NY: Convicted Felon Donald Trump!

[emailking]

34 counts pretty much ensures jail time, no,?

Not necessarily. A lot of them could be really similar misdemeanors and he gets probation with all of them running concurrently. Also, with 34 counts I think it's more likely than not there will be a several acquittals and/or deadlocks even though I think he'll probably be convicted on falsifying business records with respect to the hush money.

[emailking]

Holy sh**t.....were we expecting this many?

Nope. We were expecting a felony charge for falsifying business records and possibly some related charges but no one was predicting this many counts.

[emailking]

The plan is he turns himself in, in New York on Monday. He'll be fingerprinted and photographed (mug shot). Since it's a felony he should be put in handcuffs but they might make an exception for him for that. He'll be arraigned. And then he'll be released without any bail set since it's a non violent offense.

I was wrong about Monday. His attorney just confirmed the arraignment will be on Tuesday.

[emailking]

Given the number of counts, is it possible he’s been indicted for stuff unrelated to Stormy Daniels?
Like, at some point weren’t they investigating a wide range of tax fraud stuff?

I think so. There's been a lot of speculation he might be indicted for more than just Daniels stuff. But it was just speculation. Now it seems a lot more likely. Although I think CNN is the only outlet reporting the number of counts so far.

[emailking]

Trump:

They only brought this Fake, Corrupt, and Disgraceful Charge against me because I stand with the American People, and they know that I cannot get a fair trial in New York!

These Corrupt Democrat Prosecutors, all from poorly run and very dangerous Democrat run cities, are not going to choose the Republican Nominee, or the next President of the United States!

[emailking]

CNN is still the only outlet reporting 30+ charges. I think we should treat this cautiously.

[emailking]

https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1641580112062693377

[emailking]

DOJ reportedly 'irritated' by Manhattan DA's decision to indict Trump because they believe hush money charges are weak and could damage more serious Georgia electoral fraud and January 6 probes'


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11922971/Justice-Department-irritated-Manhattan-DAs-indictment-Donald-Trump.html

The story wouldn't surprise me if true. But it's not their call. Maybe they shouldn't have avoided taking a hard look at Trump's actions on/around J6 for a year, and then they could have gone first here.

[emailking]

I don't see any reason to disbelieve someone who supports charges for J6 but not this. They're very different cases.

[emailking]

CNN is still the only outlet reporting 30+ charges. I think we should treat this cautiously.

This in not what I am seeing.

NBC ... "Trump faces about 30 counts in New York grand jury indictment"
NYT ... "Mr. Trump faces more than two dozen counts, according to two people familiar with the matter."

But there are many outlets that are careful reporting the number of charges. This is true.

When I posted that it was true. I think we can consider it good now.

[emailking]

Wall Street Journal article on the legal interpretation of the campaign finance law:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-indictment-is-a-perversion-of-campaign-finance-law-alvin-bragg-hush-money-business-records-daniels-bdb5942c

Cliffs:

1). Manhattan DA thinks the $130k was done to prevent bad press to Trump, so the payments were made "for the purpose of influencing" an election. Hence, they think it's a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act

2). The truth is that the campaign-finance laws have an objective standard. Obligations can't be considered campaign expenditures if the payments would have been made irrespective of the campaign. The obligation must have been created by the campaign

3). That means expenses for campaign staff, rallies, polling, and political ads are campaign expenditures. Those expenses were created by the campaign; you wouldn't pay for those things outside of an election.

4). But if you pay for a $4k suit right before a debate because you want to look good on TV. You technically bought that suit to influence an election, but that $4k is not considered campaign expenditure because you would have bought clothes irrespective of an election.

5). Trump is a married man, a public figure, and business owner. He would have, reasonably, wanted to prevent the bad press regardless of the election. Thus, he would have reasonably made the payment irrespective of the election

She'd asked for money before and he didn't pay her though.

[emailking]

Irrelevant. Even if he paid her during the campaign,, the expenditure  wasn’t created by the campaign; and he still had reason to pay her outside of the election  

If I buy a nice $4k suit right before the debates, it’s not considered a campaign expenditure (and I can’t use campaign donor funds to buy the suit) because the need to buy clothes wasn’t created by the campaign. Even if I bought the $4k suit right before the debates and my intent in buying the $4k suit was to influence the election  by looking good on TV  for voters —- it’s not a campaign finance violation because the need to buy clothes wasn’t created by the campaign: I would have had reason to buy the suit outside of the election

In contrast, paying for campaign staff, TV ads, rallies etc. are expenditures created by a campaign, and I have no reason to pay for those things outside of an election. I have to use campaign funds to pay for those things, which must be reported to the FEC (do you understand the difference now between campaign expenditures and personal expenditures?)


Let me ask you : is it a campaign finance violation if I buy a $4k suit right before a debate because I wanted to influence the election by looking Ric Flair-stylish on TV (WHOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!) ?

I don't think it's irrelevant. The fact that he turned her down before, but did not turn her down 2 weeks before the election shows that it was an expense that was intended to influence the campaign and that it would not have been made "but for" the campaign, which is the legal standard here. I don't care about the suit analogy.

[emailking]

The legal standard is not whether the expense was meant to influence the campaign. The legal standard is whether the expense was created by the campaign and would have been objectively paid irrespective of the campaign. You might want a different standard (eg - “I don’t care about the suit analogy”), but what you want isn’t a consideration

The legal standard is would the payment have been made but for the campaign. To me it is clear it would not have been. That it was intended to influence the campaign is part of why I conclude that. The other part of why I conclude that is he turned he down before.

[emailking]

The legal standard is not whether the expense was meant to influence the campaign. The legal standard is whether the expense was created by the campaign and would have been objectively paid irrespective of the campaign. You might want a different standard (eg - “I don’t care about the suit analogy”), but what you want isn’t a consideration

The legal standard is would the payment have been made but for the campaign. To me it is clear it would not have been. That it was intended to influence the campaign is part of why I conclude that. The other part of why I conclude that is he turned he down before.

So if the $130k payment is, as you claim, a campaign finance contribution, then would Trump have been within his rights to use campaign donor funds to issue the payment (as opposed to his personal funds)? That means money that was given to him by his supporters and fundraisers - do you think Trump could have legally used that money to pay the $130k?

I'm not sure the payment is legal at all without reporting it somewhere, even if there was no campaign. For example, you can't give somebody more than $16,000 in a year as a gift without reporting it to the IRS. There could been multiple laws he's violated here. So not an expert on this, but no I don't think he could have paid it out of campaign donor funds and done no reporting on the payment.

[emailking]

Is it your argument that he could have used campaign donor money to pay the $130k settlement as long as he reported the payment?

I don't know. He wouldn't be facing a charge for falsifying business records elevated to a felony because it was meant to hide a campaign contribution though (if that's what he's charged with).

[emailking]

He has to show he can't get a fair trial there and the fact that it's liberal leaning is not grounds for that. Those people are his peers there.

Sometimes you can get a change of venue if local media has covered a case ad nauseum. But that's going to be true everywhere in the country for this.

[emailking]

They're not saying it's delayed because he was President. He could have been charged under the law. It's a 5 year statue of limitations on felonies in New York. The last payment to Cohen was in late 2017 but the bookkeeping for it was in 2018 which starts the 5 year clock.

[emailking]

recent Trump:

I want to thank everybody for the tremendous support you have given me against this assault on our Nation. Our once beautiful USA is now a Nation in Decline. Radical Left Thugs & Insurrectionists have taken over our Country, & are rapidly destroying it. They are using the levers of Law Enforcement, and have completely Weaponized the FBI & DOJ to Interfere with, Rigg, and Steal our once SACRED ELECTIONS. We are now living in a THIRD WORLD COUNTRY, but we will Come Back & MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

The Corrupt D.A. has no case. What he does have is a venue where it is IMPOSSIBLE for me to get a Fair Trial (it must be changed!), and a Trump Hating Judge, hand selected by the Soros backed D.A. (he must be changed!). Also has the DOJ working in the D.A.’s Office - Unprecedented!

I will be leaving Mar-a-Lago on Monday at 12 noon, heading to Trump Tower in New York. On Tuesday morning I will be going to, believe it or not, the Courthouse. America was not supposed to be this way!

ELECTION INTERFERENCE!!!

[emailking]

Doesn't matter what their policies are about who they can charge when. The statute of limitations makes no such exceptions for that. Trump can be charge for this because the crime was less than 5 years ago.

[emailking]

Nope, I don’t think so. Even if the reimbursement were in 2018 rather than 2016 (I have not read that was the case anywhere, and why would Cohen carry the expense for 2 years?), Trump certainly had agreed to reimburse Cohen in 2016, so in that sense it was a debt to Cohen from Trump that was incurred coincident with the campaign, and not reported, and thus a campaign finance violation. So, Bragg is left with the tolling claim while Trump was out of state, or the even more problematical theory that the mere DOJ policy of not indicting sitting Presidents tolls the statute. Goof luck with that. Even the left-wing Nation is not buying that one. Bragg’s role model appears to be Icarus.

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/trump-indictment-bragg-legal-case/

You like Andrew McCarthy right? He argued it could be within the statute of limitations.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/imminent-trump-indictment-and-the-statute-of-limitations/

Last payment was late 2017 btw.

[emailking]

Leaving aside the statute of limitations, I'm not really able to speak on that, I think there's a fair possibility that this goes to trial, but Trump gets acquitted, probably the outcome Bragg wants the least. Because John Edwards' case was really similar but with even more condemnable conduct, and he still won out in the end.

I definitely think that's possible too. It's very hard to predict right now. Maybe we'll learn some more tomorrow when we find out what exactly he's being charged with.

[emailking]

President Trump's arrest photo:

There is no arrest photo. Please delete that

[emailking]

That could be just correlation though. They're only supposed to assess probable cause, a much lower standard than proof beyond a reasonable doubt which the prosecutor is supposed to have before bringing the case.

[emailking]

Trump calls for Bragg to be indicted lol.

Wow! District Attorney Bragg just illegally LEAKED the various points, and complete information, on the pathetic Indictment against me. I know the reporter and so, unfortunately, does he. This means that he MUST BE IMMEDIATELY INDICTED. Now, if he wants to really clean up his reputation, he will do the honorable thing and, as District Attorney, INDICT HIMSELF. He will go down in Judicial history, and his Trump Hating wife will be, I am sure, very proud of him!

D.A. BRAGG JUST ILLEGALLY LEAKED THE 33 points of Indictment. There are no changes or surprises from those he leaked days ago directly out of the Grand Jury. No Crime by Trump. What a MESS. Bragg should resign, NOW!

[emailking]

Judge won’t let news cameras broadcast Trump’s full court appearance

News outlets will not be allowed to broadcast former President Donald Trump’s arraignment on Tuesday in a Manhattan state court, a judge said Monday night.

New York Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchan rejected a request by several media organizations, including CNN, for permission to broadcast the historic proceedings.

Five still photographers will be allowed to take pictures of Trump and the courtroom before the hearing begins, however.

Trump’s arraignment – like most arraignments in the Manhattan courthouse – is a public proceeding, but news cameras are not usually allowed to broadcast from inside the courtroom.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/03/politics/trump-courtroom-camera/index.html