Bragg Manhattan DA charges tfg? Hush money. tfg “INDICATED!”

[Dr. Ken]

[Luke]

As above, here's the Statement of Facts, and here's where more is laid out including Karen Macdougal. The idea from Trump's lawyers that there was nothing new was baloney.


https://www.manhattanda.org/wp-content/ ... mp-SOF.pdf

[Dr. Ken]

[Dr. Ken]

Here's the Statement of Facts, here's where more is laid out including Karen Macdougal.


https://www.manhattanda.org/wp-content/ ... mp-SOF.pdf

I keep ninjaing you.

[sterngard friegen]

The indictment is unhelpfully bare bones. We need to see the statement of facts the DA has issued to flesh this out.

But looking at this I am overwhelmed with a feeling of meh.

Motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations will be made (probably with lots of other winnowing motions) and it may be successful.

(Thanks Dr. Ken.)

[MaryContrary]

No way! STERN RETURNS!!!!!

[MaryContrary]

I truly hope it is NOT successful.

The indictment is unhelpfully bare bones. We need to see the statement of facts the DA has issued to flesh this out.

But looking at this I am overwhelmed with a feeling of meh.

Motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations will be made (probably with lots of other winnowing motions) and it may be successful.

(Thanks Dr. Ken.)

[Dr. Ken]

The payments first were made to Cohen from the Revocable trust set up when trump was pretending to separate himself from his businesses. After that checks were made directly from the defendant to Cohen.

After the election, the Defendant reimbursed Lawyer A for the illegal payment
through a series of monthly checks, first from the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust (the
“Defendant’s Trust”)—a Trust created under the laws of New York which held the Trump
Organization entity assets after the Defendant was elected President—and then from the
Defendant’s bank account. Each check was processed by the Trump Organization, and each
check was disguised as a payment for legal services rendered in a given month of 2017 pursuant
to a retainer agreement. The payment records, kept and maintained by the Trump Organization,
were false New York business records. In truth, there was no retainer agreement, and Lawyer A
was not being paid for legal services rendered in 2017. The Defendant caused his entities’
business records to be falsified to disguise his and others’ criminal conduct

[Luke]

Stern, here's the SOF: https://www.manhattanda.org/wp-content/ ... mp-SOF.pdf. It's the "catch and kill" stuff with the Enquirer, no wonder they brought David Pecker back.

ETA: Chris Christie just said on ABC that he "doesn't think it's a reach" -- he thinks it might have more forward because Pecker was willing to testify. He doesn't think it needs to be federal charges if the payoffs were to defraud New York voters. Proving the underlying charges he thinks requires Pecker.

And yes, kudos Dr. Ken, had just gone back to say "as above". Left it since it had the link in text.

[Dr. Ken]

[chancery]

In the clip posted above about a post-hearing press conference, a Trump lawyer was insisting that Trump hadn't posted on Truth Social a picture of himself holding a baseball bat juxtaposed with a picture of District Attorney Bragg. The argument, I think, is that Trump's original post just had his image, and "somebody" had added Bragg's image to Trump's post.

That doesn't seem particularly credible. Is anyone following this?

Edited to add a reference to the clip, which was posted in this thread while I was writing.

[sterngard friegen]

The indictment isn't very good. I see no conspiracy charges, no New York RICO charges, no charges of attempt. It's all "bad documents."

I am quite disappointed.

[much ado]

I am sad that Stern is disappointed.

Welcome back!!

[Reality Check]

Trump should have been indicted on federal charges along with Michael Cohen. Trump's DoJ was never going to do that. Bill Barr even tried to get the SDNY to drop charges against Cohen even though he had confessed and pleaded guilty. They were rotten to the core.

We will see how these state charges work out. I am not sure what else Bragg could have charged. I suspect that much more serious charges await on the classified document case. The first domino has fallen.

[SuzieC]

I am not at all disappointed. Bragg was very careful to charge exactly what he can prove.

[sterngard friegen]

Bragg has ignored (by failing to charge) the conspiracy among Trump, Pecker, Cohen and Weisselberg. He hasn't charged Trump's attempt to consummate that conspiracy by paying the Enquirer's owners for the Karen McDougal "story." He has ignored the fact that Trump used the Trump Organization as a RICO under New York law, when he should have charged RICO violations and sought to add the Trump Organization to the case..

I think Bragg's timidity dooms the case.

[p0rtia]

In the clip posted above about a post-hearing press conference, a Trump lawyer was insisting that Trump hadn't posted on Truth Social a picture of himself holding a baseball bat juxtaposed with a picture of District Attorney Bragg. The argument, I think, is that Trump's original post just had his image, and "somebody" had added Bragg's image to Trump's post.

That doesn't seem particularly credible. Is anyone following this?

Edited to add a reference to the clip, which was posted in this thread while I was writing.

Tacapina has previously rationalized that it was "someone else" who juxtaposed the two images. Which is true. Someone else put together the pix and then used the graphic in a tweet. Which fuckhead retweeted. To Mr. T, that absolved Fuckhead. Furthermore, Mr. T says that it was retweeted "by a staffer" (meaning a Fuckhead staffer), and only because of the informative link that the tweet contained, and that he (the staffer, presumably) didn't see the graphic (Cf. "I only read Playboy for the articles") and deleted the tweet when the presence of the graphic was brought to his (presumably the staffer's) attention.

Total crap.

[raison de arizona]

The Truth in question.

[bob]

Bragg has ignored (by failing to charge) the conspiracy among Trump, Pecker, Cohen and Weisselberg.

Concur. Pecker, Cohen, and Weisselberg all shirley received a benefit for their grand-jury testimony (i.e., immunity), but they still could be unindicted co-conspirators.

If there's a trial, the judge will instruct the jury to treat their testimony with caution because they were all accomplices, even if they weren't charged. In other words, there's already a basis for the jury to doubt their credibility, so the prosecutor didn't gain anything by forgoing this easy charge.


As for the RICO, I'm wondering if its perceived complexity wasn't worth the effort to bounce the rubble.

[Patagoniagirl]

Am I nuts? Have I lost my.mind? Possibly both. I believe I just saw part of trump attorneys presser and I thought I saw someone holding out a a fake leg with a garter and and old fashioned landline phone. Help me, I don't know what reality is anymore.

[Luke]

Off Topic

Taking a point of personal privilege... Tonight is the Wisconsin Supreme Court election and it's a crucial one. In Wisconsin, they have same-day registration. If you have friends or family in Wisconsin, would you please take a moment to reach out and encourage them to vote?

Let's help these kids in Eau Clare.

Victor Shi @Victorshi2020 1h
NEW: These are students at the University of Wisconsin, Eau Clare waiting in a long line to vote in the Supreme Court election right now. Young people are fire up and turning out — & they will save Wisconsin. This is absolutely huge.

[chancery]

Tacapina has previously rationalized that it was "someone else" who juxtaposed the two images. Which is true. Someone else put together the pix and then used the graphic in a tweet. Which fuckhead retweeted. To Mr. T, that absolved Fuckhead. Furthermore, Mr. T says that it was retweeted "by a staffer" (meaning a Fuckhead staffer), and only because of the informative link that the tweet contained, and that he (the staffer, presumably) didn't see the graphic (Cf. "I only read Playboy for the articles") and deleted the tweet when the presence of the graphic was brought to his (presumably the staffer's) attention.

Total crap.

Thanks p0rtia.

Cf. "I only read Playboy for the articles"

[Dr. Ken]

[humblescribe]

I too am disappointed.

Thirty-four counts of falsifying business records. I'd have just as soon that the DA charge them as misdemeanors, offer up probation and a fine and move on.

I leave it to Stern (welcome back) and the others to opine whether there could have been more serious charges involved. The accounting department would think that there could be some conspiracy or even continuing criminal enterprise charges too also.

Maybe we'll see a superseding indictment? Nah....But one can hope.

[sugar magnolia]

Motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations will be made (probably with lots of other winnowing motions) and it may be successful.

(Thanks Dr. Ken.)

One of the news shows had a guy explaining about the NY state law tolling for any time the defendant wasn't physically in the state. Is that incorrect?