How can Trump be charged federally in a state court?

[Lesh]

Not with the particulars. This is a detail claim of the evidence and the charges.

Particulars​

The details of a claim, or the separate items of an account.


When these are detailed in an orderly form for the purpose of informing a defendant, the statement is called a bill of particulars.

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

particulars​

details of an allegation of fact made in pleadings.
Collins Dictionary of Law © W.J. Stewart, 2006
PARTICULARS, practice. The items of which the accounts of one of the parties is composed, and which are frequently furnished to the opposite party in a bill of particulars. (q.v.)

He was duly indicted. The particulars will be presented at trial

 

[Lesh]

What's the felony?

Read the indictments. That IS A FELONY

The felony YOU are referencing is the felony that put Cohen in jail

 

[Blaster]

Running for POTUS as a Republican.

If he had run as a Democrat he would be considered one of our greatest Presidents.

 

[mudwhistle]

He was duly indicted. The particulars will be presented at trial

Oh really?

They have to show everything long before the trial...asshole.
They're bound by law to do so, including every deposition of witnesses.
Every bit of evidence they have.
They're not allowed any secrets.

 

[mudwhistle]

Read the indictments. That IS A FELONY

The felony YOU are referencing is the felony that put Cohen in jail

Clearly you've never read what sent Cohen to jail.....and FYI, he only spent a short time in jail.
Most of it was under house arrest.

 

[toobfreak]

He is being charged under NY State law of falsifying business records

What was falsified?

with the intent of concealing a crime.

What crime???

That crime need not be a NT State crime. It can be Federal, or in any other jurisdiction.

How do you prosecute a federal crime in a STATE court? A: You don't.

It does not even need to have been committed by Trump. He falsified the records to conceal a crime.

What? OTOH, you say he falsified records despite the fact that CEOs don't keep their own books in a billion dollar corporation already with an accounting department, then you zig zag to saying it didn't even need to be committed by Trump!

You mean Trump is personally responsible for any crime committed by anyone? How does that bullshit work? Please give us the statute.

The indictment is over the INTENT of Trump to commit a crime, something they cannot prove unless they can read his mind, of an action that is far past the statute of limitations, to cover up, they say, another crime which is not even mentioned in the indictment (but alleged to be to protect Trump's election) DESPITE THE FACT that the dates for the crimes in the indictment are all in 2017, LONG AFTER Trump was already in the WH!

You're an idiot. Stick to something you know something about.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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

Because maybe you are misunderstanding something.
Which federal charges are you referring to?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

A crime that idiot DA. refuses to name. Why do you think that is? I can tell you what it is not. Justice.

Perhaps you just have no idea what you are talking about. Per usual.

 

[Cellblock2429]

If you rob 34 banks, you get 34 charges.

/——/ That is something different. It was three payments of hush money, not 34, dimwit.

What To Know About The Three Hush-Money Scandals In Trumpâs Indictment

Stormy Daniels isn’t the only person whose payoff was mentioned in the indictment against Trump.

www.forbes.com

 

[Cellblock2429]

That's like saying robbing banks 34 times is no worse than robbing 1 bank.

/——-/ Three payoffs with 34 documents signed by Trump. Not 34 separate payoffs which is still perfectly legal. GEEZE

 

[Lesh]

Oh really?

They have to show everything long before the trial...asshole.
They're bound by law to do so, including every deposition of witnesses.
Every bit of evidence they have.
They're not allowed any secrets.

Yup. That’s called discovery and it happens between indictment and trial

 

[mudwhistle]

Yup. That’s called discovery and it happens between indictment and trial

No shit.
They only released an 8 page indictment that didn't spell out all of the charges....which shows prejudice.
The Defendant has 14 days to ask for the particulars. They have to spell out in detail what the charges are. If they don't, the indictment can be thrown out. They have to show the basis they arrived at the claim that the charges are felonies.

Rule 7. The Indictment and the Information​

(a) When Used.


(1) Felony. An offense (other than criminal contempt) must be prosecuted by an indictment if it is punishable:


(A) by death; or


(B) by imprisonment for more than one year.


(2) Misdemeanor. An offense punishable by imprisonment for one year or less may be prosecuted in accordance with Rule 58(b)(1).

(1) In General. The indictment or information must be a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged and must be signed by an attorney for the government. It need not contain a formal introduction or conclusion. A count may incorporate by reference an allegation made in another count. A count may allege that the means by which the defendant committed the offense are unknown or that the defendant committed it by one or more specified means. For each count, the indictment or information must give the official or customary citation of the statute, rule, regulation, or other provision of law that the defendant is alleged to have violated. For purposes of an indictment referred to in section 3282 of title 18, United States Code, for which the identity of the defendant is unknown, it shall be sufficient for the indictment to describe the defendant as an individual whose name is unknown, but who has a particular DNA profile, as that term is defined in section 3282.


(2) Citation Error. Unless the defendant was misled and thereby prejudiced, neither an error in a citation nor a citation's omission is a ground to dismiss the indictment or information or to reverse a conviction.


(d) Surplusage. Upon the defendant's motion, the court may strike surplusage from the indictment or information.

(f) Bill of Particulars. The court may direct the government to file a bill of particulars. The defendant may move for a bill of particulars before or within 14 days after arraignment or at a later time if the court permits. The government may amend a bill of particulars subject to such conditions as justice requires.

Note to Subdivision (d). This rule introduces a means of protecting the defendant against immaterial or irrelevant allegations in an indictment or information, which may, however, be prejudicial. The authority of the court to strike such surplusage is to be limited to doing so on defendant's motion, in the light of the rule that the guaranty of indictment by a grand jury implies that an indictment may not be amended, Ex parte Bain, 121 U.S. 1. By making such a motion, the defendant would, however, waive his rights in this respect.

Rule 7. The Indictment and the Information

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Dante Reawakened]

No shit.
They only released an 8 page indictment that didn't spell out all of the charges....which shows prejudice.
The Defendant has 14 days to ask for the particulars. They have to spell out in detail what the charges are. If they don't, the indictment can be thrown out. They have to show the basis they arrived at the claim that the charges are felonies.

NY State rules or Federal Court rules?

It's explained here:

 

[Lastamender]

Perhaps you just have no idea what you are talking about. Per usual.

You have no idea of what it is to be American.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Ok, I read the indictment and the SOF. It appears that the 34 felony counts are all the same crime. An invoice from cohen, a journal entry in trumps ledger, and then a check paid to cohen. So each time that transaction took place, it’s 3 counts on the indictment. I would like to inquire if that is legal to do, since, the only time a crime would have been committed on trumps part would be when he issued a check, right? Having incorrect information on the books, in and of itself isn’t a crime is it? It only becomes a crime when money is paid out?

However, I understand where they are getting the other indictments from though. As I understand it, they are getting him for book keeping errors. Basically, an agreement was made before the election, money was paid, then after the election that money was reimbursed, and when they tried to label them as “legal expenses”, that is where they claim they were trying to cover up why the money was paid, I.e. covering up money paid to suppress stories to influence an election.

Well, we will see how this plays out in court. Trump gets the right to a defense.

However, i still don’t think I agree with the 34 counts. 1/3 of them are invoices that cohen submitted TO the trump organization, 1/3 of them are journal entries, and the last 1/3 are payments. I can see a count for each payment, but I think the others are erroneous, they are just entries in a journal. Now, if they were to try and use those entries in some form of tax deduction proof or something like that, I’d understand that, but to me, it would seem the only time an actual crime would be committed here is when trump actually made a payment.

Thoughts?

 

[Lesh]

Ok, I read the indictment and the SOF. It appears that the 34 felony counts are all the same crime. An invoice from cohen, a journal entry in trumps ledger, and then a check paid to cohen. So each time that transaction took place, it’s 3 counts on the indictment. I would like to inquire if that is legal to do, since, the only time a crime would have been committed on trumps part would be when he issued a check, right? Having incorrect information on the books, in and of itself isn’t a crime is it? It only becomes a crime when money is paid out?

However, I understand where they are getting the other indictments from though. As I understand it, they are getting him for book keeping errors. Basically, an agreement was made before the election, money was paid, then after the election that money was reimbursed, and when they tried to label them as “legal expenses”, that is where they claim they were trying to cover up why the money was paid, I.e. covering up money paid to suppress stories to influence an election.

Well, we will see how this plays out in court. Trump gets the right to a defense.

However, i still don’t think I agree with the 34 counts. 1/3 of them are invoices that cohen submitted TO the trump organization, 1/3 of them are journal entries, and the last 1/3 are payments. I can see a count for each payment, but I think the others are erroneous, they are just entries in a journal. Now, if they were to try and use those entries in some form of tax deduction proof or something like that, I’d understand that, but to me, it would seem the only time an actual crime would be committed here is when trump actually made a payment.

Thoughts?

Nope. Each and every illegal journal entry etc. is in itself a crime.

 

[Lastamender]

Nope. Each and every illegal journal entry etc. is in itself a crime.

A very trivial crime. No one is impressed. You shot yourself in the foot again.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Nope. Each and every illegal journal entry etc. is in itself a crime.

Ok, but how is it a crime? I mean, until they do something with it, it’s just ink on paper, the only actionable offense is the actual issuing of a check, isn’t it?

I mean, if the false information is still in the books when they file the taxes and they try to claim a deduction on it, or if they try to use it to lie in an audit, I get that, but just making an entry in a ledger that nobody else will see, I don’t see the issue there.

 

[Lesh]

A very trivial crime. No one is impressed. You shot yourself in the foot again.

Sorry dude. It’s a felony.

 

[Lesh]

Ok, but how is it a crime? I mean, until they do something with it, it’s just ink on paper, the only actionable offense is the actual issuing of a check, isn’t it?

I mean, if the false information is still in the books when they file the taxes and they try to claim a deduction on it, or if they try to use it to lie in an audit, I get that, but just making an entry in a ledger that nobody else will see, I don’t see the issue there.

Dude, tell it to the judge.

He’s charged with intentionally falsifying financial docs to hide a felony