• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Prosecutors unlikely to charge Trump Org executives

SLC said:
You tinfoil hat is way to tight.
Click to expand...

And your acceptance of corruption at the highest level is why the GOP is such a big problem these days.
 
PeteEU said:
And your acceptance of corruption at the highest level is why the GOP is such a big problem these days.
Click to expand...
its only a problem for liberals that want to scheme their way to power. Which is most of them
 
More TDS from the evil democrats. Their blood lust will not be satisfied. No crimes, no collusion, no conspiracies, no impeachment. Enjoy the reelection mother****ers.
 
PeteEU said:
Barr believes the President can do whatever he wants. He has stated this publicly before and was one of the Cheney men that pushed this policy during Bush Jr. I have no doubt that he would do anything to protect Trump from any investigation if he could... why? Because he did it with the Mueller report.
Click to expand...
And he did it for papa Bush.
 
MovingPictures said:
Trump Org executives unlikely to be charged, sources say - CNNPolitics

This is very surprising to me. All of the evidence against the Trump Org was so damning. From the checks to the recorded calls, it appeared to be a slam dunk case. I'm going to guess that the SDNY decided that waiting to indict Trump in 2021 just wasn't practical, and would be too political for the office.

What this ought to tell Democrats is that investigating Trump to 'get' him is pointless. He's a rich elitist with the power of the Presidency, who for all pratical purposes IS above the law right now. The only way to end this is to go and beat him at the polls, and just send him back to NY.
Click to expand...

Pursuing indictments, at this juncture, will put the SDNY in conflict with the President's attorney, pseudo-AG Barr. Perhaps they feel the pursuit of other cases will be more fruitful and less confrontational. Back burner this, and wait another 557 days. It would be hard to pardon co-conspirators if they haven't been charged yet.
 
sjmay said:
It's not a violation BECAUSE of the DUAL purpose......is it really this hard to understand?
Click to expand...

You have that backwards, but, no matter.
 
sjmay said:
Except....it's not.....you are literally ignoring what a former chair of the FEC said about campaign finance law.

The only way that it is a violation of the campaign finance is if it's SOLE PURPOSE, is to help the campaign....

Since you clearly admit that it had a DUAL purpose.....it's not a violation.
Click to expand...

That is this particular former Republican Commissioner's opinion, not the one that obtains with the FEC, or in the case law.
 
sjmay said:
I'm not sure you understand what SOLE purpose means,

Let me ask you this, do you think, if Donald Trump was not running for President, that he would have paid off Stormy Daniels to hide the affair from Melania?
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. He might have even reveled in it.
 
haymarket said:
The report states very clearly the different ways Trump obstructed justice several times and tells how the law and each part of it was broken by Trump.
Click to expand...

When was the trial...I missed it....:(
 
NWRatCon said:
That is this particular former Republican Commissioner's opinion, not the one that obtains with the FEC, or in the case law.
Click to expand...

Do you have a link to the conclusion of the FEC on that? I'd like to read it....
 
NWRatCon said:
That is this particular former Republican Commissioner's opinion, not the one that obtains with the FEC, or in the case law.
Click to expand...
Remember John Edwards. He had an extramarital affair and a love child that he tried to hide with about a million dollars donated by a elderly female donor. Clearly the donation was to hide the affair and baby from the voting public but it also was to prevent his wife, who was dying at the time, from finding out. It clearly had a dual purpose. They did prosecute Edwards and he was ruled not guilty. Again Professor Smith says campaign donations have to have the sole purpose of benefiting the campaign.
 
Last edited:
sjmay said:
Not in this instance, no.

Because the LAW STATES, that the "violation" has to be of a SOLE PURPOSE for the campaign.

If you can't wrap your head around that, I don't think anyone can help you any further. Just put your head back in the sand.
Click to expand...

My friend, you keep saying that, but the law doesn't actually say that: FEC FAQs contributions;52 U.S. Code § 30101. Definitions;
§ 100.52 Gift, subscription, loan, advance or deposit of money.
a. A gift, subscription, loan (except for a loan made in accordance with 11 CFR 100.82 and 100.83), advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office is a contribution.
Click to expand...
(Emphasis mine)

In short, your interpretation does not comport with the law or regulations.
 
PeteEU said:
And your acceptance of corruption at the highest level is why the GOP is such a big problem these days.
Click to expand...
We will see who gets indicted after Durham finishes his investigation. Mueller spent over 30 million dollars investigating Trump and could not identify a crime.
 
NWRatCon said:
Pursuing indictments, at this juncture, will put the SDNY in conflict with the President's attorney, pseudo-AG Barr. Perhaps they feel the pursuit of other cases will be more fruitful and less confrontational. Back burner this, and wait another 557 days. It would be hard to pardon co-conspirators if they haven't been charged yet.
Click to expand...
Why bother with 557 days when Trump has nine years to issue the pardon? You don't seriously think he's going to lose, do you?
 
SLC said:
That isn't the definition of an in kind campaign contribution. There are a whole separate set of rules for them.
Click to expand...
I was going to say.

Money is fungible. This contribution was not.
 
Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses (DOJ Manual).
As amended, FECA applies to virtually all financial transactions that impact upon, directly or indirectly, the election of candidates for federal office, that is, candidates for President or Vice President or for the United States Senate or House of Representatives. FECA reaches a wide range of communications aimed at influencing the public with respect to issues that are closely identified with federal candidates, referred to in the law as “electioneering communications.”
Click to expand...
The interpretation provided does not jibe, in other words, with either the FEC's own interpretations or that of the DoJ. This is the same provision that resulted in the prosecution of John Edwards in 2012, and his case was even more tangential. Although I am loathe to cite to such a miscreant as this, Heritage Foundation published this analysis in 2012: Why John Edwards is Guilty. Not so long ago.
 
NWRatCon said:
Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses (DOJ Manual).The interpretation provided does not jibe, in other words, with either the FEC's own interpretations or that of the DoJ. This is the same provision that resulted in the prosecution of John Edwards in 2012, and his case was even more tangential. Although I am loathe to cite to such a miscreant as this, Heritage Foundation published this analysis in 2012: Why John Edwards is Guilty. Not so long ago.
Click to expand...

Except, wasnt Edward's found not guilty?
 
sjmay said:
Except, wasnt Edward's found not guilty?
Click to expand...

Yes, but that does not obviate the basis for the prosecution, nor did it change the DoJ interpretation of the law. As has been pointed out repeatedly by numerous commentators Trump's violation is much more obvious than Edwards' was, based upon timing and contemporaneous records. Professor Smith's views represent his personal predilections and not the considered views of those actually applying the law. (Bradley Smith was, is, and always has been a staunch opponent of campaign finance regulation.)
 
NWRatCon said:
Yes, but that does not obviate the basis for the prosecution, nor did it change the DoJ interpretation of the law. As has been pointed out repeatedly by numerous commentators Trump's violation is much more obvious than Edwards' was, based upon timing and contemporaneous records. Professor Smith's views represent his personal predilections and not the considered views of those actually applying the law. (Bradley Smith was, is, and always has been a staunch opponent of campaign finance regulation.)
Click to expand...

So he was found not guilty for doing the SAME EXACT THING TRUMP DID, charged under the SAME EXACT LAW YOU THINK TRUMP IS GUILTY OF BREAKING.....

Think about that for a minute.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom