FoxNews Reporting Trump to be Indicted This Week in NY

Can one of you legal eagles explain the charges? I don't speak lawyer.

 

The actual answer is blatant Republican coverup for Trump (again). One of many. But as I said in another thread, no need for MAGA to get their panties in a wad just yet. The really serious charges are yet to come. This is just the warm-up act.

 

If he’s got any eligibility left I wouldn’t mind adding that portly fella to our defensive line for depth, he can easily eat his way to 300 lbs before summer camp. He just has to promise not to spend NIL money paying off porn stars.

 

I listened to Trump and Bragg last night. Also watched some of the reactions on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. Disclaimer that I haven't read the case law and do not know the specific election or tax laws to which Bragg referred. I will also set aside the statute of limitations arguments because I have not studied that and don't have an opinion. I'm not licensed in New York and do not practice criminal law. So my take is basically worthless lol.

Having said that, here's my political hot take and very rough sense of justice based upon what I've learned so far. I believe they falsified records with Trump's knowledge and direction. I don't doubt that and think they will almost certainly be able to prove it. But ultimately, the alleged underlying conduct they sought to cover up involved alleged affairs. That sex was consensual (at least according to Stormy) and not itself criminal in any way. When Trump was in office, and throughout 2017, they had to lie and falsify records to keep the payments and their catch and kill strategy a secret. People lie about sex, and I personally don't like the idea of criminalizing that class of falsehood.

I guess I could see misdemeanor charges. But 34 felony counts seems very draconian to me - unless they can tie this in with some unrelated tax evasion or something with AMI that's not yet obvious to me. Sure, prosecutors overcharge people all of the time, and I'm not even saying the charges aren't technically supportable. The grand jury obviously thought they were. I guess the Judge will have to make that call soon enough. But I think it looks bad to have a state attorney coming after a former President for acts that occurred six years ago after the Federal government apparently declined to prosecute even when Trump was again a private citizen.

 

Yes: "Orange man bad"

 

In contrast to "Orange Man can do no wrong".

 

For those who find this underwhelming (and frankly, I’d hoped it would be somewhat meatier), how did you feel about having a President impeached for lying about getting a blow job 30 years ago. If you cheered then, you probably shouldn't have a problem with these charges today.

 

I don't believe they are attempting to criminalize sexual affairs or simply lying about it. Had Trump just paid the three individuals in cash or wrote checks out of his personal account, yesterday would not have happened. The issue is simply greed. He wanted to write the hush money off as business expenses and falsified multiple records in an attempt to accomplish that.

New York apparently allows "bare bones" pleading in their charging documents. Each count cited the same statute, tracked the statutory language and listed some particulars such as date, location, amount, check number, etc. What is absent from each count is a description of the other crime the falsified records were intended to commit or aid and conceal. It is that omission (34 times) that most people are questioning. It might not satisfy one's interest in knowing that information, but based on everything I've read and heard it comports with New York law. People might not like it, but it's legal.

All of that can be remedied by Trump either filing a Request for Bill of Particulars or engaging in Discovery, or likely both. It's not like the Trump defense team, such as it is, will be flying blind. Just take a look at the NY discovery rule, the list of what will be provided to the defense is extensive and exhaustive.

Here is the NY rule authority for both:
Bill of Particulars:
Section 200.95 - Indictment; bill of particulars, N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 200.95 | Casetext Search + Citator

Discovery:
Section 245.20 - Automatic discovery, N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 245.20 | Casetext Search + Citator

The critical takeaway from Bragg's presser yesterday is that he has multiple theories to prove up that "other crime." He mentioned NY tax laws, NY campaign laws and federal campaign laws may have been broken. He also doesn't have to pick one and go with it, he can present it in the alternative. That is not unlike a Florida ASA proving a DUI with both evidence of impairment and an unlawful blood alcohol level. He/she doesn't have to prove it both ways, but can offer evidence of both to support a conviction.

I am still very surprised not to see a conspiracy count with the related crimes charged. Bragg used conspiracy type language in both his presser and his Statement of Facts (or whatever it was called.) It seemed like an easy way to charge things, but he's the guy in NY and I'm here in Florida. Hopefully, someone will ask him, I'd really like to know.

 

Jesus.


Treating Trump like Jesus: Indictment proves MAGA is a cult

The elevation of Donald Trump to the level of god or prophet or some other tool of destiny by his followers and enablers represents a much larger trend among the American right-wing, "conservative movement" and other neofascists and malign actors. Today's Republican Party and "conservative" movement have abandoned any pretense of normal politics and instead have fully committed themselves to anti-rationality, anti-intellectualism, a rejection of learned real expertise, religious fundamentalism, conspiracism, "alternative facts" and the "Big Lie." This is a type of religious politics that is antithetical to real democracy.

 

Careful, you might get the TDS card thrown at you for daring to call out what is painfully obvious.

 

He is guilty of the crimes alleged and that is not even in dispute. What is disputable is how they got elevated to felonies.

No decision to not charge anyone in the last administration by Barr's DOJ could be seen as legitimate. Barr was not a functional AG--he was Trump's "catch and kill" lawyer within the government.

 

Ah, yes, it’s either one or the other. <sigh> and I thought it was conservatives who didn’t understand “nuance.”

If Trump is guilty then let him serve his time. I’m good with that. What I’m not good with is treating Obama (paid a fine related to campaign finances) and Hillary (paid a fine related to campaign finances) differently.

This is a show to drag Trump through the mud for the next 12+ months and have the primaries about him vs. high inflation, slowing economy, finding a QB for the Gators, etc. You know, all the important issues facing our country.

 

Does this not also describe the right?

• B Clinton illegally dealt with Whitewater
• B Clinton had illegal affair
• B Clinton illegally lied about affair
• Clintons illegally funneled money though foundation
• Clintons actually murdered many people
• Obama wasn’t even legally allowed to be president
• H Clinton illegally handled Benghazi attack
• H Clinton illegally handled emails
• Clinton’s still illegally funneling money through foundation
• J Biden illegally handled Uranium One deal
• H Biden illegally peddled influence

 

Good luck. The next election will be about personal freedoms and right wing overreach. Plus the right wing is a shit show everyday and Biden has been effective. His age will be an issue.

 

Uh.. by omission are you suggesting eating children’s brains in the basement of a pizza parlor isn’t illegal?

 

Conversely, those Republicans paid a political price for that overreach and helped boost Clinton's approval ratings. If these charges are also viewed sympathetically by the public, Democrats may be running the same risk . . .

 

Agree, and that’s saying our system works. but I think the GA case in particular is real trouble for Trump.

 

Perhaps, which is why this case seems misaligned with the overall strategy. Will people reach their saturation point with other potential charges, especially if the first and most visible ones are seen as mostly political?

 

Were any ever criminally charged?

 

Cases can be mundane and unsexy, and that shouldn't matter. What should matter is was a crime committed, can it be proven, and does punishment fit the crime. The 34 felony counts that Trump falsified records to cover an additional, unmentioned crime isn't sexy, but if this is what Trump did, and the NY DA can prove this beyond a reasonable doubt, why should Trump be able to get away with it?

Again, the falsifying records should be easy to prove. But each count here would normally be a misdemeanor. The tough part for the DA will be tying these payments to another crime. And yes, Bragg didn't list the other crime(s) Trump concealed in the indictment, but Bragg didn't legally have to. And it's possible that Bragg is holding his cards close because in addition to the potential election fraud, Bragg will also charge Trump was engaging in tax fraud.

The timeline of former Trump CFO Weisselberg firing his Trump paid attorneys fits. It's possible Bragg found other crimes he could charge Weisselberg, but Bragg struck a deal with Weisselberg. Testify against Trump and no further charges against Weisselberg. Evading taxes certainly isn't sexy, but it's been effective in catching many a career criminal. See Capone, Al.

If Weisselberg is involved in this trial, along with Cohen, that's two former Trump employees who have plead guilty to felonies testifying against their former boss.