Here is the NY law of which Trump's records were supposedly concealing a violation:
§ 17-152. Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.What kind of crazy law is this? And Trump did not have to violate it, but just 4 jurors thinking that he intended to. What are the elements of this crime? How is this a crime?
What did Trump do, promote an election? Prevent an election?
I say 4 jurors because Trump could have been convicted by 4 jurors thinking Trump intended to shelter Cohen from a campaign finance violation, 4 jurors thinking Trump intended to evade taxes in some unspecified way, and 4 thinking Trump intended to violate the above law.
5 comments:
He promoted an election. His.
Mike,
Everyone who ever ran for any political office 'promoted' their own election.
It's kind of what they do.
In historical fact, Bill Clinton also paid oodles of hush money for women who actually were assaulted by him (they weren't paid whores, and it wasn't cosensual), and democrats thought it wasn't anything to bat an eye about. John Kerry, Al Gore, and precious JFK also had more than a few 'ooops-ies' with women as well, and were almost entirely ignored.
As for lying to cover up stuff,
I consider lying about your crack head son selling access to your own presidential office concerning.
I consider lying about the fact the FBI had Hunter's laptop containing direct evidence the president was taking grift money as far back as the previous election concerning.
I consider the same FBI who pretended Hillary Clinton didn't feed them the Russian Collusion story concerning.
I consider ignoring a vengeful cash strapped whore who tried to blackmail a presidential candidate not so concerning.
Guess which one the press decided to cover?
You would have been a more effective lawyer for Mr. Trump as evidence of that stuff wasn't introduced at trial. Come to think of it, a lot of the justifications and explanations provided by Trump supporters doesn't seem to be offered at court. Curious that.
I'll also note that the statute requires more than promotion, evidence of which was introduced in this case and apparently accepted by the jury.
Mike,
Actual lawyers (not lefty TV personalities) of both political persuasions are openly saying the ruling is politically - not legally - motivated, and constitutionally bullshit. The case was only intended to impede Trump running for president, and it will not withstand much scrutiny in appeal.
Qui ventum seminat, turbinem metet.
I've read and heard several legal experts who disagree with you, but that's alright.
Post a Comment