"That is not a crime" clarified

https://reason.com/2024/04/15/alvin-bragg-says-trump-tried-to-conceal-another-crime-what-crime/

This is simple-to-read, ( No Marauder Links!!) The Trial For Dummies (I made that up).

Here is the last paragraph, if you are worn out from SHouse posts. It makes the point.

""After taking a long, hard look at potential state charges against Trump stemming from the payment to Daniels, Vance concluded they were too iffy to pursue. Now Bragg is desperately looking for a legal pretext to punish what he takes to be the essence of Trump's crime: keeping from voters information they might have deemed relevant in choosing between him and Hillary Clinton. But that is not a crime, and treating it as 34 felonies stretches the bounds of credulity as well as the bounds of the law.""

@averagejoe1 said
https://reason.com/2024/04/15/alvin-bragg-says-trump-tried-to-conceal-another-crime-what-crime/

This is simple-to-read, ( No Marauder Links!!) The Trial For Dummies (I made that up).

Here is the last paragraph, if you are worn out from SHouse posts. It makes the point.

""After taking a long, hard look at potential state charges against Trump stemming from the pay ...[text shortened]... and treating it as 34 felonies stretches the bounds of credulity as well as the bounds of the law.""

@spruce112358
"Keeping voters from information is not a crime'. I think even Bragg knows that, even suechild knows that. So, he is trying to identify a crime to hang on Trump. DURING a trial!

@spruce112358 said
A simple question with a simple answer.

Apparently because Vance was hesitant and weak, while Alvin Bragg is no coward.

"Vance ... felt hesitant to charge famous defendants if he was not absolutely certain he could convict them. That context may help connect the dots between the decision not to pursue either the Trump siblings in 2012 or Harvey Weinstein in 2015." ...[text shortened]... orker.com/news/news-desk/why-didnt-manhattan-da-cyrus-vance-prosecute-the-trumps-or-harvey-weinstein

@mott-the-hoople said
what do you think should be done about the 17 officials that lied about Trump on Russia collusion?

Or about Clinton creating the fake Russia dossier?

Or the officials that lied about hunters laptop?

@averagejoe1 said
https://reason.com/2024/04/15/alvin-bragg-says-trump-tried-to-conceal-another-crime-what-crime/

This is simple-to-read, ( No Marauder Links!!) The Trial For Dummies (I made that up).

Here is the last paragraph, if you are worn out from SHouse posts. It makes the point.

""After taking a long, hard look at potential state charges against Trump stemming from the pay ...[text shortened]... and treating it as 34 felonies stretches the bounds of credulity as well as the bounds of the law.""

@mott-the-hoople said
what do you think should be done about the 17 officials that lied about Trump on Russia collusion?

Or about Clinton creating the fake Russia dossier?

Or the officials that lied about hunters laptop?

@mott-the-hoople said
what do you think should be done about the 17 officials that lied about Trump on Russia collusion?

Or about Clinton creating the fake Russia dossier?

Or the officials that lied about hunters laptop?

@shavixmir said
They should be given medals just to piss you off.

@averagejoe1 said
@spruce112358
"Keeping voters from information is not a crime'. I think even Bragg knows that, even suechild knows that. So, he is trying to identify a crime to hang on Trump. DURING a trial!

@averagejoe1 said
Shav, that sue person would tell you to quit spamming the thread.....but you and she are the same. Very confusingly conflicting.

@averagejoe1 said
Thumb for Mott

@suzianne said
Did Trump use campaign funds for the payoff?

@suzianne said
No one lied about Russia's involvement in the 2016 election, except the Trump campaign.

There was no "fake dossier". The dossier was quite real.

Again, the only ones who lied about Hunter's laptop were Republicans.

You'd be well-advised to stop telling fibs. They only show you don't mind being taken in by a liar. In fact, you seem proud of it.

@suzianne said
Unfortunately not. The fact is, you let him con you again, keeping you in the dark, putting you on notice that he doesn't care what you think, as long as you continue to slavishly vote for him. He thinks that you can't handle the truth.

Too bad that you show us all here every day, that you don't mind being conned. that you actually enjoy it, trying to put a criminal back into the Oval Office. Despite all your talk, you love being a sub to his dom.