> Because the message here is that they will be criminally charged, if they don’t honor the election and the peaceful transfer of power.
With something completely unrelated? That's a concerning viewpoint.
With something completely unrelated? That's a concerning viewpoint.
I guess it would be concerning if you commit so many crimes that nobody knew which one you'd actually be charged with first.
Me, I just try to not do that.
A well meaning sentiment but we all break the law on a daily basis. The amount of laws in the US Code is staggering and if a motivated DA wants to charge someone of a crime, they’ll find a way. Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent by Harvey Silvergate is a perfect primer on this subject.
From what I understand, this indictment is about accounting and how a payment was classified. Not that the payment itself was illegal, or that it was some bombshell. Some argue it was a legal expense, some argue it should have been a campaign expenditure. It could go either way.
> Some argue it was a legal expense, some argue it should have been a campaign expenditure.
Whomst among us has never bought the silence of a porn star using political campaign funds?