Post New

The NY Post is reporting that Trump's 34 felony count indictment carries a maximum of 136 years in prison.

https://twitter.com/CalltoActivism/status/16433363...

Remember when the Republican party at least pretended to be the law and order party?

Ah good times...

For those who want to read it, here is the indictment:

https://www.scribd.com/document/636099588/Donald-J...

However, it's not very illuminating. It does little more than identify the 34 business records that the DA is asserting violated Section 175.10 of the Penal Code.

Remember when the Republican party at least pretended to be the law and order party?


==================

Remember when the accused was innocent until proven guilty?

Despite what Nancy Pelosi says....

Here's the accompanying statement of facts, which provides the narrative explanation for what the State is alleging happened:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/84fba797-...

Remember when the accused was innocent until proven guilty?

Hasn't changed.

That's why he's facing a trial by jury intead of being thrown in jail. The indictments describe only what he's accused of, not what he's been found guilty'or innocent'of

And we as individuals are allowed to think he MAY be guilty or MAY be innocent. But we all have to wait to see what occurs during the trial. And then abide with the jury's decision.

Question: Legally, what's the difference between "orchestrated a scheme with others" and conspiracy?

Remember when the accused was innocent until proven guilty?

Are you referring to Bragg or FatDon?

I'm pretty sure FatDon flew back to Mag A Lago unscathed while right-wing media is riling up the lynching squads.

<Remember when the accused was innocent until proven guilty?>

Pro tip: If you spent the last six years screaming LOCK HER UP, you don't get to now blubber through your tears about 'innocent until proven guilty.'
Dry your eyes and grow up, snowflakes.

Have great evening!

34 felonies seems excessive. I get that they're "Charging" for each "instance" but this reads very much like the show trial farce that it is.

At any rate, democrats should tread carefully here. There are plenty of Red State AG's who would love to endear themselves with the base by engaging in some t1t for tat.

For all the blubbering snowflakes on this auspicious day or our lord... (and any Randy Raibow fans that might be lurking, this may be his finest production evah!

The Grumpy Trumpy Felon from Jamaica in Queens!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ues8ycOxXKM

Booyah!

The description I heard was that Bragg outlined a few different pathways that conspiracy could be formed, and it need not be charged, only the intent need be established to bump it up from a misdemeanor to a felony. So you could show intent for a federal conspiracy charge, which can't be charged by the state, but the intent can be used to establish a state felony. New to me.

Remember when the accused was innocent until proven guilty?

The thing about this one is half the population are going to continue to believe he's guilty, even if found not guilty ("They just didn't get enough evidence to convict him, and/or the system is rigged"), and the other half are going to continue to believe he's not guilty even if found guilty ("It's a political witch hunt, and/or the system is rigged").

Whatever the outcome, it's not going to move the needle much on public perception.

And good luck finding twelve impartial jurors with IQs above 7. If it takes a 12-0 vote to find him guilty, I don't think there's much chance of that happening.

<<Whatever the outcome, it's not going to move the needle much on public perception.

That's probably true, but it's the impact of a conviction that's important.

The only penalties the Trump gang has suffered on their numerous fraud lawsuits has been fines and settlements. Even if FatDon is convicted he'll be fined and, at the most, given probation. If that prevents the mango mussolini from running for office, that's either good or bad depending on who fills his fat seat for the QOP.

And good luck finding twelve impartial jurors with IQs above 7. If it takes a 12-0 vote to find him guilty, I don't think there's much chance of that happening.

That's assuming the judge doesn't just throw it out. You can pay off a pron star and have her sign an NDA so your wife doesn't find out; that's not illegal.

That's assuming the judge doesn't just throw it out. You can pay off a pron star and have her sign an NDA so your wife doesn't find out; that's not illegal.

That is true. However, what's not legal is creating false business records to hide the fact that you paid off a pron star.

Had DJT actually retained a lawyer to negotiate an NDA with her, and then paid her the $130K and paid the lawyer for his services, then there would be no violation. But that's not what he did. Instead, he had Cohen pay the $130K out of pocket, had Cohen pretend that there was a fictional retainer agreement covering that matter (where none existed), and then paid Cohen monthly with invoices and checks that were labeled as payment for legal services (where none were provided).

That's actually a pretty cut and dried instance of falsifying business records. There doesn't seem to be any dispute that Trump knowingly participated in an effort to create a false paper trail for these payments so that there would be no record of the actual transaction (a payment to Daniels). You're allowed to try to keep your pron star affairs secret; you're clearly not allowed to create fictitious business records to do it. Which is why even some critics of the prosecution aren't basing their criticism on the idea that DJT didn't break the law. Bragg could probably prove misdemeanor falsifying business records from just the documents.

The stretch is in elevating that from a misdemeanor to a felony. To be a felony, falsifying business records has to be in furtherance of committing a crime. Bragg has pointed to campaign finance violations, both state and federal....but there he's out on more of a limb. Now he has to prove more than just that DJT falsified these records - he has to prove why they were falsified, for what purpose. And there he'll be relying on the testimony of Cohen and someone from the Enquirer (not sure who) to talk about Trump's statements.

That additional element is vulnerable on the facts and the law. On the law, it's not entirely clear that the NY Penal Code includes federal crimes for the higher class of business record crime. Nor is it entirely clear that making expenditures for two plausible purposes constitutes an unlawful campaign contribution. And on the facts, Cohen's a pretty damaged witness (having been convicted of a crime of dishonesty), and it's not clear what they've got on the Enquirer side.

The upshot? Trump almost certainly committed a misdemeanor. He may not have committed a felony - and even if he did, it will be hard to prove it.

Dope1: <You can pay off a pron star and have her sign an NDA so your wife doesn't find out; that's not illegal.

Except Trump directed Cohen to delay making the payment to Daniels for "as long as possible". He reasoned that if he could delay the payment until after the election, he could avoid paying altogether, because at that point it would not matter if the story became public.

IOW, the payment was to influence the election, not to keep Melania from learning of the payment.

Pecker will certainly confirm this point.

That is true. However, what's not legal is creating false business records to hide the fact that you paid off a pron star.

Dershowitz covered this yesterday. Literally no one has ever put on an accounting form "$X - Payoff for my lawyer bribing a couple of hookers".

The upshot? Trump almost certainly committed a misdemeanor. He may not have committed a felony - and even if he did, it will be hard to prove it.

Every legal analyst I've seen has looked at this and gone uhhhhhhh....when it comes to stretching these into felonies. The misdemeanor statute of limitations ran out years ago, so there's no there there. If Bragg thinks he can claim a crime was committed for purposes of the election, he loses because the FEC will testify there was nothing there either.

Dope1: Dershowitz covered this yesterday. Literally no one has ever put on an accounting form "$X - Payoff for my lawyer bribing a couple of hookers".

So, what, his only alternative was to set up a shell corporation as a pass-through and then make false business records to conceal the six-figure payoff? Best case scenario for Trump is he's guilty of multiple misdemeanors; there's literally no dispute that he committed those crimes. In NY, if you commit one crime to cover up another crime, it gets a felony bump (even if both crimes are misdemeanors).

Rest easy, though, these charges will be forgotten in a New York minute when Trump is indicted for obstruction and other crimes related to stealing top secret documents and indicted again for plotting an insurrection. I will admit to doubting Willis bringing charges in Georgia... those 'imminent' charges against multiple individuals is taking way too long.

Literally no one has ever put on an accounting form "$X - Payoff for my lawyer bribing a couple of hookers".

That's probably true. But what's also true is if they put on their accounting form, "$X - payment for legal services pursuant to retainer agreement" when the money wasn't for those things, but was instead to bribe a couple of hookers, then they would be falsifying business records in violation of NY state law.

You're not allowed to do that. You can't cover up the payment with false business records.

If Bragg thinks he can claim a crime was committed for purposes of the election, he loses because the FEC will testify there was nothing there either.

That's certainly a possibility. The judge could rule that there's no FEC violation as a matter of law. Or that you can't use a federal crime as the predicate for an enhancement for that specific state crime. Either of which would torpedo Bragg's case. He certainly committed a misdemeanor, even though he might beat it on the statute of limitations.

Andy McCarthy has an analysis piece up:


https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/04/braggs-indi...
The worst due-process abuse of Bragg's indictment, however, is that . . . it's not an indictment. The Constitution's Fifth Amendment guarantees that Americans may not be accused of a serious crime ' essentially, a felony ' absent an indictment approved by a grand jury. The indictment has two purposes. First, it must put the defendant on notice of exactly what crime has been charged so that he may prepare his defense. Second, the indictment sets the parameters for the defendant's closely related right to double-jeopardy protection, also set forth in the Fifth Amendment. That is, by stating the crime charged, the indictment enables the defendant to claim a double-jeopardy violation if the prosecutor attempts to try him a second time on the same offense.

Here, the indictment fails to say what the crime is. Bragg says he is charging Trump with felony falsification of records, under Section 175.10 of New York's penal code. To establish that offense, Bragg must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump caused a false entry to be made in his business records, and did so with an intent to defraud that specifically included trying to 'commit another crime or aid or conceal the commission' of that other crime.

Andy also points out that the second Bragg tries to claim that Trump violated federal election law this case will be throw out. Why? Federal primacy. The FEC ruled there was no crime here and Bragg has no jurisdiction to prosecute a federal case. For those who'd like to argue that Trump violated state election law, that doesn't fly either: He was on a federal ballot. Federal election laws take precedence.

Moreover, the document Bragg has the temerity to label his 'statement of facts,' filed with the court in tandem with the no-notice indictment, is itself a work of fiction. He alleges that Trump falsified his records to conceal 'damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election.' But every one of the 34 acts that Bragg charges as felonies happened after the 2016 election ' from February through December 2017.

This isn't a prosecution. It's a political move designed to make Trump a martyr, get him more media oxygen, and suffocate the rest of the field during primary season. The theory being that Trump, no matter his strengths among Republicans, is a turnout machine...for democrats. Darned right they want him on the ballot.

Unfortunately for the nation, the democrats have crossed a Rubicon. What's stopping some red state DA from arresting Mayorkas the second he sets foot there?

You're not allowed to do that. You can't cover up the payment with false business records.

That's an accounting argument. One could say, "Payment for legal services" (which technically, this was).

Dope1: What's stopping some red state DA from arresting Mayorkas the second he sets foot there?

Well, a crime, for starters.

Or do you plan to charge him with doing the job differently than you'd like it done?

Well, a crime, for starters.

Didn't stop Bragg.
Be careful when you sow the wind.

Andy McCarthy has an analysis piece up

Yeah, neither of those points is valid.

In the indictment, the prosecution is only required to identify the crime that the person is being charged with. Bragg did. Each count identifies the specific provision of the New York Penal Code that was alleged to be violated, and the specific document or record which the count referred to. That's all you need to do in the indictment. The prosecution doesn't have to, at that point in the proceeding, provide their entire detailed theory of the case.

Second, it's common to the point of ubiquity for prosecutors to include multiple counts of specific acts that are all part of the same scheme. This happens a lot with wire fraud:

While every wire transmission in furtherance of a scheme will not be charged, multiple transmissions usually will, which can look and feel like being charged with the same scheme multiple times. For instance, if someone who is engaged in a fraud scheme calls a co-conspirator to pass along related information, hangs up, then calls that co-conspirator back with additional details, that could be two separate charges for the same scheme.

https://www.bowlesrice.com/under-the-collar/wire-f...

What's stopping some red state DA from arresting Mayorkas the second he sets foot there?

Ummmm....the absence of a violation of a specific provision of that state's penal code? Trump is in this pickle in no small part because he decided to falsify the business records documenting the payments to Cohen. That's a criminal act. While we can debate the issues surrounding the charges, I haven't really found anyone seriously arguing that Trump did not, in fact, commit at least a misdemeanor violation of the NYS criminal code. Which is why he is in a position where Bragg can indict him.

Albaby

One could say, "Payment for legal services" (which technically, this was).

Except it wasn't. Cohen wasn't being paid for legal services - he was being reimbursed for the payments he made to Daniels, and to cover the income tax impacts that resulted from this particular effort to conceal the true nature of the payments in Trump's business record.

If Trump (or Cohen, for that matter) could prove that those payments were in fact compensation for legal services provided by Cohen to Trump, neither would have been in criminal jeopardy. Unfortunately for both, though, that wasn't true.

In the indictment, the prosecution is only required to identify the crime that the person is being charged with. Bragg did. Each count identifies the specific provision of the New York Penal Code that was alleged to be violated, and the specific document or record which the count referred to.

He invented 34 felonies based on 1 payment. That's like if you buy 1 stolen car or something on layaway you can get sent up for 60 months' or whatever your payment terms were. That's absurd.

At best Trump faces 1 count.

For instance, if someone who is engaged in a fraud scheme calls a co-conspirator to pass along related information, hangs up, then calls that co-conspirator back with additional details, that could be two separate charges for the same scheme.

LOL. What additional details were being provided with each payment?

Ummmm....the absence of a violation of a specific provision of that state's penal code?

You're not reading this right.
We have an unscrupulous DA arresting the opposition party leader. The democrats have 'broken the seal', as it were. Sauce for the goose and all that.

Except it wasn't.

That's in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?

Cohen wasn't being paid for legal services - he was being reimbursed for the payments he made to Daniels,

...which was a...wait for it...legal service. Especially in the context the NDA.

If Trump (or Cohen, for that matter) could prove that those payments were in fact compensation for legal services provided by Cohen to Trump, neither would have been in criminal jeopardy.

Okay, fine. This is a crime.
Time to arrest Hillary! Clinton, whose campaign paid for disinformation from a hostile government knowing that it would be used to violate the civil rights of US citizens. There's outright criminal conspiracy there, FARA violations, name it.

One more time. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind. Are the democrats sure they want to play this game? BTW I'd stand up a grand jury in Waco, TX. She'll get a fair trial, right?

I haven't really found anyone seriously arguing that Trump did not, in fact, commit at least a misdemeanor violation of the NYS criminal code. Which is why he is in a position where Bragg can indict him.

Albaby

------------------


Assuming you have some creative way of sidestepping that pesky statute of limitations.

Dope1: Okay, fine. This is a crime.
Time to arrest Hillary! Clinton, whose campaign paid for disinformation from a hostile government knowing that it would be used to violate the civil rights of US citizens. There's outright criminal conspiracy there, FARA violations, name it.

Well, sure, that must be why Durham indicted Clinton. <eyeroll>

IOW, not one word you wrote is correct. Clinton did not pay for disinformation (opposition research is legal), Steele did not represent a hostile government (or any government at all), she certainly did not expect anyone's civil rights to be violated, there was no criminal conspiracy, nor was she involved in any way in any FARA violations.

But, hey, reach out to Durham and set him straight. That guy's batting close to zero and could use your expertise.

Dope1: Okay, fine. This is a crime.
Time to arrest Hillary! Clinton, whose campaign paid for disinformation from a hostile government knowing that it would be used to violate the civil rights of US citizens. There's outright criminal conspiracy there, FARA violations, name it.

Well, sure, that must be why Durham indicted Clinton. <eyeroll>

IOW, not one word you wrote is correct. Clinton did not pay for disinformation (opposition research is legal), Steele did not represent a hostile government (or any government at all), she certainly did not expect anyone's civil rights to be violated, there was no criminal conspiracy, nor was she involved in any way in any FARA violations. - common

------------------

This sounds like a good candidate for that list of facts that sano wants to curate...

Dope1: If Bragg thinks he can claim a crime was committed for purposes of the election, he loses because the FEC will testify there was nothing there either.

That's incorrect. The FEC declined to move forward against Cohen because he had already admitted to a crime in federal court, making any commission action against him moot. The commission was deadlocked in how to proceed on the complaints against Trump and the entities related to him. Democratic commissioners argued that Trump "knowingly and willfully accepted contributions nearly 5,000% over the legal limit to suppress a negative story mere days before Election Day" -- and that charges against Trump were "well-grounded."

Republican commissioners didn't address the charges' validity but instead argued that Cohen's guilty plea in federal court made the public record "complete" because with Cohen's guilty plea the commission's interests had been enforced and vindicated.

Well, sure, that must be why Durham indicted Clinton. <eyeroll>

Again, you're not getting it. Allow me to spell this out for you:

If the democrats are going to target for political prosecution Republican leaders, then Republican DA's are going to start doing the same things to democrats.

Is that what you want for the country? Because it very much sounds like all of you do. If that's the case, then I'll give you some Midwest advice: FAFO.

This sounds like a good candidate for that list of facts that sano wants to curate...

I knew if I threw that particular bit of bait out there he'd bit on it with exactly the tactic I knew he'd use. He can't help himself.

I'm not going to acknowledge his point because it's been blown to smithereens years ago and no one believes it.

bighairymike: Assuming you have some creative way of sidestepping that pesky statute of limitations.

For four years Trump argued he could not be indicted for any crimes as a sitting president. But now he argues that since he's no longer president he should have been indicted sooner because now it's too late.

Huh.

bighairymike: Assuming you have some creative way of sidestepping that pesky statute of limitations.

For four years Trump argued he could not be indicted for any crimes as a sitting president. But now he argues that since he's no longer president he should have been indicted sooner because now it's too late.

Huh. - common

_______________________

I am not familiar with NY statue. Apparently you are. Is there wording to effect that the ticking of clock is suspended during the term of a President?

I am not familiar with NY statue.

Somebody's not familiar with the concept of "Statute of limitations".

And by the way, Sun Tzu wrote Build your opponent a golden bridge to retreat across.
What he meant was, leave your opponent a way out. Unless you really want to find out how hard someone is willing to fight.


https://nypost.com/2023/04/05/at-least-2-gop-das-w...

WASHINGTON ' At least two local GOP prosecutors are looking at ways to charge President Biden and his family amid Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's prosecution of former President Donald Trump, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer revealed Wednesday.

'I had two calls yesterday, one from a county attorney in Kentucky and one from a county attorney in Tennessee,' Comer (R-Ky.) told 'Fox & Friends.' 'They were Republican, obviously, both states are heavily Republican. They want to know if there are ways they can go after the Bidens now.'

I know, I know.
<libscoff>
What possible power could 2 bumblehick country attorneys from backwards redneck states possibly do?
<libscoff>

To that I say: FA. FO.

He invented 34 felonies based on 1 payment. That's like if you buy 1 stolen car or something on layaway you can get sent up for 60 months' or whatever your payment terms were.

No - he was charged with 34 felonies based on 34 separate instances of falsified documents. If you buy a stolen car on layaway you can't get hit for sixty charges, because you are not committing a separate crime each time you make a payment (assuming your mode and method of payment are lawful). If you steal someone's debit card with a thousand dollar balance and use it 60 times, though, that can be 60 separate instances of wire fraud.

We have an unscrupulous DA arresting the opposition party leader.

In a situation where there is prima facie evidence that the opposition party leader has committed a crime. In fact, there's an excellent case that he committed a misdemeanor. There are legal arguments over whether it's appropriate to charge for felonies, or whether the statute has run. But Trump has almost certainly committed a violation of the NY Penal Code....which is something you'd have to have present for a Red State DA to be able similarly indict.

That's in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?

No.

Cohen performed legal services in negotiating the NDA. But the payments reimbursed him for the money he gave to Daniels. Trump didn't pay him a quarter million dollars for a few hours' of legal work; he paid him a quarter million dollars to cover the payment that was made to Daniels and the income tax that Cohen had to pay to serve as that pass-through.

Hillary! Clinton, whose campaign paid for disinformation from a hostile government knowing that it would be used to violate the civil rights of US citizens. There's outright criminal conspiracy there, FARA violations, name it.

But that's a federal crime. A red state prosecutor can't bring that kind of charge - only the DOJ can do that. And unless she did it in Waco, Texas, she's not going to be tried there - she'd be tried somewhere that had a connection to the actus reus.

Assuming you have some creative way of sidestepping that pesky statute of limitations.

Ah - but he has. He has the argument that the misdemeanors were committed in furtherance of another crime.

But for the fact that Trump committed the misdemeanor, this is an easy and rather quick motion to dismiss. Which is why if Trump hadn't committed the misdemeanors, there would have been no indictment. But because Trump committed the misdemeanor, Bragg has an indictment that won't be instantly dismissed. He might ultimately lose on the point, but it's at least a colorable argument.

No - he was charged with 34 felonies based on 34 separate instances of falsified documents.

Which all originated from 1 original payment. Textbook overcharging.

Cohen performed legal services in negotiating the NDA. But the payments reimbursed him for the money he gave to Daniels. Trump didn't pay him a quarter million dollars for a few hours' of legal work; he paid him a quarter million dollars to cover the payment that was made to Daniels and the income tax that Cohen had to pay to serve as that pass-through.

So? One can define "legal services" in all sorts of ways.

But that's a federal crime. A red state prosecutor can't bring that kind of charge - only the DOJ can do that. And unless she did it in Waco, Texas, she's not going to be tried there - she'd be tried somewhere that had a connection to the actus reus.

Sure. In a sane world. We're not heading for a sane world.

Again - you're assuming that Republicans are going to take this abuse from democrats lying down.

He has the argument that the misdemeanors were committed in furtherance of another crime.

What other crime?

Which all originated from 1 original payment.

It doesn't matter. The crime is the falsification of the records. If you falsify 34 records, then you've committed 34 instances of the crime - even if it was all in furtherance of one single scheme or plan. Again, this happens all the time in cases where a defendant commits multiple violations of a statute as part of a single criminal enterprise - like multiple wire frauds when conducting an online scheme, or multiple forgery charges when they need several pieces of ID to steal someone's identity.

So? One can define "legal services" in all sorts of ways.

No, you can't. "Legal services" actually has a meaning, and one that's very important - with a very large body of law developed around it. Things that are "legal services" end up being treated very differently under the law, because a bunch of privileges and protections attach to the actions of clients and lawyers (and their communications) when the lawyer is actually providing legal services to the client. And those things don't attach when the lawyer is doing something for the client that doesn't actually involve practicing law.

So if I ask my lawyer to draft a contract, that's clearly a legal service. If I ask my lawyer to pick up my dry cleaning, that is not a legal service - even if I pay him for it.

Advancing money to a third party, and later being reimbursed for it, is not a legal service. It doesn't involve the practice of law. There was no retainer agreement that covered those services, and the references to it in Trump's records were false.

Again - you're assuming that Republicans are going to take this abuse from democrats lying down.

Not at all. Rather, recognizing that their power to try to engage in tit-for-tat is somewhat limited. Ham sandwich notwithstanding, a local red state DA isn't going to be able to get an indictment of Barack Obama unless they can articulate a violation of their state's penal code that took place in their jurisdiction. Bragg was able to do that because Trump did commit a violation of the NY penal code in his jurisdiction. That's not going to be the case for most of the flamebreathing GOP DA's that might want to make a name for themselves.

What other crime?

Criminal violation of campaign finance regulations. He's arguing state and federal. There's arguments against both, but it's still a plausible enough argument to support an indictment.

It doesn't matter

Well, you can argue that with Andrew McCarthy, who sees it differently.

Rather, recognizing that their power to try to engage in tit-for-tat is somewhat limited. Ham sandwich notwithstanding, a local red state DA isn't going to be able to get an indictment of Barack Obama unless they can articulate a violation of their state's penal code that took place in their jurisdiction.

Agian. You're missing the point by assuming that the aim of prosecution is a conviction. That doesn't have to be the end goal.

Criminal violation of campaign finance regulations. He's arguing state and federal. There's arguments against both, but it's still a plausible enough argument to support an indictment.

LOl. Then the case is going to be thrown out 30 seconds after the judge bangs his gavel. 1, Bragg has zero standing to charge Trump with federal election violations. And even if he did, the accountable federal entity - The FEC - already ruled there was no there there.

Secondly, Trump never ran on a state ballot. He ran for President on a federal ballot in 2016. The payments were made in 2017.

Dope1: Agian. You're missing the point by assuming that the aim of prosecution is a conviction. That doesn't have to be the end goal.

This argument doesn't get more persuasive with repetition. A Grand Jury would have to be impaneled, hear witnesses, and then at least 12 of them would have to return a True Bill based on sufficient evidence that a crime has been committed and that it was committed by the accused person.

In short, the people making the argument that this is going to happen at all -- let alone become a common occurrence -- either are not attorneys or they're not very good attorneys.

You're missing the point by assuming that the aim of prosecution is a conviction. That doesn't have to be the end goal.

No, I understand that. But if there's literally nothing there, they won't be able to get a grand jury to indict. And you'll be able to get the judge to dismiss the charges almost immediately - and probably get sanctions against the DA.

Trivial example - I've never been to Montana. Suppose a DA tried to get a grand jury to indict me on a charge in Montana which could not possibly have taken place without my presence in Montana. That's unlikely to happen, despite the proverbial ham sandwich - you can't indict a ham sandwich without at least some ham and some bread. Even if it happened, I'd be able to get that case dismissed almost immediately.

Dope1: Andy also points out that the second Bragg tries to claim that Trump violated federal election law this case will be throw out. Why? Federal primacy. The FEC ruled there was no crime here and Bragg has no jurisdiction to prosecute a federal case.

Don't believe everything Andy writes.

This isn't a case of federal primacy. Bragg is claiming that Trump violated New York State Election Law -- ELN § 17-152 and it is immaterial if the election was a federal election (because it took place in New York State).

And again, that's not what the FEC ruled at all. The Democratic commissioners, Shana M. Broussard and Ellen L. Weintraub, argued that the charges against Trump -- that he "knowingly and willfully accepted contributions nearly 5,000% over the legal limit to suppress a negative story mere days before Election Day" -- were "well-grounded."

The Republican commissioners, Sean J. Cooksey and James E. Trainor III, didn't address the charges' validity, but instead argued that Cohen's guilty plea in federal court made the public record "complete." This, they argued, made moot any actions by the commission, including action against Trump.

The Republican commissioners' statement did not say the commission was clearing Trump of wrongdoing in the matter. And even if the Republican commissioners had said that, they would not have been able to make that the commission's final ruling; that view was firmly opposed by the two Democrats.

The FEC did not rule there was no crime.


https://www.politifact.com/article/2023/mar/21/fac...

1, Bragg has zero standing to charge Trump with federal election violations. And even if he did, the accountable federal entity - The FEC - already ruled there was no there there.
,
It's not clear under the statute whether the "crime" has to be a state crime or one that the state prosecutors have jurisdiction over. If you falsify a document in NY in order to commit a murder in New Jersey, it might be felony falsification of records, even though NJ - and not NY - has jurisdiction over the crime that the falsification was in furtherance of. A more realistic example might be if someone falsifies business records in New York in order to commit securities fraud - something that seems to be exactly in the wheelhouse of what the statute is trying to get at, even though the crime is a federal one.

And the FEC's decision isn't binding on prosecutors - they're the civil enforcement arm, and can impose civil penalties, but even if the FEC declined to initiate a civil enforcement action the DOJ could bring someone up on charges if they chose.

It's certainly a fruitful line of defense for Trump to assert. But it's not a 30 second ruling.

This argument doesn't get more persuasive with repetition.

Sounds like a You issue, not a Me issue.

No, I understand that. But if there's literally nothing there, they won't be able to get a grand jury to indict.

Depends on where that jury is, doncha think? Along with how they're instructed.

This isn't a case of federal primacy.

Sure, counselor. It was only a payment after the fact for a federal election.

"Remember when the accused was innocent until proven guilty?"

LOL

Mike, it seems you forgot which president had rallies where the participants would regularly chant "Lock her up!"

So look at the log in your own eye before commenting on the speck in others.

"At any rate, democrats should tread carefully here. There are plenty of Red State AG's who would love to endear themselves with the base by engaging in some t1t for tat."

Some already have.

Unfortunately for them they have to go to court and the accused has constitutional protections so they routinely fail.

If it matters, I absolutely hate that this case has been the first indictment that Donald Trump is facing as I think it is one of the weaker cases of the many that he will eventually be facing.

"Whatever the outcome, it's not going to move the needle much on public perception."

Sure it will.

I mean to your point there is a solid 30% or so of Americans who won't care if he is found guilty they will still support him and there is 30% of Americans who will still think he is guilty if he is found innocent, but there is a portion in the middle where it will matter.

The 2020 election had a huge turnout because there was a decent size portion of Americans who are not really all that political and are not hard core members of any tribe, but they turned out because they realized just how bad Donald Trump was for America and how much of a threat he was to democracy (and this election took place before all of his shenanigans surrounding January 6th came out).

The result of this trial will matter.

Besides, public perception isn't the only purpose here. Rule of law matters as well.

"You can pay off a pron star and have her sign an NDA so your wife doesn't find out; that's not illegal."

It is intellectually dishonest (and insulting) to say he is being indicted because he is paid off a pron star and had her sign an NDA so his wife did not find out.

"Dershowitz covered this yesterday."

He "covered it" by giving you an illogical line of thinking that you lapped up because you wanted to.

"Literally no one has ever put on an accounting form "$X - Payoff for my lawyer bribing a couple of hookers"."

<sarcasm>Right. The only options were putting in an accounting description that says "$X - Payoff for my lawyer bribing a couple of hookers" or working with a lawyer, and an outside organization to set up an elaborate scheme with multiple payments. </sarcasm>

Dershowitz gave you a fallacy of false choice and you swallowed it.

"If Bragg thinks he can claim a crime was committed for purposes of the election, he loses because the FEC will testify there was nothing there either."

You know of all of the evidence Bragg has?

Remember, Cohen has recordings and emails and such. What if one of them shows Trump clearly saying this needs to be done for purposes of the election?

"Okay, fine. This is a crime.
Time to arrest Hillary! Clinton, whose campaign paid for disinformation from a hostile government knowing that it would be used to violate the civil rights of US citizens. There's outright criminal conspiracy there, FARA violations, name it."

Since I know literally nothing said will change your mind on this (the intellectual dishonesty part), I am curious as to why that is.

Do you really not comprehend the difference between what Hillary did with paying for opposition research and what Trump did? Or do you understand the difference and are just playing dumb about it?

There are really only two choices, you understand the difference or you don't.

"This sounds like a good candidate for that list of facts that sano wants to curate..."

Well there were factually true statements.

Which statements were untrue:
1. Clinton did not pay for disinformation (opposition research is legal)
2. Steele did not represent a hostile government (or any government at all)

"Again, you're not getting it"

Nice projection. Very intellectually dishonest.

"If the democrats are going to target for political prosecution Republican leaders"

False assuption. Did it ever occur to you that Trump was targeted because he actually broke the law?

"then Republican DA's are going to start doing the same things to democrats."

What do you mean by "start"? You can't start something that is already happening.

"Bragg was able to do that because Trump did commit a violation of the NY penal code in his jurisdiction."

This is the one thing Trump supporters want to keep ignoring.

Depends on where that jury is, doncha think? Along with how they're instructed.

Not in this instance, no.

The reason we have grand juries is for this purpose - to provide protection, a check, against the government's power to prosecute. A prosecutor still has enormous influence in the grand jury proceeding because of their power to select what evidence is presented to them. Hence, the ham sandwich. But that influence is not unlimited.

A prosecutor that walked into a grand jury with no evidence - no documents, no witnesses - probably isn't going to be able to get an indictment. There has to be something there.

That's why Trump's actions were responsible, in part, for his current predicament. He falsified business records so that they wouldn't accurately reflect what he was paying the money for. You can pay off a pron star to cover up your affair - but you're not allowed to create a false record of a fictitious retainer agreement backed by dummy invoices in order to conceal that those payments.

The reason we have grand juries is for this purpose - to provide protection, a check, against the government's power to prosecute. A prosecutor still has enormous influence in the grand jury proceeding because of their power to select what evidence is presented to them. Hence, the ham sandwich. But that influence is not unlimited.

The current Trump case is testing the limits, wouldn't you say?

I have to give you credit. So far, you're the only legal person I've read in support of (or at least attempting to defend) the indictment. Even the New York Times' is publishing stuff like this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/05/opinion/trump-b...
https://web.archive.org/web/20230406085255/https:/...

The 34-count indictment ' which more accurately could be described as 34 half-indictments ' was a disaster. It was a setback for the rule of law and established a dangerous precedent for prosecutors. The case appears so weak on its legal and jurisdictional basis that a state judge might dismiss the case and mitigate that damage. More likely, the case is headed to federal court for a year, where it could lose on the grounds of federal pre-emption ' only federal courts have jurisdiction over campaign finance and filing requirements.

Of course it wouldn't be the Times without blaming Trump:
Mr. Trump's opponents react to his provocations and norms violations by escalating and accelerating the erosion of legal norms.

...but then again, sentences like that are probably why the editors published this.

It continues:
What, in practice, is the meaning of 'intent to defraud'? If a business record is internal, it is not obvious how a false filing could play a role in defrauding if other entities likely would not rely upon it and be deceived by it. Even if one can argue that the statute should apply to internal records, this is not the ideal time to test a seemingly novel (or even a very rare) application.

The "intent to defraud" is how Bragg manufactured his 34 half-felonies, to adopt Prof. Shugerman's term.

Oh, and for Shrewds wondering why Trump can't be tried for a state election:
The Federal Election Campaign Act has a broad pre-emption clause: 'the provisions of this Act, and of rules prescribed under this Act, supersede and pre-empt any provision of state law with respect to election to federal office.' New York State law confirms that state 'filing requirements and the expenditure, contribution and receipt limits' under state law 'shall not apply' if there is a federal requirement and a federal filing (in other words, they don't apply to federal elections).

Look. I get that you guys absolutely loathe Donald Trump and are convinced that he's guilty of SOMETHING. I feel the same way about Hillary! Clinton and Joe Biden (both of whom are most definitely guilty of serious crimes themselves, but that's neither here nor there). If you think you can make a case to lock Trump up, then do without opening the Gates Of Hell and trashing literally 200 years of prosecutorial norms in your quest.

In other words, let it go. Otherwise you might not like the counter reaction when it comes.

The current Trump case is testing the limits, wouldn't you say?

No, not really.

Again, there's a lot of pretty strong evidence that Trump committed a crime. He clearly falsified these business records. These payments were not made for legal services - they were reimbursements to compensate Cohen for personally being a pass-through for payments to Daniels. I have yet to see a real argument that Trump didn't try to conceal the fact that these payments were for Daniels by misrepresenting that they were payments for legal services.

A prosecutor that has that in hand is always going to be able to get an indictment, even if that indictment is vulnerable to some legal arguments on related issues.

So far, you're the only legal person I've read in support of (or at least attempting to defend) the indictment.

There's others out there. And the fact that the Times is willing to lend editorial space to a conservative critic of the indictment isn't an indication that the NYT editorial board thinks this is a bad idea - just that they're a bit more "fair and balanced" than some other news organizations are.

Let me be perfectly clear - I think it is inarguable that Trump committed a misdemeanor violation of the NY penal code six years ago. That does not mean I support the indictment, and I actually think it was a risky idea unless: i) Bragg's got some actual tax crimes up his sleeve that he can make stick; ii) he's got some real good prior case law on the scope of federal pre-emption of election regulation; or iii) he can document that Trump was continuously out of New York State for at least four years.

Taking the latter first, the "tolling" for criminals being out of state doesn't appear to just apply to felonies. So even if the felony charges fall apart, if Trump was out of state for four years (rather than just a single year), then Bragg can get a conviction on the lesser included misdemeanor offense. Not great for a prosecutor, but it makes the decision to charge more defensible.

On the middle point, there's no doubt that states can adopt election laws that make it a crime to do certain things even in federal elections. Like, say, illegally voting in a federal election, or bribing someone to vote for a federal candidate, or stealing ballots for a federal election. If you have a special election to replace a Senator (so the only office on the ballot is a federal office), all the state election laws don't suddenly go out the window because the election is just for a federal office. The question is whether that extends to campaign finance, or just TPM restrictions.

And on the first point, Bragg alluded to - but did not elaborate on - a theory of the case that these record falsifications were to advance a tax crime. If Trump, or the Trump Organization, deducted these payments as a business expense - or if there are records that they planned to do so, even if they ultimately did not - then he might be on more solid ground.

But I'm not entirely defending these indictments. I'm sympathetic to the Three Felonies a Day argument, and I think the campaign finance theories have weaknesses. But I don't think is that these indictments are opening up Pandora's Box the way you've been arguing in this thread - there's more there there than critics are acknowledging, which really limits the circumstances in which the GOP could try to do the same thing back to a national Democrat.

There's others out there. And the fact that the Times is willing to lend editorial space to a conservative critic of the indictment isn't an indication that the NYT editorial board thinks this is a bad idea - just that they're a bit more "fair and balanced" than some other news organizations are.

Reading this guy, I don't know that I would call him a "conservative".

Let me be perfectly clear - I think it is inarguable that Trump committed a misdemeanor violation of the NY penal code six years ago. That does not mean I support the indictment, and I actually think it was a risky idea unless: i) Bragg's got some actual tax crimes up his sleeve that he can make stick; ii) he's got some real good prior case law on the scope of federal pre-emption of election regulation; or iii) he can document that Trump was continuously out of New York State for at least four years.

On point (iii) he can't, as Trump visited Trump tower numerous times while he was President (Barron IIRC was staying there instead of the White House). Point (ii) is shot because of the Federal Election Campaign Act's clear pre-emption provision *and* the fact that the FEC already ruled it wasn't a violation. Point (i) is covered by the fact that this was *internal* reporting.

You can't charge somebody for tax evasion on an internal document.

But I don't think is that these indictments are opening up Pandora's Box the way you've been arguing in this thread - there's more there there than critics are acknowledging, which really limits the circumstances in which the GOP could try to do the same thing back to a national Democrat.

We have norms and standards for a reason. This effort by Bragg throws a lot of that out the window, and democrats may not like where it leads.

the fact that the FEC already ruled it wasn't a violation

They did not. They simply didn't have the votes to move forward on the case. And the two votes against moving forward made it explicit that:

"As explained in further detail below, based on these factors we voted to dismiss these matters as an exercise of prosecutorial discretion."

...not that it wasn't a violation.

You can't charge somebody for tax evasion on an internal document.

That's not really the relevant analysis. If someone falsifies an internal document in order to help them commit tax evasion, the fact that tax evasion is a separate offense doesn't really matter to the business records charge. If I print up a whole bunch of fake invoices so that I can cheat on my taxes, I am

"...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."

Note that the latter part is an intent provision. I don't need to actually cheat on my taxes for my fraudulent invoices to now be a felony - it only matters that my intent in making the fraudulent invoices was to either commit or conceal another crime. If I intended to cheat on my taxes when making the fake invoices, but ultimately chickened out, I'm still guilty of the felony version of the crime.

Faking your internal documents is a great way to conceal things, especially from internal compliance and control employees within your organization. Which can easily be fraud, and can often be the commission or concealment of another crime.

We have norms and standards for a reason. This effort by Bragg throws a lot of that out the window, and democrats may not like where it leads.

There's no norm or standard that says that a powerful politician should be immune from being prosecuted for crimes they commit just because they're a powerful politician. The reason that we haven't prosecuted ex-Presidents isn't because we have a norm or standard that they should be immune from prosecution - it's because they haven't committed provable crimes the way Trump appears to have.

Durn it - forgot the link to the statement of reasons from the two votes against further investigation:

https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/7313/7313_27....

It makes it pretty clear that they're not in any way saying that Trump didn't violate the FECA - just that they don't think it's a good use of agency resources to keep investigating now that Cohen has copped to it. IOW, the DOJ has all the info it needs to charge or not charge Trump....no point using FEC staff to keep digging on the civil enforcement side if DOJ is not willing to pick up the ball.

Dope1: On point (iii) he can't, as Trump visited Trump tower numerous times while he was President (Barron IIRC was staying there instead of the White House). Point (ii) is shot because of the Federal Election Campaign Act's clear pre-emption provision *and* the fact that the FEC already ruled it wasn't a violation. Point (i) is covered by the fact that this was *internal* reporting.

Trump changed his legal residence in 2019.

You keep repeating the claim that "the FEC already ruled it wasn't a violation" which is completely false and I've pointed it out at least twice. Here's a third time:

The Democratic commissioners, Shana M. Broussard and Ellen L. Weintraub, argued that the charges against Trump -- that he "knowingly and willfully accepted contributions nearly 5,000% over the legal limit to suppress a negative story mere days before Election Day" -- were "well-grounded."

The Republican commissioners, Sean J. Cooksey and James E. Trainor III, didn't address the charges' validity, but instead argued that Cohen's guilty plea in federal court made the public record "complete." This, they argued, made moot any actions by the commission, including action against Trump.

The Republican commissioners' statement did not say the commission was clearing Trump of wrongdoing in the matter. And even if the Republican commissioners had said that, they would not have been able to make that the commission's final ruling; that view was firmly opposed by the two Democrats.

And where is Shugerman's evidence that this was solely an 'internal' filing? Does he know everything that Bragg knows?


https://www.politifact.com/article/2023/mar/21/fac...

You keep repeating the claim that "the FEC already ruled it wasn't a violation" which is completely false and I've pointed it out at least twice. Here's a third time:

You can keep repeating yourself a Googleplex number of times, the fact remains that the FEC declined to do anything.

You can keep repeating yourself a Googleplex number of times, the fact remains that the FEC declined to do anything.

It's not the FEC that matters - which is why you guys are talking past each other.

The FEC is a civil enforcement agency. They don't bring criminal charges. They investigate these things and, if they find evidence of a crime, they can refer that to DOJ.

Given the circumstances, there's no reason not to take the statement of the two Republicans on the panel at face value. The investigation was complete, all of the evidence about whether a crime had taken place was well documented and well-known to DOJ. No need for the FEC to do anything further.

Dope, the argument you're making isn't really an argument about the FEC's lack of action - but the DOJ's failure to prosecute criminal charges.

The FEC is a civil enforcement agency. They don't bring criminal charges. They investigate these things and, if they find evidence of a crime, they can refer that to DOJ.

Given the circumstances, there's no reason not to take the statement of the two Republicans on the panel at face value. The investigation was complete, all of the evidence about whether a crime had taken place was well documented and well-known to DOJ. No need for the FEC to do anything further.

Dope, the argument you're making isn't really an argument about the FEC's lack of action - but the DOJ's failure to prosecute criminal charges.

Did the FEC refer anything to the DOJ, or even issue a fine to Trump? (I'll remind that Hillary!'s campaign and the dnc were both fined for the Steele Dossier). IIRC they did not. If they can't even find a civil infraction...

Then there's the perspective bit. Why would *I* take the word of partisan democrats and give *them* the benefit of the doubt if you're unwilling to do the same in the other direction? They have every incentive to favor a frivolous indictment. As do Bragg and Garland.

There's a reason I keep harping on the Gates of Hell bit. You folks are so convicted that you're right you're skipping past the larger picture - we don't go after the opposition political party for a reason.

Remember all those Obama appointees with tax problems? Would you have liked it if the federal government had thrown the book at each and every one of them? Eric Holder was held in contempt of Congress. Want a GOP-led DOJ to throw him in jail for it?

The machinery you're building isn't going to remain in the democrats' hands forever. You might not like it when inevitably power changes hands in Washington, D.C.

Why would *I* take the word of partisan democrats and give *them* the benefit of the doubt if you're unwilling to do the same in the other direction?

The link wasn't to the Democrat's report. It was to the Republican report. The author's were Trump's appointees to the Commission. The Trump appointees stated that their vote against continued investigation was based on prosecutorial discretion - and did not say that it was based on a conclusion that there wasn't a violation.

There's a reason I keep harping on the Gates of Hell bit. You folks are so convicted that you're right you're skipping past the larger picture - we don't go after the opposition political party for a reason.

There's a reason I keep pushing back on your Gates of Hell bit. We go after politicians all the time when they have committed crimes. We don't refrain from going after the opposition political party just because they are the opposition political party - we just don't go after people when they haven't committed crimes, and most politicians don't engage in provable violations of the law.

Remember all those Obama appointees with tax problems? Would you have liked it if the federal government had thrown the book at each and every one of them?

If they committed provable criminal violations of U.S. tax law? Absolutely! I don't think someone should get a pass on criminally cheating on their taxes just because they're buds with the President.

The machinery you're building isn't going to remain in the democrats' hands forever. You might not like it when inevitably power changes hands in Washington, D.C.

Why not? I don't think people should avoid prosecution just because they're politically powerful. And I don't think that the DOJ is going to start indicting people that haven't done anything wrong just because "power changes hands" in DC, any more than they did during the Trump years or the first two and a half years here under the Biden administration.

I've been trying to understand the "Gates of Hell" argument raised in conservative media. It seems to run along the lines of, "If Democrats can indict a Republican that hasn't done anything wrong, then they'll hate it when Republicans indict Democrats that haven't done anything wrong." The problem with that is that the predicate isn't true. There's little disagreement that Trump falsified his record keeping so that he could falsely record payments to Michael Cohen as "legal services" when they were in fact reimbursements for the personal payments to Daniels. I think most Democrats are fine with the idea that if a local Red State DA has a Democrat dead to rights breaking the law like that, that Democrat should face the music. That's very different from the GOP claim that suddenly every Democrat - innocent or guilty - is now in jeopardy from a precedent that says that powerful politicians that commit crimes can be indicted.

The link wasn't to the Democrat's report. It was to the Republican report. The author's were Trump's appointees to the Commission. The Trump appointees stated that their vote against continued investigation was based on prosecutorial discretion - and did not say that it was based on a conclusion that there wasn't a violation.

Which has nothing to do with my point. Why would I believe the word of some Biden appointee?
Prosecutorial discretion...where have I heard that before...oh, right: "No reasonable prosecutor" would try a certain Presidential candidate for several thousand instances of keeping and transmitting classified material outside of a SCIF.

There's a reason I keep pushing back on your Gates of Hell bit. We go after politicians all the time when they have committed crimes. We don't refrain from going after the opposition political party just because they are the opposition political party - we just don't go after people when they haven't committed crimes, and most politicians don't engage in provable violations of the law.

It's not a Bit, and then minute some Texas Ranger arrests a sitting democrat office holder you'll have a different opinion, believe that.
This isn't even the first time some local democrat DA decided to make a political point. Do you remember Gov. Rick Perry?

Why not? I don't think people should avoid prosecution just because they're politically powerful. And I don't think that the DOJ is going to start indicting people that haven't done anything wrong just because "power changes hands" in DC, any more than they did during the Trump years or the first two and a half years here under the Biden administration.

Okay. Let's test this.

Huter Biden. He's committed several felonies, the easiest of which is falsifying his federal gun permit paperwork.

When's his trial start?

Why would I believe the word of some Biden appointee?

Again, these weren't Biden appointees. They were the Trump appointees. This was the report that the Trump appointees issued themselves explaining their vote. Not the Biden appointees.

He's committed several felonies, the easiest of which is falsifying his federal gun permit paperwork.

When's his trial start?

A few months after a prosecutor assembles sufficient evidence that he has committed a crime.

I assume you're referring to this incident:

https://www.insideedition.com/fbi-believes-they-ha...

...which very well may result in criminal charges against Biden. But unlike the Trump case, which is based largely on documents that the authorities already have, the Biden case requires some extraneous proof.

In order to prosecute that case, they have to prove two things. First, that Biden was addicted to drugs at the time he filled out the form. And second, that Biden himself believed that he was addicted to drugs. That's not an easy case to assemble, because the obvious defense against that (he was addicted to drugs before, but he genuinely thought at the time he filled out that form that he had kicked the habit) requires some fairly good evidence about his drug use in 2018. Which may not be very easy to assemble today. You probably want to wait until you've got a good idea about the last time he used illegal drugs prior to submitting that form - whether it was the week before or the month before or the year before or what have you.

But that said, if Hunter Biden lied on his gun application form - go ahead and prosecute him, if that's something that is a criminal offense!

One thing I've read is that Bragg hasn't shown all his cards because he isn't required to, so some legal writers are taking the position that it's early to come to a conclusion on the merits of the charges because they aren't fully "fleshed" out. This is accompanied with vague speculation. Bragg has mentioned poker, and he didn't want to bring the charges at first. Something changed his mind Dope.

Again, these weren't Biden appointees. They were the Trump appointees. This was the report that the Trump appointees issued themselves explaining their vote. Not the Biden appointees.

I'll rephrase. Why would I believe the word of *any* democrat on this issue? Presidents tend to appoint members of the opposite party to boards like the FEC.

A few months after a prosecutor assembles sufficient evidence that he has committed a crime.

The FBI's had his laptop for years. How's that going? It should have taken 5 minutes to look at his federal paperwork.

The FBI's had his laptop for years. How's that going? It should have taken 5 minutes to look at his federal paperwork.

-------------------


It takes years, maybe decades, to investigate Hunter, but Steve Bannon, Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, and even current democrat hero Michael Cohen were buttoned up in a year or two.

The DOJ can move fast when it wants to.

Pastor Mark Houck committed his "crime" in Oct 2021, was subsequently subdued in a night time raid on his home by a 20 member heavily armed SWAT team, charged with an offense that could land him in prison for 11 years, and put on trial which is now almost complete, all in less than 1.5 years.

Continuously-

"Trump would easily counter argue that he never was continuously outside of New York and that the clock kept running throughout his time as presidency, making whatever crimes he is alleged to have committed time-barred from prosecution under New York law. But in 1999, New York's highest court, The New York Court of Appeals, clarified that the reason behind the exception to the statute of limitations it the difficulty to apprehend a criminal offender who is outside of the state. On this interpretation, the word "continuous" doesn't mean a single uninterrupted period of time but a tally of all the days put together."

https://www.newsweek.com/has-statute-limitations-r...

Presidents tend to appoint members of the opposite party to boards like the FEC.

Do you have any evidence of that?

It's certainly not true in this case. Trump didn't appoint Democrats. Commissioner Cooksey, prior to his appointment, served as general counsel first to Senator Ted Cruz, and then to Senator Josh Hawley. Meanwhile, Commissioner Trainor worked for the Donald Trump campaign, and served as general counsel to the RNC platform committee, and then later was the assistant general counsel for the Texas Republican party.

These are Republicans.

It should have taken 5 minutes to look at his federal paperwork.

Not sure why the laptop would have led them to look at the paperwork for a 2018 gun permit application - but regardless, it's not the paperwork that's the time-consuming part of preparing to file these kinds of charges. You have to obtain evidence about his drug use back in 2018. It's easy to prove what he filled out on the form. The hard part is proving that the information was false, and known to Biden to be false, at the time the form was filled out.

And once more, with feeling - if Biden did in fact criminally lie on that form, I have no problem at all with him being prosecuted for it.

bighairymike: Pastor Mark Houck committed his "crime" in Oct 2021, was subsequently subdued in a night time raid on his home by a 20 member heavily armed SWAT team...

Back the blue, right? I guess the new republican mantra is defund the FBI.

Here's the FBI statement on the arrest:

'No SWAT Team or SWAT operators were involved. FBI agents knocked on Mr. Houck's front door, identified themselves as FBI agents, and asked him to exit the residence. He did so and was taken into custody without incident pursuant to an indictment.'

Houck's wife released a photograph of the arrest. I see four agents, no weapons drawn. Does it look like night time to you? https://www.witf.org/2022/11/07/how-conservative-m...

As far as the Hunter Biden laptop is concerned, chain of custody will make it useless in any criminal investigation. As has been pointed out time and time again, Giuliani had the laptop and its hard drive and if there was anything incriminating on it, you'd have seen it long ago.

Oh, and democrats have no problem with Hunter Biden being indicted if there's evidence he committed a crime (either lying on a gun license application or for tax evasion).

OK, care to comment about the pace of the investigation and prosecution?

Houck, 1.5 years

Biden, stuck in the ongoing investigation stage after almost 5 years.

Pastor Mark Houck committed his "crime" in Oct 2021, was subsequently subdued in a night time raid on his home by a 20 member heavily armed SWAT team, charged with an offense that could land him in prison for 11 years, and put on trial which is now almost complete, all in less than 1.5 years.

I thought he had already been acquitted. No?

https://www.foxnews.com/us/pennsylvania-jury-acqui...

Anyway, the difference is almost certainly due to the different fact patterns in the case. The entirety of the acts that would have been relevant to Houck's charges occurred in a single short time frame (no more than a few minutes) in broad daylight in front of numerous witnesses (and partially filmed, IIRC, but I can't find that mentioned in the articles now). And the alleged crime was reported and investigated almost immediately, making it relatively trivial to identify and contact any individual that might have relevant information.

That type of situation makes for an incredibly quick investigation.

Contrast that with the firearms charge Dope mentioned above. The paperwork is easy - they have a copy of that. But in order to prove that Hunter Biden lied,, they have to prove he was addicted to drugs at the time he filled out the paperwork. To do that, they have to assemble evidence of his drug use at that time. That investigation starts from scratch. You have to find the people that might have sold him drugs, or perhaps done drugs with him. You don't know when or where that might have happened. Unlike the Houck case, where many of the witnesses were probably eager to share their accounts of what happened, most of these witnesses would have themselves been involved in illegal activity, and would be reticent to come forward or - if identified independently - to voluntarily provide information.

Completely different case. The cops probably had a complete witness list and a pretty good handle on all of the relevant facts (and both sides of the facts where they were disputed) within a few weeks of the Houck incident. No way they get to that point that quickly in the Biden case - if ever they do.

Pastor Mark Houck committed his "crime" in Oct 2021, was subsequently subdued in a night time raid on his home by a 20 member heavily armed SWAT team, charged with an offense that could land him in prison for 11 years, and put on trial which is now almost complete, all in less than 1.5 years.

I thought he had already been acquitted. No? - albaby

-------------

Apparently he has. Good news, last I heard was the case had been sent to jury but there was a hung jury...

No way they get to that point that quickly in the Biden case - if ever they do.- albaby

---------------------

My money is on never. Quite like the FBI lying to a FISA court.

<So far, you're the only legal person I've read in support of (or at least attempting to defend) the indictment.>

Which is precisely what happens when you choose to spend your entire life in a right-wing echo chamber. (Why would anyone want to live that way?)
Even the NYT article you referenced is just a right-wing opinion piece. Did you read the rest of the paper or just that opinion piece? (I know the answer.)

Here's one "legal person" (of many) supporting the indictment...

"We Finally Know the Case Against Trump, and It Is Strong"
"Mr. Trump, is the 30th defendant to be indicted on false records charges by Mr. Bragg since he took office just over a year ago,
with the D.A. bringing 151 counts under the statute so far. Indeed, the Trump Organizations conviction plea last year also included business falsification felonies."
"Mr. Trump cannot persuasively argue he is being singled out for some unprecedented theory of prosecution. He is being treated as any other New Yorker would be with similar evidence against him."

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/04/opinion/donald-...

Which is precisely what happens when you choose to spend your entire life in a right-wing echo chamber. (Why would anyone want to live that way?)

Jonathan Turley and Alan Dershowitz disagree with you characterizing them as being in a right-wing echo chamber.

Stop arguing like your opinion is some kind of actual fact. It's not. When you roll into a conversation immediately lobbing insults at your opponents, it causes them to blow you off.
Do better.

My money is on never. Quite like the FBI lying to a FISA court.

I thought they already brought a few indictments over that. We have Igor Danchenko....

https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/11/politics/danchenko-...

....as well as Michael Sussman.....

https://www.justice.gov/sco/pr/grand-jury-indicts-...

....oh, and Kevin Clinesmith....

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/29/politics/kevin-clin...

Were you under the impression that Durham had done all that investigating and didn't bring any indictments?

Now, then - it's true that both Sussman and Danchenko were acquitted. Which wasn't really consistent with Durham's "theory of the case" about the FBI and the FISA court, but you can't control what juries think of your arguments and evidence. But they certainly were indicted and tried.

"You keep repeating the claim that "the FEC already ruled it wasn't a violation" which is completely false and I've pointed it out at least twice."

"You can keep repeating yourself a Googleplex number of times, the fact remains that the FEC declined to do anything."

Do you think no one noticed how you moved the goalposts there?

More intellectual dishonesty.

Also, here is another question for you to dishonestly dodge.

Why do you think the FEC declined to do anything?

You will dodge it because it directly refutes your line of argument.

"I've been trying to understand the "Gates of Hell" argument raised in conservative media. It seems to run along the lines of, "If Democrats can indict a Republican that hasn't done anything wrong, then they'll hate it when Republicans indict Democrats that haven't done anything wrong."

I too have been trying to figure out why this argument is so persuasive in the nutter media. I mean it is clear that they have little understanding of the Grand Jury and indictment process. If a conservative DA tries to go after an innocent Democratic politician, it is not a simple process to impanel a Grand Jury and then try to get them to indict with no evidence. Furthermore, the DA in opening themselves up to sanctions and all sorts of other punishment. Doing this is a bigger deal than they realize.

So I have been trying to understand why they think it will happen. Then I remembered that you need to think like a Trump supporter. A Trump supporter doesn't look at the evidence and then arrive at a conclusion. He starts with a conclusion and then looks for evidence to support it (ignoring things that don't).

So if you start with the conclusion that this is only being done as a political ploy, then it is easy to arrive at the idea that DAs everywhere will start doing it.

They just don't want to acknowledge that it isn't just a political ploy. There are actual crimes there.

"Prosecutorial discretion...where have I heard that before...oh, right: "No reasonable prosecutor" would try a certain Presidential candidate for several thousand instances of keeping and transmitting classified material outside of a SCIF."

LOL

Still do not understand why intent matters. Even after having over 6 years to figure it out.

"It takes years, maybe decades, to investigate Hunter, but Steve Bannon, Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, and even current democrat hero Michael Cohen were buttoned up in a year or two.

The DOJ can move fast when it wants to."

Thanks for demonstrating my point about starting with a conclusion and then looking for evidence to support it rather than the other way around.

Why this approach is so wrong is that when you take it as gospel that your conclusion is absolutely, positively true yet you don't get the results you want, you end up making up all sorts of nutty conspiracy stories why it must not be happening. Like you just did here.

"OK, care to comment about the pace of the investigation and prosecution?

Houck, 1.5 years

Biden, stuck in the ongoing investigation stage after almost 5 years."

Sure. Prosecution requires evidence. In the first case it was easy to prove. The second is obviously harder.

"Jonathan Turley and Alan Dershowitz disagree with you characterizing them as being in a right-wing echo chamber."</I.

They can disagree all they want. Their actions speak louder than their words. it is quite clear to any rationally sane person that both of them long ago sold out and started selling propaganda to the nutters. There is a reason they only appear in nutty right wing sources that openly admit they lie to their viewers.

"Stop arguing like your opinion is some kind of actual fact. It's not."

No nobody does unintentional irony like a nutter.

<<When you roll into a conversation immediately lobbing insults at your opponents, it causes them to blow you off.>>

I'm not "rolling into a conversation", I'm ridiculing someone who is frighteningly misinformed...

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." ~Thomas Jefferson

Just a few of your ridicule-worthy positions...
Maya Angelou's book wasn't banned...
No "legal people" other than albaby1 supports the Trump indictment...
Dershowitz isn't a right-wing cheerleader? Tucker?
There's an all-powerful invisible man who lives in sky...

Lol@this
Every time someone mentions a bubble and other folks being inside one'it's usually from a place of projection.

Don't strain yourself!

<<When you roll into a conversation immediately lobbing insults at your opponents, it causes them to blow you off.>>

It's worth noting that with the growth of right-wing broadcasting surged after the elimination of 'fairness in broadcasting.'

Nutters like Wally George, Rush Limbaugh, the entire Fox corporation, thrived by pushing lies. Newt Gingrich urged right wing politicians to shun bipartisanship. It is the nutter M.O. to 'blow off' reality.

Corporate trolling promoted by right wing media is very profitable for them. Just look at the fools contributing $$$$$ to FatDon, an amoral con artist/ tax fraud.

It's worth noting that with the growth of right-wing broadcasting surged after the elimination of 'fairness in broadcasting.' - sano

------------------

Not "broadcasting" in general.

Stop your whining, the libs already have most of the TV broadcasting, as well as print media, so you shouldn't be so fearful of right wing talk radio.

Also worth noting, there is nothing stopping libs from starting up left wing talk radio. Why is there almost no left wing talk radio? Because such programming cannot attract and hold an audience, that's why. Even NPR cannot stand on its own without government funding.

Stop your whining,

GFY

the libs already have most of the TV broadcasting, as well as print media

It's no secret that facts have a liberal bias.

so you shouldn't be so fearful of right wing talk radio

Why not? The period equivalent of 'right wing talk radio' resulted in the ascendency of Hitler.

Stop your whining, - bhm

GFY - sano

----------------

Thanks, Good For You too.

"Not "broadcasting" in general.

Stop your whining, the libs already have most of the TV broadcasting, as well as print media, so you shouldn't be so fearful of right wing talk radio."

Rather than look at news sources as being on a right/left spectrum, I think it is better to look at them on how reliably they inform their consumers.

Unfortunately consumers also need to be able to distinguish reliable sources from unreliable sources. Fox News has demonstrated that this isn't the case. There is a large percentage of people who confuse entertainment with news.

"Also worth noting, there is nothing stopping libs from starting up left wing talk radio. Why is there almost no left wing talk radio?"

That is an easy answer. There isn't as a large market on the left for people looking to have their views affirmed. That is all right wing talk radio really is.

"Even NPR cannot stand on its own without government funding.

What percentage of government funding makes up NPRs budget? Take a guess.

bighairymike: Even NPR cannot stand on its own without government funding.

Umm: What percentage of government funding makes up NPRs budget? Take a guess.


No need to guess. NPR publishes that information (although evidently conservatives wouldn't take the sixty seconds it takes to find it).

On average, less than 1% of NPR's annual operating budget comes in the form of grants from CPB and federal agencies and departments. Somehow, I think NPR would survive a 1% loss of funding.

https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-rad...

>>"Even NPR cannot stand on its own without government funding.<< - bhm

What percentage of government funding makes up NPRs budget? Take a guess. - Umm

-----------------

Indirect funding. Like Fauci, funding gain of function research.


wikipedia:

Although NPR receives only 1% of its direct funding from the federal government, member stations (which pay dues amounting to approximately one third of NPR's revenue), tend to receive far larger portions of their budgets from the federal (through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting) and state governments.

NPR states it is not state-run media, and further states it operates independently of the U.S. government; nonetheless, NPR indicates that federal funding is essential to NPR and that the loss of federal funding would weaken the network

LOL @them. The appropriate amount of funding for NPR is $0.00.

Is this where we get the expression "Trumped up charges?"

<rimshot></rimshot>

R:

"Indirect funding. Like Fauci, funding gain of function research."

LOL

Stilll letting your political masters take advantage of you eh?

>>"Indirect funding. Like Fauci, funding gain of function research."<<

LOL

Still letting your political masters take advantage of you eh? - Umm

--------------------

Yep, and the beauty of it is, they are so good at it, I don't even realize anything is wrong....

How about that wily Fauci though, advocating for the vax, then the booster vax, then special vax'es for the Omicron, Delta, Alpha variants.... all the while getting secret royalty payments from Big Pharma, who were granted protection from liabilities like myocarditis and pericarditis in young adults. Good times.

How about that wily Fauci though, advocating for the vax, then the booster vax, then special vax'es for the Omicron, Delta, Alpha variants.... all the while getting secret royalty payments from Big Pharma

Hardly "secret" as Fauci said he donated the "secret" royalty payments to charity back in 2005.

Hardly "secret" as Fauci said he donated the "secret" royalty payments to charity back in 2005

Fox fans and their ilk have read and heard the Fauci royalty facts but choose to ignore them because it doesn't bolster their anti-vax/ anti-mask narrative..... but good effort anyway.

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/05/scicheck-some-po...

Post New

Mechanical Investing FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.