Former president trump indicted.
- Thread starter Worgen
- Start date
The indictment pretty clearly identifies 34 instances that Trump may have broken the law: keeping false business records. That is a crime. It's conventionally the level of a misdemeanour, but misdemeanours are still crimes.
What's got everyone het up is that they have been charged as felonies. Upgrading them to a felony requires an untested interpretation of law that when this sort of misdemeanour is used to facilitate or cover up a felony, it becomes a felony itself. The felonies that were being breached are not clearly stated, but from wider context appear to be a) state campaign finance crime, b) federal campaign finance crime, c) tax crime.
So, at base here, what Trump's defenders are really arguing is that his crime was not as serious as he's being charged for, not that he didn't commit a crime.
From the link I posted from Politico,
"Bragg could have charged Trump with 34 misdemeanor counts, but under New York law they become felonies if the falsification was done “with the intent to commit another crime.”
This is where Bragg’s indictment has done a disservice to the public and to Trump himself. Beyond a general reference to a violation of “election laws” and a passing reference to taxes, the indictment and statement of facts do not specify what “other crimes” Trump allegedly intended to commit."
I'd like an actual statute enumerated so as not to prejudice Trump in his ability to defend himself. It is typical in an answer to a complaint that you provide such information.
Right, you got there in the end! Well done!
So not just "paying from the wrong account". Covering it up. And the effects of that: being tax evasion, falsely reporting the purpose of the payment (therefore hiding it from proper scrutiny), and improperly influencing the 2016 election.
It's not a "passing reference", though; that shows you clearly haven't actually looked at the charges.
Tax evasion, falsely reporting the purpose of the payment, hiding it from proper scrutiny, and making the payment to influence the 2016 election.
I mean, you need to go further, particularly with Dwarvenhobble. He keeps going on about Free Speech etc
These payments were paid with the deliberate intent to sink news articles. In effect, its like Biden asking for his sons nudes to be taken down. But 1) Trump paid for it to never come out 2) wasn't relying on TOS of a company to remove nudes 3)
Like, if you listen to Matt Taibbi, seeing Hunter was apparently of national interest. If this is true, then so is the (at least) three seperate stories that Trump covered up
If you cared about 'Free Speech', you would care about anyone covering it up. That is far more important than worrying about cancelling. Because all cancelling is a reaction to speech some people find offensive. What Trump did was pay to make sure the free speech wasn't spoken.
Yeah, that's true-- this kind of charge, where intent is an integral part of the case, is notoriously hard to prove.
I'm not really convinced that indicting him on this stuff was the right call.
So this all happened ... when he took over as president....
That's.... way worse
I mean not hugely in my view.
It's was a nothing burger before, it's now a nothing burger and cheese.
They're trying to get Trump on paying his lawyer the wrong way using campaign funds to pay him and then putting this stuff in his business records to cover it up.
Does it matter so much which account Trump paid with to people?
If he paid with his campaign account realised then payed the money back in the same day from his other accounts does it matter so very much?
They're not even arguing they have evidence he payed from the wrong account though. They're hoping challenging these payment will get them something else they could then try and use pretty much, which I think may be illegal or fishing for evidence in this case more than actually trying to charge him for the actual crimes he's accused of here.
What do you mean nothingburger? Like, it's only worth a few months or a year of jail? Because, I'd agree
If you mean that it's no jail time... his lawyer went to jail over these specific events and Trump asked him to do it. So, that would be nonsense
equally dumb in my view for his lawyer to end up in jail over if if he truly was only following the instructions of his client which failure to do so could have seen him disbarred.
If you do something criminal, you go to jail, even if someone else asked you to do it.
If you are a drug dealer listening to a drug lord to sell drugs illegally, you are still in trouble. Personally, I think the person ASKING should be in more trouble because, it's highly likely that they are asking multiple people. But I've seen the US justice system. I've noticed that drug lords get little in thr way of punishment. It shouldn't matter if you name is Rick Ross or Richard Sacklet. But it does
Surely if you add cheese to a nothingburger, you have something more substantial than a nothingburger.
You must be pretty damn incensed about this;
World Bank staff were told to give special treatment to son of Trump official
Exclusive: Leaked recording raises concerns over governance at development bank, at which David Malpass is now president
www.theguardian.com