|
Post by dk56 on Apr 15, 2024 20:15:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Fetzer Zinfandel ♀︎ on Apr 15, 2024 20:21:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by jackspicer on Apr 15, 2024 20:25:07 GMT
What is the second crime? Where can I read the statute? The second crime, call it the "predicate", seems to be a smorgasbord of crimes that NY State law allows Bragg to present to the jury without having to specify in the indictment beforehand. I'm guessing that the reason is that Trump is not actually being charged with the predicate crime. Here's a layout of it: The statute requires the falsification of a business record with intent to defraud, and it requires that the falsification be part of an attempt to commit another crime, to aid another crime, or to conceal another crime. For the ease of explanation, call the referenced crime the criminal “predicate.” The indictment identifies thirty-four falsified business records, but it didn’t indicate what the criminal predicates were, because New York law doesn’t require that it do so. But some clues about the predicates can be found in the 13-page Statement of Facts that accompanied the indictment, as well as from Bragg’s comments in a press conference following the arraignment.
The statement creates certain inferences about the predicates. Generally speaking, the statement describes an “unlawful scheme” designed to “influence the 2016 presidential election by identifying and purchasing negative information about [Trump] to suppress its publication and benefit the Defendant’s electoral prospects.” In short, the DA alleges what the popular press calls a catch-and-kill scheme, which itself consists of more specific unlawful activity. The scheme itself was illegal, says the indictment and accompanying statement, as was much of the activity used to effectuate it. Some combination of the activity used to effectuate the scheme and the scheme itself predicates each of the thirty-four charges under § 175.10. The second paragraph of the indictment indicates that the predicating criminality includes (1) violations of “election laws” and (2) violations associated with “mischaracterize[ing], for tax purposes, the true nature of the payments[.]” The third paragraph makes clear that the election law predicates include Michael Cohen’s federal conviction for “making an illegal campaign contribution.” In paragraphs 41 through 44, the statement alleges that Cohen worked with Trump and American Media Inc. (AMI), the parent company of the National Enquirer, to effectuate the scheme. Those paragraphs also recite AMI’s agreement that it purchased the salacious stories without ever having intended to publish them.
The Bragg press conference provided some additional clues about the predicates. Bragg repeatedly emphasized that the § 175.10 offense was concealment of prior criminality: “That is exactly what this case is about. Thirty-four false statements made to cover up other crimes.” Bragg’s prepared remarks detailed the catch-and-kill scheme generally, and suggested the DA’s view that the scheme or its parts violated several different criminal laws: (1) New York Election Law § 17-152, making it a crime to conspire to promote a candidacy by unlawful means; (2) federal limits on campaign contributions (federal election law); (3) New York laws violated by false statements on AMI’s books; and (4) tax laws violated by a mischaracterization someone made or planned to make to taxing authorities.
The major point is this: Bragg is sketching a lot of different predicates involving a lot of different people. Importantly, the predicates do not have to be crimes committed by Trump; they can be crimes committed by Cohen, AMI, or someone else. So the universe of predicates might look something like a 2x2x2 grid: (1) federal tax law violations by Trump; (2) federal tax law violations by third parties; (3) New York tax law violations by Trump; (4) New York tax law violations by third parties; (5) federal election law violation by Trump; (6) federal election law violations by third parties; (7) New York Election Law § 17-152 violations by Trump; and (8) § 17-152 violations by third parties. The list is a touch under-inclusive, because it doesn’t capture the possibility that AMI’s false statements violated some other provision of New York law, which is something that Bragg alluded to several times in his remarks.www.lawfaremedia.org/article/preemption-and-known-unknowns-trump-indictmentBut you can't actually cite the election law that was violated? There is no law against NDAs, nor is there a cap on the amount a candidate can spend on their own campaign. How can you have a trial when you don't know what the crime is? If this wasn't a politically motivated show trial designed to interfere with the 2024 election, it never would have seen the light of day.
|
|
|
Post by dlancer on Apr 15, 2024 20:39:31 GMT
The second crime, call it the "predicate", seems to be a smorgasbord of crimes that NY State law allows Bragg to present to the jury without having to specify in the indictment beforehand. I'm guessing that the reason is that Trump is not actually being charged with the predicate crime. Here's a layout of it: The statute requires the falsification of a business record with intent to defraud, and it requires that the falsification be part of an attempt to commit another crime, to aid another crime, or to conceal another crime. For the ease of explanation, call the referenced crime the criminal “predicate.” The indictment identifies thirty-four falsified business records, but it didn’t indicate what the criminal predicates were, because New York law doesn’t require that it do so. But some clues about the predicates can be found in the 13-page Statement of Facts that accompanied the indictment, as well as from Bragg’s comments in a press conference following the arraignment.
The statement creates certain inferences about the predicates. Generally speaking, the statement describes an “unlawful scheme” designed to “influence the 2016 presidential election by identifying and purchasing negative information about [Trump] to suppress its publication and benefit the Defendant’s electoral prospects.” In short, the DA alleges what the popular press calls a catch-and-kill scheme, which itself consists of more specific unlawful activity. The scheme itself was illegal, says the indictment and accompanying statement, as was much of the activity used to effectuate it. Some combination of the activity used to effectuate the scheme and the scheme itself predicates each of the thirty-four charges under § 175.10. The second paragraph of the indictment indicates that the predicating criminality includes (1) violations of “election laws” and (2) violations associated with “mischaracterize[ing], for tax purposes, the true nature of the payments[.]” The third paragraph makes clear that the election law predicates include Michael Cohen’s federal conviction for “making an illegal campaign contribution.” In paragraphs 41 through 44, the statement alleges that Cohen worked with Trump and American Media Inc. (AMI), the parent company of the National Enquirer, to effectuate the scheme. Those paragraphs also recite AMI’s agreement that it purchased the salacious stories without ever having intended to publish them.
The Bragg press conference provided some additional clues about the predicates. Bragg repeatedly emphasized that the § 175.10 offense was concealment of prior criminality: “That is exactly what this case is about. Thirty-four false statements made to cover up other crimes.” Bragg’s prepared remarks detailed the catch-and-kill scheme generally, and suggested the DA’s view that the scheme or its parts violated several different criminal laws: (1) New York Election Law § 17-152, making it a crime to conspire to promote a candidacy by unlawful means; (2) federal limits on campaign contributions (federal election law); (3) New York laws violated by false statements on AMI’s books; and (4) tax laws violated by a mischaracterization someone made or planned to make to taxing authorities.
The major point is this: Bragg is sketching a lot of different predicates involving a lot of different people. Importantly, the predicates do not have to be crimes committed by Trump; they can be crimes committed by Cohen, AMI, or someone else. So the universe of predicates might look something like a 2x2x2 grid: (1) federal tax law violations by Trump; (2) federal tax law violations by third parties; (3) New York tax law violations by Trump; (4) New York tax law violations by third parties; (5) federal election law violation by Trump; (6) federal election law violations by third parties; (7) New York Election Law § 17-152 violations by Trump; and (8) § 17-152 violations by third parties. The list is a touch under-inclusive, because it doesn’t capture the possibility that AMI’s false statements violated some other provision of New York law, which is something that Bragg alluded to several times in his remarks.www.lawfaremedia.org/article/preemption-and-known-unknowns-trump-indictmentBut you can't actually cite the election law that was violated? There is no law against NDAs, nor is there a cap on the amount a candidate can spend on their own campaign. How can you have a trial when you don't know what the crime is? If this wasn't a politically motivated show trial designed to interfere with the 2024 election, it never would have seen the light of day. This has been brewing since 2018, even before the last presidential election.
Michael Cohen already pleaded guilty to those crimes.
You're way past pretending they don't exist.
|
|
|
Post by jackspicer on Apr 15, 2024 20:44:13 GMT
But you can't actually cite the election law that was violated? There is no law against NDAs, nor is there a cap on the amount a candidate can spend on their own campaign. How can you have a trial when you don't know what the crime is? If this wasn't a politically motivated show trial designed to interfere with the 2024 election, it never would have seen the light of day. This has been brewing since 2018, even before the last presidential election.
Michael Cohen already pleaded guilty to those crimes.
You're way past pretending they don't exist.
The case against Trump wasn't pursued by the Feds because they determined no crime was committed. Again, what crime was Trump trying to cover up? NDAs are legal, and there is no cap on the amount a candidate can spend on their own campaign. Cite the statute that says otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by dlancer on Apr 15, 2024 20:46:42 GMT
This has been brewing since 2018, even before the last presidential election.
Michael Cohen already pleaded guilty to those crimes.
You're way past pretending they don't exist.
The case against Trump wasn't pursued by the Feds because they determined no crime was committed. Again, what crime was Trump trying to cover up? NDAs are legal, and there is no cap on the amount a candidate can spend on their own campaign. Cite the statute that says otherwise. I just told you the other crimes were the ones involving Cohen.
I guess this is where you pretend he committed no crimes and pleaded guilty for no reason.
|
|
|
Post by jackspicer on Apr 15, 2024 20:58:00 GMT
The case against Trump wasn't pursued by the Feds because they determined no crime was committed. Again, what crime was Trump trying to cover up? NDAs are legal, and there is no cap on the amount a candidate can spend on their own campaign. Cite the statute that says otherwise. I just told you the other crimes were the ones involving Cohen.
I guess this is where you pretend he committed no crimes and pleaded guilty for no reason.
I didn't ask what Cohen pleaded to, so why do you keep bringing it up as if it is relevant? Again, what crime was Trump trying to cover up? NDAs are legal, and there is no cap on the amount a candidate can spend on their own campaign. Cite the statute that says otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by ayatollah on Apr 15, 2024 20:59:55 GMT
Karen Friedman? She married to Henry?
|
|
|
Post by ayatollah on Apr 15, 2024 21:01:26 GMT
It's another made-up victimless crime.
I don't care that he had sex with a porn star, and don't care if he paid her to stay quiet.
|
|
|
Post by ayatollah on Apr 15, 2024 21:01:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Fetzer Zinfandel ♀︎ on Apr 15, 2024 21:03:44 GMT
lol. Or they could do the right thing and let the evidence speak for itself.
|
|
|
Post by jackspicer on Apr 15, 2024 21:05:51 GMT
It's another made-up victimless crime. I don't care that he had sex with a porn star, and don't care if he paid her to stay quiet. It's not even a crime. It's a perfectly legal non-disclosure agreement. To find Trump guilty of this would be as absurd as something like being found liable for fraud for negotiating property values with a lender. Oh wait, dems do think that is fraud (but only when Trump does it, of course).
|
|
|
Post by jackspicer on Apr 15, 2024 21:06:20 GMT
lol. Or they could do the right thing and let the evidence speak for itself. If you don't know what the crime is, then there is no evidence. This is pure lawfare and election interference by your party.
|
|
|
Post by dlancer on Apr 15, 2024 21:16:08 GMT
I just told you the other crimes were the ones involving Cohen.
I guess this is where you pretend he committed no crimes and pleaded guilty for no reason.
I didn't ask what Cohen pleaded to, so why do you keep bringing it up as if it is relevant? Again, what crime was Trump trying to cover up? NDAs are legal, and there is no cap on the amount a candidate can spend on their own campaign. Cite the statute that says otherwise. I bring it up because those are the other crimes you repeatedly ask for. Duh?
Among those crimes, Cohen pleaded guilty to violating the per-person $2,700 limit of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA).
Cohen admitted the payments were made to help Trump's chances of winning the election.
Those crimes are already on the books.
Bragg didn't need to specify them before the trial because Trump isn't being charged with those other crimes.
|
|
|
Post by jackspicer on Apr 15, 2024 21:18:41 GMT
I didn't ask what Cohen pleaded to, so why do you keep bringing it up as if it is relevant? Again, what crime was Trump trying to cover up? NDAs are legal, and there is no cap on the amount a candidate can spend on their own campaign. Cite the statute that says otherwise. I bring it up because those are the other crimes you repeatedly ask for. Duh?
Among those crimes, Cohen pleaded guilty to violating the per-person $2,700 limit of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA).
Cohen admitted the payments were made to help Trump's chances of winning the election.
Those crimes are already on the books.
Bragg didn't need to specify them before the trial because Trump isn't being charged with those other crimes.
There is no crime on the books that says a candidate can't spend his own money on his own campaign to influence an election. That's literally what campaigning is, you absolute retard.
|
|