trump’s own defense gave the prosecution ammo in their closing when they argued that the Stormy allegations were actually public for a long time. Yes they were, and Trump never cared about them until he decided to run for president. And then there’s the timing of this payment.
There is no reasonable case to be made that this was anything other than a campaign contribution.
you're just too bias to think objectively.
The tell of someone who is too biased to think objectively is when they purport to be asking questions in search of a better understanding but instead of ending each post with follow up questions, just accuse everyone else of hopeless bias because they failed to change your mind in one post.
