13 Likes
I object. Wears diapers, behaves like a toddler,âŚ
I have to take time out from rate indictions to read this.
1 Like
Iâm a bit afraid that this will end up being a nothingburger in the end and make the whole situation worse. But Iâm crossing my fingers. It will be nice if some real accountability comes out of it.
4 Likes
Itâs not just paying hush money to a hooker.
1 Like
Itâs really more complicated than Edwards.
I wonder if I could get away with supporting a rate increase in Florida, citing grand jury approval for my indication as justification.
2 Likes
Increased hot air in FL leading to hurricane risk. Sounds legit.
4 Likes
Wouldnât this indication potentially lead to a significant portion of that hot air shifting to Sing Sing, New York?
Maybe half of it if there is a conviction, but in that case I have faith in DeSantis to make up the difference
So? Donât do the crime if you canât do the time. 
If he committed a crime, try him for it. If he committed 400 crimes and you can only get him for one of the more minor ones, get him for the more minor one.
yes. That was Federal campaign violations, where it seemed the actual laws were too unclear for conviction.
This is not about caimpaign funds, this is about the hush money payoffs to keep her from testifying.
If the feds brought a case against trump for campaign finance violations, then there is a comparison
What Edwards did is probably worse, but that doesnât neccesarily make it more illegal in the eyes of a court
And Edwards was indicted as well
1 Like
Thank you for clarifying the similarities and differences⌠I was aware of the Edwards thing but I didnât recall all of those details.
Given the reports claiming there are more than 30 counts, I wonder if some of his âplay with claimed asset valuations for loan eligibility and tax purposesâ shenanigans arenât also included in the indictment.
Testifying? I thought it was going public? Was it in relation to a legal proceeding?
I thought he squelched a lawsuit against him, otherwise I am not sure I see the illegality of it, because I didnât think it was linked to the source of the money
The issue (as always) is the coverup. AFAIK (and my knowledge is fuzzy) It was labeled as âlegal feesâ when the intent was to influence the election by keeping her from speaking about it publicly during the election. It should have been considered a campaign contribution and reported as such.
Reading the time-line I believe you are correct
I read some more into the backstory, and I gather the payment wasnât illegal, calling it legal fees was. Dude is a reputed billionaire but canât pay 150K out of pocket. Guess he didnât become rich by playing by the rules. Indictment is supposed to be 30 counts. Thatâs a whole big chain of sh!t.