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

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

Per Lisa Rubin at MSNBC, the judge said violation of the order could bring sanctions including, but not limited to, criminal contempt.

I hope that pans out when TFG violates the order, which we all know he will, if he hasn't already.

Estiveo!

ESTIVEO!!!!!!!!!

[Phoenix520]

Sadly I’m afraid it’s just a drive by.

[Estiveo]

Sadly I’m afraid it’s just a drive by.

We'll see.

[Phoenix520]

[Gregg]

What are the "remedies for breach?"

Please tell me it involves a taser...

[Kendra]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-crim ... a-witness/

Prosecutors in former President Donald Trump's Manhattan criminal case have released to his attorneys a recording of Trump and a witness, whose identity was not disclosed, according to a document the office made public Friday.

The document, called an automatic discovery form, describes the nature of the charges against a defendant and a broad overview of the evidence that prosecutors will present at Trump's preliminary hearing or at trial. Trump's attorneys and media organizations, including CBS News, had repeatedly requested that such a form be made public in the weeks since Trump's arrest on April 4.

Trump is the first former president in American history to face criminal charges. He has entered a not guilty plea to 34 felony counts of falsification of business records for alleged payments made as part of a "hush money" scheme.

The document lists the dates of 34 instances between Feb. 14, 2017 and Dec. 5, 2017 when he allegedly falsified records.

In a section devoted to electronic evidence that will be turned over, a prosecutor for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office indicated they have disclosed to the defense a "recording of a conversation between defendant and a witness."

[RTH10260]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-crim ... a-witness/

In a section devoted to electronic evidence that will be turned over, a prosecutor for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office indicated they have disclosed to the defense a "recording of a conversation between defendant and a witness."

I bet Cowboys Lawyers For Trump will be very unhappy about this disclosure

[somerset]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-crim ... a-witness/

In a section devoted to electronic evidence that will be turned over, a prosecutor for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office indicated they have disclosed to the defense a "recording of a conversation between defendant and a witness."

I bet Cowboys Lawyers For Trump will be very unhappy about this disclosure

This should serve as a good test of tfg's ability to obey the court order

[p0rtia]

Until I hear otherwise, I'm going to assume this recorded convo between tfg and and witness is Michael Cohen's recording, during which Cohen lays out the plan to Pay Stormy. Which we've known about (and heard) for years.

[Ben-Prime]

Until I hear otherwise, I'm going to assume this recorded convo between tfg and and witness is Michael Cohen's recording, during which Cohen lays out the plan to Pay Stormy. Which we've known about (and heard) for years.

Would it change the game at all if the tape *is* Cohen and, again as a hypothetical, includes TFG, uh, indicating -- see what I did there? -- knowledge and approval of the plan?

[p0rtia]

Until I hear otherwise, I'm going to assume this recorded convo between tfg and and witness is Michael Cohen's recording, during which Cohen lays out the plan to Pay Stormy. Which we've known about (and heard) for years.

Would it change the game at all if the tape *is* Cohen and, again as a hypothetical, includes TFG, uh, indicating -- see what I did there? -- knowledge and approval of the plan?

Not sure what your question refers to. TFG did show knowledge and approval of the plan. He thought it should be paid in cash. Cohen nixed that. Cohen was talking about meeting with Weiselberg to set up the plan. I've heard it several times.

The game I was talking about was people getting all excited about the prospect of a smoking gun tape, or another, as yet unknown witness. Which would be great, but I don't think there's any reason to think there is another witness. This is me saying "nothing to see here that we haven't already seen.

With, of course, the context of: "If anyone thinks tfg hasn't admitted to every single one of his crimes already, or that there isn't enough evidence to prove his criminality, they're nuts." I'm not looking for more evidence. That's a fool's errand, IMO.

Anyway, what were you asking? I think it went right over my head!

[Ben-Prime]

Until I hear otherwise, I'm going to assume this recorded convo between tfg and and witness is Michael Cohen's recording, during which Cohen lays out the plan to Pay Stormy. Which we've known about (and heard) for years.

Would it change the game at all if the tape *is* Cohen and, again as a hypothetical, includes TFG, uh, indicating -- see what I did there? -- knowledge and approval of the plan?

Not sure what your question refers to. TFG did show knowledge and approval of the plan. He thought it should be paid in cash. Cohen nixed that. Cohen was talking about meeting with Weiselberg to set up the plan. I've heard it several times.

The game I was talking about was people getting all excited about the prospect of a smoking gun tape, or another, as yet unknown witness. Which would be great, but I don't think there's any reason to think there is another witness. This is me saying "nothing to see here that we haven't already seen.

With, of course, the context of: "If anyone thinks tfg hasn't admitted to every single one of his crimes already, or that there isn't enough evidence to prove his criminality, they're nuts." I'm not looking for more evidence. That's a fool's errand, IMO.

Anyway, what were you asking? I think it went right over my head!

No, you understood me rightly. I was aware we had Cohen's *testimony* that Trump knew and approved. My rumination was whether, lawdy, there was a tape of Trump saying he knew and confirmed. Which is different than Cohen merely claiming such.

[much ado]

IANAL, but I suspect that the conversation confirms, in Trump's own words, that he knew and approved of the deal, which is significant in proving criminal intent.

[bob]

"Not limited to criminal contempt"?

What does that open the door to?

In theory, there could be an evidentiary sanction at his trial.

But, really, it sounds like just puffery.

[RVInit]

Until I hear otherwise, I'm going to assume this recorded convo between tfg and and witness is Michael Cohen's recording, during which Cohen lays out the plan to Pay Stormy. Which we've known about (and heard) for years.

That was exactly my first and only thought on this. I' would be shocked if it wasn't the same Cohen recording we already know about and have already heard.

[p0rtia]

Would it change the game at all if the tape *is* Cohen and, again as a hypothetical, includes TFG, uh, indicating -- see what I did there? -- knowledge and approval of the plan?

Not sure what your question refers to. TFG did show knowledge and approval of the plan. He thought it should be paid in cash. Cohen nixed that. Cohen was talking about meeting with Weiselberg to set up the plan. I've heard it several times.

The game I was talking about was people getting all excited about the prospect of a smoking gun tape, or another, as yet unknown witness. Which would be great, but I don't think there's any reason to think there is another witness. This is me saying "nothing to see here that we haven't already seen.

With, of course, the context of: "If anyone thinks tfg hasn't admitted to every single one of his crimes already, or that there isn't enough evidence to prove his criminality, they're nuts." I'm not looking for more evidence. That's a fool's errand, IMO.

Anyway, what were you asking? I think it went right over my head!

No, you understood me rightly. I was aware we had Cohen's *testimony* that Trump knew and approved. My rumination was whether, lawdy, there was a tape of Trump saying he knew and confirmed. Which is different than Cohen merely claiming such.

Gotcha, thanks! Yes, there is a tape. You can hear it too. Scroll down for the tape -- reference to payments, Weiselberg, and cash is at the end of the clip. From 2018.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/20/us/p ... -tape.html

[chancery]

The prosecution has filed a motion in federal court to remand (return) the case to state court (where proceedings have continued, because that's the way criminal removal works).

So far the courtlistener docket shows a motion for leave to file seven exhibits under seal, with a memorandum in support, and the notice of motion to remand. The accompanying memorandum in support of remand, declaration of counsel, and exhibits haven't shown up yet.

[chancery]

And here's the memorandum in support of the motion for remand.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 1.19.0.pdf

Haven't looked at it yet.

[bob]

Interesting; a petard hoist for all those times conservatives said the president and vice president weren't "officers."

(I assume the federal court will dodge this particular question.)

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

They'll dodge it like it was a Puerto Rican candidate for President.

[Greatgrey]

This is beauty! Using Scalia’s words to wreck Trump’s arguments.

IMG_9234.jpeg (400.89 KiB) Viewed 750 times

[raison de arizona]

Judge signals Trump "hush money" case likely to stay in state court

Former President Donald Trump's efforts to move his New York State "hush money" criminal case to federal jurisdiction were met by a skeptical judge Tuesday, who indicated he didn't believe payments made to a former Trump attorney were tied to Trump's service as president.

Lawyers for Trump and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg argued during the two-and-half-hour hearing over whether reimbursements to Trump's former attorney, Michael Cohen, were made as official acts tied to Trump's presidency. Trump's lawyers say the case belongs in federal court — not the state court where Bragg's prosecutors typically work — because the payments were made while Trump was president.

Judge Alvin Hellerstein said Tuesday that he would issue his decision in two weeks, but indicated he was unswayed by Trump's argument that the payments were within the "color of (Trump's) office."

The payments had "no relationship to any act relating to the president," Hellerstein said.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-sign ... ate-court/

[chancery]

Lisa Rubin of MSNBC and Matthew Russell Lee of his own shop, Inner City Press, covered the hearing before judge Hellerstein on Trump's petition to remove the indictment to federal court.

Rubin's thread is here: https://twitter.com/lawofruby/status/16 ... 3708304387

Lee's thread is here: https://twitter.com/innercitypress/stat ... 0677267459

Lee has a talent for transcribing portions of a hearing practically word for word, and gives a vivid account of the actual testimony and the evidentiary issues, including lots of successful hearsay objections.

However, Rubin's shorter thread is more insightful and better organized with respect to the big picture. I've copied it below:

Lisa Rubin
@lawofruby
TRUMP (BUSINESS) RECORDS: I was in court today for argument about where the Manhattan DA’s criminal case against Trump should be heard: in state court where it started or in federal court, as Trump wants. And after 2.5 hours and a surprise witness, it went exactly as expected. 1/

At the end, and while warning nothing he was about to say is binding, SDNY Judge Alvin Hellerstein practically announced the case will return to state court. That is not a shock. The more interesting part is why Team Trump flamed out, despite some fireworks. 2/

The crux of Trump’s argument was that as a former federal officer, he’s entitled to remove the case to federal court because the Manhattan indictment was “for or relating to any act under color of such office.” Specifically, he argued he hired Cohen as his personal lawyer… 3/

because of the need to separate the personal from the presidential in order to appropriately carry out his duties with fidelity to the Constitution. And therefore, his retention of Cohen as his personal lawyer was directly related to his status as president. 4/

That was a fine story, Hellerstein suggested, but Trump offered not a single piece of evidence to prove it was rooted in fact. As Hellerstein’s impatience grew, Trump lawyer Todd Blanche said he had a witness with personal knowledge of those facts ready & waiting. 5/

And minutes later, after a short recess, Blanche called Trump Organization chief legal officer Alan Garten to the stand. 6/

Garten has been with the Trump Organization since 2007; his office was adjacent to Michael Cohen’s. And he was hardly the slam-dunk witness Trump’s team promised. He confirmed he has never seen any retainer agreement with Cohen & doesn’t know what services Cohen provided. 7/

And he could not articulate exactly why Cohen was hired as Trump’s personal attorney except to say that he and Eric Trump wanted to ensure that they did not undermine Trump’s separation from the business, as advised by his lawyers at Morgan Lewis. 8/

There was argument on whether Trump has a colorable federal defense on preemption grounds, but the die was cast once Hellerstein accepted the crux of the DA’s argument: That Cohen was Trump’s personal lawyer, paid with Trump’s personal funds, and handled personal affairs. 9/

And the fault was Team Trump’s. Not only did they violate a prior agreement with the DA’s office not to call live witnesses, but they called the chief legal officer of Trump’s business, who could not attest to some of their key points and made some damaging admissions. 10/

It was a bold gamble without any payoff. And something tells me that tonight, Todd Blanche, Trump’s shiniest new legal toy, is no longer feeling so golden. FIN.

[RTH10260]

Slapped Down: Trump Gets Stuck With Judge He Hates in Manhattan DA Case
Donald Trump has been trying to drag Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s indictment of him into federal court, away from a state judge who’s already ruled against him. He failed.

Jose Pagliery Political Investigations Reporter
Updated Jun. 27, 2023 6:47PM EDT / Published Jun. 27, 2023 6:47PM EDT

A federal judge on Tuesday resoundingly rejected former President Donald Trump’s desperate attempts to pluck his porn-star-hush-payment indictment away from New York’s state courts, ensuring that the case will remain before the same local judge who sentenced the Trump Organization for tax fraud earlier this year.

Capping a three-hour hearing that included a surprise witness, U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein said he’d heard enough—and indicated he would issue a ruling against Trump in the coming days.

That means Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg Jr. can continue his historic case—the first for a local DA against a former American president—at the very same downtown courthouse where he recently scored a victory against Trump’s family company.

And it all comes down to a point that’s been made in court again and again: Trump can’t hide behind the White House podium any longer.

Trump’s lawyer, Todd Blanche, failed to convince Hellerstein on Tuesday that the DA’s case raises specific legal issues that are better handled in federal court—like matters relating to whether a president can be sued for conduct relating to his official duties or committing federal crimes, as opposed to local ones. Instead, the judge said all of the crimes Trump’s accused of relate directly to his personal issues.

[Gregg]

because of the need to separate the personal from the presidential in order to appropriately carry out his duties with fidelity to the Constitution. And therefore, his retention of Cohen as his personal lawyer was directly related to his status as president. 4/

Am I the only one who's brain bent double over from reading that. That is practically Orwellian.