310
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2024
310 points (96.7% liked)
News
39046 readers
2982 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
The case literally has zero to do with an affair. The alleged affair could be a complete fabrication. The point of the case is that Trump directed his lawyer to use money for XYZ. Trump then put that money down on the ledger as ABC. That he claimed it was ABC and not XYZ is the entire point of the case.
The WHY he decided to commit fraud is a nice detail but literally has zero bearing on if Trump actually did the whole I said the money was for ABC but it was really for XYZ.
I thought that they are pursuing him for election law violations and if they prove that he made the payment to help his campaign then the other charges of falsifying business records carry more weight since it was done to cover up a crime.
You’re both right. The reason the ABC/XYZ thing matters, and is tied to the presidency, is because the money came from campaign contributions and the ABC/XYZ are things you’re allowed to spend campaign funds on and things you aren’t.
I thought the argument was that it was for the campaign, because it was meant to help his chances of getting elected, but wasn't reported as a campaign expense, which is a campaign violation.
If he had just said the reimbursement was a campaign expense, which probably would have been counter productive to his desire to cover it up, he would not be in hot water now.
Actually this isn't true, the why is very central to the case. The prosecution's argument is that the "why" is that it would've been damaging to his campaign. That is what links it to the campaign finance law, and what makes it a felony offense. This is an element that they will need to prove in court.
The falsifying business records piece is pretty much a slam dunk.
I would think it has relevance to establish intent to commit fraud. I'm not a lawyer so no idea if motive matters for this sort of crime.
They have motive to suppress the story, true or not. So whether the affair actually happened is of little consequence when it comes to proving motive or intent.
I agree with you. I think the media is handling it all wrong, it is a business fraud case, not a "hush-momey" case. However, I can see the prosocutions strategy. Hurt his ego, and he will react poorly in the eyes of the court and jury, let him purger himself, give him enough rope and he might just hang himself (in a legal sense).
"hush-momey"
Im leaving the typo, its funnier.