Unit2Sucks said:
BearGoggles said:
Unit2Sucks said:
BearGoggles said:
Unit2Sucks said:
BearGoggles said:
Unit2Sucks said:
BearGoggles said:
Unit2Sucks said:
tequila4kapp said:
Misdemeanor (i.e.., simple violation) of NY Business Records Law (Penal Law 175.05):If you bring charges against a President or former President you really need to have the goods. No overreaches.
Let's break it down:
Trump made 3 hush payments. This is not illegal, in and of itself.
Falsifying business documentation related to the payments could be illegal.
1. This crime has a specific intent requirement (to defraud, IIRC).
2. Statute of limitations is 2 years. The alleged events are 7 (?) years old.
To get around the statute of limitations problem the DA has to prove the underlying documentation issues were done in furtherance of a 2nd crime. This upgrades the misdemeanor to a NY state felony which has a longer statute of limitation. The DA spoke to - but did not include in the charging documents - three "other" crimes:
1. Payments were hidden in violation of NY state election laws.
PROBLEM: a) Trump was a federal candidate. Federal election laws clearly preempt state election laws. b) the DA has to prove Trump knew it was a crime to hide the payments (doubtful) and had the necessary criminal intent required under the statute (possible but not easy)
2. Federal election laws.
PROBLEM: the feds looked into these very facts and did not charge him criminally (DOJ) or civilly (FEC)
3. Tax evasion.
PROBLEM: Trump reportedly didn't take a deduction for the payments so a tax violation isn't obvious.
General problems: Cohen and Daniels are horrific witnesses.
Maybe there are creative legal arguments the DA can make to proceed on the state and fed election law stuff. Maybe there's more juice to the tax stuff. But generally this is stupidly weak…weak enough that Trump haters everywhere should be disappointed or upset this is what was charged.
There are a lot of unverified assumptions baked in here. The DOJ passed on prosecution at the request of Bill Barr and the DOJ asked Cy Vance to stand down so the DOJ could handle it. I would say that when the attorney general corruptly prevents prosecution of his boss (and asks the local prosecutor to stand down), that shouldn't be used to support an assertion that no crime has been committed.
You're also assuming that the evidence is limited to the words of Cohen and Daniels. Also, hard to ignore that Cohen wasn't just a random criminal who had evidence here - he was Trump's right hand man for over a decade and he went to jail because he helped Trump with the crime that Trump is defending.
The statement of facts is pretty detailed and shows indefensible conduct by Trump. I'm pretty tired of people complaining about someone being charged with obvious crimes based on some standard that the crimes aren't serious enough or that the criminal was able to avoid prosecution for a few years in part due to corruption and in part due to dumb luck (that he happened to win election).
I love that all of the Trump defenders have made these strong claims that Trump was only orchestrating this scheme to pay off his mistress for personal reasons and that it had nothing to do with the election. There is literally no basis for that, other than those people having good will for Trump, but Bragg seems to have evidence to the contrary which, if provable, would show that Trump did in fact do these things in order to help with his campaign. And, for what it's worth, that's the most plausible reason and doesn't require the sort of leap of faith that you would need in order to believe he was trying to protect Melania.
Quote:
The Defendant directed Lawyer A to delay making a payment to Woman 2 as long as possible. He instructed Lawyer A that if they could delay the payment until after the election, they could avoid paying altogether, because at that point it would not matter if the story became public. As reflected in emails and text messages between and among Lawyer A, Lawyer B, and the AMI Editor-in-Chief, Lawyer A attempted to delay making payment as long as possible
If Trump is innocent, he'll beat the rap and Bragg will look bad. If Trump is guilty, he should be convicted.
Typical obfuscation on your part.
1. Biden's DOJ also passed on the election law case. The FEC passed on the case when Biden was president. https://nypost.com/2021/05/07/trump-calls-stormy-daniels-claims-fake-news-as-fec-drops-case/
Biden's DOJ certainly could have indicted Trump for the stormy payments - notably the special counsel was appointed but declined to pursue these claims as well.
In terms of your "asked to stand down" claim please provide me any authority for the proposition that a state DA like Bragg has any jurisdiction to investigate federal election law violations. I'll wait - and its going to be a long wait because there is none. Complete federal preemption of the federal election claims. The feds announced they weren't pursuing charges in 2021 - why did Bragg/Vance did not charge until today (hint: because they knew it was a loser case).
2. Even if clams made in the indictment statement of "facts" are "indefensible" that does not make them illegal. And of course that's the corrupt DA's point - slime Trump (which is not hard) and bring a bogus case in a venue where 90% of the voters hate Trump.
Not all bad conduct is illegal. You are conflating the two because you are as partisan as Bragg. If bad behavior were a chargeable crime, there are lots of dems who would be under indictment (starting with HRC and several members of the Biden family). But that is banana republic/authoritarian behavior that the US did not engage in until today.
3. Under applicable Federal election law and DOJ guidance, the standard is not whether the payments had "nothing to do" with the campaign. Even if there was a mixed motive (which is the likely explanation) and mixed consequence (helping him both personally and his campaign), it is not criminal. And to be clear, NY state election law is irrelevant - doesn't apply to Trumps federal election.
4. Funny you want to characterize Cohen as the key witness. The guy convicted of perjury and financial/tax fraud crimes unrelated to Trump. No competent/honest prosecutor would ever bring a case that significantly relied upon testimony from that guy. And before you claim "Cohen plead guilty to federal campaign violations", read this and respond to the authoritative analysis therein.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/04/no-cohens-guilty-plea-does-not-prove-trump-committed-campaign-finance-crimes/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=right-rail&utm_content=featured-writers&utm_term=fourth
5. Nice strawman. No one is complaining "about someone being charged with obvious crimes based on some standard that the crimes aren't serious enough or that the criminal was able to avoid prosecution for a few years in part due to corruption and in part due to dumb luck"
The claim here is that there are no chargeable state crimes - certainly not a felony. To suggest the crimes are "obvious" is just laughable given all that has happened here - Fed declining case, Vance declining case, Bragg declining to prosecute then changing his mind when he's the subject of partisan political pressure.
And if the crimes were "obvious", Bragg would not be resorting to novel and bizarre legal theories that are universally criticized and mocked. Even viewed in the favor most favorable to Bragg, there is no world were these crimes are "obvious."
Just to be clear - can you go on record and tell us whether you think Trump broke any laws? Did he commit any felonies?
Do you actually think that Trump is innocent or are you claiming that the crimes can't be proven or are you claiming that Bragg shouldn't be the one to bring charges?
What is your actual opinion on the behavior that Bragg has identified as illegal?
As far as strawmen go, you've created quite a few. I didn't call Cohen the key witness and in fact made the opposite case. People like you are working hard to minimize this case and make unsupported claims to defend Trump. You've been doing so from the get go. It's pretty clear that Bragg isn't relying solely on testimony from Cohen or Daniels.
Also, can you show support for your assertion that there was no crime based on the fact that the FEC chose not to move forward? From everything I've seen, the FEC chose not to pursue the claims because 2 Trump appointees opposed it. Do you feel like that's a solid basis for proclaiming his innocence?
The extent to which Trump supporters like BG bend over backwards to proclaim his innocence, including by amplifying the corrupt defenses of people he appointed to defend him, is embarrassing.
I will answer you, but you need to be clear in what you're asking. Are you asking if I think he broke any laws as alleged in the Bragg indictment?
Sorry, this is a fair question because Trump is alleged to have broken many laws.
Yes, I am asking you if you believe Trump is innocent of the charges alleged in Bragg's indictment. But moreover,I am really asking you to separate a lot of the alleged affirmative defenses (eg statute of limitations (which you haven't alleged) or the fact that other people didn't charge him with these crimes) because you seem to be saying that Trump cannot be found guilty of the crimes for a variety of reasons, not that Trump did not or could not have committed the alleged crimes.
Let me do it this way which I think is responsive:.
Misdemeanor (i.e.., simple violation) of NY Business Records Law (Penal Law 175.05):
I think its possible he committed misdemeanor offense. But the statement of facts doesn't explain how.
Here are some jury instructions which break down the elements. https://nycourts.gov/judges/cji/2-PenalLaw/175/175.10.pdf
I'm certainly not an expert on NY crim law. But from what I'm lead to believe, there are open questions of fact including: (i) was a business record involved (See e.g., politico https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/04/trump-indictment-takeaways-analysis-00089988); and (2) was there intent to defraud.
I think there are real issues with the second element - intent to defraud. Braggs has not really alleged in the statement of facts what "fraud" he thinks occurred. The word fraud/fraudulent appears once and the word "intent" does not appear at all. Who was defrauded here? And the legal answer can't be "everyone in the public" was defrauded - see Skilling v US.
Similarly, the indictment does not explain the intent to defraud element. So at this point, I don't think Bragg has made allegations to support the elements of this crime - based on the four corners of the SOF/indictment. But we haven't seen all the evidence so TBD.
Note: When this was being discussed a few weeks back, I had anticipated that the intent to defraud element would be met by an allegation/showing that Trump used the allegedly false business record in some sort of filing (e.g., tax filings or State business filings). However, that is not alleged anywhere in the documents and since that time there has been a fair amount of press reporting that: (i) Trump paid the legal fees out of his personal funds (not business funds); and (ii) Trump did not claim a tax deduction for the payments and/or otherwise make a filing that included the payments. Given that reporting - and the fact that Bragg made no such allegation - it seems to be accurate.
As a defense, I think its pretty much undisputed the Statute of Limitations has expired as to any misdemeanor crimes.
Felony Violation of NY Business Records Law (Penal Law 175.10):
As you know, this requires the additional element of "intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof".
As noted above, I anticipated the second crime would a tax or some other filing. But that appears to not be the case. The SOF/indictment don't really explain the second crime - which is an outrage and reveals Bragg's bad motives. At his press conference (W_T_F is he having that for?), he refused to specify the second crime,
It appears that Bragg is relying on some sort of federal election law violation for the second crime. Again, I'm not an expert on fed campaign law. But everything I've read suggests the Trump did not violate fed campaign laws. The DOJ refused to prosecute - including Biden's DOJ. The FEC found no violation.
I have read lots of sources, including many on the left such as Vox (https://www.vox.com/politics/2023/4/4/23648390/trump-indictment-supreme-court-stormy-daniels-manhattan-alvin-bragg), Slate (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/04/donald-trump-charged-felony-bragg-mistake.html), WaPo, NY Times, etc. There is not a single source (other than you - LOL) who thinks this is a clean felony case. Very few sources think the federal election law claim has any merit. Even those who support the bringing of charges acknowledge the case is incredibly weak and likely a loser (assuming Trump receives a fair trial and/or impartial jury). Many feel the case should be summarily dismissed.
As a defense, I think its likely (but not 100% clear) that the Statute of Limitations has expired. From what I've read/heard, there may be some conspiracy theories (i.e., criminal conspiracy) and/or other strained arguments that operate to extend the SOL.
Other Defenses
It is normally really hard to show prosecutorial misconduct and/or prove a case of selective prosecution. This may be such a case. When a prosecutor runs for office on the platform of investigating and charging a specific defendant, that is horribly wrong. Beria's adage of show me the man, I'll show you the crime seems apt.
In my opinion, that should be a permanent bar to that prosecutor (and his office) bringing a criminal case. Any attorney running on such a platform should be disbarred IMO.
In terms of selective prosecution, I would need to know more about how false business charges are typically brought in NY. I've seen reporting suggesting they are typically brought only as part of another crime (e.g., use or submission of the false business record to a governmental agency).
But at the end of the day, there is no doubt that this is a weak case that would only be brought against Trump for political reasons. Bragg is very clearly trying to take what is at BEST a weak misdemeanor case and cram in the felony charges, all solely to defeat the SOL. That is prima facie bad faith. And no one - even those on the left - rely dispute that.
Bragg doesn't prosecute minor misdemeanors AGAINST ANYONE and doesn't prosecute many other felony violent crimes. This type of charge is only brought against enemies. It doesn't mean Trump is necessarily "innocent" - but it is reasonable defense.
Thanks. So if I understand your position correctly: you think Bragg indicted Trump for a felony predicated on a misdemeanor crime he may have committed (but will be hard to prove) which needs to be combined with a second crime which doesn't exist. Second, you think that the court won't find that the SOL has been tolled while Trump was out of state.
I think you've mischaracterized my position if you think I've called this a "clean felony case." I think that this case will be fought between the prosecution and defense and we'll all see how it ends up.
I think there is a lot of mis-information and outrageous claims being offered as fact. You've said that there is "no doubt" that this was political. A lot of people have claimed that Bragg's entire campaign was based on him saying he would prosecute Trump and that other than Trump, Bragg isn't really prosecuting crime. I haven't seen any evidence of either of those things. Bragg has charged dozens of people with making false business statements over the past year.
The biggest difference between our positions is that you have already decided to resolve every single ambiguity in favor of Trump, which is consistent with how dutifully you have defended him for years. I don't know what Bragg has under his sleeve but it's clear he purposefully decided not to reveal everything and that he is experienced enough to know better than to bring a completely baseless case with numerous obvious technical holes. Maybe Bragg is committing career suicide and decided to blow up his career - ironically much like every lawyer Trump has hired over the last dozen years - but I suspect that the perils of bringing this case are obvious to all and that Bragg thinks he can win.
I am also skeptical of using any article from the "left" which amounts to criticism of Bragg for bringing a case that isn't as strong as the numerous other criminal cases that may be brought against Trump. That to me sounds like people requesting selective prosecution and allowing Trump to skate for political reasons.
Finally - it's absolutely ridiculous to claim that the FEC "found no violation" or that the DOJ "refused to prosecute" if you are attempting to prove Trump's innocence. As I've explained previously, Trump appointees at the FEC voted against reviewing a complaint. And Barr stopped the DOJ from prosecuting Trump which made it harder for federal prosecutors to revive the investigation without disingenuous conservative accusations of political prosecution - similar to what you are voicing today.
I would prefer to let the prosecution and defense stand on its own before going through breathless and desperate accusations of political interference. If any accused criminal in history has benefited from political interference in his behavior, it's Donald Trump. His best defense appears to be that anyone who investigates him or prosecutes him is doing so for political reasons. Every other white collar criminal in America wishes they could run interference and claim that they shouldn't be prosecuted for their crimes. That's the weaponization of our government that the GOP should be worried about but is one that they readily support.
Your first paragraph is a good summary.
Your fourth paragraph (bolded) is wrong on many levels. First of all, I am not resolving ambiguities in favor of Trump. I'm saying that prosecutors should not bring cases like this against anyone. The case is founded on incredibly strained legal theories and predicated on really weak witness testimony. That view of the case is pretty much universal - even among the left (vox, NY times, wapo, etc.). And you REALLY shouldn't do that when you campaigned on an express platform of prosecuting the guy you're charging, who just so happens to be running for president. It is third world crap you'd expect from Putin and his ilk.
You also have no explanation as to why Vance refused to bring this awful case previously and even Bragg himself refused to do so.
This is not civil litigation where you bring a case and see what happens. Prosecutors have a duty to not bring cases they can't prove up beyond a reasonable doubt. And they're not supposed overcharge (34 counts LMAO) and then hide the ball in their indictments and force the defendant to file a bill of particulars. It is not at all " clear he purposefully decided not to reveal everything " and if that was his strategy, that is not good faith. And then to hold a press conference where you make all sorts of broad allegations but refuse to explain your case is disgraceful.
Your assertion that Bragg will pay a political price for bringing a bad case is laughable. In NY, Bragg will advance his political career no matter the outcome. Sadly, charging Trump makes him a hero.
You keep asserting (without evidence or citation) that somehow Barr, DOJ and FEC were barred/blocked from bringing the federal case for political reasons. The FEC did not close the case until after Biden took office and his DOJ has been aggressively investigating Trump since day 1 - including the Jan 6 special counsel and the very aggressive search warrant on Mar Lago. Yet you somehow believe Biden's DOJ pulled punches on the election case because they were afraid of republican backlash? It is pretty clear that Biden's DOJ doesn't give too poops about that - if they did they would not have raided Mar Lago.
This is a bad case. It elevates Trump (probably the dems intent) which is bad for the country. It will result in similar local filings by partisan republicans against dems, which is bad for the country. It distracts from real issues, like Ukraine, the economy, China, and drug deaths. This is bad for the country.
I have a question or two for you. It is clear that HRC and her campaign did not properly account for the Steel Dossier payments - just like the trump NDA expense, the dossier cost was hidden in legal fees invoices. The FEC investigated and fined her for that - https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/30/politics/clinton-dnc-steele-dossier-fusion-gps/index.html
It is also beyond dispute that HRC was at that time (and remains) a New York resident and that her campaign headquarters was in NY - apparently Brooklyn. These violations occurred in NY.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clintons-campaign-signs-lease-headquarters-brooklyn/story?id=30082945
https://www.politico.com/magazine/gallery/2016/07/inside-hillary-clintons-brooklyn-headquarters-000662/?slide=0
https://www.c-span.org/video/?418089-101/hillary-clinton-campaign-headquarters
Can you explain why Vance/Bragg/NY State officials have not brought a false business records claim against HRC and her campaign and/or her law firm that participated in the false filings? In fact, it seems she wasn't even investigated. What could possible explain that?
It is clear that the HRC campaign created false records (not properly accounting for the dossier payments) related to expenses that were in fact claimed (and legally required to be reported) as campaign expenses. So at a minimum, the misdemeanor case is a slam dunk. Seems like (at least under Bragg's strained and flawed theory) the felony case is ripe. HRC did in fact commit a separate crime and very likely did file state tax returns including the false records, which would also be criminal (??).
So the felony case against HRC would have been at least as strong as the one brought against Trump. Why no NY State criminal investigation or charges?
You are continuing to work extremely hard to resolve every possible element in favor of Trump, regardless of merit. Many of the points you made have been asked and answered, but to belabor the point, I will go item by item one last time. I doubt it will stop you from continuing to make these unsupported claims.
1. The view of the case is not "universal." You cite a number of credible news sources as if they have come out against the prosecution when really what's happened is that they have printed opinion pieces critical of the prosecution on a variety of theories but often because they question whether this crime should be the first crime Trump should have to defend when he's been accused of worse crimes elsewhere. That does not mean that this prosecution is illegitimate. Doing worse stuff elsewhere isn't a defense to a crime.
2. I have explained why Vance didn't bring this case - he said that the DOJ told him to stand down.
3. Barr interfered with the investigation into Trump and it continued to be the policy of the DOJ that they can't indict a sitting president so Trump skated even when Cohen was prosecuted for the same crime (likely as politically motivated payback for his disloyalty to Trump). I don't recall you defending Cohen this hard even though the crime he went to jail for was a crime committed with Trump. Merrick Garland has done everything possible to avoid the appearance of political influence in prosecution, so it's no surprise the new less corrupt DOJ didn't choose to take this up. It's a complete fantasy to say the Biden DOJ has been "aggressively" investigating Trump since day 1. They certainly have not and the stolen government documents case is a perfect example. Garland's DOJ gave Trump leeway that no ordinary person would ever receive and only after he continued to compound crime upon crime did the FBI actually take back (some) of the documents he held onto. Thank you for reminding of us another set of serious crimes for which you've bent over backwards to defend Trump and to assume every fact and theory in his favor.
4. The FEC did not and will not exonerate Trump. As I've already stated (and provided documentary evidence for), Trump's appointees tot he FEC voted against investigating Trump. If this were anyone else but your guy, you would be calling that political interference.
5. Your partisan hatred of HRC is well known here, but this is a reach even for you. The FEC fined HRC's campaign $8k for miscategorizing a campaign expense, but it was still recorded as an expense. Further, as you've noted, there are multiple requirements for a felony charge on false records and it's unclear whether any of those have been met. Further, unlike with Trump, the HRC campaign's SOL did not toll because she didn't flee the state and so there is no theory that Bragg could have brought charges. There is no world in which that case would be "at least as strong." You know all of this but you don't care because you can't help but make a false equivalency.
6. You and other Trump defenders continue to claim that Bragg's prosecution is politically motivated but we've seen no evidence of that. What campaign statements are you basing it on? You people keep pretending like Bragg doesn't prosecute any other crimes and is only focused on Trump, but in the year or so he's been in office he's brought dozens of these sorts of false business records cases. Bragg's office is famous for bringing white collar financial crimes because of Wall Street so this is pretty typical.
Contrast that with Trump who PUBLICLY CRITICIZED HIS OWN ATTORNEY GENERAL for not bringing criminal cases against his political opponents and who really did campaign on "lock her up." Trump interfered with numerous investigations and famously asked Comey to let Michael Flynn walk. He publicly suggested Barr should prosecute a wide variety of political targets ranging from Chris Murphy to Andrew McCabe. If you want to know what political interference in law enforcement looks like, you could look no further than Trump's persecution of HRC. But since you oppose HRC and support Trump, you don't seem to have taken any issue with any of it.
7. I'll just wrap by saying it's pretty obvious you are doing your best to defend Trump and don't believe he should be held accountable for any crimes he may hay have committed. We can all see that. If your view on the facts and Trump's defenses are correct, he will be exonerated (unlike he has been in the past where it's generally been selective non-prosecution, often because he controlled the instruments of power) and Bragg will look like a clown. If you are wrong, I look forward to your spin.
I think if the facts are as you and others have assumed - in favor of Trump - this will be a loser of a case for Bragg. I very much doubt that his evidence is going to be limited to Michael Cohen's testimony. I very much doubt that Bragg and his team of prosecutors failed to do even the smallest degree of case-hardening that would be very obvious from the litany of criticism that he has received in the last 24 hours. If I'm wrong and Bragg is a complete moron, his career will be over and Trump will have reason to celebrate (in between testimony on his rape charges, federal charges for stealing government property, state charges for election interference, etc.) and you can come back and crow about it.
Strangely, lots of people on the left (Slate, Vox, WaPo, NY Times) are "working really hard" to resolve facts in favor of Trump as you claim I do. Or maybe we're just correctly analyzing the legalities?
Re # 2 - Vance was told to stand down
temporarily. He (and his successor Bragg) did in fact investigate Trump during their respective tenures. They brought a case against his company and won. You're literally just making this shyte up.
NY Times - discussion of Vance's 3 year investigation of the exact charges Bragg is now bringing.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/23/nyregion/cyrus-vance-donald-trump.htmlhttps://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/30/nyregion/cy-vance-trump-investigation.htmlAP - discussion of Bragg's initial decision not to bring this exact bogus case before he changed his ind.
https://apnews.com/article/new-york-manhattan-donald-trump-cyrus-vance-jr-criminal-investigations-18bb6847aeda9536663a6abd73abbf80Re #5 - why didn't NY state/Vance even
investigate HRC prior to the running of the SOL? You ignore that. And yes the case against HRC is stronger because: (i) it could have been brought as a misdemeanor or felony within the SOL period; (ii) the felony requirement - second violation - is clear and unambiguous (if you adopt the Bragg's bogus theory of a federal crime being a proper second crime).
And for the record, I don't think HRC should have been charged despite what you refer to as my "partisan hatred". I do think there is no plausible explanation for bringing false document charges against Trump without even investigating HRC - other than pure political hackery.
Re #6 - see point 5. Also you conveniently ignore that Bragg ran for office on a promise to get Trump. That you claim that is not a political motivation is silly. Yes - trump did run with the lock her up mantra. But after being elected he didn't - and at the time I was on record as saying he shouldn't - investigate HRC despite what you claim is my "hatred" of her. And of course, she was never charged.
