Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Post of the Week!
Search Politics
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Post of the Week!
Search Politics


Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (114) |
Author: albaby1 🐝 HONORARY
SHREWD
  😊 😞

Number: of 48447 
Subject: Re: 34 Felony Counts
Date: 04/05/2023 5:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 2
Literally no one has ever put on an accounting form "$X - Payoff for my lawyer bribing a couple of hookers".

That's probably true. But what's also true is if they put on their accounting form, "$X - payment for legal services pursuant to retainer agreement" when the money wasn't for those things, but was instead to bribe a couple of hookers, then they would be falsifying business records in violation of NY state law.

You're not allowed to do that. You can't cover up the payment with false business records.

If Bragg thinks he can claim a crime was committed for purposes of the election, he loses because the FEC will testify there was nothing there either.

That's certainly a possibility. The judge could rule that there's no FEC violation as a matter of law. Or that you can't use a federal crime as the predicate for an enhancement for that specific state crime. Either of which would torpedo Bragg's case. He certainly committed a misdemeanor, even though he might beat it on the statute of limitations.
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (114) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds