so anyway, does anyone have any argument to contradict either of these two points:

1) Hillary Clinton -actually- committed campaign finance fraud and falsified business records to cover it up, with the exact same 'legal expenses' claim, during the same election, for a far greater monetary value. Unlike Trump's expense, which is clearly a personal expense under the FEC's definition and therefore not campaign finance fraud

2) Alvin Bragg's novel legal theory that distinguishes between federal FEC and state NY-BOE definitions of 'campaign expense' would inherently criminalize virtually all personal campaign expenditures. Pretty much anything from buying food to paying for a taxi to haircuts to clothes shopping to buying a new car would all constitute campaign finance fraud whether paid by personal funds (state) or campaign funds (federal) because the two definitions conflict with each other and you're always violating one if you adhere to the other. And since any business records or signed receipts constitute a falsified record since the state can declare either federal or state law to be the underlying crime, all such expenses would be inherent felonies.


In other words
Hillary actually did it, Trump didn't
Everyone did it, according to Bragg

Thank you . I have difficulty articulating things while the only users who respond to my texts are.. well you see.

Because Clinton's FEC violation sets a precedent for Trump's case. We can't very well have laws which only apply to certain candidates given the political preferences of the prosecutor in question.

Guess the prosecutors in question have evidence that the PaRD chuds don't which would indicate Trumps violation was more serious.

Are you implying that this is a totally above water, honest situation? You truly think the porn star thing is more serious than what the Clinton campaign is, therefore requires this spectacle?

This post was edited by YeeHaw on Apr 2 2023 06:51pm

Yes, just like all of the cases before. I'm sure Adam Schiff is getting ready to release that Russia-Trump collusion evidence any day now.

The fact that we're discussing a sealed indictment is a problem all of its own, though. It's a felony to leak a sealed indictment. What do you think the odds are that Bragg finds and prosecutes the leaker?

chud screeching intensifies.

Do you honestly find this witty?

Literally as interesting or thoughtful as anything you goom or yeehaw/juggalo has said on the topic

You realize you’re an imbecile?