The Manhattan DA’s Charges and Trump’s Defenses: A Detailed Preview

Ahhh he is not charged with tax evasion and the falsifying records statute of limitations ran out FIVE YEARS ago. The FEC didn't charge him with a campaign finance charge. What Cohen did on his taxes is Cohen's act Trump was not charged with anything by the DOJ or FEC.

Trump did pay her off and remained quiet. It was she who broke the agreement and in a does of irony was found liable for $122,000 in Trumps legal expenses along side the settlement she has already paid him.

Trump Gets Good News About Stormy Daniels Case While in Court

.....On Tuesday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled Daniels would be required to compensate Trump roughly $122,000 in additional attorney fees, piling onto the hundreds of thousands she'd already owed him from previous proceedings....
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-gets-good-news-about-stormy-daniels-case-while-court-1792568

She was the one who engaged in extortion and contract violations and then a phony lawsuit.

Braggs indictment is solely on the reporting of the money and hinges on some "other crime". What is this "other crime"?

 

As John Bolton brought up on CNN today

The Federal Election Campaign Act 1971

52 USC 30143: State laws affected

§30143. State laws affected
(a) In general
Subject to subsection (b), the provisions of this Act, and of rules prescribed under this Act, supersede and preempt any provision of State law with respect to election to Federal office.
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml...lim-title52-section30143&num=0&edition=prelim

Bragg cannot enforce a state law in a federal election nor can he prosecute a federal law.

 

Bragg said: “New York state election law... makes it a crime to conspire to promote a candidacy by unlawful means,”

He committed crimes to promote his candidacy. Apparently, that is a felony in New York. The second crime is using crimes to promote a candidacy.

So I guess if I remove my political opponents campaign signs from all the lawns in New York, I could go from misdemeanor theft and criminal mischief to a felony. I don't think it's actually that unclear, assuming this law exists.

 

I don't trust Bolton on anything at all, but what you've posted only tells me that if there's a conflict, federal law supercedes state law. It doesn't say state law can never involve federal elections. State laws can be stricter than federal laws unless the federal law mandates it not to be. So Bolton would also have to show exactly how federal law supersedes this state law.

Maybe he's right, but the proof is not shown by what he said or what you posted. Maybe there's a court decision on it or more explicit language. Maybe I am not understanding the legal use of "preempt"

He cannot prosecute a federal law, but he could probably reference it as a "crime" for the purpose of promoting an election, which is the state law violated in New York

 

See my response above. New York has no jurisdiction in a federal election. And the fact that for such to be a campaign finance violation it would have had to have been made SOLELY for the purpose of the campaign regardless of any other reason. Of course we know he did not want his wife to find out and of course the public embarrassment. Neither the DOJ or FEC found it was a illegal campaign violation so Bragg has no crime for which he has been convicted of or even charged with.

 

Great...
Then, it gets thrown out...Cool...

 

I cited you THE LAW. Federal Statute. YES that is exactly what it says. States do not have jurisdiction in federal elections. That would make for mass confusions and complexity if candidates had to comply with 51 separate sets of election laws.

 

A very good chance. Bragg had an obligation to inform the person being charged exactly what they are being charged with doing. He alleged this "some other crime" and not once said what IS this some other crime that he will have to defend himself against. And again Bragg cannot prosecute him for a federal crimes. What he is essentially doing is being prosecutor/judge/jury and declaring a private citizen is guilty of crime without a trial by jury for it. How is that not an attack on, as your side likes to put it, an attack on our democracy? I call it an attack on our constitution and our federal republic.

 

You didn't cite it in a way that prove that case, unless I'm not understanding the use of the word preempt here. It doesn't make any sense to say that anything involving a federal election can never be prosecuted by a state. That sounds crazy. Stealing a ballot in any state that has any federal election on it is for the FBI only?

 

It speaks for itself, states have no jurisdiction in federal elections, the financing of them is ALL and SOLELY a matter of FEDERAL law. It's called separation of powers which permeates our legal system.

 

Lol no it's not separation of powers (division of judicial, legislative, and federal), more like supremacy clause. It's nothing new that federal law, in general, overrules state law. I haven't seen clear evidence that this particular federal law does more than that, or specifically overrides this state law. The text cited just seems to say state law is overruled by this federal law. Well, without more info on exactly what that federal law says, it doesn't tell me anything more than the supremacy clause which is always present anyway.

We may not know for a while. Even if this judge doesn't think so, it may eventually get up to scotus, 4 of whom will do whatever Trump wants, so it'll be up to Roberts.

 

Yep. Exactly what is being alleged...good call.

 

Sad, why not nominate someone who isn’t a sexual degenerate next time?

 

You voted for Biden... LMAO

 

What do you think a supremacy clause invokes?

What don't you get here

" supersede and preempt any provision of State law with respect to election to Federal office."

Do I need to define supersede and preempt for you? The Federal Election Campaign Act 1971 spells out the laws governing campaign finance for President and Vice President what do think it does?

Under what provision of that law was Trump convicted and when did that occur? When has he even been charged with such a crime and by whom?

 

That’s my understanding. The fraudulent records were to cover up the illegal contribution by cohen

 

Heck the Dems would have nominated Clinton again. And have you seen Biden around little girls and read about his taking showers with his young daughters?

 

Oh, is that what it is now?...lol.

How can it be a contribution if Cohen was reimbursed?

 

The payment was an illegal contribution and it’s not one of the counts

 

He wasn’t. Cohen was, and convicted.

 

If Cohan contributed the money to Stormy what was she campaigning for?

 

A faithfully married man for decades now. Only 2 divorced presidents in history were republicans.

 

Save me your sick fantasies.

 

We'll, he was convicted of an in-kind donation above the legal limit.

My question to them is: how could it be a donation if Cohen was reimbursed?

 

Yeah, Bill Clinton was faithful, too... LMAO.