There is no need to Pardon.Trump, after a conviction and the GOP land slide Trump can be pardoned by the GOPpresident. He eill never do time, the whole charade is to try to prevent Trump from Running. It will be interesting to see the longbbappeals process while Trump out on bond,and the set up for a Supreme Court review of the politicization of Government office.
It remains preemptive and supercedes state law. Yet some claim the payment itself was. It was done for a variety of reasons therefore not a campaign finance violation and why he was not charged with one and Bragg has no jurisdiction to do so. It had no tax implication.
The part where it says he can pardon crimes against the United States. US = Federal. This ain't rocket surgery, bro.
First Biden will never pardon Trump. He is a puppet for the Trump haters. There is a better chance that he will pardon Hunter, if he is ever convicted of anything. Second, the Nixon pardon ticked me off. Nixon's infraction was not as huge as Watergate, but it had to do with his taxes. In 1970 and '71, Nixon paid income taxes of $1,000 one year and $2.000 the next. The reason was that his lawyer illegally back dated some vice presidential papers that Nixon "donated" to the government. The tax deduction was illegal because the back dating of the papers was illegal. The case was ready to be examined when Ford pardoned Nixon for everything. I have always thought that there was a quid pro quo there. Nixon, as a high income individual, should have paid his income taxes just like everyone else.
Sadly you either did not do any research and looks like you attempted to use alternative “facts” in an attempt to bamboozle us. I lived through Watergate and followed everything about Watergate and the pardoning of Tricky Dicky. Tricky’s tax filing were not what was discussed. It was Watergate. Here is a reminder: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon Ford on September 8, 1974, granting a full and unconditional pardon to Richard Nixon, his predecessor, for any crimes that he might have committed against the United States as president.[1][2] In particular, the pardon covered Nixon's actions during the Watergate scandal. “ If you have proof that the pardon was all about taxes bring it on.
Falsifying business records is not a crime. Influencing an election is not a crime. NY took in more tax revenue from this, they weren't victimized. The argument that Trump and Cohen conspired to pay NY more in taxes shouldn't get you very far in court since NY wasn't victimized. According to the FEC and legal precedent, Trump didn't commit a civil violation of campaign finance law, let alone a criminal one. Even if the NDA were a campaign violation, which it's not, you need to claim that Cohen simply facilitated Trump spending his money own on his campaign otherwise Cohen is solely guilty of the violation. There's no limit to how much Trump can spend on his campaign. So that's not a valid legal argument. Or, if Cohen facilitated the Trump Organization spending money to "influence the election," they're allowed to spend an unlimited amount of money to "influence the election" as well. Then you're going to say, "well there was no retainer and the checks said it was for a retainer." Doesn't matter, falsifying a business expense is not a crime. There's no victim from doing that. "But, but, but, the big bad Orange Stain told them to put in their books that the Cohen payments were for legal expenses." Lawyer fees and NDA settlements are legal expenses. And even if it wasn't, simply falsifying a business expense is not a crime. In short, you continue to not make any sense.
I put yes because it is the right thing to do, but I understand a pardon requires an admission of guilt, so Trump will grind this chump into fine cheese. Remember, conservatives are considered to be the enemy just as China, Russia, Catholics, and parents protesting in loser school districts are.
I understand you believe falsifying business records should not be a crime, but it definitely is, and is a felony in New York State if used to commit another crime. I don’t know much about the tax crime in question, and I’m doubtful on the campaign finance one as you are. The other one, which makes it a crime to promote a candidate via crimes (such as falsifying business records) is a state crime. It seems unlikely that one would be dismissed due to preemption, based upon other cases. Also it’s not just that it was called a retainer with no retainer agreement, it’s that the services were purposely mislabeled as occurring in 2017 to hide the fact that it was to help the 2016 election.
The pardon was NOT about the taxes. It was about Watergate, BUT Nixon got off on the tax issue because Ford pardoned him for everything. It was a blanket pardon. You could call the tax issue, “collateral damage.” Ford probably didn’t realize he was letting Nixon off on the tax issue, but ticked me off. Other people, like my father who had tax issues in the 1950s because of an incompetent accountant, were constantly harassed. It was one more example of the big and influential guys getting off while the “little people” paid. And yes, I have done my research. So I do resent your first line.
No, it's not. The statute is essentially a fraud statute by means of falsifying business records. Falsifying business records on their own isn't even a misdemeanor. It's not a crime. This is why Bragg not specifying the potential fraud victim is problematic. Simply falsifying a record with no harm isn't a crime. There's no charge about "promoting a candidate" to be dismissed. That's just Bragg's whining in his so-called "statement of facts" about nothing relevant. The check description was for a retainer, but nobody was harmed from that. There is no fraud because it gets treated as taxable income that way. The state was paid income taxes on the entire portion which puts them ahead on revenue. It's not a crime to overpay your taxes. They could have said the check was for champagne and the state gets the same amount of tax revenue as they would have by saying it was for an NDA. Thus, no crime. The point of putting retainer on the checks was likely because they wanted to keep the NDA private. They aren't the first ones to do this, but likely the first ones to be charged for it. Fraud must have a victim and that victim must have been harmed or out something.
Let me try to explain this in a different way. I've been saying this for days now and for some reason, my point isn't getting across to others. The penal code says, "with the intent to defraud" someone falsifies a business record. There are five elements for fraud in New York, including damage to the plaintiff. In order for Trump to be guilty there MUST be damage to someone or intent to cause damage to someone. Otherwise, it's a civil matter and not a criminal one. The reason Bragg didn't charge Trump with tax evasion, like they did Cohen, is because they don't have a case on those charges. They've been looking at this for years from every angle trying to figure out how to get him on tax evasion. But, they haven't been able to find the evidence to bring it to trial. That's likely why they're taking such a strong gamble on the campaign violations. At least there they can try to obfuscate the law since there's no precedent to it that a judge and jury would be bound to. In that sense, he can say Trump defrauded the voters. This is likely why he keeps talking about Trump trying to influence the election and non-relevant information in his "statement of facts." He's testing the waters on this angle and trying to get the idea planted.
Nixon never admitted any guilt. Pardons can be issued because the President/Governor believes the person innocent.
Not in every case, and you're ignoring a lot of context. Here's one example: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2513
