Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy❤
No. of Recommendations: 3
Certainly not Hillary as her fine in this case shows...
The Federal Election Commission earlier this month fined Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee for failing to properly report funding on opposition research into the 2017 Steele dossier, which examined former President Donald Trump's alleged links to Russia.
In a letter sent by the FEC to both parties on Tuesday, the agency said the Clinton campaign and the DNC improperly reported the money they spent funding the dossier, labeling the spending as "legal services", and "legal and compliance consulting" instead of opposition research.
Political candidates and groups are legally required to publicly disclose their spending to the FEC, which is responsible for enforcing campaign finance law in the US, and explain the purpose of any cost that exceeds $200.
No one is above the law, fair enough, but possibly more important is the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause.
Equal Protection is sometimes at odds with prosecutorial discretion.
When a high profile person is not prosecuted for appears to be an obvious crime, we rightly call out that offender as privileged, being "above the law".
Similarly if a prosecutor shows extraordinary vigor pursuing a case and overcharges a defendant, we say that defendant is being treated unusually harshly because he is "below the law".
No. of Recommendations: 0
No. of Recommendations: 9
labeling the spending as "legal services", and "legal and compliance consulting" instead of opposition research.
Trump concocted an illegal scheme whereby he grossed up hush money payments to his fixer lawyer to cover taxes, disguised them as legal fees on his books by causing fictitious business records to be created, signing the checks himself, causing fraudulent tax returns to be filed, and all to keep those payments quiet so as not to hurt his Presidential campaign.
Clinton mislabeled properly paid for legal opposition research as legal services. Clinton wasn't even aware of the mislabeling, whereas Trump held a meeting and set the criminal wheels in motion himself.
See the difference?
No. of Recommendations: 9
I’m not a lawyer and I don’t play one on TV. And I look forward to albaby’s response to this (I hope he does).
But I think it comes down to sloppy accounting vs. intent to break the law.
If Trump had just paid the hush money out of his own pocket, perfectly legal.
Instead, he led a conspiracy to have his lawyer pay the hush money, and then had his organization (a no no) reimburse his attorney as grossed up legal fees (which documents showed they weren’t), thereby violating up to 3 federal laws (all campaign finance and tax related, I think) which in turn violates NYS law. I’m sure I’m leaving out stuff or hazy on some of it. But you get the idea.
No. of Recommendations: 12
But I think it comes down to sloppy accounting vs. intent to break the law.
It’s not “sloppy accounting” when you decide to avoid scrutiny by routing the money through a lawyer. And not even though the legal channels that are commonly available through a lawyer (“Client funds”) but through the lawyer’s personal bank account , and requiring you to pay at least an extra 30% for the privilege of doing so.
Why? Because when you are giving that amount to the lawyer “for services”, he has to recognize it as income. When he does so he has to pay taxes on it. So you have to pay him enough to pay the taxes (it actually becomes a reducto ad infinitum because you have to give him enough to pay the taxes on the overage as well, see below), and if there’s anything we know about Trump, he’s not going to pay $200k when the going price for the Catch & Kill is $130k.
Scenario 1: You pay money directly to the porn star: $130k
Scenario 2: You pay money to the lawyer, who segregates it from his income in a “Client fund” account, you pay $130k.
Scenario 3: You pay the money to the lawyer who has to recognize it as income, you pay him $130k, plus 30% of $130k, or another $39,000. Total is now $169k.
But wait, the taxes on $169k are more than the taxes on $130k, so now you have to pay an extra $48,000 to cover the lawyer’s personal taxes. $130k + $48k = Total: $178,000.
But wait, the taxes on $178,000 are more than the taxes on $130k, so how you have to pay an extra $53,400. Total now: 130k + $53,400 = $183,400.
And so on. Each time you increase the total to pay for the taxes, you have to pay taxes on *that* as well. The amount keeps getting smaller (reducto) but it keeps going up cumulatively. It probably tops out somewhere around $200k. (We faced this when calculating “paying the taxes” for prize winners for the HGTV Dream Home, and for other contests I have been involved with over the years at radio stations. At some point, of course, you can just call it “good enough”, but in reality you need to gross up such an amount by around 55-60%, if I recall the math from my bygone days.)
This was not some “sloppy bookkeeping.” This was a conspiracy (more than one person) engaging in criminal activity (false recording of expenses, tax evasion) for the purpose of furthering a political campaign (campaign finance reporting.)
It is a criminal act - unnecessarily so since all he had to do was put it off til after the election and pay her directly or through a lawyer’s Client fund with an NDA.
As I saw one pundit on TV explain “This is not hard to understand. HE DID IT, and he did it with intent.”
No. of Recommendations: 2
LOL @ you people and "intent". When Hillary! intentionally set up a server to receive and handle the information she got, you people dutifully lined up behind the specious "intent" dodge.
Now, every one of you is a mind reader.
We'll set aside the facts that New York has no jurisdiction to prosecute or even charge for an election crime. Bragg didn't prove anything about ANY of the underlying crimes...he just alleged that the Bad Orange Man did it, and told the jury to basically find Trump guilty.
How sad. BTW, set aside the election. If this gets overturned you people are going to riot.
No. of Recommendations: 2
No I won't. The only real question was if the predicate crime necessary for this to be a felony could be a federal crime. That is likely to be the avenue of appeal. From what I gather, it is the weak point in the case. If it gets overturned based on that, it would not be a major surprise.
Disappointing, but not riot-inducing.
Hopefully albaby is correct about most speaks such as that failing. He won't do any time, and probably would not attend community service. He couldn't ignore a fine and/or probation, though.
No. of Recommendations: 13
Dope1: LOL @ you people and "intent". When Hillary! intentionally set up a server to receive and handle the information she got, you people dutifully lined up behind the specious "intent" dodge.
Jeebus, albaby1 has explained this to you repeatedly.
First of all, Hillary Clinton's "intent" was immaterial because she didn't break any laws with respect to having a private server or private email. When she became secretary of state, officials using personal email accounts only had to ensure that official correspondence was turned over to the government.
Most of Clinton's emails from her personal account went to, or were forwarded to, people with government accounts, so they were automatically archived. Any other emails were turned over to State Department officials when they issued a request to her - and several of her predecessors - in October 2014.
In November 2014 president Obama signed the Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments, which required government officials to forward any official correspondence to the government within 20 days. Clinton left her role as secretary on February 1, 2013. Had she still been in office then, the penalties for non-compliance were administrative, not criminal.
So, again, by having her own email server Clinton violated ZERO criminal statutes. The harshest penalties she could have faced were a formal letter of reprimand or loss of security clearance.
Colin Powell, secretary of state under President George W Bush, used a personal email account.
Florida Governor Jeb Bush used a personal email account in order to control which correspondence was made public.
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's entire staff used private email accounts.
Nikki Haley used a non-classified email system for classified communications.
White House Senior Adviser Ivanka Trump used personal email accounts for official business.
Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and former VA Secretary David Shulkin, same.
Government Executive magazine conducted a poll and found that 33% of those surveyed said they used personal email for government business "at least sometimes".
So, yet again, Hillary Clinton was not indicted, charged, or tried for using a personal email server or private email because it was not against the law to do so when she was secretary of state.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Didn't break any laws? You mean despite the USC I linked.
And stop hiding behind other posters, especially when they're incorrect (as al has been on this one, 100% of the time). Makes it look like the firmware upgrade you just got isn't up to snuff.
So, yet again, Hillary Clinton was not indicted, charged, or tried for using a personal email server or private email because it was not against the law to do so when she was secretary of state.
You're also not skilled enough to play word games; this kind of sleight of hand is far above your ability level.
The issue was never using a private server; the issue was using a private server to receive, store and disseminate classified information to uncleared people.
Try again. With gusto, this time.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Scenario 3: You pay the money to the lawyer who has to recognize it as income, you pay him $130k, plus 30% of $130k, or another $39,000. Total is now $169k.
But wait, the taxes on $169k are more than the taxes on $130k, so now you have to pay an extra $48,000 to cover the lawyer’s personal taxes. $130k + $48k = Total: $178,000.
But wait, the taxes on $178,000 are more than the taxes on $130k, so how you have to pay an extra $53,400. Total now: 130k + $53,400 = $183,400. - goofy
----------------
That may be how you do the math but the correct way to set up the problem is, "What is Amount X that if you tax it at 30% leaves Cohen with $130,000?"
ie, X times 0.7 = $130,000
therefore X equals $130,000 / 0.7 = $185,714.30. Slip Cohen an underhanded check for that amount and after he pays 30% ($55.714.29) of it in taxes, he will have $130,000.01 left, enough to pay Stormy and still have a penny for himself.
No. of Recommendations: 14
"LOL @ you people and "intent". When Hillary! intentionally set up a server to receive and handle the information she got, you people dutifully lined up behind the specious "intent" dodge."
LOL @ Dope that 7 years later he still cannot understand the basics about Hilary Clinton's emails.
"We'll set aside the facts that New York has no jurisdiction to prosecute or even charge for an election crime."
Good thing Trump charged or prosecuted for an election crime or you might actually have a point.
"Bragg didn't prove anything about ANY of the underlying crimes...he just alleged that the Bad Orange Man did it, and told the jury to basically find Trump guilty."
That is the dumbest summary I have read yet. Did you not even read a word that Al wrote on the subject?
I always thought Al was wasting his time trying to teach pigs to sing. You are just demonstrating I was correct.
No. of Recommendations: 4
I always thought Al was wasting his time trying to teach pigs to sing. You are just demonstrating I was correct
Dope is only one part of the audience. We all enjoy Al's posts. :)
No. of Recommendations: 2
Didn't break any laws? You mean despite the USC I linked.
I don’t see any link you posted in this thread, Dope.
I searched USC and didn’t get anything relevant to this discussion.
Would you please repost the link?
No. of Recommendations: 2
Yeah, but the rest of us learn some stuff. So not a total waste.
I appreciate some of the details and nuances that he explains, like the predicate crime requirement for this trial.
No. of Recommendations: 1
