Indictment

[Cmaier]

I’ve talked about the tax issue before. This is why the TV lawyers are dumb. They focus on the other theories and ignore this one, which is pretty standard and not at all “innovative”

Paywall removed.

Analysis: A Surprise Accusation Bolsters a Risky Case Against Trump

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

www.nytimes.com

 

[fooferdoggie]

The GOP POSs step forward and do what they do before eventually being flushed.

Think the toilet is clogged with them they are not going down.

 

[Alli]

In the mean time, I'm hoping Fani Willis and Jack Smith will soon have some important announcements to make.

Let us not forget the rape and defamation case going to trial in about three weeks.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

Seems like his best defense would be to say he didn’t do it to help him win the election but to keep his wife from knowing about the affair. That may win him the case but I can’t imagine it would do well with female voters which may be the point if you believe this is entirely political. It’s one thing to have it as a strike against him bullet point. It’s quite another to have an entire drawn-out court case drilling that point into your head.

I wonder if he’ll use that excuse for the other pending cases. “I didn’t want my wife to know I am a loser with a disorganized filing system.”

 

[Cmaier]

Seems like his best defense would be to say he didn’t do it to help him win the election but to keep his wife from knowing about the affair. That may win him the case

How? It’s still a misdemeanor, even if he didn’t fake the books in order to further another crime. 34 misdemeanors isn’t as fun as 34 felonies, but still.

Plus, how does that even get him out from the felony rap? His intent doesn’t matter. If the net result of the hush money payments would be to help his campaign, that money needs to be accounted for according to applicable state (and federal) election laws. Think of it this way - if Chipotle gives his campaign staff free burritos, the intent is to nourish the campaign staff and perhaps give them diarrhea. But it’s a campaign contribution nonetheless.

But even if all the election law stuff is taken out of the case, the indictment statement of facts makes clear that the false books were also in furtherance of a tax avoidance scheme. That tax avoidance scheme - offsetting the hush money payments against income - is a crime in NY, has nothing to do with federal law, and doesn’t depend on the reason that he paid the hush money payments.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

How? It’s still a misdemeanor, even if he didn’t fake the books in order to further another crime. 34 misdemeanors isn’t as fun as 34 felonies, but still.

Plus, how does that even get him out from the felony rap? His intent doesn’t matter. If the net result of the hush money payments would be to help his campaign, that money needs to be accounted for according to applicable state (and federal) election laws. Think of it this way - if Chipotle gives his campaign staff free burritos, the intent is to nourish the campaign staff and perhaps give them diarrhea. But it’s a campaign contribution nonetheless.

But even if all the election law stuff is taken out of the case, the indictment statement of facts makes clear that the false books were also in furtherance of a tax avoidance scheme. That tax avoidance scheme - offsetting the hush money payments against income - is a crime in NY, has nothing to do with federal law, and doesn’t depend on the reason that he paid the hush money payments.

It's a possible defense I've heard being thrown out there, one lacking the details you went into.

 

[Cmaier]

It's a possible defense I've heard being thrown out there, one lacking the details you went into.

As i noted before, there are a lot of bad takes being tossed out, mostly buying into political wishful thinking or speculation that predates the actual indictment.

 

[Eric]

As i noted before, there are a lot of bad takes being tossed out, mostly buying into political wishful thinking or speculation that predates the actual indictment.

Right, very hard to get the facts when everyone injects their politics into it and we're seeing it on both sides. Some of us just want to know what the most realistic outcome may be, sounds like you have a pretty level-headed take.

 

[fooferdoggie]

Seems like his best defense would be to say he didn’t do it to help him win the election but to keep his wife from knowing about the affair. That may win him the case but I can’t imagine it would do well with female voters which may be the point if you believe this is entirely political. It’s one thing to have it as a strike against him bullet point. It’s quite another to have an entire drawn-out court case drilling that point into your head.

I wonder if he’ll use that excuse for the other pending cases. “I didn’t want my wife to know I am a loser with a disorganized filing system.”

trump would rather die then admit such things.

 

[Cmaier]

Right, very hard to get the facts when everyone injects their politics into it and we're seeing it on both sides. Some of us just want to know what the most realistic outcome may be, sounds like you have a pretty level-headed take.

What’s really going on here is the same old Trump strategy. Create a strawman crime and say he didn’t commit it, so the whole thing is legal.

Then:

Law enforcement: ”Trump obstructed justice in the Russian election interference investigation”
Trump: “I didn’t collude with russia!”
Law enforcement: “”Collusion” is not a crime. Conspiracy and election interference are.”
Trump: “Aha! So you admit I didn’t collude! Thanks for clearing me!”

Now:

Law enforcement: “Trump created false business records in order to use in a fraudulent NY state income tax avoidance scheme”
Trump: “You can’t prove I made payments with the intent to violate federal election laws.”
Law enforcement: “That’s not what we accused you of. We said you created false business records to back up fraudulent tax forms, and which supported violation of federal and state election laws. Doesn’t matter whether you had some other purpose.”
Trump: “So you admit I had another purpose and it was all legit! Thanks for clearing me!”

 

[dada_dave]

As i noted before, there are a lot of bad takes being tossed out, mostly buying into political wishful thinking or speculation that predates the actual indictment.

It was a successful defense for Jon Edwards on that particular charge (though that was the Feds not NY charges may have different requirements). So it’s a possible defense but one that would be harder for Trump - Edward’s’ wife was dying, Trump’s … predilections are widely known, and Trump is apparently on the record as trying to delay payments until after the election “when it wouldn’t matter”. Plus as you said there are the other charges.

 

[Cmaier]

It was a successful defense for Jon Edwards on that particular charge. So it’s a possible defense but one that would be harder for Trump - Edward’s’ wife was dying, Trump’s … predilections are widely known, and Trump is apparently on the record as trying to delay payments until after the election “when it wouldn’t matter”. Plus as you said there are the other charges.

But trump isn’t charged with what edwards was charged with. He’s charged with falsifying business records.

To elevate to a felony, it is not necessary to prove trump is also guilty of the second crime - it just needs to be proven that he INTENDED to commit a second crime. People don’t seem to get this. They are falling for trump’s straw man arguments.

 

[dada_dave]

But trump isn’t charged with what edwards was charged with. He’s charged with falsifying business records.

To elevate to a felony, it is not necessary to prove trump is also guilty of the second crime. People don’t seem to get this. They are falling for trump’s straw man arguments.

Right I did amend that the Feds charged Edward’s rather than NY or the state. So different statutes with different requirements.

 

[Cmaier]

Right I did amend that the Feds charged Edward’s rather than NY or the state. So different statutes with different requirements.

Sure. But they’re not even related crimes. Edwards was charged with campaign finance violations. That’s very different than the book keeping violations trump is charged with (and I haven’t seen a single pundit suggest he isn’t guilty of those).

So all they need to prove in order to elevate to felony is that, in doing so, trump intended to commit some other crime. That other crime can be ANY other crime, and the best argument seems to be that he intended to violate state tax law - otherwise why would he fake the books to account for the payments as a business deduction?

 

[GermanSuplex]

From what I’ve read and heard, the connection between the 34 counts and the crime they were committed in furtherance of is a bit tenuous. I would hope the DA wouldn’t have brought the case if he weren’t reasonably certain that a link could be established and proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Question for lawyers: Could this be grounds for dismissal?

You are not alone, but I think this is a matter of perception. Trump has managed to get with so damn much that, up until this point, it felt he'd have to do something really overwhelming and blatant to face any consequences.

That's not how the law works though. People go to prison for much less egregious offenses all the time. Small restaurant owners, city and county clerks, people who work in auditing/accounting departments in all sorts of offices and retail businesses, state legislators, etc... they get caught cooking the books and lying on their taxes, they go to prison. I bet you can find at least two or three stories in your local news from this year of people who have stolen/lied about less and were swiftly arrested, charged, tried, convicted and sent to prison.

What pisses me off is when I read some 65 year old woman goes to prison for two or three years for stealing 50k from some business they work at, but then people act like "Well, because he was the president, we should probably let this slide". It's all criminal and you shouldn't uphold the law based on who its easier to enforce against.

I feel good about the case because this isn't like some unknown person running for the county board or something, who mangled their financial records. This is a guy plotting and scheming, caught on tape and with multiple witnesses who point the finger at him as the mastermind of it all. A jury isn't going to get caught up with "is this case big enough for me find him guilty?" They will look at the facts of the case, the evidence presented by both sides and then determine if Trump was guilty of breaking the law. By all accounts (well, except for the MAGA world), Bragg is a smart and focused man, and I doubt he'd have brought this case without the confidence he could win.

You also have to remember - Cohen was already convicted and imprisoned in a case related to these exact charges. In what world does it make sense to send that guy to prison, but not the person whom was the orchestrator and beneficiary of the crimes? Especially when said person signed the checks and is on audiotape going along with it all?

 

[Herdfan]

So how does one criticize George Soros and/or people he gives considerable amount of money to for their campaigns with extremely progressive values without automatically being called antisemitic?

Honestly, I didn't know he was even Jewish until a couple of weeks ago. Didn't like him before I knew he was Jewish.

But I guess if you can just accuse others of being anti-semitic as a way to kill their criticism, why not use it.

 

[Herdfan]

You also have to remember - Cohen was already convicted and imprisoned in a case related to these exact charges. In what world does it make sense to send that guy to prison, but not the person whom was the orchestrator and beneficiary of the crimes? Especially when said person signed the checks and is on audiotape going along with it all?

Cohen was going to prison anyway. He failed to pay over $4M in taxes that had nothing to do with Trump.

 

[Eric]

Cohen was going to prison anyway. He failed to pay over $4M in taxes that had nothing to do with Trump.

How is that connected to this charge though?

 

[Herdfan]

How is that connected to this charge though?

Because he was also charged with something similar to what Trump is charged with and is used in context like @GermanSuplex did. But the idea that Cohen went to prison for the "exact same thing" is not accurate. He was going to prison anyway.


Conspiracy Angle:

At this pointed Cohen hated Trump, so why not let them add this charge and make it part of your sentence. He was already going to prison, so why would he care if a charge was added that didn't increase his time if it meant getting back at Trump.

 

[GermanSuplex]

Cohen was going to prison anyway. He failed to pay over $4M in taxes that had nothing to do with Trump.

Right, but the whole thing is tied into Trump’s payment scheme. He either did it or he didn’t, the facts already establish he falsified records, a crime in itself. None of this is really disputed or defended. The part separate from Cohen is determining whether this was a campaign finance scheme, which is certainly is. That’s what will make it a felony, and the jury will decide.

The fundamental facts of the case are clear and not really contested,