3 ms·

The indictment is sealed so the actual charges aren't public, yet. Everyone is just speculating. Interesting items: - This is from the NY State courts so it i

The indictment is sealed so the actual charges aren't public, yet. Everyone is just speculating. Interesting items: - This is from the NY State courts so it is NY State laws in play (likely campaign finance laws), not Federal. If it were Federal it would be prosecuted by Federal attorney's in a Federal court. - A Grand Jury (for those that don't know) is composed of citizens, about 16-20 or something, that proceed like a court case understanding laws and evidence presented, including witness interviews, and the result here is that they chose to indict. This means that 12 (or more) citizens decided there was enough evidence that specific laws might have been broken to bring charges against him. - I believe (common sense here) that campaign finance funds have to be kept separate from personal or business funds, as in different accounts. Depending on the laws in various states the laws may require disclosure forms of funds into/out of the accounts, etc. Its likely that this is technical and could be traceable - if the funds for hush money came from a campaign finance account through his attorney and noted as such its probably not a case that is worth trying. That doesn't appear to be illegal, its a (morally questionable) campaign line item. If the source of the funds was from a personal/business account then that could violate campaign finance laws by using the wrong account. This kinda sounds like how they got Al Capone on tax evasion and not the myriad of other potential crimes. I'm not comparing the people, just my layman knowledge of the cases.

nullc 4y ago
> could violate campaign finance laws by using the wrong account My understanding is that there is no limit to the amount of a candidate's own money they are permitted to spend on their campaign. So what legitimate state interest could be advanced by laws that nitpick the exact boundary between what is and isn't campaign funding when it comes to the candidate's own money? Do candidates have to report all their food expenditures as campaign funding-- since they obviously couldn't campaign if they don't eat? :)
- mattbrewsbytes 4y ago
  I think it might be more like a business expense report when you travel. If I'm on a business trip and get a coffee, that's a business expense because I'm traveling for the purposes of work. If I'm working from home and go get a coffee, that's not a business expense. Replace business expense with campaign expense and there are likely rules about what a campaign can pay for and what it can't as well as rules around using personal money for campaign expenses, subverting the necessary disclosure rules. I read a headline just a bit ago that there were 34 counts in the indictment so I'm guessing what they found spans more than a single transaction.
hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
> A Grand Jury (for those that don't know) is composed of citizens, about 16-20 or something, that proceed like a court case understanding laws and evidence presented, including witness interviews, and the result here is that they chose to indict. This means that 12 (or more) citizens decided there was enough evidence that specific laws might have been broken to bring charges against him. There's also a famous saying, though, that any prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich (interestingly, I never knew the original author of that quote was a judge who subsequently served 13 months in prison, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_Wachtler https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_Wachtler). But, the overall point is that the bar for grand jury indictment is intentionally low. I'm not going to speculate on aspects of the indictment because I don't know what they are yet (and it always amazes me how so many folks always dig in to be part of "their team" even before they know what the game is), but before the indictments I did see some legal experts who were definitely not Trump fans argue that it was not a case they would've brought.
- mattbrewsbytes 4y ago
  > some legal experts who were definitely not Trump fans argue that it was not a case they would've brought Legal experts or not, unless they have seen the evidence (incl witness testimony) and charges their speculation is as good as any internet commenter. I read a headline that there are 34 charges in the indictment, could be many unique ones or it could be one of those things like 34 wire fraud charges because there were 34 transactions from 34 accounts or whatever.
  - hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
    Yep, I totally agree. These commenters weren't commenting so much on the specifics of the case, but in generalities of prosecuting these types of crimes (i.e. where the underlying act, paying hush money, is not a crime, but the record keeping/campaign finance violations are). But yes, 100%, folks should calm down until the contents of the indictment are made public.
    - mattbrewsbytes 4y ago
singleshot_ 4y ago
Just because a case is in New York State court does not mean that only New York State law will be at issue. It’s common for a state court to be asked to opine on the law of another state or on federal law. That being said I don’t know if the NY statute that elevates the misdemeanor into a felony requires the predicate crime to be specifically prohibited by NY statute.

nullc 4y ago

> could violate campaign finance laws by using the wrong account My understanding is that there is no limit to the amount of a candidate's own money they are permitted to spend on their campaign. So what legitimate state interest could be advanced by laws that nitpick the exact boundary between what is and isn't campaign funding when it comes to the candidate's own money? Do candidates have to report all their food expenditures as campaign funding-- since they obviously couldn't campaign if they don't eat? :)

mattbrewsbytes 4y ago
I think it might be more like a business expense report when you travel. If I'm on a business trip and get a coffee, that's a business expense because I'm traveling for the purposes of work. If I'm working from home and go get a coffee, that's not a business expense. Replace business expense with campaign expense and there are likely rules about what a campaign can pay for and what it can't as well as rules around using personal money for campaign expenses, subverting the necessary disclosure rules. I read a headline just a bit ago that there were 34 counts in the indictment so I'm guessing what they found spans more than a single transaction.

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago

> A Grand Jury (for those that don't know) is composed of citizens, about 16-20 or something, that proceed like a court case understanding laws and evidence presented, including witness interviews, and the result here is that they chose to indict. This means that 12 (or more) citizens decided there was enough evidence that specific laws might have been broken to bring charges against him. There's also a famous saying, though, that any prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich (interestingly, I never knew the original author of that quote was a judge who subsequently served 13 months in prison, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_Wachtler https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_Wachtler). But, the overall point is that the bar for grand jury indictment is intentionally low. I'm not going to speculate on aspects of the indictment because I don't know what they are yet (and it always amazes me how so many folks always dig in to be part of "their team" even before they know what the game is), but before the indictments I did see some legal experts who were definitely not Trump fans argue that it was not a case they would've brought.

mattbrewsbytes 4y ago
> some legal experts who were definitely not Trump fans argue that it was not a case they would've brought Legal experts or not, unless they have seen the evidence (incl witness testimony) and charges their speculation is as good as any internet commenter. I read a headline that there are 34 charges in the indictment, could be many unique ones or it could be one of those things like 34 wire fraud charges because there were 34 transactions from 34 accounts or whatever.
- hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
  Yep, I totally agree. These commenters weren't commenting so much on the specifics of the case, but in generalities of prosecuting these types of crimes (i.e. where the underlying act, paying hush money, is not a crime, but the record keeping/campaign finance violations are). But yes, 100%, folks should calm down until the contents of the indictment are made public.
  - mattbrewsbytes 4y ago

singleshot_ 4y ago

Just because a case is in New York State court does not mean that only New York State law will be at issue. It’s common for a state court to be asked to opine on the law of another state or on federal law. That being said I don’t know if the NY statute that elevates the misdemeanor into a felony requires the predicate crime to be specifically prohibited by NY statute.