Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Okay, if that's the claim, run with it. Like I said, it's an interesting legal theory, but I don't think it has a hope in hell.Trump wasn't charged under Federal law. Trump was charged under Section 175.10 of the New York State Penal Code which is where the DA does have jurisdiction.
This whole idea that Trump's charges are in any way tied to the FEC or DOJ is - sorry - wrong. The charges are based on New York law.
The elevation to felony status is because of attempting to aid and conceal Cohen's federal crimes.
WW
Okay, if that's the claim, run with it. Like I said, it's an interesting legal theory, but I don't think it has a hope in hell.
It boils down to the argument that Trump paying off Daniels was not done to protect his own reputation, but to somehow enable Cohen to make an illegal campaign contribution.
It's just not a lucid argument.
They are one and the same. The only conceivable harm to the campaign is the reputational damage to the candidate.It's a very lucid argument when you look at the totality of the situation.
#1 The affair occurred in 2006 and was first reported in the media in 2011. To think that the payment was made in 2016 just days before the election was to save his "reputation" and not save the "campaign" isn't logical for a reasonable person to assume.
So basically you know it was a crime because it was Trump.#2 We are talking about Trump. A man the boinked a porn start while his current wife was at home having just given birth to his son. The current wife latching onto him by having an affair with him will he was still married to his second wife. The second wife being someone he had an affair with while married to his first wife. A man whose reputation included bad business dealings, bankruptcies, fraudulent use of charitable contributions, Trump U, and tax fraud based on property valuations. Again protecting his reputation over protecting the campaign isn't something a reasonable person would assume.
WW
They are one and the same. The only conceivable harm to the campaign is the reputational damage to the candidate.
In what way was the NDA "saving the campaign" in your mind?
So basically you know it was a crime because it was Trump.
He made the payments to Michael Cohen to conceal the fact that Cohen made an illegal campaign contribution (the Daniels NDA).
Cohen's giving the money to Daniels for the NDA "saved the campaign". And Trump thought that paying Cohen back would conceal Cohen's campaign finance violation.
Did Trump win New York thanks to this "crime"?
Who was defrauded?
I'm not complaining. Falsifying records to hide a crime isn't unusual, so it wouldn't surprise me if the statute has been used before.
But the statute clearly says it's only a crime if there is intent to defraud. The indictment only mentions the payment to Daniels, and charges the crime (3 times) for each invoice from Cohen.
Did he defraud Daniels? She hasn't said so. He isn't charged with fraud, and he isn't charged with violating PEN175.05, which a defendant is required to have violated to be charged under PEN175.10, plus there is still a requirement that there is some other fraud or crime being concealed!
The DA is calling it fraud because it is about "altering the outcome the election", or some such inference?
The NDA was entered into, and the payment was made to protect the reputation of Trump, right? (setting aside the obvious contradiction for the sake of argument)
I'm just curious, where is the fraud? If a Politician is guilty of fraud for paying money to protect his reputation, I don't really mind. But we're going to have to charge them all...
www.justsecurity.org
I was just thinking about discovery but you’re right. ThanksRead the balance of my reply.
The more you try to explain it, the more babbly it gets.Then there is the argument to be made that "fraud" is the illegal entries made with intent to create illegal entries.
Not sure how the same charge 34 times makes it strong. No legal scholar I have listened to agrees with you. The statute of limitations has expired. The needed higher additional charge to use Bragg's line of prosecution is not even there.Ah, yes, so it appears that the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, has been receiving quite a bit of flak for pursuing a case against none other than Donald Trump. However, I must say that upon closer inspection, the charges brought against Mr. Trump are anything but weak. In fact, the charge of creating false financial records is not novel and has been used time and time again in New York to prosecute individuals who create fake documentation to cover up campaign finance violations - precisely the accusation leveled against Mr. Trump, or rather, defendant Trump.
It's worth noting that the Manhattan D.A.'s office is hardly your run-of-the-mill local cog in the judicial system. Rather, it is unique, with jurisdiction over the financial capital of the world, which means the office regularly deals with complex white-collar crimes, including those involving high-profile individuals. Indeed, the office recently secured a conviction of the Trump Organization and a guilty plea from one of its top executives, Allen Weisselberg, on charges related to a tax fraud scheme.
Moreover, the books and records counts laid out in the charging papers against Mr. Trump are the bread and butter of the D.A.'s office. He is the 30th defendant to be indicted on false records charges by Mr. Bragg since he took office just over a year ago, with the D.A. bringing 151 counts under the statute so far. Indeed, the Trump Organization conviction and the Weisselberg plea included business falsification felonies.
The 34 felony books and records counts in the Trump indictment turn on the misstatement of the hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels arranged by Michael Cohen in the waning days of the 2016 election and the repayment of that amount by Mr. Trump to Mr. Cohen, ostensibly as legal expenses. There are 11 counts for false invoices, 11 for false checks and check stubs and 12 for false general ledger entries. This allegedly violated the false records statute when various entries were made in business documents describing those repayments as legal fees.
While Mr. Trump's case may be unique in its particulars, his behavior is not. Individuals have often attempted to skirt the disclosure and dollar limit requirements of campaign finance regulations and falsified records to hide it. Contrary to Mr. Trump's protestations, New York prosecutors regularly charge felony violations of the books and records statute and win convictions when the crimes covered up were campaign finance violations, resulting in false entries in business records to conceal criminal activity.
All in all, my fellow members of this illustrious snakepit and a few ladies and gentlemen, it seems that Mr. Bragg is hardly navigating uncharted waters. His actions are supported by previous prosecutions in New York and elsewhere, which have demonstrated that state authorities can enforce state law in cases relating to federal candidates. It remains to be seen what will come of this case, but one thing is certain - Mr. Trump cannot persuasively argue that he is being singled out for some unprecedented theory of prosecution. He is being treated like any other New Yorker would be with similar evidence against him.
And let the war begin, the war of words, that is.
Cheers,
Rumpole.
Opinion | We Finally Know the Case Against Trump, and It Is Strong (Published 2023)
There’s nothing novel or weak about Alvin Bragg’s case.www.nytimes.com
For weeks, Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, has come under heavy fire for pursuing a case against Donald Trump. Potential charges were described as being developed under a novel legal theory. And criticism has come not only from Mr. Trump and his allies, as expected, but also from many who are usually no friends of the former president but who feared it would be a weak case.
With the release of the indictment and accompanying statement of facts, we can now say that there’s nothing novel or weak about this case. The charge of creating false financial records is constantly brought by Mr. Bragg and other New York D.A.s. In particular, the creation of phony documentation to cover up campaign finance violations has been repeatedly prosecuted in New York. That is exactly what Mr. Trump stands accused of.
The false business flings. They don't charge you with a crime for honest mistakes. You are only charged if you did so with an intent to defraud the State.Okay, what was the fraud suffered by the State?
Because it doesn't have to be mentioned in the charging document. Trump is not being charged with those crimes.So what is the applicable statute and why isn't it cited in the charging document?
The NDA is irrelevant in the charges of falsifying business records. In the underlying crime, of hush money payments to silence Daniels, it's only relevance is in proving that the money is hush money and not just a gift. However, even without the NDA, I think it would difficult to convince a jury that Donald Trump paid a porn star $130,000 out of the goodness of his heart expecting nothing in return.Not necessarily ya fucking retard. There has to be intent to defraud for the false business record to be illegal. Innocent bookkeeping errors are not fraud.
The fraud must be for the purpose of hiding another, separate crime for it to be first degree fraud. The misapplication of the payments as legal expenses might be a violation of PEN175.05, falsification second degree, but there needs to be another crime being concealed for those payments to be a first degree offense.
That prerequisite crime, allegedly being concealed by the fraud, is what is in question.
You guys seem to be claiming that the NDA was illegal because it "interfered with the election", which is laughable on it's face.
Did Trump win New York because the voters of New York were unaware of his affair with Stormy Daniels?
What crime was Trump concealing, by classifying the payments as legal expenses?
In the underlying crime, of hush money payments to silence Daniels, it's only relevance is in proving that the money is hush money and not just a gift.
Strawman, already addressed.Hush money isn't a crime.
Strawman, already addressed.
The indictment that charges Trump with the crime of falsifying business documents does not mention interfering with the election. In fact, it does not even mention any election nor Stormy Daniels or any money.Of course it is in question, it is a required element of the crime being charged. Without it, the DA can only charge falsification in the second degree.
The charging document only mentions the money paid to Stormy Daniels, but NDA's are not illegal.
They go on about "interfering with the election", which leads back to the DA's inference that the purpose of the NDA was election interference.
If that is the reasoning for charging the offense in the first degree, then any money spent by any politician to protect his reputation must be illegal as well.
The indictment that charges Trump with the crime of falsifying business documents does not mention interfering with the election. In fact, it does not even mention any election nor Stormy Daniels or any money.
The charges against Donald Trump – full text of indictment
/——-/ “ A fact which proved true since she won the popular vote,”Context, remember the NDA was executed just after the Access Hollywood tape surfaced.
His campaign was already in trouble with national polls showing Clinton up. (A fact which proved true since she won the popular vote, the only reason Trump ended up in the Oval Office was because of about 78,000 (out of about 150,000,000) in 3 swing states giving him the EC votes.)
An inaccurate claim which appears to be directed personally.
Guilt or not hasn't been determined yet, we are at the indictment/arraignment stage not the trial state. The legal presentation of the case hasn't been made yet. He might be found guilty, he might not. Time will tell.
That is the premise. The actions were taken by Trump, Pecker, Weisselberg (sp?) and Cohen to influence the election.
Trump won the election by 78,000 votes (3 key states). Whether he won New York is irrelevant.
Election fraud would be voters, if that is a case made by the DA at trial.
Tax fraud would be New York Citizens, if that is the case made by the DA at trial.
Both is also a possibility.
Then there is the argument to be made that "fraud" is the illegal entries made with intent to create illegal entries.
WW
That all depends on the intent of payment and the amount of payment.Hush money isn't a crime.
The indictment says nothing about the underlying crime. We are just assuming it is the Daniels payoff. Hush money is a crime if the intent is to influence the election and the amount is above the campaign contribution limit of $2700 because hush money can be considered a campaign contribution.Does it say that hush money is a crime?
