Trump's Present and Future possible indictments

[LeftofLeft]

Donald J. Trump and his organizations have been under investigation
for some years now.

This thread means to put into prospective all of these cases and follow them to wherever they may lead.

Let us start with an over view of all of those cases, and then deal with the most recent information.

Feel free to discuss anything one reads, whether one agrees with it or not, but in a civil way.

Trump court cases: A list of all current and pending legal cases on the ex-president's docket

Donald Trump is on a bad run, with massive losses against the New York attorney general and E. Jean Carroll. His first criminal trial has just begun.

www.businessinsider.com

You people had no problem with Trump until he stood in the way of Hillary who was always your second choice multiple times. Do you hate Trump to the level you will hold your Party accountable to give back the checks he wrote for Democrats over the years? I’m sure BLM will take another handout. DO IT!

 

[Sixties Fan]

You people had no problem with Trump until he stood in the way of Hillary who was always your second choice multiple times. Do you hate Trump to the level you will hold your Party accountable to give back the checks he wrote for Democrats over the years? I’m sure BLM will take another handout. DO IT!

What an amazing amount of Elephant Dung.

Deal with reality.

 

[LeftofLeft]

What an amazing amount of Elephant Dung.

Deal with reality.

Trump never donated to Democrats?

 

[Sixties Fan]

Trump never donated to Democrats?

Is that one of the future possible indictments?
Trump donated to Democrats when, he shouldn't, and forgot to record it for tax or any other purposes?
Did he donate to Democrats so that they would forget how he went out after women while married?

 

[Sixties Fan]

Well, today was a day. It started like this.



And by the end of the day—or rather, by late afternoon, since the indictment was made public not in advance of the hearing, as expected, but late in the day—we knew what the charges against the former president consisted of. I thought I’d pull a couple of the interesting threads for us to consider from what we’ve learned today. For starters, here are the top-level points, for those who like to do their own reading:

• The indictment charges 34 felony counts of business records fraud. Read it here. That’s the charge we previewed in last night’s newsletter, so if you want a refresher on what it involves, re-read here.
• The indictment is, unfortunately, a bare-bones document, not a speaking indictment that tells the story of the crime.
• However, the practice in the Manhattan DA’s office, which is different from how most prosecutors operate, is to file a separate document called a “statement of facts” that details more information about the charges in white-collar crime cases. This one is dishy. You can read it here.
• Donald Trump is the only defendant charged, and there is no conspiracy count.

The statement of facts is full of detail. That’s where we start tonight, with the big picture. The Manhattan DA alleges that “From August 2015 to December 2017, the Defendant [that’s Trump] 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.”

The 13-page statement is a road map to how the DA intends to prove the 34 crimes that are charged in the indictment. The portion of the statement that is quoted above gives us both the context for the indictment—it’s about an effort to interfere with an election—and the details about the other crimes the DA believes he can prove Trump committed or concealed (or wanted to commit or conceal) in order to morph the basic misdemeanor false records charges into felonies. Trump was directing a scheme to interfere with the election, and he violated New York law in the process. So, tax and election crimes.
https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1643364408825872385?s=20

Unsealed

Now we know what charges Trump faces in Manhattan

joycevance.substack.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

How did the scheme work? At a meeting in August of 2015, publisher David Pecker (then the head of AMI), Michael Cohen, and Trump met and concocted a “catch and kill” plan to prevent damaging stories about Trump from surfacing during the election. Pecker “agreed to help with [Trump’s] campaign, saying that he would act as the ’eyes and ears’ for the campaign by looking out for negative stories about the Defendant and alerting Lawyer A [Michael Cohen] before the stories were published.” The result was three instances where they were able to prevent damaging information about Trump from coming to light while he was running for office. The payoff to keep Stormy Daniels quiet, involving $130,000 paid to her through Michael Cohen and a shell company, was expected. The surprise was the inclusion of the $150,000 payment to another woman who was shopping a story about an affair with Trump, Karen McDougal, and a $30,000 payment to a doorman at Trump Tower with a story, later rejected by AMI, that Trump had fathered an illegitimate child. That’s the scheme. The indictment charges the lies used to further it, 34 of them.

Here’s how the 34 break down. There are 11 counts related to falsified invoices. There are 12 counts related to falsified general ledger entries. There are 11 checks falsely recording Stormy Daniels’ hush money repayments as a legal retainer to Michael Cohen. It’s a simple and elegant series of charges, all wrapped in the election context.

Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg offered two reasons his office had to bring the case. First, it was about protecting American elections. Trump supporters who had suggested the “catch and kill” scheme was about protecting Melania Trump saw that defense blow apart today—Trump met with Pecker after the election and before the inauguration to thank him for his help with the election. They met again after the election and before the inauguration, where Trump “thanked the AMI CEO for handling the stories of the Doorman and Woman 1 [Karen McDougal], and invited the AMI CEO to the Inauguration.” After Trump became President, he invited Pecker to a White House dinner in the summer of 2017 “to thank him for his help during the campaign.” Pecker is cooperating. He was the final witness Bragg brought before the grand jury, and, presumably, we will hear this story in his own voice. Here’s the chef’s kiss. They structured at least one of the deals so they wouldn’t have to pay out funds if Trump lost the election. It was never about protecting Melania.

Bragg offered a second reason the prosecution was important: “Because it’s New York, and business integrity and markets and accurate record-keeping matters; that’s why we charged. It’s falsification,” he emphasized with an emphatic gesture, of “New York State business records.” Bragg pointed out that given Manhattan’s status as a center of financial activity, these are “bread and butter crimes” for his office.

So the charges in the indictment make sense, and there is a strong, apolitical justification for bringing it. Bragg also responded to questions about why he decided to bring the case by saying they had access to new evidence, although he didn’t specify what form that took. Nonetheless, I do have some questions about the indictment.

Unsealed

Now we know what charges Trump faces in Manhattan

joycevance.substack.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

First, why isn’t there a conspiracy charge? No answers to that today. The statement of facts uses conspiracy language and seems to suggest there was a conspiracy between Pecker, Cohen, and Trump. There are strategic reasons prosecutors like to use conspiracy charges, including the fact that they permit evidence to be introduced that can be difficult to get in otherwise—for instance, conversations among co-conspirators. But the Manhattan DA has had months to consider his case, and, presumably, he had good reasons for the charging decisions he made.

Second, why isn’t there more specificity about the crimes the DA is alleging to upgrade the misdemeanors to felony charges? Our expectation, as we’ve discussed the possible shape this indictment might take, was that we’d see tax crimes and election crimes. And we do. But we still don’t know much more than that. The DA explained in his press conference that he is including both federal election crimes involving caps on contributions and state provisions that prohibit illegally affecting an election, as well as state tax crimes. It would have been nice to have a little bit more speaking in the indictment, so we could have a better understanding of the theories Bragg is going to advance on this key point. There’s enough to let us know that he has multiple paths to converting his misdemeanors into felonies, but the appellate lawyer in me wants all of the specifics. And there are legal challenges looming here—there will be questions about whether a state election law applies to a federal election and others about whether a state prosecutor can apply a federal law here. That may make the tax charges the goldilocks provision in the mix.

To be fair, it’s apparently the practice in New York to indict a case like this without referencing the specific criminal violations that enhance the false records charges. And it would be a mistake to treat this case differently from other cases. If prosecutors had, Trump’s lawyers would likely be complaining about the additional information in the indictment. Now, they’re likely to file a motion asking for more specificity. We’ll learn the answers as the case progresses, but it would have been nice to have it all laid out for starters.

One final note: In a jury trial, these charges aren’t all or nothing. The jury could return felony convictions if they think the prosecution has proved its case. But if they believe the records were falsified, but that the evidence doesn’t establish that another crime was involved, they could return guilty verdicts on the misdemeanor charges—what’s called a lesser included offense. I don’t think that’s going to be the case, but it’s important to know there could be felony convictions, misdemeanor convictions, or acquittals, and the jury votes separately on each charge. There are multiple paths to conviction.

A few weeks ago, I wrote to you that “Some people have suggested that the charges under consideration in Manhattan are insignificant. . . . I don’t see it that way. The Stormy Daniels incident is the origin story for Trump’s efforts to manipulate elections in unfair ways.” The indictment confirms that’s true. The chandeliers may have been sparkly at Mar-a-Lago tonight for Trump’s recitation of grievance, but his lawyers, if not he, understand they have a difficult, albeit lengthy, path ahead that is very likely to result in a number of convictions.

The next hearing in this case isn’t scheduled until December 4. That’s a long ways off. In the meantime, the prosecution and the defense will file pretrial motions and conduct discovery. Trump is presumed innocent until proven guilty and he has a right to remain silent (if he can). But this won’t be the only storm he has to weather for long. The E. Jean Carroll trial starts on April 25, in a federal courtroom, also in New York. And there is the prospect of additional criminal indictments.

Unsealed

Now we know what charges Trump faces in Manhattan

joycevance.substack.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Lumpy 1]

You ever heard the expression, “keep it short and sweet” ?
I’m very impressed with your effort but do recall that most Democrats can hardly read and most Republicans just want the proven facts and have been through quite a few Democrat unfounded flops already.
Then again if it’s therapeutic .. have at it..

 

[Lumpy 1]

Oh the sixties were fun, banana seat bikes Beatles and Southern California sunshine at the beach.
My older brother used to bring me along then tell to get lost so he could pursue those sexy beach bunnies. Some guys have all the luck and poor little Lumpy had to pedal my ass home.. oh the humanity..

 

[LeftofLeft]

Is that one of the future possible indictments?
Trump donated to Democrats when, he shouldn't, and forgot to record it for tax or any other purposes?
Did he donate to Democrats so that they would forget how he went out after women while married?

Democrats don’t like donors who go after women while married??? Who knew.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Donald Trump has called on Republicans in Congress to defund both the Department of Justice and FBI, less than 24 hours after a historic and unprecedented day for America, when the former president was arrested and arraigned in Manhattan Criminal Court over hush money payments including to adult film star Stormy Daniels.

He cut a glum figure in the courtroom as he pleaded not guilty to all 34 counts of falsifying business records. After the court appearance, he railed against Judge Juan Merchan, Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, and their family members in a primetime speech at Mar-a-Lago.

In the televised address, he attacked Judge Merchan’’s “Trump-hating” family including his 34-year-old daughter Loren Merchan who he said “worked for Kamala Harris, and now receives money from the Biden-Harris campaign”.

Critics accused Mr Trump and his allies of attempting to intimidate the judge, and the former president was even rebuked on Fox News.

Trump rants about electric cars ahead of NYC fraud trial – latest

Follow the latest updates from the former president’s 2024 campaign and ongoing legal woes

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

During weeks like this one, we can all be forgiven for wondering whether civil discourse is even possible in this country anymore. Maybe this is who we are, a country where people with different views need to be barricaded?





If you know me, you know I reject that notion (although the imagery here, ahead of Marjorie Taylor Greene’s New York rally on Tuesday, is fascinating). We’re living through a wave of Republican politicians, and even some liberal commentators, calling Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s indictment of the former president political. But it isn’t. We’ve discussed the solid legal basis for the indictment here and will continue to do so. We need to continue to do that with our friends and families, who may be influenced by some of the former president’s rhetoric as well.

Trump is circulating the false claim that his indictment stems from political animus. But the facts show that’s not true, that this is what prosecutors call a righteous case. The core of the indictment is the allegation that Trump caused the creation of false business records to conceal criminal conduct that included election and tax law violations. It wasn’t just a minor recordkeeping error.

Bragg explained why it’s important to prosecute crimes like this earlier this week. You can watch the video here.

It’s important to push back against the notion that this is political. To the contrary, it’s important to stand for the rule of law and show that even a former president is subject to it when there is good reason to believe he has committed a crime. District attorneys don’t make these decisions on their own. Bragg presented his evidence to a grand jury that voted to proceed. Trump’s lawyers will be allowed to file motions testing the indictment and a judge will rule on them—a judge who has demonstrated independence and fairness, no matter what scandalous social media posts Trump makes in an effort to intimidate and endanger. Given that, perhaps the right place to start these conversations is to ask why Trump would need to engage in such dangerous rhetoric if he believes he’s innocent and that his lawyer can pursue those arguments in court?

Civil Discourse?

During weeks like this one, we can all be forgiven for wondering whether civil discourse is even possible in this country anymore. Maybe this is who we are, a country where people with different views need to be barricaded? If you know me, you know I reject that notion (although the imagery...

joycevance.substack.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

The House GOP on Thursday fired off its first subpoena in its investigation of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office, escalating a standoff over the indictment of former President Donald Trump.

House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) is summoning Mark Pomerantz, a former county special assistant district attorney, to appear behind closed doors for a deposition on April 20, according to a copy of the subpoena viewed by POLITICO.


“Based on your unique role as a special assistant district attorney leading the investigation into President Trump’s finances, you are uniquely situated to provide information that is relevant and necessary to inform the Committee’s oversight and potential legislative reforms,” Jordan wrote in a separate letter to Pomerantz that accompanied the subpoena.

It’s unusual for Congress to subpoena a line prosecutor — and Jordan, in his Thursday letter, alleges that Bragg’s office directed Pomerantz not to cooperate with oversight.

Bragg’s office issued a fiery rebuke of the subpoena, painting it as House Republicans’ latest attempt to meddle by “intruding on the sovereignty of the state of New York by interfering in an ongoing criminal matter in state court.”

“The House GOP continues to attempt to undermine an active investigation and ongoing New York criminal case with an unprecedented campaign of harassment and intimidation. Repeated efforts to weaken state and local law enforcement actions are an abuse of power and will not deter us from our duty to uphold the law,” Bragg’s office added.

Reached by email, Pomerantz declined to address Jordan’s subpoena, saying only “No comment.”

But Pomerantz has also written a book where he included details of the New York investigation into Trump and the Trump organization that could make the subpoena harder to resist.

The Jan. 6 select committee used a similar argument against former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows’ resistance to a summons, arguing he waived any potential privileges by releasing a book that describes some of his interactions with the former president. Meadows was later held in contempt of Congress for refusing to testify, though the Justice Department declined to prosecute him.



(full article online )

House GOP fires off first subpoena in probe of Trump indictment

The summons sparked a fresh rebuke from Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s office, which called it part of “an unprecedented campaign of harassment and intimidation.”

www.politico.com

 

[Lumpy 1]

During weeks like this one, we can all be forgiven for wondering whether civil discourse is even possible in this country anymore. Maybe this is who we are, a country where people with different views need to be barricaded?





If you know me, you know I reject that notion (although the imagery here, ahead of Marjorie Taylor Greene’s New York rally on Tuesday, is fascinating). We’re living through a wave of Republican politicians, and even some liberal commentators, calling Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s indictment of the former president political. But it isn’t. We’ve discussed the solid legal basis for the indictment here and will continue to do so. We need to continue to do that with our friends and families, who may be influenced by some of the former president’s rhetoric as well.

Trump is circulating the false claim that his indictment stems from political animus. But the facts show that’s not true, that this is what prosecutors call a righteous case. The core of the indictment is the allegation that Trump caused the creation of false business records to conceal criminal conduct that included election and tax law violations. It wasn’t just a minor recordkeeping error.

Bragg explained why it’s important to prosecute crimes like this earlier this week. You can watch the video here.

It’s important to push back against the notion that this is political. To the contrary, it’s important to stand for the rule of law and show that even a former president is subject to it when there is good reason to believe he has committed a crime. District attorneys don’t make these decisions on their own. Bragg presented his evidence to a grand jury that voted to proceed. Trump’s lawyers will be allowed to file motions testing the indictment and a judge will rule on them—a judge who has demonstrated independence and fairness, no matter what scandalous social media posts Trump makes in an effort to intimidate and endanger. Given that, perhaps the right place to start these conversations is to ask why Trump would need to engage in such dangerous rhetoric if he believes he’s innocent and that his lawyer can pursue those arguments in court?

Civil Discourse?

During weeks like this one, we can all be forgiven for wondering whether civil discourse is even possible in this country anymore. Maybe this is who we are, a country where people with different views need to be barricaded? If you know me, you know I reject that notion (although the imagery...

joycevance.substack.com

Democrats have lost most or all credibility, too much hate, too many frivolous charges and too many failures on making their case.

I don’t think you can arrive at a reasonable judgement when you start with unfettered hate.

Although, I thought you gave it a good try..

 

[Sixties Fan]