Below is my column in the Hill on why I believe the Trump prosecution would warrant an admittedly rare venue change. I am still hoping that Judge Juan Merchan has the integrity to dismiss this clearly invalid indictment. Given Bragg’s failure to even state the key offense allowing him to bring these 34 felonies, Merchan should have scheduled a hearing on the threshold legal questions in two weeks — not schedule all motions to be heard in December. Indeed, with even legal analysts on CNN and MSNBC expressing disbelief at this indictment, few beyond Karen Friedman Agnifilo and
Here is the column:
“Filmmaking is not about the tiny details. It’s about the big picture.” Thus did the title character of the movie, “Ed Wood,” explain why arguably the worst filmmaker of all time was unconcerned with obvious gaps in logic, or scenes where cardboard tombstones toppled in graveyards. Wood said he relied on the “suspension of disbelief” of his horror-film fans.
If there is an Ed Wood school of prosecution, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg could prove to be its most apt pupil.
Indicting Donald Trump on 34 counts of falsifying business records, Bragg left out a small detail: The underlying felony Trump allegedly sought to conceal over and over. That, apparently, is left to the suspension of disbelief.
For many weeks, experts on both the left and the right expressed doubts that Bragg could charge Trump with falsifying business records, a misdemeanor with a now-expired two-year statute of limitation. To be able to file such a charge, Bragg would need to kick it up to a felony by alleging it was committed to conceal or further another crime — in this case, a federal campaign violation.
The problem is that the Justice Department declined to bring such charges. The reason was likely due to a tiny problem: There is no campaign finance violation in Trump paying women to hush up alleged affairs. Moreover, even if there were a violation, Bragg is not a federal prosecutor. In other words, his case is as implausible as Wood’s cardboard tombstones.
When asked by reporters what crime was being referenced 34 times, Bragg simply stated that he was not required to state the crime in the indictment. Despite becoming the first prosecutor to charge a former president, Bragg felt no compulsion to explain the claim that kicked the misdemeanor up to a felony and allowed a longer statute of limitations.
Bragg undoubtedly knew that New Yorkers would likely suspend disbelief when the name on the indictment was “Donald Trump.” After all, when Bragg ran for office, he was no more specific; he merely promised to bag Trump on some criminal charge. The actual crime would be named at a later date.
Bragg also undoubtedly counted on Judge Juan Merchan suspending judicial disbelief by not asking for the full basis of the criminal charges. Thus far, he appears to have been correct: Merchan set the next hearing for December, so Bragg has eight months to come up with an actual crime.
Even if the judge ignores the glaring legal problems with this flawed indictment, he must decide where a trial should be held. The correct answer should be “Anywhere but Manhattan.” However, the judge is likely to deny that change of venue motion, and a denial would say a great deal about this case.
Bragg’s cavalier attitude only magnifies the view that Manhattan is the wrong place for this trial.
It is not simply that the district attorney ran on a pledge to indict this defendant. The problem is that he was elected on that pledge by the citizens of this district — the same citizens who would comprise the jury pool in Trump’s case.
When Bragg was elected, he reviewed the theories being advanced by an attorney brought into the office for the purpose of nailing Trump. Yet Bragg and some of his team reportedly balked at the efforts of fellow attorneys Mark F. Pomerantz and Carey R. Dunne; Bragg halted the case, and Pomerantz and Dunne resigned. Their resignation letter was mysteriously leaked to the media and became part of a public pressure campaign; Pomerantz then wrote a tell-all book that many legal observers considered to be an outrageous, unprofessional effort to push for Trump’s indictment.
Bragg faced an outcry from constituents who called on him to make good on this election promise.
So, now we have a case brought by a prosecutor who campaigned on bagging Trump, to be tried before a jury selected from a district that elected Bragg in part for that reason — a district that also voted against Trump, 84.5 percent to 14.5 percent, in the 2020 presidential election.
While a change of venue to a place like Staten Island would not necessarily change the judge or prosecutor, it would change the jury pool.
In 1878, in Reynolds v. United States, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution compels a change of venue in some cases. Courts look to a “totality of circumstances” in determining whether media coverage creates actual prejudice or the likelihood of bias among members of the community. Trial judges in such cases are allowed to presume prejudice and transfer a case in the interests of a fair trial.
In this case, the court will likely deny the motion for a venue change, but it should grant it. It is hard to look at the totality of circumstances here and see anything but highly prejudicial media and political elements. No matter how you feel about Trump, you should have reservations about the fairness of a Manhattan trial.The problem is that, in an age of rage, reason is a stranger.
Still, Americans — and the eventual jurors in this case — may not have to “suspend their disbelief” if Judge Marchan shows that he will not join the cast of Bragg’s slapdash legal production. The judge can start by ordering a change of venue.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at The George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
Looks like it’s finally time to indict EVERY Senator and Congress member that took ILLEGAL campaign donations from the taxpayers to pay off THEIR victim. The $17 MILLION dollar slush fun was and always will be ILLEGAL. Yet there have been ZERO consequences. We haven’t even been told who used the fund, what crimes were covered up, was Quid Pro Quo Joe involved in any of them????
Time for local prosecutors throughout the country to step up and charge these criminals. The precedent has been set!
Oh, and did Hunter Biden use a bank with a branch in your district? Money laundering anybody?????
It’s nice to state what should happen if decent people were left in power.
Decent people are not in power.
Well, I can only conclude Trump is one of the most innocent men in the entire USA.
The demoncrats have been after him for many years and they have had only lies.
Now this one is another fraud by the loony cowardly incompetent leftie criminal.
It’s just amazing they have absolutely nothing.
The Democratic Party have martyrized Trump for His beliefs that you can Make America Great Again (MAGA).
Now they are bringing on ‘A Dry White Season’ and incarcerating Him in a Mausoleum Tomb with His name upon it,
very much like Greek dictator George Papadopoulos did to Alexandros Panagoulis*.
They seek to see Trump spend His days languishing in Mar-a-Lago or the Trump Tower (Mausoleum),
stripping Him of any ideas of Making America Great Again, shattering His dreams and the soul of His very Being.
These Caligulians (Democrats) are the meanest of cruel.
* George Papadopoulos built a Mausoleum with Alexandros Panagoulis’ name over the cell doorway in the middle of the Prison’s courtyard,
wherein Alexandros Panagoulis was held in solitary confinement for years.
Read: A Man by Oriana Fallaci
ISBN-10: 0671252410, ISBN-13: 978-0671252410
English, Italian, Publisher: Simon & Schuster, Pub. date: November 12, 1980
ISBN-10: 067143487X, ISBN-13: 978-0671434878
German Ed.: https://library.lol/main/CE7C626EA2C453B16C80897DF7AEF5A9
Ger. ISBN: 3462025929, 9783462025927
To the liberals out there pooh-poohing the idea that Trump can’t get a fair trial in Manhattan:
What would your position be if Biden was charged with a crime by a right-wing DA who ran on an “I’ll get Biden” campaign promise, and won such a campaign in a district that voted 90% for Trump. Would you think there was a reasonable argument for a change in venue in such a situation?
Trump has spent his life in Manhattan. His businesses are headquartered in Manhattan. The crimes he is accused of occurred in Manhattan. There are millions of people on the jury call list in Manhattan. Absent a COMPELLING presentation of evidence by Trump’s defense that he can not possibly receive a fair trial in Manhattan, there’s no justification for changing venue – outside of Trump and Turley gaming the courts.
Skipping dog – I thought Storny and Trump had it off in Nevada. It is an established nexus.
Litigation is adversarial by design, so I doubt Bragg’s election campaign would disqualify him from prosecuting Trump anymore than it would disqualify a prosecutor who ran on a platform of ‘cleaning up the streets’ from prosecuting any case stemming from a crime on the streets. Personally biased or not, Bragg’s prosecution is required to follow the same rules of procedure as always. If his bias causes a failure to follow procedure, he and the case against Trump should be penalized accordingly.
By the same token, that New Yorkers voted for Bragg and against Trump, respectively, shouldn’t disqualify the Manhattan venue anymore than it would disqualify a venue for a street crime whose jury pool comes from a populace that voted in a ‘tough on street crime’ DA. As for any defendant, Trump’s attorneys should perform a rigorous voir dire, after which they should stay vigilant to catch any unsuitable juror who might slip through. If they find that a suitable jury is impossible in Manhattan, then they should apply for a change of venue.
Venues and justice overall have been corrupted against conservatives.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights are conservative.
Where do actual Americans, conservatives, go to obtain justice?
The Constitution and laws have been weaponized against a former President, current candidate Donald Trump and conservatives.
Liberals have imposed the principles of communism and the brutal, tyrannical and oppressive “dictatorship of the proletariat” throughout America.
What happens in a society of laws when the laws stop working?
__________________________________________________
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
– Declaration of Independence, 1776
Always the victims.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. ” – John Adams.
OT: A Trump-appointed judge has banned Mifepristone nationwide. There’s a 7 day stay to stop the ban from taking effect while the FDA appeals.
And now an Obama-appointed judge in WA has just ruled too, barring FDA from changing status quo re: mifepristone in “Plaintiff States.” FDA is now under two contradictory orders in many states. Expect more decisions in the next week.
Correction: Kacsmaryk didn’t ban mifepristone; he stayed its FDA approval nationwide, and his ruling that Comstock bans the mailing of mifepristone only binds the FDA but not others from mailing it. Still, it’s a mess. The conflicting rulings in different circuits means that the Biden Admin. can appeal to SCOTUS. In any event, Kacsmaryk’s ruling is stayed for a week.
FYI: Newsom of California bought 2 million doses, unaware that they have an expiration date.
Seems plausible that the intention, by the malefactors, is to weaponize the legal system by filing bogus for weak charges against their political enemies, no matter how absurd in order to bury the victims in the quagmire of legal costs and wasted time trying to dig out from under the crush. The former President will likely incur tens of millions in legal costs.
Such actions lend credence to the nearly endless list of derogatory lawyer jokes. However, in such cases, it is no joke. It is not ethical. It is wrong and hurtful. For example, the FBI barely got a slap on the hand when one of their lawyers was caught falsifying FISA documents that contributed to the ruin of Carter Page, even though he was a CIA asset.
E.M.,
“…filing bogus for weak charges against their political enemies, no matter how absurd…”
In terms of politics, I think the subject of the charges is trivial and not readily intuited for most people. I also think Bragg’s choice to bring forth the case is politically motivated.
However, in terms of law and fact, the charges are neither bogus nor absurd. If the evidence from the Michael Cohen federal case is the floor for the Trump New York state case, then the charges are not weak either.
The whole thing is so implausible, and so unlikely to ever result in any sort of conviction of any kind and if so would certainly be thrown out by any sort of appeal to a higher court, it leaves one to wonder; suppose all of this is a dog and pony show to distract the masses.
Suppose we’re “supposed” to be arguing about this.
I mean lately, they give us such easy things to argue about with one another. Suppose we’re all just being played.
I don’t believe Bragg is alluding to a Federal Crime. Bragg is alluding to New York Penal Code § 175.05 which provides:
“A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the second degree when, with intent to defraud, he:
1. Makes or causes a false entry in the business records of an enterprise; or
2. Alters, erases, obliterates, deletes, removes or destroys a true entry in the business records of an enterprise; or
3. Omits to make a true entry in the business records of an enterprise in violation of a duty to do so which he knows to be imposed upon him by law or by the nature of his position; or
4. Prevents the making of a true entry or causes the omission thereof in the business records of an enterprise.”
Section 175.05 is a misdemeanor offense. But, under § 175.10, which states, “A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof,” elevates it to a felony.
Both sections required that the acts be “with intent to defraud.” The “intent to defraud,” is one of the elements of the crime under Section 175.10, must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. New York v. Hankin, infra.
The problem for Bragg arises with the legal definition of “fraud” in both U.S. Supreme Court decisions and in New York appellate decision.
In McNally v. United States 483 U.S. 350 (1987) the U.S. Supreme Court held that in order to constitute fraud, the object of a scheme must be to deprive a victim of money or property.
In Kelly v. United States 140 S. CT. 1565 The defendants were convicted of fraud for shutting down inbound lanes on the George Washington Bridge as political retribution and lying about the reason for the closures.
The Supreme Court held that, although the scheme involved deception and political misconduct, it was not fraud because the object of the lane-closing scheme was not to obtain money or property.
The “intent to defraud,” is a crucial element in Bragg’s case because the object of the scheme must be to deprive a victim of money or property, if then the case fails on its face.
In People v. Saporita, Stevenson 132 A.D.2d 713 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987) “The jury, inter alia, “…(3) convicted Saporita of the crime of falsifying business records in the first degree …and (4) convicted the defendants of acting in concert to commit the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree…”
The Court further stated that, “All of the crimes charged in the aforementioned counts contain, as a material element, the “intent to defraud” (see, Penal Law § 175.25, 175.10 Penal, 175.05 Penal [1]). In its charge to the jury, the court defined the word “defraud” as follows: “The term defraud means to cheat or deprive another person of property or a thing of value or a right” (see, 2 CJI[NY] PL 175.25, at 1203; see also, 2 CJI[NY] PL 175.10, 175.05”
In New York v. Hankin the defendant, a new lawyer, was charged, amount other counts, with violating New York Penal Code 175.05, a misdemeanor, which like Section 170.10 contains the same material element of the “intent to defraud.”
The Court stated that, “… As a necessary element of this count, intent to defraud must be pleaded and eventually proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution….” The Court went on to state:
“Granted, if defendant deliberately required the investigator/informant to submit a false bill as a condition of payment, as I must assume happened for purposes of this motion, an intent to deceive could easily be inferred, as well as intent to cover up an illegal or unethical payment. However, even an intent to deceive and conceal another crime does not eliminate the required element of intent to defraud, commonly understood to mean to cheat someone out of money, other property or something of value. (Emphasis added) See, People v. Saporita, 132 A.D.2d 713, 715, 518 N.Y.S.2d 625 (2d Dept.1987). See also, 2 CJI (NY) PL 175.05(1), at 1177.”
The gravamen of Bragg’s indictment is “ The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about February 14, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an entry in the Detail General Ledger for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, bearing voucher number 842460, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.” Each of the counts contained in the complaint is a variation of this allegation pursuant to Section 175.10.
The indictment, without more, fails because it does not allege facts that show that Trump intended to defrauded someone “by means to cheat or deprive another person of property or a thing of value or a right,” which “intent to defraud” means, supra. Even “an intent to deceive and conceal another crime does not eliminate the required element of intent to defraud, commonly understood to mean to cheat someone out of money, other property or something of value.” People v. Saporita, supra.
Bragg’s case fails because Trump didn’t cheat someone out of money, or property or something of value. These were payments of “hush money.” The payees received something of value instead. Without “intent to defraud,” there is no violation of Section 175.10, because it is a required element under the Section.
Maj229,
Your analysis of “intent to defraud” is incorrect according to the Just Security explainer of the “intent to defraud” element in CPL 175.10: https://www.justsecurity.org/85831/the-broad-scope-of-intent-to-defraud-in-the-new-york-crime-of-falsifying-business-records/ Excerpt:
__”We should note at the outset that some legal experts might assume “intent to defraud” has a narrow construction – limited to deprivation of money or property, or other pecuniary loss – given U.S. Supreme Court decisions to that effect in recent years. But that is a category mistake. The U.S. Supreme Court was interpreting federal fraud statutes, and this case is about New York courts interpreting New York state statutes.
What’s more, the U.S. Supreme Court has not only expressly noted the distinction between the federal and state level, but also recognized states’ prerogative to fill in the gap. In a 2020 opinion, the Justices explained that due to their narrow construction of the federal criminal statutes, “federal fraud law leaves much public corruption to the States (or their electorates) to rectify.” Kelly v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 1565, 1571-73 (2020).
So, how does New York State law define the “intent to defraud” for the criminal offense of falsifying business records? A long line of New York state court cases supports an expansive conception with respect to § 175.00 crimes – namely, that intent can be established when a defendant acts “for the purpose of frustrating the State’s power” to “faithfully carry out its own law.” People v. Kase, 76 A.D.2d 532, 537–538, 431 N.Y.S.2d 531, 534 (N.Y. App. Div., 1st Dept. 1980), aff’d, 53 N.Y.2d 989, 441 N.Y.S.2d 671, 424 N.E.2d 558 (1981).
On this standard, the law does not require prosecutors to show “pecuniary or potential pecuniary loss” to the government or otherwise. Id. Indeed, New York Jurisprudence (Second Edition 2023) in a section titled, “Indictment or information charging falsification of business records,” states: “In an indictment for first degree falsification of business records, the grand jury presentation is not required to establish commercial or property loss.”
Applying this broad concept of “intent to defraud” in false business records cases, New York state courts have found such intent in a wide range of cases including when a defendant: made covert contributions to a political campaign, covered up an alleged rape, misled the relatives of a patient about the individual’s treatment, operated a motor vehicle without a license, obtained credit cards through false documents but with no proof of intention to miss payments, frustrated the regulatory authorities of the New York City Transit Authority, and much more. We detail all these judicial opinions below.”__
Layperson’
The particular elements of intent to defraud, under NY law, ONLY cover persons running for local or State office. That would exclude Running for President.
CPL 175.05 isn’t an election law. And the “intent to defraud” for the 2nd crime that converts CPL 175.05 to CPL.175.10 doesn’t specify a restriction to state or federal law, let alone state or federal election law.
Layperson – based on your reading of this site, is there a NY published opinion saying that a person must record in their business records payment to a blackmailer who demands money to avoid going to the press, and that the failure to do so constitutes “fraud” (a standard of proof that that is hard to meet)? Another question: who exactly is being defrauded?
edwardmahl,
Regarding your hypothetical, I don’t know: Even assuming the same criminality by Cohen for the CPL 175.10 felony-bumping 2nd crime, I imagine Trump could have figured out a way to reimburse Cohen for the Daniels payoff without incurring the CPL 175.05 base charge. But in the actual case, Trump’s reimbursement to Cohen is recorded in the Trump organization ledger as a retainer sans retainer agreement.
Your second question goes to Maj229’s analysis versus the Just Security analysis of the “intent to defraud” element.
Citing federal case law and the Saporita case for NY state, Maj229 says the “intent to defraud” requires a particular victimized entity in the form of a person, business, non-profit organization, etc. who’s deprived of money, property, etc..
However, the Just Security analysis explains that while Maj229’s analysis is valid for its federal equivalent, the state statute is enforced more broadly. Under state law, violation of the general government interest in accurate business records and obedience to election laws is sufficient to establish the ‘defraud’ side of the “intent to defraud” element. Just Security addresses Saporita by clarifying that it’s not a valid standard for CPL 175.10 because the Saporita case followed a prosecutor’s failure to make a timely objection to a faulty jury instruction. Instead, Just Security points to the Kase case standard’s broader purview for CPL 175.10, which has been affirmed as the operative precedent for NY in subsequent case law.
The statement of facts in the Trump case is consistent with the Just Security analysis. I imagine Trump’s attorneys will file a pretrial motion consistent with Maj229’s analysis.
I suggest Professor Turley and commenters here reread the statement of facts: http://manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023-04-04-SOF.pdf. The SoF prominently features the Michael Cohen hush money payment to Stormy Daniels, the resulting Cohen federal conviction for a campaign finance violation, and other parts of the ‘catch and kill’ scheme. For the purpose of the second intent element required to upgrade a CPL 175.05 misdemeanor to a CPL 175.10 felony, President Trump is characterized in the SoF as a co-conspirator of the scheme.
Turley is false to infer the SoF omits a felony-bumping 2nd crime. In fact, Cohen’s hush money payment and Trump’s co-conspirator role are prominently featured in the SoF. Any lack of specificity is not due to omission of a 2nd crime, but rather the presentation of multiple options for DANY, featuring Cohen’s federal conviction, to establish the second intent element for a CPL 175.10 felony.
For the second intent element, CPL 175.10 does not specify that the 2nd crime is limited to state or federal law or a misdemeanor or a felony. The defendant or co-conspirator for that matter need not be prosecuted for, let alone convicted of, the 2nd crime. DANY only needs to show Trump’s intent to commit, aid, or conceal any 2nd crime with the falsified business records. On top of the CPL 175.05 base charge, Trump’s role as co-conspirator in the ‘catch and kill’ scheme, Cohen’s crime within that scheme, and their link to the 2017 fake-retainer payments should be sufficient to establish the second intent element. But we’ll see: that determination will be made by the trial jury, if the case gets that far.
Based on the indictment and statement of facts, combined with the case-relevant information that’s publicly known from Cohen’s federal case (for those who must see the evidence *right now*: https://www.justsecurity.org/85761/detailed-chronology-of-trump-cohen-hush-money-scheme/), Trump will have his work cut out for him if the case reaches trial.
You’re are partially right, but mostly wrong. It’s not just “intent” that upgrades it to a felony, it’s the falsifying of records in the second degree, i.e. Section 175.05. See my comment above. In a nut shell Section 175.10 states, in relevant part, “A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree,….” The crime in the “second degree is section 175.05.
But, one of the elements of both Sections 175.10 and 175.05 is that falsification of business records must be “with the intent to defraud.” Its just not intent, but “intent to defraud.”
“Intent to defraud” has a specific legal definition, to wit: The scheme must deprive a person of money or property.
Under Section 175.10 “… even an intent to deceive and conceal another crime does not eliminate the required element of intent to defraud, commonly understood to mean to cheat someone out of money, other property or something of value. (Emphasis added) See, People v. Saporita, 132 A.D.2d 713, 715, 518 N.Y.S.2d 625 (2d Dept.1987).
There are no facts alleged that Trump “… cheat someone out of money, other property or something of value. See, People v. Saporita, supra.
Without the intent to defraud, which is one of the elements of Section 175.10 and 175.05, there is no crime. You classified it correctly as “hush money.” Paying hush money and concealing the payment of hush money is not “fraud” in the legal definition required as required in 175.10 and 175.05. Deception yes, crime no.
If you disagree cite me a case that says otherwise.
““Intent to defraud” has a specific legal definition, to wit: The scheme must deprive a person of money or property. ”
Nope. It includes that but is not limited to that. Here’s one discussion: https://www.justsecurity.org/85831/the-broad-scope-of-intent-to-defraud-in-the-new-york-crime-of-falsifying-business-records/
That discussion cites cases.
Anonymous –
The NY Statute says:
“A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the second degree when, with intent to defraud, he:
[1] Makes or causes a false entry in the business records of an enterprise; or
[2] Alters, erases, obliterates, deletes, removes or destroys a true entry in the business records of an enterprise; or
[3] Omits to make a true entry in the business records of an enterprise in violation of a duty to do so which he knows to be imposed upon him by law or by the
nature of his position; or
[4] Prevents the making of a true entry or causes the omission thereof in the business records of an enterprise.”
As to 1, can you identify a false entry in the General Cash Ledger of checking accout?
As to 2, can you identify a “alteration” etc of a true entry in those two sets of books?
As to 3, can you identify an omission of a true entry “in violation of a duty to do so which he knows to be imposed . . . by law[.]’
As to 4, can you identify behavior that prevents others from making a true entry or causing the omission thereof?
There is no law that requires a businessman to reveal an NDA with a blackmailer. If you believe that there is, can you identify such a case? A general counsel’s opinion is not go to qualify
Edward,
The indictment identifies 12 false ledge entries. Just do a text search on “ledger”: https://www.manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-Indictment.pdf
It also identifies other false business records in the form of invoices and checks.
As for “There is no law that requires a businessman to reveal an NDA with a blackmailer,” I agree, and I’m unaware of anyone claiming otherwise.
Anonymous – Which one of the 11 entries showing issuance of checks, with accompanying vouchers, is “false”. Were they issued in those amounts and on those dates? A ledger summarizes financial expenditures of the business. These were, apparently, financial expenditures of the business.
If you present copies of the ledger entries, I’ll look and answer your question. But AFAIK — unlike copies of the checks themselves, which have been reproduced publicly — copies of the ledger entries have not be reproduced publicly. Not sure how you expect me to answer a question about the details of something that isn’t public. You seem to assume that you know what’s in those entries. I do not assume that.
As the name implies, a General Ledger brings together financial information from other books. Here is a description from “How a General Ledger Works With Double-Entry Accounting Along With Examples,” by Will Keaton (July 03, 2022), https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/generalledger.aspHow a General Ledger Works With Double-Entry Accounting Along With Examples
“What Is a General Ledger?
A general ledger represents the record-keeping system for a company’s financial data, with debit and credit account records validated by a trial balance. It provides a record of each financial transaction that takes place during the life of an operating company and holds account information that is needed to prepare the company’s financial statements. Transaction data is segregated, by type, into accounts for assets, liabilities, owners’ equity, revenues, and expenses.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
The general ledger is the foundation of a company’s double-entry accounting system.
General ledger accounts encompass all the transaction data needed to produce the income statement, balance sheet, and other financial reports.
General ledger transactions are a summary of transactions made as journal entries to sub-ledger accounts.
The trial balance is a report that lists every general ledger account and its balance, making adjustments easier to check and errors easier to locate.
General Ledger
How a General Ledger Works
A general ledger is the foundation of a system employed by accountants to store and organize financial data used to create the firm’s financial statements. Transactions are posted to individual sub-ledger accounts, as defined by the company’s chart of accounts.
The transactions are then closed out or summarized in the general ledger, and the accountant generates a trial balance, which serves as a report of each ledger account’s balance.
The trial balance is checked for errors and adjusted by posting additional necessary entries, and then the adjusted trial balance is used to generate the financial statements.”
The Trump Trust’s General Ledger will have nothing but numbers, taken from subsidiary records, such as the checking account. There is no “smoking gun” there, which explains why Bragg is mum on the details of the falsity of these records.
“The Trump Trust’s General Ledger will have nothing but numbers”
In the ledgers that I’ve used, there are notations along with the numbers, identifying what the numbers are associated with.
Again: You seem to assume that you know what’s in those entries. I do not assume that. I think it’s pointless to debate guesses about this. Guesses aren’t knowledge.
edwardmahl and Anonymous (April 8, 2023 at 6:56 PM),
According to the statement of facts, the falsification of business records at issue is not the dollar amounts on the checks but, as Anonymous points out, the annotation of “retainer” and “legal expense”.
While the evidence for this case has not been made public as yet, it’s apparently the same evidence from the Michael Cohen federal case, which may be publicly available. The https://www.justsecurity.org/85761/detailed-chronology-of-trump-cohen-hush-money-scheme/ chronicle is useful; excerpt:
__”January 2017: Cohen sought “reimbursement for election-related expenses” from the Trump Organization. He presented company executives “with a copy of a bank statement from the Essential Consultants bank account, which reflected the $130,000 payment” made to keep Clifford “silent in advance of the election, plus a $35 wire fee. In handwriting, Cohen added another $50,000 as a “claimed payment for ‘tech services,’…related to work [he] had solicited from a technology company during and in connection with the campaign.” The Trump Organization executives “grossed up” the total $180,035 reimbursement request to $360,000 “for tax purposes,” then “added a bonus of $60,000” for a final total $420,000 payment to Cohen. They decided to make the payments “in monthly amounts of $35,000 over the course of twelve months,” for which Cohen would send invoices (Cohen Criminal Information, pp. 16-17; PBS and USA Today).
. . .
February 14, 2017: Cohen sent a Trump Organization executive (allegedly, Weisselberg) the first monthly invoice for his reimbursement payments. Cohen’s invoice requested $35,000 for January and $35,000 for February “[p]ursuant to [a] retainer agreement” for “services rendered.” Weisselberg “forwarded the invoice to another executive of the Company (“Executive-2”) the same day by email, and it was approved.” Weisselberg forwarded the approval email to another Trump Organization employee and instructed them,“Please pay from the Trust. Post to legal expenses. Put ‘retainer for the months of January and February 2017’ in the description.” Accordingly, the Trump Organization “accounted for these payments as legal expenses,” though “[i]n truth and fact, there was no such retainer agreement” and Cohen’s invoices “were not in connection with any legal services he had provided in 2017.” The first check to Cohen for $70,000 was reportedly signed the same day by Weisselberg and Donald Trump Jr. (Cohen Criminal Information, p. 17; The Fixers, pp. 209–210; POLITICO; The New York Times).”__
Links are not proof.
Discussion citing cases are not proof.
Provide your proof.
All those cases cited suggest the other avenue to pursue is that the “Government’s legitimate official action and purpose were impeded.” And all case cited include examples of this. Bragg in some way still has to show that in some way this entry intended to deprive someone of something. In his indictment he alludes to another crime but does not state it. In his press conference he claimed it was campaign or tax related. Presumably he must determine what official action action and purpose was impeded.
“In his indictment he alludes to another crime but does not state it.”
To clarify, the statement of facts that accompanies the Trump indictment features Trump’s co-conspiracy role in the ‘catch and kill’ scheme with AMI (David Pecker and National Enquirer) and Michael Cohen’s conviction related to the scheme https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/michael-cohen-pleads-guilty-manhattan-federal-court-eight-counts-including-criminal-tax as the felony-bumping 2nd crime.
“Legally Pathetic”
– Professor Turley
______________
“FEC: Trump-Stormy case ‘not a campaign finance violation’”
A key member of the Federal Election Commission today rejected the Manhattan district attorney’s indictment of former President Donald Trump as a violation of federal election laws.
“It’s not a campaign finance violation. It’s not a reporting violation of any kind,” said FEC Commissioner James E. “Trey” Trainor.
In trying to stretch the law to make it look like a violation, he added, District Attorney Alvin Bragg “is really trying to make a square peg fit into a round hole.”
– Washington Examiner, Paul Bedard, Washington Secrets Columnist, April 05 23
To clarify, Bragg isn’t charging Trump with a campaign finance violation. The charge is falsifying business records, which is a misdemeanor by itself. The charge is bumped up to a felony because the business records were falsified with the intent to commit, aid, or conceal a 2nd crime. The felony-bumping 2nd crime is already adjudicated and on record as a campaign finance violation: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/michael-cohen-pleads-guilty-manhattan-federal-court-eight-counts-including-criminal-tax.
Maj229, you have a good discussion going with Layperson. I had hoped it would continue. However, since finding out that all Layperson has to offer is from a George Soros funded website, I’m now not certain any further discussion would be worthwhile.
Ron – I’ve been unavailable for the last few days. I just posted a new comment. Take a look.
Maj229,
“If you disagree cite me a case that says otherwise.”
For that, see the Just Security explainer on “intent to defraud” for CPL 175.10 that’s linked by Anonymous at April 7, 2023 at 7:27 PM. Preview: “People v. Kase, 76 A.D.2d 532, 537–538, 431 N.Y.S.2d 531, 534 (N.Y. App. Div., 1st Dept. 1980), aff’d, 53 N.Y.2d 989, 441 N.Y.S.2d 671, 424 N.E.2d 558 (1981).”
Just Security cites the broad standard for “intent to defraud” in the Kase case, then follows it with the subsequent case law affirming the Kase test. The Just Security analysis rejects Saporita by clarifying that it’s not a valid standard for CPL 175.10 because the Saporita decision was based on a prosecutor’s failure to make a timely objection to a faulty jury instruction.
Your analysis at April 7, 2023 at 6:26 PM of the federal standard for the federal equivalent to CPL 175.10 provides a reasonable non-partisan explanation for why federal prosecutors declined to prosecute Trump despite that the evidence seems to be substantially the same for the US conviction of Cohen and the NY case versus Trump: disparate federal and state standards for essentially the same crime.
First, let me say I’ve enjoyed your comments. I haven’t been available to reply do to other commitments. Part of the problem we’ve all had is up until the indictment was filed, we’ve all been speculating about what the allegation(s) would be. Based on what I’ve read, the indictment and statement of “facts” here’s my response:
Numerous liberal commentator and news outlets have questioned sufficiency of Bragg’s indictment for lacking facts and what was the other “crime” that is unlisted, e.g., New York Times and CNN, who are not Trump fans.
New York Criminal Code Section 175.10, provides, “ A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.”
When pressed by reporters, Bragg elaborated that the charges were based on “34 false statements and business records that were concealing criminal conduct” and violations of New York State law that “makes it a crime to promote a [political] candidacy through unlawful means.”
In addition, Bragg stated, “Those unlawful means include … additional false statements [including] planned false statements to taxing authorities,” Bragg concluded.
He pointed to the Daniels payment specifically.
“The scheme violated New York election law that makes it a crime to conspire to promote a candidacy by unlawful means, the $130,000 wire payment exceeded the federal campaign contribution cap and the false statements on AMI’s books violated New York law,” Bragg explained. “That is why Mr. Trump made false statements about his payments to Mr. Cohen.”
The “election campaign” he alludes to is the 2016 federal election of the president. Though, states and federal laws may overlap in limited areas, states cannot prosecute federal crimes where federal law provides for exclusive federal jurisdiction, as it does in Federal Elections, which Presidential elections are.
The problem for Bragg is where federal laws and state laws appear to overlap. the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act) and Commission regulations take precedence in two broad areas:
“1. Prohibitions on election-financing activities by foreign nationals, national banks and federally chartered corporations (2 U.S.C. §441e and 11 CFR 110.4(a); §441b(a) and 11 CFR 114.2(a)); and
2. Laws that pertain to the financing of federal elections (2 U.S.C. §453; 11 CFR 108.7(a)) Federal Election Laws.”
With respect to the financing of federal elections, federal law specifically supersedes state law in the following areas:
1. The organization and registration of political committees supporting federal candidates;
2. The disclosure of receipts and expenditures in connection with federal elections by federal candidates and political committees; and
3. The limits on contributions and expenditures that apply to federal candidates and
political committees. 11 CFR 108.7(b).
In Federal Elections, federal law has exclusive jurisdiction over all expenditures, illegal or legal, connected to the campaign for federal offices.
Any New York indictment based on any campaign funding or spending violations, which is broadly interpreted, based on the above, is superseded by the exclusive jurisdiction under Federal Election Campaign Act. In plain English, New York has no authority to prosecute campaign contributions and expenditures, of any kind or anything violation in federal elections. Only the Federal Government has that authority, supra.
Bragg is trying to bootstrap his case by hiding what the “other crime” is.
By doing so, Bragg has violated Trump’s 6th Amendment rights with the vague allegations. The 6th Amendment provides, in pertinent part, “
Sixth Amendment
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall …be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;…”
The constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation entitles the defendant to insist that the indictment apprise him of the crime charged with such reasonable certainty that he can make his defense and protect himself after judgment against another prosecution on the same charge, United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 544, 558 (1876); United States v. Simmons, 96 U.S. 360 (1878); Bartell v. United States, 227 U.S. 427 (1913); Burton v. United States, 202 U.S. 344 (1906).
No indictment is sufficient if it does not allege all of the ingredients that constitute the crime. Where the language of a statute is, according to the natural import of the words, fully descriptive of the offense, it is sufficient if the indictment follows the statutory phraseology, Potter v. United States, 155 U.S. 438, 444 (1894).
But where the elements of the crime have to be ascertained by reference to the common law or to other statutes, it is not sufficient to set forth the offense in the words of the statute. The facts necessary to bring the case within the statutory definition must also be alleged, United States v. Carll, 105 U.S. 611 (1882)
All 32 counts State the following, “… intent to commit another crime…”
Failure of the indictment to specify what the other “crime” is, fails the 6th Amendment requirement, supra, because “the elements of the crime have to be ascertained by reference to the common law or to other statutes, it is not sufficient to set forth the offense in the words of the statute. The facts necessary to bring the case within the statutory definition must also be alleged, United States v. Carll, 105 U.S. 611 (1882).”
The vague “…intent to commit another crime….,” is insufficient and violates the Sixth Amendment requirement of the defendant on all 32 counts.
Grand juries, at least among criminal defense counsel, are known as “Kangaroo Courts” because it is not an adversarial process. The Grand Jurors are spoon fed the allegations by the use of leading questions (questions that call for a “yes” or “no” answer), there is no cross-examination or confrontation of witnesses, the rules of evidence do not apply, no defense witnesses are called to counter the prosecutions witnesses.
Finally, we have Robert J. Costello, a former legal adviser to Michael Cohen. He stated, “The heart of it is that Michael Cohen told us that he was approached by Stormy Daniels’ lawyer and Stormy Daniels had negative information that she wanted to put in a lawsuit against Trump,” Costello said. “So Michael Cohen decided on his own — that’s what he told us, on his own — to see if he could take care of this.”
Costello said he testified to the grand jury that Trump did not know about the payments made by Cohen to Stormy Daniels.
Robert J. Costello has a signed “Waiver of Attorney/Client privilege from Cohen.
Maj229,
I take it you’ve accepted the Just Security analysis of Kase over Saporita and New York’s broad “intent to defraud” standard.
The Sixth Amendment shouldn’t be an obstacle. According to the statement of facts joined to the indictment, the 2nd crime is plainly the Cohen conviction https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/michael-cohen-pleads-guilty-manhattan-federal-court-eight-counts-including-criminal-tax in the context of the ‘catch and kill’ scheme with AMI https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/press-release/file/1119501/download. The supposed lack of specificity or vagueness is not due to the absence of a 2nd crime for the felony-bumping intent, but rather the several theories of fraud presented to frame the 2nd crime. I assume defense counsel will try to knock out as many of the theories as they can while trying to sever the 2nd crime altogether, so we should be able to learn them in depth.
Bootstrapping shouldn’t be an obstacle either. CPL 175.10 doesn’t restrict the 2nd crime by severity, category, or jurisdiction. The 2nd crime need not be prosecuted, let alone convicted, to establish the felony-bumping intent. Moreover, the 2nd crime and ‘catch and kill’ scheme are already adjudicated and a matter of record with largely the same evidence that likely will be presented in the Trump case.
Regarding grand jury procedure, “the rules of evidence do not apply” is incorrect. “[T]here is no cross-examination or confrontation of witnesses” is correct in terms of dueling counsel like a trial. Unlike a trial, though, grand jurors can question the witnesses, albeit screened by the prosecutors for relevance and propriety.
In this particular case, “no defense witnesses are called to counter the prosecutions witnesses” is also incorrect. As you point out, Costello testified to the grand jury. Evidently, he failed to counteract the evidence that was “spoon fed” to the grand jurors. I’m not surprised: One, I can imagine Cohen’s actual conviction, joined with Cohen’s explanation, was more convincing than Costello’s testimony. Two, Costello is apparently the Cohen lawyer cited in the SoF who sounds like his priority was protecting Trump’s interests rather than his putative client’s. Three, other publicly known information stemming from the Cohen case, which Cohen and others involved may not have told Costello, indicates Trump was a co-conspirator.
For purposes of this response, I will assume for you are correct regarding the 6th Amendment, but I do not coincide the point, the indictment is fatal without it.
Though, you are correct that Costello testified, it wasn’t because he was invited to by the DA. He barged his way in. The DA had no intention of calling him. The charge of the Grand Jury is not to determine guilt or innocence. It is to determine whether there is probable cause that a crime has been committed and who committed the crime. If they chose to disregard Costello, it has no effect on the truth or veracity of what he testified to, nor is an indictment proof of guilt.
The lack of cross-examination is significant. There is a reason it is called the “great engine of truth.” Without it, the “allegations, i.e. evidence” is never put to the test to determine its veracity. Without determining it’s veracity, the “evidence” proves nothing.
You state in part, “According to the statement of facts joined to the indictment, the 2nd crime is plainly the Cohen conviction…” Which is an attempt by Bragg to do indirectly what he can’t do directly.
The crime that Cohen was convicted of was violation of “ The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, Title 52, United States Code, Section 30101, et seq., (the “Election Act”),” a Federal Crime and not a state crime. Cohen was convicted in Federal Court, not state court. Your position, therefore, is the Federal convictions under The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 is the “…intent to commit another crime…”
In other words, the gravamen of the indictment, are acts and payments by Trump, and others, to influence a Federal Campaign for President by paying money to settle the claims by parties in violation of 52 U.S. Code Section 30101, et seq., specifically “… (i)any purchase, payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit, or gift of money or anything of value, made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office.”
The Federal Election Act provides, pursuant to Section 108.7 Effect on State Law (52 U.S.C. 30143), states the following:
“(a) The provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, and rules and regulations issued thereunder, supersede and preempt any provision of State law with respect to election to Federal office….
(b) Federal law supersedes State law concerning the…
(2) Disclosure of receipts and expenditures by Federal candidates and political committees….”
Which means states laws cannot prosecute Federal Election law violations for “expenditures” paid in Federal elections because The Act, a federal law, specifically states it “ … supersedes and preempts any provision of State law with respect to election to Federal office ….” The Act takes jurisdiction away from the States regarding Federal campaign laws.
The federal law applies to elections for all federal offices, 52 U.S.C. 30101(3) et al. And it covers all expenditures and contributions to federal campaigns, 52 U.S.C. 30101(9)(A)(1).
The Federal Election Campaign Act (The Act) “preempts and supersedes” all state laws “with respect to expenditures and contributions” in all federal campaigns. Which means they have no jurisdiction to charge state crimes in Federal elections, supra.
By preempting and superseding state laws, states can not charge candidates for federal offices with state crimes alleging violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. In addition, when state law and federal law conflict, federal law displaces, or preempts, state law, due to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. U.S. Const. art. VI., § 2. Preemption applies regardless of whether the conflicting laws come from legislatures, courts, administrative agencies, or constitutions.
The allegations contained in the Indictment and the Statement of Facts reference the 2016 presidential election, the 2016 presidential campaign, payments and acts in furtherance of the Presidential election, receipts and expenditures by a Federal candidate and campaign, in violation of federal law, and Cohen’s guilty plea for violating the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.
The indictment is bootstrapping a Federal Election Act violation (by your own admission …”the 2nd crime is plainly the Cohen conviction…”) to satisfy New York Criminal Law Section 175.10 “…intent to commit another crime…” in violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act, which “supersede and preempt any provision of State law with respect to election to Federal office…”
That is what bootstrapping is, or you can call it an attempt to bypass Federal law by the State of New York by sleight of hand, because it has no jurisdiction to prosecute Federal law. The linchpin is still the violation of federal law which New York is specifically prohibited from doing by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.
An axiom in the law is that it looks to substance not form. Bragg’s indictment is form, it clothes itself in State law, but the substance of the indictment is the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which is fatal because the Act supersedes and preempts any provision of State law with respect to election to Federal office.
The reality here on the blog is nothing we write will have any impact on where the case will go, its outcome, or the changing of minds regarding the allegations. But what we will see is a Master’s class in legal advocacy and pre-trial motions.
Mas229,
Trump is being prosecuted under NY CPL 175.10, not the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. Nonetheless, the Supremacy clause obligates New York to qualify Cohen’s federal conviction as a crime for the purpose of establishing the felony-bumping intent for CPL 175.10.
The Just Security explainer “The Manhattan DA’s Charges and Trump’s Defenses: A Detailed Preview” https://www.justsecurity.org/85581/the-manhattan-das-charges-and-trumps-defenses-a-detailed-preview/ is useful for covering this issue and more.
As for Costello, he could not have “barged his way in” to the grand jury. His request to testify was approved by either the prosecutor or the grand jury. You’re right that the grand jury standard is different than the trial jury standard, but we at least know Costello failed to persuade the grand jurors who presumably heard substantially the same evidence that the trial jury will hear. Costello wasn’t involved in the 2015-2016 ‘catch and kill’ scheme and the 2017 reimbursement, so there’s an inherent limit to the weight of his testimony if it contradicts evidence from the events.
Correction: Reply is to ‘Maj229’, not “Mas229”.
It seems to me that using a state law to simply show, as you state, “intent to commit, aid, or conceal any 2nd crime with falsified business records” that it is necessary the 2nd crime be a crime against that state. The Statement of Facts states that the criminal conduct was hiding “damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election.” A presidential election is a federal election over which the federal government through the Federal Election Commission holds absolute regulatory and enforcement authority in protecting the voting public and rectifying any wrongs committed during the 2016 presidential election, or for that matter any other federal elections.
You offer Kelly v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 1565, 1571-73 (2020), but provide only the single phrase “federal fraud law leaves much public corruption to the States (or their electorates) to rectify.” While that may sound ominous for Trump’s defense, we should expect there is much more to it. I will read it, as I hope we all should. One thing is certain. We may expect Trump’s defense lawyers are fully conversant with it.
I have just read Maj229’s reply at the 7:01 mark. You and Maj229 have a good discussion going. I hope it continues.
“that it is necessary the 2nd crime be a crime against that state”
CPL 175.10 doesn’t specify that the 2nd crime needs to fall within state or federal law.
That Cohen committed a federal crime is a matter of record. The indictment indicates state-based avenues for the 2nd crime, too, though they’re not as obvious as the well-publicized Cohen conviction featured in the statement of facts. I agree the pretrial motions on jurisdiction should be interesting.
Correction: The statement of facts [not ‘indictment’] indicates state-based avenues for the 2nd crime, too…
Ron, I just replied to Layperson.
Ron – Kelly v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 1565, 1571-73 (2020) deals with the federal wire fraud statute which makes it a crime to effect (with use of the wires) any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises. 18 U.S.C.S. § 1343.
It not on point nor does it have anything to do with federal election laws and campaigns. That’s exclusively governed by The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, Title 52, United States Code, Section 30101, et seq, and not 18 U.S.C. 1343.
This is America, you can get a fair trial anywhere.
. . . it depends on what “you” means. It certainly did not include the Q’Anon Shaman.
He chose to plead guilty, didn’t go to trial.
“He chose to plead guilty, didn’t go to trial.”
The videos were withheld from his attorney.
They showed videos of people breaking in but none of the people were him
On video he was shown to be entirely peaceful without any riotous behavior.
He has some mental problems.
He is known as a peaceful nice guy.
On video he was praying for the police.
He loves this country
He was in jail for nothing.
He was in solitary for nothing.
He was released from prison after the public saw the videos.
Have you no Shame, ATS?
Your politics is the politics of death. Look at how smug you are with another person’s life. He chose to make a deal and under the circumstances he might have had good reason and might not have been able to think things out as well as most people can.
Instead of feeling sorry for him, you applaud his wrongful conviction. That is disgusting. People should recognize how inhuman you sound and act.
Anon – The failure to disclose evidence, which is a violation of his that might be exculpatory is fatal to the prosecution. Government disclosure of material exculpatory and impeachment evidence is part of the constitutional guarantee to a fair trial. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154 (1972). The law requires the disclosure of exculpatory and impeachment evidence when such evidence is material to guilt or punishment. Brady, 373 U.S. at 87; Giglio, 405 U.S. at 154. Because they are Constitutional obligations, Brady and Giglio evidence must be disclosed regardless of whether the defendant makes a request for exculpatory or impeachment evidence. Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 432-33 (1995).
This is America. You can win the lottery anywhere. Doesn’t mean you’re likely to.
YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO KEEP IT
_______________________________
“[We gave you] a [jurisdiction], if you can keep it.”
– Ben Franklin
___________
“It’s the [venue], stupid!”
– James Carville
_____________
As was the case with John “Dudley Do-Right” Durham, the justice system is entirely corrupt, starting with jurisdiction and venue.
Don’t tell anyone; we’re not supposed to know.
_____________________________________
What did Real President Donald J. Trump say that it’s all “FIXED!”
BTW, did you notice that the democrats started cheating 2024 with the racist Bragg’s “legally pathetic” mumbo jumbo, voodoo spell?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
William “Mr. Deep Deep State” Barr was brave and courageous, he assigned John Durham as Special Counsel to conduct a very public charade in D.C. Mr. Deep Deep State ordered his Special Counsel to find all the Obama Coup D’etat in America co-conspirators innocent in D.C., and to put on a big party, a post “justice system” victory celebration.
Mr. Deep Deep State sent his dutiful soldier, Durham, to D.C. where Durham could not and would not possibly win in 100 million years.
O.J. Simpson, Durham, Trump, etc., all “fixed.”
The trials are over before they start; the trials end upon the assignation of venue.
No actual American is going to come out of D.C., New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, etc., alive.
San Francisco – that venue gave Bob Lee the death penalty a few days ago.
I was for the prosecution before Iwas against the prosecution.
Thank you, Bobby Kennedy, for running against Joe Biden for the presidential nomination, if for no other reason than to highlight the radical, anti-rule of law, anti-science, anti-humanity, and anti-God foundation of today’s Democrat Party.
Every single time you post about Trump, Turley, you slide deeper and deeper into the stinky slime of Trump. First, Turley accuses the judge of lacking “integrity”. Next, he accuses him of not handling the case properly because he scheduled motions hearings in December–so, pursuant to the Gospel According to Turley, the judge should just put everything else aside for Trump and move up motions practice. The judge is not going to do that–nor should he. He has a busy docket and other criminal defendants have speedy trial rights, too. Here’s a biggie you and the other members of Cult 45 choose to keep ignoring: Trump is just an ordinary citizen. He’s not even a presidential candidate–he’s a candidate to be the nominee, and he announced early, according to sources, to support an argument that he can’t be prosecuted for crimes in Georgia, NY or by the DOJ because he’s a “presidential candidate”. He’s not entitled to any special treatment, including the judge just deciding to dismiss the case because a paid pundit like you accuses him of lacking integrity. Then, Turley repeats the same tired argument about the DOJ declining to prosecute–implying that this proves there’s no merit to prosecuting Trump. Turley, you should know better because a member of the NY DOJ”s office said in an interview earlier this week, that your pal, Billy Barr, told them to stand down. So, the DOJ failing to charge Trump at the time was a POLITICAL move–which is exactly what Turley accuses Bragg of doing. How ironic! Turley also accuses Bragg of failing to identify the underlying felony–then, later admits it is campaign finance violations. That prosecution under such facts as we have in this case is valid is shown by the fact that John Edwards was similarly charged. The stench of Trump is beginning to stick, Turley. I’m not sure you could ever wash it off.
One other thing, Turley: you really ought not try to comment on classic film, of which you have only a superficial knowledge. The charm of “Plan 9 From Outer Space” is how obviously awful it is–it’s so bad, it’s good–as comedy, not a serious horror film. Jay Leno does an hilarious commentary on the film, pointing out such things as the “aliens” having a wall calendar in their space ship that also has plastic shower curtains. And, it was one of Bela Lugosi’s last film appearances–as Dracula–and how that connects with aliens and their “Plan 9” makes no sense–which is part of the fun–except for the fact that Lugosi was addicted to Morphine at the time due to chronic pain and he looks awful. Ed Wood didn’t set out to make a bad film or even a comedy–it just happened. You don’t seem to understand this, Turley.
Gigi, I take it you don’t like Donald Trump.
Nor does she like Prof. Turley, it seems.
Gigi – your comment on Plan 9 from Outer Space puts us in mind of the Biden/Harris adminstration: an unplanned disaster with cosmic consequences.
To them it’s not a disaster to destroy the America that increasingly doesn’t seem to be able to make it to her 250th birthday, at least not in peace.
Gigi is French, and we all know about the French.
Law and Order NUTCHACHACHA, legal scholar, what was immigration law on January 1, 1863?
ANSWER:
Naturalization Act of 1802 (four confirming iterations, 1790,1795 ,1798)
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof…
Gigi, +100. You got that exactly right. Good job.
Gigi – can you source the following statement: [A] member of the NY DOJ”s office said in an interview earlier this week, that your pal, Billy Barr, told them to stand down.”
Further, a DOJ prosecution for failing to report an in-kind contribution would probably have been a misdemeanor. See FECA (1971), sec 311.
Furthermore, the FEC declined to file a civil complaint against Trump or his organization for failing to report the payment to Daniels as an in-kind campaign contribution. Were they pressured by Trump too?
You say that Turley “admits that the underlying felony [referred to, but not identified, in the Indictment] was a federal campaign finance violation. But that is wrong. The Indictment never identifies the prerequisite felony which Trump was supposedly “intentionally” trying to violate. It is left up the imagination of the reader.
Finally, you say: “That prosecution under such facts as we have in this case is valid is shown by the fact that John Edwards was similarly charged.” The facts in the Edwards case were different: he used $900,000 in donor money to buy the silence of his ex-mistress and then covered up the contributions with check memos like “chairs”, antique table and bookcase,” If Bragg is to be believed, Trump used his own money to pay Cohen for legal services, including settleing the claim of Ms. Stormey. Furthermore, you ingnore the fact Edwards was acquitted on one charge and hung on the others.
I honestly do not give a Schiff about any of this.
This was a massively stupid mistake on the part of Democrats and will come to bite them on the ass repeatedly.
The legal minutia does not matter – beyond further exposing the corruption of Democrats – and those like you.
Trump is entitled to s speedy trial – Everyone is. That is a requirement of the constitution.
If this judge can not manage – then Trump has a right to another judge – as Every criminal defendant does.
I beleive the general rule in a criminal trial is that the prosecution has 180 days to bring the case to Trial.
That time can be extended – But ONLY by the defense. It is quite common for that time to be extended.
But the right to a speedy trial belongs to the defendant NOT the prosecution, and not the courts.
The defense is entitled to delay. The prosecution and the court are not.
That 180 days is to the Start of the Trial. Motions etc take place BEFORE that time.
If the prosecution and the courts can not deal with motions prior to trial – then the case must be transfered somewhere than can or be dismissed.
It is RARE to have a criminal defendant that actually wants an expedited trial.
But if that is what Trump wants – like every other criminal defendant that is his RIGHT,
and the courts MUST deliver.
You say the judge, the courts, the DA, democrats are not biased
ROFL.
Regardless, debate is not needed here.
Reality trumps your delusions.
Myriands of scholars have pointed out what a crock much of this is.
In many instances the same scholars have pointed out that though Trump likely will ultimately prevail,
It will be a long hard slog, with many many many losses along the way.
Why ? Specifically because the prosecutors, the courts and democrats are not merely biased, but have weaponized govenrment politically.
This is precisely what Banana Republics do.
At the same time I WANT you to keep up the nonsense. I WANT trump to repeatedly lose on legal issues that he should obviously win.
I want over and over and over to have everyone in the country exposed to the complete political corruption of government that democrats have wrought.
Your chose to go this route.
So lets play it out.
Trump is an unlikely Ghandi or Martin Luther King.
But YOU chose to make him a Martyr.
I WANT you to win, I want you to succeed in every single stupid effort of yours to infringe on Trump’s rights.
I want you to prevail legally when it is already obvious to all that you should fail.
I want you to do your damnest, to prove your hatred and your willingness to corrupt the law.
I want you to show us all again and again the corruption in your soul.
And I can not think of a better way to do this, than what YOU have chosen.
I want House republicans to Do everything possible to expose the collusion and corruption of Bragg, the courts, the democrats and Biden.
And I want YOU to resist at every single step to hide everything, to fight tooth and nail to keep it all secret.
Because there is no need for those in government to hide the truth, when the truth is they are not corrupt.
I want voters, the public everything to wonder exactly what it is you are hiding.
And I fully expect that you will do everything in your power to make sure that people wonder what you are hiding.
Another word vomit from someone who claims not to give a “schiff.”
do you have an argument ?
Apparently you do not understand English.
I am perfectly happy to see Democrats and those on the left self destruct.
While I will likely from time to time rail about the idiocy, injustice and corruption of this.
I actually hope that the left keeps this up for a long time.
I hope that democrats do not come to their senses and end this.
I hope the courts make endless poor decisions and blatantly violate Trump’s rights in the most egregious fashion.
I hope that you all do everything in your power to prove to the country exactly who you are.
“When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time”.
Maya Angelou,
“Never interfere with an enemy in the process of destroying himself”
Napoleon Bonaparte
You have given Trump a tremendous gift.
You have made him a martyr
You have assured he will have endless free media for the next 2 years.
And you have created a minefield for yourselves.
And you have exposed your own hypocracy.
There has been actual violence by left wing “protestors” at 3 state capitols in recent weeks.
Including in tennesse where 3 lawmakers participated in the takeover.
I thought that violence at a capitol was an insurection ?
I thought it was a crime to be angry about elected officials legitimately doing their jobs ?
I thought you were not allowed to disrupt legislators ?
John B. Say claims,
“That 180 days is to the Start of the Trial.”
False. The trial starts in December. Not 180 days prior. This just shows the level of John’s ignorance regarding the law. The right to a speedy trial means when trial starts. The time before that is not a trial. After all motions from defense and prosecution regarding rules, evidence and witnesses are decided by the judge THEN the trial can start. It’s THAT moment that the defendant had a right to a speedy trial. Not before.
Svelaz:
“In General: With limited statutory exception, the time period within which the prosecution must be ready for trial is determined by the highest level offense ever charged against the defendant in the criminal action (see CPL 30.30 [1] [a], [b], [c]; Cooper, 98 NY2d 541; Tychanski, 78 NY2d 909).
Felony: When the highest level offense ever charged is a felony, the prosecution must establish its readiness within six months (which is not necessarily 180 days) of the commencement of the criminal action (see e.g. People v Cox, 161 AD3d 1100, 1100 [2d Dept 2018]).”
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW SECTION 30.30 (1) MANUAL Spring, 2020 Edition (Including 2020 amendments)
Drew R. DuBrin, Special Assistant Public Defender, Appeals Section, Monroe County Public Defenders Office
https://www.ils.ny.gov/files/30.30%20Manual%202020.pdf
180 days from the indictment is October 1 or 2, 2023.
I suppose Trump can waive the right to a speedy trial, but I don’t know that he has done so. If Bragg canot provide some written explanation for the “crime” that Trump was knowingly “intending” to commit by “falsifying” the business records, the Indictment is probably subject to dismissal under NY law.
Aparently you can not read.
I did not say when the Trial Starts. I said what the courts have decided the constitution means by a speedy trial.
Regardless I noted that it is not common for a criminal trial to take place in less than 180 days.
Because the Defense wants more time.
The Defendant can waive the right to a speedy trial.
The judge and prosecutor can not.
This is the Federal rule – not the State – but the issue is constitutional, and though the time limits may be slightly different the constitutional issues are the same.
18 U.S.C. § 3161(b). Trial must commence within 70 days from the date the information or indictment was filed, or from the date the defendant appears before an officer of the court in which the charge is pending, whichever is later. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1).
Note there is NOTHING in the above regarding motions or evidentiary hearings.
Some actions by the defense MAY toll time, but if the Defense wants a trial quickly it is their ABSOLUTE right, and the court must proceed.
While it is unlikely that the Trump case would go before a jury quickly – and I doubt it will be before a jury by December – the court is obligated at arraignment to assume that it will, and to schedule accordingly.
In most states there are different time limits for fellonies than misdemeanors, as well as different time limits if the defendant is incarcerated.
Regardless the right to a speedy trial belongs to the DEFENDANT – not the governmnt.
Government has powers – all rights belong to people.
There are 50 states I am not familiar with the law in each.
But all of them have the same federal constitution.
The right to a speedy trial is guaranteed by the Federal and typically the state constitution,
and though the timeline and procedures are not the same from state to state.
As a rule the clock starts at indictment or arraingment.
If you have evidence that NY has different law – provide it.
Otherwise as is typical – you are speaking out your ass.
Here is the NY Law. The time frame is different for different crimes – with the longest period allowed being 6 months.
In NY failure to meet the deadline results in essentially an automatic acquittal.
There are however a number of matters that toll the time – mostly driven by the defense.
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CPL/30.30
Further the clock starts with the indictment.
Making things up is called LYING.
And you are doing so AGAIN.
It is clear that you had no idea what the requirements are in NY when you posted your bogus claims.
I made it clear in my post that I did not know the exact requirements for NY – but that 180 days was typical – that is the requirement in my state.
But you stated as Fact assertions that are not true in NY and probably not true anywhere.
Time starts with indictment in NY and likely starts with indictment or arraignment most everywhere.
SOME defense motions toll time while they are pending. But even then the court is REQUIRED to make decisions on pending motions with dispatch. The court can not delay a trial significantly by sitting on a defense motion.
Aparently logic is not necescary for you.
Bill Barr has not been AG for 2 years.
Are you saying that Garland was in Trump’s pocket ?
Further 50% of DEMOCRATS think this prosecution is corrupt politics not law enforcement.
Your out their alone on the fringe.
Something stinks pretty bad – but it is not Trump.
Campaign Finance violations are Federal and not state. Further Campaign Finance law is severely constrained by the First amendment.
One of the many reasons that Edwards was prosecuted – but acquitted and Trump was not,
is because Edwards used Other Peoples money. It is already established that Congress can not constrain a candidates contributions to their own campaign.
Put more simply so that you can understand it. Trump can not violate campaign finance law by spending his own money.
No candidate can.
If campaign finance law applies to a candidates own money – then it is unconstitutional.
There ware others issues – but the do not apply here.
If a candidate does not elect to accept Federal matching funds – they are also not bound by campaign finance laws.
This is because the only way that campaign finance laws are constitutional is because candidates agreed to be bound to them in return for Matching funds.
Edwards used ACTUAL campaign contributions by a third party to pay the rent and expenses of a current paramour to keep here hidden.
There was no NDA, The money was not Edwards, and the money was run through the campaign.
There is almost no similarity to the Edwards case – which is far more egregious.
About the only good Fact Edwards had – was the donor knew what the money was being used for – otherwise it was Fraud.
I would further note that Edwards was charged with using ACTUAL campaign contributions for PERSONAL expenses.
Trump literally did the OPPOSITE of Edwards.
He used personal and business funds for personal and business purposes.
Edwards was prosecuted because paying off your paramour is NOT a campaign expense.
Which is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of What Bragg is claiming.
Further the FEC and DOJ have already decided this.
They determined therw was not crime. There was not even a violation of the regulations.
Trump did NOT do what Edwards did – he did the OPPOSITE.
Gigi the Judge is not following the law – not personally and not with regard to this case.
The ethics issue is NOT a judgement call. In NY Judges are barred by Judicial ethics regulations from making political contributions.
That is not true in all states. Probably it should be. Regardless, it was the rules Merchan was obligated to follow.
He did not. His violation was deminimus. But the case against Trump is deminimus and procedural also
It really looks bad when you are presiding over a case of alleged campaign finance violations – when YOU as the judge have violated campaign finance rules – even if in a small way – the allegation against Trump si also small.
If Merchan did not report in some record that he contributed to Biden or to Stop Republicans – then he too is guilty of EXACTLY what Trump is being accused of.
I do not personally think Merchan should see any consequences beyond being publicly called out.
At the same time the case against Trump should be dismissed for EXACTL the same reasons.
The evidence is not there, the law is not there and even if Bragg “nailed it” – which he can not.
He is criminalizing conduct no different from that of the Judge presiding over his case.
Is this all small and petty – absolutely – because this whole mess of YOUR making is small and petty.
But that is where you have brought us all too.
You did this too yourselves.
Democratic leadership is advising Democrats to shut up about the Trump case.
It is near certain that every single democrat that condemns Trump will have their campaigns scoured for evidence fo similar campaign finance faux pauxs.
You have stupidly given Trump a club to beat you with.
A very good club.
Again I hope you are not smart enough to cut your losses and run.
With respect to Merchan’s illegal scheduling – no one rational expects that if this goes forward it will be tried in December.
But the LAW requires that the Court and the Prosecutor Try this case before October – not december – Absent procedurral delays driven by DEFENSE motions.
Merchan can KNOW that the case will not be tried in October.
But he MUST follow the law – until the legal basis for delays occurs.
I doubt this will occur, but Trump and his lawyers could just sit on their hands right now, and demand the case be dismissed with predjudice in October, and Merchan would have to do so.
Again that will not happen – because if it appeared likely Bragg would move to move the trial up.
Regardless the Judge err’d – and stupidly so.
The rule of law – requires the courts to follow the law – in big things and in small.
In scheduling and in judicial ethics.
Do I think this is evidence that MErchan is a political hack – no there is other evidence for that.
But it is evidence that he does not understand the importance of Judges following the law.
He is being excoriated and rightly so.
Of course Trump is a presidential candidate – Just as Halley, and Marianne Williamson, Asa Hutchinson
Vivek Ramaswamy and Corey Stapleton.
I do not personally beleive presidential candidate are owed special deferance by the courts.
No defendant should Ever be subject to a gag order. Only the prosecution is answerable to the court for conduct or speech outside the court room. Anything beyond that is a violation of the presumption of innocence and of the various rights of the defendant.
But we have allowed Judges – not just Merchan to get too big for their britches.
I am gladd that is atleast a little and issue in this case.
BTW you are correct – Every criminal defendant has speedy trial rights.
The NY Courts OWE a speedy trial to EVERY defendant – not just Trump.
And I would not BY LAW if they can not meet that – charges are automatically dropped.
Judges do not get to play balancing games on this.
Regardless, the issue here is NOT when the trial will take place – it is not going to occur in December. It is not likely to occur before the election. It probably will never take place.
What it is about is “The Rule of law” – If Trump and his legal team Wish to have a trial in October – which I doubt they do,
and they are willing to proceed rapidly to that trial – that is Trump’s RIGHT.
The court can ask Trump to waive it. I doubt that Trump or his team have any wish for a speedy Trial.
Trump wants to draw this out and savor it as long as possible. Democrats have taken a tiger by the tail.
Trump has Zero interest in ending this quickly. I doubt he even wants a quick win.
He is better off politically dragging this out as long as possible and losing almost every step of the way in a long and near certain string of highly questionable court decisions that continue to expose how weak and flawed this case is.
You have made Trump a Martyr, and given the oportunity he is going to revel in that forever.
You are making Trump into a Republican Joan of Arc or Martin Luther King or Ghandi.
He is not going to let go of that prize you have given him easily.
The DOJ declined to prosecute, the FEC did not even call this a campaign finance violation and Bragg’s alleged underlying fellony is a claim that was REJECTED by both the FEC and DOJ.
Further as there is a federal crime – that is not charged, Bragg is perempted legally.
This is not a tired argument – it is the law.
Bragg can not say The Felony Trump is covering up is a federal crime that neither DOJ nor FEC acknowleges occured and that there is no caselaw to support.
In fact the actual caselaw – despite Svelaz’s rants to the countrary is that What those of you on the Left claim Trump SHOULD have done – wopuld have been a crime. What he did do is not.
Bill Barr has not been the AG for over two years.
I would further note that while Bar was NOT AG Mueller investigated this and dropped it.
NO ONE is buying this claim.
NO one has “admitted” campaign finance violations. People have Speculated that is the weak Claim that Bragg is trying to make.
Whether you like it or not the Edwards case clarifies this is NOT a campaign finance violation.
Jonathan: Forget it. Changes of venue are seldom granted. Criminal defendant Donald Trump would love to move his trial to say–Staten Island where he won the 2016 election by 62%. Trump says the Island would be “a fair and secure location for the trial”. But voting numbers are not a basis for changes of venue. No doubt the Trumpster is not popular in Manhattan. But that’s not a basis for a change in venue. Elon Musk is not popular in San Francisco and he requested a change of venue out of SFO that was denied in his recent trial. Despite that Musk was given a fair trial and he was acquitted.
New York courts have taken the view that “detection of actual prejudice is not accomplished through juggling statistics”. In other words a criminal defendant is not entitled to shop around for a more favorable jury pool. But you think Judge Merchan should order a change of venue because (1) Bragg ran on a platform to get Trump; (2) the “totally of circumstances” involving a “highly prejudicial media and political elements” and (3) because of “Bragg’s slapdash legal production”. None of these will be factors in Judge Merchan’s considerations because none of these are a basis for a change in venue. So forget it. Never will happen!
Never say never! After then gubernatorial candidate Lee Zeldin was attacked in Upstate New York during the summer of 2022, there was a change of venue from Monroe County to Erie County. See also Ethical Guidelines for Prosecutors in New York State. https://www.daasny.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/The-Right-Thing-1.28.2021-1.pdf.
I hope that these guidelines are being followed throughout New York State.
Only when the defendant is a liberal.
A jury of your peers.
In this case, the court will likely deny the motion for a venue change, but it should grant it.
Two things: three years ago I would have said the merits of the venue-transfer motion make it more likely the could would grant it. Today, with justice having been perverted in so many ways simply to “get Trump,” I agree the court will deny.
Second, if it denies, under NY rules of criminal procedure, can Trump take an interlocutory appeal of that order so as to have it decided by the appellate courts before trial?
Turley didn’t think it was odd even Trump sought out judge Cannon, a trump appointment, to be biased towards trump. Clearly she was bending over backwards to accommodate Trump until the conservative appeals court bench slapped her for being a terrible judge.
Turley is being disingenuous as usual. It *seems* unfair that Trump is before this judge because he’s actually being held accountable. Bad mouthing the judge is not going to win him any favors either. Trump’s supporters are already lobbing threats at the judge and his family. The judge CAN order Trump to appear before him in NY and put a gag order on him. If Trump refuses to obey the judge CAN put him in jail until he does. Personally I hope that happens. Knowing Trump it’s more likely he will not be able to keep his mouth shut and will land himself in jail.
As for Bragg. Well he did state what the crime is. The second crime he’s keeping hidden is not required to be divulged until trial. That’s the beauty of Bragg’s strategy. He doesn’t violate the 6th amendment because he stated a crime which is falsification of documents. The 6th amendment only says “a”crime not “all” crimes must be stated. Keeping everyone guessing as to what the other crime is keeps everyone off balance and therefore leaving everyone with only assumptions. Even Turley can’t make a proper analysis which is the whole point.
Keeping Trump in suspense about what that crime may be part of the strategy. It seems to be working. Trump is bound to shoot his mouth off as usual and say something monumentally stupid to his detriment.
“Keeping Trump in suspense about what that crime
may be part of the strategy.Violates Trumps 6th amendment rights.
But you cant get your way by following the constitution.
There is no violation. That’s the point. He’s already charged with a crime. Everyone knows what the crime is. The 6th doesn’t require that every crime must be known right away. He can find out just prior to trial. Note there’s no time frame requirement.
Your too lazy to actual read the 6th amendment, or too stupid to understand it.
, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;
Trump has no Idea what the constitutes the crime. ALL legal minds have agreed on one thing. Bragg is using a ‘novel’ legal theory in order to get Trump. Part of that is stripping him of his constitutional protections against a corrupt govt.
You use “ALL” for “some,” and Trump was given a copy of his indictment, so he knows what the 34 counts are in his alleged felony.
so he knows what the 34 counts are in his alleged felony.
The 34 counts are Class E misdemeanors.
He has no idea what elevates them to a felony. , and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;
From what I’ve read, NY doesn’t require that that be included in the indictment. It will need to be stated, and I assume it will be.
Actually no everyone does NOT know what the crime is.
The crime charged is only a crime if it is fraudulently covering up another crime that has not been charged.
We are all speculating regarding the other crime. We are likely right. But that is irrelevant.
These charges should be dissmissed for failure to state a crime.
And yes the 5th and other amendments are implicated.
Prosecutors can add charges as further evidence is uncovered. Btu they can not hide the ball to game the system.
This is not only an important legal issue.
It is also a moral and ethical one – and this case already has far too many moral and ethical problems for democrats.
But keep compounding them.
I think the “other crime” has to be the crimes that Cohen pled guilty to – making the payments as a campaign violation. Cohen was already convicted and did time, so that crime is a matter of record. Remember, the statute does not say that Trump must have committed the other crime that is being concealed. “Conceal another crime” could be a crime done by someone else, in this case Cohen. And the beauty of this strategy is that the other crime was Federal, so it can’t be relitigated in a state court. A state court must take the federal conviction as a fact. By refusing to state the other crime that is the basis, that prevents Trump from going to Federal Court to get Cohen’s plea deal conviction overturned. If it was stated, Trump might have enough time before December to get a case into Federal Court somehow and relitigate Cohen’s plea deal.
as to be the crimes that Cohen pled guilty
Trump did not plead guilty. Cohens guilty plea has no bearing
iowan2,
The relevance is that Cohen’s federal conviction establishes the fact of “another crime”, which means the prosecution in the Trump case only needs to show the ‘intent’ part of “an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof”. Based on publicly known information stemming from the Cohen federal conviction, there’s a good deal of evidence showing that Trump was a co-conspirator in the 2015-2016 ‘catch and kill’ scheme with AMI that resulted in the 2017 reimbursement to Cohen, which should be enough to establish the felony-bumping intent for CPL 175.10.
Svelaz, at risk of being disingenuous yourself you fail to mention that in order for there to be a New York state felony crime of falsifying business records there must be an intent to commit another state felony crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof. No one need guess very long as to what the requisite second crime is in this case. It can only be one intended to influence a presidential election. A presidential election is a federal election. State attorneys have no jurisdiction over federal elections, which explains why Bragg has not stated it and for purely political reasons has left it to dangle for as long as he can. That in itself is alarming to anyone who respects representative democracy. It becomes downright chilling when there is a judge wholly on board with it.
Ron A. Hoffman, whether it’s a state or federal regulation is irrelevant. NY state law makes the intent itself a crime. That’s the point. It’s the evidence of the intent to commit to the falsification and hiding it by running the payments thru a shell company.
The irony here is if trump used campaign funds to pay off Stormy Daniels AND reported it in his FEC filings it would have been completely legal. Instead he chose to do it illegal by attempting to hide it AND falsified the records. The intent of falsifying the nature of the payments is the crime. It becomes a felony when its shown trump knowingly and deliberately chose to falsify documents and hide the nature of the payments.
A lot of people are ignorant of what the law in NY says is a crime. Bragg doesn’t have to prove to the state a crime. He has to prove the intent to commit one. He certainly has the evidence for that.
NY Penal L § 175.10 (2019)
§ 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree.
A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree
when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second
degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit
another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.
That is the New York state law under which the case is prosecuted. You deride “a lot of people” for being “ignorant” of it. It seems “a Lot of people” may include you.
For what purpose did Trump knowingly and deliberately choose to falsify documents and hide the nature of the payments? What is the other state law he violated? The fact is there is no other such state law, as shown by the very first paragraph of the indictment which states: The defendant DONALD J. TRUMP repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal criminal conduct that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 [presidential, i.e., federal election]. New York has its law against falsifying New York business records, but not any laws that regulate federal elections.
New York like all states is authorized by the federal government to prescribe the manner of conducting federal elections, but that does not extend to it any authority for enforcing federal campaign finance laws. On the national level, it is the Federal Election to Commission (FEC) that has that responsibility and authority. Established in 1975, the FEC manages public funding of presidential campaigns. It also oversees limits on campaign contributions and publishes information on how campaigns raise and spend money. The FEC regulates campaigns for the presidency, vice presidency, U.S. Senate, and U.S. House.
In this instance I take it back. You are not being disingenuous. You are instead at best simply misinformed or at worst wholly absorbed in confirmation bias.
Ron – You are right. As to Federal Elections the Federal Election Act provides, pursuant to Section 108.7 Effect on State Law (52 U.S.C. 30143), the following:
“(a) The provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, and rules and regulations issued thereunder, supersede and preempt any provision of State law with respect to election to Federal office….
(b) Federal law supersedes State law concerning the…
(2) Disclosure of receipts and expenditures by Federal candidates and political committees….”
States have no authority to prosecute Federal Law election violations. Bragg can’t play hide the crime because the 6th Amendment requires he disclose what the crime is.
What Bragg is doing is trying to bootstrap a state misdemeanor into a felony by alleging a Federal violation of the Federal Election law that states specifically that Federal law supersedes and preempts states law. Federal is the sole authority over Federal campaigns.
Ron A. Hoffman and Maj229,
In this case, “Federal law supersedes and preempts states law” means that New York is obligated to qualify the Cohen federal conviction and overall ‘catch and kill’ scheme with AMI as a ‘crime’ for the purpose of establishing “an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof” to upgrade CPL 175.05 to CPL 175.10.
Your basic misconceptions are one, that the 2nd crime for the felony-bumping intent under CPL 175.10 is limited to state law, which is belied by NY statute as well as the Supremacy clause, and two, that CPL 175.10 requires prosecution of the 2nd crime. In fact, CPL 175.10 only requires establishing intent regarding the 2nd crime, not a prosecution of the 2nd crime.
If NY law makes intent alone a crime – then that NY law is unconstitutional.
Crimes are ACTS. We have been through this before.
You are LITTERALLY channeling 1984.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime
https://imgs.search.brave.com/RRsaXM2HFF6YL9ZZ6bTd_PQzKWlgCll0Gc6MwEzOVP0/rs:fit:625:416:1/g:ce/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5x/dWlja21lbWUuY29t/L2ltZy85ZS85ZTIy/ZTA0YmUyNTUxMzk5/MGI5NWNmNDI2N2Mw/ZGVmYmU4ZTA0Mzhj/NjYzMDgzOWNkNjQ5/MDFiNGIzZTk0OTEy/LmpwZw
“The irony here is if trump used campaign funds to pay off Stormy Daniels AND reported it in his FEC filings it would have been completely legal”
Blatantly false.
This is an incredibly Stupid argument.
Not only is this pretty much what Edwards was prosecuted for – but Hillary was forced to pay large fines for a variation on the same thing.
The FEC does NOT consider paying for peoples silence to be a legitimate campaign expense.
Just as it does not consider paying russian spies to create OPO research from thin air a legitimate campaign expense.
Regardless, NDA’s are legal, sealed settlements are legal, private undisclosed settlements are legal.
You can not make it legal to contract for silence and then require disclosure by law.
That is absurd.
Your twisted – never before used idiotic legal claims are self contradictory.
Who did Trump hide something from who had a Right to know and was actually harmed by hiding it ?
The answer is trivial – no one.
Can the governmetn demand to know what you do consenually in your own bedroom ?
Of course not.
The right to privacy is enshrined in the constitution.
The reason that you are having so much trouble with this case – even on the left,
is that it is absurd.
“The intent of falsifying the nature of the payments is the crime.”
Nope, the NY statute requires that the falsified records conceal a felony.
There is no such thing as a crime of pure intent.
There MUST be an act that is a crime.
A lot of people are ignorant of the law – YOUI at the top of the list.
Pretty much always.
Anything you say about the law – one could just assume to be false and be correct 100% of the time.
Svelaz,
Your analysis is correct. Ron A. Hoffman fundamentally misconceives CPL 175.10 in two ways.
First, his characterization “there must be an intent to commit another *state felony* crime” is incorrect. He inserts “state felony”, which is not part of CPL 175.10. In fact, CPL 175.10 does not limit the 2nd crime for the felony-bumping intent to state law or felony. Moreover, per the Supremacy clause, a federal crime qualifies as “another crime” for CPL 175.10.
Second, his jurisdiction point is based on the misconception that the 2nd crime for the felony-bumping intent of CPL 175.10 must be prosecuted in its own right. In fact, only intent needs to be established. Furthermore, the premise doesn’t make sense as Cohen’s part in the ‘catch and kill’ scheme with AMI, which is cited in the statement of facts as the 2nd crime, is already adjudicated and on record as a crime. Even if hypothetically, CPL 175.10 required an independent prosecution of the 2nd crime, why would DANY re-prosecute a crime that was prosecuted and disposed in 2018?
“there must be an intent to commit another state felony crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof”
NY law doesn’t require that the other crime be a state crime, nor that the other crime be a felony:
“A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.”
“No one need guess very long as to what the requisite second crime is in this case. ”
Multiple possibilities have been raised: state or federal election crimes, state or federal tax crimes, conspiracy. But we won’t know until Bragg states what it is, and he is not yet required to state what it is.
It’s a New York state law. Of course, it requires another New York state crime. States, except for New York’s disregard apparently, understand they have no jurisdiction adjudicating federal crimes. It’s why there are federal courts. Come on, everyone, let’s get this understood.
No, it absolutely does not require another *state* crime. Read the plain wording of the text, which does not limit it in that way. Moreover, including an intent to commit/aid/conceal a *federal* crime does not require “adjudicating federal crimes.” Cohen, for example, was already adjudicated as having broken a federal campaign finance law. If Bragg shows that Trump falsified business records with the intent of concealing Cohen’s already adjudicated crime, that satisfies 175.1.
I say again, but with a caveat. Come on, everyone, let’s get this understood, i.e., everyone but Anonymous.
when his intent to defraud includes
Who was defrauded?
Presumably the state of NY. Ask Bragg if you want to know for certain.
Did Cannon violate the rules of ethics that she is subject to ?
Merchan did.
As to your claims regarding Cannon – she REMAINS correct on the law and the constitution.
The 11th Appellate remains OBVIOUSLY Wrong. They have gutted the 4th amendment.
Are you saying that if law enforcement manages to get a District Magistrate to sign off on a warrant – something that occurs Ex-Parte – i.e. without the other party present. That there is no means by which the party whose property was taken can challenge the government to demand the return of their property ?
And Please do not respond with this “classified BS”
First far more was taken than is allegedly classified.
Second as JW V. NARA already decided – and YOU are Well aware of even though you are constantly hiding from it.
Whether the material was classified or not – does not ALTER the FACT that it is STILL Trump’s property.
You can claim I am wrong – but even that claim is FOR A COURT TO DECIDE.
The decision of the 11th appellate is that Theft by Warrant has no remedy.
A right that can not be enforced in court does not exist.
“There is no campaign finance violation in Trump paying women to hush up alleged affairs. Moreover, even if there were a violation”
So is there a violation or not? The thing is we don’t have all the facts in the open yet. And Jonathan subtly admits it.
All too often Jonathan jumps to an all knowing position without all the facts. This is clearly one of those times as the DA has said not all the facts have been released. Does Jonathan know that was said to the grand jury? No, but he acts like he does.
What happened to the Repo anti crime crusade? They derided those on the left that called for defunding the police, now they are calling for the defunding of the police. You guys gotta get a grip on reality. Donald Trump is a world class a hole. You’re defending him will take the repo party down the toilet drain. Just look what happened in Wisconsin. Keep it up, support of trump will ensure demos keep winning.
Abortion, not Trump, was the primary issue giving liberals the win in judge’s race.
But Wisconsin Republicans won a supermajority in the state senate.
They now have the necessary votes to impeach statewide officials, including the state’s Democratic governor and potentially state supreme court justices. Let’s USE that power.
“Let’s USE that power.”
Are you suggesting they impeach liberal justices just because they can? or is there a legitimate reason?
Just curious how this fits with any known definition of democracy.
Merely suggesting that they use the power they have if necessary.
“Are you suggesting they impeach…just because they can?”
That’s what Democrats do.
I suggest now is the time to match them at their game.
Define “legitmate reason.”
Pelosi and Schumer’s definition of legitimate is: “For, and by, any means necessary to grab power.”
NO MORE MR. NICE GUY
“The best defense is a good offense.”
_____________________________
“[M]ake them believe, that offensive operations, often times, is the surest, if not the only (in some cases) means of defense.”
– George Washington, 1799
Bob, in America a person has the right to know what crime he is being charged with. In this case we have a ghost crime that has not been explained. Once again you use the same “just wait” argument that was used about the bogus RussiaGate hoax. If there is evidence of a crime why should we have to wait to know what the crime is? You should more diligently read your NewYork Times and watch the CNN segment covering the weakness of the Bragg indictment. Should we be surprised that you have missed these stories. I may be incorrect but I assume that you can read and see. I suspect the presence of a lazy eye.
Even if it wasn’t a crime for Trump to make those payments, Cohen already pled guilty to a federal campaign charge for making them – and that conviction is a matter of record. That is obviously the “other crime” that is the basis for Braggs charge of falsifying records to conceal another crime. It may not have really been a crime for Cohen to make them either, but Cohen was guilty of other things and pled guilty to this as part of a deal. I’m sure those federal prosecutors in Cohen’s case knew exactly what they were doing. By having Cohen plea guilty for the payments, they were setting up Trump to be prosecuted later for concealing those payments in business records under NY law. They went after Cohen to get Trump from the get-go, and Bragg is simply following the plan laid out years ago by Trump hating federal prosecutors in NYC. This is what Trump gets for making Sessions AG. He should have went with Guilliani, not Sessions.
“FEC: Trump-Stormy case ‘not a campaign finance violation’”
A key member of the Federal Election Commission today rejected the Manhattan district attorney’s indictment of former President Donald Trump as a violation of federal election laws.
“It’s not a campaign finance violation. It’s not a reporting violation of any kind,” said FEC Commissioner James E. “Trey” Trainor.
In trying to stretch the law to make it look like a violation, he added, District Attorney Alvin Bragg “is really trying to make a square peg fit into a round hole.”
– Washington Examiner, Paul Bedard, Washington Secrets Columnist, April 05 23
For the state of New York to constitutionally prosecute Trump criminally based upon falsification of business records in the payment of hush money, it is necessary to establish that it was done to conceal or further another crime. Of questionable concern for now is that New York despite its indictment and accompanying statement of facts has not said what the crime is. As discomforting as that is, it’s more than just a little chilling that the judge in the case is okay with not knowing himself what the crime is. Welcome to 21st Century America in the year 2023 when it firmly, if not officially, became standard practice for political partisans to willy nilly prosecute one another.
A number of analysts have said that the provision of NY state election law making it a crime to conspire unlawfully to promote a candidate does not apply to presidential elections. Does anyone know the basis for this conclusion?
True.
The law applyies only to persons running for local or State offices
Is that stated in the law, or is it inferred?
It’s jurisdictional.
https://www.masterclass.com/articles/politics-101-what-are-the-different-types-of-elections-in-america
This says nothing about the NY state law. Generally, the Constitution says that states, and in particular their legislatures, define the manner of federal elections. That is how some states require voter identification and limit absentee voting and ballot harvesting while others do not. So some state laws obviously do apply to federal elections. So what in the NY state law cited by Bragg makes it inapplicable to federal elections? Many have said it doesn’t apply but none has said why.
Judge Pirro on FOX spent several hours brushing up on the NY law. Only New York local or State elections
I heard her say that but she did not say how she reached her conclusion. The National Review and Andy McCarthy have said the same thing. But no one has said how they got there.
States do indeed prescribe the manner of conducting federal elections, but that does not extend to them any authority for enforcing federal campaign finance laws. On the national level, it is the Federal Election Commission (FEC) that has that responsibility and authority. Established in 1975, the FEC manages public funding of presidential campaigns. It also oversees limits on campaign contributions and publishes information on how campaigns raise and spend money. The FEC regulates campaigns for the presidency, vice presidency, U.S. Senate, and U.S. House.
It might be because a presidential election is a federal election.
Federal Election law prempts state election law in federal elections.
That would be presidential elections. Senate elections and the elections to the hose of representatives.