Democrats, not Trump, are the real crooked record holders

President Trump is on trial in New York for allegedly falsifying business documents because the accountants in his organization recorded certain legal costs – specifically a legal settlement – ​​as “legal fees.” Democratic prosecutors say the accountants should have recorded these payments as campaign contributions and expenses because, they say, the payments were “intended” to “unlawfully” influence the 2016 election by concealing an alleged sexual encounter with a pornographer.

Complicated and bizarre enough for you? It should be so. Because there is absolutely nothing “illegal” about concealing an alleged sexual encounter with a pornographer.

Nevertheless, there is a lot of dishonest record keeping going on these days. But it’s the Democrats who are doing it.

Mischaracterization of record keeping requirements

Basically the federal campaign finance law prohibits prevent candidates from characterizing the payments at issue in the Trump case as campaign contributions and expenditures.

Brad Smith, a leading expert on campaign finance law and a former member of the Federal Election Commission, was scheduled to testify in open court in the Trump case. Only Juan Merchan, the partisan Democratic Biden donor judge who presided over the case, barred him from doing so.

To accept the plaintiff’s case, one must conclude that New York law requires candidates to prepare business documents that violate federal law. The supremacy clause of the Constitution does not allow that. So it is Democratic prosecutors, not the Trump Organization, who conspired to falsely characterize the record-keeping problems in the case.

Judge Merchan’s manipulation of the case file

Judge Merchan’s rationale for excluding Smith’s testimony is that judges traditionally instruct the jury about the law. The problem is that Merchan already allowed the prosecution’s witnesses, and the prosecutors themselves, to weigh in on their understanding of campaign finance law. Once he allowed that, Merchan was constitutionally obligated to allow Trump to defend himself on the same point.

Merchan also overlooked the fact that the way people conform their behavior to the law is based as much on the policies of the administrators who enforce the law as on the words of the law itself. Smith, a former member of the regulatory agency that enforces federal campaign laws, was prepared to testify that the agency’s policy prevents candidates from treating such payments as campaign contributions and expenses.

This leads to the obvious conclusion that the Trump Organization posted the payments the way they did, not to “illegally” influence the 2016 election, but because they were obliged (or at least thought) to do so. that they had to do so) by federal law, completely denying the factual element of unlawful intent.

If Trump “intended” to “influence” the 2016 election by covering up Stormy Daniels’ NDA payments, the easiest way to do so would have been to characterize the late October 2016 payments as campaign contributions and expenditures . This is because under federal campaign finance law, contributions and expenditures made in late October of an election year are not required to be reported until after the election.

Unfortunately (and wrongly), the jurors in the New York case will not hear any of this exculpatory information because the partisan Democratic judge excluded it from the record. Like I said, it’s the Democrats who have the record keeping problem.

Talk about falsifying corporate data to influence an election

Joe Biden is old. As Bill Maher puts it, Joe Biden is “cadaverously” old. Polls show that nearly two-thirds of Americans believe Biden does not have the mental fitness to serve another term as president. Do you think this could encourage the White House to change data to mitigate the political fallout from Biden’s mental decline?

The White House is doing just that. It recently released the official transcript of Biden’s May 19 speech to the NAACP in Detroit. It was official. Only it wasn’t a transcription. It was a politics circular designed to clean up the disjointed mess left behind by a mentally disabled man selfishly trying to hang on to the hardest, most demanding, and most consequential job in the world.

The so-called ‘transcript’ substantially corrected numerous key examples of mental errors or gibberish uttered by Biden, including the claim that he was vice president during the Covid ‘pandemic’ and that President Obama told him to go to Detroit and ‘fix the problem’ to solve’. .”

Recordings? We don’t need to show you any stinking records!

There is no need to falsify documents if you wrongfully refuse to show them to the public. That’s what the White House did last week by claiming “executive privilege” over the audio recordings of Biden’s interviews with the special counsel investigating Biden’s mishandling of classified documents.

That’s the case in which Biden took top-secret government documents when he was a senator and vice president, “intentionally” openly stored them in dilapidated boxes in his garage, and then “intentionally” revealed the classified information to his ghostwriter as part of a lucrative $8 million book deal. Biden’s Justice Department declined to prosecute Biden, concluding that he would present himself to a jury as he did in his interviews — “as a likable older man with a bad memory” — making it difficult to prove a crime “that a mental state required’. idiosyncrasy.”

In an effort to contain the damage from the special counsel’s report, the White House and its allies have released redacted transcripts of Biden’s interviews with investigators, apparently hoping that presenting the cold, written version of Biden’s testimony will could minimize public anxiety about his declining mental state. That didn’t happen. Still, it opened the door for Congress to subpoena the audio tapes of the interviews.

Last week, the White House banned the Justice Department from releasing these tapes to Congress on grounds of executive privilege. However, the White House has already voluntarily released the transcripts of the interviews, so any privilege that may have existed has been waived. It is a basic principle of the law that a party waives confidentiality privileges once the party voluntarily discloses a significant portion of information. Under these circumstances, the White House’s claim of executive privilege is not only wrong, but ridiculous.

The White House’s claim of “executive privilege” isn’t really legal — it knows it has no chance of prevailing in court. Rather, the assertion of privilege is pure politics. The White House thinks it can hide the tapes until after the elections while the matter is being litigated.

The tapes must be very, very bad for Biden. How do we know this? Because not releasing the tapes is really bad for Biden. The special counsel essentially reported that Biden appeared mentally impaired in his interviews. By refusing to release the tapes, Biden only confirms that perception.

There were no good options for the White House on the tape issue. Since the White House chose a bad option (withholding the tapes), one can only assume that the other option (releasing the tapes) was significantly worse.

Why withhold data when you can just hide or destroy it instead?

That was apparently the credo of one of Dr. Anthony Fauci’s top advisors – and possibly Fauci’s too – during the Covid panic regarding their dealings with the EcoHealth Alliance and its now admitted use of federal funding to profit. functional research at the infamous Wuhan Institute of Virology.

This month, the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic released shocking emails sent from the private Gmail account of David Morens, an adviser to Fauci, detailing an apparent attempt by administrators to undermine public open records laws — commonly referred to as “FOIA” — by improperly conducting government work through private Gmail accounts or by deleting data entirely.

In one such email, Morens tells Peter Daszak, president of the EchoHealth Alliance, that “there are no concerns about FOIAs. I can send stuff to Tony via his private gmail, or hand it over to him at work or at his home. He is too smart to let colleagues direct him to things that could cause problems.”

In another email, Morens confesses, “I learned from our foia lady here how to make emails disappear after I’m foiad, but before the search begins, so I think we’re all safe. Plus, I deleted most of those previous emails after sending them to Gmail.”

Wow, that’s bad. But you have to understand that for Democrats, booking legal fees as “legal fees” is the real threat to democracy.

Joseph LoBue is a retired Navy officer and attorney.

Back To Top