Why I believe a Stormy Daniels hush money indictment of Trump is a bad idea

I don't think that's it at all. I think he looked at the assembled case and decided he didn't want to be embarrassed by bringing a nothing case.

 

Everything they did followed the Electoral Act of 1887... educate yourself and get back to us..... the Democrats were so worried about it they immediately went to change the law written in the books to better suit their agenda...

 

Canada so criminal law is all federal. The laws are a bit different in the US then Canada but the strategy is pretty much the same. Totally back up your comments to the usual Trumpets on this thread trying to detract from Trump's impending jail time.

 

What you consider real and the prosecutors feel is real I can assure you is not the same. No Trump supporter feels anything is real unless it conforms to specific pro Trump partisan fantasy that he is above the law. Thanks Lil Mike, I will wait for the legal process to play out. Its slow but that is because it has to be thorough and well researched.

 

Well if the prosecutors feel they have a case there will be an indictment.

There isn't one.

However with all of your Canadian legal knowledge about US campaign finance law maybe you can present a paper on why Trump committed an indictable crime (and be specific on what law was violated).

Thank you for your service.

 

There is nothing wrong with a short diatribe, per se, as long as it is warranted, reasonably just. I do try in that regard.

Wasn't that the point raised in my criticism of you to which you are responding?

Umm, yes, it was.

 

You're the one convinced there's been a crime and you don't know what crime is supposed to have been committed?

 

Michael Cohen said they should just go for the lowest hanging fruit in indicting Trump - tax evasion.

And, like Kirschner believes, I also believe a single first indictment (no matter what it is) will open up a floodgate of indictments. They just need to get the ball rolling.

 

Ok, I'll leave you to your obsession. The issue obviously means a lot more to you than me. I'm not interested in digging through 500 page of MR just to score a point or two.

 

If what they did wasn't legal, Congress wouldn't have been able to change the law to make it illegal.

 

I accept your admission of defeat.

Thank you.

 

The illegality of Trump's scheme to overturn the election results is a lot less about process dictated by the ECA, and a lot more about fraud against the United States via a grand scheme to overturn the election, a scheme which has several legs of which numerous acts were committed in furtherance of that scheme as outlined by the 1/6 committee.

 

Numerous crimes. The one you are referring to I believe is felony campaign finance violation.

 

I applaud you skill at using one of all the world forums' greatest non sequitur, claim victory from their opponents abject dismissal.

 

The ECA does not authorize the Vice President to remand objected to votes back to the states, which was what Trump wanted Pence to do.

Please stop posting this falsehood.

The didn't 'change it to suit their agenda' the bill was bipartisan, and a few of the sponsors were Republicans. designed to clarify ambiguities in the antiquated ECA. Both Republicans and Democrats alike agreed it was imperative that demagogues like Trump should not be allowed to exploit ambiguities in the ECA in order to overthrow of the election. The people are the ones who decide who the president should be, and not the Vice President, the President and his conspirators.

Is that objectionable to you?

However, congratulations, yours is textbook partisan spin.

I'd frame it without the partisanship, as follows:

On Thursday, Dec. 29, 2022, President Joe Biden signed S. 4573, a bipartisan bill to reform the antiquated Electoral Count Act (ECA), into law. The bill was included in the omnibus spending package to fund the federal government this year.

S.4573, the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act, is designed to reform the process by which Congress counts Electoral College votes to avoid a repeat of the events of Jan. 6, 2021. The law

• Clarifies that the role of the vice president is purely ceremonial,
• Raises the threshold for members of Congress to initiate objections to electoral results to one-fifth of each chamber,
• Ensures there is one conclusive slate of electors from each state
• And outlines a process for expedited court review of election results.

In September, the Senate Rules Committee additionally amended the law to

• Make U.S. Supreme Court review of any federal litigation over the certification of state electors discretionary rather than mandatory,
• Ensure the judicial review procedure provided in the act doesn’t exclude litigation in other state and federal courts
• And clarify the language around certification of electors to specify that during the counting of electoral college votes, Congress must treat the electors certified by a state and modified by any state or federal court relief as conclusive.

See:
https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/biden-signs-electoral-count-reform-act-into-law/

the Bill:

https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/S4573-Manager-Amendment.pdf

 

Backpedal all you want, I accept your defeat. When you refuse to engage a rather simple post, after engaging prior, that's defeat in my books, and in the minds of any reasonable member of any debate forum in the history of debate forums, going back to the days of BBSes and Usenet.

Note that you really don't have to scour 500 pages of MR to score a point, that, Bullseye, is known as a cop out.

IF you want to retract your defeat, and challenge that particular post, fire away.
Otherwise, I call a cop out when I see one. Cop outs are de facto defeats.

 

Not everyone shares the same level of trump obsession

 

@Patricio Da Silva

""The ECA does not authorize the Vice President to remand objected to votes back to the states""
Yes it does ... that is why the Democrats are scrambling to change the 135 year old law that is on the books...it is a process for how Congress will resolve irregularities in accepting electoral slates from states. The Democrats did the same thing in 2017, but you won't see that on CNN.. everything was OK as long as it was them doing it... please stop posting misleading and untruthful posts

January 6, 2017.... seven House Democrats tried to object to electoral votes from multiple states.
Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) objected to Alabama's votes.
Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) objected to Florida's votes.
Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) objected to Georgia's votes.
Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) objected to North Carolina's votes.
Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) objected to the votes from North Carolina in addition to votes from South Carolina and Wisconsin. She also stood up and objected citing "massive voter suppression" after Mississippi's votes were announced.
Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) brought up allegations of Russian interference in the election and malfunctioning voting machines when she objected following the announcement of Michigan's votes.
Maxine Waters (D-Calif) rose and said, "I do not wish to debate. I wish to ask 'Is there one United States senator who will join me in this letter of objection?'" after the announcement of Wyoming's votes.

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-democrats-object-more-states-2016-republicans-2020-1561407

 

If anyone did a thing wrong it was stormy. It's called blackmail. Then she decided she wanted more money like every blackmailer ever. The only way to construe anything Trump did was illegal us to assume that sense Trump was self financing his campaign at that time all his money was therefore campaign money. In any other state such a case would get thrown out of the court.

Ah yes you cannot amend a law and then after the fact jail people under that which you just amended after word.

 

No argument presented, post dismissed.

By the way, you've been using that tired meme for years.

 

You are alleging Daniels commuted blackmail. Please substantiate that claim, preferably provide some hard evidence. .

True, the constitution states that congress cannot write ex post facto laws.

However,

You can indict and convict if the offender violated the pre-amended law, which Trump did.

The original ECA does not authorize Trump to direct the VP to remand objected to votes to the states, but that is precisely what Trump did in the furtherance of a larger crime of preventing or delaying the transfer of power at the Joint Session in order to retain power.

 

Wrong. And no one is suggesting that electoral votes cannot be objected to.

However, that is not what I said.

The ECA allows for the Joint Session to resolve their objections, it does NOT allow the VP to remand the votes back to the states and delay the election of the President.

All the amendment does is underscore that point, so that some future demagogue won't pull the same stunt.

Do you approve of a president trying to steal an election by delaying the joint session such that it would force the VP to throw the vote to the house?

That is precisely what would happen. In fact, that was the plan, to throw the vote to the house where Republicans know they have a two state advantage in the states' delegations. From Jan 6 to Jan 20, it would be impossible for states to litigate objected to votes in time by Jan 20, nor could they given that every state has certified their votes. There is NO legal basis for that action.

And that, Democrats did NOT do.

Please pay closer attention to the printed word and quit MISREADING my posts.

The soft coup plot by Trump and his conspirators was delay the Joint Session and force a contested election in which Repubs had the advantage of two states over Democrats.

 

so you think Trump's lawyer plead guilty for the fun of it... to make Trump look bad?

 

Pleaded guilty for what, exactly?