Here is the smoking gun evidence in the hush money trial

See link for an explanation by the DA.

 

You don't have a ****ing clue. Do you?...lol

Of course the DA is going to say he is in the right!!

 

You don't have a ****ing clue. Do you? Lol

He laid out the explanation correctly, so I didn't need to take (waste) the time explaining it to you. You can now levy your objections to the law he related, with citations as he provided.

 

Did he explain how he can charge a Federal felony that only the Federal Elections Commission can enforce?

 

Tell me you didn't listen to his actual explanation, or read mine, without saying so.

He's not charging a federal felony, and in fact doesn't have to. Do cite the law otherwise.

 

The smoking gun evidence is the previous DA who tried and tried to charge Trump but ultimately realized he couldn't and then Alvin Bragg deciding he was going to do it anyway, proving the witch hunt against Trump.

 

I tend to agree. However, he would have been accused of not following DoJ guidelines and the whole report would have been thrown out. it's possible we would have known nothing about it. But he SHOULD have avoided all the evasive answers he gave when he was deposed by Congress.

 

He's saying Trump violated Federal campaign finance laws.

He's claiming that the catch-and-kill scheme is a crime.

He also (absurdly) claimed Trump violated state election laws.

It's all bullshit.

 

So the misdemeanor needs a second crime.... what is the crime they are charging?

 

Again: They don't HAVE to CHARGE IT. They simply have to have a jury determine that his actions here were in furtherance of that end. That doesn't mean he gets tagged for the federal crime in state court.
Go listen to the DA's explanation again.

 

Cooking the books to hide a hush money payment would violate NY law, as he has described.


I'm not noting any citation to extant law to support your position here "counsel". You gonna cough that **** up or just keep bloviating uselessly?

 

The AG simply can't throw it away, it is the result of a long investigation paid for by taxpayers. This is no run of the mill report, it's special report, long awaited by both the public and by Congress on Russian Interference and Trump obstruction of justice (the latter being a bonus to the objective of the report though Mueller didn't find enough evidence which he stated he would be unable to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt as to Trump's conspiring with Russians which was one of the objectives). Congress would want a summary, and if they were not satisfied by it's contents, could subpoena the report. The AG could still make redactions. There could be a tug of war on it. Moreover, he would be subpoenaed (both AG and SC) to testify before congress and they would be definitely interested on the conflict between the SC and the AG--they would try to get to the bottom of it so to make their own conclusions.

 

I listen/read mostly to conservative media and he's asking because they've told/convinced/conditioned him to think that Trump is being charged with federal crimes like election interference and/or campaign finance (which he's not). They do it to confuse them of the facts.

 

LOCK HIM UP!
I want to see the carnage!
You people don't realize that you are making a cheating, fat, McDonald's eating cheater look like MOTHER TERESA
Even Rachel Maddow said "he looks old and tired"
That doesn't make people NOT LIKE someone
You people are FAILING

 

A misdemeanor that the statute of limitations has expired on.

 

What underlying crime is he being charged with? The "illegal activity" that make the misdemeanor charges into felonies.

 

All 34 counts right here:
https://www.scribd.com/document/636099588/Donald-J-Trump-Indictment

 

From Mueller's perspective, the easiest way to avoid that mess was to just follow the guidelines and see where the investigation led him. Which is what he did. Again: I think his failure was in not being more assertive in his deposition before Congress.

 

Those are the misdemeanor charges.

Explain the concealed crime that makes them felonies. I expect catastrophic failure, but it's only fair to give you the opportunity to try.

 

You don't think he flinched from the historic implication of charging a former US President, and all the heat from the world spotlight which would ensue, if he had ignored the OLC memo and sent the report to the AG advising the opening of a grand jury?

I do.

But, I'll cut him some slack, given the old saying, 'Before you judge a man, walk a mile in his shoes, so I might have flinched, myself, I mean, it's a tall ask for any soul.

 

Whoopsie…. They are moving the goalposts…
and NOW they are trying to use yet another vague NY misdemeanor (which again has run out the statute of limitations) to create a second crime….which he has not been charged with in the indictment.

 

I don't think he would have been able to do that. He would have been fired for exceeding his mandate. He would be fighting his own firing before he could prosecute anybody. Better to prosecute all he could under his mandate and leave the results so the next AG could continue by appointing ANOTHER Special Counsel with a broader mandate.

I think Merrick Garland flinched when he didn't continue the investigation. THAT was very disappointing. To this day, I have not understood why he didn't. Some naive attempt to "heal the wounds" I guess..... That was a pretty absurd thing to do, if that was why.

 

Again: They don't HAVE to charge it, they simply have to have a jury agree that the book cooking was done in furtherance of such an act.
Go listen to the explanation again, no goal posts have been moved.
You keep erecting a strawman, and people keep correcting you.

If you disagree: CITE THE LAW that proves the da wrong.

 

A felony when used in furtherance of another criminal act, as is charged here and open to the jury to determine the facts on.
As already explained. I notice you haven't cited any law in your favor. Why is that?

 

What law are you asking for?