• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump has not committed a felony (this time)

NatMorton said:
Source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-...ecords-daniels-bdb5942c?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

The article goes on to give the example of a candidate wanting to look good and purchasing a $4,000 suit for a televised debate. The candidate cannot use campaign funds for such a purpose even though it can be reasonably argued they would never purchase such expensive clothing but for their desire to help their campaign. It's presumed the candidate would buy clothes whether they're a candidate or not.

Bragg must make the case that Trump would never have paid Daniels to keep quiet but for the campaign, but there are other perfectly valid reasons why Trump might want to keep a relationship with a porn star quiet that have nothing to do with his run for President, starting with this wife.
Click to expand...
I know what follows isn't going to win me any friends, since I am definitely anti-Trump, but I actually think there's some substance to this argument. I do find it a little odd that none of the crimes that were supposed to underlie the falsification were charged--and it is those underlying crimes that are supposed to elevate what would otherwise be a misdemeanor to a felony.

I'm not an attorney in New York (or anywhere else); I can only respond to what I see as the logic of the case. From that perspective, Bragg shouldn't have to prove that Trump would never, but for the campaign, have made the payments to Stormy Daniels via Michael Cohen. Rather, he should only have to prove that one reason Trump did so was because of the campaign.

Anyway, I suppose it's possible that Bragg believes those underlying crimes did occur, but has judged that there isn't enough of a chance to secure a conviction based on what they know and based on the law as written. But then, I'd like to see one of two things happen: 1) Bragg adds those charges once discovery is underway (with the standard arraignment process), which is always a possibility, or 2) the jury receives instructions that they must first find that those uncharged crimes did actually occur before they rule on the crimes that are actually charged (that is, that they tell the court "yeah, if those underlying crimes were charged, we'd have found him guilty on those based on the evidence). Absent one of those elements, it's difficult to understand the logic of how a felony charge should stick. Perhaps something will come to light that explains more clearly how that logic is supposed to work--and maybe those will show that the logic does work. I guess we shall see.

All of this said, I think the evidence already in the public sphere is enough to make it likely that Trump did indeed do what he's accused of doing. The wrangling here is over how severe those deeds are from a legal perspective. From a moral perspective, I think those deeds are quite bad. I suspect they really did kinda steal the 2016 election, and were done for exactly that purpose. But the law and morality are different spheres, unfortunately.
 
Rawley said:
A bit relieved actually. Much weaker sauce that even the most optimistic opinion.
Click to expand...

How so...it would appear a more complicated case but not a weaker case.
 
ashurbanipal said:
I know what follows isn't going to win me any friends, since I am definitely anti-Trump, but I actually think there's some substance to this argument. I do find it a little odd that none of the crimes that were supposed to underlie the falsification were charged--and it is those underlying crimes that are supposed to elevate what would otherwise be a misdemeanor to a felony.

I'm not an attorney in New York (or anywhere else); I can only respond to what I see as the logic of the case. From that perspective, Bragg shouldn't have to prove that Trump would never, but for the campaign, have made the payments to Stormy Daniels via Michael Cohen. Rather, he should only have to prove that one reason Trump did so was because of the campaign.

Anyway, I suppose it's possible that Bragg believes those underlying crimes did occur, but has judged that there isn't enough of a chance to secure a conviction based on what they know and based on the law as written. But then, I'd like to see one of two things happen: 1) Bragg adds those charges once discovery is underway (with the standard arraignment process), which is always a possibility, or 2) the jury receives instructions that they must first find that those uncharged crimes did actually occur before they rule on the crimes that are actually charged (that is, that they tell the court "yeah, if those underlying crimes were charged, we'd have found him guilty on those based on the evidence). Absent one of those elements, it's difficult to understand the logic of how a felony charge should stick. Perhaps something will come to light that explains more clearly how that logic is supposed to work--and maybe those will show that the logic does work. I guess we shall see.

All of this said, I think the evidence already in the public sphere is enough to make it likely that Trump did indeed do what he's accused of doing. The wrangling here is over how severe those deeds are from a legal perspective. From a moral perspective, I think those deeds are quite bad. I suspect they really did kinda steal the 2016 election, and were done for exactly that purpose. But the law and morality are different spheres, unfortunately.
Click to expand...
Paying extortion money to a whore is not a crime.
 
Rawley said:
Read the thing. It's nonsense. 35 counts all relating to an extortion payment to a whore.
Click to expand...
Well that's YOUR legal opinion counselor.....but you are not a legal expert
 
Seems that the OP got the title of this thread spot on. Trump hasn't committed 'a' felony, he's committed 34 of them :cool:
 
ashurbanipal said:
I know what follows isn't going to win me any friends, since I am definitely anti-Trump, but I actually think there's some substance to this argument. I do find it a little odd that none of the crimes that were supposed to underlie the falsification were charged--and it is those underlying crimes that are supposed to elevate what would otherwise be a misdemeanor to a felony.

I'm not an attorney in New York (or anywhere else); I can only respond to what I see as the logic of the case. From that perspective, Bragg shouldn't have to prove that Trump would never, but for the campaign, have made the payments to Stormy Daniels via Michael Cohen. Rather, he should only have to prove that one reason Trump did so was because of the campaign.

Anyway, I suppose it's possible that Bragg believes those underlying crimes did occur, but has judged that there isn't enough of a chance to secure a conviction based on what they know and based on the law as written. But then, I'd like to see one of two things happen: 1) Bragg adds those charges once discovery is underway (with the standard arraignment process), which is always a possibility, or 2) the jury receives instructions that they must first find that those uncharged crimes did actually occur before they rule on the crimes that are actually charged (that is, that they tell the court "yeah, if those underlying crimes were charged, we'd have found him guilty on those based on the evidence). Absent one of those elements, it's difficult to understand the logic of how a felony charge should stick. Perhaps something will come to light that explains more clearly how that logic is supposed to work--and maybe those will show that the logic does work. I guess we shall see.

All of this said, I think the evidence already in the public sphere is enough to make it likely that Trump did indeed do what he's accused of doing. The wrangling here is over how severe those deeds are from a legal perspective. From a moral perspective, I think those deeds are quite bad. I suspect they really did kinda steal the 2016 election, and were done for exactly that purpose. But the law and morality are different spheres, unfortunately.
Click to expand...
There are two reasons why Bragg cannot bring campaign finance violation charges against Trump, i.e. the supposed felony that elevates the business record fraud from a misdemeanor to a felony:
  1. Campaign finance violation is a violation of federal law, not state law; i.e. as a state DA, Bragg lacks jurisdiction.

  2. The statute of limitations expired in 2021 (five years after the alleged offense) and shortly after Biden's DOJ decided they couldn't make a credible case.
 
Rawley said:
Very good news on the legal side. Sucks donkey (private parts) that this is depths to which your party has sunk. Pitiful
Click to expand...

Dont care...it was IRS fraud that relieved us of Capone. The same result will be fine here and we know MMM will never see the inside of a jail cell anyway.

We're talking about the best interests of our nation...not grudges over a petty criminal...seems like that's where you're coming from.
 
vegas giants said:
Well that's YOUR legal opinion counselor.....but you are not a legal expert
Click to expand...
No opinion, fact. All 34 counts allege a falisified record concerning an extortion payment to a whore.
 
ClaraD said:
there are no reports as to what the charges are...there is a lot of speculation but no confirmation of what those charges are.
Click to expand...
BTW, after reading the first few pages of the indictment, it seems the speculation about what these charges were going to be was completely accurate. How do you suppose that happened if draft copies of the indictment were not leaked to the press?
 
NatMorton said:
But not thinking people.
Click to expand...
Yep. Normal, thinking people. Including the grand jury.

So, not the type to write that stupid article or start this stupid thread.
 
Rawley said:
No opinion, fact. All 34 counts allege a falisified record concerning an extortion payment to a whore.
Click to expand...
And clearly enough for an indictment
 
NatMorton said:
There are two reasons why Bragg cannot bring campaign finance violation charges against Trump, i.e. the supposed felony that elevates the business record fraud from a misdemeanor to a felony:
  1. Campaign finance violation is a violation of federal law, not state law; i.e. as a state DA, Bragg lacks jurisdiction.


  2. The statute of limitations expired in 2021 (five years after the alleged offense) and shortly after Biden's DOJ decided they couldn't make a credible case.
Click to expand...

There is NY state election law and that is the election law Bragg is linking to.

In addition to those there is:
- state tax crime
- the AMI false filing


There are several SOL issues that support this prosecution. One of which:
- Donald Trump fought Cy Vance's efforts to get him to comply with his subpoenas for records for what I believe was 2 years or longer
 
NatMorton said:
You mean the OP that accurately summarized the charges before the indictment was released?
Click to expand...
So he read the newspaper, just like the rest of us?

Wow! Impressive!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom