Would you like to read the Statement of Facts in the Trump case?

[msc545]

This document explains the charges and the alleged crimes in detail. Very valuable in terms of understanding this case.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/84fba797-216a-490c-b75d-d77bca6d10f3.pdf?itid=lk_interstitial_manual_15

[exitseven]

I just looked at the first one. He did not defraud anyone, therefore there was no criminal conduct. It is all BS charges that nobody else would touch. Even if he did do this the statute of limitations in New York is 2 years for this type of crime. I don't know how this can go forward. This just opens the door to more animosity from both sides. Soon we will have both presidential candidates under indictment. The difference is that in Bidne;s case the charges will be real felonies and maybe treason. The gloves will come off and I wonder if everyone will lose.

[msc545]

The statute of limitations is tolled if a person leaves the state and was also tolled due to Covid.

www.wardgreenberg.com/.../statutes-of-limitations-tolled-again

[msc545]

He is not being charged with fraud. These are other crimes - specifically, falsification of business records, and conspiracy.

[Slingblade1126]

Falsification of business records is a misdemeanor. What is the conspiracy?

[Slingblade1126]

The "felony conspiracy".

[exitseven]

@msc545 did you read the charge? It said criminal conduct. Since he did not defraud anyone there was no criminal conduct. If he did pay off the porn star it was a non disclosure Agreement. These are perfectly legal. Maybe a little sleazy but not illegal.

[msc545]

@Slingblade1126 I am unclear about that but I would Imagine we will hear more about it in the argument. It might be a conspiracy to falsify business records. Also, Falsification of business records becomes a felony if it is done to enable another crime - like tax evasion or conspiracy in this case.

[exitseven]

There is no tax evasion and no conspiracy to defraud anyone. If it really happened it was a non disclosure agreement which is not illegal.

[Slingblade1126]

You just repeated what I told you. Falsifying business records is a misdemeanor. The prosecution is saying that Trump did that to cover up another crime BUT never said what that crime was! That unknown crime would make it a felony. You keep saying it could be tax evasion? What money did Trump receive? It can only be financial campaign disclosures, which is laughable!

[Slingblade1126]

A felony AND conspiracy.

[msc545]

The other crime is the way that campaign monies were used and also in some sense the attempt to alter the outcome of the election based on the fact that he was covering up things that would have changed the election in some way detrimental to him. It is a little bit of a sticking point because it isn't very clear from what the prosecution said so far exactly how they attempt to use these things.

[Slingblade1126]

Campaign money? According to Bragg, it wasn't campaign money used but should have been! Also, what crimes was he covering up?

[msc545]

@Slingblade1126 here:

The Manhattan DA alleges that “From August 2015 to December 2017, the Defendant [that’s Trump] orchestrated a scheme with others to influence the 2016 presidential election by identifying and purchasing negative information about him to suppress its publication and benefit the Defendant’s electoral prospects. In order to execute the unlawful scheme, the participants violated election laws and made and caused false entries in the business records of various entities in New York. The participants also took steps that mischaracterized, for tax purposes, the true nature of the payments made in furtherance of the scheme.”

[Slingblade1126]

Those are all misdemeanors, some of which are past the statute of limitations. Those alleged crimes, according to Bragg, were committed to conceal another crime. That crime would elevate these crimes to a felony. The problem is, Braggs never said what crime he was trying to conceal.

[exitseven]

Thanks for the MHO😎

[lightbulb27]

it sounds like it's a tax case. is that right?
Of all the endless audits of his stuff, this is what turned up?

Never pay off a slutty woman... even if she's starving. lessons learned.

[msc545]

It is in part a tax case since he characterized the payments to Michael Cohen as "legal fees" to avoid taxes. All he was really doing was paying Cohen back the money Cohen fronted to the two prostitutes to keep them from publicly revealing their "services" to Trump.

[FilmGuy93]

So... the state's case is entirely founded on the idea that giving money to a lawyer to give to someone else doesn't consistute "legal services?"

Dude...

[msc545]

It does not, but that is not really the point. The lawyer in this case acted as a bagman, a task almost anyone could have accomplished. He performed NO legal duties.

[FilmGuy93]

Legal services entails all kinds of things. Any ethics lawyer would look at that situation and conclude that a representation existed.

[msc545]

it is a bit late for that. I am not sure what the test for legal services is, but delivering a payoff for silence probably is not included.

[FilmGuy93]

People, politicians especially, buy silence all the time; that’s not illegal.

[msc545]

right, as long as you record the payments properly, and pay the taxes. He didn't do any of this legally. The payoff was not illegal - the rest that followed apparently was.

[Guardian45]

Read it. It doesn't surprise me