Can Kamala Go To Jail For Trading Whilst Insolvent?

[RavVid]

In my non-US jurisprudence it is a criminal matter to trade when you know you cannot pay the debts you are incurring. Essentially it is criminal fraud.

So Kamala's campaign purchased goods and services knowing they did not have the money to pay for it at the end. Supposedly her campaign workers are asking for Go Fund Me contributions for wages Kamala has stolen from them.

You don't need to be seeking to make a profit, you can be trading just by offering free services. Clearly it is just as bad if a not for profit incurs debt it can't pay as it is if a for profit does so.

Don't know how DNC is structured etc but there is often underlying companies. There has to be some legal entity that is a person at law. So there is some neck for the chopping.

So can Kamala be put in the clink for incurring debts she knew or should have known she could not pay? Why? Why not?

[jshm2]

No, that is not a crime, even in your neck of the woods. Only a court of law can prove you were operating outside your means with ill intent. It's that "ill intent" which gets you the clink.

You don't know if you will ever pay off your mortgage, pay all your taxes, or pay all your bills. But that doesn't mean you are committing a crime by default. It's only when you actively pursue that path, and it's proven in court, that you can be held accountable.

As for Kamala, it's a party matter as they did wrong by Biden going for her when it was all for him instead.

[RavVid]

It kinda is in my neck of the woods due to recent legislative changes made to scare the shit out of directors. The person who is managing day to day operations must know the company is solvent to be able to trade and it is also their fault f they don't know. So always their fault and there isn't much defense possible.

I say kinda because the criminal side hasn't been tested yet though personal director liability for company has been enforced. Reckless decisions seems to be sufficient for criminal.

Yes there would have been someone other than Kamala managing the finances of the campaign one would assume.

[AviatorTom]

The DNC's problem is that they told campaign workers that they would be paid through the end of the year, on the assumption that they would continue to work during her transition to President, and donors would continue to support that.

They didn't take into account what happens when she loses the election, there's no more money coming in, and no reason to keep working. So people who thought they had a job until the end of the year are now unemployed.

I doubt anyone can be jailed, and it's probably naive for the workers to just assume they'd continue to get paid.

[RavVid]

Thanks. It is possibly naive to think politicians could be prosecuted :)

[katiesmuff]

They must be asking for those donations in Australia because it is not here in the US. Seems you spend more time worrying about our government instead of getting involved in all the issues of your own government. A US term for that would be TROLLING

[Anonymous]

Intent is legitimately all that matters. If she made agreements for paid services without the intent to pay, it's fraud. Now, prove it. Otherwise, it's a civil issue, and can't result in any criminal penalty (with the reception of civil torts AFTER a court order. AKA contempt) but can result in financial liability. Potentially administrative fines depending on the situation (think of how an employer gets fined for breaking labor laws).

Being that she is powerful and on the right side of the ruling class, it's unlikely anyone will even investigate the matter, other than maybe to dismiss it for appearance sakes.

[exitseven]

I think that she realized her political career would be over when she lost so she created a money laundering scheme to get millions from he campaign fund since the only job she can do is run the fryolator at McDonalds and even that might be a lie.

She paid celebrities millions to perform and I think that they kicked back half to Kamala for her retirement fund.

[Sevenpointfive]

you can't trade if you don't have anything. i'd say that's fraud. but i would think that the DNC is responsible for covering the cost of employees, not her personally. i sure would like someone to look into her financials asap

[Syntosi]

Probably not, and I would not be so hasty to establish precedent here since Trump has not even paid for all the campaigning and events he did from his first presidential campaign.

[DrPepper12]

I'm sure you have a source for this fantasy other than the Narnia Post?

[Anonymous]

no because her corrupt Dems would find a way to bail her out

[saraupstairs]

No, birds of a feather...

[Jennz6]

I hope so