BillStime Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 (edited) The legal proceedings concerning the election interference by Donald Trump are pending. What is notable about this case is that even though the presiding judge has decided to delay the hearing for a period of 20 days from its initial scheduled date, there is already a palpable escalation in the intensity and complexity of the case. Edited April 26 by BillStime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daz28 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 There is absolutely no 'winning' in any of that. What trump was asking for was ridiculous. The right wing MSM is going to be all over this as left-wing democrat socialist commie judge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 Rage bait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daz28 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 14 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said: Rage bait. Wait, I had no idea NC allowed you to post in BT created threads. TREASONOUS! 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted March 19 Author Share Posted March 19 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted March 19 Author Share Posted March 19 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted March 19 Author Share Posted March 19 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted March 20 Author Share Posted March 20 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted March 20 Author Share Posted March 20 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 22 hours ago, BillsFanNC said: Lol. Those trigger the low watt profiles big time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted March 20 Author Share Posted March 20 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T&C Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 9 minutes ago, BillStime said: MSNBC? You might well be better off watching the SCify channel... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted March 20 Author Share Posted March 20 5 minutes ago, T&C said: MSNBC? You might well be better off watching the SCify channel... You seem panicked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 Please keep championing this openly corrupt doj. It's working great to highlight it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted March 21 Author Share Posted March 21 1 hour ago, Tommy Callahan said: Please keep championing this openly corrupt doj. It's working great to highlight it. You seem panicked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted March 24 Author Share Posted March 24 Yup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 If anyone is looking for a comprehensive overview of the case from a legal perspective, Just Security has put together a very detailed guide. They are more bullish on this case than I am, but something I've noticed is that the more familiar people are with NYS law and the regular practice of the Manhattan DA's office, the stronger they believe this case is. In regards to proving the elements of the case, they note: "Despite early and ongoing skepticism of DANY’s case, we view it as strong because prosecutors will likely establish with relative ease three of the four corners of the alleged crimes: the “catch and kill” scheme, the payment to Daniels to bury the story of the affair, and the paper trail of reimbursements and records that mischaracterized and concealed the nature of the hush payment. As one commentator wrote, “the spine of the case is the paper trail of the money, [and] Bragg will be bringing the receipts to trial.” The fourth corner of the scheme is Trump’s intent to commit or conceal another crime, as the law requires to be elevated to the felony first-degree falsification of business records. DANY will have to prove that Trump intended to commit or conceal campaign finance violations (state or federal) or tax violations. Proving this intent will be more difficult than proving the objective facts (as it almost always is), but as discussed in more detail below, DANY appears to have the upper hand." (emphasis mine) As for how these types of charges have been used in the past, they provide some examples: "When Bragg first charged Trump in April 2023, he stated that in his 14 months in office he had already prosecuted 117 felony counts of falsifying business records against 29 individuals and companies. During the ten years from March 2013 to March 2023, the office prosecuted 437 such cases. Moreover, DAs across the state of New York frequently charge defendants with felony falsification of business records. Reports in April 2023 stated, “Data shows 9,794 cases involving state penal law 175.10, or falsifying business records in the first degree, have been arraigned in both local and superior New York state courts since 2015.”" (emphasis mine) They also note that these charges have been used in the context of campaign finance violations in the past: Former NYS Assemblyman Clarence Norman was convicted in 2005 of falsifying business records in connection with campaign finance violations Richard Brega pleaded guilty to one count of felony falsifying business records for misrepresenting the source of funds he funneled into a county executive campaign Richard Luthmann was arraigned for multiple felony charges including falsifying business records and election law violations and subsequently pleaded guilty. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 9 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: If anyone is looking for a comprehensive overview of the case from a legal perspective, Just Security has put together a very detailed guide. They are more bullish on this case than I am, but something I've noticed is that the more familiar people are with NYS law and the regular practice of the Manhattan DA's office, the stronger they believe this case is. In regards to proving the elements of the case, they note: "Despite early and ongoing skepticism of DANY’s case, we view it as strong because prosecutors will likely establish with relative ease three of the four corners of the alleged crimes: the “catch and kill” scheme, the payment to Daniels to bury the story of the affair, and the paper trail of reimbursements and records that mischaracterized and concealed the nature of the hush payment. As one commentator wrote, “the spine of the case is the paper trail of the money, [and] Bragg will be bringing the receipts to trial.” The fourth corner of the scheme is Trump’s intent to commit or conceal another crime, as the law requires to be elevated to the felony first-degree falsification of business records. DANY will have to prove that Trump intended to commit or conceal campaign finance violations (state or federal) or tax violations. Proving this intent will be more difficult than proving the objective facts (as it almost always is), but as discussed in more detail below, DANY appears to have the upper hand." (emphasis mine) As for how these types of charges have been used in the past, they provide some examples: "When Bragg first charged Trump in April 2023, he stated that in his 14 months in office he had already prosecuted 117 felony counts of falsifying business records against 29 individuals and companies. During the ten years from March 2013 to March 2023, the office prosecuted 437 such cases. Moreover, DAs across the state of New York frequently charge defendants with felony falsification of business records. Reports in April 2023 stated, “Data shows 9,794 cases involving state penal law 175.10, or falsifying business records in the first degree, have been arraigned in both local and superior New York state courts since 2015.”" (emphasis mine) They also note that these charges have been used in the context of campaign finance violations in the past: Former NYS Assemblyman Clarence Norman was convicted in 2005 of falsifying business records in connection with campaign finance violations Richard Brega pleaded guilty to one count of felony falsifying business records for misrepresenting the source of funds he funneled into a county executive campaign Richard Luthmann was arraigned for multiple felony charges including falsifying business records and election law violations and subsequently pleaded guilty. Thanks. Good analysis. I'll read the whole thing. With respect to the final element (for the purpose of providing an election benefit) - timing is key here. It is probably going to rest on circumstantial evidence, which I believe will show that the hush money payment and recording of it were deliberately delayed until after the election. I've always believed it was a silly case to bring since it isn't of earth shattering importance. But on the legal theory, I think it is likely to fly. The questions have to do with the level of proof of that final element that turns it into a felony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted March 27 Author Share Posted March 27 The irony of Conald crying about a family member of a judge... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts