Cohen was charged by the feds and served time for doing this. Trump was 'unindicted co-conspirator #1'. The feds (under Barr) gave trump a pass at the time because he was busy being 'president'. Now NY is saying 'hey that former guy is not the president anymore. He should face the same kind of justice that went after Cohen.' Fair's fair.
Cohen was charged by the feds and served time for doing this. Trump was 'unindicted co-conspirator #1'. The feds (under Barr) gave trump a pass at the time because he was busy being 'president'. Now NY is saying 'hey that former guy is not the president anymore. He should face the same kind of justice that went after Cohen.' Fair's fair.
Cohen pled guilty to a bunch of things.
[April 21, 2018] Robert Khuzami, Attorney for the United States, Acting Under Authority Conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 515, William F. Sweeney Jr., the Assistant Director-in-Charge of the New York Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), and James D. Robnett, the Special Agent-in-Charge of the New York Field Office of the Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation (“IRS-CI”), announced today the guilty plea of MICHAEL COHEN to charges of tax evasion, making false statements to a federally-insured bank, and campaign finance violations. The plea was entered followed the filing of an eight-count criminal information, which alleged that COHEN concealed more than $4 million in personal income from the IRS, made false statements to a federally-insured financial institution in connection with a $500,000 home equity loan, and, in 2016, caused $280,000 in payments to be made to silence two women who otherwise planned to speak publicly about their alleged affairs with a presidential candidate, thereby intending to influence the 2016 presidential election. COHEN pled guilty today before U.S. District Judge William H. Pauley III.
I also read that this has never been tested. Connecting state charges to a Federal crime to make misdemeanors a felony. Typically State charges are upgraded with other state charges. It might be thrown out on technicality.
Even if that is the case it is helpful to have Trumps repeated and blatant attempts to commit various forms of election fraud on record and out of the political spin world. And of course the world knows without a doubt Trump is an immoral con man.
His followers will never care but most Americans do.
I also read that this has never been tested. Connecting state charges to a Federal crime to make misdemeanors a felony. Typically State charges are upgraded with other state charges. It might be thrown out on technicality.
Even if that is the case it is helpful to have Trumps repeated and blatant attempts to commit various forms of election fraud on record and out of the political spin world. And of course the world knows without a doubt Trump is an immoral con man.
His followers will never care but most Americans do.
I am not a fan of his personality, not of his morals. I would hope he would not run in 2024. But I think Biden is just as bad in other ways, but he has more friends in powerful places.
"Constitutional experts also told ABC News that previous Supreme Court rulings hold that Congress cannot add qualifications to the office of the president. In addition, a state cannot prohibit indicted or convicted felons from running for federal office."
From what the experts are saying, state electoral laws do not override the Constitution on this.
He can run all he wants but if he wants votes in Florida he'll need to be on the ballot and he won't be if he is a convicted felon if he doesn't cure the felony as required by the state. He likely would do so so it is a moot point but if he doesn't he's not on the ballot.
You need to quote the expert legal opinion that says he would face state restrictions in Florida because there are none saying that in any report I have seen. They say the opposite - as I quoted above - that the states can't impede or override what the Constitution allows.
You post has absolutely nothing to do with state laws that control voting and ballots. Sure, Trump can run. But there is no requirement for states to put anyone on their ballots if they have not complied with states laws. There are NO federal laws requiring people who run for president to be on every state ballot.
"Constitutional experts also told ABC News that previous Supreme Court rulings hold that Congress cannot add qualifications to the office of the president. In addition, a state cannot prohibit indicted or convicted felons from running for federal office."
From what the experts are saying, state electoral laws do not override the Constitution on this.
Do you really not see TPOT's point? Of course DJT can RUN, and TPOT wasn't disputing that.
But not everyone who runs for president qualifies to be on the ballot, which is printed up by individual states. Literally dozens of people run for president in every election year; most are from fringe parties, or just individuals who'd like to be POTUS. States have developed rules for determining whose names can actually be printed on the ballot;, and that is a state's right. Apparently one or more states will not allow a convicted felon's name to be there.
Joe Blow from the Whackoff Party might be running for president, but his name and party are probably not going to appear on the ballot. He can still run, and people can still vote for him by writing him in.
how could the false entries and/or lying about that money influence the election which already happened? In the DAs words he did those illegal actions in order to influence the election.
It was a scheme. The scheme covered that entire time extending after the election. Paybacks and also pressure to keep it silent after the election w Mueller. All was part of this scheme.
"Constitutional experts also told ABC News that previous Supreme Court rulings hold that Congress cannot add qualifications to the office of the president. In addition, a state cannot prohibit indicted or convicted felons from running for federal office."
From what the experts are saying, state electoral laws do not override the Constitution on this.
Do you really not see TPOT's point? Of course DJT can RUN, and TPOT wasn't disputing that.
But not everyone who runs for president qualifies to be on the ballot, which is printed up by individual states. Literally dozens of people run for president in every election year; most are from fringe parties, or just individuals who'd like to be POTUS. States have developed rules for determining whose names can actually be printed on the ballot;, and that is a state's right. Apparently one or more states will not allow a convicted felon's name to be there.
Joe Blow from the Whackoff Party might be running for president, but his name and party are probably not going to appear on the ballot. He can still run, and people can still vote for him by writing him in.
You are not getting the point. According to legal experts, the states cannot impose conditions that would effectively defeat his right to run for office. If they could then the experts have been wrong in saying he could run for office and even be elected because the Constitution allows it. You and the other poster are saying this widely reported opinion is incorrect because states can impose conditions that would effectively deny him that Constitutional freedom. Can you find a reported constitutional law expert who supports what you are saying?
You are NOT a criminal UNTIL you have been convicted of a crime. Do you not understand that?!?
crim·i·nal [ˈkrimənl, ˈkrimn(ə)l] NOUN a person who has committed a crime:
This is correct.
President Trump would not be a felon until/unless he be convicted of a felony. But we can be reasonably certain he has committed a crime, whether or not he be charged or convicted on it (unindicted co-conspirator of a man who was convicted), and it is reasonable to refer to him as a criminal.
To forestall the usual whataboutisms: Yes, there are others who have committed crimes and have not been charged/convicted for them, and I think it is perfectly reasonable to refer to them as criminals, as well.
Do you really not see TPOT's point? Of course DJT can RUN, and TPOT wasn't disputing that.
But not everyone who runs for president qualifies to be on the ballot, which is printed up by individual states. Literally dozens of people run for president in every election year; most are from fringe parties, or just individuals who'd like to be POTUS. States have developed rules for determining whose names can actually be printed on the ballot;, and that is a state's right. Apparently one or more states will not allow a convicted felon's name to be there.
Joe Blow from the Whackoff Party might be running for president, but his name and party are probably not going to appear on the ballot. He can still run, and people can still vote for him by writing him in.
You are not getting the point. According to legal experts, the states cannot impose conditions that would effectively defeat his right to run for office. If they could then the experts have been wrong in saying he could run for office and even be elected because the Constitution allows it. You and the other poster are saying this widely reported opinion is incorrect because states can impose conditions that would effectively deny him that Constitutional freedom. Can you find a reported constitutional law expert who supports what you are saying?
You aren't getting the point.....and as I said it is a moot point at best anyway because his people will make sure he cured a felony conviction to get on the ballot....but there is a difference between declaring "I'm running" and being on an actual ballot which states all have processes to go through.
There have been candidates across all states who've had to earn their way onto ballots by various forms including petition signatures which if they do not meet they are not eligible to be on any ballot, including primaries, in a given state.
You are not getting the point. According to legal experts, the states cannot impose conditions that would effectively defeat his right to run for office. If they could then the experts have been wrong in saying he could run for office and even be elected because the Constitution allows it. You and the other poster are saying this widely reported opinion is incorrect because states can impose conditions that would effectively deny him that Constitutional freedom. Can you find a reported constitutional law expert who supports what you are saying?
You aren't getting the point.....and as I said it is a moot point at best anyway because his people will make sure he cured a felony conviction to get on the ballot....but there is a difference between declaring "I'm running" and being on an actual ballot which states all have processes to go through.
There have been candidates across all states who've had to earn their way onto ballots by various forms including petition signatures which if they do not meet they are not eligible to be on any ballot, including primaries, in a given state.
That's your view. Where's the recognized constitutional law expert to back up your claim that if convicted Trump couldn't get on the ballot?
You aren't getting the point.....and as I said it is a moot point at best anyway because his people will make sure he cured a felony conviction to get on the ballot....but there is a difference between declaring "I'm running" and being on an actual ballot which states all have processes to go through.
There have been candidates across all states who've had to earn their way onto ballots by various forms including petition signatures which if they do not meet they are not eligible to be on any ballot, including primaries, in a given state.
That's your view. Where's the recognized constitutional law expert to back up your claim that if convicted Trump couldn't get on the ballot?
It's not my view. It's the state of florida's view as well as likely other states.
You're misapplying what your expert says or writes. If anyone isn't on a ballot, they ain't gettin' votes and you ain't gettin on a ballot if you don't follow the rules.
As I've said, it's not going to happen anyway but you once again are here and out of your element as some sort of law expert from another country.
That's your view. Where's the recognized constitutional law expert to back up your claim that if convicted Trump couldn't get on the ballot?
It's not my view. It's the state of florida's view as well as likely other states.
You're misapplying what your expert says or writes. If anyone isn't on a ballot, they ain't gettin' votes and you ain't gettin on a ballot if you don't follow the rules.
As I've said, it's not going to happen anyway but you once again are here and out of your element as some sort of law expert from another country.
I'm not claiming to be the expert on this; I am referring to what acknowledged legal experts are saying across a range of media. They are saying nothing can prevent him contesting the presidential election and even being elected. I understand you are saying that state laws could prevent him being elected but where is a constitutional law expert agreeing with you on this?