 |
|
Thanks for the thoughtful & on point replies. Followup...
Posted on: June 1, 2024 at 16:59:20 CT
JeffB MU
Posts:
69113
Member For:
20.82 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
2
Q: a. What was the reason that the statute of limitations was waived or ignored or whatever?
A: a) because of the other crime(s)
Do you, or perhaps any attorneys reading this know if that is unusual, or a pretty standard way of doing things for the courts?
Q: b. What in your opinion was the underlying crime that the misclassification of the payment was covering up?
A: b) there were 3
-unlawful influence on an election
-tax evasion
-campaign finance laws
Followup:
-unlawful influence on an election
What criminal act had he (allegedly) done that was being covered up by classifying the payment as a legal expense vs a payment to some gal to shut up about their alleged affair?
-tax evasion
What tax evasion had he committed, that was covered up by his payment to the gal? If the misclassification of the payment was itself the tax evasion, it seems like the whole trial should have been a trial for tax evasion, rather than a crime of misclassification of one of three possible underlying crimes, one of which might be tax evasion.
-campaign finance laws
What campaign laws were those? Were they spelled out somewhere? Would you happen to have a link to those laws or a cut & paste of the relevant section?
In similar fashion to the tax evasion comment I made above, was the charge that he had committed a campaign finance law crime and then his misclassification of the payment helped to cover up that separate crime, or were they alleging that the misclassification was itself the campaign finance law crime? If the latter, it seems that the trial should have been about that crime, rather than a roundabout way of trying to get to that crime.
-----
A couple of follow up questions that I should have included in my original post:
1. Why did they not tell the defendant what these underlying alleged crimes were until the end of the trial? That seems to be a violation of his rights, no?
2. Why did the judge not allow their primary defense witness, their legal expert, to testify?
A: a) because of the other crime(s)
Do you, or perhaps any attorneys reading this know if that is unusual, or a pretty standard way of doing things for the courts?
Q: b. What in your opinion was the underlying crime that the misclassification of the payment was covering up?
A: b) there were 3
-unlawful influence on an election
-tax evasion
-campaign finance laws
Followup:
-unlawful influence on an election
What criminal act had he (allegedly) done that was being covered up by classifying the payment as a legal expense vs a payment to some gal to shut up about their alleged affair?
-tax evasion
What tax evasion had he committed, that was covered up by his payment to the gal? If the misclassification of the payment was itself the tax evasion, it seems like the whole trial should have been a trial for tax evasion, rather than a crime of misclassification of one of three possible underlying crimes, one of which might be tax evasion.
-campaign finance laws
What campaign laws were those? Were they spelled out somewhere? Would you happen to have a link to those laws or a cut & paste of the relevant section?
In similar fashion to the tax evasion comment I made above, was the charge that he had committed a campaign finance law crime and then his misclassification of the payment helped to cover up that separate crime, or were they alleging that the misclassification was itself the campaign finance law crime? If the latter, it seems that the trial should have been about that crime, rather than a roundabout way of trying to get to that crime.
-----
A couple of follow up questions that I should have included in my original post:
1. Why did they not tell the defendant what these underlying alleged crimes were until the end of the trial? That seems to be a violation of his rights, no?
2. Why did the judge not allow their primary defense witness, their legal expert, to testify?
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
Thanks for the thoughtful & on point replies. Followup... - JeffB MU - 6/1 16:59:20