As I just mentioned in this other thread, after reading the court documents I believe the other crime is tax avoidance and that they have a case regardless of whether or not campaign finance violations are involved.
I also personally know of cases where people were prosecuted in NYC for tax and financial crimes involving much smaller sums of money. I know an NYC businessman that was criminally prosecuted for tax avoidance for buying gifts out of state to avoid paying NYC sales tax, the amount of tax he evaded was less than $200.
I think a juror could conclude he falsified records to commit election fraud but that tax fraud wasn’t a motive. Something like that might result in a split verdict. (which would be fine)
You have to pay “use tax” in NY. Washington has the same thing. If you go to Oregon to buy a freezer without sales tax, you have to pay Washington tax when you get it home.
This is sort of a big deal in NYC, because the sales taxes are very high (8.875% when I last lived there) and they are geographically proximate to New Jersey, which has no sales tax. The city would periodically crackdown on enforcing this law, which benefited NYC businesses which would otherwise be disadvantaged due to having a tax-free competitor a 10 minute car ride away.
Despite being warned by the judge, Trump returned to Mar-A-Lago to an adoring crowd of such paragons as Roger Stone, Matt Gaetz, MTG, and his brood of evil offspring, entering via what was described as a “wedding venue” down a carpeted aisle, and then gave a speech attacking the DA, the judge, and the judge’s wife and daughter. He then went on to rant the same lies he’s been telling all along. Interestingly, Malignia was nowhere to be seen.
We already have an open thread that covers everything that flows from the prosecution by the Manhattan DA in the Stormy Daniels matter. I left this thread open when it was first started for the specific charges of the indictment to be revealed at the arraignment and discussion pertaining to the indictment.
For now, I’ll leave this thread open for continuing discussion as outlined above. However, if your post does not specifically pertain to the indictment and/or arraignment where the indictment was unsealed, it belongs in this thread:
As has been pointed out by several posters, having 2 open threads is confusing. Please be mindful where you’re putting your posts. Thanks.
Might I humbly suggest a name change for the other thread, then? I would interpret that thread’s current title as being about the possibility of charges being brought, which would make it obsolete now that charges have in fact been brought.
That one is going to apply to several cases coming up.
Of course! I’m fine with doing a title change, but let’s make sure to distinguish which case we’re discussing so it’s as non-confusing as possible. Going forward, a lot of Trump cases will be under discussion simultaneously.
I think the “Stormy Daniels” part is the most easy to identify and for most people to remember.
How about something like, “Manhattan NY Prosecutors’ criminal charges filed for Trump in Stormy Daniels case - ongoing discussion here”
There are. The one I’m thinking of is Tish James’s civil case, and criminal charges could flow from that one.
The problem with using the actual case titles is that few people understand the differences between “People” and “Plaintiffs”.
In the threads I started on the documents case and the January 6th case, I was careful to title them in ways (Mar-A-Lago, January 6th) that would be most easily identifiable to posters on the board. I’d like to do the same with the Manhattan case.
This non-lawyer thanks you for using friendly names for the cases. I think one thread per case, each one combining the legal issues, indictment, arrest, trial, etc., will be easiest to follow.
I seem to recall that he told New York police officers that when they had arrested someone and they were helping them through a door so they didn’t get hurt, he said “You can take the hand away, okay?.”
