In reply to aggiehawg

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

(Random thought: Since it's so obvious that we're making crap up as we go in this prosecution, what's to keep another state's AG, such as Paxton, from filing a federal lawsuit against the State of New York for conspiracy and election interference - ie. interfering in a campaign with national implications, as this trial itself is being increasingly revealed as nothing more than election interference? It's a reach, I know, but could it possibly have the result of short circuiting this circus and immediately kicking it to federal appeals court?)

---

No, Paxton and the state of Texas would have no standing to file suit in federal court nor before the SCOTUS under the precedent set in the election challenge case in late 2020.

---

Apparently, Texas has no standing before SCOTUS even when states have unConstitutionally changed their federal election processes. That still chaps my hide.

This case should be thrown in the East River with the rest of the trash. its clearly a railroad job but they are hoping a jury thinks that paying off Daniels to stay quiet is some form of underlying conspiracy crime illegally affecting the election when it seems to me that wasn't even in the indictment.

In reply to 4stringAg

4stringAg said:

---

There is no crime here. Just a bogus malicious prosecution in a jurisdiction with a heavy democrat voting district where the prosecution will have a favorable biased jury likely to convict because of politics not evidence. They just want any conviction so the Dems and media can run with a Trump is a convicted felon angle. Remember little wormy **** Stephanopolos interview with the Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace? He routinely called Trump a rapist during that interview because he was found liable in the kangaroo court civil suit brought by E Jean Carroll. That's the type of latitude they are looking for to help separate Trump from the voters.

---

Not liable for rape, though. That is even more maddening, because the judge then claimed Trump DID rape Carroll, even though the jury found he did not, because in some other places, digital penetration is considered rape as well. That judge should be disbarred, but he won't be.

In reply to TXAggie2011

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Too little, too late. State cannot pivot and add charges not in the indictment once trial has started and jeopardy has attached. And not even a felony! Oy vey! What a mess!

Piling misdemeanor upon misdemeanor usually does not make a felony case. I see no reason why it would here.

---

If I understand this correctly, this is huge.

We always assumed that Bragg was relying on some unnamed federal crime to bootstrap his misdemeanor charges against Trump onto in order to make them felonious...thereby providing the justification to extend the statute of limitiations on the allegations.

But now it is revealed that no, it isn't a federal statute that they are relying upon. Rather, it is a New York state election statute. So among the snakes in Pandora's Box now opened:

• they're bootstrapping a misdemeanor onto a misdemeanor in order to claim a felony (as hawg has already noted); BUT, the statute of limitations on BOTH misdemeanors have run.
• instead of arguing federal statute, in which they could claim that they have no control over the prosecution of, they're pointing to a STATE statute, in which they have exclusive control over prosecuting for - but have not charged Trump under this statute.

---

Its not really huge. None of that really matters. But FWIW, New York is going to use (or is likely going to use) multiple underlying crimes, including federal felonies...

Merchan says we're moving on, but agrees with the government and references the three theories he will allow the prosecution to pursue re: the predicate. Here they are, as a reminder.

Full order: https://t.co/zdrlScVJBU pic.twitter.com/5Ili8Dmi0Z

— Tyler McBrien (@TylerMcBrien) April 23, 2024

---

None of which have even been charged, much less convicted.

What a travesty of "justice".

In reply to BMX Bandit

BMX Bandit said:

---

personally, I think Trump did do the actions that he's accused of here. I just don't think it raises to the level of a crime. and if it does violate some weird NY statute, its not disqualifying in my opinion for the presidency.

---

Personally, I think the grand jury was mishandled and handed down a very faulty indictment. Some of which a superceding indictment might have been able to cure with conspiracy charges. Would that get the state up to the level of a state felony charge? IDK but jeopardy has attached now and the time to try to fix those faults has passed, Merchan's nonsensical order notwithstanding.

That order actually reflects the problems with the indictment, despite Merchan trying to wave a magic wand to make those infirmities disappear.

Not even a mistrial gets Bragg from Point A to Point B, IMO.

BTW, apropos of nothing, having a Wednesday as the down day for this trial is wonky and takes some getting used to.

In reply to TXAggie2011

TXAggie2011 said:

---

richardag said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

TexAg1987 said:

---

At what point does the defense get to say that there is no evidence of a crime?

Do they have to wait for the prosecution to rest?

---

Cannot call for a legal conclusion from a witness, unless I guess they have been qualified as an expert witness and even then, unlikely to be allowed.
…….

---

So the Defence attorneys can not even ask the witnesses,"To your knowledge has President Trump been convicted of a crime?"?

---

You could theoretically ask any witness that if its relevant, they have reliable knowledge of the answer, and the answer is not overly prejudicial.

That would seem to be an irrelevant question in this case.

---

Thank you for the response.
I guess they could call the prosecuting attorneys, they should have some knowledge. (only half joking)

Here's a question:

Does NY Election Law Article 17 apply to elections oter than NY state or political subdivisions thereof?

Does it apply to federal elections? I went back to the first section containing definitions and it is unclear.

Quote:

---

17-100. Definitions. 1. The word "election" as used in this article shall be deemed to apply to and include all general, special and primary elections, unofficial primaries and all local elections relating to candidates, ballot proposals, proceedings for the nominations of candidates by petition, and all elections held pursuant to Article 52A of the education law.
2. The word "candidate" shall be deemed to apply to any person seeking a nomination, designation, or election to a public office or party office.
3. The term "election officer" shall mean any person who, pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, performs any duty or function in the electoral process.
4. The term "public officer" as used in this article shall be deemed to apply to any person who holds an elective or appointive office of the state, separate authority or any political subdivision of the state with authority to supervise other personnel within such subdivisions. The term "public employee" shall be deemed to apply to all other personnel of the state or such authorities or subdivisions.

---

LINK

Still unclear, if confidently stated. pic.twitter.com/J1vmQgTlFB

— Byron York (@ByronYork) April 24, 2024

In reply to aggiehawg

Quote:

---

Here's a question:

Does NY Election Law Article 17 apply to elections oter than NY state or political subdivisions thereof?

Does it apply to federal elections? I went back to the first section containing definitions and it is unclear.

---

Yes. Go to Section 1-102 "Applicability of Chapter"

Quote:

---

1-102. Applicability of chapter. This chapter shall govern the conduct of all elections at which voters of the state of New York may cast a ballot for the purpose of electing an individual to any party position or nominating or electing an individual to any federal, state, county, city, town or village office...

---

Quote:

---

1-102. Applicability of chapter. This chapter shall govern the conduct of all elections at which voters of the state of New York may cast a ballot for the purpose of electing an individual to any party position or nominating or electing an individual to any federal, state, county, city, town or village office, or deciding any ballot question submitted to all the voters of the state or the voters of any county or city, or deciding any ballot question submitted to the voters of any town or village at the time of a general election. Where a specific provision of law exists in any other law which is inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter, such provision shall apply unless a provision of this chapter specifies that such provision of this chapter shall apply notwithstanding any other provision of law.

---

This is not the clearest of language. Federal laws tops state laws under the supremacy clause. And Bragg has no authority nor jurisdiction to enforce federal laws.

In reply to aggiehawg

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

1-102. Applicability of chapter. This chapter shall govern the conduct of all elections at which voters of the state of New York may cast a ballot for the purpose of electing an individual to any party position or nominating or electing an individual to any federal, state, county, city, town or village office, or deciding any ballot question submitted to all the voters of the state or the voters of any county or city, or deciding any ballot question submitted to the voters of any town or village at the time of a general election. Where a specific provision of law exists in any other law which is inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter, such provision shall apply unless a provision of this chapter specifies that such provision of this chapter shall apply notwithstanding any other provision of law.

---

This is not the clearest of language. Federal laws tops state laws under the supremacy clause. And Bragg has no authority nor jurisdiction to enforce federal laws.

---

Can you identify a specific law, federal or otherwise, that's inconsistent with the specific law in question in this case?

In reply to aggiehawg What does the Supremacy Clause have to do with this? Is there a conflict in the laws?

I am not convinced Bragg can use a Federal statute as the "another crime' under 175.10, but the State of NY can clearly include Federal elections in the scope of its election laws.

In reply to aggiehawg

aggiehawg said:

---

Still unclear, if confidently stated. pic.twitter.com/J1vmQgTlFB

— Byron York (@ByronYork) April 24, 2024

---

So trying to let this all marinate....the conspiracy crime they claim he was concealing he's never been even charged with. Can you even constitutionally be indicted/convicted of covering up a crime you've yet to be even charged with?

If the answer is no, Is the answer to the question of how did this even get to trial before being thrown out simply, "it's a corrupt NY state court"

It's hard to think of anything to even compare that to.

In reply to aggiehawg

aggiehawg said:

---

Still unclear, if confidently stated. pic.twitter.com/J1vmQgTlFB

— Byron York (@ByronYork) April 24, 2024

---

Not all conspiracies are illegal

In reply to Im Gipper

Im Gipper said:

---

What does the Supremacy Clause have to do with this? Is there a conflict in the laws?

I am not convinced Bragg can use a Federal statute as the "another crime' under 175.10, but the State of NY can clearly include Federal elections in the scope of its election laws.

---

It has nothing to do with anything here, but she had to find some way to deflect her lack of legal research skills about the applicability of the chapter.

[Lose the snark. This thread is better without it. -Staff]

In reply to Gyles Marrett The grand jury indictment had no where in it the word conspiracy. Or election fraud. The act around the accounting matter happened in 2017, after he was elected. The misdemeanor had a 2 year statute of limitations.

All of this is insane.

The bottom line is there in NO crime here.

In reply to Gyles Marrett

Quote:

---

Can you even constitutionally be indicted/convicted of covering up a crime you've yet to be even charged with?

---

The answer is "yes" because the crime he is charged with requires the following finding by the jury:

That the defendant did so with intent to defraud that included an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof

Being successful in the commission of the "another crime" is not an element.

In reply to captkirk

captkirk said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Still unclear, if confidently stated. pic.twitter.com/J1vmQgTlFB

— Byron York (@ByronYork) April 24, 2024

---

Not all conspiracies are illegal

---

By the definition of the word true, if referred to under conspiracy law it is. So in essence in legal proceedings if a "conspiracy" is referred to the meaning is an illegal one. Weird dynamic.

In reply to TheAngelFlight

Quote:

---

Can you identify a specific law, federal or otherwise, that's inconsistent with the specific law in question in this case?

---

Depends. What is the definition of "election interference"? Intimidation at the polls under Voting Rights Act? Literacy tests or poll taxes under Civil Rights laws?

Gary Hart was having an affair with Donna Rice and keeping that secret during the 1988 Dem primares. Was that election interference?

John Edwards was having an affair and hiding his baby mama, was that election interference?

In reply to Im Gipper

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Can you even constitutionally be indicted/convicted of covering up a crime you've yet to be even charged with?

---

The answer is "yes" because the crime he is charged with requires the following finding by the jury:

That the defendant did so with intent to defraud that included an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof

Being successful in the commission of the "another crime" is not an element.

---

Right. There's no requirement to be charged with the underlying crime. The jury still must find beyond reasonable doubt what you just posted.

The government obviously must prove there case well, and that's obviously yet to be seen two half days into the trial.

But this board is acting like they've never heard "the cover up was worse than the crime..."

In reply to Im Gipper

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Can you even constitutionally be indicted/convicted of covering up a crime you've yet to be even charged with?

---

The answer is "yes" because the crime he is charged with requires the following finding by the jury:

That the defendant did so with intent to defraud that included an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof

Being successful in the commission of the "another crime" is not an element.

---

Right, but as previously mentioned in the post above. The accounting record was made after Trump was elected. How can a record made after the election be a conspiracy to affect the election that has already happened? lol. It's as if they want to rewrite the history of events in question here.

In reply to aggiehawg

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Can you identify a specific law, federal or otherwise, that's inconsistent with the specific law in question in this case?

---

Depends. What is the definition of "election interference"? Intimidation at the polls under Voting Rights Act? Literacy tests or poll taxes under Civil Rights laws?

Gary Hart was having an affair with Donna Rice and keeping that secret during the 1988 Dem primares. Was that election interference?

John Edwards was having an affair and hiding his baby mama, was that election interferece?

---

So, that's a "no."

In reply to Gyles Marrett On that one, you will have to ask someone that thinks this is a good case against Trump. I do not.

In reply to Gyles Marrett

Gyles Marrett said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Can you even constitutionally be indicted/convicted of covering up a crime you've yet to be even charged with?

---

The answer is "yes" because the crime he is charged with requires the following finding by the jury:

That the defendant did so with intent to defraud that included an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof

Being successful in the commission of the "another crime" is not an element.

---

Right, but as previously mentioned in the post above. The accounting record was made after Trump was elected. How can a record made after the election be a conspiracy to affect the election that has already happened? lol. It's as if they want to rewrite the history of events in question here.

---

"Conceal the commission thereof..."

Quote:

---

A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

---

In reply to TheAngelFlight

Quote:

---

So, that's a "no."

---

So tha means you have zero idea what "election interference" means? Pretty generic term. Very ambiguous and vague. That violates due process notice of the specifics of the acts being criminalized. Makes its application unconstitutional.

In reply to TheAngelFlight

TheAngelFlight said:

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Can you even constitutionally be indicted/convicted of covering up a crime you've yet to be even charged with?

---

The answer is "yes" because the crime he is charged with requires the following finding by the jury:

That the defendant did so with intent to defraud that included an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof

Being successful in the commission of the "another crime" is not an element.

---

Right, but as previously mentioned in the post above. The accounting record was made after Trump was elected. How can a record made after the election be a conspiracy to affect the election that has already happened? lol. It's as if they want to rewrite the history of events in question here.

---

"Conceal the commission thereof..."

Quote:

---

A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

---

---

So the NDA which isn't illegal was somehow a conpiracy to affect the election, which was then covered up by another crime of the account record....Now you've lost me, this is the Inception of the justice system. A crime within a crime within a crime. I'm no lawyer so I can't imagine a juror understanding it better than me. If there's not at least 1 juror on that jury that can't find reasonable doubt, then they're lying.

In reply to aggiehawg

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

So, that's a "no."

---

So tha means you have zero idea what "election interference" means? Pretty generic term. Very ambiguous and vague. That violates due process notice of the specifics of the acts being criminalized. Makes its application unconstitutional.

---

The FBI itself (and many others) obviously conspired to hide the contents of Hunter's laptop from the public to influence the last presidential election.

Previously, Hillary famously conspired to hide her payments to Steele via a law firm (Perkins Coie) for Russian lies about Trump to impact the election. She hid it and then paid a small fine when caught.

In reply to Gyles Marrett

Gyles Marrett said:

---

TheAngelFlight said:

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Can you even constitutionally be indicted/convicted of covering up a crime you've yet to be even charged with?

---

The answer is "yes" because the crime he is charged with requires the following finding by the jury:

That the defendant did so with intent to defraud that included an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof

Being successful in the commission of the "another crime" is not an element.

---

Right, but as previously mentioned in the post above. The accounting record was made after Trump was elected. How can a record made after the election be a conspiracy to affect the election that has already happened? lol. It's as if they want to rewrite the history of events in question here.

---

"Conceal the commission thereof..."

Quote:

---

A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

---

---

So the NDA which isn't illegal was somehow a conpiracy to affect the election, which was then covered up by another crime of the account record....Now you've lost me, this is the Inception of the justice system. A crime within a crime within a crime. I'm no lawyer so I can't imagine a juror understanding it better than me. If there's not at least 1 juror on that jury that can't find reasonable doubt, then they're lying.

---

The State obviously must prove there was an intent to commit an actual underlying crime. If they can't, the jury should acquit as soon as possible.

But I was answering your question of how the law can apply to business records made after the election was over. It can because the business records don't have to affect the election themselves since the law applies to concealment of an effort to affect the election.

In reply to TheAngelFlight

TheAngelFlight said:

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

TheAngelFlight said:

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Can you even constitutionally be indicted/convicted of covering up a crime you've yet to be even charged with?

---

The answer is "yes" because the crime he is charged with requires the following finding by the jury:

That the defendant did so with intent to defraud that included an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof

Being successful in the commission of the "another crime" is not an element.

---

Right, but as previously mentioned in the post above. The accounting record was made after Trump was elected. How can a record made after the election be a conspiracy to affect the election that has already happened? lol. It's as if they want to rewrite the history of events in question here.

---

"Conceal the commission thereof..."

Quote:

---

A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

---

---

So the NDA which isn't illegal was somehow a conpiracy to affect the election, which was then covered up by another crime of the account record....Now you've lost me, this is the Inception of the justice system. A crime within a crime within a crime. I'm no lawyer so I can't imagine a juror understanding it better than me. If there's not at least 1 juror on that jury that can't find reasonable doubt, then they're lying.

---

The State obviously must prove there was an intent to commit an actual underlying crime. If they can't, the jury should acquit as soon as possible.

But I was answering your question of how the law can apply to business records made after the election was over. It can because the business records don't have to affect the election themselves since the law applies to concealment of an effort to affect the election.

---

Gotcha, so I guess my last question would then be the concept of a conspiracy to affect the election. Is the issue at hand there asking the jury to decide that a NDA which is legal, is somehow an illegal conspiracy to affect the election?

In reply to Gyles Marrett

Gyles Marrett said:

---

TheAngelFlight said:

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

TheAngelFlight said:

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Can you even constitutionally be indicted/convicted of covering up a crime you've yet to be even charged with?

---

The answer is "yes" because the crime he is charged with requires the following finding by the jury:

That the defendant did so with intent to defraud that included an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof

Being successful in the commission of the "another crime" is not an element.

---

Right, but as previously mentioned in the post above. The accounting record was made after Trump was elected. How can a record made after the election be a conspiracy to affect the election that has already happened? lol. It's as if they want to rewrite the history of events in question here.

---

"Conceal the commission thereof..."

Quote:

---

A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

---

---

So the NDA which isn't illegal was somehow a conpiracy to affect the election, which was then covered up by another crime of the account record....Now you've lost me, this is the Inception of the justice system. A crime within a crime within a crime. I'm no lawyer so I can't imagine a juror understanding it better than me. If there's not at least 1 juror on that jury that can't find reasonable doubt, then they're lying.

---

The State obviously must prove there was an intent to commit an actual underlying crime. If they can't, the jury should acquit as soon as possible.

But I was answering your question of how the law can apply to business records made after the election was over. It can because the business records don't have to affect the election themselves since the law applies to concealment of an effort to affect the election.

---

Gotcha, so I guess my last question would then be the concept of a conspiracy to affect the election. Is the issue at hand there asking the jury to decide that a NDA which is legal, is somehow an illegal conspiracy to affect the election?

---

I think the execution of the NDA "scheme", if you will, is really the problem that got us here and not the NDA in and of itself. If this ends bad for Trump, like it did for Cohen, its a real "too cute by half" kind of thing.

What is tricky for the State is explaining that the execution of the scheme amounted to excessive campaign contributions and/or coordination of expenditures between the campaign and individuals/corporations, which is a big "no-no" in election law.

In reply to aggiehawg

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Can you identify a specific law, federal or otherwise, that's inconsistent with the specific law in question in this case?

---

Depends. What is the definition of "election interference"? Intimidation at the polls under Voting Rights Act? Literacy tests or poll taxes under Civil Rights laws?

Gary Hart was having an affair with Donna Rice and keeping that secret during the 1988 Dem primares. Was that election interference?

John Edwards was having an affair and hiding his baby mama, was that election interference?

---

Was Hillary Clinton paying for the development of the Trump dossier election interference?

Was Anthony Blinken's recruitment of multiple former intelligence officials to sign off on a false claim that Hunter's laptop was Russian misinformation election interference?

We can go on ad nauseum of what can consitute election interference if AngelFlight and other wannabe takers down of Trump are successful in twisting this flimsy legal position into a conviction.

My gosh, even keeping a candidate from the campaign trail by hamstringing him with frivolous prosecution might even be election interference.

In reply to jrdaustin

Quote:

---

Was Hillary Clinton paying for the development of the Trump dossier election interference?

Was Anthony Blinken's recruitment of multiple former intelligence officials to sign off on a false claim that Hunter's laptop was Russian misinformation election interference?

We can go on ad nauseum of what can consitute election interference if AngelFlight and other wannabe takers down of Trump are successful in twisting this flimsy legal position into a conviction.

My gosh, even keeping a candidate from the campaign trail by hamstringing him with frivolous prosecution might even be election interference.

---

That is why the term election interference is too vague and ambiguous to be criminal behavior without a statute criminalizing specific behavior(s).

Pay for an NDA without using campaign funds? Perfectly legal. Thus the state statute it appears Colangelo was trying to use doesn't apply as it requires "unlawful means" as an element. Don't have that here.

In reply to TheAngelFlight

TheAngelFlight said:

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

TheAngelFlight said:

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

TheAngelFlight said:

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Can you even constitutionally be indicted/convicted of covering up a crime you've yet to be even charged with?

---

The answer is "yes" because the crime he is charged with requires the following finding by the jury:

That the defendant did so with intent to defraud that included an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof

Being successful in the commission of the "another crime" is not an element.

---

Right, but as previously mentioned in the post above. The accounting record was made after Trump was elected. How can a record made after the election be a conspiracy to affect the election that has already happened? lol. It's as if they want to rewrite the history of events in question here.

---

"Conceal the commission thereof..."

Quote:

---

A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

---

---

So the NDA which isn't illegal was somehow a conpiracy to affect the election, which was then covered up by another crime of the account record....Now you've lost me, this is the Inception of the justice system. A crime within a crime within a crime. I'm no lawyer so I can't imagine a juror understanding it better than me. If there's not at least 1 juror on that jury that can't find reasonable doubt, then they're lying.

---

The State obviously must prove there was an intent to commit an actual underlying crime. If they can't, the jury should acquit as soon as possible.

But I was answering your question of how the law can apply to business records made after the election was over. It can because the business records don't have to affect the election themselves since the law applies to concealment of an effort to affect the election.

---

Gotcha, so I guess my last question would then be the concept of a conspiracy to affect the election. Is the issue at hand there asking the jury to decide that a NDA which is legal, is somehow an illegal conspiracy to affect the election?

---

I think the execution of the NDA "scheme", if you will, is really the problem that got us here and not the NDA in and of itself. If this ends bad for Trump, like it did for Cohen, its a real "too cute by half" kind of thing.

What is tricky for the State is explaining that the execution of the scheme amounted to excessive campaign contributions and/or coordination of expenditures between the campaign and individuals/corporations, which is a big "no-no" in election law.

---

Okay, since you're so knowledgeable on Section 17 in that you feel that you can school Hawg on the law, please point out to me where specifically IN Section 17 the section addresses actions of the CANDIDATE?

I seem to be having trouble finding it.

ETA: The closest thing seems to be this:
New York Consolidated Laws, Election Law - ELN 17-152. Conspiracy to promote or prevent election

Current as of January 01, 2021
Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

But then, you have to clarify exacly WHAT is unlawful, and where in the code it is stated such.

Unless of course, you have a friendly judge, and can pound the table real well and convince a partisan jury that such details are irrelevant. Won't withstand appeal, but then at that point, it doesn't really matter, does it?