4 ms·

Even if Trump appeals and wins, he has 4 other trials lined up. It's going to be an interesting election. On the chance that he wins presidency, it is sure he

by nojvek 2y ago

Even if Trump appeals and wins, he has 4 other trials lined up. It's going to be an interesting election. On the chance that he wins presidency, it is sure he will push for laws to gain more power. Perhaps even more Republican supreme court justices. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/legal-troubles-former-us-president-donald-trump-2024-04-15/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/legal-troubles-former-us-pr... * TRIAL OVER HUSH MONEY TO PORN STAR * SPECIAL COUNSEL'S ELECTION SUBVERSION CHARGES * GEORGIA ELECTION-SUBVERSION CHARGES * NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL CIVIL LAWSUIT * SPECIAL COUNSEL'S CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS CHARGES

tim333 2y ago
The other cases will probably get delayed till after the election, and dropped if he wins. It's kind of odd he's been prosecuted for this odd not really a crime stuff but not for the more serious ones.
- acdha 2y ago
  This is absolutely a crime - you really don’t want to tolerate politicians committing crimes to conceal information from voters. What makes it different is that it’s entirely at the state level so you don’t have political interference: he can’t have judges he appointed running interference and prosecutors are not wondering whether the guy they’re charging will be their boss. I suspect that if the national GOP hadn’t purged opposition figures you’d see more cases brought with the protection of a hypothetical “law and order” wing of the party.
  - tim333 2y ago
    The case is a funny one though - false records to cover up influencing an election through unlawful means but the means were not specified - could be a) campaign finance laws or could be b) NY tax laws or c) other. I think the jury were told any would do and I'm not sure that's published so even after being convicted Trump doesn't know if it's for a, b or c? I'm not a lawyer or even an American - I just follow this out of mild interest. I'm not a Trump fan but I'm not sure how well this plays out. He's unlikely to get locked up and saying don't vote for Trump - he's guilty of stuff although we are not quite sure what but definitely guilty, may not play that well with electors.
- rsynnott 2y ago
  ... Wait, how is it not really a crime? It's fraud. Now, it's not terribly _serious_ next to some of the other stuff he's being charged with, but arguably that's part of _why_ it got done quicker; more serious crime takes longer to prosecute.
  - tim333 2y ago
    Well there's stuff here https://archive.ph/9qiNB https://archive.ph/9qiNB part of it: >Yet to get the case to court, Bragg had to turn the charges into felonies, with longer time limits. So he invented a novel and untested legal theory, maligned even by liberal legal commentators, that the bookkeeping issues were to illegally influence an election – his own 2016 winning election. It's a special crime invented to get Trump. It's legally dubious that that's ok. I'm not a lawyer but I'm told there is a principle that laws should be clearly laid out rather than cobbled together after the offence and the case may well get overturned on appeal as a result.
    - ModernMech 2y ago
      Please be more critical about what you read. The source you linked is full of lies and is designed to mislead you. For instance, this line right here: "But then along came Alvin Bragg, a Left-wing prosecutor who ran for office on the promise that he would do what prior prosecutors had failed to do, to get Donald Trump." Try to find out where Bragg "ran for office on the promise the he would... get Trump". I guarantee you, you will not be able to find this, because Bragg didn't actually do that. Continuing: There is nothing illegal about paying money to buy silence. It happens every day in court cases and business deals, where money is paid for non-disclosure agreements. And there is nothing illegal about politicians hiding their dirty laundry, happens every campaign. This is so reductive. It's not what happened. You can do both of these things, *but you can't use campaign money to pay for it*. Because if you did, you'd have to report it, thus defeating the purpose of the payment. That's the whole reason they had Michael Cohen do it off the books. But again, they had to hide the payment, so they lied about its purpose (legal expenses, they were not), and then they memorialized that lie in corporate records. Crime 1 - falsification of business records. You can't tell the government a payment was for legal expenses when it was not. Crime 2 - misuse of campaign funds. You can't use campaign finances to make hush money payments without reporting them, and you can't circumvent that mandated reporting by having your fixer take out a mortgage and then paying him back with pretextual "legal expenses".

by nojvek 2y ago

tim333 2y ago

The other cases will probably get delayed till after the election, and dropped if he wins. It's kind of odd he's been prosecuted for this odd not really a crime stuff but not for the more serious ones.

acdha 2y ago
This is absolutely a crime - you really don’t want to tolerate politicians committing crimes to conceal information from voters. What makes it different is that it’s entirely at the state level so you don’t have political interference: he can’t have judges he appointed running interference and prosecutors are not wondering whether the guy they’re charging will be their boss. I suspect that if the national GOP hadn’t purged opposition figures you’d see more cases brought with the protection of a hypothetical “law and order” wing of the party.
- tim333 2y ago
  The case is a funny one though - false records to cover up influencing an election through unlawful means but the means were not specified - could be a) campaign finance laws or could be b) NY tax laws or c) other. I think the jury were told any would do and I'm not sure that's published so even after being convicted Trump doesn't know if it's for a, b or c? I'm not a lawyer or even an American - I just follow this out of mild interest. I'm not a Trump fan but I'm not sure how well this plays out. He's unlikely to get locked up and saying don't vote for Trump - he's guilty of stuff although we are not quite sure what but definitely guilty, may not play that well with electors.
rsynnott 2y ago
... Wait, how is it not really a crime? It's fraud. Now, it's not terribly _serious_ next to some of the other stuff he's being charged with, but arguably that's part of _why_ it got done quicker; more serious crime takes longer to prosecute.
- tim333 2y ago
  Well there's stuff here https://archive.ph/9qiNB https://archive.ph/9qiNB part of it: >Yet to get the case to court, Bragg had to turn the charges into felonies, with longer time limits. So he invented a novel and untested legal theory, maligned even by liberal legal commentators, that the bookkeeping issues were to illegally influence an election – his own 2016 winning election. It's a special crime invented to get Trump. It's legally dubious that that's ok. I'm not a lawyer but I'm told there is a principle that laws should be clearly laid out rather than cobbled together after the offence and the case may well get overturned on appeal as a result.
  - ModernMech 2y ago
    Please be more critical about what you read. The source you linked is full of lies and is designed to mislead you. For instance, this line right here: "But then along came Alvin Bragg, a Left-wing prosecutor who ran for office on the promise that he would do what prior prosecutors had failed to do, to get Donald Trump." Try to find out where Bragg "ran for office on the promise the he would... get Trump". I guarantee you, you will not be able to find this, because Bragg didn't actually do that. Continuing: There is nothing illegal about paying money to buy silence. It happens every day in court cases and business deals, where money is paid for non-disclosure agreements. And there is nothing illegal about politicians hiding their dirty laundry, happens every campaign. This is so reductive. It's not what happened. You can do both of these things, *but you can't use campaign money to pay for it*. Because if you did, you'd have to report it, thus defeating the purpose of the payment. That's the whole reason they had Michael Cohen do it off the books. But again, they had to hide the payment, so they lied about its purpose (legal expenses, they were not), and then they memorialized that lie in corporate records. Crime 1 - falsification of business records. You can't tell the government a payment was for legal expenses when it was not. Crime 2 - misuse of campaign funds. You can't use campaign finances to make hush money payments without reporting them, and you can't circumvent that mandated reporting by having your fixer take out a mortgage and then paying him back with pretextual "legal expenses".