Election Interference...

[Mountain Man]

No, I mean the jury who was told exactly what the predicate crime was, and was given exactly three unlawful means to consider as the means used to commit the predicated crime.

You've got it backwards. The charge was falsification of business records to cover up three possible campaign crimes, but the prosecution was never burdened with actually proving any of the predicate crimes, the former chairman of the Federal Election Commission was prohibited by the judge from testifying to the fact that the accusations against the President had already been investigated and dismissed, and the judge basically told the jury it didn't matter anyway, because they were each free to imagine whichever crime they wanted in order to convict.

Do you think the jury would have still convicted if they were told the truth that there never was any predicate crime?

You keep saying that, but I'm pretty sure you know it's not true.

To be fair, the only reason I keep saying it is because it is indisputably true, and I have the receipts to prove it.

Look, you can whine and cry and stamp your feet all you want, but it's not going to change the truth.

[Stoic]

You've got it backwards. The charge was falsification of business records to cover up three possible campaign crimes, but the prosecution was never burdened with actually proving any of the predicate crimes, the former chairman of the Federal Election Commission was prohibited by the judge from testifying to the fact that the accusations against the President had already been investigated and dismissed, and the judge basically told the jury it didn't matter anyway, because they were each free to imagine whichever crime they wanted in order to convict.

Do you think the jury would have still convicted if they were told the truth that there never was any predicate crime?



To be fair, the only reason I keep saying it is because it is indisputably true, and I have the receipts to prove it.

Look, you can whine and cry and stamp your feet all you want, but it's not going to change the truth.

[Stoic]

You've got it backwards. The charge was falsification of business records to cover up three possible campaign crimes

Wrong. There was only one predicate crime: Section 17-152 of the New York Election Law

, but the prosecution was never burdened with actually proving any of the predicate crimes,

The prosecution had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump committed the predicate crime, and the jury had to unanimously agree.

the former chairman of the Federal Election Commission was prohibited by the judge from testifying to the fact that the accusations against the President had already been investigated and dismissed,

It was not relevant that the FEC had voted for political reasons to close the investigation.

and the judge basically told the jury it didn't matter anyway, because they were each free to imagine whichever crime they wanted in order to convict.

Wrong again.

Do you think the jury would have still convicted if they were told the truth that there never was any predicate crime?

The jury would not have voted to convict if they had falsely believed that there was no predicate crime.

To be fair, the only reason I keep saying it is because it is indisputably true, and I have the receipts to prove it.

Look, you can whine and cry and stamp your feet all you want, but it's not going to change the truth.

Your "receipts" do not say that the FEC "determined that the President had not broken any laws".

[Stoic]

To be fair, the only reason I keep saying it is because it is indisputably true, and I have the receipts to prove it.

BTW, did you notice that those "receipts" contain a link to the First General Counsel's Report? It's fascinating reading, from the people who actually did the investigating. It contains tidbits like these:

The Commission Should Find Reason to Believe that Cohen Made, and Trump and the Trump Committee Knowingly Accepted, an Excessive Contribution in the Form of a Coordinated Expenditure

The Commission Should Find Reason to Believe that Cohen Made, and Trump and the Trump Committee Knowingly Accepted, an Excessive Contribution in the Form of a Prohibited Loan

The Commission Should Find Reason to Believe that Cohen Made, Essential Consultants Knowingly Permitted Its Name to Be Used to Effect, and Trump and the Trump Committee Knowingly Accepted a Contribution in the Name of Another

The Commission Should Find Reason to Believe that the Trump Organization Made, and Trump and the Trump Committee Knowingly Accepted, Prohibited Corporate or Excessive Contributions

The available information supports a finding that there is reason to believe that the violations of the Act and Commission regulations by Cohen, Trump, the Trump Committee, the Trump Organization, and Essential Consultants were knowing and willful.

(There are no doubt many convicted felons who would have advised you that it's a bad idea to keep the receipts. )

Now, it could be that the Republicans on the Commission said they found no reason to believe all these things because they thought it was Opposite Day. But the Democrats didn't think it was Opposite Day, so it's reasonable to conclude that the Republicans had political motives.

[JimL]

You've got it backwards. The charge was falsification of business records to cover up three possible campaign crimes, but the prosecution was never burdened with actually proving any of the predicate crimes, the former chairman of the Federal Election Commission was prohibited by the judge from testifying to the fact that the accusations against the President had already been investigated and dismissed, and the judge basically told the jury it didn't matter anyway, because they were each free to imagine whichever crime they wanted in order to convict.

Do you think the jury would have still convicted if they were told the truth that there never was any predicate crime?



To be fair, the only reason I keep saying it is because it is indisputably true, and I have the receipts to prove it.

Look, you can whine and cry and stamp your feet all you want, but it's not going to change the truth.

The FEC commission, specifically the Republicans who shut the investigation down, obviously got it wrong, according to the jury in Trump's trial. Funny that!!!
So, you can whine and cry and stamp your feet all you want, but it's not going to change the truth. Trump is no longer just a corrupt and treasonous ousted ex-president and wannabe dictator, but you can now add convicted felon to your hero's title.

[Diogenes]

The FEC commission, specifically the Republicans who shut the investigation down

I would agree the Republicans on the Commission acted out of partisanship, but they are not alone in such corruption.

but you can now add convicted felon

We'll have to see how the appeals play out, though if and when it gets to SCOTUS, I'm sure Democrats will try to further delegitimize the court by calling for recusals of Trump appointees.

[Mountain Man]

The FEC commission, specifically the Republicans who shut the investigation down, obviously got it wrong, according to the jury in Trump's trial. Funny that!!!
So, you can whine and cry and stamp your feet all you want, but it's not going to change the truth. Trump is no longer just a corrupt and treasonous ousted ex-president and wannabe dictator, but you can now add convicted felon to your hero's title.

Sorry, Jimmy, all your crocodile tears and cries of "But- but Trump!" are not going to change the fact that the Federal Election Commission already looked into the accusations against the President and found the evidence lacking. That is the plain and simple truth of the matter. Anything else you have to say beyond that is just partisan spin and empty posturing.

As for the conviction by the corrupt New York judicial system, legal experts across the board are saying that there multiple avenues of appeal because of due process violations.

[JimL]

Sorry, Jimmy, all your crocodile tears and cries of "But- but Trump!" are not going to change the fact that the Federal Election Commission already looked into the accusations against the President and found the evidence lacking. That is the plain and simple truth of the matter. Anything else you have to say beyond that is just partisan spin and empty posturing.

Actually MM, the FEC vote to end their investigation and declare Trump to have been innocent was lopsided in favor of continuing the investigation due to the evidence so far gathered. So, the decision to end it without charges is very suspect of bias to begin with.
The "12" person jury on the other hand had all the evidence and "witness testimony" that the FEC never even looked into and that "12" person jury, you know, the U.S. justice systems way of determining guilt or innocence which, because it's your fascist, treasonous hero, Trump, who it has found to be guilty, you oddly enough, no longer have any faith in.

As for the conviction by the corrupt New York judicial system, legal experts across the board are saying that there multiple avenues of appeal because of due process violations.

Well, let's wait and see how the appeal goes, which of course if it fails, you will also argue that process to have been corrupt.
You're just lucky that the Justice Dept. Didn't indict Trump for his treasonous actions and inactions on Jan. 6th, probably thinking it to be in the best interest of the already divided country to let it die, being that his insurrection incitement, and dereliction of duty in neglecting to put it down, failed anyway, that the traitor would just go away only to be remembered in history for his treason. Otherwise he would, in my opinion, could only have been found guilty of High crimes and misdemeanors aka treason. And if his actions and inactions on that day, not to mention his support for those insurrectionists and his promise to pardon them all if re-elected, are not High crimes and misdemeanors then I don't know what is. Trump should have been locked up for life a long time ago.

[Juvenal]

Now, it could be that the Republicans on the Commission said they found no reason to believe all these things because they thought it was Opposite Day. But the Democrats didn't think it was Opposite Day, so it's reasonable to conclude that the Republicans had political motives.

What the Republicans commissioners said is included among the "receipts."
.

...

Before the Commission could consider the Office of General Counsel’s (“OGC”)
recommendations in these matters, Mr. Cohen pleaded guilty to an eight-count criminal
information,2 and in connection thereto admitted, among other things, to making an excessive
contribution in violation of the Act by making the Clifford payment from his personal funds.

The plea hearing transcript includes a step by step review of how U.S. District Judge William
Pauley verified the plea, confirming that a federal judge was sufficiently satisfied with the
circumstances surrounding the plea deal and the responses given by Cohen at the hearing,
including the explanations given by Cohen, count by count, during his allocution.4 Ultimately
Mr. Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison and ordered to pay $1.39 million in restitution,
$500,000 in forfeiture, and $100,000 in fines for two campaign finance violations (including the
payment at issue in these matters) and other charges. In sum, the public record is complete with
respect to the conduct at issue in these complaints, and Mr. Cohen has been punished by the
government of the United States for the conduct at issue in these matters.

Thus, we concluded that pursuing these matters further was not the best use of agency
resources.5 The Commission regularly dismisses matters where other government agencies have
already adequately enforced and vindicated the Commission’s interests.6 Furthermore, by the
time OGC’s recommendations came before us, the Commission was facing an extensive
enforcement docket backlog resulting from a prolonged lack of a quorum,7 and these matters
were already statute-of-limitations imperiled.8 These are precisely the prudential factors cited by
the U.S. Supreme Court in Heckler v. Chaney, and why we voted to dismiss these matters as an
exercise of our prosecutorial discretion.9

That is, they concluded that Cohen's plea made further investigation against him moot, and that further investigation of Trump's actions was not a high enough priority for them.