The hush money case strikes me as a bigger reach *
by ufl (2024-03-19 12:38:48)

In reply to: I struggle with the New York Case  posted by OrangeJubilee

Cannot Reply Return to Political

This user did not provide content for this post

Why is it a reach? *
by ACross  (2024-03-19 17:12:58)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

My understanding is that the felony requires that the
by ratinatux  (2024-03-20 06:56:22)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Falsification of business records be intended to conceal evidence of another crime. The indictment didn’t specify the crime, but the DA has suggested that the payment was an unreported campaign expenditure. The feds looked at and passed on prosecuting that, likely because they felt they couldnt prove that the cover up of the affair was for campaign purposes as opposed to, for example, marital purposes.

Without the felony charge it sounds like the misdemeanor case is pretty tight, but not the type of thing that gets prosecuted.
I think she owes him a refund
by gozer  (2024-03-19 13:20:15)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

She took his money (apparently) to provide the service of keeping her damn mouth shut.

Then, she did interviews. Which is pretty much the exact opposite of keeping her damn mouth shut.

Just can't get good service anymore.