[Thorzdad]

Well, it actually happened. The New York grand jury indicted Trump today.
I sorta expect the House to push-through articles of impeachment on Biden asap, in retaliation.

[subego]

Maybe a dumb question, but in regards to Stormy Daniels, what law did he break exactly?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Maybe a dumb question, but in regards to Stormy Daniels, what law did he break exactly?

For the same thing that Michael Cohen had already been convicted of. Likely, he will have to be indicted for something in addition to that as the statute of limitations on that count by itself has already expired. Have a listen to Ezra Klein’s recent podcast where David French discusses the legal theories in more details (he is a lawyer).

Overall, I’m surprised that Trump hasn’t been indicted on one of the other cases first. IMHO the case in Georgia seems much more serious and doesn’t rely on a more complicated legal construction which is necessary to extend the statute of limitations. (I don’t have a strong opinion on it one way or another, but overall if the case was strong enough to convict Michael Cohen, it is strong enough to convict Donald Trump. The only question is: why not earlier?)

[andi*pandi]

having the affair with a porn star while your wife is home with a newborn isn't illegal, but using campaign money to pay her off via michael cohen is. Right?

I could also wish the more serious charges were taking the front seat but I have to imagine they are crossing all their t's and dotting all their i's and checking it twice.

[subego]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

having the affair with a porn star while your wife is home with a newborn isn't illegal, but using campaign money to pay her off via michael cohen is. Right?

Federally? Maybe. The New York Attorney General doesn’t have jurisdiction over that though.

[andi*pandi]

Where was the campaign headquartered when the campaign started? Where did he (supposedly) do the paperwork and taxes?

[Thorzdad]

The indictment is still under seal, so we don’t know what the details are. At this point everyone is merely speculating.

[subego]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Where was the campaign headquartered when the campaign started? Where did he (supposedly) do the paperwork and taxes?

I’m not sure that matters. His campaign was for a federal election. Federal law is subject to the DoJ, not state attorney generals.

[OAW]

From what I gather the charges will boil down to “falsifying business records”. We’ll have to see how it all plays out. I, too, would have preferred to see one of the more substantive cases result in an indictment before this one. Because it’s far too Clinton-Lewinsky-esque IMO. That being said, I do find it amusing at our good friends on the right twisting themselves into knots defending Clinton’s impeachment for lying about a blowjob while simultaneously defending Trump for lying and falsifying records about a hush money payment to a porn star.

OAW

[subego]

The technical term is “penny ante”.

Guilty is guilty, but optics are optics.

[reader50]

We'll have to wait for the charges to know, but from the summaries I've read, it's 30+ charges for business fraud.

This may well be a case about the cover-up. Even if the statute of limitations has expired on the primary payoff, the cover-up may have a longer statute of limitations. OAW's "falsifying business records" sounds more likely than not. Especially if some of those fraudulent records were then filed with New York state. That would explain how they have jurisdiction.

I have my doubts about say, claiming a bribe as a business deduction on your state taxes.

[subego]

One person’s bribe is another’s NDA.

[reader50]

Whether it's a bribe or NDA may not matter. When you sign a tax form, it's under penalty of perjury that everything above is true and correct. If they concealed it as something else, say a "consultant fee", it would be untrue. Making the form fraudulent.

I'm only speculating of course. In theory, you could test this. Hypothetically, if you haven't done your taxes yet, you could claim a deduction. But call it something other than what it is. Then see if anything happens.

Naturally, I don't encourage you to do any such test. And am not responsible for any resulting fines or jail time. I might even visit.

[Waragainstsleep]

I heard rumours some time ago that he over or understated the square footages of his NY properties to save money on taxes. That and the hush money coming from campaign funding.
I'm glad this one landed first, lesser charges tend to me forgotten when more serious ones are brought. I hope between all the indictments he's facing he'll get enough time that they never let him out. Only question is, does being in prison disqualify you from running for office?

[reader50]

You're probably thinking of the case against the trump organization. Where they were accused of understating occupancy to tax authorities (for a better tax rate) and overstating occupancy to other investors (to make it look like a good investment). That case went down about a month ago - the jury convicted on all charges. However, that case was against his company - the penalties will be financial.

This case is about hush money, and perhaps where it came from. Or how he might have reported it. This case is against him, so jail is a possible penalty.

Being in prison does not disqualify one from running for Federal office. However, on the Mar-a-lago documents case, charges under the Espionage Act can disqualify one from holding office if convicted. But to my knowledge, that penalty has never been tested in the courts.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by reader50 

This case is about hush money, and perhaps where it came from. Or how he might have reported it. This case is against him, so jail is a possible penalty.

There are a lot of possibilities, and I'd just wait. I'd also not get my panties in a twist and simply let everything play out. I'm quite sure the prosecutor and the grand jury knew that they were dealing with a highly sensitive case. Trump will have his day in court, he is wealthy enough to afford good lawyers (although maybe unable to hire good lawyers given his reputation) and there will be plenty of attention on the case, i. e. all court actions will be double and triple checked with an electron microscope. Should Trump be found guilty, I am fairly certain he will fight the conviction.

There is a lot of talk about how such a (comparatively) minor crime shouldn't have been the first crime that Trump should have been indicted for. They would have preferred that it'd be something more clear cut, something that was “less political”

Originally Posted by reader50 

Being in prison does not disqualify one from running for Federal office. However, on the Mar-a-lago documents case, charges under the Espionage Act can disqualify one from holding office if convicted. But to my knowledge, that penalty has never been tested in the courts.

I think it is not even clear whether he is barred from being elected while serving a prison sentence. That'd be a first. Probably someone at the Secret Service is being tasked with figuring out right now how Trump could be protected while serving in prison.

[reader50]

We will find out soon - the judge has approved unsealing the indictment. I don't know when it'll actually be released.

The judge overseeing the case against Trump signed off on an order Thursday granting Bragg’s request to publicly disclose the sealed grand jury indictment.

Atop the order is the case name: The People of the State of New York against Donald J. Trump.

Judge Juan Merchan wrote in the order that the disclosure would be “in the public interest and an appropriate exercise of this Court’s discretion,” according to the document.

[OreoCookie]

Sounds like a good decision. This case needs transparency.

[OreoCookie]

Now that things are public, what do y'all think? The guys over at NR predictably throw a fit. Others still feel uncomfortable, preferring that other indictments would have been filed first. IMHO every prosecutor should work according to their own schedule and factor out politics — follow procedure and do what you think is right.

[reader50]

For those who need a summary;

Stormy Daniels says there was an affair with Trump in the past. Before the 2016 election, Trump had his fixer Mr. Cohen pay Daniels $130K to keep quiet about it.

The NDA was signed by Daniels and Cohen - but Trump never got around to signing it. And the contract language goes into effect when all parties sign. Which means it never went into effect. Stormy Daniels has since talked about it.

Cohen paid the $130K out of his own funds, then was reimbursed by Trump after the fact. This became $35K (per month) for a year. Some of the funds came from Trump's own accounts, some from his election-related trust. The expenses were described as other things, to conceal that it was a hush money payment. Cohen's compensation was listed as attorney fees, for example.

These false descriptions were submitted on 34 filings, which is where New York State got the 34 fraud charges.

False entries on business filings are usually misdemeanors, which are penalized with fines. However, if fraudulent entries were to cover up crimes, they can be charged as Felonies, which are punished with jail time. All 34 fraud charges are being pursued as felonies.

For convictions to happen, the prosecution must prove:
1. The fraudulent entries are false. (easy)
2. They were done wrong deliberately. (easy)
3. The crimes they cover up have themselves been proven. (uncertain)

The prosecutors have not spelled out the root crimes in #3 yet. Speculation has covered:
A. Campaign finance violations. $130K exceeds the individual limit, and wasn't reported as a campaign co-pay.
B. Conspiracy to alter an election using illegal means. There's a NY state law against this.
C. State tax fraud. ie - reporting things in the wrong category may produce a different deduction amount. And besides, those tax forms always have the "true and correct under penalty of perjury" above the signature line.

I'm not a lawyer, and this is condensed. For example, there were hush payments to 2 other people, via the National Enquirer instead of Cohen. This case will develop slowly, with lots of case filings before anything happens. The first hearing isn't until December 2023. I expect one or both sides to appeal the result, which may come in 2024. Later still for the appeals to be exhausted.

[OreoCookie]

Nice summary, reader. There are some weird technical question, e. g. whether federal election law can be used in state proceeding (above my paygrade).

One issue many pundits seem to focus on is the 34 charges bit, that seems to be entirely technical and not unusual. Rich Lowry makes it out as if that gives the prosecutors 34 bullets in a Russian Roulette that poor Donald Trump will have to play. That's patently false in this case, I see the chance that Donald Trump will only be convicted of 1–2 charges as exceedingly remote, either it is an almost everything or nothing deal.

Another thing that shapes my thinking is that I'd expect that everyone involved, the prosecution, the Grand Jury, the judge, they all know that this will be a case that will shape their career, and that if one of them did not dot their i's and cross their t's, the whole thing will likely explode in their faces. So I don't think it is likely to expect any malfeasance.

What I find most interesting as a non-lawyer is to think through where we would like to be as a society. Let us assume we have irrefutable proof. Would you want to pursue a case for a misdemeanor against the former President? One argument against it is that it'd open the door for “judicial harassment” against current and former politicians you disagree with. Given the US's history and deference to former politicians, I don't see that this slippery slope argument holds a lot of weight. Moreover, I think Trump violated one of the few enforceable laws that govern spending in political campaigns. Enforcing the few laws the US has is IMHO a net benefit, even if the punishment is a slap on the wrist (e. g. a fine).

Then let's escalate and pretend that we are able to prove a felony, but the felony case rests on quite a few technical legal arguments. Would that be better than convicting Trump of a misdemeanor? Would it be permissible or desirable to pull an Al Capone?

Lastly, there is the case of a “clear-cut, serious felony” conviction. This creates a scale from misdemeanor to very serious crime.

Now let's add conviction probabilities back: how certain would you want to be to charge a former President? 90 %? 80 %? Would you want to trade some degree of certainty for a lesser charge? How much of a trade-off would you want to make?

This does bring me back to someone repeatedly playing Russian Roulette: Trump has had a long history of shady business dealings, and if he keeps on playing stupid games, he might eventually win a stupid prize. A lot of Trump cases seem to be a thing of extreme degree: e. g. his improper valuations of Trump properties to borrowers and tax authorities (where he seemingly over- and undervalued his possessions for financial gain) seem to be a common tactic, yes, but it seems he pushed it to an extreme. How should society deal with such trolls that skirt and cross the line of what is and isn't legal? It seems natural to me that the system eventually has a shorter trigger.

[reader50]

From what I've heard, if a charge doesn't stick as a felony, it will fall back to a misdemeanor. So I expect eventual convictions on all charges. The questions center on whether or not they can convict as felonies. And if the felony status holds up through appeals.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by reader50 

From what I've heard, if a charge doesn't stick as a felony, it will fall back to a misdemeanor. So I expect eventual convictions on all charges. The questions center on whether or not they can convict as felonies. And if the felony status holds up through appeals.

The latter point seems to be an untested legal theory: it seems it is neither explicitly allowed nor explicitly forbidden. In spirit, it seems counterintuitive to merely ignore the purpose of these crimes, which was to commit/further another crime. But I'm not a legal expert, just my gut reaction.