it’s money laundering on the first order.
Based on what we know, there's no underlying crime. There can't be money laundering. Just because it is politically distasteful doesn't mean it's a crime.
q-clinton paid a baker for a loaf of bread.
The baker paid a miller for flour.
The miller paid a farmer for wheat.
MONEY LAUNDERING ON THE FIRST ORDER
Is illegal to pay foreigners and to hide campaign expenses. That’s the underlying crime. They used lawyers to hide it... Hence the laundering.
It’s collusion. Not on the statute books, but here is an overt act in furtherance of something nefarious, and therefore a conspiracy, and a cover-up, which is a sure sign of guilt. There must be an actual crime in there somewhere. Something about helping foreign powers interfere in US elections? Isn’t that espionage of some sort? The Dems have been shouting it to the stars for a year, so they can’t now say that it’s not a crime, just because they’re the guilty party. But their lawyers can say it to the judge. So what statute was violated? Any federal practice attorneys out there?