Posted on 05/17/2024 5:19:53 AM PDT by Rummyfan
I USUALLY avoid MSM news like the plague, but was driving listening to Classic FM the other day when one of their bulletins came on. Listening to it made me realise just how badly the British public are being misinformed about Donald Trump’s so-called hush money trial.
Let’s backtrack.
Ask yourself, what crime is it that Trump is being accused of committing?
Paying hush money? No, this is not a crime. Indeed Non Disclosure Agreements, NDAs, are actually legally binding agreements, and are not illegal in any way.
Keeping the payments secret? No, that is the whole purpose of an NDA.
Recording the payments in his company’s accounts as ‘legal expenses’? No, even if they were wrongly classified (which they weren’t), such a bookkeeping error in the US would be only a misdemeanour, not a felony, for which the Statute of Limitations expired years ago.
Not declaring it as a campaign expense during the 2016 election? No, that would be a federal offence, which a New York court would have no jurisdiction over.
So just what is the crime? Curiously, the prosecution have not even announced what it is that they are trying Trump for! This would appear to be unheard of in any court of law, either here or in the US.
Legal experts in the US are all over this case, pointing out these discrepancies and criticising the prosecution. Yet here in the UK I have not come across any of this. Instead the media pretends it is all a serious legal case and that Trump is obviously guilty, and then proceeds to salivate over the latest (irrelevant) tittle-tattle emanating from Stormy Daniels or Michael Cohen.
(Excerpt) Read more at conservativewoman.co.uk ...
Josef K. “The Trial” - Franz Kafka
Yeah, well - I’m done with their phony “justice” system.
Is this really true?
It’s a blog.
Why not post the whole thing right here?
What’s that old saying about boxes, the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box and the ammo box? The first three are gone.
Yup
175.10 ???
Just goes to show that the five-eyes are actually one.
Well, the NY courts could prosecute under the theory that the hush money payments were a campaign finance violation - which indeed is their theory of the case, BUT
A) This has already been tried in the federal courts and was decisively shot down by the US Supreme Court. They tried to prosecute Jonathan Edwards on this legal theory and the SCOTUS ruled 9-0 that it is not a campaign finance violation. You can spend as much of your money as you want to on your campaign. It is your first amendment right to do so. There is no limit.
and B) Even if the SCOTUS had ruled the opposite, the prosecution's theory is that this was for the 2016 election....yet the payment for the NDA did not happen until 2017 - AFTER the election had already happened. So how could it have influenced the 2016 election....even if that were a campaign finance violation which it is not.
C) There is also the problem that this selective prosecution violations the equal protections clause of the 14th amendment. This DA expressly campaigned by telling voters he would get Trump at all costs. Yes. Its literally right there out in the open in his public comments while campaigning. Pursuant to that unconstitutional end, he revived what was at best a misdemeanor case on which the statute of limitations had long run on an obviously invalid theory of the case.
Yes. They have not specified the crime that they claim the payments are intended to support, nor what the correct payment code should be. They have implied some innuendo - most of which is also legal - but they have not cited any underlying crime. AG Bragg has actually directly said that by the law he is using he doesn’t have to, and the judge has let him get away with that.
The BBC is very biased. They moved to the left about 30 years ago. In their coverage of U.S. politics, you will rarely see anything critical of Biden or any other democrat. In contrast, there is non-stop sniping at Republicans. In their reporting on the Trump trials, they do not even mention that half of all Americans think the trials are politically motivated.
The only crime going on is the trial.
Judge should have stopped this long ago. But, we have Leftist activists permeating all forms of our justice system and breaking every and all judicial norms.
So just what is the crime? Curiously, the prosecution have not even announced what it is that they are trying Trump for! This would appear to be unheard of in any court of law, either here or in the US.
Is this really true?
Not really. The prosecution identified four statutes that could be the underlying crime. In Trump’s motion to dismiss, the judge threw out one of them. But they prosecution never to my knowledge exactly which one of the three they were intending to prove.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.