EX-PRESIDENT INDICTED

D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Spartan
That's up to the prosecution/defense and what the jury thinks for the most part. There some reason why you need special treatment?
No special treatment. Just asking for what the felony is.
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
No special treatment. Just asking for what the felony is.
They'll have to prove that violated elevating crime I assume....can't tell you why it isn't in (or needs to be) in that indictment. Apparently enough evidence for a grand jury to go ahead with indictment. Let the system work instead of being tried in the media....
 
isolar8001

isolar8001

Audioholic General
This will all come down to the Pecker Factor...and you better bet that Pecker has every call, text, etc..etc..recorded and documented concerning keeping harmful facts away from the voters about Trumpy.
A willful scheme to influence election results.
Election Fraud....A Federal and State Felony.
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
Would this count?
Legislation | NY State Senate (nysenate.gov)
is in that Washington post.
Here's the text of the law:

>>>§ 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.<<<

The statute of limitations on second degree falsifying (a misdemeanor) has run so the prosecutor will need to show falsifying and "his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof."

The indictment repeats the wording of the statute without specifying the second crime.

There are two prime candidates for the second crime: 1) violation of state election laws, or 2) violation of federal election laws.

Simplifying for purposes of discussion, the arguments against these two possibilities are: 1) he was running for federal office which is not governed by state election laws, and 2) a state criminal action cannot be based on a violation of federal law because a state court has no power to decide a federal legal question.

I'm not saying these arguments will necessarily be successful, but the outcome is not clear.

This NYT article has a pretty decent discussion of the legal issues:

>>>For starters, it is unclear whether [Bragg] would cite a federal or state election law violation, or even both. And with either choice, there could be pitfalls.

If his office uses a federal election violation as the second crime, Mr. Trump’s lawyers could argue that federal law has no place in state court. And if he uses a New York election law violation, the defense could claim that a violation of state law does not apply to a federal election — in this case, the 2016 presidential campaign.

“Generally, someone can’t be prosecuted for violating a contribution limit in a federal election in a state court,” said Richard L. Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, who specializes in election law. . . .

Against that backdrop, Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors appear to have taken a more favorable view of using a state election law violation, according to people with knowledge of their thinking. The laws governing elections in New York are unusual in that they explicitly apply to federal elections, not just state elections. And New York state prosecutors have secured at least one conviction in a case in which they combined falsifying business records charges with state election law crimes, though that case involved a state election, not a federal one. . . .

Any state election law that the district attorney might pair with the falsifying business records charge may have to make it through a gantlet: Federal campaign finance law explicitly states that it overrides — pre-empts, in legal terminology — state election law when it comes to campaign donation limits. . . .

But there are exceptions to federal pre-emption contained in regulations from the Federal Election Commission, known as the F.E.C. And it is possible that the other law, 17-152, which makes it illegal to conspire to promote the election of any candidate “by unlawful means,” may be able to avoid triggering federal pre-emption. That law does not deal explicitly with contribution limits.

In short, it may be the strongest option for Mr. Bragg.

“It appears that this provision, which prohibits unlawfully promoting an election, could fit into one of the F.E.C. exceptions,” said Jerry H. Goldfeder, a special counsel at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP and a recognized expert in New York state election law.<<<


In other words, Bragg will probably need to show that the falsification was done with the intent to violate a specific state election law, and that this specific state election law is not preempted by federal law.
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Spartan
They'll have to prove that violated elevating crime I assume....can't tell you why it isn't in (or needs to be) in that indictment. Apparently enough evidence for a grand jury to go ahead with indictment. Let the system work instead of being tried in the media....
If the misdemeanor is covering the higher crime (felony), you still need to tell me what the higher crime is. Bragg does not. Yet they are proceeding. I'd be very concerned.
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Spartan
9th circuit rewarded Trump with $120,000 over the Stormy Daniels case. Maybe Mr. Clark can elaborate, but I am assuming that brings in question on the validity of the case. There was another $500k rewarded I believe which might be damages.
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Spartan
9th circuit rewarded Trump with $120,000 over the Stormy Daniels case. Maybe Mr. Clark can elaborate, but I am assuming that brings in question on the validity of the case. There was another $500k rewarded I believe which might be damages.
Exactly which case and what context?
 
jinjuku

jinjuku

Moderator
It has to do better.
Like LAST election we can vote. We did fine then, we can do fine again. I know he's a slime ball, certainly could have done something illegal, this still smacks of political theater to make sure he's not an option. Still smacks like the politico's are afraid.

Don't be afraid... DO BETTER! Jesus H. Christ.
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Spartan
Like LAST election we can vote. We did fine then, we can do fine again. I know he's a slime ball, certainly could have done something illegal, this still smacks of political theater to make sure he's not an option. Still smacks like the politico's are afraid.

Don't be afraid... DO BETTER! Jesus H. Christ.
Having a fascist in power should make you afraid as well, but come 2024 with criminal defendant Trump vs President Biden: Will you vote for Trump?
 
ellisr63

ellisr63

Full Audioholic
It has to do better.
I am against age discrimination, but come on...why do we have to get people in their 70s as candidates? How about Presidential candidates in their 30s to 50s? Biden or Trump would be in their 80s before their term would be over if they get elected.
 
jinjuku

jinjuku

Moderator
Having a fascist in power should make you afraid as well, but come 2024 with criminal defendant Trump vs President Biden: Will you vote for Trump?
I didn't vote for Trump the past two elections. Whether or not he's in power is a collective decision. You let me know which form of fascism is preferable.

I don't know if he is or isn't going to be found criminally liable. What I DO know however is if none of this sticks there WILL be something else they will try. They will try because they are afraid of a fair and free election. I'm not sure what other way I'm supposed to see this if that turns out to be the case.

I have faith as a country we can vote in our best interest. While I don't think we got it right in 2016 the system worked both in 2016 and 2020.
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Spartan
I didn't vote for Trump the past two elections. Whether or not he's in power is a collective decision. You let me know which form of fascism is preferable.

I don't know if he is or isn't going to be found criminally liable. What I DO know however is if none of this sticks there WILL be something else they will try. They will try because they are afraid of a fair and free election.

I have faith as a country we can vote in our best interest. While I don't think we got it right in 2016 the system worked both in 2016 and 2020.
Two forms of fascism? Are you saying that Biden is a fascist?

A number of Republican officials, state as federal, did their duty during the 2020 election. Many/most paid a steep price for their defence of democracy and election integrity. Judges, federal as state did the same. Hopefully that'll be the case in 2024 as well, but with the current GOP, I'm not so sure what will happen.
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
I am against age discrimination, but come on...why do we have to get people in their 70s as candidates? How about Presidential candidates in their 30s to 50s? Biden or Trump would be in their 80s before their term would be over if they get elected.
I would think that you'd need more than just 30s-50s. Experience, wisdom, knowledge of the world.
Not a simple job, not a figure head like the monarchy in England.
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Spartan
I would think that you'd need more than just 30s-50s. Experience, wisdom, knowledge of the world.
Not a simple job, not a figure head like the monarchy in England.
There have been a number of comparatively young persons as head of state or prime minister over the decades here in Europe. The current average is 53 years or so, and is on a downward trend from over 65 years old in the 80'ies.

 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
...

I don't know if he is or isn't going to be found criminally liable. What I DO know however is if none of this sticks there WILL be something else they will try. They will try because they are afraid of a fair and free election. I'm not sure what other way I'm supposed to see this if that turns out to be the case.

I have faith as a country we can vote in our best interest. While I don't think we got it right in 2016 the system worked both in 2016 and 2020.
He is facing a number of other charges that are being investigated so this current indictment is not a single win or lose proposition.
The document case is serious, and evidence is piling up.

You cannot have fair and free election when some states are racing to give power to legislators to overturn voters votes. Not to mention serious gerrymandering in a number of states. At least in Wisconsin, that may be history by next election.
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
Exactly which case and what context?
This was a defamation lawsuit (civil action) brought by Stormy Daniels in 2018. I have not read all of the court documents, but the court apparently tossed the case on the basis that is was frivolous (trump's tweet was protected by the First Amendment), and awarded attorney's fees to Trump.

There are a couple things about the case that are moderately interesting, even though it has nothing to do with the criminal case in NY.

First, the Ninth Circuit upheld the damages award to Trump despite the Ninth Circuit (allegedly) being very liberal. In the Florida special master case, the (allegedly) conservative 11th Circuit ruled against Trump. I mention this because the vast majority of cases involve settled law and the outcome is typically not the result of a political bias of the court.

Second, this might fall into the "Captain Obvious" category, but the award of attorney's fees in the Stormy Daniels defamation case demonstrates that there is financial risk in filing frivolous lawsuits. There seems to a be conventional wisdom of sorts that the courts are flooded with frivolous lawsuits because one can bring a frivolous lawsuit and walk away with a big settlement risk-free. There are clearly some frivolous lawsuits, but filing one is far from risk-free.

This is just trivia, but the defamation lawsuit was filed by Avenatti, my poster boy for what not to do as a lawyer.

>>>In that tweet, Trump called the composite sketch “a total con job.” The lawsuit says Daniels suffered damages in excess of $75,000. “By calling the incident a ‘con job,’ Mr. Trump’s statement would be understood to state that Ms. Clifford was fabricating the crime and the existence of the assailant, both of which are prohibited under New York law, as well as the law of numerous other states,” Avenatti wrote in the lawsuit.<<<


Avenatti's representation of her didn't end well:

>>>A federal judge in New York on Thursday sentenced disgraced lawyer Michael Avenatti to four years in prison for stealing from his former client, onetime adult film actor Stormy Daniels, who wrote an explosive 2018 book. . . . Avenatti is already in custody, following his 2020 conviction for extortion, transmission of interstate communications with intent to extort and wire fraud in connection with threats he made against the sports equipment giant Nike. He was sentenced to 2½ years behind bars for those crimes. The former lawyer will have to serve another 2½ years in custody, for the Daniels matter, once that Nike time is done.<<<


He was recently sentenced to another 14 years behind bars and ordered to pay about $10 million.

>>>Michael Avenatti, the once-swaggering celebrity lawyer who was undone by his proclivity for embezzlement and fraud, was sentenced Monday to 14 years in prison for dodging taxes and stealing millions of dollars from clients. . . . He [the judge] ordered Avenatti to pay $7.6 million in restitution to victims and $3.2 million to the government.

Avenatti, 51, is already serving five years in prison for extortion and fraud convictions at two trials in New York. Selna said he must start serving the 14-year sentence after he completes the current stint behind bars, so the penalty for Avenatti’s full array of crimes is 19 years in prison.<<<

 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Spartan
You cannot have fair and free election when some states are racing to give power to legislators to overturn voters votes. Not to mention serious gerrymandering in a number of states. At least in Wisconsin, that may be history by next election
That liberal woman won the seat in Wisconsin Supreme Court by 11% or so. @highfigh has been awfully quiet, perhaps he’s in chock and denial? :D
 
jinjuku

jinjuku

Moderator
Two forms of fascism? Are you saying that Biden is a fascist?
If Trump goes through this process and is acquitted I will not be surprised when there is something else in the works and something else after that.

All Biden and the Dem's have to do is a better job. Simply offer a better product.
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top