5/30 ruling against Trump

[JustWinBaby]

(05-31-2024, 05:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You either didn't read the article or you didn't understand what you read.  

By the way, the factset is almost indistinguishable from Hillary Clinton.  A lawfirm paid, $3M I think in total, for the oppo research we all know as "The Dossier".  It was billed as legal fees to the Clinton campaign.  As with Trump, the FEC declined to pursue charges.  Instead, they fined Hillary and the DNC like $100k.  And while we're on the subject, the social media and "30 former intelligence officials" attempting to quash and spin Hunter's laptop was clearly an illegal campaign contribution, notwithstanding this Trump case.

So I'll wait with baited breath for the upcoming charges against Clinton.  Guess he should have hired her lawyers instead of Cohen - "only the best people!" LOL.

My other issue is the NDA is not illegal, and if Trump had simply paid out of his own pocket I don't think there is a chargeable crime, even for a NY prosecutor.  But the whole point of an NDA is secrecy and anonymity, and it can be difficult to pursue recourse assuming you can even definitively prove the source of a leak.  Which is why they use pseudonyms.

Also, not making a legal argument just a practical observation....These business records are PRIVATE.  IRS audits are PRIVATE.  So we really are talking about, yet again, a PROCESS crime.  So I struggle to understand where the intent, irrespective of whether Trump had knowledge of it, was to commit a "felony" when a legal NDA is never public regardless of the bookkeeping.  Maybe I missed an explanation somewhere, but I don't see how the falsification of business records is election interference by concealing records that were never public to begin with.