The hush money indictment

[Toni]

The thing is, I take Derec at his word that he’s not a fan of Trump. I do think that perhaps the fact that the major reasons for the hush money was to cover up liaisons with sex workers (and the child with a hotel maid) might influence Derec to question the seriousness of the charges. But I could easily be wrong about that as well. While the Republicans DID target Bill Clinton over his affair with Monica Lewinsky—mostly because they couldn’t make anything else stick, plush to embarrass Clinton and to wrap themselves up even more smugly in their moral majority falsehoods, I don’t think this is what the Dems are doing. I actually think that if they can convict Trump of hush money crimes to cover up other serious crimes ( tax law violations, election law violations) such convictions might possibly be used to bolster other ejection and tax fraud charges against Trump in other jurisdictions.

But also: it is about time we started holding the rich and powerful accountable for crimes as well as the little people.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Yes Bragg could have charged misdemeanors, but why bother? Send Mr Trump a ticket for misdemeanors.
If Bragg wasn’t sure that the evidence of CLASS 1 Falsifications (a felony that Bragg didn’t invent) was sufficient to convince a jury, he would not have brought the case. If there’s an acquittal then he was wrong for whatever reason (probably a religious trumpsucker lied to get on the jury). If Cheato is convicted of some or all of these felonies, he was right. I doubt Derec will accept it, any more than I would accept that an acquittal was fair. We shall see, right?

I was under the impression, and perhaps I am just wrong, that prosecutors often also charge the lesser crime because they still want some conviction in case they can’t prove the greater crime.

So, it would seem that Trump could get off completely if they can’t prove the felony even if the misdemeanor is more easily provable.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Fuck no! He can’t even face the fact that Trump is charged with CLASS 1 felony falsifications of records. Bragg didn’t “make it” a felony, it was a felony when Trump allegedly did it.

Falsifying business records is normally a misdemeanor. I am not a lawyer, and I take it, neither are you.
But legal commentators (who tend to dislike Trump btw) seem to agree that Bragg did a lot of legal gymnastics to turn what is normally a misdemeanor into a felony.
Now, if Bragg were some prosecutor who is known for going for highest possible charge across the board, that would be one thing. Except, he prefers charging crimes that are normally felonies as misdemeanors.

Falsifying records by itself is a misdemeanor. Falsifying them in pursuit of another crime is a felony.

Couldn’t he have charged both? That is, if he is unable to prove that the falsification was in furtherance of another crime he could at least still get a Conviction on the misdemeanor. It seems he has put all his eggs in one basket and made it harder on himself.

The statute of limitations for misdemeanors is typically less than for felonies. I speculate that he cannot be charged with misdemeanors at this point in time, except in a plea bargain with his agreement to ignore those limitations. My informed opinion is that the facts show a reasonable person the crimes were done in furtherance of another crime. Thus, judge or jury ought to reckon they are felonies. But that additionally Bragg could not charge misdemeanors this many years later.

Now I could be wrong, but consider this (2016) was 7 years ago. The statute of limitations for felonies in NY is 5 years, but there is an exception when the criminal leaves the state. Each time he's in the state adds up and each time out, is discounted. So, if Trump was in NY a total of 3 years, he's still within the 5 years. Also, it cannot be extended by more than 5 years...so he could not be charged after 2026.

Yes, New York’s five-year statute of limitations for felonies can be extended in some cases

Many people have argued that the statute of limitations has run out on the charges against former President Trump. Here’s what we can VERIFY about New York law.

www.verifythis.com

Misdemeanors in NY typically have a 2 year statute of limitation. So the theoretical maximum extension would be 7 years provided Trump was out of NY state 100% of the time since committing the crime. He certainly wasn't out of state all of that time.

 

[Toni]

Yes Bragg could have charged misdemeanors, but why bother? Send Mr Trump a ticket for misdemeanors.
If Bragg wasn’t sure that the evidence of CLASS 1 Falsifications (a felony that Bragg didn’t invent) was sufficient to convince a jury, he would not have brought the case. If there’s an acquittal then he was wrong for whatever reason (probably a religious trumpsucker lied to get on the jury). If Cheato is convicted of some or all of these felonies, he was right. I doubt Derec will accept it, any more than I would accept that an acquittal was fair. We shall see, right?

I was under the impression, and perhaps I am just wrong, that prosecutors often also charge the lesser crime because they still want some conviction in case they can’t prove the greater crime.

So, it would seem that Trump could get off completely if they can’t prove the felony even if the misdemeanor is more easily provable.

Sometimes that is true but then they go for the larger charges, not misdemeanors upped to felonies. Think: Instead of murder, also include manslaughter chargers if they think the jury will balk at murder but is likely to convict at manslaughter.

 

[Patooka]

Now I could be wrong, but consider this (2016) was 7 years ago. The statute of limitations for felonies in NY is 5 years, but there is an exception when the criminal leaves the state. Each time he's in the state adds up and each time out, is discounted.

I also think the statute of limitations is on pause if it is directly impeded by the Federal Government. Like for example someone from Executive Branch telling the State Judicial Branch there's executive privilege involved.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Now I could be wrong, but consider this (2016) was 7 years ago. The statute of limitations for felonies in NY is 5 years, but there is an exception when the criminal leaves the state. Each time he's in the state adds up and each time out, is discounted.

I also think the statute of limitations is on pause if it is directly impeded by the Federal Government. Like for example someone from Executive Branch telling the State Judicial Branch there's executive privilege involved.

I agree with the sentiment and see that as an issue of fairness to other citizens who cannot be so privileged. But, the cited statute from NY law does not include that. It could be a case law thing either by now or in the future which could be disputed by the Orange Oligarch and his henchmen.

 

[Toni]

Now I could be wrong, but consider this (2016) was 7 years ago. The statute of limitations for felonies in NY is 5 years, but there is an exception when the criminal leaves the state. Each time he's in the state adds up and each time out, is discounted.

I also think the statute of limitations is on pause if it is directly impeded by the Federal Government. Like for example someone from Executive Branch telling the State Judicial Branch there's executive privilege involved.

That would be nice but I don't think that's true. Which is a nice loophole for POTUS.

 

[AdamWho]

These charges were always going to be weak

All 34 charges are 'falsifying business records', which is a misdemeanor. There is really just one charge.

They only become felonies because it is claimed that they were in furtherance of a yet unnamed crime. (pick one)

The number 33 is reached by counting each of the 11 transactions 3x.

* Receiving a fraudulent invoice from Cohen
* recording a fraudulent invoice in books
* paying a fraudulent invoice.

The 34th charge is because they had to issue one check twice. 11 payments x 3 + 1 mistake = 34

***

A sensible person would plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of falsifying business records, pay the fine and walk away. The DA's office would almost certainly agree because of the expense and uncertain outcome.

 

[TV and credit cards]

There are different potential crimes that could be attached to these misdemeanors.
-Conspiracy to promote a candidacy by unlawful means.
-Federal limits on campaign contributions. (in kind value of $130k)
-Mischaracterization to taxing authorities.
So they may not get them all, but hopefully some. Being class E felonies, each carries a maximum of four years. Personally I'm good with him getting hooked up for just a few. Keep him locked up until he's in his mid-eighties and harmless.

Another note, I've heard it mentioned that these can be federal crimes attached to a state indictment. That this is not uncommon. Both state and federal indictments do this from time to time. (I'm waiting and hoping for some precedence). There's no reason why the "crime" cannot be a federal crime. Commit a state crime in a national park and it can be federalized. I think it is only when a state and federal law come into conflict with one another there is an issue of fed law preempting state.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Fuck no! He can’t even face the fact that Trump is charged with CLASS 1 felony falsifications of records. Bragg didn’t “make it” a felony, it was a felony when Trump allegedly did it.

Falsifying business records is normally a misdemeanor. I am not a lawyer, and I take it, neither are you.
But legal commentators (who tend to dislike Trump btw) seem to agree that Bragg did a lot of legal gymnastics to turn what is normally a misdemeanor into a felony.
Now, if Bragg were some prosecutor who is known for going for highest possible charge across the board, that would be one thing. Except, he prefers charging crimes that are normally felonies as misdemeanors.

Falsifying records by itself is a misdemeanor. Falsifying them in pursuit of another crime is a felony.

Couldn’t he have charged both? That is, if he is unable to prove that the falsification was in furtherance of another crime he could at least still get a Conviction on the misdemeanor. It seems he has put all his eggs in one basket and made it harder on himself.

It depends on the exact way the law is written--some places don't allow that. Some places allow a jury to decide on a lesser charge even though the perp was charged with a greater one and sometimes DAs play a game not putting the lesser charge on the table in the hope of pushing the jury into the higher charge--and this sometimes backfires, the jury deciding the greater charge isn't warranted and letting someone walk that's clearly guilty of a lesser charge.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If I were on the jury and the prosecutor said that this crime was a felony because it was in furtherance of another crime but couldn’t convince me of that other crime (not prove that it happened as you say but prove that there was intent to cover up — there has to be evidence at least of the other crime if not legal proof) then I wouldn’t likely convict as a felony.

And if he can’t do that he could still convict on the misdemeanor. Maybe the jury will be given instructions that way; that is, if they cannot prove the felony they can convict on the misdemeanor

My thought, also--you want me to convict on it being a coverup of another crime, you need to convince me about the other crime. And I would require the same proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

(However, in this case I think it's pretty darn clear he's guilty of both. The only issue is a trumpet refusing to convict.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The thing is, I take Derec at his word that he’s not a fan of Trump. I do think that perhaps the fact that the major reasons for the hush money was to cover up liaisons with sex workers (and the child with a hotel maid) might influence Derec to question the seriousness of the charges.

I don't see how what he's covering up has any relevance.

I have seen no indication that any of these issues are anything other than consenting adults and thus I don't give a hoot that it happened. I do care about the way he tried to hide it, though. I also care that as a politician he tried to hide things--if he felt he had done wrong it's wrong even though I have no objection to the act itself.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

These charges were always going to be weak

All 34 charges are 'falsifying business records', which is a misdemeanor. There is really just one charge.

They only become felonies because it is claimed that they were in furtherance of a yet unnamed crime. (pick one)

The number 33 is reached by counting each of the 11 transactions 3x.

* Receiving a fraudulent invoice from Cohen
* recording a fraudulent invoice in books
* paying a fraudulent invoice.

The 34th charge is because they had to issue one check twice. 11 payments x 3 + 1 mistake = 34

The underlying actions are federal crimes, not state crimes, thus he can't charge them.

 

[ZiprHead]

These charges were always going to be weak

All 34 charges are 'falsifying business records', which is a misdemeanor. There is really just one charge.

They only become felonies because it is claimed that they were in furtherance of a yet unnamed crime. (pick one)

The number 33 is reached by counting each of the 11 transactions 3x.

* Receiving a fraudulent invoice from Cohen
* recording a fraudulent invoice in books
* paying a fraudulent invoice.

The 34th charge is because they had to issue one check twice. 11 payments x 3 + 1 mistake = 34

***

A sensible person would plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of falsifying business records, pay the fine and walk away. The DA's office would almost certainly agree because of the expense and uncertain outcome.

I have every confidence in the judicial process. If Bonespurs is innocent, he'll walk. If guilty, who the fuck knows what will happen.

 

[Toni]

The thing is, I take Derec at his word that he’s not a fan of Trump. I do think that perhaps the fact that the major reasons for the hush money was to cover up liaisons with sex workers (and the child with a hotel maid) might influence Derec to question the seriousness of the charges.

I don't see how what he's covering up has any relevance.

I have seen no indication that any of these issues are anything other than consenting adults and thus I don't give a hoot that it happened. I do care about the way he tried to hide it, though. I also care that as a politician he tried to hide things--if he felt he had done wrong it's wrong even though I have no objection to the act itself.

I agree that it is none of my business how Trump conducts his personal life, at least with respect to consenting adults.

Whether you or I agree with NY law or not is irrelevant. Under NY law, misdemeanors committed in order to conceal other unlawful acts are elevated from misdemeanors to felonies.

 

[Shadowy Man]

These charges were always going to be weak

All 34 charges are 'falsifying business records', which is a misdemeanor. There is really just one charge.

They only become felonies because it is claimed that they were in furtherance of a yet unnamed crime. (pick one)

The number 33 is reached by counting each of the 11 transactions 3x.

* Receiving a fraudulent invoice from Cohen
* recording a fraudulent invoice in books
* paying a fraudulent invoice.

The 34th charge is because they had to issue one check twice. 11 payments x 3 + 1 mistake = 34

***

A sensible person would plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of falsifying business records, pay the fine and walk away. The DA's office would almost certainly agree because of the expense and uncertain outcome.

I have every confidence in the judicial process. If Bonespurs is innocent, he'll walk. If guilty, who the fuck knows what will happen.

And in a court of law “innocent” simply means “guilt not proven”.

 

[bilby]

And in a court of law “innocent” simply means “guilt not proven”

That depends on the jurisdiction.

https://lawsblog.london.ac.uk/2022/12/21/guilty-not-guilty-or-not-proven/amp/

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

These charges were always going to be weak

All 34 charges are 'falsifying business records', which is a misdemeanor. There is really just one charge.

They only become felonies because it is claimed that they were in furtherance of a yet unnamed crime. (pick one)

The number 33 is reached by counting each of the 11 transactions 3x.

* Receiving a fraudulent invoice from Cohen
* recording a fraudulent invoice in books
* paying a fraudulent invoice.

The 34th charge is because they had to issue one check twice. 11 payments x 3 + 1 mistake = 34

***

A sensible person would plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of falsifying business records, pay the fine and walk away. The DA's office would almost certainly agree because of the expense and uncertain outcome.

I have every confidence in the judicial process. If Bonespurs is innocent, he'll walk. If guilty, who the fuck knows what will happen.

And in a court of law “innocent” simply means “guilt not proven”.

May be more accurate to say it means the state can not hold them criminally liable for the crime.

 

[Elixir]

I have every confidence in the judicial process. If Bonespurs is innocent, he'll walk. If guilty, he’ll walk less comfortably.

FIFY

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The thing is, I take Derec at his word that he’s not a fan of Trump. I do think that perhaps the fact that the major reasons for the hush money was to cover up liaisons with sex workers (and the child with a hotel maid) might influence Derec to question the seriousness of the charges.

I don't see how what he's covering up has any relevance.

I have seen no indication that any of these issues are anything other than consenting adults and thus I don't give a hoot that it happened. I do care about the way he tried to hide it, though. I also care that as a politician he tried to hide things--if he felt he had done wrong it's wrong even though I have no objection to the act itself.

I agree that it is none of my business how Trump conducts his personal life, at least with respect to consenting adults.

Whether you or I agree with NY law or not is irrelevant. Under NY law, misdemeanors committed in order to conceal other unlawful acts are elevated from misdemeanors to felonies.

I don't see how you're disagreeing with me.

I'm saying it doesn't matter what one thinks of the underlying act, the charges have nothing to do with that. The charges are purely from hiding the payoff.