Trump indicted

All 34 charges in the indictment are the same crime - falsifying business records related to the Stormy Daniels hush money. Each check, falsified document is a separate charge.

As predicted, it’s only a felony when you do it with the intent to commit “another crime”. No indication what that other crime is in the indictment that I saw. Hopefully there’s a NY State crime. If the other crime is just federal, then this will be a legit legal fight that Trump can certainly win (on an appeal).

Here’s the text of the crime he was charged with (emphasis added):

S 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree.

  • A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree*
    when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second
    degree [misdemeanor], and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit
    another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony.

So the question is, did that law intend to mean ANY other crime (federal, state, any other state, etc). This question has not been answered, one way or the other, by the Courts.

Depends on how counts are normally pled in New York criminal procedure.

Stormy is ‘woman 2’, so who is ‘woman 1’?

Go with the Statement of Facts, which reads much like a story. So far, it seems that back in 2016, and possibly earlier, Trump, through a series of payoffs made in various questionable ways, managed to get media organizations and individuals to not print or mention any negative things about Trump. While he was trying to get elected, of course.

But that’s only as far as I’ve got.

Probably Macdougall - one of the CNN commentators referred to the statement of facts alleging the “catch and hide” journalism

Buzzkill.
MSNBC is reporting that Trump’s next in-person hearing is December 4th.

New York tax law, I expect.

I think in this instance, they’re more likely to be (at least thinking about) driving the bus.

Oh, thank god I’m not the only one who keeps reading it that way.

Yea. I didn’t even see the Statement of Facts before I posted.

I don’t think we know know, but that NY tax part is legally huge, to me. You can now tie it to a NY crime, which there is no argument that’s what the law covers. However, there is also a lot of election law stuff.

Factually, this still all needs to be proven but it at least removes a dicey legal dismissal.

I can see five helicopters over the GCP, so definitely La Guardia.

Getting 'em on tax evasion is a time honored method. :wink:

I was looking for that particularly in the indictment/statement of facts – and it’s there.

Wait – does this mean nothing is going to happen in this case for eight fucking months?

Is it odd that this has “never been tested”?

at the very least. the defence has to go through all the discovery that the prosecution has accumulated, and form a defence.

looks like bragg is going to use props in his presser.

Not that we’ll be privy to. Unless Trump does or says something that goes against his release conditions, of course.

The DA must turn over all evidence that he has against Trump. I’m sure there’s plenty of it and what will happen, will be that Trump’s legal team will spend their time going over absolutely everything with a fine-tooth comb, and figuring out how to defend against it. That’s going to take time–I would imagine, though I don’t know for sure, that Trump’s lawyers asked for more than the usual amount of time, in order to review everything closely.

CNN: District Attorney Bragg is now speaking.

I read Trump is giving a big speech tonight in Florida. Regardless of what conditions may exist or if they are respected, I am sure he will show us his usual poise, balance and philosophical inclusivity that are the envy of global statespersons.

But when, politically, some thought this case was thin gruel compared to things like Georgia, they could well be correct.

Paragraphs 25, 26 and 27 of the statement of facts outline a tax avoidance scheme: overinflate the amount paid by Cohen, have Cohen then bill it to Trump Org as an amount due on a non-existent legal retainer, and then have Trump Org pay it as if it were a bill for legal services and thus a deductible business expense, giving tax benefits to both Cohen and Trump Org.

Trump is said to have agreed to the deal in the Oval Office, bringing his criminal conspiracies into the heart of the executive branch.

Significantly, to my not-a-US-lawyer eyes, there is no mention in that part of any federal crime. It’s just fraudulent NY tax avoidance, as I read it, but certainly willing to be corrected by someone who knows US law better.

Bragg says the payments violated NY election law

Yes. @What_Exit , you may want to pay attention to Bragg’s speech, if you can. He’s explaining the facts in the Statement of Facts.