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.
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.
-
I can't believe the Democrats have been so stupid. I keep waiting for the punchline, but there isn't going to be one.
-
How 'bout this one?
Fat Alvin caught Trump cheating on his taxes. He overpaid!
-
FEC Commissioner - No campaign finance crime here.
A key member of the Federal Election Commission today rejected the Manhattan district attorney’s indictment of former President Donald Trump as a violation of federal election laws.
“It's not a campaign finance violation. It's not a reporting violation of any kind,” said FEC Commissioner James E. “Trey” Trainor.
In trying to stretch the law to make it look like a violation, he added, District Attorney Alvin Bragg “is really trying to make a square peg fit into a round hole.”
In a 34-count indictment of Trump, the first criminal case ever against a former president, Bragg charged that a $130,000 payment made by former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen to porn star Stormy Daniels, which Cohen went to jail for in a plea deal, violated several campaign finance laws that splashed onto Trump.
But, said Trainor, the FEC and Justice Department already considered the case and tossed it.
With that as background, Trainor told Secrets today that it will be hard for a judge or jury to come up with a different conclusion since it’s the FEC and DOJ that prosecute federal campaign finance law. He reiterated that in a Tuesday tweet that showed the FEC hearing room, and he wrote, “This is where campaign finance violations are tried.”
-
@jon-nyc yes, and he reiterated it. One thing I was not aware of is that Federal Election law violations are not criminal, but a civil matter, in which the burden of proof is lower.
-
@jon-nyc yes, and he reiterated it. One thing I was not aware of is that Federal Election law violations are not criminal, but a civil matter, in which the burden of proof is lower.
@George-K said in 34 Counts of falsifying business records:
@jon-nyc yes, and he reiterated it. One thing I was not aware of is that Federal Election law violations are not criminal, but a civil matter, in which the burden of proof is lower.
If they are a civil matter, then there’s not even a felony to tie it to. Are there civil felonies?
