GroveHillWanderer

It's already being pointed out to you by myself and at least a couple of others that that is not true. The applicable statute has been quoted and it does not say that the intent related to the underlying crime must be the sole intent, only that the intent must be included. So even if there were several motivations as you posit then so long as one of them was in support of the underlying crime, that is sufficient to fulfill the requirements of the statute.

Violation of election campaign finance laws - the same crime that Michael Cohen was already found guilty of in relation to exactly the same payments. And as various legal analysts have pointed out, if the person making the payments is guilty of a crime, then the person who directed him to make those payments is equally guilty (if not more so). Don't forget, the prosecution has a) audio recordings of Trump instructing Cohen to make the payments (because Cohen recorded some of their conversations for his own protection) and b) statements from Rudy Giuliani that Trump both approved the payments and that they were campaign-related.

Not sure where you're getting that from. The statute that Trump is being charged under (§ 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree) was quoted in @jerrymahoney's post above and as stated therein, the prosecution only has to show that the defendant's "intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof." Nothing there about it being the only intent, just that it has to include the intent.

When a missile is launched, there's no definite way to know immediately, what kind of warhead it's carrying. It's not only intercontinental ballistic missiles that can be nuclear-capable, you know. Cruise missiles for instance (30 of which Iran just launched at Israel) can be armed with nuclear warheads, although of course there's no evidence Iran has nuclear weapons - yet. But if they did, and if they put one on one of their cruise missiles, you wouldn't necessarily know that ahead of time.

Not safe to assume that at all. The same story was published in multiple UK news outlets on the same day that The Mirror had it. Where's your evidence that she negotiated with any of them?

There's nothing I can see that shows it wasn't reported earlier. According to @frank83628 in this thread there was a previous discussion on this very forum a couple of days after it happened. It seems to have taken until a couple of days ago for the tabloid press in the UK to pick up on the story but that has nothing to do with whether it was reported at the time.

It's easily argued, but that argument is rather undermined by the evidence from Pecker, Cohen McDougal, Daniels and even Giuliani, that it was campaign-related. Pecker in particular, who held meetings with Trump about both the Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels payments, made it clear in his statements as part of a non-prosecution agreement (and will presumably do the same in court) that the whole idea behind the "catch and kill" scheme was to prevent embarrassing revelations from coming out during the presidential campaign. Meanwhile Giuliani, following his habit of "saying the quiet part out loud" actually stated in several interviews that Trump knew about the payments, approved them and that they were campaign-related expenses. So yeah, apart from a multitude of witnesses who will say the opposite it's easy to argue the payments had nothing to do with the campaign.

According to the OP, he was left alone.

Because "British" is a commonly-used short-hand term for the nationality of a person who is from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. You can also refer to someone as being of "UK nationality." It makes a lot more sense (to me, at least) than saying someone is, let's say, "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Irelandish". Actually, short-hand terms are quite often used for nationality, that do not contain (or derive from) the full, official name of the country. For instance, "American" is commonly used for the nationality of a person from the United States of America. "Dutch" is used for citizens of the Kingdom of the Netherlands - and so on.

This.

So you think the Israelis should tell us about something that is entirely a figment of your fevered imagination? Alrighty, then.

Except that according to what's been posted here (which is what I'm going off) he didn't say 99% of the cruise missiles were intercepted he said 99% of the Iranian threats, of which as his numbers show there were 320. I also don't see anywhere in this thread where it is stated that five cruise missiles made it through - only "a few" and as I say we don't know exactly how many a few is but it could be only 3 or 4. Even if it was 5, that still means that 98.5% of all the threats were intercepted so fairly close to 99.

I would imagine that they're still in the process of finalizing the intelligence. When you've got hundreds of missiles and drones incoming and hundreds of them being intercepted and coming down in pieces, it might be a little tricky to say exactly which ones made it through fully intact and which didn't. So all they might have is a ballpark estimate but they'd know if it was 3 or 4 as opposed to say, tens or dozens.

So if she was trying to cover it up in a way that was worse than Trump, please identify which business fraud or other criminal offences she committed in pursuit of such a cover up.

No, 11 payments.

How so? He says that out of 320 devices launched towards Israel, only "a few" made it through. He doesn't say exactly how many a few is, but assuming it was about 3 or 4 then 99% is pretty much spot on.

No, not the same, since Clinton was never accused of, or charged with, committing 34 separate instances of business fraud in order to cover up for campaign finance violations.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say there. Cohen was found guilty (pursuant to a plea) of 8 criminal counts, and campaign finance violations were among them. Michael Cohen Pleads Guilty In Manhattan Federal Court To Eight Counts, Including Criminal Tax Evasion And Campaign Finance Violations

While it's true that range anxiety might be more of a fear than a real thing for most typical drivers, if there's a battery which will offer you twice the range, a third or less of the charging time and is cheaper, safer and less polluting, then what's not to like?

Well, it might potentially start World War III but it might also potentially start nothing more than a series of tit-for-tat raids between Israel and Iran. There were plenty of people predicting Russia's invasion of Ukraine might potentially start World War III but so far the fighting remains strictly confined to the two countries involved.

More promising news on the battery technology front - a breakthrough on solid state sodium-ion batteries. Battery breakthrough could eliminate range anxiety for electric vehicles Sodium has multiple advantages over lithium, being cheaper, more abundant, less polluting to produce and safer to use. Mass production of sodium batteries has been proving difficult, however this breakthrough "could overcome this obstacle through the mass synthesis of a highly conductive electrolyte." Also, as the article points out:

I wonder if you could flesh that out a little bit for us? Is this all cops - every police force everywhere in the entire world - or only certain cops in certain countries and at certain times? And in either case, please could you provide us with some reliable evidence showing cases where cops have lied in issuing a finding that an attack was not terror related when it actually was.

Have any actual evidence to back up that claim? No, I didn't think so.

Not deflection at all - it's an entirely apposite reference to the fact that not all mass killings are Islamic terrorism.

Good call. According to NSW police commissioner Karen Webb, "We are waiting to confirm his identification and if it is the person we believe it is, we don’t have fear for that person holding an ideation. In other words, that it’s not a terrorism incident."