Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

[Former] FEC Commissioner Blasts Trump Conviction, Debunks Claim He Violated Election Law
The Politics Brief ^ | 6/1/24 | staff

Posted on 06/01/2024 5:44:43 PM PDT by CFW

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-40 last
To: traderrob6

Bookmark

Great read!


21 posted on 06/01/2024 8:31:26 PM PDT by AUsome Joy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: traderrob6

Bookmark

Great read!


22 posted on 06/01/2024 8:31:27 PM PDT by AUsome Joy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: traderrob6

Bookmark

Great read!


23 posted on 06/01/2024 8:31:29 PM PDT by AUsome Joy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GMThrust

“The tough guy acting gets old real quick”

That’s true for so many actors (most?). They get typecast and you forever see them just one way.


24 posted on 06/01/2024 8:34:38 PM PDT by ProtectOurFreedom (“When exposing a crime is treated like a crime, you are being ruled by criminals” – Edward Snowden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: CFW

Great read!

Bookmark.


25 posted on 06/01/2024 8:35:58 PM PDT by AUsome Joy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CFW

I will never go to NYC. However it is dangerous there because of liberal crime. I wonder if those involved in prosecuting Trump will be victims of violence that ends their miserable lives? It seems in NYC you can rape a woman and get a court date over a year from now. You can kill a person and be let loose on bond/bail back out on the steet overnight.

Remember the tasteless old jokes about running over pedestrians in cross walk and getting bonus points to help with points on your license, how the pregnant ones get you extra points.... Maybe the people who go after the Judge and Bragg if successful become modern day Crime Heros.

I know I’ll a buy the person a drink, or two depending on what he accomplishes;)


26 posted on 06/01/2024 9:23:14 PM PDT by Jumper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

Amen!!!!


27 posted on 06/01/2024 9:44:27 PM PDT by pollywog (" O thou who changest not....ABIDE with me")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

The FEC is basically bi-partisan. There was no way the Republicans were going to support investigating and prosecuting Trump for a federal crime…as they shouldn’t.

It wasn’t a federal law Trump violated. It was a state law.


28 posted on 06/01/2024 9:52:56 PM PDT by WarANDPiece
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: CFW

It was not a court of law. It was a court of lawfare.


29 posted on 06/02/2024 2:51:31 AM PDT by equaviator (If 60 is the new 40, then 35 must be the new 15.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maro

This puzzles me. (Trying to read trial transcripts).
the DA alleged that the falsification of business records was committed “with intent to commit another crime.”
There did not need to be a conviction of the predicate crime? Wasn’t Trump presumed innocent until proven guilty of the predicate crime? Or was “the intent to commit another crime” (mens rea?) enough to elevate this to a felony?


30 posted on 06/02/2024 4:08:13 AM PDT by griswold3 (Truth, Beauty and Goodness. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: griswold3

I would argue that the other crime has to be evidenced by a conviction. But even if that is not true, the prosecution has to prove to 12 jurors that the defendant intended to commit the crime. A vague intent to commit some crime is not sufficient.


31 posted on 06/02/2024 4:43:38 AM PDT by maro (MAGA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: griswold3

I would argue that the other crime has to be evidenced by a conviction. But even if that is not true, the prosecution has to prove to 12 jurors that the defendant intended to commit the crime. A vague intent to commit some crime is not sufficient.


32 posted on 06/02/2024 4:43:43 AM PDT by maro (MAGA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: griswold3

I would argue that the other crime has to be evidenced by a conviction. But even if that is not true, the prosecution has to prove to 12 jurors that the defendant intended to commit the crime. A vague intent to commit some crime is not sufficient.


33 posted on 06/02/2024 4:43:55 AM PDT by maro (MAGA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: griswold3

I would argue that the other crime has to be evidenced by a conviction. But even if that is not true, the prosecution has to prove to 12 jurors that the defendant intended to commit the crime. A vague intent to commit some crime is not sufficient.


34 posted on 06/02/2024 4:44:02 AM PDT by maro (MAGA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: maro
A vague intent to commit some crime is not sufficient.

I agree, but the "legal experts" are telling us that an appeal based on that will fail. As Dickens wrote, "If the law supposes that, the law is a ass." Either defendants, including Trump, have a right to due process, or the legal profession has lost its way.

35 posted on 06/02/2024 5:11:23 AM PDT by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas (Re-imagine the media!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: CFW

Smith clarifies many aspects. A few linger:

1. If you make a legal payment from personal funds, do you even need to record what is? Can you record it anything you want?

2. Per Chevron deference, the FEC is the authority over what is campaign violation? And not a court?


36 posted on 06/02/2024 8:40:47 AM PDT by stateofit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WarANDPiece

Trump violated no law.

The NY claims depended on there being some other crime that Trump was trying to conceal. What crime? To this day, nobody can say, but one that was suggested by the prosecutors was FECA violations, which is FEDERAL.


37 posted on 06/02/2024 10:42:21 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

He was convicted of a state law. Not Federal.


38 posted on 06/02/2024 6:31:02 PM PDT by WarANDPiece
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: WarANDPiece

To be convicted of violating the state law he also had to be guilty of some other law. Nobody knows what law that was, but both tax law and election laws mentioned as possibilities are federal laws.

In fact, to even be CHARGED with violating the state law he had to be guilty of intending to commit or conceal some other crime. Bragg should have had to claim the specific crime that allowed him to bring expired non-felonies as if they were felonies, to the grand jury and to Merchan who ran the grand jury. Did he? That should have been the first thing Merchan required.

Trump was guilty of nothing. The jury, prosecutors, and judge, however.... are a different story.


39 posted on 06/02/2024 6:58:42 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: CFW

Bookmark.


40 posted on 06/02/2024 11:29:24 PM PDT by jonrick46 (Leftniks chase illusions of motherships at the end of the pier.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-40 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson