There is no shortage of examples whereby NY prosecuted people......

How am I wrong?

 

Who's Clinton?

Wonderful! That means we're on the same page.

Who's Hillary?

Never mind.... If we agree that Trump deserves to go to prison, my task is done...

 

In this case, the judge ruled that the time limit was not violated primarily because an executive order during covid extended all deadlines by a bit over a year. I don't know about ongoing criminal enterprise, but I understand some of the business records were in 2017. Other arguments were made, but this seems to be the central reason they were allowed about 6 years instead of 5. Here is a copy of the ruling in this case (see page 22), along with explanations per the judge: Just-Security-NY-2016-Election-Interference-Trump-Clearinghouse-—-Order-on-Trump-omnibus-motions-to-dimiss-Feb.132024-e-filedFeb.-15.pdf (justsecurity.org)

There are plenty of avenues around SoL in this case though. Even Trump being president would make him ineligible for prosecution during the time in office. For being out of state, is what the prosecution argued, but sitting presidents are also not prosecuted while in office in general.

 

Yeah... thousands "accidently" put under attorneys fees what should have gone into the "Porn Star Hush Money for Political campaign expense" column.

Oops!

 

Bravo!
Well played!
You've shown that you agree with my statement.

What a republican does is criminal.
What a democrat does is politics.

Good job.

 

We have demonstrated that what Trump did is criminal. If you have any similar evidence against a democrat, by all means, open a thread....

I will bet that you don't have any such evidence and that, for that reason, you WON'T open a thread.

So...Thanks for playing...

 

The question becomes; is Hillary really that clean, or are her persecutors that incompetent?
I submit that the answer is
YES.

 

The problem is the crime is a misdemeanor unless you can tie it to some other crime which said crime is not even named beyond election interference of which there is no such federal crime. Other than that the idea that calling payments to a lawyer legal fees regardless of what legal action you are paying for constitutes fraud is in and of itself absurd. A politically honest judge would have already told brag to go pound sand and quit wasting the people's. NDAs are legal whether they are done by people running for office or not.

 

No you have demonstrated that when it comes to Trump you are almost entirely irrational.

 

There is no such account within accounting standards. When your lawyer handles an expense for you he charges you for that, you pay your lawyer, and account for it under legal expense. At least that is what happens in 99.99% of the cases -- everybody except Trump who is in the crosshairs of the judicial system.

 

That's not what happened, though. The attorney, the accountant and Trump conspired to pay money to a porn star and influence the elections AND exceeded campaign contribution limits. In the course of which they also conspired to violate tax laws.

If you are applying for the job of President, more SHOULD be demanded of you than if you're applying for the job of barista at the local Starbucks. MAGAs claim it should be the other way around.

 

If you researched just a bit longer you might get some facts straight. There is no such thing as a conspiracy to execute a perfectly legal non disclosure agreement to help one's campaign. AND there is no limit on how much Trump can put into his campaign. How do you claim there was any violation of tax laws, let alone a conspiracy to do so. (I assume you aren't referring to Cohen's unrelated tax fraud, but I might be wrong.)

 

Falsifying business records is NOT "perfectly legal" in New York. If you had done YOUR research, you might have known that.

Trump didn't make the contribution. David Pecker did. Trump conspired to hide it.

I don't claim ANYTHING. Trump's ENDICTMENT does the claiming. I'm only explaining what it claims.

 

Absurd? Here is the evidence, it was given in the opening argument:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-gun-evidence-in-the-hush-money-trial.618265/