How can Trump be charged federally in a state court?

[ThisIsMe]

What do you think?

I think it’s a separate document that has no meaning to the indictment unless Bragg says those are the underlying crimes he used.

I don’t understand why that is such a hard thing. Just spell out explicitly what the underlying crime is. It’s not hard and it would clear up a lot.

 

[ThisIsMe]

But as you know ( because it has been pointed out about fifteen ******* times) there IS an “underlining crime”

Stop acting stupid

Oh, what is the underlying crime? Seems apparently you only know this, many other people aren’t so clear

 

[WorldWatcher]

Is there? Bragg hasn’t revealed it, the media doesn’t seem very certain, even left wing media. I know what you all claim is the underlying crime, but until Bragg actually says what it is, trump is being unfairly indicted, because he doesn’t know exactly, from the DA, where the charges derive from.

Sure he does. Section 175.10 of the New York Penal Code, Falsification of Business Records in the First Degree. Those are the only charges under which Trump has been charged. The underlying crime is Cohen's, Trump has not and will not be charged for Cohen's crime because Cohen's was Federal campaign finance violations and Bragg (as a local DA) can't charge Federal crimes.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

Oh, what is the underlying crime? Seems apparently you only know this, many other people aren’t so clear

Pretty clear since it's in the Statement of Facts.

WW

 

[ThisIsMe]

What “lefty news” is saying that?

Are they as stupid as you?

Why New York’s hush money case against Donald Trump is viewed as risky | CNN Politics

The case that Manhattan prosecutors have brought against former President Donald Trump for allegedly falsifying business records to disguise hush money payments related to the 2016 campaign presents novel legal questions that make the prosecution risky – but not impossible – legal experts say.

amp.cnn.com

That will require his team to show that the records were falsified with the intent to conceal or further another crime, yet Tuesday's court papers provided only a little clarity on how Bragg intends to establish an underlying crime.

But given the monumental stakes of the case and how it seems to rest on a novel theory for bringing felony charges, critics say the public would have been better served with more detail.

I'm not saying there isn't a hint of what the other crime is," said Robert Kelner, a defense attorney who specializes in political and election law. "But when you have this weird local statute -- in which to prove one crime, you have to show he intended to commit another -- you think you'd be very specific."

Exactly what this underlying crime was is not specified in the indictment itself, but rather teased in an accompanying statement of facts and in prosecutors' remarks Tuesday.

The district attorney's theory, as well as the lack of transparency around how Bragg intends to lay it out, is raising concern about whether the case will stand up in court.

Column: Don't underestimate the strengths of Alvin Bragg's case against Donald Trump

The Manhattan district attorney pointed to new evidence that the payment to Stormy Daniels was meant to break campaign finance and even tax law.

www.latimes.com

Manhattan Dist. Atty. Alvin Bragg’s indictmentof former President Trump takes an open-ended approach to the charges

A key question in advance of Tuesday’s unsealing of the indictment concerned how Bragg would augment the easily proven misdemeanor charges of falsifying business records……Bragg’s answer was essentially “I’ll tell you later.”

Bragg may have to pick his crime down the line, perhaps in answer to an expected defense motion for a “bill of particulars” — that is, a fleshing out of the Delphic indictment to enable Trump’s team to prepare an appropriate defense.

On the other hand, the prosecutor may not have to specify a second crime. The jury instructions on falsification of business records say it’s a felony if the defendant acted “with intent to defraud that included an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.” It’s therefore not clear that they require the jury even to agree on what the augmenting crime is.

I mean, these statement seem to indicate that even the media, even those on the left, are not entirely sure what the underlying crime is.

 

[ThisIsMe]

All reasonable questions which I'm sure will be addressed in the coming months.

But as I've said before, we are at the Grand Jury indictment, DA charging and arraignment phase. My understanding is that under New York State law the indictment must layout the charges and the basis of those charges. There is no requirement that the indictment layout the entire legal theory, only the justification as to the direct charges.

The defendant has been informed of what he has been charged with, it's Section 175.10 of the New York State Penal Code and the actions that directly relate to those violations.

Now whether your legal theory that the indictment is defective because it doesn't layout the DA's case was to why Cohen's crimes are the basis? We shall see and you can guarantee Trump's defense lawyers will bring that up as part of the Motion to Dismiss. However since the link was clearly indicated in the Statement of Facts that the defendant received when the indictment was unsealed, I doubt such a challenge will be successful. So to say the defendant was not informed is on it's face incorrect.

WW

My understanding is that under New York State law the indictment must layout the charges and the basis of those charges

Exactly what I’m saying. We don’t need any legal theory, we just need the indictment and whatever crime they are alleging they used to create the felony used to get that indictment. That’s all

 

[ThisIsMe]

What the media want's is all the information to be made public right now.

That isn't how criminal trials work. The DA will present it to the court at the correct time and place. Then the court will review the motions by the defense and rebuttal from the DA's office and make a ruling.

My daughter was involved with prosecuting a sexual assault case that took well over 2-years. And most of that was motions by the defense for dismissal, challenging of evidence, challenging of witnesses and experts.

They say the wheels of justice grind slowly.

WW

What the media want's is all the information to be made public right now.

No, not really, I mean, yeah, the trial will take time, but I think the defense is legally entitled to know the details of the indictment, including the crime they used to create the felony.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I mean, these statement seem to indicate that even the media, even those on the left, are not entirely sure what the underlying crime is.

Media talking heads want more detail now to fill news minutes. "Video at 11."

In other news, scientists have determined that water is wet.
.
.
.
.
Seriously this is a case working it's way through the judicial system. Have patience, it will be a long row to hoe.

On the other hand if Bragg released all the evidence he has, then the talking heads would be complaining that her released TO MUCH information.

:ROFL:

WW

 

[ThisIsMe]

No, the indictment is for a felony.

Without the connection to Cohen's illegal activity the crime would be a misdemeanor. But we all know what the underlaying crime is which justifies the felony level charges, they are referred to in the Statement of Facts filed with the court and unsealed with the indictment.

WW

But that’s just it, when asked, Bragg refused to name the underlying crime. If the SOF was indeed the crime he’s using, the he should have pointed at that document and said so. He didn’t, and that leads people to wonder what the crime is. Is it the SOF? Or is it some, yet to be named, crime that he’s holding out on?

 

[Lesh]

Why New York’s hush money case against Donald Trump is viewed as risky | CNN Politics

The case that Manhattan prosecutors have brought against former President Donald Trump for allegedly falsifying business records to disguise hush money payments related to the 2016 campaign presents novel legal questions that make the prosecution risky – but not impossible – legal experts say.

amp.cnn.com

CNN is doing their usual “both sides”

Meh

You only seem focused on the one side

Meh

Column: Don't underestimate the strengths of Alvin Bragg's case against Donald Trump

The Manhattan district attorney pointed to new evidence that the payment to Stormy Daniels was meant to break campaign finance and even tax law.

www.latimes.com

I mean, these statement seem to indicate that even the media, even those on the left, are not entirely sure what the underlying crime is.

 

[Lesh]

But that’s just it, when asked, Bragg refused to name the underlying crime. If the SOF was indeed the crime he’s using, the he should have pointed at that document and said so. He didn’t, and that leads people to wonder what the crime is. Is it the SOF? Or is it some, yet to be named, crime that he’s holding out on?

It’s a good thing he has you to tell him what he should have done huh?

You DO know that the State of NY doesn’t require that though

Right?

Please respond to that last

 

[WorldWatcher]

Exactly what I’m saying. We don’t need any legal theory, we just need the indictment and whatever crime they are alleging they used to create the felony used to get that indictment. That’s all

They did, Section 175.10 is in the indictment. That's all they need at this stage.

There is a difference between what someone want's and what they need.

Now to be sure, FDOTUS's team will include this as a Motion to Dismiss, some thing along the lines of the indictment was defective. The prosecution will file a rebuttal and the Judge who will make a ruling. We'll have to see how that goes. Personally - I don't see a dismissal on those grounds because the "underlying crime" is identified in the Statement of Facts which was unsealed at the same time as the Indictment. (But ya never know.)

WW

 

[ThisIsMe]

Sure he does. Section 175.10 of the New York Penal Code, Falsification of Business Records in the First Degree. Those are the only charges under which Trump has been charged. The underlying crime is Cohen's, Trump has not and will not be charged for Cohen's crime because Cohen's was Federal campaign finance violations and Bragg (as a local DA) can't charge Federal crimes.

WW

Ok, so then Bragg has no case. The only way 175.10 becomes a felony is if it is done with the intent to commit or conceal a crime or furtherance of a crime.

 

[Lesh]

I think it’s a separate document that has no meaning to the indictment unless Bragg says those are the underlying crimes he used.

I don’t understand why that is such a hard thing. Just spell out explicitly what the underlying crime is. It’s not hard and it would clear up a lot.

Nothing needs to be “cleared up “

This will be sellers in Court

How have you missed that?

 

[ThisIsMe]

View attachment 775237

Pretty clear since it's in the Statement of Facts.

WW

Lol, and we came back to the start. If the SOF is indeed the underlying crime, then why hasn’t Bragg said so?

I know this seems trivial, but, the fact that Bragg won’t come out and say it leads me to wonder if he’s playing games by not releasing all of the information.

 

[WorldWatcher]

But that’s just it, when asked, Bragg refused to name the underlying crime. If the SOF was indeed the crime he’s using, the he should have pointed at that document and said so. He didn’t, and that leads people to wonder what the crime is. Is it the SOF? Or is it some, yet to be named, crime that he’s holding out on?

So Braggs putting it out there for anyone who actually reads the documents but refused to talk about it to the media is confusing.

Apparently Braggs strategy to keep people guessing is working.

And of course we could all be wrong and once Bragg has to put it in writing to the Judge (probably as part of a rebuttal for a Motion to Dismiss) the underlying crime could be something totally different.



WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

Ok, so then Bragg has no case. The only way 175.10 becomes a felony is if it is done with the intent to commit or conceal a crime or furtherance of a crime.

Sure he does. Trump commits 175.10 (allegedly) to aid and/or conceal Cohen's crime.

WW

 

[ThisIsMe]

Media talking heads want more detail now to fill news minutes. "Video at 11."

In other news, scientists have determined that water is wet.
.
.
.
.
Seriously this is a case working it's way through the judicial system. Have patience, it will be a long row to hoe.

On the other hand if Bragg released all the evidence he has, then the talking heads would be complaining that her released TO MUCH information.

:ROFL:

WW

Nobody is asking for him to release all of his evidence, just state, explicitly, the charges, in detail, including naming the underlying crime he intends to use to elevate the misdemeanor to a felony.

 

[ThisIsMe]

It’s a good thing he has you to tell him what he should have done huh?

You DO know that the State of NY doesn’t require that though

Right?

Please respond to that last

I think the constitution allows the accused the right to known, fully what they are being charged with, including all relevant information of how they arrived at that charge.

I’m not disagreeing that what’s in the SOF is the underlying crime, my gripe here is how Bragg just seems to be holding out on specifically naming that. It just seems fishy to me.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Lol, and we came back to the start. If the SOF is indeed the underlying crime, then why hasn’t Bragg said so?

Because he doesn't need to. He is under no obligation to put anything in the indictment not needed. Cohen's crime isn't needed, only Trumps alleged crime.

Now, he may need to justify the connection officially to the Judge at a later date in rebuttal to a defense motion, but that will happen then. It's not needed now.

For now he provides the bare minimum, the indictment, the Statement of Facts, and will be in the process of turning over all evidence they have (incriminating and exculpatory). Then it will be up to the defense to put their eggs in a basket and file for the Motion to Dismiss. Bragg has no obligation at this point to possibly give them ammunition for their motions.

11 Dimensional Chess.

WW