wall street journal criminal investigation against Trump

[Riders]

Wall street journal came out with a new article claiming they have a lot more evidence against Trump in the criminal investigation for campaign finance fraud/ hush money to Stormey Danirels. Theya re going after him ......Hush-Money Probe Gathered Evidence From Trump’s Inner Circle

 

[Riders]

They are claiming FBI has quite abit of evidence against Trump and are interviewing people who knew about the hush money and have much more money then just cohen will probably make charges. I think Trumps days are over

 

[Augustus]

I still don't quite get why it is illegal or even particularly unethical (the hush money, not the affairs). You can pay someone to say good things about you. You can pay someone to say bad things about your opponents. So why not be able to pay people not to say bad things about you?

But if them's the rules, you've got to stick to them I suppose. Still don't see it as something worthy of serious punishment though (no idea what the normal punishment for such offences are, or if the law sees it more seriously than me).

 

[fantome profane]

I still don't quite get why it is illegal or even particularly unethical (the hush money, not the affairs). You can pay someone to say good things about you. You can pay someone to say bad things about your opponents. So why not be able to pay people not to say bad things about you?

But if them's the rules, you've got to stick to them I suppose. Still don't see it as something worthy of serious punishment though (no idea what the normal punishment for such offences are, or if the law sees it more seriously than me).

Money spent on political campaigns must be declared. This qualifies.

 

[Riders]

I still don't quite get why it is illegal or even particularly unethical (the hush money, not the affairs). You can pay someone to say good things about you. You can pay someone to say bad things about your opponents. So why not be able to pay people not to say bad things about you?

But if them's the rules, you've got to stick to them I suppose. Still don't see it as something worthy of serious punishment though (no idea what the normal punishment for such offences are, or if the law sees it more seriously than me).

If they used campaign finances to do it tis a fraud.

 

[Nakosis]

I still don't quite get why it is illegal or even particularly unethical (the hush money, not the affairs). You can pay someone to say good things about you. You can pay someone to say bad things about your opponents. So why not be able to pay people not to say bad things about you?

But if them's the rules, you've got to stick to them I suppose. Still don't see it as something worthy of serious punishment though (no idea what the normal punishment for such offences are, or if the law sees it more seriously than me).

It's not, campaign finance laws often get violated. My understanding the laws are complex so many politicians inadvertently break campaign finance laws. This usually results in the politician have to repay the misappropriated money and/or pay a fine.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's not, campaign finance laws often get violated. My understanding the laws are complex so many politicians inadvertently break campaign finance laws. This usually results in the politician have to repay the misappropriated money and/or pay a fine.

It can happen to anyone.
A conservative group accused Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of campaign finance violations, but experts say the charges are overblown
Note that the 'experts' aren't denying violations...just that they're overblown.

Should every violation result in prosecution?

 

[SkepticThinker]

It can happen to anyone.
A conservative group accused Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of campaign finance violations, but experts say the charges are overblown
Note that the 'experts' aren't denying violations...just that they're overblown.

Should every violation result in prosecution?

Intentional violations, sure.

 

[Revoltingest]

Intentional violations, sure.

In my law enforcement experience (being on the receiving & observing ends),
intention doesn't exculpate one. In particular, state real estate license law makes
no exception for lack of intent to violate. Unintentional violations can get one punished.
But politicians just might exercise enuf control over the judicial system so as to largely
escape prosecution most of the time. If they weren't cutting themselves so much slack,
then perhaps they might design laws which are easier to comply with.

 

[sealchan]

If they used campaign finances to do it tis a fraud.

I wonder how many Trump supporters would have contributed even more money if they KNEW he needed it to keep his affairs quiet.

 

[SkepticThinker]

In my law enforcement experience (being on the receiving & observing ends),
intention doesn't exculpate one. In particular, state real estate license law makes
no exception for lack of intent to violate. Unintentional violations can get one punished.
But politicians just might exercise enuf control over the judicial system so as to largely
escape prosecution most of the time. If they weren't cutting themselves so much slack,
then perhaps they might design laws which are easier to comply with.

Of course in the eyes of the law, a violation is a violation, whether intentional or not.
But in this discussion, it makes a difference to me whether someone intentionally violates the laws or not. Does it not make a difference to you whether a politician intentionally violates campaign law versus accidentally violating it due to ignorance of the law (or whatever)?



Just on a side note, I used to work in the real estate sector. Up here where I come from, if a realtor violates real estate regulations, they can be punished regardless of whether they knew they were violating the rules or not, because of course, they should know what the rules are. However, the severity of their fine/punishment can vary depending on whether or not the realtor had purposely sought to violate the rules in the first place, and of course, which rules were violated. This is all decided after an investigation and hearing(s).

 

[Revoltingest]

Of course in the eyes of the law, a violation is a violation, whether intentional or not.
But in this discussion, it makes a difference to me whether someone intentionally violates the laws or not. Does it not make a difference to you whether a politician intentionally violates campaign law versus accidentally violating it due to ignorance of the law (or whatever)?

Using lack of intention as exculpation seems a get-out-of-jail-free
card for politicians, but not for the little people. I prefer a legal
system wherein we're treated the same. Their being subject to
the same system we endure would greatly inform their writing of laws

Just on a side note, I used to work in the real estate sector. Up here where I come from, if a realtor violates real estate regulations, they can be punished regardless of whether they knew they were violating the rules or not, because of course, they should know what the rules are. However, the severity of their fine/punishment can vary depending on whether or not the realtor had purposely sought to violate the rules in the first place, and of course, which rules were violated. This is all decided after an investigation and hearing(s).

I was a licensed broker, & saw the same thing.
It appears that we are held to a much more rigid standard than are politicians.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Using lack of intention as exculpation seems a get-out-of-jail-free
card for politicians, but not for the little people. I prefer a legal
system wherein we're treated the same. Their being subject to
the same system we endure would greatly inform their writing of laws

I also prefer a legal system wherein we're treated the same. As it is, politicians seem to be able to get away with all kinds of things that "little guys" like you and me would be sitting in prison for doing.

I was a licensed broker, & saw the same thing.
It appears that we are held to a much more rigid standard than are politicians.

It definitely appears to be the case, crazy as it is.