(03-31-2023, 03:00 PM)mikesez Wrote:

(03-31-2023, 02:22 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: No [BLEEP]. It doesn't prove intent, though. Not even close. It's almost impossible to prove intent in a court of law. That's why this case is a sham. Not only that, the intent could just as easily be reversed. Please, tell me, that if Trump HAD paid his lawyer with campaign funds, that you don't believe this DA would think that was on the up and up. Lol, no... they would just say that he can't use campaign funds to fund a private matter. What's that? This DA is noble and true? Dream on, brother.

Well FSG says it didn't even happen.
Not sure if the laws in question say intent has to be proven.
If Trump had paid Daniels with campaign funds and properly reported it, it would have been publicly known before the election.  Not sure how they draw the line between campaign funds and personal funds, not going to dive into your hypothetical that deep.
The moral of the story is don't have people in your life whose silence you might want to buy.  Buying silence is going to run afoul of many different laws unless the silence is regarding trade secrets or something of that nature.

I don't know if it did, and neither do you, that's why I laugh at your "fact" statement. You've already adjudicated what happened without actually knowing anything about it. You've not seen the receipts, you've not seen Trump's books, you've not seen anything at all. Yet you've gulped down what Bragg and the Dems want you to believe for no other reason than you want to believe it. And when this falls apart, again, you'll be wondering why they just can't get him on all these criminal things you just KNOW he did. Lol.

---