|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Apr 4, 2023 15:32:43 GMT
MTG. Spoke for just over 2 minutes and fled.. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) quickly fled a New York City protest after giving a speech in defense of former President Donald Trump. "This is a travesty," she insisted as opponents heckled her. "President Trump did nothing wrong." "Democrats are the party of violence," Green continued as her voice was drowned out by whistles and shouting. "We're the party of peace. We're the party of male and female." *** Greene concluded her remarks by saying, "God bless MAGA," then quickly fled to a nearby SUV. www.rawstory.com/marjorie-taylor-green-flees-protest/
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Apr 4, 2023 21:37:56 GMT
34 felony counts of falsifying business records www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/04/04/trump-charges-34-counts-felony/Here are the 34 charges against Trump and what they mean
Former president Donald Trump appeared at the Manhattan Criminal Courthouse on Tuesday to formally face charges after his indictment by a grand jury last week. He is the first former U.S. president to be charged with a crime, in a case involving hush money payments to an adult-film actress. Here’s what we know about the indictment, which was just released. What are the charges against Trump? Trump is charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records under Article 175 of the New York Penal Law.
Falsifying business records is a felony in New York when there is an “intent to defraud” that includes an intent to “commit another crime or to aid or conceal” a crime. In this case, prosecutors will have to prove that Trump is guilty of maintaining false business records with the intent to hide a $130,000 payment in the days before the 2016 election to adult-film actress Stormy Daniels to cover up an alleged 2006 affair.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg said at a news conference after the court hearing that the alleged scheme was intended to cover up violations of New York election law, which makes it a crime to conspire to illegally promote a candidate. Bragg also said the $130,000 payment exceeded the federal campaign contribution cap.
Does that mean Trump is charged with 34 different crimes? No, the indictment lists 34 felony counts under the same New York statute. Each count represents a separate instance of alleged misconduct, but not a different type of crime. Daniels was paid by then-Trump attorney Michael Cohen, who was reimbursed by Trump after the election. The indictment details false entries in the Trump Organization’s general ledger and checks paid to Cohen in 2017 that prosecutors say were falsely recorded as payments for legal services. Read the statement of facts in the Trump case What are the likely punishments for those charges? If convicted on the felony bookkeeping fraud charges, Trump faces up to four years in prison for each count. The judge could impose consecutive sentences, meaning Trump would have to serve them one after the other.
The charge does not carry a mandatory prison sentence, however. Even if convicted on all counts, Trump would not necessarily face jail time. As a first-time offender with no criminal record, legal experts say, it is uncertain whether the former president and 2024 candidate would be sentenced to prison if convicted. Do we know how Trump will respond to the charges? Trump pleaded not guilty during the arraignment hearing Tuesday afternoon. His attorney Joe Tacopina said Sunday that the former president will eventually move to have the charges dismissed. This is a developing story.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Apr 4, 2023 21:42:02 GMT
The case really is about more than payoffs to a porn star. Trump was trying to influence the results of an election. www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/04/04/trump-arraignment-ny-indictment-live-updates/Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg said former president Donald Trump participated in a “catch-and-kill” scheme to buy and suppress negative information about him ahead of the 2016 election. Trump pleaded not guilty Tuesday to the 34 charges brought against him.
Speaking to reporters after Trump’s arraignment, Bragg said the evidence his investigation gathered will show that Trump participated in this scheme alongside the publishing company American Media Inc. and his then-lawyer Michael Cohen to “help Mr. Trump’s chance of winning the election.”
The plan involved having Cohen pay $130,000 to adult-film actress Stormy Daniels to stop her from discussing an alleged affair between her and Trump — an affair Trump has denied. “The defendant claimed that he was paying Michael Cohen for legal services, performed in 2017,” Bragg said. “This simply was not true.” In reality, Trump was reimbursing Cohen for paying Daniels.
Bragg accused Trump of continuing to make this false statement “month after month in 2017,” which is why Trump now faces 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. Bragg explained that, under New York state law, it is a felony to falsify business records “with intent to defraud and an intent to conceal another crime.” He explained that under New York election law, it is a crime to “conspire to promote a candidacy by unlawful means.”
“That is exactly what this case is about,” Bragg said. “Thirty-four false statements made to cover up other crimes.” Trump, Bragg said, “repeatedly made false statements on New York business records. He also caused others to make false statements.” “In order to get Michael Cohen his money back, they planned one last false statement in order to complete the scheme: They planned to mischaracterize the repayments to Mr. Cohen as income to the New York state tax authorities,” Bragg said. “The conduct I just described and that which was charged by the grand jury is felony criminal conduct in New York state.”
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Apr 5, 2023 0:13:42 GMT
I hope they're right! www.nytimes.com/2023/04/04/opinion/donald-trump-alvin-bragg-indictment-charges.htmlFor weeks, Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, has come under heavy fire for pursuing a case against Donald Trump. Potential charges were described as being developed under a novel legal theory. And criticism has come not only from Mr. Trump and his allies, as expected, but also from many who are usually no friends of the former president but who feared it would be a weak case.
With the release of the indictment and accompanying statement of facts, we can now say that there’s nothing novel or weak about this case. The charge of creating false financial records is constantly brought by Mr. Bragg and other New York D.A.s. In particular, the creation of phony documentation to cover up campaign finance violations has been repeatedly prosecuted in New York. That is exactly what Mr. Trump stands accused of.
The judge and jury will make the ultimate determination, but they will be far from the first to consider this question, and the answer has usually been a guilty verdict.
First, a note about the Manhattan D.A.’s office that will prosecute this case: It is hardly a typical local cog in the judicial system. In fact, it is unique. Its jurisdiction is the financial capital of the world. That means the office routinely prosecutes complex white-collar cases with crime scenes that involve the likes of the BNP Paribas international banking scandal. Big cases involving powerful, high-profile individuals have been handled by the office for decades. That was proved most recently by the office’s conviction of the Trump Organization and the guilty plea of one of its top executives, Allen Weisselberg, on charges relating to an intricate yearslong tax fraud scheme.
The books and records counts laid out in the charging papers against Mr. Trump are the bread and butter of the D.A.’s office. Mr. Trump, who pleaded not guilty to all charges on Tuesday, 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 Organization conviction and the Weisselberg plea included business falsification felonies.
The 34 felony books and records counts in the Trump indictment turn on the misstatement of the hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels arranged by Michael Cohen in the waning days of the 2016 election and the repayment of that amount by Mr. Trump to Mr. Cohen, ostensibly as legal expenses. There are 11 counts for false invoices, 11 for false checks and check stubs and 12 for false general ledger entries. This allegedly violated the false records statute when various entries were made in business documents describing those repayments as legal fees.
Moreover, the statement of facts alleges that deals, including one for Ms. Daniels and another for Karen McDougal that involved The National Enquirer, which had longstanding ties to Mr. Trump, were for the purpose of helping him win the presidency. If that is proved, then the deals would be “attempts to violate state and federal election laws,” as Mr. Bragg said in a statement, such as on their amount and disclosure. In this theory, the false records in the indictment covered up the campaign finance violation.
While the particulars of Mr. Trump’s case are unique, his behavior is not. Candidates and others have often attempted to skirt the disclosure and dollar limit requirements of campaign finance regulations and falsified records to hide it. Contrary to the protestations of Mr. Trump and his allies, New York prosecutors regularly charge felony violations of the books and records statute — and win convictions — when the crimes covered up were campaign finance violations, resulting in false entries in business records to conceal criminal activity.
For example, the Rockland County D.A. convicted the executive Richard Brega for falsifying business records by misrepresenting the source of funds that he funneled into a campaign. The Oneida County D.A. charged a county political party chair, John Dote, with pilfering campaign funds and failing to properly account for them, resulting in conviction for felony falsification of business records (and second-degree grand larceny). The Brooklyn D.A. convicted Assemblyman Clarence Norman for soliciting illegal campaign contributions and for felony falsification of business records. And on and on, in New York and federally.
There have also been several analogous prosecutions for falsifying records to cover up campaign finance violations in New York and elsewhere that did not result in conviction. That in itself is not unusual, as judges and juries sometimes disagree with a prosecution. And it is, in fact, a good thing — a sign of a criminal justice system that tries to operate with fairness.
What these cases demonstrate is that Mr. Bragg is not navigating uncharted waters. They also support a corollary point in favor of this prosecution. Some legal analysts have pointed to an intent to defraud issue with the charges. The statute says that “a person is guilty of falsifying business records when, “with intent to defraud,” the individual commits certain acts.
These analysts say that requires proving that the scheme resulted in cheating or depriving another person of property or a thing of value or a right and that there is no such evidence here. That may be the case in other jurisdictions, but in New York, there is no such requirement.
New York appellate courts have held in a long series of cases that intent to defraud includes circumstances in which a defendant acts “for the purpose of frustrating the state’s power” to “faithfully carry out its own law.” To the extent Mr. Trump was covering up campaign contributions that violated New York law, that seems to be exactly what he did.
It’s also worth noting that Mr. Trump was a federal candidate, whereas the other New York cases involved state ones. But court after court across the country has recognized that state authorities can enforce state law in cases relating to federal candidates. Those courts have allowed state cases concerning federal campaign contributions under widely varied circumstances, including for fraudulently diverting funds from political action committees founded to support federal presidential campaigns, violating state law limits on corporate contributions to federal campaigns and transgressing state laws concerning donations to PACs that funded federal campaigns. Some of the examples involve criminal enforcement by state authorities, some civil, but the point is the same: They can act.
So Mr. Bragg’s bringing a state case concerning a federal campaign is hardly novel. In an abundance of caution, he not only alleges violations of state campaign finance law but also alleges federal violations. We believe that is permitted, given that the fraudulent books and records and other relevant statutes refer simply to covering up “another crime” or using “unlawful means” and do not specify whether they need be federal or state.
This approach is wise because to throw out the case, a judge would have to rule that Mr. Trump is covered by neither state nor federal campaign finance law. We think it is unlikely that the courts will embrace that Catch-22.
Whatever happens next, one thing is clear: 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.
The indictment is therefore anything but political. If anything, the more political choice would have been not to indict when there is so much scrutiny. Mr. Bragg appears to have the backbone to avoid such considerations in charging decisions. Good for him — and for the rule of law.
|
|
|
Post by dizzycheermom on Apr 5, 2023 15:02:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Apr 5, 2023 15:56:09 GMT
Well done! No privilege in the court house!!
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Apr 5, 2023 16:06:36 GMT
I read this yesterday and although it’s a well-written piece, the question in my mind remains unanswered: What is Bragg’s evidence proving “intent” in the underlying crime that makes this a felony? IME, unless intent is apparent (meaning it’s obvious or easily inferred) in the commission of the crime, it’s an extremely difficult element to prove. Prosecution needs to prove that Trump, who I highly doubt knows the intricacies of campaign finance laws, KNEW it was a campaign finance violation at the time he was reimbursing Cohen, and knowingly and willfully proceeded anyway. I’m sorry…but that is a stretch. A very significant stretch. If SDNY itself, which has jurisdiction to prosecute violations of federal campaign laws, turned this down, how can New York County which has no federal jurisdiction hope to prevail? Maybe Bragg has solid evidence, and if he does, then we’re good. If he doesn’t and this all falls apart, then I don’t know what to say. I am disappointed that of all the crimes Trump committed, we ended up with a porn-star-payoff as a first indictment. Sheesh, in NY alone, there's bank fraud, insurance fraud, possibly RICO!
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Apr 5, 2023 16:59:29 GMT
Somewhere I heard read tax issues/fraud. City and/or state taxes? Vague in my head, and could well be wrong. Glad to see you lizacreates
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Apr 5, 2023 17:17:09 GMT
I read this yesterday and although it’s a well-written piece, the question in my mind remains unanswered: What is Bragg’s evidence proving “intent” in the underlying crime that makes this a felony? IME, unless intent is apparent (meaning it’s obvious or easily inferred) in the commission of the crime, it’s an extremely difficult element to prove. Prosecution needs to prove that Trump, who I highly doubt knows the intricacies of campaign finance laws, KNEW it was a campaign finance violation at the time he was reimbursing Cohen, and knowingly and willfully proceeded anyway. I’m sorry…but that is a stretch. A very significant stretch. If SDNY itself, which has jurisdiction to prosecute violations of federal campaign laws, turned this down, how can New York County which has no federal jurisdiction hope to prevail? Maybe Bragg has solid evidence, and if he does, then we’re good. If he doesn’t and this all falls apart, then I don’t know what to say. I am disappointed that of all the crimes Trump committed, we ended up with a porn-star-payoff as a first indictment. Sheesh, in NY alone, there's bank fraud, insurance fraud, possibly RICO! I would hope, in a high-profile case like this, that Bragg would have made sure he had evidence in hand to prove intent before he brought the case to the grand jury. But who knows? I agree that I would have preferred a different crime to be prosecuted first. So many to choose from ...
|
|
|
Post by Gem Girl on Apr 5, 2023 18:46:03 GMT
I read this yesterday and although it’s a well-written piece, the question in my mind remains unanswered: What is Bragg’s evidence proving “intent” in the underlying crime that makes this a felony? IME, unless intent is apparent (meaning it’s obvious or easily inferred) in the commission of the crime, it’s an extremely difficult element to prove. Prosecution needs to prove that Trump, who I highly doubt knows the intricacies of campaign finance laws, KNEW it was a campaign finance violation at the time he was reimbursing Cohen, and knowingly and willfully proceeded anyway. I’m sorry…but that is a stretch. A very significant stretch. If SDNY itself, which has jurisdiction to prosecute violations of federal campaign laws, turned this down, how can New York County which has no federal jurisdiction hope to prevail? Maybe Bragg has solid evidence, and if he does, then we’re good. If he doesn’t and this all falls apart, then I don’t know what to say. I am disappointed that of all the crimes Trump committed, we ended up with a porn-star-payoff as a first indictment. Sheesh, in NY alone, there's bank fraud, insurance fraud, possibly RICO! I believe Bragg said yesterday that SDNY didn't "pass" on this, but was told by TFG's AG, Bill Barr, to stand down.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Apr 5, 2023 20:28:56 GMT
Somewhere I heard read tax issues/fraud. City and/or state taxes? Vague in my head, and could well be wrong. Glad to see you lizacreates Politico has a pretty good explanation of how the indictment involves taxes www.politico.com/news/2023/04/04/trump-indictment-takeaways-analysis-00089988Going into Tuesday’s historic and much-previewed arraignment, a key mystery was exactly how Bragg planned to bring the charges as felonies. The charge at the heart of the case — falsifying business records — can amount to only a misdemeanor, but it becomes a felony if the defendant falsified the records to obscure a separate crime.
The charges against Trump do not include any tax fraud offenses that some legal experts said they hoped to see to buttress the seriousness of the case. However, the statement of facts Bragg filed along with the indictment makes a surprising claim: that Trump and his associates engaged in deception by paying New York state more in taxes than it was owed.
“The participants also took steps that mischaracterized, for tax purposes, the true nature of the payments made in furtherance of the scheme,” the statement says.
It alleges that Trump paid an increased reimbursement to Cohen — a procedure known as “grossing up” the payment — in order to compensate him for the taxes he would owe by booking the money as legal fees.
These alleged contortions resulted in Cohen paying about $180,000 in state and federal income taxes, when he may have not owed anything if Trump had simply reimbursed him for the $130,000 and the payment had been properly recorded. That’s because the reimbursement of money Cohen already paid to Daniels wouldn’t have represented income for Cohen.
But recording the money, falsely, as legal fees subjected Cohen to significant income-tax liability — meaning that any trickery the men engaged in may actually have benefitted state and federal coffers. That may be why Bragg’s team doesn’t deem the practice “fraud,” and why no tax fraud or evasion charge was included in the indictment.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Apr 5, 2023 20:32:16 GMT
I read this yesterday and although it’s a well-written piece, the question in my mind remains unanswered: What is Bragg’s evidence proving “intent” in the underlying crime that makes this a felony? IME, unless intent is apparent (meaning it’s obvious or easily inferred) in the commission of the crime, it’s an extremely difficult element to prove. Prosecution needs to prove that Trump, who I highly doubt knows the intricacies of campaign finance laws, KNEW it was a campaign finance violation at the time he was reimbursing Cohen, and knowingly and willfully proceeded anyway. I’m sorry…but that is a stretch. A very significant stretch. If SDNY itself, which has jurisdiction to prosecute violations of federal campaign laws, turned this down, how can New York County which has no federal jurisdiction hope to prevail? Maybe Bragg has solid evidence, and if he does, then we’re good. If he doesn’t and this all falls apart, then I don’t know what to say. I am disappointed that of all the crimes Trump committed, we ended up with a porn-star-payoff as a first indictment. Sheesh, in NY alone, there's bank fraud, insurance fraud, possibly RICO! I would hope, in a high-profile case like this, that Bragg would have made sure he had evidence in hand to prove intent before he brought the case to the grand jury. But who knows? I agree that I would have preferred a different crime to be prosecuted first. So many to choose from ... It would have preferred an indictment on different charges, too. But, as long as there are other indictments, the order might not really matter. Hopefully, this opens the floodgates for more charges. And, if you look at it from this perspective - he committed these crimes in an effort to change the outcome of an election, maybe it's fitting that this is the first indictment?
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Apr 5, 2023 20:41:07 GMT
another perspective, just a few sections of the opinion. www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/04/donald-trump-indictment-arraignment-bragg/673621/This Is Actually Quite Bad Quinta Jurecic The Manhattan case, in its own quirky way, underscores how profoundly unsuited Trump is for the office he once held and that he is now again seeking.
At a press conference following the arraignment, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg argued that the case was fundamentally about lies—“like so many of our white-collar prosecutions.” Trump, he alleged, had “lied again and again to protect his interests, and to evade the laws to which we are all held accountable.”
In the end, the indictment and the accompanying “statement of facts” released by Bragg’s office provided surprisingly little new information.
The charges against Trump are felonies—“bumped up” to more serious charges under New York law because of their link to the commission of another crime. So which crime? The indictment does not say. In his press conference, Bragg indicated that this was a strategic choice by his office and pointed to a range of possibilities, including New York state-tax fraud and violations of both New York State and federal election law.
Bragg consistently framed the charges in his press conference as efforts to hold Trump accountable for lies to the public. The statement of facts alleges that Trump and his team set the hush-money payments in motion to better his chances in the 2016 election: The Defendant did not want this information to become public because he was concerned about the effect it could have on his candidacy,” the district attorney writes of McDougal’s account of an affair. Trump schemed with Cohen to pay off Daniels after news broke in early October 2016 of the Access Hollywood tape, further endangering his campaign. As sketched by Bragg, this was a coordinated effort to deny American voters relevant information in advance of the election. According to the statement of facts, Trump initially suggested to Cohen “that if they could delay the payment until after the election, they could avoid paying altogether, because at that point it would not matter if the story became public.”
Trump did not just purchase silence ahead of the 2016 vote. He worked while he was in office to complete the cover-up
This is, by now, a familiar portrait: a candidate, and then a president, obsessed with gaining and holding on to power at all costs, without any care for or comprehension of his obligations to the public, nor any commitment to play by the rules that bind everyone else. Such conduct speaks directly to Trump’s unfitness for office and inability to conceptualize anything outside of himself. I would not, personally, rank it as worse than seeking to overturn the results of a lawful election or attempting a coup. But it is disturbing all the same.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Apr 5, 2023 21:03:26 GMT
I read this yesterday and although it’s a well-written piece, the question in my mind remains unanswered: What is Bragg’s evidence proving “intent” in the underlying crime that makes this a felony? IME, unless intent is apparent (meaning it’s obvious or easily inferred) in the commission of the crime, it’s an extremely difficult element to prove. Prosecution needs to prove that Trump, who I highly doubt knows the intricacies of campaign finance laws, KNEW it was a campaign finance violation at the time he was reimbursing Cohen, and knowingly and willfully proceeded anyway. I’m sorry…but that is a stretch. A very significant stretch. If SDNY itself, which has jurisdiction to prosecute violations of federal campaign laws, turned this down, how can New York County which has no federal jurisdiction hope to prevail? Maybe Bragg has solid evidence, and if he does, then we’re good. If he doesn’t and this all falls apart, then I don’t know what to say. I am disappointed that of all the crimes Trump committed, we ended up with a porn-star-payoff as a first indictment. Sheesh, in NY alone, there's bank fraud, insurance fraud, possibly RICO! I believe Bragg said yesterday that SDNY didn't "pass" on this, but was told by TFG's AG, Bill Barr, to stand down. Here's what Vance said about pressure to stand down. If there was pressure on the Manhattan DA, I can only imagine how much pressure there was on the SDNY. www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-april-2-2023-n1303982CHUCK TODD:
Why didn't you charge the hush money case? Why didn't you ever charge it in 2018, 2019, 2020?
CYRUS VANCE, JR:
Well Chuck, I don't want to get into the deliberations that might be covered by grand jury material, but it’s – but as I believe you know, I was asked by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District to stand down on our investigation, which had commenced involving the Trump Organization. And as, you know, as someone who respects that office a great deal, and believing that they may have perhaps the best laws to investigate, I did so. And I was somewhat surprised after Mr. Cohen pleaded guilty that the federal government did not proceed on the areas in which it asked me to stand down. By that time, we were also well on our way in a financial investigation that ultimately led to subpoenas, which the president himself published in a lawsuit he filed against me and the office, and ultimately that long but, you know, successful journey to the Supreme Court. And for those who think this is about politics, I think it’s important to remind folks that the review of the president's objections to our seeking his tax and other financial records were reviewed by two separate district courts, two separate courts of appeal, and twice by the United States Supreme Court, all of whom who found no evidence that politics was motivating our actions.
CHUCK TODD:
Did your office conclude that a standalone felony charge for these hush money payments wasn't worth it because of so many of the uncertainties around the legal theory, and that's why you were pursuing this larger issue that this was just one part of – of, sort of, how the Trump Organization lied or – on their business records?
CYRUS VANCE, JR.:
Well, I think, Chuck, again, I don't want to get into our deliberations. But we have historically filed cases of false documentation, elevating them to felonies, when federal statutes were involved. It's never been done, that I know of, with regard to federal election law, which is quite a, you know, specific area of law. But I think the question is not so much why didn't I do it, or we did it, but why this district attorney is doing it. And that really requires us to be patient and to wait. This process isn't going to be accelerated by us talking about it. It's going to be moved by the court at the pace the court sees fit. And I guarantee you, the court will want this to move quickly.
|
|
|
Post by Gem Girl on Apr 5, 2023 22:14:46 GMT
aj2hall Thank you for that. Swamped today, so hard for me to provide the references I generally try to include.
|
|
|
Post by Gem Girl on Apr 5, 2023 22:31:01 GMT
Did this quote disgust anybody else?
Trump initially suggested to Cohen “that if they could delay the payment until after the election, they could avoid paying altogether, because at that point it would not matter if the story became public.”
Whether T-rump believed it wouldn't matter because he'd already have what he wanted, &/or that nobody would be able to do anything about it (because he was then in such a position of power) makes little difference. It speaks volumes about his lack of character, demonstrates that his longstanding reputation for stiffing contractors who'd provided honest work is correct, and indicates a disdain for the feelings/thoughts/reactions of the citizens he was running to "serve."
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Apr 5, 2023 23:27:52 GMT
Did this quote disgust anybody else? Trump initially suggested to Cohen “that if they could delay the payment until after the election, they could avoid paying altogether, because at that point it would not matter if the story became public.”Whether T-rump believed it wouldn't matter because he'd already have what he wanted, &/or that nobody would be able to do anything about it (because he was then in such a position of power) makes little difference. It speaks volumes about his lack of character, demonstrates that his longstanding reputation for stiffing contractors who'd provided honest work is correct, and indicates a disdain for the feelings/thoughts/reactions of the citizens he was running to "serve." Yes, this too www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/04/05/bragg-arraignment-trump-charged-reaction/Importantly, the indictment ties Trump’s actions to the election in two key ways: First, evidence of his desire to drag out payments to Daniels beyond the election so he might not have to pay up in full. Second, as soon as he was sworn in, the doorman and “Woman 1” were released from their deals. Once the election was over, Trump didn’t care what they said.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Apr 6, 2023 2:36:28 GMT
Now this is interesting and possible great news... former lawyer to TFG, Ty Cobb thinks Smith could charge in 60 days...not likely though... "You think all this could happen, just to be clear, within the next 60 days charge?" asked Burnett. "I do," confirmed Cobb. "I think the evidence has come together fast enough to that that could be easily charged. And if it is charged that quickly, I think it could, you know, quickly overtake the Bragg case as the lead case, most likely to get to trial before November of 2024." So just to be clear, you think this one could end up being finished by then?" Burnett pressed him."So it is possible, given the way you see the evidence, that Trump could be convicted before the election and actually could be sentenced to jail time," said Cobb. "But the key word there being 'possible.' It's, you know, it's not likely and nobody can say with certainty, but I think there is certainly a possibility at this stage of the game, given the strength of the evidence that Jack Smith has collected and is pursuing, that that easily could be charged within the next 60 days."www.rawstory.com/trump-evidence/
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Apr 6, 2023 23:45:25 GMT
Another perspective on the indictment www.nytimes.com/2023/04/06/opinion/trump-indictment.htmlFinally, here we are: Donald Trump’s first indictment. The 34 felony counts unsealed at his arraignment this week focus on the falsification of business records in the first degree, a low-level felony charge. This indictment may not prove to be the rock-solid legal case one might hope it to be. It neither addresses the gravest allegations leveled at Trump — subverting the vote, attempted coup, rape — nor is it the most potentially persuasive case against him under consideration. Whether the evidence proves strong enough to convict him will be up to legal analysts to parse and ultimately, a jury to decide months from now.
But for the moment, let’s appreciate the karmic justice of these particular charges — no matter the outcome. Falsifying business records to cover up hush money payments to a porn star, brings us full circle to the sleaziness we knew about well before Trump ever set foot in office. In the indictment’s focus on Trump’s financial malfeasance and his flagrant misogyny, the charges recall two pivotal events that took place before his election: his failure to disclose his tax returns and the contemptuous behavior revealed in the “Access Hollywood” tape.
That many Americans nonetheless did take the prospect seriously seemed bound to be undone by those two pre-election events. First, Trump’s refusal to release his tax records was a departure from years of accepted practice. If he had nothing to hide, he would have shared his returns. If he had been telling the truth, he wouldn’t have repeatedly said he intended to share his returns. And if he couldn’t abide by this seemingly innocuous precedent, we knew he would not follow others. And that’s what we got: the blatant graft that marked his term in office, whether it was his rampant financial conflicts of interest, his frequent self-dealings and misuse of the Trump International Hotel and other properties or the taxpayer-funded excesses and shady profit-seeking by members of his extended family.
The second event was the release of the “Access Hollywood” tape, which revealed a man with such disdain for women that he would respect neither their humanity nor their bodily autonomy. To anyone paying attention, Trump’s vocal contempt for women had been on display in New York and on “The Howard Stern Show” for decades. But “Access Hollywood” made it plain to everyone, immediately before the election, exactly what kind of man we were getting: one who would callously separate mothers from their children at the border and deliberately appoint people to the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe v. Wade.
Perhaps Trump himself recognized the parallel. As The Times reporter Maggie Haberman noted on the day he pleaded not guilty to the charges, “One of the few times Trump has looked as angry as he just did was when he was at the second presidential debate with Hillary Clinton two days after the infamous ‘Access Hollywood’ tape became public in October 2016.”
Lying. Cheating, personally and professionally. Financial misdeeds. Sexism. Whatever the eventual outcome of this trial, the moral and political case against Trump now echoes the case against Trump back then.
Last Thursday night at the end of a Broadway performance of “Parade,” a musical about the wrongful murder conviction of Leo Frank in Georgia in 1913, the star Ben Platt addressed the audience after the ovations to contrast that woeful history with the rightful indictment of Donald Trump that day. The audience’s resounding cheers in response may have surpassed the considerable applause for the performance itself.
Some say the indictment of a former president, however justified, is no cause for celebration. That we should not be happy that a former American president has been charged with a crime. That it sets a dangerous precedent on the road to banana republic-dom.
But we should be happy that this former president was indicted.
Too many years of knowing that Trump’s time in office would deliver on the sleaziness of its promise. Too many years of an endless cycle of revelations and accusations met with impunity, which have felt like an inconceivable injustice to those of us who continue to believe — against often crushing evidence to the contrary — in the existence of any kind of justice at all. There is, it must be said, a deep satisfaction in knowing that after too many years of suffering through the Trump we got, Trump himself finally has been gotten.
Both told us everything we could have expected from a Trump presidency. Both should have stopped Trump from becoming president. And the fact that they didn’t — that roughly half of American voters were willing to overlook Trump’s moral failings in the service of politics — shows why the country is still so intractably polarized. But neither side can claim it didn’t know exactly the kind of person who was elected in the first place.Let’s step back, then, to Trump’s emergence as a presidential candidate in the 2016 election. Anyone who’d been following his antics for decades assumed, wrongly, that nobody would take seriously the prospect of a corrupt businessman, third-tier reality TV showman and object of tabloid ridicule as president.
|
|
|
Post by Scrapper100 on Apr 7, 2023 0:52:44 GMT
I think many of us knew Trump was questionable but had no idea how bad he would be. He wasn’t doing that many outwardly racist things to the same degree before election. He had some African Americans that he seemed to call friends and I know he made a comment about LGBTQ + to make it sound like he wouldn’t do anything to hurt them or discriminate against them I don’t remember the comment but I remember hearing and thinking he won’t do much of anything if elected anyways. I also thought he had no chance of winning. I figured if he did he would get bored within a month or two. That he wouldn’t want to work so wouldn’t cause that much upset. Had no idea he would discover he had so much power against those that stood up against him and that he could make so much money while being in office as well as the rest of the family. I think that is why he changed his tune and let it all fly. I think he whitewashed his thinking a little bit while running and then after elected and he saw that more agreed with his disgusting ways and he went full bore and they ate it up. Saying what any decent person would never say. He was so much worse than I think we thought he would be. We knew he wasn’t going to be good but he just took it to whole new level of depravity. I also don’t get how the Christian right sees him as a savior. He isn’t Christian just using them feeding them a few crumbs and they eat it up.
I was wrong about him but was surprised he made it through the primaries. There were other valid candidates that I think would have not led us to where we are now. I honestly didn’t pay that much attention to him as I didn’t like him. I bet that many Republicans did the same thing and just voted for him because if the R after his name … then again no excuse for more to vote for him the second time.
As an American I am not celebrating that a president is being indicted. I want the best for my country. The best would not be a president that’s breaking laws. That said he needs to be charged for his crimes. As embarrassing as it is it was embarrassing when he was saying stupid things while in office and we can’t just let everything go or there will be someone worse knowing he will be able to get away with it. We know he has committed several crimes and I hope that Justice prevails in all cases. I also hope if he is found guilty that he doesn’t just walk assuming it’s something everyone else would go to jail for. I know it would most likely be house arrest but still. The rule of law should apply to all.
ETA. I never thought he would land on the ballot I thought he would get tired of it and he was just doing it for publicity and then at a certain point he felt he had no choice. I still thought if elected he wouldn’t last he would get tired snd step down. Money and the grift was just too big though. That and I think he knew there were cases against him that he thought would go away as the president.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Apr 7, 2023 2:32:01 GMT
Any one or more of the other case can be brought forward before his next court date, Dec 4th..
He does have the EJ Carroll case soon..
|
|