How can Trump be charged federally in a state court?

[WorldWatcher]

Nobody is asking for him to release all of his evidence, just state, explicitly, the charges, in detail, including naming the underlying crime he intends to use to elevate the misdemeanor to a felony.

Ask away, as I understand it he is under no obligation to put the answer in the public sphere at this time.

(Personally I think he did provide the information in the Statement of Facts, but that's JMHO.)

WW

 

[ThisIsMe]

They did, Section 175.10 is in the indictment. That's all they need at this stage.

There is a difference between what someone want's and what they need.

Now to be sure, FDOTUS's team will include this as a Motion to Dismiss, some thing along the lines of the indictment was defective. The prosecution will file a rebuttal and the Judge who will make a ruling. We'll have to see how that goes. Personally - I don't see a dismissal on those grounds because the "underlying crime" is identified in the Statement of Facts which was unsealed at the same time as the Indictment. (But ya never know.)

WW

I understand, my hang up is Bragg not spelling out the underlying crime when asked. I think the accused has a right to know that.

 

[ThisIsMe]

So Braggs putting it out there for anyone who actually reads the documents but refused to talk about it to the media is confusing.

Apparently Braggs strategy to keep people guessing is working.

And of course we could all be wrong and once Bragg has to put it in writing to the Judge (probably as part of a rebuttal for a Motion to Dismiss) the underlying crime could be something totally different.



WW

And of course we could all be wrong and once Bragg has to put it in writing to the Judge (probably as part of a rebuttal for a Motion to Dismiss) the underlying crime could be something totally different.

And you don’t think that’s wrong? That would be Bragg holding out on information that the accused has a right to. They would let the trump team think the indictment is about one thing, but it’s actually about something else, that he refuses to name.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I think the constitution allows the accused the right to known, fully what they are being charged with, including all relevant information of how they arrived at that charge.

That is incorrect. The constitution (6th Amendment) requires the defendant to be informed of the nature and cause of the criminal charge. Trump was informed of the nature in cause of the charge which is Section 175.10 of the New York Penal Code, Falsification of Business Records in the First Degree (nature) and the records that were falsified (cause). There is no requirement to be informed in the indictment of crimes committed by another.

However, Bragg was nice, he clearly pointed out that the business dealings identified in the indictment were linked to Cohen's crimes concerning campaign finance violations in the Statemen of Fact.
WW

 

[Faun]

I mean why isn't t he media talking about this?

Your OP is based on the false premise that the state of New York charged Trump federally.

 

[Lesh]

I think the constitution allows the accused the right to known, fully what they are being charged with, including all relevant information of how they arrived at that charge.

What's bolded has been done. The Constitution does NOT require all evidence to be spelled out in the indictment. That will come at trial

I’m not disagreeing that what’s in the SOF is the underlying crime, my gripe here is how Bragg just seems to be holding out on specifically naming that. It just seems fishy to me.

Your "gripe" can be filed under the heading of

Tough shit

 

[ThisIsMe]

Sure he does. Trump commits 175.10 (allegedly) to aid and/or conceal Cohen's crime.

WW

Ok so then Bragg should say that. Also, I thought they actually determined the hush money payment wasn’t a crime? The campaign finance violation probably is, but they need to get over the hurdle of using a federal crime to upgrade a state felony.

 

[Lesh]

(Personally I think he did provide the information in the Statement of Facts, but that's JMHO.)

And the underlying or associated crime is clearly described in point #3 of the SoF

Lawyer A is Cohen

 

[WorldWatcher]

And you don’t think that’s wrong?

No, since the information was given to the defendant as to what the underlying crime was in the Statement of Fact.

That would be Bragg holding out on information that the accused has a right to.

Bragg didn't withhold anything.

They would let the trump team think the indictment is about one thing, but it’s actually about something else, that he refuses to name.

He'll name it, just not required to put it in the indictment at this time.

WW

 

[ThisIsMe]

What's bolded has been done. The Constitution does NOT require all evidence to be spelled out in the indictment. That will come at trial

Your "gripe" can be filed under the heading of

Tough shit

Again, nobody is asking for evidence..just that the crime they are alleging and the basis for that crime (the underlying crime) is clearly stated.

 

[Lesh]

Ok so then Bragg should say that.

Why? To make you happy? Tough shit

Also, I thought they actually determined the hush money payment wasn’t a crime?

Nope. Hence the felony conviction of Cohen

 

[Lesh]

Again, nobody is asking for evidence..just that the crime they are alleging and the basis for that crime (the underlying crime) is clearly stated.

Point #3 of the SoF



1SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKCOUNTY OF NEW YORKTHE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKSTATEMENT OF FACTSIND-71543-23-against-DONALD J. TRUMP,Defendant.
INTRODUCTION
1.

The defendant DONALD J. TRUMP repeatedly and fraudulently falsified NewYork business records to conceal criminal conduct that hid damaging information from thevoting public during the 2016 presidential election.2.

From August 2015 to December 2017, the Defendant orchestrated a scheme withothers to influence the 2016 presidential election by identifying and purchasing negativeinformation about him to suppress its publication and benefit the Defendant’s electoral prospects.In order to execute the unlawful scheme, the participants violated election laws and made andcaused false entries in the business records of various entities in New York. The participantsalso took steps that mischaracterized, for tax purposes, the true nature of the payments made infurtherance of the scheme.
3.
One component of this scheme was that, at the Defendant’s request, a lawyer whthen worked for the Trump Organization as Special Counsel to Defendant (“Lawyer A”),covertly paid $130,000 to an adult film actress shortly before the election to prevent her from publicizing a sexual encounter with the Defendant. Lawyer A made the $130,000 payment through a shell corporation he set up and funded at a bank in Manhattan. This payment was illegal, and Lawyer A has since pleaded guilty to making an illegal campaign contribution and
served time in prison. Further, false entries were made in New York business records to effectuate this payment, separate and apart from the New York business records used to conceal the payment.

Lawyer A is Cohen

 

[ThisIsMe]

No, since the information was given to the defendant as to what the underlying crime was in the Statement of Fact.



Bragg didn't withhold anything.



He'll name it, just not required to put it in the indictment at this time.

WW

Ok, we’re going in circles. Nobody can say for fact that the SOF is the underlying crime until Bragg states it is. Until then, we can only guess. Bragg won’t say what the underlying crime is, which means there is a reasonable assumption that the SOF may not be it.

 

[Lesh]

Magatards keep asking for something that they acknowledge has been provided.

Truly bizarre

 

[ThisIsMe]

Why? To make you happy? Tough shit

Nope. Hence the felony conviction of Cohen

Why? To make you happy?

No, because the accused has a right to know the details of the indictment.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Ok so then Bragg should say that. Also, I thought they actually determined the hush money payment wasn’t a crime? The campaign finance violation probably is, but they need to get over the hurdle of using a federal crime to upgrade a state felony.

Bragg did say that, it's in the Statement of Facts.

Also, I thought they actually determined the hush money payment wasn’t a crime?

It's not and no one has been charged for paying hush money.

Cohen was charged with making illegal campaign contributions, not for paying hush money.

Trump is being charged with falsification of business records, not for paying hush money.

The campaign finance violation probably is, but they need to get over the hurdle of using a federal crime to upgrade a state felony.

That isn't a hurdle at all. No where in Section 175.10 does it say that the crime that was being aided or concealed had to be a state crime, not that the crime had to be the same person as the individual charged under 175.10. The defendant could aid or conceal someone else's crime (federal or state) if they were falsifying New York State business records in doing so.

WW

 

[ThisIsMe]

Point #3 of the SoF

SOF is not a part of the indictment, so we can only assume it’s the reason for the indictment until it’s stated so. That Bragg won’t say it can give one reason to believe that he has something else up his sleeve.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Magatards keep asking for something that they acknowledge has been provided.

Truly bizarre

Really? Did Bragg say the SOF was the underlying crime? Where did he say that?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Why? To make you happy? Tough shit

Nope. Hence the felony conviction of Cohen

You might want to slow down, it's going to be a long year.

Hush money payments are not illegal. It was the method of the payment as a campaign finance violation that was illegal. If Cohen had negotiated the NDA and then Trump wrote a check out of personal funds. That would not have been illegal (as long as Candidate Trump reported it correctly as a campaign contribution to the FEC). If Trump wasn't running for office, then of course there would have been no FEC reporting requirement.

WW

 

[Lesh]

Magatards keep asking for something that they acknowledge has been provided.

Truly bizarre

Again