Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

That might be tough to prove in court actually.  I'm not sure what statute it falls under.  The ones I glanced over were rather vague, to me.

Whether or not Hinter Biden did trade influence and whether or not he can be convicted of it are two wildly different questions. 

It is obvious to me that he did. The younger Biden held several positions for which his only notable qualification was being the son of a person very powerful in the US Government. 

That status, however, is obviously not a crime. In order to actually prove a crime you would almost need a wire tap with a recorded quid pro quo and if that existed I imagine that we'd have heard about it long ago.

he's not real smart but,......... he may have been quiet and invisible about illegal influence through is coked out son

does everyone agree Trump banged a pornstar?
check
does everyone agree she was paid hush money?
check
the only question is .. did he pay her to influence an election?
if a guy is running for an elected office....... probably, it's one reason for sure.

I suppose a guilty verdict could be overturned on a technicality
I'm not a lawyer, but I've stayed in plenty of Holiday Inn Expresses in the past 3 years

Bragg's prosecution was dependent on Trump's hush money payment being a felony.

The reason is that Bragg prosecuted Trump for falsifying a business record and that is a misdemeanor (and beyond the SoL) unless it was done to cover up a crime.

Bragg's felony to get there was a violation of Federal Election Law.  Candidates are required to report "Campaign Expenses".

Typically, Candidates have a committee ie "Friends of MedinaBuckeye1". So the committee raises money and pays campaign expenses. Also, what are called "In Kind" contributions must be reported so if I buy something for the campaign or if a Political Party or a PAC spends money on behalf of the campaign, that must be reported as an "In Kind Contribution" (stuff instead of cash).

Bragg's argument is that the hush money payment to the porn star was a Campaign expense that was required to be reported by the Trump Campaign. It wasn't reported and that would be a felony IF Bragg is correct.

The main problem with this argument is that there is a more-or-less direct precedent that says it wasn't a felony nor a violation at all.

John Edwards impregnated a woman named Rielle Hunter while his wife was dying of cancer. During one of his campaigns he asked some supporters of his to pay Hunter to keep quiet. They did and Edwards was eventually caught. The DoJ pursued a felony case against Edwards and lost.

Subsequently, the DoJ was presented with the Trump/Daniels information and declined to prosecute citing the Edwards/Hunter situation as precedent.

FWIW:
The case against Edwards was stronger because:

• At trial it was demonstrated that his wife knew so the payment couldn't have been to keep her unaware, and
• Edwards didn't pay Hunter himself like Trump did (indirectly) but rather Political supporters paid her for him. Their motivation was pretty obviously Political.

If you follow the Edwards/Hunter precedent then Trump's business records were NOT falsified to cover up a crime and the entire case falls apart.

In spite of the above, I have no idea how the appeal will come out.

Hmmm I've never looked into the details of the case because, frankly, I don't care.

But if that's really the crux of it, calling the hush money a "campaign expense" then it's a pretty long stretch IMO.

Hmmm I've never looked into the details of the case because, frankly, I don't care.

But if that's really the crux of it, calling the hush money a "campaign expense" then it's a pretty long stretch IMO.

One issue that could arise on appeal is whether or not the DoJ's refusal to prosecute makes it a non-crime.  I'm not sure how that works.  Federal Courts typically defer to State Courts on issues of State Law but deference to a Court is different from deference to the DoJ.  

Trump's argument is pretty simple:  If the DoJ says it isn't a crime, then it isn't a crime.  

The counter would be that DoJ's inability to prove it isn't the same thing as it not being a crime.  

The problem with that argument, I think, is that in the Edwards case there wasn't any issue of proof.  IIRC, the facts weren't really in question.  The issue was simply whether or not the payment constituted a "campaign expense".  

thanks for the explanation

I wouldn't see it as a campaign expense, myself if it didn't come out of the committee fund

Whether or not it came out of the Campaign Fund is not dispositive.  

Example:
If I, MedinaBuckeye1 pay out of my own pocket for a banner that says "Vote for MedinaBuckeye1" that is plainly a campaign expense and MUST be reported.  Failure to report it would clearly be a violation of campaign finance law.  

In this case the question is whether or not the expense was made "In furtherance of the campaign".  

Edwards' argument was that the expense was made for reasons of his good name and so that his family kids wouldn't find out.  

The problem for the prosecution is that the burden of proof is on them and in a criminal case the evidentiary standard is the customary "beyond a reasonable doubt" so if a guy (Trump/Edwards) pays a woman (Hunter/Daniels) to keep his affair with her secret, that is only a felony if the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the expense was made "in furtherance of the campaign" and not for other reasons such as keeping their wives/kids from finding out.  

As far as the implications for Trump, I don't view it as a crime since it wasn't a crime when Edwards did it and since the Edwards situation happened first, Trump undoubtedly KNEW about the Edwards situation.  His Lawyer (Cohen) would have been criminally incompetent not to look into that.  If he paid her on the advice of counsel that it was legit because that was what Edwards did then I can't see that as a crime.  

All of that said, the whole situation just proves that Trump is a moron.  The national press knew about the Edwards/Hunter situation for years and chose not to report it.  It only came out because the Enquirer found out and publicized it.  If Trump thought that he would get the same "kid gloves" treatment from the press that Edwards got, he is colossally stupid.  

One hesitation for me is my perception that VP Biden had almost zero influence over anything.  Maybe foreigners thought they could get influence, not knowing that, and maybe they paid for it, but if no influence was forthcoming, there is no crime.

I can't think of anything Joe did as VP that even MIGHT have been a favor to anyone, other than being quiet and invisible.

Yeah, if you want a humorous show about how useless the VP position is, and have HBO/Max, check out Veep. Julia Louis-Dreyfus plays the VP and she's just constantly getting marginalized.

One of the funny things is that every time she is getting back to her office she's asking her admin "Sue, did the President call?" and the answer is always no.