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…
-
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.
-
-
McCarthy:
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Moreover, “It is the function of an indictment in the criminal justice system to do two things. It has to put a defendant on notice of exactly what he’s being charged with, which is to say which crimes he’s being accused of committing, and it then gives the defendant — this is the second part of the vehicle — so if he’s ever charged with that again, he can use the first indictment to plead double jeopardy.”
“So in order to make that work, you have to tell the defendant what it is that you’re accusing him of,” he continued. “And if an essential element of the offense is that you have to prove as the prosecutor beyond a reasonable doubt that he was trying to conceal another crime, you have to tell the defendant what the other crime is that he has, that he supposedly is concealing.”
“This indictment fails to do that,” McCarthy concluded. “This is the heart of the case. It’s not a felony unless he was trying to conceal another crime and if you don’t tell them what the crime is, how does that put him on notice and allow him to prepare his defense?”
"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.
-
McCarthy:
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Moreover, “It is the function of an indictment in the criminal justice system to do two things. It has to put a defendant on notice of exactly what he’s being charged with, which is to say which crimes he’s being accused of committing, and it then gives the defendant — this is the second part of the vehicle — so if he’s ever charged with that again, he can use the first indictment to plead double jeopardy.”
“So in order to make that work, you have to tell the defendant what it is that you’re accusing him of,” he continued. “And if an essential element of the offense is that you have to prove as the prosecutor beyond a reasonable doubt that he was trying to conceal another crime, you have to tell the defendant what the other crime is that he has, that he supposedly is concealing.”
“This indictment fails to do that,” McCarthy concluded. “This is the heart of the case. It’s not a felony unless he was trying to conceal another crime and if you don’t tell them what the crime is, how does that put him on notice and allow him to prepare his defense?”
@George-K said in 34 Counts of falsifying business records:
McCarthy:
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Moreover, “It is the function of an indictment in the criminal justice system to do two things. It has to put a defendant on notice of exactly what he’s being charged with, which is to say which crimes he’s being accused of committing, and it then gives the defendant — this is the second part of the vehicle — so if he’s ever charged with that again, he can use the first indictment to plead double jeopardy.”
“So in order to make that work, you have to tell the defendant what it is that you’re accusing him of,” he continued. “And if an essential element of the offense is that you have to prove as the prosecutor beyond a reasonable doubt that he was trying to conceal another crime, you have to tell the defendant what the other crime is that he has, that he supposedly is concealing.”
“This indictment fails to do that,” McCarthy concluded. “This is the heart of the case. It’s not a felony unless he was trying to conceal another crime and if you don’t tell them what the crime is, how does that put him on notice and allow him to prepare his defense?”
Well, McCarthy and @George-K beat me to the punch… They did not indict Trump on any of these possible NY laws yesterday. Therefore, that speculation is strictly that. The whole Tying it into Cohen thing doesn’t really work, either. It’s kind of like gun laws. There are gun laws that are minor infractions but become escalators if the gun is used in a crime. It would be like NY coming after somebody strictly with the escalator charge over a crime committed in Ohio, when the person was never convicted of a crime in Ohio…
-
"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.
-
@George-K said in 34 Counts of falsifying business records:
Hitler, too. And he went on to actually win an election!
Jesus wasn't murdered. He was executed. You'd think she'd know the difference being such a devout whatever-she is.
I was only joking
-
Somewhere I read that there are a couple of problems with this indictment.
First of all, it alleges that Trump paid Clifford so as to influence the presidential election. Those payments occurred in 2017. He may have promised to make the payments prior to the election, but the funds were transferred after he was president.
Secondly, since he's being charged with a felony, the fact that the felony is not named in the indictment, that's grounds for dismissal (as McCarthy said earlier).
Finally, and I don't know if this is true, it's unusual for the judge presiding over the arraignment to be the actual trial judge.
-
@George-K said in 34 Counts of falsifying business records:
Hitler, too. And he went on to actually win an election!
Jesus wasn't murdered. He was executed. You'd think she'd know the difference being such a devout whatever-she is.
@Doctor-Phibes said in 34 Counts of falsifying business records:
Jesus wasn't murdered. He was executed.
That's right! By the gazpacho.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in 34 Counts of falsifying business records:
Jesus wasn't murdered. He was executed.
That's right! By the gazpacho.
@Catseye3 said in 34 Counts of falsifying business records:
@Doctor-Phibes said in 34 Counts of falsifying business records:
Jesus wasn't murdered. He was executed.
That's right! By the gazpacho.
With Jewish space lasers.
-
McCarthy:
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Moreover, “It is the function of an indictment in the criminal justice system to do two things. It has to put a defendant on notice of exactly what he’s being charged with, which is to say which crimes he’s being accused of committing, and it then gives the defendant — this is the second part of the vehicle — so if he’s ever charged with that again, he can use the first indictment to plead double jeopardy.”
“So in order to make that work, you have to tell the defendant what it is that you’re accusing him of,” he continued. “And if an essential element of the offense is that you have to prove as the prosecutor beyond a reasonable doubt that he was trying to conceal another crime, you have to tell the defendant what the other crime is that he has, that he supposedly is concealing.”
“This indictment fails to do that,” McCarthy concluded. “This is the heart of the case. It’s not a felony unless he was trying to conceal another crime and if you don’t tell them what the crime is, how does that put him on notice and allow him to prepare his defense?”
@George-K said in 34 Counts of falsifying business records:
McCarthy:
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Moreover, “It is the function of an indictment in the criminal justice system to do two things. It has to put a defendant on notice of exactly what he’s being charged with, which is to say which crimes he’s being accused of committing, and it then gives the defendant — this is the second part of the vehicle — so if he’s ever charged with that again, he can use the first indictment to plead double jeopardy.”
“So in order to make that work, you have to tell the defendant what it is that you’re accusing him of,” he continued. “And if an essential element of the offense is that you have to prove as the prosecutor beyond a reasonable doubt that he was trying to conceal another crime, you have to tell the defendant what the other crime is that he has, that he supposedly is concealing.”
“This indictment fails to do that,” McCarthy concluded. “This is the heart of the case. It’s not a felony unless he was trying to conceal another crime and if you don’t tell them what the crime is, how does that put him on notice and allow him to prepare his defense?”
Haven’t read the indictment yet but that seems logical.
-
@George-K said in 34 Counts of falsifying business records:
McCarthy:
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Moreover, “It is the function of an indictment in the criminal justice system to do two things. It has to put a defendant on notice of exactly what he’s being charged with, which is to say which crimes he’s being accused of committing, and it then gives the defendant — this is the second part of the vehicle — so if he’s ever charged with that again, he can use the first indictment to plead double jeopardy.”
“So in order to make that work, you have to tell the defendant what it is that you’re accusing him of,” he continued. “And if an essential element of the offense is that you have to prove as the prosecutor beyond a reasonable doubt that he was trying to conceal another crime, you have to tell the defendant what the other crime is that he has, that he supposedly is concealing.”
“This indictment fails to do that,” McCarthy concluded. “This is the heart of the case. It’s not a felony unless he was trying to conceal another crime and if you don’t tell them what the crime is, how does that put him on notice and allow him to prepare his defense?”
Haven’t read the indictment yet but that seems logical.
@jon-nyc said in 34 Counts of falsifying business records:
@George-K said in 34 Counts of falsifying business records:
McCarthy:
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Moreover, “It is the function of an indictment in the criminal justice system to do two things. It has to put a defendant on notice of exactly what he’s being charged with, which is to say which crimes he’s being accused of committing, and it then gives the defendant — this is the second part of the vehicle — so if he’s ever charged with that again, he can use the first indictment to plead double jeopardy.”
“So in order to make that work, you have to tell the defendant what it is that you’re accusing him of,” he continued. “And if an essential element of the offense is that you have to prove as the prosecutor beyond a reasonable doubt that he was trying to conceal another crime, you have to tell the defendant what the other crime is that he has, that he supposedly is concealing.”
“This indictment fails to do that,” McCarthy concluded. “This is the heart of the case. It’s not a felony unless he was trying to conceal another crime and if you don’t tell them what the crime is, how does that put him on notice and allow him to prepare his defense?”
Haven’t read the indictment yet but that seems logical.
In New York, the indictment can be this broad. Legally, the specifics don't have to be laid out until the DA files a Bill of Particulars.
That's according to Pirro.
