How can Trump be charged federally in a state court?

[WorldWatcher]

Stop posting in generalities.
A misdemeanor is different from a felony. A bookkeeping error is a misdemeanor.
Its the felony, the unspecified "coverup" federal crime that is bullshit.

The crime was specified, Cohen was guilty of it.

WW

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Stop posting in generalities.

I'm not, you dumbass.
It's very specific.

A misdemeanor is different from a felony.

WOW, that's a win for you.

A bookkeeping error is a misdemeanor.

Depends on how big, how many times, and how the entry was intended for.

Its the felony, the unspecified "coverup" federal crime that is bullshit.

My dog has a better understanding of US laws and reading comprehension of the English language, than you do.
Of course, she never enrolled in the Trump U. "law" school correspondence course, like you did.

 

[SweetSue92]

Actually the Office of the FEC General Counsel did recommend finding violations, it was GOP members on the board that blocked further action.

Where did I say it was just voters in New York? I didn't.

There were other cases that were not dismissed. Cohen went to jail on 8 charges including Campaign Finance Violations.

WW

Even IF this is all true, how are they going to prove that Trump did this on purpose to help his campaign?

There's not just ONE reason this case is a laughingstock, there's ten reasons to Sunday

FEC drops Trump hush-money investigation

Trump has not faced consequences for his role in the scandal.

www.axios.com

 

[WorldWatcher]

Even IF this is all true, how are they going to prove that Trump did this on purpose to help his campaign?

Same way they do in other criminal trials, in this case it appears:

• Personal testimony by Allen Weissenberg (Sp?) Chief Financial Officer for the Trump Organization
• Personal testimony by David Pecker (AMI Media?) owner of the National Enquirer involved in the "catch-n-kill" process
• Personal testimony by Michael Cohen Trump personal attorney at the time
• Probably testimony by others involved (staff, assistants, accountants, etc.)
• Audio recordings that Cohen made of Trump
• Texts
• Emails
• Travel documents
• Phone records
• Invoices
• Checks
• Business ledger entries
• Contemporaneous notes
• etc.

We won't begin to know the specifics of that until further court filings are made such as Motions to Dismiss, Prosecution rebuttals to the dismissal, Motions to Suppress Evidence, and Prosecution rebuttals to suppression motions.

WW

 

[Lesh]

Even IF this is all true, how are they going to prove that Trump did this on purpose to help his campaign?

There's not just ONE reason this case is a laughingstock, there's ten reasons to Sunday

FEC drops Trump hush-money investigation

Trump has not faced consequences for his role in the scandal.

www.axios.com

Your link does not support your contention. Read it

 

[Lesh]

FEC drops investigation into Trump hush money payments

The Federal Elections Commission (FEC) has closed its investigation into whether former President Trump illegally made hush money payments to women prior to the 2016 election. The FEC vot…

thehill.com

https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/7313/7313_19.pdf

Can you show the document issued by the FEC where they said "NO VIOLATION", my understanding was from reporting at the time that the FEC was deadlocked and made no determination because GOP members of the board blocked the vote so they closed the case while the Office of the FEC General Counsel after investigating the matter did recommend that violations occurred.

The vote was blocked for political reasons.

WW

They dropped the case based on “prosecutorial discretion”.

In other words they just didn’t feel like pursuing it

 

[kyzr]

THAT is AFTER the hearings and trial.

You sure that trump can't appeal pre-trial motions?
Hint: the statute of limitations expired.

I'm not, you dumbass.
It's very specific.
WOW, that's a win for you.
Depends on how big, how many times, and how the entry was intended for.
My dog has a better understanding of US laws and reading comprehension of the English language, than you do.
Of course, she never enrolled in the Trump U. "law" school correspondence course, like you did.

Then your dog should answer the question. You apparently have no clue. Here it is again:
"Its the felony, the unspecified "coverup" federal crime that is bullshit."

Bragg did not specify the "felony"

 

[Lesh]

You sure that trump can't appeal pre-trial motions?
Hint: the statute of limitations expired.


Then your dog should answer the question. You apparently have no clue. Here it is again:
"Its the felony, the unspecified "coverup" federal crime that is bullshit."

Bragg did not specify the "felony"

According to NY law Bragg does not HAVE to specify the felony

You have been told this over and over.

 

[SweetSue92]

Same way they do in other criminal trials, in this case it appears:

• Personal testimony by Allen Weissenberg (Sp?) Chief Financial Officer for the Trump Organization
• Personal testimony by David Pecker (AMI Media?) owner of the National Enquirer involved in the "catch-n-kill" process
• Personal testimony by Michael Cohen Trump personal attorney at the time
• Probably testimony by others involved (staff, assistants, accountants, etc.)
• Audio recordings that Cohen made of Trump
• Texts
• Emails
• Travel documents
• Phone records
• Invoices
• Checks
• Business ledger entries
• Contemporaneous notes
• etc.

We won't begin to know the specifics of that until further court filings are made such as Motions to Dismiss, Prosecution rebuttals to the dismissal, Motions to Suppress Evidence, and Prosecution rebuttals to suppression motions.

WW

Since I know you're not an attorney, and neither am I, please cite the lawyers who believe this is a great, solid case:

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

You sure that trump can't appeal pre-trial motions?

Yes, he can but hasn't.

Hint: the statute of limitations expired.

NO, it hasn't.

Then your dog should answer the question. You apparently have no clue. Here it is again:
"Its the felony, the unspecified "coverup" federal crime that is bullshit."

Bragg did not specify the "felony"

YES, he did.
How many times do people have to explain it to you?

From August 2015 to December 2017, the Defendant orchestrated a scheme with others to influence the 2016 presidential election by identifying and purchasing negative information about him to suppress its publication and benefit the Defendant’s electoral prospects.

In order to execute the unlawful scheme, the participants violated election laws and made and caused false entries in the business records of various entities in New York. The participants also took steps that mischaracterized, for tax purposes, the true nature of the payments made in furtherance of the scheme.

During and in furtherance of his candidacy for President, the Defendant and others agreed to identify and suppress negative stories about him. Two parties to this agreement have admitted to committing illegal conduct in connection with the scheme.

In August 2018, Lawyer A pleaded guilty to two federal crimes involving illegal campaign contributions, and subsequently served time in prison. In addition, in August 2018, American Media, Inc. (“AMI”), a media company that owned and published magazines and supermarket tabloids including the National Enquirer, admitted in a non-prosecution agreement that it made a payment to a source of a story to ensure that the source “did not publicize damaging allegations” about the Defendant “before the 2016 presidential election and thereby influence that election.”

I AM DONE explaining.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Since I know you're not an attorney, and neither am I, please cite the lawyers who believe this is a great, solid case:

Appeal to authority noted. I read the law and court documents and express my own thoughts.

BTW - I don't think (at this point in time) that the FDOTUS will be convicted of felony charges. Either Judge Merchan will dismiss the case on attempting to link a NY State felony to a federal campaign violation (which from my understanding is uncharted legal territory), or the FDOTUS legal team will look at the evidence and go "we're screwed" and will plea deal it down to misdemeanor charges.

WW

 

[Lesh]

Since I know you're not an attorney, and neither am I, please cite the lawyers who believe this is a great, solid case:

Nepolitano for one

 

[WorldWatcher]

I AM DONE explaining.

No your not. LOL

Remember, sometimes we post out thoughts NOT for the person we are responding to, but to reach out to other board members reading the thread and are not engaging.

That's what a discussion board is about.

IMHO of course.

WW

 

[Lesh]

Yes, he can but hasn't.

NO, it hasn't.

YES, he did.
How many times do people have to explain it to you?

From August 2015 to December 2017, the Defendant orchestrated a scheme with others to influence the 2016 presidential election by identifying and purchasing negative information about him to suppress its publication and benefit the Defendant’s electoral prospects.

In order to execute the unlawful scheme, the participants violated election laws and made and caused false entries in the business records of various entities in New York. The participants also took steps that mischaracterized, for tax purposes, the true nature of the payments made in furtherance of the scheme.

During and in furtherance of his candidacy for President, the Defendant and others agreed to identify and suppress negative stories about him. Two parties to this agreement have admitted to committing illegal conduct in connection with the scheme.

In August 2018, Lawyer A pleaded guilty to two federal crimes involving illegal campaign contributions, and subsequently served time in prison. In addition, in August 2018, American Media, Inc. (“AMI”), a media company that owned and published magazines and supermarket tabloids including the National Enquirer, admitted in a non-prosecution agreement that it made a payment to a source of a story to ensure that the source “did not publicize damaging allegations” about the Defendant “before the 2016 presidential election and thereby influence that election.”

I AM DONE explaining.

But they aren’t done pretending over and over that you never did

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

No your not. LOL

To him, I am.

Remember, sometimes we post out thoughts NOT for the person we are responding to,

That's true, because he is NOT grasping anything or more than likely an obsessed troll.

but to reach out to other board members reading the thread and are not engaging.

That's what a discussion board is about.

IMHO of course.

WW

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

But they aren’t done pretending over and over that you never did

Orange kool-aid overdose?

 

[SweetSue92]

Appeal to authority noted. I read the law and court documents and express my own thoughts.

BTW - I don't think (at this point in time) that the FDOTUS will be convicted of felony charges. Either Judge Merchan will dismiss the case on attempting to link a NY State felony to a federal campaign violation (which from my understanding is uncharted legal territory), or the FDOTUS legal team will look at the evidence and go "we're screwed" and will plea deal it down to misdemeanor charges.

WW

Wrong use of fallacy. I'm not saying "it's untrue because XYZ said so". I'm asking since neither you nor I have any expertise in the discipline, what do those who DO have expertise say? The "appeal", by the way, is "this is true because".

What does FDOTUS stand for?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Wrong use of fallacy. I'm not saying "it's untrue because XYZ said so". I'm asking since neither you nor I have any expertise in the discipline, what do those who DO have expertise say? The "appeal", by the way, is "this is true because".

What does FDOTUS stand for?

Which is why I think we both agree, the FDOTUS was indicted by a Grand Jury of his peers, the charges have been filed. The next step is the defense and the prosecutor will make their motions to dismiss, suppress, and rebuttals. After that if t he case survives with will go to a jury trial.

FDOTUS = First Defendant of the United States. Seems more appropriate now that FPOTUS (Former President of the United States). That, and if you pronounce it out you get "F-dotus" which sounds funny. LOL

WW

 

[j-mac]

You really should read the indictment. You are making a fool of yourself.

Tell that to the NYTimes....

"Tuesday was historic for the rule of law in America, but not in the way Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, would have imagined. The 34-count indictment — which more accurately could be described as 34 half-indictments — was a disaster. It was a setback for the rule of law and established a dangerous precedent for prosecutors.

This legal embarrassment reveals new layers of Trumpian damage to the legal foundations of the United States: Mr. Trump’s opponents react to his provocations and norms violations by escalating and accelerating the erosion of legal norms.

The case appears so weak on its legal and jurisdictional basis that a state judge might dismiss the case and mitigate that damage. More likely, the case is headed to federal court for a year, where it could lose on the grounds of federal pre-emption — only federal courts have jurisdiction over campaign finance and filing requirements. Even if it survives a challenge that could reach the Supreme Court, a trial would most likely not start until at least mid-2024, possibly even after the 2024 election.

Instead of the rule of law, it would be the rule of the circus."

Opinion | The Trump Indictment Is a Legal Embarrassment (Published 2023)

Why it was a setback for the rule of law and established a dangerous precedent for prosecutors.

www.nytimes.com

By Jed Handelsman Shugerman

Mr. Shugerman is a law professor at Fordham and Boston University.

 

[j-mac]

Which is why I think we both agree, the FDOTUS was indicted by a Grand Jury of his peers, the charges have been filed. The next step is the defense and the prosecutor will make their motions to dismiss, suppress, and rebuttals. After that if t he case survives with will go to a jury trial.

FDOTUS = First Defendant of the United States. Seems more appropriate now that FPOTUS (Former President of the United States). That, and if you pronounce it out you get "F-dotus" which sounds funny. LOL

WW

Well, isn't that cute....The left never stops with their creative childish name calling to flame....