The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today
-
@George-K said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
@Jolly said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
Please legally explain to me how you can bootstrap an expired state misdemeanor into a Federal election law felony?
And how does the Manhattan DA have any jurisdiction with respect to Federal election law?
Manhattan DA charges Trump with violation of NY law ("falsifying business records"), the alleged violations are connected to violations of federal election law -- "falsifying business records" with intend to cover up federal crimes. See https://nodebb.the-new-coffee-room.club/post/276982 .
-
@Axtremus said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
Manhattan DA charges Trump with violation of NY law ("falsifying business records"), the alleged violations are connected to violations of federal election law -- "falsifying business records" with intend to cover up federal crimes. See https://nodebb.the-new-coffee-room.club/post/276982 .
Trump’s lawyers pointed that out last week, noting that nondisclosure agreements (a.k.a. “hush-money” deals) are legal and common, Bragg’s assistant prosecutor Joshua Steinglass countered that there was a conspiracy statute in the case — the New York crime of “conspiracy to promote or prevent election,” codified in §17-152 of the state’s election law. As I’ve explained, this is preposterous. That conspiracy crime is not charged or even mentioned in the indictment. It is not specified in the felony business-records-falsification statute, as the New York constitution requires if it is going to be enforced as part of that statute.
Moreover, if it really applied, as Bragg and Steinglass now claim it does, one would naturally ask, “Why didn’t prosecutors just charge it in the indictment?” There are two answers.
First, because a §17-152 conspiracy is a misdemeanor — i.e., just like the misdemeanor business-records-falsification statute (§175.05) that Bragg also didn’t charge, §17-152 has a two-year statute of limitations. Ergo, as to the conduct in this case, the time to charge that conspiracy lapsed in 2019. And yes, Bragg is now trying to qualify for the six-year felony statute of limitations — so he could charge 34 felonies with a potential of 136 years’ imprisonment — by stitching together two misdemeanors as to which the statute of limitations lapsed four years before Bragg finally indicted the case.
Second, to establish a §17-152 conspiracy, it is not enough for prosecutors to prove that a defendant conspired to promote a candidate’s election; they also have to establish an intent to promote it “by unlawful means.” Even if such a conspiracy charge hadn’t been time-barred, Bragg would not have wanted to spell the supposedly “unlawful means” out in an indictment because the illegality he wants to prove is a supposed violation of federal campaign-finance law. Bragg, as a state DA, has no jurisdiction to prosecute federal campaign-finance law.
Nondisclosure agreements are legal. They do not run afoul of campaign law because they are technically not campaign expenditures — which is why the Justice Department and FEC, which have exclusive prosecutorial authority over federal campaign law, decided not to prosecute Trump.
Why is this so important? Because if, as an objective legal matter, a disbursement of money is not a campaign expenditure, then it does not matter what the people involved in the disbursement were subjectively thinking. They could have guilty consciences. They could be sneaky, stealthy, and dishonest. But if the payment of “hush money” is not a campaign expenditure, then there is no crime, period.
Nor, in any event, is conspiracy to violate federal campaign-finance law the crime Bragg charged. But it’s often hard to know what Bragg charged, especially by reading news coverage, because the business-records statute he invoked does not state the crime he indicted (concealment of a federal campaign violation), and the indictment he filed does not charge the “offense” he is presenting to the jury (conspiracy to suppress politically damaging information).
-
The "problem" for me is that anytime President Trump is accused or charged or claimed that he did something wrong, there is always some conspiracy theory that says that it cannot be true.
Charged with a crime? cannot be true. There is this giant conspiracy involving the entire legal system of the US from the local, state and federal level which is causing this.
Claims that he did this or that wrong? Impossible, the XX part of society are nothing but Trump haters. How is it that the XX, YY, ZZ, AA, BB, CC, etc parts of society are all out to get President Trump?
For someone who won 80% of the popular vote in the last election (insert sarcasm here), it is weird that the minority of 20% who didnt vote for him are able to pull of these conspiracy's, and still happen to control all the important aspects of government and public life. At some point, where there is smoke, there is fire.
(On a side topic, what ever happened to the investigation of President Biden by the Republic controlled Congress that was claimed to have evidence without a doubt as to his guilt?)
-
@taiwan_girl said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
The "problem" for me is that anytime President Trump is accused or charged or claimed that he did something wrong, there is always some conspiracy theory that says that it cannot be true.
Charged with a crime? cannot be true. There is this giant conspiracy involving the entire legal system of the US from the local, state and federal level which is causing this.
Claims that he did this or that wrong? Impossible, the XX part of society are nothing but Trump haters. How is it that the XX, YY, ZZ, AA, BB, CC, etc parts of society are all out to get President Trump?
For someone who won 80% of the popular vote in the last election (insert sarcasm here), it is weird that the minority of 20% who didnt vote for him are able to pull of these conspiracy's, and still happen to control all the important aspects of government and public life. At some point, where there is smoke, there is fire.
(On a side topic, what ever happened to the investigation of President Biden by the Republic controlled Congress that was claimed to have evidence without a doubt as to his guilt?)
Senate won't take up the charges.
Secondly, if you can't see where this is purely lawfare, a pure political prosecution, you're either stupid or biased.
I don't think you're stupid.
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
@Jolly said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
@taiwan_girl said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
The "problem" for me is that anytime President Trump is accused or charged or claimed that he did something wrong, there is always some conspiracy theory that says that it cannot be true.
Charged with a crime? cannot be true. There is this giant conspiracy involving the entire legal system of the US from the local, state and federal level which is causing this.
Claims that he did this or that wrong? Impossible, the XX part of society are nothing but Trump haters. How is it that the XX, YY, ZZ, AA, BB, CC, etc parts of society are all out to get President Trump?
For someone who won 80% of the popular vote in the last election (insert sarcasm here), it is weird that the minority of 20% who didnt vote for him are able to pull of these conspiracy's, and still happen to control all the important aspects of government and public life. At some point, where there is smoke, there is fire.
(On a side topic, what ever happened to the investigation of President Biden by the Republic controlled Congress that was claimed to have evidence without a doubt as to his guilt?)
Senate won't take up the charges.
But if it is that bad and there was all this evdience, they were talking about impeachment. From my understand, you dont need the senate to do that.
-
@taiwan_girl said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
But if it is that bad and there was all this evdience, they were talking about impeachment. From my understand, you dont need the senate to do that.
Mayorkas was impeached. The Senate refused a trial because the charges were unfounded.
"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.
-
Is this extortion? If so, should she be prosecuted for a felony?
Extortion occurs when someone attempts to obtain money, property, or other valuables by threatening to commit violence, accusing the victim of a crime, or revealing private or damaging information about the victim. Both state laws and federal law make extortion a crime.
-
It’s reasonable. I doubt she was in a lot of movies with morbidly obese 60 year olds. Probably more like 25 year old plumbers and pizza delivery guys.
-
@jon-nyc said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
It’s reasonable. I doubt she was in a lot of movies with morbidly obese 60 year olds. Probably more like 25 year old plumbers and pizza delivery guys.
A filmography...
-
@George-K said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
@taiwan_girl said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
But if it is that bad and there was all this evdience, they were talking about impeachment. From my understand, you dont need the senate to do that.
Mayorkas was impeached. The Senate refused a trial because the charges were unfounded.
Why havent they brought impeachment against President Biden?
-
Heard one judge say that the prosecution really put the brakes on some of the Louisiana whore's testimony, after she started to infer the sex was not completely voluntary. There was a legal term used (which I can't remember) that meant that if Daniels was testifying she was raped, the trial could be immediately dismissed.
Also, I noticed the prosecution had subpoenaed McDougal, but decided not to put her on the stand.
-
"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 The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
Sounds to me that the defense has a good case for appeal based on the Weinstein verdict. Lots of prejudicial testimony from Clifford and Pecker.
"Trump's an asshole."
Yup, now tell me what that has to do with the actual charge.
An accounting error bootstrapped into a felony? After we've entered into fantasy world, relevancy is whatever the Bragg Boys tell the judge it is.
-
@George-K said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
Yup, now tell me what that has to do with the actual charge.
Yup.
Occasionally impolite, that is the basis for most of the case against Mr. Trump.
And, of course, the morbidity thing. Sadly, fat people still have no Constitutional Rights.
