Grand jury votes to indict Trump

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

There is no detail behind the charges. Just like if Hunter was charged with falsifying business records without any other kind of explanation, except 'from his payments from foreign entities'.

I don't know how to explain this any clearer. Each charge had a specific citation of the statute allegedly violated, and a description of all the elements of the crime necessary. That's what an indictment is. The indictment does not contain the entire theory behind the case. That's what the trial is for.

 

[76-1]

but he's competent, no bullshit, and i'd vote for him.

He'd do but I'd rather he stay in Florida politics where he owns the dims...

My guy is Mike Pompeo..., who's actually qualified for the position:

Michael R. Pompeo - People - Department History - Office of the Historian

history.state.gov 3.0 shell

history.state.gov

Problem is he's not even close to being a household name... Guess his only shot is to say something outrageous and get MSNBC & CNN pissed off at him...

 

[DANC]

I don't know how to explain this any clearer. Each charge had a specific citation of the statute allegedly violated, and a description of all the elements of the crime necessary. That's what an indictment is. The indictment does not contain the entire theory behind the case. That's what the trial is for.

You yourself said it was vague. So did I.

I don't know why we're having this discussion.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

I don't know how to explain this any clearer. Each charge had a specific citation of the statute allegedly violated, and a description of all the elements of the crime necessary. That's what an indictment is. The indictment does not contain the entire theory behind the case. That's what the trial is for.

And once again, few things funnier on this board than DANC refusing to admit that he is full of it, especially on a topic he knows little about.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

You yourself said it was vague. So did I.

I don't know why we're having this discussion.

Because we are using the word "vague" to mean two wildly different things.

 

[DANC]

He'd do but I'd rather he stay in Florida politics where he owns the dims...

My guy is Mike Pompeo..., who's actually qualified for the position:

Michael R. Pompeo - People - Department History - Office of the Historian

history.state.gov 3.0 shell

history.state.gov

Problem is he's not even close to being a household name... Guess his only shot is to say something outrageous and get MSNBC & CNN pissed off at him...

Love Pompeo and, in a normal world, he'd be my choice.

But he has all the pizazz of a potato. That just doesn't win elections today.

 

[mcmurtry66]

He'd do but I'd rather he stay in Florida politics where he owns the dims...

My guy is Mike Pompeo..., who's actually qualified for the position:

Michael R. Pompeo - People - Department History - Office of the Historian

history.state.gov 3.0 shell

history.state.gov

Problem is he's not even close to being a household name... Guess his only shot is to say something outrageous and get MSNBC & CNN pissed off at him...

it's a shame that that's the only way to get your name out

 

[DANC]

Because we are using the word "vague" to mean two wildly different things.

Um........ ok........ you don't explain why, but OK.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Um........ ok........ you don't explain why, but OK.

Because we've already been over it, multiple times!

 

[76-1]

Love Pompeo and, in a normal world, he'd be my choice.

But he has all the pizass of a potato. That just doesn't win elections today.

He's a smart guy..., all he has to do is bring himself to do something he'd ordinarily never do...

 

[Crayfish57]

Um........ ok........ you don't explain why, but OK.

Regardless of the current semantics of the discussion on here, we all know what it is really about. I am more concerned with the bigger ramifications and the amount of tax dollars being wasted all the way around on this. From SS to police just for starters.

 

[DANC]

He's a smart guy..., all he has to do is bring himself to do something he'd ordinarily never do...

Maybe he'll kill it in the debates?

Has he even announced yet?

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

Irrelevant. The claim you tried to push above wasn't about the narrative around the case. It was an assertion that the case was somehow fundamentally flawed, that Trump was having his rights somehow infringed, because of the form of the charging document. Remember, this whole subthread started with 76 ridiculously implying that these charges violate the 6th Amendment. That's crap, as I (and McM a bit) have just explained.

Epstein and Yoo agree with DANC:

Law Talk With Epstein, Yoo & Senik: Nothing To Bragg About: Epstein & Yoo On Manhattan DA’s Trump Indictment on Apple Podcasts

Show Law Talk With Epstein, Yoo & Senik, Ep Nothing To Bragg About: Epstein & Yoo On Manhattan DA’s Trump Indictment - Apr 5, 2023

podcasts.apple.com

Eisen, on the other hand, thinks the charges are strong:

How Strong Is the Case Against Donald Trump?

Norman Eisen, lawyer and House Judiciary Committee cocounsel in Trump’s first impeachment trial, argues that Bragg’s case is strong. Then, Semafor political reporter Dave Weigel discusses whether Trump’s indictment will reshape the election.

www.theringer.com

 

[Indianaftw]

What a surprise that NASCAR and what ever kind of fighting that is are Trump fans. lol. Send him to Hamilton, a concert that isn’t country,, an NBA game.

Your constant preaching about God and Epstein Island is just truly ironic, considering his buddy Trump. Can’t imagine the pretzel you tie yourself into to convince yourself Trump is a Christian. Or gives a tiny card what people like you think of him, it’s kind of pathetic really.

Oh Easter is not a good day to go cuckoo. Seek help tomorrow.

Your boy’s Easter message was pretty great!
World War 111.
There’s your guy.

Ghost Rider to Bogey Man...Ghost Rider to Bogey Man...Target has taken the bait...I repeat Target has taken the bait....Fire when ready Bogey Man...Firing

Now zeke...Go call Gavin Newsom, nark me out, and hit that report button. Remember zeke...IDC if Trump wins or not. Watching you support your commie pals and this admin and government...You and people like you are the reason this country has gone to crap. Congrads.

 

[Indianaftw]

and sooooooooooo many of those people jumped ship after having listened to his garbage. times are different. we've seen how many things he bungled and how much he lied. it makes ZERO sense to support trump when you have better options like desantis without all the bullshit

DeSantis is a politician...Which means someone already has his nut sack. Count on it.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Epstein and Yoo agree with DANC:

Law Talk With Epstein, Yoo & Senik: Nothing To Bragg About: Epstein & Yoo On Manhattan DA’s Trump Indictment on Apple Podcasts

Show Law Talk With Epstein, Yoo & Senik, Ep Nothing To Bragg About: Epstein & Yoo On Manhattan DA’s Trump Indictment - Apr 5, 2023

podcasts.apple.com

Eisen, on the other hand, thinks the charges are strong:

How Strong Is the Case Against Donald Trump?

Norman Eisen, lawyer and House Judiciary Committee cocounsel in Trump’s first impeachment trial, argues that Bragg’s case is strong. Then, Semafor political reporter Dave Weigel discusses whether Trump’s indictment will reshape the election.

www.theringer.com

With all due respect, you are making a similar mistake as DANC did. He confused partisan intent with a fundamental legal flaw, while you are confusing lack of strength of the case with the same.

This discussion started with unsupportable wild claims that the indictment itself was basically flawed because it didn't meet the requirements of an indictment insofar as describing the charges. That's baloney. The charges might be bullshit, and the intent might be partisan as hell, but their was no subversion of the 6th Amendment. There was no infringement of Trump's rights. The indictment did what indictments are supposed to do, which is formally detail the charges against a defendant so that he may answer them with a plea.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

With all due respect, you are making a similar mistake as DANC did. He confused partisan intent with a fundamental legal flaw, while you are confusing lack of strength of the case with the same.

This discussion started with unsupportable wild claims that the indictment itself was basically flawed because it didn't meet the requirements of an indictment insofar as describing the charges. That's baloney. The charges might be bullshit, and the intent might be partisan as hell, but their was no subversion of the 6th Amendment. There was no infringement of Trump's rights. The indictment did what indictments are supposed to do, which is formally detail the charges against a defendant so that he may answer them with a plea.

I don't think you listened to Epstein and Yoo.

 

[Crayfish57]

Ghost Rider to Bogey Man...Ghost Rider to Bogey Man...Target has taken the bait...I repeat Target has taken the bait....Fire when ready Bogey Man...Firing

Now zeke...Go call Gavin Newsom, nark me out, and hit that report button. Remember zeke...IDC if Trump wins or not. Watching you support your commie pals and this admin and government...You and people like you are the reason this country has gone to crap. Congrads.

We can start our own club !

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I don't think you listened to Epstein and Yoo.

No, I didn't. I don't do the Apple thing. Enlighten me, I guess, if I'm wrong, but I suspect I am not. I suspect they are claiming that the charges are weak. I agree, as I have already said in multiple threads. I highly doubt they are claiming that there is some fundamental procedural flaw with the charging documents, which is the bullshit conspiracy theory I was engaging in this thread.

 

[UncleMark]

And once again, few things funnier on this board than DANC refusing to admit that he is full of it, especially on a topic he knows little about.

Several examples of a total lack of understanding of basic civics have been on display in this thread, and not just from DANC. Doesn't prevent them from being sure of their proclamations, though.

 

[DANC]

Epstein and Yoo agree with DANC:

Law Talk With Epstein, Yoo & Senik: Nothing To Bragg About: Epstein & Yoo On Manhattan DA’s Trump Indictment on Apple Podcasts

Show Law Talk With Epstein, Yoo & Senik, Ep Nothing To Bragg About: Epstein & Yoo On Manhattan DA’s Trump Indictment - Apr 5, 2023

podcasts.apple.com

Eisen, on the other hand, thinks the charges are strong:

How Strong Is the Case Against Donald Trump?

Norman Eisen, lawyer and House Judiciary Committee cocounsel in Trump’s first impeachment trial, argues that Bragg’s case is strong. Then, Semafor political reporter Dave Weigel discusses whether Trump’s indictment will reshape the election.

www.theringer.com

You mean the House Committee Judiciary cocounsel in Trump's first impeachment thinks it's a strong case? Shocking.

 

[DANC]

Several examples of a total lack of understanding of basic civics have been on display in this thread, and not just from DANC. Doesn't prevent them from being sure of their proclamations, though.

I always like to be lectured on civics by such a recognized Constitutional expert.

 

[76-1]

Maybe he'll kill it in the debates?

Has he even announced yet?

I don't think he has but he's shown every indication he's leaning that direction...

I'm counting on his IQ to help him find a way...

Like everyone else he needs "the Donald" to get out of the way first...

 

[Crayfish57]

I always like to be lectured on civics by such a recognized Constitutional expert.

Citizens arrest!

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

No, I didn't. I don't do the Apple thing. Enlighten me, I guess, if I'm wrong, but I suspect I am not. I suspect they are claiming that the charges are weak. I agree, as I have already said in multiple threads. I highly doubt they are claiming that there is some fundamental procedural flaw with the charging documents, which is the bullshit conspiracy theory I was engaging in this thread.

They do take aim at the charging document.

Both think that because it doesn't include the underlying crime that was being covered up, it is too vague on its face and implicates due process concerns (I don't think they name the 6th Amendment by name, though). They also both think that if those underlying crimes are fed election laws, the statute is unconstitutional as applied, and if state election law, it is preempted by fed law. Epstein seems to believe the lawyers might get the indictment tossed for these reasons. Yoo thinks the lawyers will screw around and delay things, maybe on both sides, to take it past the 2024 election.

Eisen (who went after Trump on one of the impeachment charges) is a little more of the flavor of strong v. weak charges, although he opines on the underlying crime issue, too.

Here's the Spotify link. If you want to be as brief as possible, listen from about the 4 minute to the 10 minute mark. I looked, but could not find, a transcript.



I'm not a criminal law practitioner, so don't know when proper notice of the charges is required. But I don't think someone questioning the legal sufficiency of the indictment, as DANC did, is involved in a conspiracy theory, though. They are either right or wrong about the law of NY regarding indictments, but I'm missing the conspiracy part?

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

Here's a written piece where the author spells out what the 'fundamental legal flaw" might be in the indictment, including that the law as Bragg is trying to apply it would be unconstitutionally vague:

The dubious legal theory at the heart of the Trump indictment, explained

No one knows if Donald Trump can be prosecuted for the hush money payment to Stormy Daniels.

www.vox.com

These arguments against the indictment on legal grounds by Yoo, Epstein, and Millhiser are reasonable, I think, on their face (again, I am not familiar with the case law in this area, either NY or fed, so maybe these arguments are foreclosed somewhere).

I'm not arguing that these defense arguments will win or that my own political philosophy supports their winning; I'm just commenting on them from a legal generalist perspective.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Here's a written piece where the author spells out what the 'fundamental legal flaw" might be in the indictment, including that the law as Bragg is trying to apply it would be unconstitutionally vague:

The dubious legal theory at the heart of the Trump indictment, explained

No one knows if Donald Trump can be prosecuted for the hush money payment to Stormy Daniels.

www.vox.com

These arguments against the indictment on legal grounds by Yoo, Epstein, and Millhiser are reasonable, I think, on their face (again, I am not familiar with the case law in this area, either NY or fed, so maybe these arguments are foreclosed somewhere).

I'm not arguing that these defense arguments will win or that my own political philosophy supports their winning; I'm just commenting on them from a legal generalist perspective.

Yes, that's a potential problem with the legal theory of the prosecution's case, which I think is a solid criticism. But that's a different thing than what I was arguing against, which was the idea that the indictment was insufficient because it didn't describe Trump's alleged crimes. It did describe Trump's alleged crimes.

 

[mcmurtry66]

With all due respect, you are making a similar mistake as DANC did. He confused partisan intent with a fundamental legal flaw, while you are confusing lack of strength of the case with the same.

This discussion started with unsupportable wild claims that the indictment itself was basically flawed because it didn't meet the requirements of an indictment insofar as describing the charges. That's baloney. The charges might be bullshit, and the intent might be partisan as hell, but there was no subversion of the 6th Amendment. There was no infringement of Trump's rights. The indictment did what indictments are supposed to do, which is formally detail the charges against a defendant so that he may answer them with a plea.

Here's a written piece where the author spells out what the 'fundamental legal flaw" might be in the indictment, including that the law as Bragg is trying to apply it would be unconstitutionally vague:

The dubious legal theory at the heart of the Trump indictment, explained

No one knows if Donald Trump can be prosecuted for the hush money payment to Stormy Daniels.

www.vox.com

These arguments against the indictment on legal grounds by Yoo, Epstein, and Millhiser are reasonable, I think, on their face (again, I am not familiar with the case law in this area, either NY or fed, so maybe these arguments are foreclosed somewhere).

I'm not arguing that these defense arguments will win or that my own political philosophy supports their winning; I'm just commenting on them from a legal generalist perspective.

That’s just a motion for more def statement or particulars re the underlying claim being left out. They amend or defense files for a dismissal if they don’t and the state does whatever it decides with the misd claim. Everything in your articles takes issue with the bump to a felony. So it’s either a misd or a felony. Misd is clear under the state stat felony is murky

Prosecutor is a clown

 

[ButHerEmails]

You can’t see the forest for the trees. The guy you back is embroiled in court over a payoff to a stripper. It’s Easter. The miles of broken road behind him that keep adding up make the average person say no thanks

Stripper? That’s disrespectful. She’s a goddamn f*****g PORN STAR!!! Say it with the respect it deserves.

 

[UncleMark]

I always like to be lectured on civics by such a recognized Constitutional expert.

Goat wasn't lecturing you, he was just trying to explain how you were misunderstanding things, but you weren't listening.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

That’s just a motion for more def statement or particulars re the underlying claim being left out. They amend or defense files for a dismissal if they don’t and the state does whatever it decides with the misd claim. Everything in your articles takes issue with the bump to a felony. So it’s either a misd or a felony. Misd is clear under the state stat felony is murky

Prosecutor is a clown

That’s what DANC was pointing out, though. I think it’s a bit more (I don’t know functionally what this would mean) than a civil case involving a statement with more particulars given the Sixth Amendment.

And it’s more than that: all three commentators think it’s possible Trump can’t be charged with a felony for this under NY law. (The slam dunk here would be to charge Trump with covering up hiring a prostitute but they can’t prove it). In short, I think they all see this as an exclusively federal issue.

Re felony v misdemeanor, from what I’ve read, the misdemeanors are out on SOL grounds.

To take this is a slightly different direction but still related to the vagueness problem, let’s leave Trump out of this for a second.

Think about a DA splitting up all these charges into 34 felonies and seeking to put someone in jail for up to 136 years for causing the falsification of business records for his hush-money payoff of an “affair.” Then, while seeking to put someone away for over 100 years, the DA doesn’t even spell out the legal basis for the felony by stating which crime he was covering up with the payment. If I were the judge, I’d have a big problem with that.

 

[mcmurtry66]

That’s what DANC was pointing out, though. I think it’s a bit more (I don’t know functionally what this would mean) than a civil case involving a statement with more particulars given the Sixth Amendment.

And it’s more than that: all three commentators think it’s possible Trump can’t be charged with a felony for this under NY law. (The slam dunk here would be to charge Trump with covering up hiring a prostitute but they can’t prove it). In short, I think they all see this as an exclusively federal issue.

Re felony v misdemeanor, from what I’ve read, the misdemeanors are out on SOL grounds.

To take this is a slightly different direction but still related to the vagueness problem, let’s leave Trump out of this for a second.

Think about a DA splitting up all these charges into 34 felonies and seeking to put someone in jail for up to 136 years for causing the falsification of business records for his hush-money payoff of an “affair.” Then, while seeking to put someone away for over 100 years, the DA doesn’t even spell out the legal basis for the felony by stating which crime he was covering up with the payment. If I were the judge, I’d have a big problem with that.

I get what you are saying but disagree procedurally. Maybe jimbo or a crim guy will come along. Defense files for more def stmt/particulars state agrees to amend to plead underlying crime or carry on with the misd which is a simple state stat violation for falsifying records. Then defense can say time barred and state will say tolled here’s why.

I don’t think DANC understood that even without the felony underlying a crime still occurred - biz records

 

[IU_Hickory]

That’s what DANC was pointing out, though. I think it’s a bit more (I don’t know functionally what this would mean) than a civil case involving a statement with more particulars given the Sixth Amendment.

And it’s more than that: all three commentators think it’s possible Trump can’t be charged with a felony for this under NY law. (The slam dunk here would be to charge Trump with covering up hiring a prostitute but they can’t prove it). In short, I think they all see this as an exclusively federal issue.

Re felony v misdemeanor, from what I’ve read, the misdemeanors are out on SOL grounds.

To take this is a slightly different direction but still related to the vagueness problem, let’s leave Trump out of this for a second.

Think about a DA splitting up all these charges into 34 felonies and seeking to put someone in jail for up to 136 years for causing the falsification of business records for his hush-money payoff of an “affair.” Then, while seeking to put someone away for over 100 years, the DA doesn’t even spell out the legal basis for the felony by stating which crime he was covering up with the payment. If I were the judge, I’d have a big problem with that.

You really think the DA is hoping for 136 years in jail? I think that's a bit of an overstatement. I'm not sure what the punishment is for falsifying business records but I'm doubting that one. I think it was only separated into 34 counts because they found 34 separate instances of falsification. I think it's more to setup that Trump did this regularly rather than just a mistake or clerical error. I don't think it's to get 34x the punishment.

If Trump sees the inside of a jail, then it will likely be due to the Georgia case or the one that is ongoing over Jan 6. Although Trump is very adept at avoiding repercussions so not holding my breath.

 

[UncleMark]

Re felony v misdemeanor, from what I’ve read, the misdemeanors are out on SOL grounds.

On this issue, everything I've read says the SoL is paused while the defendant is out of state. Bragg may be a partisan hack, but he'd have to be an imbecile to bring charges that wouldn't hold up under a SoL challenge. I don't think he's an imbecile.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

That’s what DANC was pointing out, though. I think it’s a bit more (I don’t know functionally what this would mean) than a civil case involving a statement with more particulars given the Sixth Amendment.

And it’s more than that: all three commentators think it’s possible Trump can’t be charged with a felony for this under NY law. (The slam dunk here would be to charge Trump with covering up hiring a prostitute but they can’t prove it). In short, I think they all see this as an exclusively federal issue.

Re felony v misdemeanor, from what I’ve read, the misdemeanors are out on SOL grounds.

To take this is a slightly different direction but still related to the vagueness problem, let’s leave Trump out of this for a second.

Think about a DA splitting up all these charges into 34 felonies and seeking to put someone in jail for up to 136 years for causing the falsification of business records for his hush-money payoff of an “affair.” Then, while seeking to put someone away for over 100 years, the DA doesn’t even spell out the legal basis for the felony by stating which crime he was covering up with the payment. If I were the judge, I’d have a big problem with that.

I understand what you're getting at, but that's not what DANC was saying. DANC started by claiming the indictment failed to even state what crimes Trump was being charged with. Having been shown how that was inaccurate, he started a verbal dance to avoid learning anything.

 

[IU_Hickory]

On this issue, everything I've read says the SoL is paused while the defendant is out of state. Bragg may be a partisan hack, but he'd have to be an imbecile to bring charges that wouldn't hold up under a SoL challenge. I don't think he's an imbecile.

If there was a SOL challenge to be had, I would have thought that Trump's lawyers would have already brought it up by now unless is that is something that happens at a later stage.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I don’t think there’s an ounce of doubt that this is politically motivated garbage from a progressive prosecutor

 

[UncleMark]

If there was a SOL challenge to be had, I would have thought that Trump's lawyers would have already brought it up by now unless is that is something that happens at a later stage.

Maybe they're imbeciles too?

 

[mcmurtry66]

Maybe they're imbeciles too?

Lol they have time

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

If there was a SOL challenge to be had, I would have thought that Trump's lawyers would have already brought it up by now unless is that is something that happens at a later stage.

They could honestly file that at any point, but they probably need some discovery first. Like McM said above, they will be seeking more details on this particular point, and once they have a firmer take on the prosecution's argument they can better attack it.