I haven't even talked about the case for a while now, but OK
Official Trump Insurrection Rally 1/6/21 Fukkery, NY Probe, DOJ Probe & Georgia Probe Thread!
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Analysis: A Surprise Accusation Bolsters a Risky Case Against Trump
The unsealed case against Donald J. Trump accuses him of falsifying records in part to lay the groundwork for planned lies to tax authorities.
Really don't know that I have a definite formed opinion, I think it's highly debatable either way. I'm usually pretty masterful at reading indictments and making predictions, but I can't call this one.
The part of the op ed I posted, that I didn't know, was how common a practice thus type of charge is, esp. in Manhattan. That changes things a little.
The part of the op ed I posted, that I didn't know, was how common a practice thus type of charge is, esp. in Manhattan. That changes things a little.
CEO of Morgan Industries
Superstar
I don't know enough about the law to get heated about someone's opinion of the strength of this case.
Are there any relevant historical analogies that can help me understand the arguments?
To understand how the law can stymie a prosecution even when the extremely sleazy facts are quite clear, I’d point to United States v. McDonnell, the Supreme Court case that reversed the bribery conviction of a former Virginia governor, Bob McDonnell. The facts were embarrassing for him. He and his wife received loans, gifts and vacations from a supporter at the same time that McDonnell arranged meetings, hosted events and contacted other state officials in a manner that helped his benefactor.
The question before the Supreme Court wasn’t whether McDonnell received the funds or provided the favors but rather whether those favors constituted official acts within the meaning of the relevant federal law. In an 8-to-0 vote, the Supreme Court said no. Not everything that’s sleazy is illegal, and the question for Trump isn’t so much whether his conduct was morally wrong but whether it’s unlawful.
There are those who look at the vast scope of Trump’s corruption and wrongdoing before, during and after his time in the White House and wonder whether the proper historical analogy for the Manhattan prosecution is the prosecution of Al Capone for tax evasion. Isn’t it appropriate to bring down gangsters using even the most mundane of financial crimes?
Yes, absolutely, but only as long as they’re actually guilty of the more mundane crimes. There is overwhelming evidence that Trump did falsify business records. But that crime, by itself, is a mere misdemeanor with a two-year statute of limitations. The prosecution’s felony charges will stand or fall on the legal argument that Cohen violated federal law or that relevant New York statutes aren’t pre-empted and that Trump violated them.
In short, the Trump prosecution faces serious legal questions, and the answers to the legal questions will decide the case far more than any factual dispute. The evidence shows rather clearly that Trump engaged in a scheme to pay off women who said they were his paramours, in order to influence the 2016 election. That is clearly immoral and would be extremely embarrassing to anyone who has shown signs that he is capable of embarrassment. But whether it was unlawful is the key question that will decide Trump’s legal fate.
To understand how the law can stymie a prosecution even when the extremely sleazy facts are quite clear, I’d point to United States v. McDonnell, the Supreme Court case that reversed the bribery conviction of a former Virginia governor, Bob McDonnell. The facts were embarrassing for him. He and his wife received loans, gifts and vacations from a supporter at the same time that McDonnell arranged meetings, hosted events and contacted other state officials in a manner that helped his benefactor.
The question before the Supreme Court wasn’t whether McDonnell received the funds or provided the favors but rather whether those favors constituted official acts within the meaning of the relevant federal law. In an 8-to-0 vote, the Supreme Court said no. Not everything that’s sleazy is illegal, and the question for Trump isn’t so much whether his conduct was morally wrong but whether it’s unlawful.
There are those who look at the vast scope of Trump’s corruption and wrongdoing before, during and after his time in the White House and wonder whether the proper historical analogy for the Manhattan prosecution is the prosecution of Al Capone for tax evasion. Isn’t it appropriate to bring down gangsters using even the most mundane of financial crimes?
Yes, absolutely, but only as long as they’re actually guilty of the more mundane crimes. There is overwhelming evidence that Trump did falsify business records. But that crime, by itself, is a mere misdemeanor with a two-year statute of limitations. The prosecution’s felony charges will stand or fall on the legal argument that Cohen violated federal law or that relevant New York statutes aren’t pre-empted and that Trump violated them.
In short, the Trump prosecution faces serious legal questions, and the answers to the legal questions will decide the case far more than any factual dispute. The evidence shows rather clearly that Trump engaged in a scheme to pay off women who said they were his paramours, in order to influence the 2016 election. That is clearly immoral and would be extremely embarrassing to anyone who has shown signs that he is capable of embarrassment. But whether it was unlawful is the key question that will decide Trump’s legal fate.
That man can't stop, won't stop. You can set a clock by his pessimism.Worthless Loser been at this for 7 years.
But why they coming for @King Static X?
He is good people.
Followed that case in 2014 from the beginning, and that's a good example. I read the indictment day 1 and it's a beyond solid case, but the SC disagreed, not with the facts of the case, but with the underlying foundation. And it changed white collar corruption cases going forward.
Hood Critic
The Power Circle
The case isn't weak, it's just going to be hard to prosecute with no prior legal precedent. I have no doubt Bragg will make the case in NY, my concern is when they appeal to push to SCOTUS.
Everyone in this thread should be banned from this thread.
This is only half of it.
First sentence on the indictment “1. The defendant DONALD J. TRUMP repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal criminal conduct that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election.”
He could’ve paid them off from his own money have them sign a NDA and call it a day BUT nooooooooooo the fat fukker had to commit crimes in order to do a simple transaction.
By that time Trump will be indicted for the classified documents and the Georgia election shenanigans word to @BigMoneyGrip
