Trump has not committed a felony (this time)

[Linuxcooldude]

Bill Clinton waves "Hi".

WW

That was a political impeachment, not a criminal indictment. Strawman for which the circumstances were not the same.

 

[Galactic Spin]

but use the tax felony to bump up a misdemeanor charges up to a felony?!?..LMAO!

Yes, that's right. That's the law. Shouldn't you be making fun of the fake billionaire with a team of lawyers for being so stupid as to break these laws?

 

[BlueTex]

The Democrats just opened up the possibility of a free for all on all Presidents, such as Bidens Hunter/China/Joe affair.

LOL… Go for it.. These kinds of empty threats just show how pathetic the GQP has become..

 

[maxparrish]

View attachment 67443547

WW

This doesn't specify what the other statutory crime(s) were that escalated it to a first degree felony. What were the other penal law were broken that made it a violation of 175.10?

 

[Visbek]

Well, I just read that Trump’s next appearance in court on this matter will be in December, i.e. not for another 8 months and, curiously enough, just a month or two before the Iowa caucuses.

It’s said that justice takes time, and sometimes, it takes a politically convenient amount of time.

lol... No, this is entirely typical. That "next appearance" will basically be the start of the actual trial. A lot of work needs to be done by both prosecution and defense before then, including discovery, interviewing witnesses, researching legal arguments, and so on. Not to mention that Trump is well known for using excessive delays as a legal strategy.

If the trial was scheduled to start in June or even September, Trump's team would be screaming at the top of their lungs that they aren't getting sufficient time to prepare a defense.

But hey, any port in a storm, right...?

 

[The AntiDonald]

The Democrats just opened up the possibility of a free for all on all Presidents, such as Bidens Hunter/China/Joe affair.

And they're all entitled to due process and a defense just as DJT is. But first one has to find the crimes. You do realize that we've only begun to scratch the surface with Trump. Things will go downhill from here.

 

[Galactic Spin]

This doesn't specify what the other statutory crimes were escalated it to a first degree felony. What penal law was broken that made it a violation of 175.10?

It seems to me that Cohen's crimes -- directed by trump and which were being concealed with the false business filings -- are spelled out in the statement of facts.

 

[WorldWatcher]

This doesn't specify what the other statutory crime(s) were that escalated it to a first degree felony. What were the other penal law were broken that made it a violation of 175.10?

They are shown in the Statement of Facts.

The crimes for which Cohen was convicted.

WW

 

[Linuxcooldude]

They are shown in the Statement of Facts.

The crimes for which Cohen was convicted.

WW

But not in the actual indictment that you claimed was there.

 

[Visbek]

No, it’s more like the sign of a desperate DA. It’s the same charge over and over, one for each false entry in the Trump Organization’s books.

lol... Yeah, that's how the law works.

If you rob two liquor stores in the same night, you're going to get 2 sets of charges -- one for each incident. You're also going to get multiple charges from each single robbery.

 

[maxparrish]

It seems to me that Cohen's crimes -- directed by trump and which were being concealed with the false business filings -- are spelled out in the statement of facts.

Perhaps, but the poster cited the indictment as evidence. However, in another post he was sufficiently informative to provide a link to a later statement of facts. Unfortunately, after quick glance at this document is does not seem specific as to the enumerated statutory laws violated by Cohen.

 

[Galactic Spin]

Perhaps, but the poster cited the indictment as evidence. However, in another post he was sufficiently informative to provide a link to a later statement of facts. Unfortunately, after quick glance at this document is does not seem specific as to the enumerated statutory laws violated by Cohen.

Okay, but those are a matter of record. The Trump lawyers can't pretend not to know them or be able to find them.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

View attachment 67443547

WW

Nope, falsifying buisness records Isn't the secondary crime in which Trump was alleged to be covering up. AND in which was never mentioned in the indictment.

 

[Galactic Spin]

Nope, falsifying buisness records Isn't the secondary crime in which Trump was alleged to be covering up. AND in which was never mentioned in the indictment.

I saw Cohen's crimes -- which were being concealed by Trump's false business filings -- mentioned in the statement of facts.

 

[WorldWatcher]

But not in the actual indictment that you claimed was there.

I didn't claim it was in the indictment, as a matter of fact I'm been careful to reference the Cohen connection as coming from the separate Statement of Facts submitted to the court.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

Nope, falsifying buisness records Isn't the secondary crime in which Trump was alleged to be covering up. AND in which was never mentioned in the indictment.

That's because the secondary crime isn't business records, that is the primary crime. The secondary crime that elevates the indictment to a felony is outlined in the Statement of Facts.



WW

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Don't be moving goalposts now.

I didn't claim it was in the indictment, as a matter of fact I'm been careful to reference the Cohen connection as coming from the separate Statement of Facts submitted to the court.

WW

So where did DA Bragg mention this? In the indictment, it's cited right in the document.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Don't be moving goalposts now.

Which was said in response to this.

Which Bragg failed to meantion. That's where the case falls apart. You have to have the crime in which Trump intended to commit, which agian, Bragg failed to mention.

The DA did cite the law under which Trump was being charged. It's right here in the Indictment as Section 175.10 of the New York State Penal Code. There is no requirement that Trump be "charged" with the secondary crime because that crime can (was) committed by someone else.

Sorry for the confusion, Trump was charged in the Indictment. If you were asking what was the crime that Trump was attempting to coverup to facilitate raising 175.10 from a misdemeanor to a felony - that information is contained in the Statement of Facts.

In the future please attempt to clarify what crimes you are talking about.

WW

 

[Linuxcooldude]

If you were asking what was the crime that Trump was attempting to coverup to facilitate raising 175.10 from a misdemeanor to a felony - that information is contained in the Statement of Facts.

Nope, the crime in which he was covering up, not raising it to a felony. If Trump is being procecuted for false buisness filings, the actual crime he was suppose to be covering up should also be listed in the actual indictment and not the Statement of Facts.

 

[maxparrish]

Which was said in response to this.



The DA did cite the law under which Trump was being charged. It's right here in the Indictment as Section 175.10 of the New York State Penal Code. There is no requirement that Trump be "charged" with the secondary crime because that crime can (was) committed by someone else.

Sorry for the confusion, Trump was charged in the Indictment. If you were asking what was the crime that Trump was attempting to coverup to facilitate raising 175.10 from a misdemeanor to a felony - that information is contained in the Statement of Facts.

In the future please attempt to clarify what crimes you are talking about.

WW

When Bragg was asked in a press conference to identify the specific laws, he said that the law does not require him to do so. The afterwards commentary on MSM outlets all noted his lack of specificity, although they didn't mention if the statement of facts were at that point released...and I didn't hear any reporter at that time citing it.

In any event, it would seem that he is required by law to produce a bill of particulars which the defense will demand if he he does not produce them.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Nope, the crime in which he was covering up, not raising it to a felony. If Trump is being procecuted for false buisness filings, the actual crime he was suppose to be covering up should also be listed in the actual indictment and not the Statement of Facts.

The crime Trump committed is in the Indictment. Section 175.10 of the New York State Criminal Code.

The secondary crime facilitating it's raising 175.10 from a misdemeanor to a felony is described in the Statement of Facts.

I agree tough, I would have like to have seen more, however we have to remember this is the Indictment stage not the trial stage.

While the DA is required to turn over all evidence they have gathered to the Defense, they are under no requirement to layout how they will present that evidence at trial.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

When Bragg was asked to identify the specific laws, he said that the law does not require him to do so. The afterwards commentary on MSM outlets all noted his lack of specificity, although they didn't mention if the statement of facts were at that point released...and I didn't hear any reporter at that time citing it.

In any event, it would seem that he is required by law to produce a bill of particulars which the defense will demand if he he does not produce them.

Correct, he is not required under the law to identify what law was the basis for the felony charges in the indictment.

The basis though that the underlying crime was Cohen's as described in the Statement of Facts and it was Trump's action in aiding and concealing those crimes that facilitate raising 175.10 from a misdemeanor to a felony is described in the Statement of Facts.

(Now whether this will survive trial? I have no clue.)

WW

 

[Linuxcooldude]

The crime Trump committed is in the Indictment. Section 175.10 of the New York State Criminal Code.

The secondary crime facilitating it's raising 175.10 from a misdemeanor to a felony is described in the Statement of Facts.

I agree tough, I would have like to have seen more, however we have to remember this is the Indictment stage not the trial stage.

While the DA is required to turn over all evidence they have gathered to the Defense, they are under no requirement to layout how they will present that evidence at trial.

WW

Without the crime he was suppose to cover up is not mentioned, the crime to cover up THAT crime by false buisness filings make no sense.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Without the crime he was suppose to cover up is not mentioned, the crime to cover up THAT crime by false buisness filings make no sense.

It does not have to be in the indictment, that will be argued later.

However, it was mentioned, it's in the Statement of Facts.

WW

 

[Linuxcooldude]

It does not have to be in the indictment, that will be argued later.

However, it was mentioned, it's in the Statement of Facts.

WW

That is only speculation at this point as it was not in the actual indictment and Bragg himself said he didn't have to say it by law.