Can you expand more on the election interference part?
Totally understand inciting an insurrection to be interference, but using campaign funds to manage public relations problems seems a legitimate use.
So the falsifying is the illegal bit.
The rest of the tweet is moralising.
More to the point, the paperwork crimes would have been misdemeanors if he hadn't been doing it all for the explicit purpose of influencing an election. That's what made them felonies.
Yeah, if he was upfront about things then there would be no criminal case
However saying he set up shell companies to carry out falsification isn’t moralising
Writing "disgusting transactions" is moralistic.
Doesn't help to win over Republicans.
I think you misread. He said "disguising", which only means intent to keep hidden by masking the truth.
The only disgusting (immoral) part of this is Trump cheating on his wife.
Everything else could have been achieved perfectly legally (i.e. without disgust) if Trump had been smart.
I don't want to disgust you, but "intending to keep things hidden by masking the truth" is practically the definition of politics.
Dude, you have trouble reading. It says "disguising". Your side really fails at the most basic human functions, over and over again.
And finding something disgusting is a moral position.
That tweet doesn't mention the word disgusting at all.
Ah. You are correct. I take it all back. Disguise is not a manipulative word.
Correct it isn’t. Also your whole idea of “manipulative words” is moot because every single word can or can not be
You literally misread that word in the tweet. it never says that.
Ah. You are correct. I take it all back. Disguise is not a manipulative word.
You really are one of the dumber nazis who try to make it on here
I don't think anyone is still naive enough to think you can win over Republicunts.
The way to stop Trump is to battle voter apathy and tear down barriers to vote, because the majority will not vote for Trump if they get to cast their votes.
I read somewhere that higher voter turnout in general benefits Trump (like in 2016).
^(People should still vote though)
I can find both opinions: Helps Trump / helps Biden, so probably nobody the fuck knows. I am still sure that the reason Trump won in 2016 was too many Democrat voters being put off by Clinton + the "Bernie Bro" crowd staying home.
Agreed.
I would add that some Trump supporters would possibly have been persuaded to vote for Bernie.
I have no idea if that statement is true. I just wanted to illustrate how unhelpful your comment was.
Your tactics here are extremely transparent.
My only tactic in this particular thread branch is to encourage you make more effort with your replies.
Happy for you to keep expending useless energy here so deep in a threaded comment. Please, do reply again, everyone is interested and meaningfully impressed by your intellect.
I refer to my previous answer.
More please, we're nothing without your validation.
Okay, now respond again. You're not able to resist, watch.
That was not the legal issue of the case, though. Campaigns have to be very transparent with how they spend contributions, for obvious reasons, and it was easy to prove that this appropriation was obfuscated.
Ah, so it was the obfuscation itself. What was obfuscated is irrelevant.
using campaign funds to manage public relations problems seems a legitimate use
It is.
What he did was try to hide payments made to benefit his campaign. Would you consider illegally financing a campaign to be election interference?
Not just the financing, but hiding the Stormy Daniels story during the election. They were using the National Enquirer (yes, I know) to promote Trump, make up stories to bring down his opponents, and hide the Stormy Daniels story (which was needed when the "grab them by the pussy" video leak caused chaos and arguably almost sunk the campaign). THAT'S where the election interference came into play.
They were using the National Enquirer (yes, I know) to promote Trump, make up stories to bring down his opponents, and hide the Stormy Daniels story (which was needed when the "grab them by the pussy" video leak caused chaos and arguably almost sunk the campaign)
Isn't this part a normal election strategy in the US? And not illegal itself?
If it's something of a monetary value that benefits the campaign, it must be reported. And it definitely has a monetary value, since he paid money for it.
Honestly, I'm not sure how exactly the law is written. I believe that was a factor out of several that raised the misdemeanor of falsification into a felony (by doing so to conceal a crime). The judge's instructions to the jury was that they needed to be unanimous that a crime was being concealed, but they didn't have to agree on which one(s). Unless some members of the jury go to the media (for their sake, I sure hope they don't) and that gets brought up, we'll probably never know which way that wind was blowing.
Thanks.
In the future I'm sure politicians on all sides will be paying people to keep certain facts quiet. I was just trying to confirm what is legal and what is illegal.
Can you expand more on the election interference part?
Totally understand inciting an insurrection to be interference, but using campaign funds to manage public relations problems seems a legitimate use.
So the falsifying is the illegal bit.
The rest of the tweet is moralising.
More to the point, the paperwork crimes would have been misdemeanors if he hadn't been doing it all for the explicit purpose of influencing an election. That's what made them felonies.
Yeah, if he was upfront about things then there would be no criminal case
However saying he set up shell companies to carry out falsification isn’t moralising
Writing "disgusting transactions" is moralistic.
Doesn't help to win over Republicans.
I think you misread. He said "disguising", which only means intent to keep hidden by masking the truth.
The only disgusting (immoral) part of this is Trump cheating on his wife.
Everything else could have been achieved perfectly legally (i.e. without disgust) if Trump had been smart.
I don't want to disgust you, but "intending to keep things hidden by masking the truth" is practically the definition of politics.
Dude, you have trouble reading. It says "disguising". Your side really fails at the most basic human functions, over and over again.
And finding something disgusting is a moral position.
That tweet doesn't mention the word disgusting at all.
Ah. You are correct. I take it all back. Disguise is not a manipulative word.
Correct it isn’t. Also your whole idea of “manipulative words” is moot because every single word can or can not be
You literally misread that word in the tweet. it never says that.
Ah. You are correct. I take it all back. Disguise is not a manipulative word.
You really are one of the dumber nazis who try to make it on here
Not sure where you get Nazi from.
I don't think anyone is still naive enough to think you can win over Republicunts. The way to stop Trump is to battle voter apathy and tear down barriers to vote, because the majority will not vote for Trump if they get to cast their votes.
I read somewhere that higher voter turnout in general benefits Trump (like in 2016).
^(People should still vote though)
I can find both opinions: Helps Trump / helps Biden, so probably nobody the fuck knows. I am still sure that the reason Trump won in 2016 was too many Democrat voters being put off by Clinton + the "Bernie Bro" crowd staying home.
Agreed.
I would add that some Trump supporters would possibly have been persuaded to vote for Bernie.
We see what we expect to see...
Others here have addressed your assertions
Others here have rejected those assertions.
I have no idea if that statement is true. I just wanted to illustrate how unhelpful your comment was.
Your tactics here are extremely transparent.
My only tactic in this particular thread branch is to encourage you make more effort with your replies.
Happy for you to keep expending useless energy here so deep in a threaded comment. Please, do reply again, everyone is interested and meaningfully impressed by your intellect.
I refer to my previous answer.
More please, we're nothing without your validation.
Okay, now respond again. You're not able to resist, watch.
Sea lion has gotta sea lion.
Is a vacuous comment.
That was not the legal issue of the case, though. Campaigns have to be very transparent with how they spend contributions, for obvious reasons, and it was easy to prove that this appropriation was obfuscated.
Ah, so it was the obfuscation itself. What was obfuscated is irrelevant.
It is.
What he did was try to hide payments made to benefit his campaign. Would you consider illegally financing a campaign to be election interference?
Not just the financing, but hiding the Stormy Daniels story during the election. They were using the National Enquirer (yes, I know) to promote Trump, make up stories to bring down his opponents, and hide the Stormy Daniels story (which was needed when the "grab them by the pussy" video leak caused chaos and arguably almost sunk the campaign). THAT'S where the election interference came into play.
Isn't this part a normal election strategy in the US? And not illegal itself?
If it's something of a monetary value that benefits the campaign, it must be reported. And it definitely has a monetary value, since he paid money for it.
Honestly, I'm not sure how exactly the law is written. I believe that was a factor out of several that raised the misdemeanor of falsification into a felony (by doing so to conceal a crime). The judge's instructions to the jury was that they needed to be unanimous that a crime was being concealed, but they didn't have to agree on which one(s). Unless some members of the jury go to the media (for their sake, I sure hope they don't) and that gets brought up, we'll probably never know which way that wind was blowing.
Thanks.
In the future I'm sure politicians on all sides will be paying people to keep certain facts quiet. I was just trying to confirm what is legal and what is illegal.