I just got back from a road trip through the deep south (Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee) and I think i saw about 2 of those dumb Trump flags and one large tipped wagon along the highway that said dump Trump so I don't think he has the support he, or even some on the left, believe. I didn't see it like I did locally here in MN a few years ago. I saw way more confederate flags.
He’s still republicans first choice and by the end of the week the indictment will give him another 3-5 point bump.
So it seems like there is more than just Stormy here. The Karen McDougal case is probably a part of it, considering David Pecker from the Enquirer testified to the Grand Jury as well.
Everyone keeps saying that because campaign finance is a federal law, that's not in play. But that doesn't mean NY doesn't have election laws. Those are common in all states. Anyone know specific about NY?
What I hear more than the federal issue, is what is the larger crime? I have to admit, watching some of the news highlights last night seemed odd. I heard Bragg say more than once this is a felony because it was to cover up a larger crime, but declined to say what the larger crime was. If there was a larger crime, why is that not included? If there isn't, what does that mean for these charges? "“Under New York state law, it is a felony to falsify business records with intent to defraud and intent to conceal another crime. That is exactly what this case is about: 34 false statements, made to cover up other crimes,” Bragg told reporters in a news conference. "
So the falsifying records in itself is not a felony without a larger crime to cover up? Why not indict for that too? Or is the intent to defraud the swaying voters? I didn't think that was it, the impression I got was this was to cover up a bigger crime they they haven't listed. So what is it, why not list and charge for that too?
Bragg doesn’t have to list the those, so I figure it’s a legal strategy. I recommend reading other lawyer opinions on this over what the mainstream press will report in the next several weeks. It’ll be way more informative without the fluff and feeling obligated to print the “other side”.
The only one I saw said they would normally include the bigger crime in with these other 34. Its like if you rob a bank with a gun. They won't just charge with with robbing a bank, but will charge you with using a gun in commission of a crime (along with 30 other charges). But this is like charging you with use of a gun during commission of a crime, but leaving out the bank robbery (the crime it was used in). And then not even explaining what the crime was the gun was used for. Maybe there is a legal reason we'll find out soon. But it just seemed weird to me and I haven't found a satisfactory answer from strangers on the internet yet.
The DA fellow basically said he did not specifically list the law, because they 'didn't have to.' Which I too find odd. If I had to guess though, it's likely under a different jurisdiction. Again, your laws are different than mine with regards to 'crimes.' In Canada, we only have federal crimes, not provincial. Take my US law opinion at it's value.. which is low. lol
You don't have to list it in the charging documents under NY state law. However, the defense will immediately ask for a "bill of particulars" which will require the DA to cite the specific statutes. It's a motion that will be filed by the defense, and 99% likely that the judge will approve it. At that point, a detailed listing of the violations will be required.
I just got back from a road trip through the deep south (Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee) and I think i saw about 2 of those dumb Trump flags and one large tipped wagon along the highway that said dump Trump so I don't think he has the support he, or even some on the left, believe. I didn't see it like I did locally here in MN a few years ago. I saw way more confederate flags.
He’s still republicans first choice and by the end of the week the indictment will give him another 3-5 point bump.
So it seems like there is more than just Stormy here. The Karen McDougal case is probably a part of it, considering David Pecker from the Enquirer testified to the Grand Jury as well.
Everyone keeps saying that because campaign finance is a federal law, that's not in play. But that doesn't mean NY doesn't have election laws. Those are common in all states. Anyone know specific about NY?
What I hear more than the federal issue, is what is the larger crime? I have to admit, watching some of the news highlights last night seemed odd. I heard Bragg say more than once this is a felony because it was to cover up a larger crime, but declined to say what the larger crime was. If there was a larger crime, why is that not included? If there isn't, what does that mean for these charges? "“Under New York state law, it is a felony to falsify business records with intent to defraud and intent to conceal another crime. That is exactly what this case is about: 34 false statements, made to cover up other crimes,” Bragg told reporters in a news conference. "
So the falsifying records in itself is not a felony without a larger crime to cover up? Why not indict for that too? Or is the intent to defraud the swaying voters? I didn't think that was it, the impression I got was this was to cover up a bigger crime they they haven't listed. So what is it, why not list and charge for that too?
Bragg doesn’t have to list the those, so I figure it’s a legal strategy. I recommend reading other lawyer opinions on this over what the mainstream press will report in the next several weeks. It’ll be way more informative without the fluff and feeling obligated to print the “other side”.
The only one I saw said they would normally include the bigger crime in with these other 34. Its like if you rob a bank with a gun. They won't just charge with with robbing a bank, but will charge you with using a gun in commission of a crime (along with 30 other charges). But this is like charging you with use of a gun during commission of a crime, but leaving out the bank robbery (the crime it was used in). And then not even explaining what the crime was the gun was used for. Maybe there is a legal reason we'll find out soon. But it just seemed weird to me and I haven't found a satisfactory answer from strangers on the internet yet.
The DA fellow basically said he did not specifically list the law, because they 'didn't have to.' Which I too find odd. If I had to guess though, it's likely under a different jurisdiction. Again, your laws are different than mine with regards to 'crimes.' In Canada, we only have federal crimes, not provincial. Take my US law opinion at it's value.. which is low. lol
You don't have to list it in the charging documents under NY state law. However, the defense will immediately ask for a "bill of particulars" which will require the DA to cite the specific statutes. It's a motion that will be filed by the defense, and 99% likely that the judge will approve it. At that point, a detailed listing of the violations will be required.
You don't think that's weird though? This case isn't just just national news, but world wide news. It already is under scrutiny for being politically motivated. You hear arguments that this should be a misdemeanor and not a felony case, the DA is over reaching, etc.
Wouldn't you be as forthcoming as you could? The DA claims its a felony case because it's tied to a bigger crime. What crime? We don't know because he doesn't have to tell us. But that's the only reason there are even any charges. Given the importance of this case and the political accusations, it just strikes me as very strange they are handling it that way.
Trump isn't even denying he paid her off (anymore). He's just disputing the motivation behind it, because that is what makes it illegal or not from my understanding.
We've seen more clarity from a DA in just about any other case that's been in the public eye. To just say I'm not telling you because I don't have to on a case this big seems like a very strange tactic to me.
I just got back from a road trip through the deep south (Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee) and I think i saw about 2 of those dumb Trump flags and one large tipped wagon along the highway that said dump Trump so I don't think he has the support he, or even some on the left, believe. I didn't see it like I did locally here in MN a few years ago. I saw way more confederate flags.
He’s still republicans first choice and by the end of the week the indictment will give him another 3-5 point bump.
So it seems like there is more than just Stormy here. The Karen McDougal case is probably a part of it, considering David Pecker from the Enquirer testified to the Grand Jury as well.
Everyone keeps saying that because campaign finance is a federal law, that's not in play. But that doesn't mean NY doesn't have election laws. Those are common in all states. Anyone know specific about NY?
What I hear more than the federal issue, is what is the larger crime? I have to admit, watching some of the news highlights last night seemed odd. I heard Bragg say more than once this is a felony because it was to cover up a larger crime, but declined to say what the larger crime was. If there was a larger crime, why is that not included? If there isn't, what does that mean for these charges? "“Under New York state law, it is a felony to falsify business records with intent to defraud and intent to conceal another crime. That is exactly what this case is about: 34 false statements, made to cover up other crimes,” Bragg told reporters in a news conference. "
So the falsifying records in itself is not a felony without a larger crime to cover up? Why not indict for that too? Or is the intent to defraud the swaying voters? I didn't think that was it, the impression I got was this was to cover up a bigger crime they they haven't listed. So what is it, why not list and charge for that too?
Bragg doesn’t have to list the those, so I figure it’s a legal strategy. I recommend reading other lawyer opinions on this over what the mainstream press will report in the next several weeks. It’ll be way more informative without the fluff and feeling obligated to print the “other side”.
The only one I saw said they would normally include the bigger crime in with these other 34. Its like if you rob a bank with a gun. They won't just charge with with robbing a bank, but will charge you with using a gun in commission of a crime (along with 30 other charges). But this is like charging you with use of a gun during commission of a crime, but leaving out the bank robbery (the crime it was used in). And then not even explaining what the crime was the gun was used for. Maybe there is a legal reason we'll find out soon. But it just seemed weird to me and I haven't found a satisfactory answer from strangers on the internet yet.
The DA fellow basically said he did not specifically list the law, because they 'didn't have to.' Which I too find odd. If I had to guess though, it's likely under a different jurisdiction. Again, your laws are different than mine with regards to 'crimes.' In Canada, we only have federal crimes, not provincial. Take my US law opinion at it's value.. which is low. lol
You don't have to list it in the charging documents under NY state law. However, the defense will immediately ask for a "bill of particulars" which will require the DA to cite the specific statutes. It's a motion that will be filed by the defense, and 99% likely that the judge will approve it. At that point, a detailed listing of the violations will be required.
You don't think that's weird though? This case isn't just just national news, but world wide news. It already is under scrutiny for being politically motivated. You hear arguments that this should be a misdemeanor and not a felony case, the DA is over reaching, etc.
Wouldn't you be as forthcoming as you could? The DA claims its a felony case because it's tied to a bigger crime. What crime? We don't know because he doesn't have to tell us. But that's the only reason there are even any charges. Given the importance of this case and the political accusations, it just strikes me as very strange they are handling it that way.
Trump isn't even denying he paid her off (anymore). He's just disputing the motivation behind it, because that is what makes it illegal or not from my understanding.
We've seen more clarity from a DA in just about any other case that's been in the public eye. To just say I'm not telling you because I don't have to on a case this big seems like a very strange tactic to me.
Is it uncommon? I think that's a more relevant question.
RE: the boldfaced part of your comment...I understand your point, but should the DA to let bad faith arguments from people who are motivated to obfuscate the process dictate how they are going to proceed?
There's lots of strange state laws. Things are as they are and not as we want them to be. My guess, if the payouts were listed as "business expenses" and deducted from his tax returns as such, the NY State tax authorities have probable cause to open an audit and an investigation. That may happen regardless of the outcome of this particular case. Bragg about bringin' POOTWH down shows, in court, under oath, that evidence exists that POOTWH committed tax fraud. He's not trying to prove that here nor is he charging that allegation. He's opening the door. Let the chips fall where they may. Money made from ill gotten means may not be proven in court but you still owe taxes on it. Conversely, paying off a porn star is not illegal but writing it off as a business expense when, in fact, it wasn't (no retainer), is tax fraud. But who cares? Hush money is paid out all the time.
From the NYT email blast:
Good morning. The case against Trump is about more than Stormy Daniels.
Trump’s day in court
Yesterday, Donald Trump became the first president, current or former, to be charged with a crime.
Prosecutors accused him of coordinating a scheme during the 2016 presidential campaign to cover up potential sex scandals and of committing fraud to keep them quiet. Trump pleaded not guilty to 34 felony charges in a Manhattan court.
Court filings detailed several instances in which Trump allegedly bought the silence of others during the campaign to bury damaging stories. By pointing to those examples, prosecutors described a pattern of behavior that could help convince a judge and jury that Trump is guilty.
You might be wondering why Trump’s sex life, falsehoods and campaign dealings from years ago are worthy of criminal charges. After all, most of us are used to politicians, particularly Trump, misleading the public. And Trump routinely bragged about his sexual endeavors when he was a celebrity real estate developer.
The Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, argued that Trump had gone above embellishing or misleading the public and, through the hush money scheme, had violated a number of laws to deceive voters. “That payment was to hide damaging information from the voting public,” Bragg said.
Trump continued to portray the charges against him as politically motivated and unfair when he spoke last night at his home in Florida, where he flew after he appeared in court in New York. “This fake case was brought only to interfere with the upcoming 2024 election, and it should be dropped immediately,” he said.
Trump’s unhappiness about the indictment came through in his speech. “He’s angry and vengeful, soaked in grievance,” my colleague Jonathan Swan wrote. “Nothing boisterous or celebratory about it, as some predicted.”
Today’s newsletter will explain the charges, the scandals behind the case and other details we learned from Trump’s arraignment.
Three scandals
All of the criminal charges are related to a $130,000 hush payment to a porn star, Stormy Daniels, who says she had an affair with Trump. Bragg suggested that he would try to demonstrate in court that the payout to her was how Trump did business, not a one-off mistake. “It’s not just about one payment,” he said.
Court documents laid out three instances in which prosecutors said Trump had suppressed information during the presidential race. All were already public. “It is still extraordinary to hear the district attorney telling this story in the context of a criminal arraignment,” my colleague Jonah Bromwich wrote.
First, Daniels. During the final weeks of the 2016 campaign, she tried to sell her story of a decade-old affair with Trump, which he denies. Daniels’s representatives approached The National Enquirer. But its publisher, David Pecker, was a longtime ally of Trump’s who had agreed to look out for potentially damaging stories about him. Eventually, he helped arrange a deal in which Trump’s lawyer at the time, Michael Cohen, paid Daniels $130,000 to stay quiet about the affair.
Later, when he was president, Trump reimbursed Cohen, and prosecutors say that’s where the fraud began. Trump’s company classified the repayment as legal expenses, citing a retainer agreement. Prosecutors say there were no such expenses, and that the retainer was nonexistent. The felony counts related to invoices Cohen submitted, checks Trump wrote to reimburse Cohen and Trump Organization ledger entries that recorded the reimbursements.
Prosecutors also raised the account of another woman, Karen McDougal, who says she had an affair with Trump, which he denies as well. McDougal, a former Playboy playmate of the year, had similarly tried to sell her story during the campaign and reached a $150,000 agreement with The National Enquirer. Rather than publish her account, the tabloid suppressed it in cooperation with Trump and Cohen, prosecutors say.
Finally, prosecutors invoked a payment to a former Trump Tower doorman. He claimed that Trump had fathered a child out of wedlock. The National Enquirer paid $30,000 for the rights to his story, although it eventually concluded that his claim was false.
The charges
The charges against Trump are all counts of falsifying business records. Typically, those charges are misdemeanors in New York; prosecutors elevated them to felonies by alleging they were linked to violations of election and tax laws. They suggested that the Daniels payment amounted to an illegal campaign contribution, as covering up Trump’s affairs might have benefited his 2016 campaign. And by disguising the payments as legal expenses, Trump also tried to misrepresent the payments to the tax authorities, Bragg said.
New York prosecutors have never brought an election-law case involving a federal election before. The unique charges and circumstances of charging a former president could make the case harder to win, because courts often rely on past cases to issue rulings, as this newsletter has explained.
But the connection between falsifying business records and potential tax law violations could put the case on firmer ground, as my colleague Charlie Savage wrote. Compared with the election-related allegations, the tax claim is “a much simpler charge that avoids the potential pitfalls,” said Rebecca Roiphe, a New York Law School professor and former prosecutor.
Trump’s supporters, and even some of his critics, have argued that the charges stretch the limits of the law. They point out that other prosecutors didn’t file charges over the hush payments and claim that Bragg himself at one point gave up on the case. “Alvin Bragg is picking up the trash that the U.S. attorney’s office wouldn’t touch, that his predecessor wouldn’t touch, that he wouldn’t even touch the first time,” said Jim Trusty, a lawyer who is representing Trump for federal investigations.
What’s next? The case is expected to last awhile. The next in-person hearing is scheduled for Dec. 4. By then, the 2024 Republican primary campaign will be in full swing.
More Trump news
• Inside the courtroom, Trump sat mostly silent as prosecutors described the case against him. He leaned forward to enter his plea of “not guilty.”
• Trump was released after his arraignment. That wasn’t special treatment: In 2020, a New York law eliminated bail for most nonviolent crimes.
• Protesters on both sides gathered outside the courthouse. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene made an appearance but was ushered away as demonstrators banged on her car’s windows.
• Trump had no mug shot taken. Still, his campaign put a fake one on a T-shirt.
• We don’t yet know who will pay Trump’s legal bills — him or his donors.
• Most hush payments are not a crime, but the question is murkier for politicians.
• The White House hopes the chaos of Trump’s legal challenges will remind some voters why they chose President Biden in 2020.
• Read the indictment, with annotations.
Commentary
• Karen Friedman Agnifilo and Norman Eisen, Times Opinion: “There’s nothing novel or weak about this case. The charge of creating false financial records is constantly brought by Mr. Bragg and other New York D.A.s.”
• Harry Litman, The Los Angeles Times: “Bragg chose both to lay out the extent and gravity of Trump’s offenses while also maintaining maximum flexibility to alter legal course.”
• Richard Hasen, Slate: “It is far from clear that Trump could be liable for state campaign finance crimes as a federal candidate.”
• National Review’s editors: “If Bragg had evidence that Trump committed state tax or election-law crimes, he wouldn’t hesitate to charge them.”
More on Bragg about bringing’ POOTWH down’s strategy (this explains it really well).
OpinionBragg doesn’t show all his cards in his case against Trump
Former president Donald Trump looked grim and subdued Tuesday as he walked into court to plead not guilty to 34 felony charges filed by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. The indictment centers on hush money payments to adult-film star Stormy Daniels and two others possessing information that Trump did not want circulating before the 2016 election. At the heart of the allegations: A raft of check stubs, corporate records and invoices documented the payments as legal services to his former attorney Michael Cohen.
Perhaps Trump’s somber mood reflects newfound appreciation for how serious his legal predicament really is.
Any pundits who speculated ahead that the case was weak, misreportedthe “intent” requirement under New York law or ignored obvious “tolling” arguments putting the charges in compliance with the statute of limitations may have been premature in denigrating the case. Once more they’d be wise to hold their fire given some strategic ambiguities apparent in the indictment.
Bragg sets out the allegations: Trump was part of a scheme to pay off three individuals (a doorman, Daniels and a second woman, Karen McDougal) as part of an effort to “catch and kill” allegations of extramarital affairs (which Trump has denied). The indictment alleges that Trump directed Cohen (who already pleaded guilty to federal crimes based on these same facts) to make the payments through shell companies and invoices falsely labeled “legal retainer.” A plethora of check stubs, invoices and general ledger entries form the foundation of the case.
Importantly, the indictment ties Trump’s actions to the election in two key ways: First, evidence of his desire to drag out payments to Daniels beyond the election so he might not have to pay up in full. Second, as soon as he was sworn in, the doorman and “Woman 1” were released from their deals. Once the election was over, Trump didn’t care what they said.
And then, in Paragraph 44 of the indictment, Bragg quotes from the plea entered by Cohen in federal court:
O]n or about October of 2016, in coordination with, and at the direction of ... candidate [Trump], I arranged to make a payment to a second individual with information that would be harmful to the candidate and to the campaign to keep the individual from disclosing the information. To accomplish this, I used a company that was under my control to make a payment in the sum of $130,000. The monies I advanced through my company were later repaid to me by the candidate. I participated in this conduct, which on my part took place in Manhattan, for the principal purpose of influencing the election.
Trump is not being singled out or treated unfairly. The core of the indictment alleges that Trump violated New York books and records law, a crime that is regularly prosecuted, according to research compiled by former prosecutors. In this case, those violations arguably impacted an extremely close presidential election. False statements in furtherance of a scheme to pull the wool over the eyes of voters is hardly inconsequential.
The indictment suggests two options to elevate charges. Bragg alleges that records were falsified in furtherance of a scheme to contravene state and federal election laws. He also says Trump took steps to mischaracterize the true nature of the payments for tax purposes. Tax law provides another sound basis for bumping the charges up to felonies.
While the indictment does not set out precisely which crimes elevate books and records violations to felonies, Bragg at his news conference pointed specifically to misstatements to tax authorities, to federal election law and to N.Y. Election Law § 17-152, which makes it illegal for “two or more persons [to] conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.” With the testimony of Cohen and others, plus the documents, this may not be hard to prove.
What about what’s not in the indictment? Bragg did not cite specific statutes he will rely upon to pursue felonies. But there is nothing sneaky or underhanded about that. Bragg presented what he thought he needed to — no more and no less. Media impatience is no reason to reveal more in an indictment than he would normally do at this stage. (New York legal experts point out to me that even in the jury instructions, the prosecutor need not specify the precise crime that bumps up a charge to a felony.)
Brookings Institution’s Norman Eisen, who has written extensively on the case, tells me, “The 44-paragraph recital of the evidence is absolutely damning.” And while we may be frustrated with the lack of legal argument, he says that “there’s no legal requirement in New York for Bragg to plead with any more specificity than he has done here.” Eisen, who served as co-counsel to the House Judiciary Committee in Trump’s first impeachment hearing, adds, “There will undoubtedly be much more to come, both when Trump files his inevitable bill of particulars, and as the case otherwise unfolds through the trial and pretrial process.” There is ample case law for using federal and state election law violations to bump up a records falsification case.
While the complaint goes into some detail on efforts to make sure Cohen knew he was “loved” and had friends in “high places” (the defendant runs a “pressure campaign,” as the indictment titles one section), it does not specifically charge witness tampering or obstruction. But such actions speak to consciousness of guilt, an awareness that Trump needed Cohen to remain quiet because he feared their scheme would become public.
At his news conference, Bragg said, “Under New York state law, it is a felony to falsify business records with intent to defraud and intent to conceal another crime. That is exactly what this case is about. Thirty-four false statements made to cover up other crimes. These are felony crimes in New York state no matter who you are.” Bragg is certainly right that these are “bread and butter” white-collar crimes routinely prosecuted. The New York Times reports, “Since Mr. Bragg took office in 2022, prosecutors have filed 117 felony counts of the charge, against 29 individuals and companies, according to data kept by the office.”
While frustrating for the media and legal pundits, we are not likely to get more detail until pretrial motions are heard. The judge put a protective order on the evidence, so that cannot be shared with the public. And while the judge reportedly admonished Trump about threats to the prosecutor or others, he will be free to share (or not) his views and arguments — unless later subjected to a gag order. That, too, is a serious reminder that as a criminal defendant he cannot say everything he wants; like other defendants, if he threatens court personnel or incites violence, he’ll find himself back before the judge. (He certainly went right up to the line during remarks at Mar-a-Lago, with references to the judge and his family.)
Tuesday certainly was a sobering day. A former president was reduced to the status of a criminal defendant, looking deflated and a bit overwhelmed. The judge and jury won’t care how loudly Trump and his cultists whine about his plight. They certainly won’t care that the media wants to find out Bragg’s legal strategy. The matter rests with the New York court — which is what equal justice under the law demands.
I just got back from a road trip through the deep south (Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee) and I think i saw about 2 of those dumb Trump flags and one large tipped wagon along the highway that said dump Trump so I don't think he has the support he, or even some on the left, believe. I didn't see it like I did locally here in MN a few years ago. I saw way more confederate flags.
He’s still republicans first choice and by the end of the week the indictment will give him another 3-5 point bump.
So it seems like there is more than just Stormy here. The Karen McDougal case is probably a part of it, considering David Pecker from the Enquirer testified to the Grand Jury as well.
Everyone keeps saying that because campaign finance is a federal law, that's not in play. But that doesn't mean NY doesn't have election laws. Those are common in all states. Anyone know specific about NY?
What I hear more than the federal issue, is what is the larger crime? I have to admit, watching some of the news highlights last night seemed odd. I heard Bragg say more than once this is a felony because it was to cover up a larger crime, but declined to say what the larger crime was. If there was a larger crime, why is that not included? If there isn't, what does that mean for these charges? "“Under New York state law, it is a felony to falsify business records with intent to defraud and intent to conceal another crime. That is exactly what this case is about: 34 false statements, made to cover up other crimes,” Bragg told reporters in a news conference. "
So the falsifying records in itself is not a felony without a larger crime to cover up? Why not indict for that too? Or is the intent to defraud the swaying voters? I didn't think that was it, the impression I got was this was to cover up a bigger crime they they haven't listed. So what is it, why not list and charge for that too?
Bragg doesn’t have to list the those, so I figure it’s a legal strategy. I recommend reading other lawyer opinions on this over what the mainstream press will report in the next several weeks. It’ll be way more informative without the fluff and feeling obligated to print the “other side”.
The only one I saw said they would normally include the bigger crime in with these other 34. Its like if you rob a bank with a gun. They won't just charge with with robbing a bank, but will charge you with using a gun in commission of a crime (along with 30 other charges). But this is like charging you with use of a gun during commission of a crime, but leaving out the bank robbery (the crime it was used in). And then not even explaining what the crime was the gun was used for. Maybe there is a legal reason we'll find out soon. But it just seemed weird to me and I haven't found a satisfactory answer from strangers on the internet yet.
The DA fellow basically said he did not specifically list the law, because they 'didn't have to.' Which I too find odd. If I had to guess though, it's likely under a different jurisdiction. Again, your laws are different than mine with regards to 'crimes.' In Canada, we only have federal crimes, not provincial. Take my US law opinion at it's value.. which is low. lol
You don't have to list it in the charging documents under NY state law. However, the defense will immediately ask for a "bill of particulars" which will require the DA to cite the specific statutes. It's a motion that will be filed by the defense, and 99% likely that the judge will approve it. At that point, a detailed listing of the violations will be required.
You don't think that's weird though? This case isn't just just national news, but world wide news. It already is under scrutiny for being politically motivated. You hear arguments that this should be a misdemeanor and not a felony case, the DA is over reaching, etc.
Wouldn't you be as forthcoming as you could? The DA claims its a felony case because it's tied to a bigger crime. What crime? We don't know because he doesn't have to tell us. But that's the only reason there are even any charges. Given the importance of this case and the political accusations, it just strikes me as very strange they are handling it that way.
Trump isn't even denying he paid her off (anymore). He's just disputing the motivation behind it, because that is what makes it illegal or not from my understanding.
We've seen more clarity from a DA in just about any other case that's been in the public eye. To just say I'm not telling you because I don't have to on a case this big seems like a very strange tactic to me.
No, I don't think it's weird when a prosecutor uses the rules of procedure for one defendant in the same way he would use it for another defendant. A prosecutor will not show more cards than is required under the rules. Our 24 hour news media can sit on their hands. Trump's team will have the bill of particulars and plenty of time to prepare for the case. Our needs and desires have nothing to do with the law.
I just got back from a road trip through the deep south (Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee) and I think i saw about 2 of those dumb Trump flags and one large tipped wagon along the highway that said dump Trump so I don't think he has the support he, or even some on the left, believe. I didn't see it like I did locally here in MN a few years ago. I saw way more confederate flags.
He’s still republicans first choice and by the end of the week the indictment will give him another 3-5 point bump.
So it seems like there is more than just Stormy here. The Karen McDougal case is probably a part of it, considering David Pecker from the Enquirer testified to the Grand Jury as well.
Everyone keeps saying that because campaign finance is a federal law, that's not in play. But that doesn't mean NY doesn't have election laws. Those are common in all states. Anyone know specific about NY?
What I hear more than the federal issue, is what is the larger crime? I have to admit, watching some of the news highlights last night seemed odd. I heard Bragg say more than once this is a felony because it was to cover up a larger crime, but declined to say what the larger crime was. If there was a larger crime, why is that not included? If there isn't, what does that mean for these charges? "“Under New York state law, it is a felony to falsify business records with intent to defraud and intent to conceal another crime. That is exactly what this case is about: 34 false statements, made to cover up other crimes,” Bragg told reporters in a news conference. "
So the falsifying records in itself is not a felony without a larger crime to cover up? Why not indict for that too? Or is the intent to defraud the swaying voters? I didn't think that was it, the impression I got was this was to cover up a bigger crime they they haven't listed. So what is it, why not list and charge for that too?
The bigger crime, the one that Michael Cohen plead to and was sentenced to three years in prison, was an illegal campaign contribution. So there is already a conviction related to the bigger crime. It’s also very similar to the case against democrat John Edwards. In that case the jury was deadlocked because he made the same argument as trump, that he did it to conceal from his wife. In edwards case, iirc his wife was very sick so there was compelling evidence that the campaign contribution was not to defraud the voters.
In trumps case, he has three things working against him, 1. timing before the contribution - it was immediately after trumps grabbing p*ssy comment, and 2. two weeks before the election. Trump was extremely motivated to keep this quiet only AFTER the grabbing p*ssy comment. He did “ this” with stormy ten years prior, and never once tried to bribe stormy. So that locks it very tightly to the attempt to defraud voters argument. Also, the third piece of evidence, I believe they have trump saying “who cares if anyone finds out after the election.” Not sure if that’s on recording or witness testimony.
I thought that illegal campaign contribution was part of this list of indictments? Wasn't it only illegal because they didn't record it properly? Therefore not the "bigger crime"? The campaign money, or lack of reporting it rather, can't be both the crime and the coverup which brings it to a felony.
If I understood what the DA said in his press conference, the 34 charges all stemmed from fraudulent financial statements. I don't think the election crimes were listed.. but he did point out that it's what brings it to felony. Basically:
34 small crimes: misleading statements and claims of fact. 1 big crime: committed those 34 crimes to mislead the public during an election which apparently (and properly) is a federal crime.
What will be rather telling... and also lends 'some' credibility to this being a witch hunt... is how often does stuff like this happen amongst politicians that isn't followed up by the courts? Example: George Santos. How the heck is this guy still in government and not behind bars?
Let me see if I follow correctly. You say the 34 indictments are the fraudulent financial statement.
But aren't the 34 fraudulent financial statements only a crime because they didn't report it correctly with campaign laws? That's what he is being charged with, not reporting election money finances correctly. There's nothing illegal about paying off a stripper to not talk. But since it was an election, it had to be reported a certain way. It was not. That is the fraud. If the fraud is used to cover up a larger crime, it becomes a felony. The fraud can't be both what he is being charged with and the bigger crime that makes it into a felony. I wouldn't think so anyway. The bigger crime cover up would have to be separate from the false reporting of the money. So that still leaves me asking what's the bigger crime, and if there is one, why wasn't that included in the charges?
I believe the falsified financial records (and speaking publicly of them) is a crime regardless. The “step up” with the bigger crime turns it into 34 felonies. But “regular” people definitely go jail for committing 34 misdemeanors. So the trump argument now is essentially that trump is only a “minor” criminal. They are not denying that he is a potential criminal
this is the best I could find to summarize “ The offense is typically charged as a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in prison. But it rises to the level of a felony — with a penalty of up to four years in prison — when it is carried out with the intent to commit or hide another crime.”
what’s interesting is that it appears trump does not need to be found guilty of the other crime (how would he know that at the time without due process?) - it’s his intent to conceal the other activity that he believes could be a crime.
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,305
2023
Sorry for the frequent change in thread titles, folks.
Having the previous Indictment thread get locked last week has made this challenging.
We appreciate your patience. And we will continue to strive for excellence.
Ok, so something I don't get. Vince McMahon from the WWE did similar things. He cheated on his wife, payed hush money to the women he had affairs with, and the hush money came from a publicly traded company (WWE). All Vince had to do was lay low for a while and slowly come back. I'm struggling to understand how was Trump did differs from that situation?
Maybe because he wouldn't have been Nominated, let alone elected, if the Public knew?
I think Gary Hart had to drop out of the Race because he had an affair?
Ok, so something I don't get. Vince McMahon from the WWE did similar things. He cheated on his wife, payed hush money to the women he had affairs with, and the hush money came from a publicly traded company (WWE). All Vince had to do was lay low for a while and slowly come back. I'm struggling to understand how was Trump did differs from that situation?
Maybe because he wouldn't have been Nominated, let alone elected, if the Public knew?
I think Gary Hart had to drop out of the Race because he had an affair?
He was photographed with a young woman on his lap on a boat named “Monkey Business.” Mere child’s play in this age of cancel culture.
Ok, so something I don't get. Vince McMahon from the WWE did similar things. He cheated on his wife, payed hush money to the women he had affairs with, and the hush money came from a publicly traded company (WWE). All Vince had to do was lay low for a while and slowly come back. I'm struggling to understand how was Trump did differs from that situation?
Maybe because he wouldn't have been Nominated, let alone elected, if the Public knew?
I think Gary Hart had to drop out of the Race because he had an affair?
He was photographed with a young woman on his lap on a boat named “Monkey Business.” Mere child’s play in this age of cancel culture.
Honestly, that was so awesome I can't even believe it. He definitely could have been president too. Same with John Edwards.
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,305
Ok, so something I don't get. Vince McMahon from the WWE did similar things. He cheated on his wife, payed hush money to the women he had affairs with, and the hush money came from a publicly traded company (WWE). All Vince had to do was lay low for a while and slowly come back. I'm struggling to understand how was Trump did differs from that situation?
Maybe because he wouldn't have been Nominated, let alone elected, if the Public knew?
I think Gary Hart had to drop out of the Race because he had an affair?
This Stormy thing would've come out right after the Access Hollywood tape. He then, of course, was given an enormous gift by Jim Comey shortly thereafter but yeah, you can make the argument that he would not have been elected had this been made public at that time. That race was, obviously, razor thin.
Ok, so something I don't get. Vince McMahon from the WWE did similar things. He cheated on his wife, payed hush money to the women he had affairs with, and the hush money came from a publicly traded company (WWE). All Vince had to do was lay low for a while and slowly come back. I'm struggling to understand how was Trump did differs from that situation?
Maybe because he wouldn't have been Nominated, let alone elected, if the Public knew?
I think Gary Hart had to drop out of the Race because he had an affair?
He was photographed with a young woman on his lap on a boat named “Monkey Business.” Mere child’s play in this age of cancel culture.
Honestly, that was so awesome I can't even believe it. He definitely could have been president too. Same with John Edwards.
It was a masterpiece of dirty politics. Just invite the candidate down to someplace warm, have a couple of scantily clad attractive women hanging around, get the drinks flowing and have a photographer standing by. Lee Willy Horton Atwater was behind it. From Wicki:
On Sunday, May 3, The Miami Herald published a major story with the headline, "Miami Woman Is Linked to Hart". A few weeks later, a picture appeared in the National Enquirer, and then in hundreds of newspapers worldwide, showing Donna Rice sitting in Hart's lap with Hart in a Monkey Business T-shirt.[7][2]
In 2018, Democratic media consultant Raymond Strother made public a conversation he had with Republican operative Lee Atwater in the final weeks of Atwater's life in which he told Strother that the photograph of Hart and Rice had been arranged by Atwater to discredit Hart.[8]
Of course I don't know if he cheated on his wife or not, but it was pretty stupid to put her on his lap, especially in the 80s. Maybe it was a setup by Atwater, but a politician (or any married man) needs to be smarter.
Of course I don't know if he cheated on his wife or not, but it was pretty stupid to put her on his lap, especially in the 80s. Maybe it was a setup by Atwater, but a politician (or any married man) needs to be smarter.
So, knowing that this was done in the late 80's by a US political party in opposition to a front running candidate of the opposing party and that kompromat is a standard technique from the Soviet days, what do you suppose POOTWH has on the likes of Lindsey Flimsey Flip Flop Faloozy Graham and all of the other "establishment" repubs who have fallen in line, and to this day, refuse to condemn and repudiate him? Keeping in mind that several CPAC conferences and repub get togethers and fact-finding tours were held in either Russia, Russia, Russia or former Soviet states still aligned with putin on the ritz. If it can happen in Bimini, it can happen anywhere.
There's shit hanging over all of their heads, from POOTWH on down. Hence why Obama drove them nuts. Squeaky clean, nothing but a birth certificate, a reverend and a picture of him smoking dope in college to smear him with.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Of course I don't know if he cheated on his wife or not, but it was pretty stupid to put her on his lap, especially in the 80s. Maybe it was a setup by Atwater, but a politician (or any married man) needs to be smarter.
So, knowing that this was done in the late 80's by a US political party in opposition to a front running candidate of the opposing party and that kompromat is a standard technique from the Soviet days, what do you suppose POOTWH has on the likes of Lindsey Flimsey Flip Flop Faloozy Graham and all of the other "establishment" repubs who have fallen in line, and to this day, refuse to condemn and repudiate him? Keeping in mind that several CPAC conferences and repub get togethers and fact-finding tours were held in either Russia, Russia, Russia or former Soviet states still aligned with putin on the ritz. If it can happen in Bimini, it can happen anywhere.
There's shit hanging over all of their heads, from POOTWH on down. Hence why Obama drove them nuts. Squeaky clean, nothing but a birth certificate, a reverend and a picture of him smoking dope in college to smear him with.
Honestly, I have no idea what you are asking me here.
Of course I don't know if he cheated on his wife or not, but it was pretty stupid to put her on his lap, especially in the 80s. Maybe it was a setup by Atwater, but a politician (or any married man) needs to be smarter.
So, knowing that this was done in the late 80's by a US political party in opposition to a front running candidate of the opposing party and that kompromat is a standard technique from the Soviet days, what do you suppose POOTWH has on the likes of Lindsey Flimsey Flip Flop Faloozy Graham and all of the other "establishment" repubs who have fallen in line, and to this day, refuse to condemn and repudiate him? Keeping in mind that several CPAC conferences and repub get togethers and fact-finding tours were held in either Russia, Russia, Russia or former Soviet states still aligned with putin on the ritz. If it can happen in Bimini, it can happen anywhere.
There's shit hanging over all of their heads, from POOTWH on down. Hence why Obama drove them nuts. Squeaky clean, nothing but a birth certificate, a reverend and a picture of him smoking dope in college to smear him with.
Honestly, I have no idea what you are asking me here.
What does POOTWH have over the heads of "establishment" repubs that they're so deathly afraid of openly criticizing and condemning it?
Of course I don't know if he cheated on his wife or not, but it was pretty stupid to put her on his lap, especially in the 80s. Maybe it was a setup by Atwater, but a politician (or any married man) needs to be smarter.
So, knowing that this was done in the late 80's by a US political party in opposition to a front running candidate of the opposing party and that kompromat is a standard technique from the Soviet days, what do you suppose POOTWH has on the likes of Lindsey Flimsey Flip Flop Faloozy Graham and all of the other "establishment" repubs who have fallen in line, and to this day, refuse to condemn and repudiate him? Keeping in mind that several CPAC conferences and repub get togethers and fact-finding tours were held in either Russia, Russia, Russia or former Soviet states still aligned with putin on the ritz. If it can happen in Bimini, it can happen anywhere.
There's shit hanging over all of their heads, from POOTWH on down. Hence why Obama drove them nuts. Squeaky clean, nothing but a birth certificate, a reverend and a picture of him smoking dope in college to smear him with.
Honestly, I have no idea what you are asking me here.
What does POOTWH have over the heads of "establishment" repubs that they're so deathly afraid of openly criticizing and condemning it?
holding on to the diminishing power they still have. they saw it after Reagan with the exposure of the bullshit supply side. began gaming the system then. To some degree back as far as Nixon with the southern strategy.
if your parties policies are soo shit hot they should sell themselves. but no......
the qofp really only sells one thing. Fear. kinda like an abused woman or a dog that gets beat. always cling closer to the abuser.....
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Graham, one of Trump’s closest allies in Congress, has gone on TV in recent days to push for Trump supporters to give as much money as possible to the former president’s 2024 campaign, arguing that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and prosecutors were “trying to bleed him dry.” While Trump, who has pleaded not guilty to the charges, insisted during a speech at his Mar-a-Largo estate that he has “a lot of cash,” Graham returned to Fox on Tuesday to again plead for people to donate whatever money they could to the former president.
“I’m sorry, I’m so upset, but please help President Trump,” Graham said to Hannity, pushing for Trump supporters to give “five or 10 bucks” or “just pray” if they couldn’t donate. He then urged conservatives to vote — but also to give money if they can. “Make sure you vote as early as you can in your state. Don’t risk anything anymore. Vote as soon as you can, pray for this country, pray for this president. And if you got any money to give, give it. LindseyGraham.com — it doesn’t go to me. It goes to helping this president and taking back the Senate.”
Graham, one of Trump’s closest allies in Congress, has gone on TV in recent days to push for Trump supporters to give as much money as possible to the former president’s 2024 campaign, arguing that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and prosecutors were “trying to bleed him dry.” While Trump, who has pleaded not guilty to the charges, insisted during a speech at his Mar-a-Largo estate that he has “a lot of cash,” Graham returned to Fox on Tuesday to again plead for people to donate whatever money they could to the former president.
“I’m sorry, I’m so upset, but please help President Trump,” Graham said to Hannity, pushing for Trump supporters to give “five or 10 bucks” or “just pray” if they couldn’t donate. He then urged conservatives to vote — but also to give money if they can. “Make sure you vote as early as you can in your state. Don’t risk anything anymore. Vote as soon as you can, pray for this country, pray for this president. And if you got any money to give, give it. LindseyGraham.com — it doesn’t go to me. It goes to helping this president and taking back the Senate.”
Yes the details must so juicy! Pictures videos all kinds of delicious stuff for the sexual appetite
jesus greets me looks just like me ....
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,305
2023
Ah, yes. Please give this "billionaire" five or ten bucks. Give him all your money!
Ah, yes. Please give this "billionaire" five or ten bucks. Give him all your money!
No doubt give $$$ to the man who sits in the lap of luxury and those $5 to $10 contributors are sitting on milk crates throughout the run down towns of America
I just got back from a road trip through the deep south (Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee) and I think i saw about 2 of those dumb Trump flags and one large tipped wagon along the highway that said dump Trump so I don't think he has the support he, or even some on the left, believe. I didn't see it like I did locally here in MN a few years ago. I saw way more confederate flags.
He’s still republicans first choice and by the end of the week the indictment will give him another 3-5 point bump.
So it seems like there is more than just Stormy here. The Karen McDougal case is probably a part of it, considering David Pecker from the Enquirer testified to the Grand Jury as well.
Everyone keeps saying that because campaign finance is a federal law, that's not in play. But that doesn't mean NY doesn't have election laws. Those are common in all states. Anyone know specific about NY?
What I hear more than the federal issue, is what is the larger crime? I have to admit, watching some of the news highlights last night seemed odd. I heard Bragg say more than once this is a felony because it was to cover up a larger crime, but declined to say what the larger crime was. If there was a larger crime, why is that not included? If there isn't, what does that mean for these charges? "“Under New York state law, it is a felony to falsify business records with intent to defraud and intent to conceal another crime. That is exactly what this case is about: 34 false statements, made to cover up other crimes,” Bragg told reporters in a news conference. "
So the falsifying records in itself is not a felony without a larger crime to cover up? Why not indict for that too? Or is the intent to defraud the swaying voters? I didn't think that was it, the impression I got was this was to cover up a bigger crime they they haven't listed. So what is it, why not list and charge for that too?
The bigger crime, the one that Michael Cohen plead to and was sentenced to three years in prison, was an illegal campaign contribution. So there is already a conviction related to the bigger crime. It’s also very similar to the case against democrat John Edwards. In that case the jury was deadlocked because he made the same argument as trump, that he did it to conceal from his wife. In edwards case, iirc his wife was very sick so there was compelling evidence that the campaign contribution was not to defraud the voters.
In trumps case, he has three things working against him, 1. timing before the contribution - it was immediately after trumps grabbing p*ssy comment, and 2. two weeks before the election. Trump was extremely motivated to keep this quiet only AFTER the grabbing p*ssy comment. He did “ this” with stormy ten years prior, and never once tried to bribe stormy. So that locks it very tightly to the attempt to defraud voters argument. Also, the third piece of evidence, I believe they have trump saying “who cares if anyone finds out after the election.” Not sure if that’s on recording or witness testimony.
I thought that illegal campaign contribution was part of this list of indictments? Wasn't it only illegal because they didn't record it properly? Therefore not the "bigger crime"? The campaign money, or lack of reporting it rather, can't be both the crime and the coverup which brings it to a felony.
If I understood what the DA said in his press conference, the 34 charges all stemmed from fraudulent financial statements. I don't think the election crimes were listed.. but he did point out that it's what brings it to felony. Basically:
34 small crimes: misleading statements and claims of fact. 1 big crime: committed those 34 crimes to mislead the public during an election which apparently (and properly) is a federal crime.
What will be rather telling... and also lends 'some' credibility to this being a witch hunt... is how often does stuff like this happen amongst politicians that isn't followed up by the courts? Example: George Santos. How the heck is this guy still in government and not behind bars?
Let me see if I follow correctly. You say the 34 indictments are the fraudulent financial statement.
But aren't the 34 fraudulent financial statements only a crime because they didn't report it correctly with campaign laws? That's what he is being charged with, not reporting election money finances correctly. There's nothing illegal about paying off a stripper to not talk. But since it was an election, it had to be reported a certain way. It was not. That is the fraud. If the fraud is used to cover up a larger crime, it becomes a felony. The fraud can't be both what he is being charged with and the bigger crime that makes it into a felony. I wouldn't think so anyway. The bigger crime cover up would have to be separate from the false reporting of the money. So that still leaves me asking what's the bigger crime, and if there is one, why wasn't that included in the charges?
I believe the falsified financial records (and speaking publicly of them) is a crime regardless. The “step up” with the bigger crime turns it into 34 felonies. But “regular” people definitely go jail for committing 34 misdemeanors. So the trump argument now is essentially that trump is only a “minor” criminal. They are not denying that he is a potential criminal
this is the best I could find to summarize “ The offense is typically charged as a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in prison. But it rises to the level of a felony — with a penalty of up to four years in prison — when it is carried out with the intent to commit or hide another crime.”
what’s interesting is that it appears trump does not need to be found guilty of the other crime (how would he know that at the time without due process?) - it’s his intent to conceal the other activity that he believes could be a crime.
Yes, but the importance of that is without it being a felony, it sounds like the statute of limitations would already be up. This needs to a felony or there is no case here.
I wasn't aware of that until this week. Knowing that, I was expecting more. To arrest a former president and literally just say "I don't have to tell you why" (paraphrasing for the quote police) seems extremely weak to me. And I can't think of what a bigger crime could be. He's admitted to paying her off at this point, which itself is not illegal. The only crime is not reporting it properly with respect to campaign laws. I've seen multiple versions of what is common or not, so I'm not sure what actually is. But common sense would tell me if there is no bigger crime, or you can't prove there was a bigger crime, then this isn't a felony. If there was one, why is that not included in the charges? But what could it even be? The only thing he covered up was the fact he cheated, which isn't a crime. Given this is a case the entire world is watching, and it is a former president. There is nothing normal about this. So whether it is "normal" or not to bring up the bigger crime, I think it is important. Because right now, it kind of looks like they realized they missed their window for the misdemeanor charges and are trying to figure out how to still indict him for this They should have done it 2 years ago with what it is, a misdemeanor.
Graham, one of Trump’s closest allies in Congress, has gone on TV in recent days to push for Trump supporters to give as much money as possible to the former president’s 2024 campaign, arguing that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and prosecutors were “trying to bleed him dry.” While Trump, who has pleaded not guilty to the charges, insisted during a speech at his Mar-a-Largo estate that he has “a lot of cash,” Graham returned to Fox on Tuesday to again plead for people to donate whatever money they could to the former president.
“I’m sorry, I’m so upset, but please help President Trump,” Graham said to Hannity, pushing for Trump supporters to give “five or 10 bucks” or “just pray” if they couldn’t donate. He then urged conservatives to vote — but also to give money if they can. “Make sure you vote as early as you can in your state. Don’t risk anything anymore. Vote as soon as you can, pray for this country, pray for this president. And if you got any money to give, give it. LindseyGraham.com — it doesn’t go to me. It goes to helping this president and taking back the Senate.”
Comments
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com
This case isn't just just national news, but world wide news. It already is under scrutiny for being politically motivated. You hear arguments that this should be a misdemeanor and not a felony case, the DA is over reaching, etc.
Wouldn't you be as forthcoming as you could? The DA claims its a felony case because it's tied to a bigger crime. What crime? We don't know because he doesn't have to tell us. But that's the only reason there are even any charges. Given the importance of this case and the political accusations, it just strikes me as very strange they are handling it that way.
Trump isn't even denying he paid her off (anymore). He's just disputing the motivation behind it, because that is what makes it illegal or not from my understanding.
We've seen more clarity from a DA in just about any other case that's been in the public eye. To just say I'm not telling you because I don't have to on a case this big seems like a very strange tactic to me.
Is it uncommon? I think that's a more relevant question.
RE: the boldfaced part of your comment...I understand your point, but should the DA to let bad faith arguments from people who are motivated to obfuscate the process dictate how they are going to proceed?
From the NYT email blast:
Good morning. The case against Trump is about more than Stormy Daniels.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Opinion Bragg doesn’t show all his cards in his case against Trump
Former president Donald Trump looked grim and subdued Tuesday as he walked into court to plead not guilty to 34 felony charges filed by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. The indictment centers on hush money payments to adult-film star Stormy Daniels and two others possessing information that Trump did not want circulating before the 2016 election. At the heart of the allegations: A raft of check stubs, corporate records and invoices documented the payments as legal services to his former attorney Michael Cohen.
Perhaps Trump’s somber mood reflects newfound appreciation for how serious his legal predicament really is.
Any pundits who speculated ahead that the case was weak, misreportedthe “intent” requirement under New York law or ignored obvious “tolling” arguments putting the charges in compliance with the statute of limitations may have been premature in denigrating the case. Once more they’d be wise to hold their fire given some strategic ambiguities apparent in the indictment.
Bragg sets out the allegations: Trump was part of a scheme to pay off three individuals (a doorman, Daniels and a second woman, Karen McDougal) as part of an effort to “catch and kill” allegations of extramarital affairs (which Trump has denied). The indictment alleges that Trump directed Cohen (who already pleaded guilty to federal crimes based on these same facts) to make the payments through shell companies and invoices falsely labeled “legal retainer.” A plethora of check stubs, invoices and general ledger entries form the foundation of the case.
And then, in Paragraph 44 of the indictment, Bragg quotes from the plea entered by Cohen in federal court:
Trump is not being singled out or treated unfairly. The core of the indictment alleges that Trump violated New York books and records law, a crime that is regularly prosecuted, according to research compiled by former prosecutors. In this case, those violations arguably impacted an extremely close presidential election. False statements in furtherance of a scheme to pull the wool over the eyes of voters is hardly inconsequential.
The indictment suggests two options to elevate charges. Bragg alleges that records were falsified in furtherance of a scheme to contravene state and federal election laws. He also says Trump took steps to mischaracterize the true nature of the payments for tax purposes. Tax law provides another sound basis for bumping the charges up to felonies.
While the indictment does not set out precisely which crimes elevate books and records violations to felonies, Bragg at his news conference pointed specifically to misstatements to tax authorities, to federal election law and to N.Y. Election Law § 17-152, which makes it illegal for “two or more persons [to] conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.” With the testimony of Cohen and others, plus the documents, this may not be hard to prove.
What about what’s not in the indictment? Bragg did not cite specific statutes he will rely upon to pursue felonies. But there is nothing sneaky or underhanded about that. Bragg presented what he thought he needed to — no more and no less. Media impatience is no reason to reveal more in an indictment than he would normally do at this stage. (New York legal experts point out to me that even in the jury instructions, the prosecutor need not specify the precise crime that bumps up a charge to a felony.)
Brookings Institution’s Norman Eisen, who has written extensively on the case, tells me, “The 44-paragraph recital of the evidence is absolutely damning.” And while we may be frustrated with the lack of legal argument, he says that “there’s no legal requirement in New York for Bragg to plead with any more specificity than he has done here.” Eisen, who served as co-counsel to the House Judiciary Committee in Trump’s first impeachment hearing, adds, “There will undoubtedly be much more to come, both when Trump files his inevitable bill of particulars, and as the case otherwise unfolds through the trial and pretrial process.” There is ample case law for using federal and state election law violations to bump up a records falsification case.
While the complaint goes into some detail on efforts to make sure Cohen knew he was “loved” and had friends in “high places” (the defendant runs a “pressure campaign,” as the indictment titles one section), it does not specifically charge witness tampering or obstruction. But such actions speak to consciousness of guilt, an awareness that Trump needed Cohen to remain quiet because he feared their scheme would become public.
At his news conference, Bragg said, “Under New York state law, it is a felony to falsify business records with intent to defraud and intent to conceal another crime. That is exactly what this case is about. Thirty-four false statements made to cover up other crimes. These are felony crimes in New York state no matter who you are.” Bragg is certainly right that these are “bread and butter” white-collar crimes routinely prosecuted. The New York Times reports, “Since Mr. Bragg took office in 2022, prosecutors have filed 117 felony counts of the charge, against 29 individuals and companies, according to data kept by the office.”
While frustrating for the media and legal pundits, we are not likely to get more detail until pretrial motions are heard. The judge put a protective order on the evidence, so that cannot be shared with the public. And while the judge reportedly admonished Trump about threats to the prosecutor or others, he will be free to share (or not) his views and arguments — unless later subjected to a gag order. That, too, is a serious reminder that as a criminal defendant he cannot say everything he wants; like other defendants, if he threatens court personnel or incites violence, he’ll find himself back before the judge. (He certainly went right up to the line during remarks at Mar-a-Lago, with references to the judge and his family.)
Tuesday certainly was a sobering day. A former president was reduced to the status of a criminal defendant, looking deflated and a bit overwhelmed. The judge and jury won’t care how loudly Trump and his cultists whine about his plight. They certainly won’t care that the media wants to find out Bragg’s legal strategy. The matter rests with the New York court — which is what equal justice under the law demands.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/04/05/bragg-arraignment-trump-charged-reaction/
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
this is the best I could find to summarize “ The offense is typically charged as a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in prison. But it rises to the level of a felony — with a penalty of up to four years in prison — when it is carried out with the intent to commit or hide another crime.”
what’s interesting is that it appears trump does not need to be found guilty of the other crime (how would he know that at the time without due process?) - it’s his intent to conceal the other activity that he believes could be a crime.
Having the previous Indictment thread get locked last week has made this challenging.
We appreciate your patience. And we will continue to strive for excellence.
I think Gary Hart had to drop out of the Race because he had an affair?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
On Sunday, May 3, The Miami Herald published a major story with the headline, "Miami Woman Is Linked to Hart". A few weeks later, a picture appeared in the National Enquirer, and then in hundreds of newspapers worldwide, showing Donna Rice sitting in Hart's lap with Hart in a Monkey Business T-shirt.[7][2]
In 2018, Democratic media consultant Raymond Strother made public a conversation he had with Republican operative Lee Atwater in the final weeks of Atwater's life in which he told Strother that the photograph of Hart and Rice had been arranged by Atwater to discredit Hart.[8]
The yacht made an appearance early in the film Smokey and the Bandit Part 3. It returned to popular culture in the film The Front Runner, a 2018 American biographical drama directed by Jason Reitman and starring Hugh Jackman as Gary Hart.[9]
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
There's shit hanging over all of their heads, from POOTWH on down. Hence why Obama drove them nuts. Squeaky clean, nothing but a birth certificate, a reverend and a picture of him smoking dope in college to smear him with.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
And excellent it is. Good job, Juggler!
Shortly after former president Donald Trump was charged on 34 felony counts of falsifying recordson Tuesday, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) apologized to Fox News host Sean Hannity for being so emotional following the historic arraignment.
Graham, one of Trump’s closest allies in Congress, has gone on TV in recent days to push for Trump supporters to give as much money as possible to the former president’s 2024 campaign, arguing that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and prosecutors were “trying to bleed him dry.” While Trump, who has pleaded not guilty to the charges, insisted during a speech at his Mar-a-Largo estate that he has “a lot of cash,” Graham returned to Fox on Tuesday to again plead for people to donate whatever money they could to the former president.
“I’m sorry, I’m so upset, but please help President Trump,” Graham said to Hannity, pushing for Trump supporters to give “five or 10 bucks” or “just pray” if they couldn’t donate. He then urged conservatives to vote — but also to give money if they can. “Make sure you vote as early as you can in your state. Don’t risk anything anymore. Vote as soon as you can, pray for this country, pray for this president. And if you got any money to give, give it. LindseyGraham.com — it doesn’t go to me. It goes to helping this president and taking back the Senate.”
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I wasn't aware of that until this week. Knowing that, I was expecting more. To arrest a former president and literally just say "I don't have to tell you why" (paraphrasing for the quote police) seems extremely weak to me. And I can't think of what a bigger crime could be. He's admitted to paying her off at this point, which itself is not illegal. The only crime is not reporting it properly with respect to campaign laws. I've seen multiple versions of what is common or not, so I'm not sure what actually is. But common sense would tell me if there is no bigger crime, or you can't prove there was a bigger crime, then this isn't a felony. If there was one, why is that not included in the charges? But what could it even be? The only thing he covered up was the fact he cheated, which isn't a crime. Given this is a case the entire world is watching, and it is a former president. There is nothing normal about this. So whether it is "normal" or not to bring up the bigger crime, I think it is important.
Because right now, it kind of looks like they realized they missed their window for the misdemeanor charges and are trying to figure out how to still indict him for this
They should have done it 2 years ago with what it is, a misdemeanor.
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000187-4d9a-dc00-a3d7-4d9f97b40000
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©