Trump NY indictment thread

[kage69]

Georgia governor doesn’t have pardon powers.

I too was unaware of this, thought he did. Looked it up:

"The Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles is a five-member panel authorized to grant paroles, pardons, reprieves, remissions, commutations, and to remove civil and political disabilities imposed by law. Created by Constitutional amendment in 1943, it is part of the executive branch of Georgia's government. Members are appointed by the governor to staggered, renewable seven-year terms subject to confirmation by the State Senate."

Kemp is a dirtbag, his reluctance to follow Trump into the legal briar patch doesn't change that. I would be suspicious of anyone he (or Perdue) selected for anything, so I looked up the board. I'd say two of the five strike me as possible Trumpets, the other three probably not. Feeling better about this now.

 

[sportage]

Another observation...
I keep hearing how this indictment is helping Trump sooooo much. Raising millions, unity over at Fox, unity with republicans in congress, and today Fox claimed that because of indictment Donald Trump would win the nomination hands down.
Hey folks, do not believe any of this. It's all lies, it's all spin, it's just an extension of the rigged election claims with pushing something that clearly isn't true.

Look at the protests, only a hand-full at best. Look at the spin, claiming that every republican voter is on board. Claiming that every republican voter is in Trump's pocket.
I don't think so. And none of the polls are going to convince me. Thus far the only hard liners showing undying loyalty to Trump are the republican house maga extremist. House members like MTGreene. I truly doubt that many republicans out there relate or align with MTGreene, except for the QAnon's.

The only people pushing how great Trump is and how easily he will win in 2024 are the hosts and guest over at Fox News. Fox keeps feeding, dishing out this nonsense believing that if they repeat it over and over then it will come true. Again, I don't think so. The polls do not show this when they claim a majority feel the Trump indictment was unfair yet they also support and agree with Trump having been indicted. Somethings screwy with those polls just as the screwy claims Trump won in 2020.

We will constantly hear from Fox and from the maga in congress of how popular and loved Trump is, and keep hearing this every hour until the trial actually begins.
I say ok then, let's have those elections right now today and lets just see how popular Donald Trump really is, and really is among republicans.
What Fox News mimics is not the thing to watch, the thing to watch and the real clues as to Donald Trump and republican changes come 2024 are the small elections happening now.

Liberal Janet Protasiewicz just won Wisconsin’s Supreme Court election, there is a clue to watch of where the voters are. Voters did not want republican legislators controlling abortion rights nor dictating to school boards. And Brandon Johnson won his election for Chicago mayor, the liberal democrat beating out the conservative democrat. Something liberal is going.

I believe that abortion rights will still be a major issue in 2024. Abortion rights and republican attacks on LGBTQ, attacks on schools, attacks on library books, and attacks on teachers. Right there could be the win for democrats come 2024.

 

[Brainonska511]

Kemp and Trump aren't exactly on the same page, i wouldn't count on a GA pardon.

Also, Georgia is one of 3 states where the governor doesn't have pardon powers. Granted, the Georgia governor appoints the board members who can decide on pardons, he doesn't hold the power directly.

 

[SMOGZINN]

As to this case, Bragg seems to disagree with Vance that it is necessary for Trump to have been convicted by DoJ for the federal election felony. He seems to think it's enough that Cohen was prosecuted for it, and implicated Trump in his guilty plea allocution. So Bragg is attempting to do here essentially what DoJ has failed and refused to do. His case is really more about the underlying election law felony than it is about business records.

I'm no legal expert, but It seems to me that this is a major problem in Bragg's case. Trumps lawyers are going to argue, and with some merit, that Trump is presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law, so how can these other indictments rely on him being guilty of something that he has not even been indicted for? They are going to say that Trump has not even officially been accused of this crime, and unless the DoJ presses charges against him these indictments can not stand.

I think that argument might get a judge to toss out the charges and tell Bragg to come back once there is at least a indictment on the crime that he is basing his argument on.
Perhaps Bragg is delaying the trial so long because he has some inside knowledge that the DoJ is going to charge Trump? Probably not. Probably he just knows that discovery with Trump is going to be a slog.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm no legal expert, but It seems to me that this is a major problem in Bragg's case. Trumps lawyers are going to argue, and with some merit, that Trump is presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law, so how can these other indictments rely on him being guilty of something that he has not even been indicted for? They are going to say that Trump has not even officially been accused of this crime, and unless the DoJ presses charges against him these indictments can not stand.

I think that argument might get a judge to toss out the charges and tell Bragg to come back once there is at least a indictment on the crime that he is basing his argument on.
Perhaps Bragg is delaying the trial so long because he has some inside knowledge that the DoJ is going to charge Trump? Probably not. Probably he just knows that discovery with Trump is going to be a slog.

I think the idea that Bragg is basing his case on Trump's violation of federal election law is wrong. All you need is falsifying business records in furtherance of any other crime. That can include things as simple as another business falsifying their records and you cooking your books to make it match up.

EDIT: Also, the indictment states it was done for tax purposes, which would be tax fraud in NYS. Since the DA hasn't laid out his theory of the case yet though this is all just people speculating based on nothing.

 

[UNCjigga]

So…I’m hearing lots of conjecture (nothing concrete) that the DA has AUDIO TAPES of Trump, Cohen and Pecker discussing the catch and kill scheme, and Trump specifically directing Pecker to delay actual payments for hush money agreements until after the election (presumably because they wouldn’t have to actually pay as the news wouldn’t matter) while, for business purposes, Trump Org would immediately record these expenses and be reimbursed from the campaign, which also amounted to NY tax fraud.

Still trying to get my head around the “whole” case and what “other crimes” Bragg is referring to, but it does follow that he could be referring to federal crimes committed be Trump that were never prosecuted by DOJ.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I think the idea that Bragg is basing his case on Trump's violation of federal election law is wrong. All you need is falsifying business records in furtherance of any other crime. That can include things as simple as another business falsifying their records and you cooking your books to make it match up.

EDIT: Also, the indictment states it was done for tax purposes, which would be tax fraud in NYS. Since the DA hasn't laid out his theory of the case yet though this is all just people speculating based on nothing.

Fair enough, but no matter what crime he is basing his legal argument off of, we know that Trump has not been found guilty of it. So, he has the same problem no matter if it is tax fraud or campaign finance, Trump is presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law.

 

[UNCjigga]

I'm no legal expert, but It seems to me that this is a major problem in Bragg's case. Trumps lawyers are going to argue, and with some merit, that Trump is presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law, so how can these other indictments rely on him being guilty of something that he has not even been indicted for? They are going to say that Trump has not even officially been accused of this crime, and unless the DoJ presses charges against him these indictments can not stand.

I think that argument might get a judge to toss out the charges and tell Bragg to come back once there is at least a indictment on the crime that he is basing his argument on.
Perhaps Bragg is delaying the trial so long because he has some inside knowledge that the DoJ is going to charge Trump? Probably not. Probably he just knows that discovery with Trump is going to be a slog.

So…there’s another theory out there, that because Bragg is linking falsification of business records to tax fraud, and because of the lengthy delay until December for the next court date (neither side is rushing here)—there’s a small chance Bragg has another ace up his sleeve and may in fact revive the Cy Vance tax fraud case and link these two cases as one big tax fraud case/conspiracy. He would need to have evidence of another crime (unknown to us at this point) linked to that case that would nullify the statute of limitations.

 

[HomerJS]

Really wish that GA or J6 cases would have come first, if they will come at all. This just looks weak. If you're gonna take your shot, make it count, not try to get the guy on some weak white collar crime. If you're going to risk all this backlash, potential violence, and push GOP state legislatures to try to find ways to retaliate (look at TN, NC) and/or set the stage for 2024 shenanigans, at least make it worth it.

The first hearing for the Manhattan case isn't until Dec. That trial not likely to start this year. Leaves plenty of time for the following to begin...

E. Jean Carroll rape case (starts April)
Georgia election fraud case
MAL documents obstruction case
Jan 6 insurrection case

whew!!!

 

[fskimospy]

Fair enough, but no matter what crime he is basing his legal argument off of, we know that Trump has not been found guilty of it. So, he has the same problem no matter if it is tax fraud or campaign finance, Trump is presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law.

It doesn't have to be a crime that Trump himself committed and it doesn't have to be a crime someone is charged with or convicted of. The requirement is 'intent to commit another crime'.

 

[HomerJS]

Since this boils down to legal mumbo jumbo, the MAGA and especially the MTGreene's out there will absolutely never be unable to understand any of this legally speaking. They'll just keep harping on their talking points to defend Messiah and ignore the legality.

However.... I do believe a new hero is emerging, that being DA Alvin Bragg. I'll go as far as to predict that Alvin Bragg will be labeled as the modern day J Edgar Hoover, minus J Edgar's strange peccadillos and shortcomings.
You heard it here first folks...

I'm not sure J. Edgar Hoover is a compliment considering what he did to MLK.

If he is successful, I would compare him to a modern day combination of Elliot Ness and IRS Special Agent Frank Wilson. They were responsible for bringing down Al Capone.

 

[HomerJS]

Also, Georgia is one of 3 states where the governor doesn't have pardon powers. Granted, the Georgia governor appoints the board members who can decide on pardons, he doesn't hold the power directly.

Watch for a massive turnover of the GA pardon board if Trump is convicted. I did see where 5 years is required to serve to be eligible. I bet they change that rule too.

 

[skyking]

So…I’m hearing lots of conjecture (nothing concrete) that the DA has AUDIO TAPES of Trump, Cohen and Pecker discussing the catch and kill scheme, and Trump specifically directing Pecker to delay actual payments for hush money agreements until after the election (presumably because they wouldn’t have to actually pay as the news wouldn’t matter) while, for business purposes, Trump Org would immediately record these expenses and be reimbursed from the campaign, which also amounted to NY tax fraud.

Still trying to get my head around the “whole” case and what “other crimes” Bragg is referring to, but it does follow that he could be referring to federal crimes committed be Trump that were never prosecuted by DOJ.

It would be perfect justice if those tapes sunk him, being who he is.
He stiffed working people all over and this scheme of not paying the hush money is right up his alley.

 

[hal2kilo]

1) 3M PV delta in 2016 vs. 7M in 2020
2) PV is minimally meaningful when the key to victory is the EC, where the vote delta was much closer. what was it, something like 100k votes in certain swing states would have been the difference between biden and a trump redux?

Looks like Michigan and NOW Wisconsin are not a Republican giveaway this time around regarding the EC.

 

[hal2kilo]

So where the mug shot at?

Supposedly, the Trump team wanted one so the could sell T-shirts with his mug shot on it. Pubs have strange ideas, that's all I can say.

 

[interchange]

Fair enough, but no matter what crime he is basing his legal argument off of, we know that Trump has not been found guilty of it. So, he has the same problem no matter if it is tax fraud or campaign finance, Trump is presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law.

This isn't some special problem. All criminal defendants must be proven guilty by a beyond reasonable doubt standard in court for all elements of a crime. Not having previously been found guilty of another crime is not required to prosecute. It may be helpful if he were in proving a case, but even if he had been tried and acquitted for a prior charge it wouldn't prevent them from pursuing felony falsifying business records charges. It would probably be a bad idea, mind you.

It doesn't have to be a crime that Trump himself committed and it doesn't have to be a crime someone is charged with or convicted of. The requirement is 'intent to commit another crime'.

If the statute is intent to commit another crime than that's what needs to be proven. There are scenarios where you can have criminal intent behind one action but fail to follow through with the action in the end. In this case, Trump followed through, but regardless what they have to prove is that his intent in falsifying the records was for a criminal purpose regardless of whether that crime was carried through or could be proven.

 

[woolfe9998]

I think the idea that Bragg is basing his case on Trump's violation of federal election law is wrong. All you need is falsifying business records in furtherance of any other crime. That can include things as simple as another business falsifying their records and you cooking your books to make it match up.

EDIT: Also, the indictment states it was done for tax purposes, which would be tax fraud in NYS. Since the DA hasn't laid out his theory of the case yet though this is all just people speculating based on nothing.

Yet in his presser Bragg explicity stated that the other crimes were violations of federal and state election laws. And that is all he said. You can find it here at 55:00 or take my word on it if you don't want to watch it.

 

[woolfe9998]

It doesn't have to be a crime that Trump himself committed and it doesn't have to be a crime someone is charged with or convicted of. The requirement is 'intent to commit another crime'.

Yes, but it would have been a lot easier for a NY prosecution had the feds prosecuted and convicted Trump. Vance specifically said he did not prosecute Trump because of lack of cooperation from DoJ. He must have viewed that crime has having proof problems because of Cohen's credibility and he wanted DoJ to take the risk of losing that case, then if they won, his business records case would be easy to prove. While Bragg is willing to take on the risk of having to prove it himself.

 

[fskimospy]

Yet in his presser Bragg explicity stated that the other crimes were violations of federal and state election laws. And that is all he said. You can find it here at 55:00 or take my word on it if you don't want to watch it.

Yet in the statement of facts he wrote that Trump mischaracterized the payments for tax purposes.

Analysis: A Surprise Accusation Bolsters a Risky Case Against Trump (Published 2023)

The unsealed case against Donald J. Trump accuses him of falsifying records in part to lay the groundwork for planned lies to tax authorities.

www.nytimes.com

 

[woolfe9998]

Yet in the statement of facts he wrote that Trump mischaracterized the payments for tax purposes.

Analysis: A Surprise Accusation Bolsters a Risky Case Against Trump (Published 2023)

The unsealed case against Donald J. Trump accuses him of falsifying records in part to lay the groundwork for planned lies to tax authorities.

www.nytimes.com

Yes I read it, but in the presser he only speaks of NY and federal election laws. Probably because that was a completed crime that was a conspiracy of Trump, Cohen and Pecker, and the other two will testify against Trump. No one has charged Trump or anyone else with tax crimes relating to these falsified records.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes I read it, but in the presser he only speaks of NY and federal election laws. Probably because that was a completed crime that was a conspiracy of Trump, Cohen and Pecker, and the other two will testify against Trump. No one has charged Trump or anyone else with tax crimes relating to these falsified records.

Well we will have to see as Bragg hasn't detailed his evidence or his theory of the law.

 

[woolfe9998]

Well we will have to see as Bragg hasn't detailed his evidence or his theory of the law.

True, he has not done that. Todd was asking Vance if we could expect that, and Vance said usually that is the case, but Bragg is holding back for now. Still, he has said enough that we know his underlying crime is a violation of federal and state election laws, and if I'm reading the state law correctly, it says it is a crime "to conspire to promote a candidate through unlawful means." Another statute referring to "another crime" which in his case could only be the violation of federal election laws.

The tax issue I think is a fallback for Bragg, but he has undermined that by saying the intent behind the falsification was to cover up a violation of election laws if at trial he's going to say the intent was to commit tax fraud. He clearly thinks the better underlying crime is the election laws or he wouldn't be leading with that.

 

[HomerJS]

Looks like Michigan and NOW Wisconsin are not a Republican giveaway this time around regarding the EC.

But now North Carolina is. With the new supermajority they can create an alternate slate of electors against the will of their people.

 

[echo4747]

In the event Trump is found guilty and sentenced to prison, does he still have secret service protection? If so, will the agents spend their time in prison with him?

 

[fskimospy]

True, he has not done that. Todd was asking Vance if we could expect that, and Vance said usually that is the case, but Bragg is holding back for now. Still, he has said enough that we know his underlying crime is a violation of federal and state election laws, and if I'm reading the state law correctly, it says it is a crime "to conspire to promote a candidate through unlawful means." Another statute referring to "another crime" which in his case could only be the violation of federal election laws.

I don't think we know that as shown specifically in his written statements delivered to the public explaining the indictment. While I expect violations of state and federal campaign laws are SOME of those potential underlying crimes we definitely can't say they are the only ones.