The Trump indictment

[audiophile]

Hey Taco, Tara Reade might want a word with you:

https://www.tiktok.com/@news_bubble/vid ... bEugc1D66t

[Rate This]

As much as I enjoy watching anything bad befall such a horrible individual as Donald Trump, I do agree to some degree with what bmw says here and other threads.

What he did in Georgia, on January 6th, and with documents in Mar a Lago are infinitely more criminal and worthy of the country's disgust than this. He cheats on his wife and pays money to try and hide it, for numerous reasons. Despicable, but probably one of tens of thousands who has done so. Trying to subvert an election? Start an insurrection? Steal classified documents? There he is in a select few. I wish those cases were filed first. I do think the reasons this case was filed is in a predominantly way to fill a political agenda, and I fear it might cheapen the other real counts he deserves to be charged with.

But the group that supports him won't change their minds no matter what. He is gonna have his 30% that literally won't care if he spits in their face. And another 10% of the idiots that would vote for him because he has an R next to his name.

Still, the majority of this country is not THAT stupid to ever elect him again, at least I hope and pray.

Why did you send me a threatening and explicit private message?

I highly doubt that. Secondly the games over bud. We know who you are.

[km1125]

... There were 34 counts. They're all essentially the same. Every one begins as follows: ...

Wonder how many counts they could have racked up if they were counting the infractions by the LETTER he put into each "falsified entry" instead of just relying on the whole entry??

[bmw]

The argument that the Trump indictment proves that "nobody is above the law" is seriously one of the most laughable, objectively false claims I've ever heard.

[Bryce]

The argument that the Trump indictment proves that "nobody is above the law" is seriously one of the most laughable, objectively false claims I've ever heard.

Anyone that makes that claim is either morally bankrupt or just plain stupid.

[bmw]

-sigh-

It must assert facts supporting the accusation that he intended to commit another crime. The things you mention support the accusation that he committed a 2nd degree falsification of business records. But I see no facts in support of the intent to commit a different crime.

No it doesn’t have to assert facts like that at all. It even specifically says they are not to be of an evidentiary nature. It just has to be specific enough for TRUMP to know what they are referring to. Not you or I. So if a cop saw Trump do something and only he and Trump were aware of it and they mentioned a date, time and place that would be enough. He just needs to be aware of what event they are referring to. That’s not exactly a state secret now is it?

I will give you that you are technically correct about the language of the law - that the Defendant is the only person who need be apprised. And I would agree that Trump has more knowledge than any other person regarding the exact event(s) in question.

But that doesn't address my gripe here. I go back to the specific element in question (taken straight from § 175.10 ) :

intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

The indictment must assert facts to support this specific element. Here is the language of facts from a random count (count #4)

[Trump] made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, a Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust Account check and check stub dated February 14, 2017, bearing check number 000138, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.

So to your point, you are correct that Donald Trump is the only person who needs to know what the specific content of that check is, as well as the business records in which there was a line-item entry itemizing that particular check. And the language does allege that the business records in question contain a "false entry." That is certainly sufficient enough to apprise Trump of the first element (ie, second degree falsification of business records). But as to the the second element, there's no facts stated supporting INTENT TO COMMIT ANOTHER CRIME. Intent is a state of mind. Merely making a false entry in one's business records does not demonstrate intent to commit a completely separate crime; there has to be more.

This is from Politico about a week ago:

Under New York law, disguising such payments in corporate records is a crime, but typically only a misdemeanor. It becomes a felony if the false business records were intended to obscure a second crime. In this case, that second crime appears to be the use of the funds to advance Trump’s presidential campaign allegedly in violation of campaign finance laws.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/3 ... s-00089864

If the indictment had instead read something like that he made the false entry "...with the intent to advance his presidential campaign by obscuring and concealing the violation campaign finance laws" then it wold be facially valid. But there is NOTHING in the language that factually supports the element of intent.

[Rate This]

-sigh-

It must assert facts supporting the accusation that he intended to commit another crime. The things you mention support the accusation that he committed a 2nd degree falsification of business records. But I see no facts in support of the intent to commit a different crime.

No it doesn’t have to assert facts like that at all. It even specifically says they are not to be of an evidentiary nature. It just has to be specific enough for TRUMP to know what they are referring to. Not you or I. So if a cop saw Trump do something and only he and Trump were aware of it and they mentioned a date, time and place that would be enough. He just needs to be aware of what event they are referring to. That’s not exactly a state secret now is it?

I will give you that you are technically correct about the language of the law - that the Defendant is the only person who need be apprised. And I would agree that Trump has more knowledge than any other person regarding the exact event(s) in question.

But that doesn't address my gripe here. I go back to the specific element in question (taken straight from § 175.10 ) :

intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

The indictment must assert facts to support this specific element. Here is the language of facts from a random count (count #4)

[Trump] made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, a Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust Account check and check stub dated February 14, 2017, bearing check number 000138, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.

So to your point, you are correct that Donald Trump is the only person who needs to know what the specific content of that check is, as well as the business records in which there was a line-item entry itemizing that particular check. And the language does allege that the business records in question contain a "false entry." That is certainly sufficient enough to apprise Trump of the first element (ie, second degree falsification of business records). But as to the the second element, there's no facts stated supporting INTENT TO COMMIT ANOTHER CRIME. Intent is a state of mind. Merely making a false entry in one's business records does not demonstrate intent to commit a completely separate crime; there has to be more.

This is from Politico about a week ago:

Under New York law, disguising such payments in corporate records is a crime, but typically only a misdemeanor. It becomes a felony if the false business records were intended to obscure a second crime. In this case, that second crime appears to be the use of the funds to advance Trump’s presidential campaign allegedly in violation of campaign finance laws.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/3 ... s-00089864

If the indictment had instead read something like that he made the false entry "...with the intent to advance his presidential campaign by obscuring and concealing the violation campaign finance laws" then it wold be facially valid. But there is NOTHING in the language that factually supports the element of intent.

I don’t know that they really can…

without allegations of an evidentiary nature,

So they really can’t be very specific…

[bmw]

I'm not following your logic here. Because the indictment states specific check numbers - obviously THAT would be of an evidentiary nature. I think all that means is that the factual statements need not be of evidentiary quality (eg, hearsay).

That aside, there's another problem with excluding the second crime from the indictment.

Another traditional function of the indictment qua document has been to provide some means of ensuring that the crime for which the defendant is brought to trial is in fact one for which he was indicted by the Grand Jury, rather than some alternative seized upon by the prosecution in light of subsequently discovered evidence

https://casetext.com/case/people-v-iannone-3

That's straight from a New York case in 1978. While not technically the same thing (intent to commit a second crime as an element to a primary crime is obviously different from the primary crime itself), I would argue that the same logic applies here. In order to get the indictment in the first place, the Grand Jury had to have found probable cause to support each and every element of the alleged crime, including the intent to commit a second crime. In order to find such probable cause, the jury had to have been presented with evidence supporting a SPECIFIC second crime. But by leaving that detail out of the indictment, the prosecutor has left the door wide open to, come trial time, allege whatever second crime he wants. How is Trump supposed to defend against that?

[Honeyman]

As much as I enjoy watching anything bad befall such a horrible individual as Donald Trump, I do agree to some degree with what bmw says here and other threads.

What he did in Georgia, on January 6th, and with documents in Mar a Lago are infinitely more criminal and worthy of the country's disgust than this. He cheats on his wife and pays money to try and hide it, for numerous reasons. Despicable, but probably one of tens of thousands who has done so. Trying to subvert an election? Start an insurrection? Steal classified documents? There he is in a select few. I wish those cases were filed first. I do think the reasons this case was filed is in a predominantly way to fill a political agenda, and I fear it might cheapen the other real counts he deserves to be charged with.

But the group that supports him won't change their minds no matter what. He is gonna have his 30% that literally won't care if he spits in their face. And another 10% of the idiots that would vote for him because he has an R next to his name.

Still, the majority of this country is not THAT stupid to ever elect him again, at least I hope and pray.

Why did you send me a threatening and explicit private message?

I highly doubt that. Secondly the games over bud. We know who you are.

I did. It had "So Long" in the subject line and read,

"You're gonna be kicked off the site later today. Just want to say goodbye. Rest assured, I'll call you out next time you return.

Fuck off!"

I don't think that's really threatening or explicit.

As far as "why", it's because you have been banned a dozen times already and we don't want you here.

Please go away.

[Taco]

[TC Talks]

It turns out lying isn't the core to the DA's case... It also brings in the IRS if they choose to get involved.

WASHINGTON — The unsealed indictment against former President Donald J. Trump on Tuesday laid out an unexpected accusation that bolstered what many legal experts have described as an otherwise risky and novel case: Prosecutors claim he falsified business records in part for a plan to deceive state tax authorities.

For weeks, observers have wondered about the exact charges the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, would bring. Accusing Mr. Trump of bookkeeping fraud to conceal campaign finance violations, many believed, could raise significant legal challenges. That accusation turned out to be a major part of Mr. Bragg’s theory — but not all of it.

“Pundits have been speculating that Trump would be charged with lying about the hush money payments to illegally affect an election, and that theory rests on controversial legal issues and could be hard to prove,” said Rebecca Roiphe, a New York Law School professor and former state prosecutor.

“It turns out the indictment also includes a claim that Trump falsified records to commit a state tax crime,” she continued. “That’s a much simpler charge that avoids the potential pitfalls.”

[audiophile]

As much as I enjoy watching anything bad befall such a horrible individual as Donald Trump, I do agree to some degree with what bmw says here and other threads.

What he did in Georgia, on January 6th, and with documents in Mar a Lago are infinitely more criminal and worthy of the country's disgust than this. He cheats on his wife and pays money to try and hide it, for numerous reasons. Despicable, but probably one of tens of thousands who has done so. Trying to subvert an election? Start an insurrection? Steal classified documents? There he is in a select few. I wish those cases were filed first. I do think the reasons this case was filed is in a predominantly way to fill a political agenda, and I fear it might cheapen the other real counts he deserves to be charged with.

But the group that supports him won't change their minds no matter what. He is gonna have his 30% that literally won't care if he spits in their face. And another 10% of the idiots that would vote for him because he has an R next to his name.

Still, the majority of this country is not THAT stupid to ever elect him again, at least I hope and pray.

Why did you send me a threatening and explicit private message?

I highly doubt that. Secondly the games over bud. We know who you are.

I did. It had "So Long" in the subject line and read,

"You're gonna be kicked off the site later today. Just want to say goodbye. Rest assured, I'll call you out next time you return.

Fuck off!"

I don't think that's really threatening or explicit.

As far as "why", it's because you have been banned a dozen times already and we don't want you here.

Please go away.

If a poster bothers you, maybe you should be the one to leave?

I'm really tired of the self-appointed censorship moderators because it mucks up a thread, like with krap above.

AND NOW BACK TO THE TOPIC

I see this political payback happening based on which party is in control.

Whitmer gets elected, Snyder gets investigated.

Biden gets elected, Trump gets investigated.

Once Whitmer is out of office and the republicans take over (if that ever happens), she will be brought up on charges for the deaths of those in nursing homes that Whitmer used to house COVID patients.

I expect this to happen. Whitmer for Prison 2026.

[Taco]

Trump is by far the worst thing that ever happened to the United States of America. Trumpism, a cult that was created as result of him being "not my president". He has tarnished our country's image around the globe. Now we have people like MTG and Boebert in office who are just as bad. Then you have the Republicans who are weak and follow their cult leader no matter what. They won't even stand up to him. The whole political system is so radicalized I'm not sure the landscape can ever recover. QAnon is the face of pure evil.

[Turkeytop]

I don't like Trump either.

And, likewise, I'm sure he doesn't like you. No one else does.

[Honeyman]

As much as I enjoy watching anything bad befall such a horrible individual as Donald Trump, I do agree to some degree with what bmw says here and other threads.

What he did in Georgia, on January 6th, and with documents in Mar a Lago are infinitely more criminal and worthy of the country's disgust than this. He cheats on his wife and pays money to try and hide it, for numerous reasons. Despicable, but probably one of tens of thousands who has done so. Trying to subvert an election? Start an insurrection? Steal classified documents? There he is in a select few. I wish those cases were filed first. I do think the reasons this case was filed is in a predominantly way to fill a political agenda, and I fear it might cheapen the other real counts he deserves to be charged with.

But the group that supports him won't change their minds no matter what. He is gonna have his 30% that literally won't care if he spits in their face. And another 10% of the idiots that would vote for him because he has an R next to his name.

Still, the majority of this country is not THAT stupid to ever elect him again, at least I hope and pray.

Why did you send me a threatening and explicit private message?

I highly doubt that. Secondly the games over bud. We know who you are.

I did. It had "So Long" in the subject line and read,

"You're gonna be kicked off the site later today. Just want to say goodbye. Rest assured, I'll call you out next time you return.

Fuck off!"

I don't think that's really threatening or explicit.

As far as "why", it's because you have been banned a dozen times already and we don't want you here.

Please go away.

If a poster bothers you, maybe you should be the one to leave?

I'm really tired of the self-appointed censorship moderators because it mucks up a thread, like with krap above.

Go fuck yourself, Falwell. This poster has been banned already a dozen times. Just because you're in agreement with the fuckers racist, mysoginist views, doesn't mean everybody else is.