a crime would be nice.
describing payment to a lawyer as “legal fees” is not fraud
paying a personal lawyer out of your personal trust account is not a business record
paying for an NDA is not illegal
and finally, it is not possible to affect an election by making a “false business entry” of a private payment from a private account to a private lawyer after the election has already occurred.
Speaking for me, and me only, a non-Trump supporter…maybe convicted of a crime that actually exists, not one twisted like a pretzel from a misdemeanor into a felony. I am on record as not voting for Trump in the last 3 cycles. That said, everything they threw at him was for one specific purpose…to deny him the Presidency. The voters saw it for what it was, a witch hunt.
Well even before the recent crackdown on occupany fraud federal prosecutors were prosctuing hundreds of cases a year like Lisa Cooks and state prosecutors an unknown number on top of that.
So since we seem to be focused on Donald Trump we could say.
–or–
Here’s a rule you should know. Don’t take misdemeanors that are past the statute of limitations, then change the laws of the state, allowing the government to change a misdemeanor into a felony and then weaponize the judicial system to prosecute this individual for the sole intent of keeping him out of the White House forever.
Speaking of having a coherent thought? Wake up.
Fire over an allegation? Not an indictment or a conviction. An allegation.
Totally not tyrannical behavior.
Sure they can. If they have served their sentence and been elected. Don’t you believe in rehabilitation?
Nope. Not for public office.
Up to the voters to decide. They did.
Well he’d be wise to wait until the case moves forward a little and she has a chance to state her defense, but it looks like a pretty open and shut case.
Adam Shiff? Yea maybe he purchased his DC area hme as aprimary residence.
A homeowner hwo purchases a vacation hoe a second primary residence and rent it out 50 weeks a year? Yeah maybe.
But this does not appear to be either of those.
Crime: an illegal act for which someone can be punished by the government.
Illegal act: check
Punished by the government: check
It may look like an open and shut case based on the information given by one side. The accused gets to present their side before action is taken. At least in civilized proceedings.
Are we at the point where an accusation alone is enough for action?
What an inane pair of quesitons to ask given that I specifically addressed them in the post to which you replied. Is that called trolling or just plain rude?
Worst tyrants didn’t use smear tactics. Drama llama
The only specific part of your recent post I was referring to was the apparent open and shut appearance of the situation.
Otherwise I am making a general statement which was posed as a question. Not directed towards anyone in particular.
Are we at a point where accusations alone merit action.
Malfeasance.
Especially so when it’s from a major influencer of the economy misusing a financial tool of the economy.
I don’t think we should trust someone with a self-serving screw-everyone-else criminal mindset to be making the kinds of decisions a Fed Governor has to make.
That is exactly precisely why removal procedures (so-and-so can remove her for cause") are in place. This is exactly why we have those procedures.
there was no crime
There was a crime. He was convicted of it.
Someone believing something isn’t a crime does not change the consequences for committing it.
There was no crime, there was a made up story about a crime and a judge who was conflicted enough to let t ride.
How about as President of the United States?
