How can Trump be charged federally in a state court?

[WorldWatcher]

The FEC never even investigated ANYTHING

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

Technically the FEC did investigate and the Office of General Counsel recommended charges, the commissioners though blocked further action politically - not based on the recommendation of the investigators.

Just say'n.

WW

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

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

Technically the FEC did investigate and the Office of General Counsel recommended charges, the commissioners though blocked further action politically - not based on the recommendation of the investigators.

Just say'n.

WW

Not according to what the board members stated.

Two Democrats on the Federal Election Commission are criticizing Republican members after the commission deadlocked and did not take action against former President Donald Trump’s campaign related to the $130,000 hush money payment to Stormy Daniels on the eve of the 2016 election.

Republicans James “Trey” Trainor and Sean Cooksey voted no, arguing that the federal government had already punished Cohen and the agency has other issues to pursue.

“Thus, we concluded that pursuing these matters further was not the best use of agency resources,” they continued. “The Commission regularly dismisses matters where other government agencies have already adequately enforced and vindicated the Commission’s interests.”

Democrats on Federal Election Commission denounce ...​

CNN.com
https://www.cnn.com › 2021/05/06 › politics › fec-demo...

May 7, 2021 — Democrats on Federal Election Commission denounce group's decision not to punish Trump over hush money payment to Stormy Daniels. Fredreka ..

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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

No it didn't. The FEC deadlock on charging Trump 2 voting for charges, 2 voting against, and 2 not voting. It takes a majority of the 6 commissioners to issue a ruling.

Actually the Office of the FEC General Counsel reported and recommend filing charges against Trump.

But that is irrelevant anyway as New York isn't charging Trump based on Federal Campaign Finance laws. They charged Trump under Section 175.10 of the New York State Penal Code for Falsification of Business Records.



Possibly, we will have to wait and see.



Because the defense requested later times, the Defense is reported as requesting a Trial in spring.

There is a lot that will occur in the coming months. First of all the evidence has to be turned over to the Defense, the Defense has to review all the evidence (and there is a lot that was presented to the Grand Jury), then the Defense has to file it's motions (Motions to Dismiss, Motions to Suppress Evidence, etc.).

Since the Prosecution is ready to go, they've already presented the evidence to the Grand Jury, the time is for the Defense to build their case.

WW

You are still confused. Trump was NOT charged.

Also, it is already spring and has been before the indictment. Do you have a link to your fiction regarding Trump's defense asking for a trial in December, weeks before the primaries?

 

[kyzr]

WHY do you think they stated there wasn't a crime, moron?

“Several of our colleagues instead voted to dismiss the allegations,” Broussard and Weintraub added in their statement. “The Commission therefore did not have enough votes to pursue well-grounded charges that the former President of the United States knowingly and willfully accepted contributions nearly 5,000% over the legal limit to suppress a negative story mere days before Election Day.”

The six-member commission’s vote – which was taken last month, but the results of which were first made public Thursday – was 2-2. Broussard and Weintraub voted yes, Independent Steven Walther did not vote, and Republican Allen Dickerson recused himself.

The FEC never even investigated ANYTHING..........DUMBASS.
Teabaggers protecting their dear leader.........AGAIN.

Link to your post. It looks like it has nothing to do with Stormy. WTF does 5,000% over legal limits have to do with anything?????

Ex-FEC Chairman Dismantles Alvin Bragg Case After Tweeting Photo, Says Not a Campaign Violation

The Manhattan district attorney is taking a case to court that the FEC decided against pursuing more than two years ago.

www.westernjournal.com

“It’s not a campaign finance violation. It’s not a reporting violation of any kind,” Trainor told the Washington Examiner in an article published Wednesday, a day after the legal and media circus of Trump’s arraignment in Manhattan Criminal Court in New York City. Bragg, Trainor said, is “really trying to make a square peg fit into a round hole.”

 

[Lesh]

The FEC said he was not charged with that crime because it was NOT illegal. That is basing a felony charge on a non-criminal act. Paying hush money is perfectly legal. You can't seem to realize that Cohen pleaded guilty to something that was not a crime. There are many Democrats that think I am correct and Bragg is an idiot.

You are about to get an education in December, or even before that, when these charges die an agonizing death.

Why do you think the judge is not having the next court date until December and a possible trial starting in January? It is to keep the fake news alive until deep into the election cycle. Think about 8 months delay. Trump's lawyers should make a motion that his right to speedy trial is being violated.

The FEC said no such thing.

Prove me wrong you old fool. Post a link to that.

And DON’T post a link to the Trump appointed FEC chair claiming that the FEC is claiming that there is no basis for THESE state charges using Federal law.

That would be stupid and irrelevant

You need to show the FEC saying that the crime Cohen was convicted of wasn’t a crime

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Link to your post. It looks like it has nothing to do with Stormy. WTF does 5,000% over legal limits have to do with anything?????

Ex-FEC Chairman Dismantles Alvin Bragg Case After Tweeting Photo, Says Not a Campaign Violation

The Manhattan district attorney is taking a case to court that the FEC decided against pursuing more than two years ago.

www.westernjournal.com

“It’s not a campaign finance violation. It’s not a reporting violation of any kind,” Trainor told the Washington Examiner in an article published Wednesday, a day after the legal and media circus of Trump’s arraignment in Manhattan Criminal Court in New York City. Bragg, Trainor said, is “really trying to make a square peg fit into a round hole.”

According to a................."Acting" Trump appointee.

FEC Decides Not to Review Trump's Role in Stormy ...​

Wall Street Journal
https://www.wsj.com › articles › fec-decides-not-to-revie...

May 7, 2021 — The Federal Election Commission didn't have enough votes to break a tie between Republicans and Democrats.

 

[Lesh]

Link to your post. It looks like it has nothing to do with Stormy. WTF does 5,000% over legal limits have to do with anything?????

Ex-FEC Chairman Dismantles Alvin Bragg Case After Tweeting Photo, Says Not a Campaign Violation

The Manhattan district attorney is taking a case to court that the FEC decided against pursuing more than two years ago.

www.westernjournal.com

“It’s not a campaign finance violation. It’s not a reporting violation of any kind,” Trainor told the Washington Examiner in an article published Wednesday, a day after the legal and media circus of Trump’s arraignment in Manhattan Criminal Court in New York City. Bragg, Trainor said, is “really trying to make a square peg fit into a round hole.”

Trainor is talking about this current STATE case using Federal standards . Not only that he is trying to make a case that there is no campaign violation HERE when Trump is not charged with campaign violations.

He is clearly a partisan hack

 

[ThisIsMe]

Because I HAVE said it repeatedly and you’re getting tiresome

Hmm, every mention of it shows you phrasing it like you have been. No matter, I was just curious.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The DOJ HAS taken it up and convicted Cohen

Keep up

I’m talking about for trump. They’ve already refused to push the matter for him.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Yes, it was but they didn't refuse,
Trump's lawyer and leader of the DOJ shut everything down.

William Barr Turns DOJ Into Donald Trump's Law Firm​

View attachment 774071
The Intercept
https://theintercept.com › 2020/06/22 › william-barr-h...

Jun 22, 2020 — He quickly saw Barr's move for exactly what it was: a raw attempt to shut down ongoing Trump-related investigations.



They did...........hence.........THE INDICTMENT.

I was talking about the doj, not this current case

 

[Lesh]

I’m talking about for trump. They’ve already refused to push the matter for him.

The DOJ does not involve itself in state crimes

And sitting Presidents do not get charged by their own DOJ.

 

[ThisIsMe]

All charges against Trump were presented, in the indictment.



As part of the indictment arraignment process? No.

Will at be addressed probably as part of the defenses Motion to Dismiss? Most assuredly. The prosecution will then be able to file a rebuttal and then it will be up to the Judge to rule.



It was, the connection to election law and campaign violations as the basis for First Degree (felony) Business Record Falsification instead of Second Degree (misdemeanor) were file with the court of the same time. So say that the defendant has not been informed of the basis of the first degree enhancement isn't true. He has been. The particulars of the DA's legal theory on how that justifies the enhancement is strategy that will be part of later proceedings.




The accused does know the charges against him 34 counts of Falsification of Business Records in the First Degree (Class E Felony).

Remember this is the indictment stage based on a Grand Jury of his peers voting to indict. This is not the trial stage were evidence all evidence has to be laid out by the DA.

Some people want trial level details, but that won't happen yet.

WW

All charges against Trump were presented, in the indictment.

Agreed, but those charges are only felonies if they are hinged on another crime, which the indictment fails to name, and Bragg hasn’t named them either. He simply refuses to say one way or another, which is why the media is even confused about the underlying crime. I’ve basically made an indictment in one document that points to some information in another document, but Bragg hasnt actually said that the information in the SOF is indeed the underlying crime. I mean, we can speculate, but we really don’t know, and neither does the defense. For all we know, Bragg may have a completely different reason he could spring on them at a later date, and judging by the talk in the media, one would be correct in suspecting that., and here is why:

The particulars of the DA's legal theory on how that justifies the enhancement is strategy that will be part of later proceedings.

Your statement is exactly what people are talking about. Those “particulars” are the problem here, because those particulars are how Bragg elevated a state misdemeanor to a felony, and that information is extremely relevant to how Bragg came up with the charge and should have been a part of why the defendant should have been informed of it.

What bragg is doing is saying “I’ve laid out the charge, but I’ll tell you the crime I used to get that charge at a later date”. What I’m saying is, the entire charge, including the crimes he is using to get there, should have been spelled out in the indictment, because to get to the felony level, it has to be based on another crime. Until he lays out the crime it’s hinged upon, the indictment he specified is just a misdemeanor.

The accused has a right to know exactly what he’s being charged with and why. Things like evidence and all that will come out later in the trial stage.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You are still confused. Trump was NOT charged.

Also, it is already spring and has been before the indictment. Do you have a link to your fiction regarding Trump's defense asking for a trial in December, weeks before the primaries?

What comes next in Trump's criminal case in New York

The legal process in the case of the People of the State of New York vs. Donald J. Trump is just beginning.

www.cbsnews.com

Donald Trump has been booked and charged – what happens now?

By Joseph Ax (Reuters) - The events underlying the criminal case against Donald Trump - hush money payments to suppress stories about extramarital aff...

wibqam.com

Of course he was charged. He was indicted for Section 175.10 of the New York Penal Code this week for Falsifying Business Records under state law which is separate from federal law.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

Agreed, but those charges are only felonies if they are hinged on another crime, which the indictment fails to name, and Bragg hasn’t named them either. He simply refuses to say one way or another, which is why the media is even confused about the underlying crime. I’ve basically made an indictment in one document that points to some information in another document, but Bragg hasnt actually said that the information in the SOF is indeed the underlying crime. I mean, we can speculate, but we really don’t know, and neither does the defense. For all we know, Bragg may have a completely different reason he could spring on them at a later date, and judging by the talk in the media, one would be correct in suspecting that., and here is why:



Your statement is exactly what people are talking about. Those “particulars” are the problem here, because those particulars are how Bragg elevated a state misdemeanor to a felony, and that information is extremely relevant to how Bragg came up with the charge and should have been a part of why the defendant should have been informed of it.

What bragg is doing is saying “I’ve laid out the charge, but I’ll tell you the crime I used to get that charge at a later date”. What I’m saying is, the entire charge, including the crimes he is using to get there, should have been spelled out in the indictment, because to get to the felony level, it has to be based on another crime. Until he lays out the crime it’s hinged upon, the indictment he specified is just a misdemeanor.

The accused has a right to know exactly what he’s being charged with and why. Things like evidence and all that will come out later in the trial stage.

He did. Trump's charges are in the indictment. The link to Cohen's case is clearly state in the Statement of Facts.

WW

 

[Lesh]

View attachment 774415

He did. Trump's charges are in the indictment. The link to Cohen's case is clearly state in the Statement of Facts.

WW

They will act like they never saw this

 

[ThisIsMe]

No, they are not. That is why the feds would not charge him with a campaign law violation, because he did not use campaign funds.

How NY sets up their laws is just plain stupid. Any lawyer will tell you a business records violation is a misdemeanor usually resulting in a small fine.

Right, what I’m getting at is the supposed way they arrived at the felony. Yes, the records violation is a misdemeanor, but under NY state law, if that misdemeanor was used to cover another crime, then NY can upgrade the misdemeanor to a felony.

So I guess what they are trying to say is, because trump paid cohen to reimburse him for what was deemed a campaign finance violation, and they listed them as “legal expenses” on the books, that means they were also guilty of campaign finance violations, but tried to cover it up by showing it was legal expenses.

Of course, Bragg won’t come out and say that specifically..

 

[ThisIsMe]

View attachment 774415

He did. Trump's charges are in the indictment. The link to Cohen's case is clearly state in the Statement of Facts.

WW

But what you are quoting is not from the indictment, right? What you quoted is from the SOF, which Bragg won’t actually say is what the underlying crime is. I mean, you and I can look at it and say that’s it all day, but if that’s the case, then why doesn’t Bragg confirm it? If he did, it would just confirm what everyone already knows, no harm, but, because he won’t, makes me wonder if he actually has another crime in mind that he’s not telling the defendant, which means he hasn’t actually allowed the accused his right to know what he is being charged with. You can’t point to a misdemeanor and say “there’s your crime” if that misdemeanor can only be a felony if it’s dependent on another crime, the other crime has to be stated so everyone understands how he turned a misdemeanor into that felony.

 

[ThisIsMe]

They will act like they never saw this

No, it’s been seen, what people want, including all the people in the media, including left wing media, is clarity on what the actual crime is that was used to elevate a misdemeanor into a felony. The fact that Bragg won’t spell it out leaves some people uncertain.

Again, even the lefty news is saying they don’t know what the underlying crime is.

 

[ThisIsMe]

If the indictment is too difficult to comprehend, here is the statement of facts: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000187-4dd5-dfdf-af9f-4dfda6e80000

Is the SOF the underlying crime?

 

[ThisIsMe]

In NY the indictment does not have to specify that crime

Without the underlying crime, the indictment is just a misdemeanor.