How can Trump be charged federally in a state court?

[ThisIsMe]

Know why? Because he is not required to do so.

Have you seen anyone actually say that he is required to?

Why do you think that is?

Because he is not REQUIRED to

And repeating yourself endlessly

Have you seen anyone actually say that he is required to?

Why do you think that is?

Actually, yeah, I think if he is going to state that law says he doesn’t have to inform the defendant of the underlying crimes used to create the felony he is accusing someone of….he needs to cite what law says he doesn’t have to do that.

 

[ThisIsMe]

So? When the trial starts I’m sure he will be very forthcoming

Ahh, so, basically, holding the cards until the trial starts so you can cause the defense to have to scramble at the last minute. That certainly is shady, probably illegal, and likely to get a mistrial.

 

[Lesh]

Ahh, so, basically, holding the cards until the trial starts so you can cause the defense to have to scramble at the last minute. That certainly is shady, probably illegal, and likely to get a mistrial.

Nope. This is all going the way trials go. All evidence will be turned over to the defense during the “discovery process”.

You’ve heard of that right?

 

[Lesh]

Nothing shady or illegal about that. WHO specifically told you otherwise?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Nope. This is all going the way trials go. All evidence will be turned over to the defense during the “discovery process”.

You’ve heard of that right?

We’re not talking about evidence though. The specification of the underlying crime is not “evidence”, it’s simply the allegation used to turn a misdemeanor into a felony. I’m not suggesting that Bragg has to present any evidence, he just needs to detail the crime, and how he arrived at that crime. The indictment doesn’t do that.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Nothing shady or illegal about that. WHO specifically told you otherwise?

Well, it doesn’t really take a genius to figure out that if a DA is going to charge you with a crime, but then not tell you how they arrived at that crime…is shady.

 

[Lesh]

Well, it doesn’t really take a genius to figure out that if a DA is going to charge you with a crime, but then not tell you how they arrived at that crime…is shady.

It's pretty simple. The indictments states the laws broken.

That doesn't make you happy?

Too fucking bad

 

[Lesh]

We’re not talking about evidence though. The specification of the underlying crime is not “evidence”, it’s simply the allegation used to turn a misdemeanor into a felony. I’m not suggesting that Bragg has to present any evidence, he just needs to detail the crime, and how he arrived at that crime. The indictment doesn’t do that.

An indictment does not require the evidence to be listed.

You failed law school huh?

 

[ThisIsMe]

It's pretty simple. The indictments states the laws broken.

That doesn't make you happy?

Too fucking bad

No it doesn’t. It states a misdemeanor, which requires another crime to become a felony. So far, Bragg hasn’t said exactly which crime is used.

We can go round and round about this. I know you love the fact that Bragg is playing this game, I’m just saying it’s shady as hell.

Let’s put it like this, you’re probably right, that the SOF is the underlying crime, but, in the chance that the defense does all their research and prepares their case based on what’s in the SOF, then Bragg shows up to the trial and submits a totally different crime as the underlying basis, that will be the end of the trial…and probably braggs career.

 

[ThisIsMe]

An indictment does not require the evidence to be listed.

You failed law school huh?

Once again, nobody is talking about evidence…we’re still at the process of trying to make sure the accused, and the defense, fully understands the charge and the crime they used to arrive at that charge.

Did you even read post #500? Where I quoted a section of New York law regarding the indictment process, and that it states that the indictment must show all the details of the crime, in the indictment?

 

[Lesh]

Once again, nobody is talking about evidence…we’re still at the process of trying to make sure the accused, and the defense, fully understands the charge and the crime they used to arrive at that charge.

Did you even read post #500? Where I quoted a section of New York law regarding the indictment process, and that it states that the indictment must show all the details of the crime, in the indictment?

So why are you asking for evidence?

The charges were laid out in the indictment as they always are.

No one is whining about that other than you

The indictment did show the details of the crime accused

 

[Lesh]

Once again, nobody is talking about evidence…we’re still at the process of trying to make sure the accused, and the defense, fully understands the charge and the crime they used to arrive at that charge.

Did you even read post #500? Where I quoted a section of New York law regarding the indictment process, and that it states that the indictment must show all the details of the crime, in the indictment?

What they're saying: "I'm not going to go into our deliberative process on what was brought. The charges that were brought were the ones that were brought. The evidence and the law is the basis for those decisions," Bragg told reporters when pressed on why the other alleged crimes were not charged.

• He added that New York state law does not require him to specify the underlying crime in the indictment.

So why do you suppose no one is challenging that other than you?

 

[ThisIsMe]

It's pretty simple. The indictments states the laws broken.

That doesn't make you happy?

Too fucking bad

Here’s another article:

Opinion | The Trump Indictment Is a Legal Embarrassment (Published 2023)

Why it was a setback for the rule of law and established a dangerous precedent for prosecutors.

www.nytimes.com

Legal experts have been speculating about the core criminal allegation in this case, because the expected charge for falsifying business records becomes a felony only “when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof,” according to New York State law.

Astonishingly, the district attorney’s filings do not make clear the core crime that would turn a filing misdemeanor into a felony. Neither the 16-page indictment nor the accompanying statement of facts specifies, though the statement of facts does drop hints about campaign laws. In a news conference, Mr. Bragg answered that he did not specify because he was not required to by law. His answer was oblivious to how law requires more than doing the minimum to the letter — it demands fairness, giving notice and taking public legitimacy seriously.

As a result of all this, Mr. Trump and the public still know shockingly little about the case — not which particular statute he allegedly violated nor whether it is a state or federal campaign crime, a tax crime or something else

Giving only partial notice might be standard operating procedure in Manhattan, but that standard procedure — suddenly in the bright lights — seems like a systemic infringement of a New Yorker’s right to know “the nature of the charges and evidence against you,” per the Sixth Amendment.

This is the 4th article I’ve linked, from both right and left leaning sites that indicate that Bragg not mentioning the underlying crime is a problem, or that the case is on shaky ground. This Ny time article is from a Fordham/Boston university law professor. This is not just me saying it, many others are as well.

This writer also brings up the point that apparently, the documents that trump apparently falsified are internal documents, not meant for any 3rd party to see, so they are questioning how Bragg can use the 175.10 law if the intent to defraud is based on documents that nobody else will see.

Aside from writing about it in the article I linked, he also has a blog where he writes about it. In it he says:

But before we address on a potential tax interpretation or federal preemption of any campaign violation, there is already a problem in the case that we actually know: Can an internal business record be the basis for an “intent to defraud” under NYPL 175.10, if it is unlikely any third party would “rely” on it in a way identifiable as part of fraud? Is there a New York precedent answering that it can be? So far, legal experts vocally arguing for this 175.10 case have not answered this question…

The indictment does not reveal what the “other crime” was. By itself, that’s a stunning silence from the Manhattan DA. But back to what we do know: the requirements of NYPL 175.10, the kind of “false record” and “intent to defraud.”

Yes, the statute mentioned a “business record” broadly, but it may be hard to show an “intent to defraud,” i.e., intent to defraud other people, if the business record is a purely internal record that others are highly unlikely to see or rely upon.

There are apparently questions about the internal nature of the documents used, a question about preemption, and about Bragg not listing the underlying crime used to arrive at his indictment.

 

[ThisIsMe]

So why are you asking for evidence?

The charges were laid out in the indictment as they always are.

No one is whining about that other than you

The indictment did show the details of the crime accused

No it doesn’t, it shows a misdemeanor that requires another crime to become a felony, the other crime which isn’t specified in the indictment, nor the SOF.

without the underlying crime, the indictment charges cannot be upgraded to a felony….

 

[ThisIsMe]

What they're saying: "I'm not going to go into our deliberative process on what was brought. The charges that were brought were the ones that were brought. The evidence and the law is the basis for those decisions," Bragg told reporters when pressed on why the other alleged crimes were not charged.

• He added that New York state law does not require him to specify the underlying crime in the indictment.

So why do you suppose no one is challenging that other than you?

So, what Bragg just said there is a word salad. He said a lot of words to give zero information.

“The charges that were brought were the ones that were brought”…I mean, how vague and uninformative can you be?

Nobody is asking about his deliberations, just transparency on what the crime he used to get to a felony. Thats not evidence, that’s just trying to make sure the accused knows exactly what crime Bragg is alleging and the laws that were broken for that charged to be levied.

As to why nobody is challenging it but me…we don’t know what trumps lawyers are going to do, perhaps they are going to bring all of this up as a way to get the case dismissed, but, I am far from the only person talking about it, as indicated by the 4 articles I’ve posted, and many more in the web that I’ve not.

 

[Lesh]

What they're saying: "I'm not going to go into our deliberative process on what was brought. The charges that were brought were the ones that were brought. The evidence and the law is the basis for those decisions," Bragg told reporters when pressed on why the other alleged crimes were not charged.

• He added that New York state law does not require him to specify the underlying crime in the indictment.

So why do you suppose no one is challenging that other than you?

So why do you suppose no one is challenging that other than you?

 

[Lesh]

If ThisIsMe were correct...you would think that the defense would have filed a motion to dismiss based on his...whatever he is say.

They have not.

 

[ThisIsMe]

So why do you suppose no one is challenging that other than you?

I just answered that

 

[ThisIsMe]

If ThisIsMe were correct...you would think that the defense would have filed a motion to dismiss based on his...whatever he is say.

They have not.

Again, it’s not just me…I’ve linked a few articles of other people saying it, as well as writings of a law professor who also says it.

 

[Lesh]

Again, it’s not just me…I’ve linked a few articles of other people saying it, as well as writings of a law professor who also says it.

Who exactly is saying that the State of NY requires the “underlying crime” to be listed in the indictment.

Make it simple . Name names to that specific allegations.

Not “concerns” over whether Bragg can win the case… that very specific claim