Quote (Goomshill @ Apr 3 2023 09:59am)
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
Ah yes, paying off porn stars and buying food, same thing.