34 Counts of falsifying business records
-
They cannot try federal campaign violations. If there was an applicable NY statute they could.
But I tend to agree with you that this is weak.
@Mik said in 34 Counts of falsifying business records:
They cannot try federal campaign violations. If there was an applicable NY statute they could.
But I tend to agree with you that this is weak.
The one thing I was wondering was if they could charge him with a State Campaign Finance Violation and if it was Felony. They didn’t. The felony that they are referring to is an unproven allegation on their part that by its nature CAN NOT be proven and tried by them. The Judge must dismiss based on that alone.
-
And quite frankly, I would personally like for one of these charges to actually be true and remove him from consideration for the nomination.
The Brad
-
The next hearing is Dec. 4. Judge insists that Trump be there in person, whereas, as a matter of fact, this hearing is all on pre-trial motions. It's unusual for the defendant to be present for such a hearing.
The judge (who's daughter works for Biden/Harris) insists that Trump be there.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
And quite frankly, I would personally like for one of these charges to actually be true and remove him from consideration for the nomination.
@LuFins-Dad said in 34 Counts of falsifying business records:
And quite frankly, I would personally like for one of these charges to actually be true and remove him from consideration for the nomination.
It wouldn't even if it were true.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in 34 Counts of falsifying business records:
And quite frankly, I would personally like for one of these charges to actually be true and remove him from consideration for the nomination.
It wouldn't even if it were true.
@Mik said in 34 Counts of falsifying business records:
@LuFins-Dad said in 34 Counts of falsifying business records:
And quite frankly, I would personally like for one of these charges to actually be true and remove him from consideration for the nomination.
It wouldn't even if it were true.
The indictment wouldn’t, but I’m not sure he could run for President from jail if he was convicted…
-
@Mik said in 34 Counts of falsifying business records:
I believe he could.
Ok… Could he serve if he was still in jail? This charge is BS, but if there is any evidence that he actively tried to put out false electors, that could be quite problematic.
The Brad
-
I'm beginning to think this thin case is nothing but a delaying tactic for political reasons.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
@Mik said in 34 Counts of falsifying business records:
I believe he could.
Ok… Could he serve if he was still in jail? This charge is BS, but if there is any evidence that he actively tried to put out false electors, that could be quite problematic.
@LuFins-Dad said in 34 Counts of falsifying business records:
Could he serve if he was still in jail?
Could he then pardon himself?
-
I'm beginning to think this thin case is nothing but a delaying tactic for political reasons.
-
In other news, a new world record was achieved this afternoon as 37% of the US population simultaneously masturbated…
-
In other news, a new world record was achieved this afternoon as 37% of the US population simultaneously masturbated…
@LuFins-Dad said in 34 Counts of falsifying business records:
In other news, a new world record was achieved this afternoon as 37% of the US population simultaneously masturbated…
Or, as Bongino said today, at least 25% of the country would have cheered mightily for one lousy RPG.
I'm sorry, but there are a helluva lot more truly despicable low-lifes on the Left than on the Right. As one Leftist who attended CPAC said, "I was shocked at how nice I was treated by almost everybody. Many people invited me into their group meetings, because they wanted a vigorous debate with me".
Try that at the Democrat equivalent and see what happens...They hate hard.
-
@Mik said in 34 Counts of falsifying business records:
With conspiracy to affect the 2016 election, which is what made them felonies.
They cannot try campaign violations. That’s a Federal Charge and the Justice Department refused to prosecute. Without a conviction of campaign violations, he is presumed innocent. There is no felony that they can tie the misdemeanor charge to.
@LuFins-Dad said in 34 Counts of falsifying business records:
@Mik said in 34 Counts of falsifying business records:
With conspiracy to affect the 2016 election, which is what made them felonies.
They cannot try campaign violations. That’s a Federal Charge and the Justice Department refused to prosecute. Without a conviction of campaign violations, he is presumed innocent. There is no felony that they can tie the misdemeanor charge to.
It’s not quite that simple, I’ve just recently learned. The federal crime that the records falsification concealed doesn’t have to be his. Cohen plead guilty to the campaign violation.
It’s still a stretch, though, due to the state-federal tie in and for a couple of reasons I’d go into but I’m on vacation and and running out.
-
@Mik said in 34 Counts of falsifying business records:
I believe he could.
Ok… Could he serve if he was still in jail? This charge is BS, but if there is any evidence that he actively tried to put out false electors, that could be quite problematic.
@LuFins-Dad said in 34 Counts of falsifying business records:
@Mik said in 34 Counts of falsifying business records:
I believe he could.
Ok… Could he serve if he was still in jail? This charge is BS, but if there is any evidence that he actively tried to put out false electors, that could be quite problematic.
I think he could be elected from jail but probably not serve unless they changed the rules about visitation and communication just for him, which I doubt they would.
So it could end up being an “incapacitated President” situation whereby the VP takes over until the incapacitation is resolved.
All of the above is my speculation, it goes without saying.
-
They cannot try federal campaign violations. If there was an applicable NY statute they could.
But I tend to agree with you that this is weak.
@Mik said in 34 Counts of falsifying business records:
They cannot try federal campaign violations. If there was an applicable NY statute they could.
Not meaning to be a PITA about this, but this morning's MSN headers include analysis of yesterday by 'former prosecutors', and . . . "Bragg highlighted several laws he said are potentially applicable to the case, including New York state election law that makes it a crime to conspire to promote a candidacy by unlawful means; laws that prohibit false statements, including statements that were planned to be made to tax authorities; and federal election contribution limits."
The full article: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/what-legal-experts-say-about-donald-trump-s-indictment/ar-AA19u3F0
ETA: Elsewhere in MSN: "Prosecutors allege Trump falsified business records for the purpose of misleading state tax authorities, an allegation that bolsters what legal experts have described as a novel case that could be difficult to prove.
Rebecca Roiphe, a former state prosecutor who is now a New York Law School professor, said this revelation will likely make it easier for prosecutors to present the complicated case to a jury.
"Pundits have been speculating that Trump would be charged with lying about the hush money payments to illegally affect an election, and that theory rests on controversial legal issues and could be hard to prove,” Roiphe told The Times.
“It turns out the indictment also includes a claim that Trump falsified records to commit a state tax crime. …That’s a much simpler charge that avoids the potential pitfalls.”
-
It occurred to me that if in, say, 2010, someone would have said “in 2023 Donald Trump is going to be indicted for falsifying business records”, literally zero Americans would have been surprised.
But if you had added “and by then he’ll be a former President”, that’s when the disbelief would have kicked in.
