"Must the out-of-pocket settlement for that fender-bender be disclosed, since it conceals a candidate's bad driving skills? How about plastic surgery, since it masks the true ravages of age or health?... The Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016 paid an opposition-research firm to produce a bogus dossier that accused Mr. Trump of collusion with Russia. They fed it to the FBI and leaked it to the public prior to the 2016 election. The DNC and Mrs. Clinton's campaign reported the expenditures to the Federal Election Commission but concealed their true nature by describing the payments as 'legal' services, as Mr. Trump did with his NDA. The FEC fined them for the deception, but under Mr. Bragg's theory it should count as criminal election interference."
Writes Kimberley A. Strassel, in "Alvin Bragg and Democrats' 'Election Interference'/His theory in New York state’s Trump case is crazier than you think" (Wall Street Journal).
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२२ टिप्पण्या:
"what other candidate concealments — of a lawful and entirely personal nature — must be reported?"
Depends. (D) or (R)?
"under Mr. Bragg's theory it should count as criminal election interference."
Why? (D), so no.
"His theory in New York state’s Trump case is crazier than you think"
Why? It works perfectly well to achieve its intended goals.
"How about plastic surgery, since it masks the true ravages of age or health?"
How about a POTUS that is clearly under the influence of Razadyne?
Althouse theme for the day: Democrats leaping before they look.
Bill Clinton and buddy of Jeffrey Epstein says "There but for the grace of God go I."
Everybody but the dumbest Democrats - I know. I know. That takes in a lot of territory - is aware that Bragg's case is bullshit. The pretext that it is not is the alarming part.
This logical position only applies if there is equal justice under the law.
I still expect a unanimous conviction. If there are one or two conscientious members of the jury who hesitate, they will surely be threatened with exposure by the other sanpaku jurors, or by Men in Black who hand them an envelope in the corridor and whisper words of plomo o plata.
There is a history for the federal campaign finance violations that the NY prosecutor is trying to use.
It was used against John Edwards. Though that ended up with one not guilty verdict, and a bunch of mistrials
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards_extramarital_affair#Legal_proceedings
What about all the rehab bills for spoiled brat political kids?
i like Kimberly.. But she makes a Glaring Mistake..
Rules and Laws exist to HELP democrats.. NOT hurt them.
NO Rule or Law can be used against a democrat. Rules and Laws can ONLY be used against republicans
Democrat = dishonest. We've known this for awhile now. If you're being prosecuted under a legal "theory" you're not being prosecuted under the law.
I can't imagine the amount of NDAs people have signed with the Clintons. An NDA with the Clintons is signed in blood, under the fear of death if broken.
It is an extremely good argument if the rule of law is in effect. If the rule of law is not in effect, which for Trump it is clearly not, then it is meaningless, but then again when rule of law has been dispensed pretty much all legal arguments are dispensed. Just another pillar of civilization to be knocked down for the greater good. The building does not need any pillars to remain standing, right?
John Edwards case has several distinguishing factors, as well as some similarities to the Trump case.
In the Edwards case, Rielle Hunter was at one time employed by the Edwards campaign and during the scandal the Edwards campaign finance chair, Fred Baron, said he had provided money to Hunter though claiming it was done without Edwards' knowledge. Crucially, Andrew Young, a former official with the Edwards campaign who originally claimed to have fathered the child, solicited funds for Hunter from a known Edwards campaign donor. Neither Daniels nor Michael Cohen had that kind of connection to the Trump campaign. Hunter was never part of any legal agreement regarding disclosure of her relationship with Edwards.
The main similarity to the Edwards case is that in neither case did the FEC issue a civil citation for the payments and in the Trump case, even though the DOJ had the Edwards precedent of seeking an indictment, chose not to pursue criminal charges.
Strassel still plugging away with the journalism, I see. Good on her. Seems so quaint, though. Bless her heart…
"There is a history for the federal campaign finance violations that the NY prosecutor is trying to use."
Well, no. Edwards and his aides used campaign funds to pay Rielle Hunter off. Trump did not. Had Edwards not used campaign funds, the DoJ would never have indicted him.
Wake me up when the Congressional NDA fund has its payments made public. Until then, FO.
"The Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016 paid an opposition-research firm to produce a bogus dossier that accused Mr. Trump of collusion with Russia. They fed it to the FBI and leaked it to the public prior to the 2016 election. The DNC and Mrs. Clinton's campaign reported the expenditures to the Federal Election Commission but concealed their true nature by describing the payments as 'legal' services, as Mr. Trump did with his NDA. The FEC fined them for the deception, but under Mr. Bragg's theory it should count as criminal election interference.""
What's to stop a red state AG from bringing a case against Hillary and her assorted henchmen? It's far, far worse than what Trump purportedly did.
Wouldn't it be interesting if Avenatti testified that he was paid by a Democrat to bring Stormy Daniels allegations to court?
is it appropriate to bring up Stormy's stormy reputation to impugn Trump character?
is Stormy not entitle to fairytale?
How about teh LA Times suppressing the video of Barack Obama's speech at a dinner for some Jew hating "Professor" at Columbia?
Or hey, how about all those "press" organizations that worked to suppress teh Hunter Biden laptop story before teh 2020 election?
Isn't that "illegal election interference", too?
The blah-blah of shyster-speech and lawyerly wheel spinning posted above to oneside, the Left now has built a state within a state inside of America. They control 100% of the politics, media, courts, and the governance machinery there. There is simply no way to oppose or rein them in on this. They can and will litigate pre-1964 American society to extinction with their slow but steely python squeeze us using the legal system. Tell me I'm wrong.
Wasn't I saying something like there here yesterday?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा