Trump Organization’s Other New York State Case
[NB: check the byline, thanks. /~Rayne]
Because we’re running in excess of 500 comments across the last three threads about Donald Trump’s indictment and arraignment in Manhattan, I want to post another thread for more discussion.
I’ll remind you now I’m not a lawyer and I don’t have either Marcy’s holographic memory or her skills at fine reading, nor bmaz’s experience representing criminal defendants.
But I want to bring up a couple subjects we haven’t discussed which are related to D.A. Alvin Bragg’s criminal suit against Trump.
First, only one member of the emptywheel community made a passing reference to Trump’s post-arraignment speech. They didn’t mention Trumps’ threats.
Yes, that’s plural Trumps, because Donnie Jr. and Eric posted in social media a photo of New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan and his daughter on the day of his father’s arraignment. They targeted Merchan’s daughter for having worked for Kamala Harris’ campaign.
You’ll recall in July 2020 that U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey Judge Esther Salas’ family members were attacked at their home – her husband was shot three times and her son shot and killed. The attacker was an aggressive anti-feminist who killed himself shortly after the attack on Salas’ family. He had been able to locate Salas’ home using her personal information publicly available online.
Last November, Congress passed the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act of 2021, named after Salas’ son, to protect the personal information about judges on the internet.
Trump himself attacked Judge Merchan verbally in his speech from Mar-a-Lago after returning from his arraignment. He’d been strongly cautioned against threatening speech during his arraignment, but he fulminated anyhow about Merchan being a “Trump-hating judge with a Trump-hating wife and family,” repeating the same disparaging remarks he’d made earlier the same day over social media. He also targeted Merchan’s daughter.
Apart from the obvious potential incitement to violence the Trumps attempted against Judge Merchan and his family, was this a move to manipulate the Manhattan case?
Being a state jurist, Merchan and his family are not protected by the federal Judicial Security and Privacy Act. But I wonder if these threats made online and on an interstate basis were intended not just to influence the judge or D.A. Alvin Bragg.
Are there potential federal repercussions?
~ ~ ~
Secondly, the emptywheel community and the legal commentariat at large have sifted through Trump’s indictment and the statement of facts. The amount of related discussion across social media has been exhausting.
However community member c-i-v-i-l shared a link to a thread by University of Texas Professor of Law Lee Kovarsky which checked me short and made me rethink the 34 count indictment.
You can catch the thread on the Wayback Machine at this Internet Archive link (I won’t make you go to Elmo’s House of Doge Nazi Bar for this).
What gave me pause was Kovarsky’s analysis of preemption and the matrix of possible underlying crime(s) which Bragg did not disclose but underpin the charges Bragg filed against Trump.
Here’s what the matrix looked like, with Not-Trump = Pecker, Cohen, etc. according to Kovarsky:
| (1) federal tax law violation by Trump | (2) federal tax law violation by Not-Trump |
| (3) state tax law violation by Trump | (4) state tax law violation by Not-Trump |
| (5) federal election law violation by Trump | (6) federal election law violation by Not-Trump |
| (7) state election law violation by Trump | (8) state election law violation by Not-Trump |
Kovarsky made a lot of sense to a non-lawyer like me as he pointed out where others’ arguments about preemption are weak and what’s most likely as a preemption.
And then it clicked, all the tumblers fell into place.
In my uneducated opinion, the underlying crime isn’t one which can be preempted by federal law.
It’s a crime which has been prosecuted by the state of New York already.
It’s a crime which has already been prosecuted by the Manhattan D.A.
It’s a crime which explains the narrow emphasis on business records and falsification of the same, and a crime which relied on falsified business records.
And the crime looked like this:
These are counts for which Trump Organization and its CFO (TO CFO) was already convicted and is now serving time in Rikers Island.
It’s the April 2017 and April 2018 tax returns and related supporting documentation filed based on falsified business records for which TO CFO Allen Weisselberg has already been charged.
But so has the Trump Organization – the same organization which was responsible for the financial records of Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, and the financial records of Donald J. Trump.
This January both Trump Corporation and the Trump Payroll Corporation were assessed a total of $1.6 million in fines for their tax fraud as part of Trump Organization.
Again, I’ll remind you I’m not a lawyer, don’t even play one on TV, though I’ve done bookkeeping for several small businesses in my career and worked for a lawyer and CFO. I’ve shared my speculation here knowing I’m going to get a drubbing from my partner in (im)moderation bmaz.
I don’t even know if I can muster much defense of my own argument here except that Weisselberg’s case is one which hasn’t been discussed much at all since Tuesday morning.
Yet it was reported on March 30 that Weisselberg had “dumped” his Trump-funded lawyer Nicholas Gravante or that the Trump organization had fired Weisselberg’s lawyer. Gravante was apparently too willing to let Weisselberg talk with Bragg’s office.
Weisselberg is now represented by Seth L. Rosenberg who was a former member of the Manhattan D.A.’s office; Rosenberg has been with Clayman & Rosenberg LLP since 1986.
The late shuffle of attorneys could be a sign that it is the tax fraud for which Trump Org has already been charged that is the predicate to Trump’s 34-count indictment.
This situation would explain why Bragg would have been reluctant to outline the underlying crime when the 34 counts against Trump were filed and Trump was arraigned. Trump has already been manipulating Weisselberg through the legal representation Trump organization has been providing him; it’s reasonable to assume this is an attempt to throttle Weisselberg’s possible testimony against Trump.
What other crime might have been the predicate upon which the Manhattan D.A.’s charges would have relied if not the tax fraud charges against Trump Organization?
What other underlying crime would avoid preemption?
Yeah, yeah, whip me beat me bmaz just bring it and get it over with.
It’s nearly 5:00 a.m. here and I’m so tired I won’t even feel the thumping you’re going to deliver. ~yawn~
ADDER: Weisselberg and Trump Org were charged with conspiracy as well, but I think the indictment’s wording isn’t broad enough to encompass the breadth of the two hush money cases, just the tax fraud from which Weisselberg benefited. But the tax fraud charges are broad enough to encompass the fraudulent tax filings.
Thanks for raising it, Rayne. I keep noting that the indictment of Trump is of a piece with the prosecution of his eponymous foundation and corporations, all of which involve a slush fund angle. Bragg couldn’t pin any of the fraud on Trump at the corporation level because Weisselberg refused to flip. But there were transactions that he could tie Trump to: the hush payments.
And in Bragg’s letter to Jordan and Comer, he noted that the only federal funds associated with this investigation were the forfeiture funds that paid for the appeal of Trump v Vance, to get the tax returns.
And RE: threats, don’t forget that Don Jr signed some of the checks. He’s an unindicted co-conspirator, basically.
Haven’t forgotten that unindicted co-conspirator angle — I can’t help wonder if that’s why both of the boys got in on the threats, because they’re both feeling the heat and they know Daddy Dearest can’t/won’t do anything to help them. But not enough information so far to be certain of this.
This blog seriously needs a few “Do NOT Feed The Cactus” signs around here…
I don’t have a problem with our resident cactus. If you poke it, you get what you should expect from a cactus. :-)
Of course you don’t, as it’s an occupational hazard to you. For the rest of us, it’s an open invitation to refrain from participating in and /or financially supporting this blog. No one intentionally pokes a cactus, at least not anyone outside Arizona…
ETA: Look, I get it that SOMEONE needs to be the stick to keep the miscreants from polluting a blog.
It’s funny how we have community members who’ve been here more than a decade, community members who’ve made thousands of comments, and nearly all of them managed to do so without pissing off bmaz.
It’s the ones with less than 100 comments — particularly new ones — who both complain the most and don’t take the time to figure out how this place works before jumping in with both feet.
This is not an occupation for me. I’m not compensated. And I’ve been here long enough to see the pattern and recognize it, including the veiled threats at the site’s donations. ~eye roll~
Poking in to say that, as a new community member, there is little chance I’ll ever post 100 comments, much less exceed that number; I have zero experience in law.
Many years ago I did spend a little time as a troll-slayer… so I appreciate moderation keeps the community focused.
Grateful to be a student in this classroom.
Aloe vera might help saguaro burns.
Welcome to emptywheel and to our commenting community. I didn’t think I’d be here in the site’s backend for thirteen years but ~waves around at the flames~ you just never know. Keep your aloe handy and you’ll be just fine.
Ha! And a thank you from the balcony seats.
I am not an occupational hazard for anybody, much less Rayne or you. I have been here for almost 16 years, and have not seen one red cent of your “financial support”, can you provide receipts from ever having so contributed? As to your “participation”, you have 13 comments dating back less than a year. Don’t gaslight people.
One of the things Starhawk, the well-known community organizer recommends, is that groups trade off the responsibilities for various roles from time to time; for example, that the person who is responsible for welcoming visitors and new people should spend time as the person who’s responsible for defending the group’s borders. Organizationally, both these roles should formally exist (along with a couple of others.) IIRC her discussion of this is in Dreaming the Dark which is a classic of both community organizing and Wiccan philosophy.
What I’ve noticed about the group which has formed around emptywheel is that there’s a ton of work done to defend your borders, (can’t blame you for this, given the sheer ugliness of the right’s swarming tactics) and very little work done to welcome and socialize new people into the group’s practices, such as “don’t argue the law if you haven’t done your research, which means you should take a much deeper dive into the issue than ‘reading a newspaper article.'”
It’s not my place to say more – I’ve probably said too much – but maybe something to think about.
Thanks for your feedback. Each person added to the team is also a fresh set of security risks; the risk profile here isn’t the same one with which Starhawk may have been concerned.
Starhawk’s risk profile as a Wiccan leader wasn’t too bad… ask an anti-nuclear activist it was probably pretty hairy… so her example is probably a pretty good one from that perspective. Anyway, not asking to be part of the team, just for the record.
Noted, will not add you to the short list. I’ve been in community management since 1996, for the record.
Arizonans poking cacti? You mean like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ieicflBG_Y
From a total layperson’s perspective, it makes sense to me, Rayne! After reading the SOF with the names filled in, I was persuaded that Weisselberg was the final (and mystery) witness who followed Pecker (who followed Costello) as I mentioned in yesterday’s post.
It also explains why Susan Necheles is on the defense team. She has a dramatic courtroom style from what I understand, using provocative props that may be unsettling. (Reminds me of something ridiculous and offensive that happened in my own experience with the defense in my own lawsuit.) Plus, she has experience with Weisselberg. It could be quite off-putting for someone on the stand.
I think there may be serious security issues for Weisselberg, even if he is a hostile witness. Thus the secrecy of the mystery witness and the reluctance on the part of Bragg to reveal more.
https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/DonaldJTrumpIndictment-annotated-040423.pdf
Thank you for that information!
Every time I come to this page
(Blog!) I am more informed and armed to present information to those who still think the D is a great president!
Cheers
was, not is.
: ]
No. The tense was correct. MAGATs think Trump is the president. (They’re wrong, of course.)
I get what you’re saying, but they don’t believe any such thing.
“First, only one member of the emptywheel community made a passing reference to Trump’s post-arraignment speech. They didn’t mention Trumps’ threats.” Rayne
Indeed, but you must have missed Keith Olbermann’s Wednesday podcast. He spent at least a twelve-minute rant on the “Threat” angle.
I know. I know. Keith is an egomaniac and BMAZ will say he is an idiot.
Having said that, he is an unabashed progressive whose snark and baseball knowledge can make you smile.
Let me know when Keith Olbermann becomes a “member of the emptywheel community” because only Rugger_9 mentioned the “train wreck speech.”
Too bad KO is also utterly blind to his own implicit bias, obvious to everyone else who saw him put Angel Reese on blast for clapping back at a white girl.
I’m sorry about this OT so early on this REALLY interesting post, and I don’t want to derail it [so let me know if I should move this], BUT:
Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire
https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow
by Joshua Kaplan, Justin Elliott and Alex Mierjeski
This type of thing has apparently been happening for “over twenty years”
Photo caption:
8/27/19 Ken KLUKOWSKI, a longtime senior legal analyst for Breitbart News, has been hired as a “special counsel” for the Office of Management and Budget. He will report to general counsel Mark PAOLETTA
“The painting captures a scene from around five years ago, said Sharif Tarabay, the artist who was commissioned by Crow to paint it.”
“Around” summer 2018, then? [I’ll stop now, Rayne]
Ugh. If this is Thomas doing this, what are the rest of the right-wing jurists doing? They’re not even trying to hide their corruption.
Careful referring to SCOTUS as corrupt – that set off bmaz earlier in the week.
Just stop being a dick — as in stop telling us how we’re supposed to run this site or comment.
Certainly.
@JustinElliott tweeted a photo that Ted Cruz tweeted of Thomas swearing in 5th District Judge James Ho in Harlan Crow’s private library. Flight records show Crow’s jet going to DC and back to Dallas before and after the event.
The picture is in front of a fireplace that you could park a car in.
Here is that 1/4/18 CRUZ tweet at the internet archive:
https://web.archive.org/web/20230406182127/https://twitter.com/SenTedCruz/status/94908366391599516
Can anyone take a guess as to the subject of the huge, gold-framed portrait above the fireplace? Might that be a Pope or a Bishop?
One place we talked about James HO is here:
https://www.emptywheel.net/2021/09/04/how-jacob-chansley-proved-patrick-leduc-right/#comment-901747
That tweet seems to have been deleted. At least it’s not available now.
ah, no, it’s still there – the URL is wrong.
https://twitter.com/SenTedCruz/status/949083663915995136
Huh…that’s really strange. I’m fairly certain [lol] the Archive link worked this morning. But as you say, it IS still on Twitter.
I must have somehow gotten into Internet Archive’s bad user book.
Dammit Harpie, we can’t take you anywhere!
LOL!
It’d be one thing if these guys just happened to be childhood friends but “Crow met Thomas after he became a justice.” I’m sure they’ve become genuine friends – in the same way I was genuine friends with the neighbor kid who had a PlayStation
It ain’t Abe Fortas’ world anymore.
I know federal courts give prosecutors great leeway over how long an investigation takes and whether and when to charge, but is it a bar to pre-emption that the feds have had similar facts for years and chose not to act on them?
Was Bill Barr’s DoJ’s “stand down” “request” to Cy Vance, as reported by Vance, an attempt to invoke pre-emption without invoking it, but to muddy the water against any future prosecution by Vance or a successor? It’s the sort of Machiavellian thing he would do.
It makes sense to me that this was the underlying crime. I still don’t understand why Bragg would be reluctant to share that information.
Again, *if* this is the underlying crime and not some other crime outside of the charges against Trump Org and Weisselberg, it’s because Trump has already been tampering with a witness.
I guess I’m assuming someone on Trump’s team would be smart enough to know this might be the underlying charge. If Trump’s team is truly blind to the possibility of this underlying charge then keeping it secret could make a difference.
Some of the lawyers may know. But they’re being paid to defend him, and he *doesn’t* want to know.
Because he doesn’t have to and the office hasn’t for other cases.
Imagine what would happen if Bragg laid out details of these other crimes. These are crimes he isn’t charging and won’t have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. It would be a perfectly valid criticism that he’s taking the opportunity to damage the defendant without giving an opportunity to mount a defense.
Alvin Bragg might have chosen not to share the supporting documentation for the same reason that the DOJ kept the Mar A Lago search warrant probable cause affidavit redacted because it ‘could chill future cooperation’.
Bragg isn’t “reluctant.” He’s being smart. Because the law and the jury instructions for the relevant charge don’t say jurors have to agree on the falsification being in support of a SINGLE crime or even which crime out of many possible crimes. They just have to agree the businessrecord(s) was falsified, “with intent to defraud that included an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.”
In fact, that language doesn’t even require that “another crime” was committed. Just that it was done with intent to commit another crime.
So, you are informed of the jury instructions are you? On a case barely yet charged? Do tell. Because that would be, um, remarkable.
What’s more remarkable is that you, a criminal defense lawyer, pretend not to know that courts operate largely on boilerplates like this one by the, ahem, New York State Unified Courts System. Or, in your own venue, RAJI…
https://nycourts.gov/judges/cji/2-PenalLaw/175/175.10.pdf
What a load of useless crap. Did you google long to find those supposed RAJIs? Are they specific NOW, on THIS case, where the prosecution is hiding the ball like Bragg is running a three card monte scam? No. Take a step back.
As to time, please try to take notice of SOL dates. Thank you.
Here’s a marker: If the actual jury instructions at trial DO NOT contain those two fundamental elements, A) that the defendant falsified business records and B) that he did it ““with intent to defraud that included an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof,” then I will send you a fine bottle of tequila.
Re. Statute of Limitations. That’s been discussed ad naseum. Tolling was stopped for a long period in NY under COVID. It also is stopped when a defendant is out of state for long periods. Both apply.
Yeah? Well, here is a “marker” for you: You do not know your ass from a hole in the ground about what the actual final “counts” will be, much less how any trial evidence adduced could affect them as to jury instructions.
You are clowning yourself to act like you do, and making informed commenters here dumber. Stop doing that. As said to another couple of intransigent souls, this is the wrong week to screw with us.
Dude, really, I can’t believe Marcy keeps you around as a “moderator.” I’m not “screwing with you.” I’m participating in a discussion in a forum. You’re the one who always resorts to ad hominum insults and misguided attacks.
Love that I am accused of “making informed commenters here dumber.”
Wow, that’s my new superpower!
Maybe just try having a polite disagreement for a change?
[Arice: you’re going to take a backseat or find the exit. You’ve been posting here under multiple usernames — Arice, arice, A. Rice, Andrew R, the case and punctuation matter — which is a nuisance because you look like a sockpuppet. According to my records you were getting into it with bmaz a year ago January which is not a good look. (Someone named “Andrew” was butting heads with bmaz in August as well.) If and when you comment here next, you’re going to have changed your name to something more unique which complies with our new 8-letter minimum for usernames, you’re going to use it every time, and you’re going to stop poking at moderation. /~Rayne]
Sure, Rayne. Handle is changed. That’s my real name, BTW. I don’t feel any need to hide behind a pseudonym. It would be great, BTW, if the login and recover password function actually worked. Might cut down on confusing user names quite a bit.
I rarely post in EW. In January 2022, after I posted something in agreement with you, Bmaz came at me accusing me of being a troll and sock puppet. And what I was saying was hardly provocative and also well-within my professional wheelhouse. I don’t think I’ve posted anything since. Definitely the other “Andrew” getting into it with Bmaz in August is someone else.
Honestly, I don’t get it. This is a great site. Marcy and you do great and thoughtful analysis. So why have a house attack cactus who constantly goes after people he disagrees with with denigrating ad hominem attacks?
Anyway, best to all of you, including Bmaz.
adios,
Andrew
[Moderator’s note: I am clearing this to publish because it hits on the problem we’ve had with usernames. In your case, Mr. Rice, you brought much of the problem on yourself by not using the same username every time, and by adding a site in the URL field on a spotty basis. The inconsistencies look like trolls who may/may not be spoofing community members identities. Most trolls do skate off after running into our resident cactus; think of this as our AI-free troll sorting process. /~Rayne]
The fact that the CJI is *silent* on whether the jurors have to agree on the underlying crime which bumps this up to a felony is NOT the same as saying the jurors do not need to agree on the underlying crime which bumps this up to a felony. My anecdotal experience is that NY judges are reluctant to add anything to the pattern instructions, and usually won’t address something like this unless there’s a jury note that forces their hands (and even then, often they just repeat the instruction without further clarification). I’ve had this happen (not for this statute) even when presenting clear Court of Appeals case law to a judge supporting that my proposed addition was in fact the binding law.
Thanks very much for providing a link to the Internet Archive instead of Ratly Musk’s Klan Emporium. Very much appreciated.
I listened to comments from two or three NYC attorneys, who had worked in D.A. Vance’s office. They suggested that the rather sparse indictment was designed to meet the minimum requirements which gives the DA flexibility, presumably with regard to the crimes which bump up the misdemeanor to a felony. Perhaps, DA Bragg is looking at the NY State civil trial to provide some additional evidence. Or, perhaps, waiting for the IRS to awaken. I am not suggesting that DA Bragg was premature in pursuing the indictment but that additional evidence of crimes may be expected. IF this is the case, maybe the defense wants to pin DA Bragg down as early as possible.
The alleged involvement of Weisselberg in the scheme to disguise the payments to Cohen makes me wonder why the Trump Organization CFO was involved. It suggests to me that the pattern and practice of the Trumps treating the their Charitable Foundation as their personal ATM was repeated with the Trump Organization and that one of Weisselberg’s chief functions was to disguise the nature of some of the personal payments.
Did whoever hosted the two or three former DA’s office employees get asked why Vance didn’t bring these same charges? It’s all well and good that they have handy rationalizations for what Bragg has done but Vance’s office failed to do this and it could have. Let’s ditch the notion these charges were premature; leaving these charges until now exposes Bragg to questions about statute of limitations which wouldn’t have been an issue for Vance.
And yes, there’s a long pattern of behavior — all of the money personal and corporate went through Trump Org just just as all of the money for Fred Trump’s businesses went through All County. This is how Donald learned to do business from Fred, how to conduct his life in general.
More than ever I want something to crack open the money from the golf courses.
Didn’t Bragg claim they have evidence that was not available previously? Impossible to know with the limited information we have, but if that new evidence was “we don’t have to pay her if we can delay to after the election” then the decision would be straightforward.
Another wild ass guess – Billy Barr was able to suppress, or delay, the investigation under Vance but not under Bragg.
I’m still racking my brains over that “evidence that was not available previously” assuming the tax fraud charges are the predicate.
Was the DA’s office missing a tax return or supporting documentation related to its filing? Or the check register or…I’m stumped. Not knowing how they operated, I don’t know what Trump Org + Weisselberg would have done with documentation for taxes, though a lot was done to keep all of it out of the public’s eye.
The conviction of Trump.org was in December 22, after Bragg took office in January 22, and after he declined to prosecute the other earlier charge that was developed under Vance. So that points to your theory also.
Keep asking that question. What is the “new information”? Why now at the last minute? Why not have the decency and balls by Bragg to actually identify his legal theory? Why is it acceptable too hide his theory so long? Why does Just Security think said conduct is “smart” and not a travesty?
“Last minute?”
How’s that?
is it possible he can’t do that without jeopardizing other investigations in various jurisdictions? In any case, NY state law allows him to not elucidate on this just yet…so it is what it is?
“…if that new evidence was “we don’t have to pay her if we can delay to after the election” then the decision would be straightforward.”
That’s not even necessary under New York law. I’m not a lawyer, but I did find a couple resources which discussed New York’s statutes on “falsification” and it’s ridiculously easy to show “fraud” under New York law. As I understand things (and once again, IANAL) the mere act of falsification is enough to trigger the statute as long as it affects anyone or anything at all by causing them to change their behavior, even if nobody is harmed by the lie. And no, I don’t think the law is well-phrased or well interpreted, but that’s what the relevant case law seems to say.
Whether the Stormy Daniels matter alone would be enough to bump the “falsification” from a misdemeanor to a felony isn’t so clear, however – I’d guess that either tax fraud or violation of the election laws is the underlying crime which makes the misdemeanor into a felony, and both of those have already been proven.
Don’t apologize for NBAL, it’s the non-lawyers who will make or break our system of “justice” which has been driven to this point by lawyers (see the Federalist Society).
I’m not apologizing for NBAL, just making sure that everyone who reads this knows my status. What I’d really like to see happen is for an NY lawyer who’s dealt with the state’s falsification statute to show up and make some comments which are more informed than mine.
As the indictment against Weisselberg + Trump Org says, their intent to evade taxes defrauded the state. Hello, felony.
There it is!!!
Exactly! Though it looks like it’s at least a little harder to push misdemeanor falsification up to felony falsification. However, as I noted beneath the other post, Bragg gets at least three (possibly as many as five or six) swings at this meatball, so I don’t anticipate any problems with an NY judge instructing the jury that the felony charges are appropriate.
!!!! :-)
I got the impression that this was just another bill Trump didn’t want to pay and win or lose, after the election any incentive to do so would be gone.
FWIW, Jen Psaki interviewed Vance and asked him pretty pointedly about why his office didn’t do this. He weaseled on some stuff, but did give some answers that sounded plausible to (NAL) me. (I found on YT, but having issues getting a link copy, sorry.)
Is it this one from three days ago? https://youtu.be/4skowUa_osU
I’m only a minute into it and he’s filibustering. LOL
EDIT: Heh. Vance sounds angry about Trump’s threats – go to 08:10 (https://youtu.be/4skowUa_osU?t=490) in the video. He points out that the threats could be Obstruction of Government Administration under NYS law and a misdemeanor. But I wonder if this misdemeanor can likewise be bumped up to a felony if the threats are made with regard to felony charges.
Having been warned by the judge and making threats anyhow sure seems like deliberate intimidation under NY Penal 195.05.
By my thinking, the judge gave the warning knowing full well Trump wouldn’t be able to keep his mouth shut. Like dangling a worm in front of a fish. There was no guarantee Trump would take the bait but the odds favored it.
I think this is it?
https://youtu.be/4skowUa_osU
If I recall correctly, they mentioned the difficulty in getting the Trump tax returns.
Besides, Vance was on his way out the door..
I wonder also if the Weisselberg/Trump Org. Conviction made it easier for this indictment. Weisselberg is now convicted of knowing how to cook the books for his own benefit.
I knew there had been difficulty with tax returns but how many times have we heard this so far, especially wrt the fraud suit brought by NY AG James? I couldn’t recall how this was still a bottleneck affecting the Manhattan D.A.’s hush money case since Weisselberg had been convicted about his role in tax fraud.
Funny how it took me so long to make that tax fraud connection with the hush money case — and yeah, I think Weisselberg/Trump Org conviction does make the hush money cash easier.
Can only hope the NY AG’s case isn’t held up by the criminal case.
Thank you Rayne! Just a reminder that you work in the shadow of the premier non-lawyer on the planet so never apologize for not being a lawyer. Today I am encouraged that our fragile system of law and “justice” can be understood without the lawyers who have to this point taken exclusive possession of it. Thank you again.
When I look to the History of the Trump Revitalization Era, I find that the lack of Ethics among those persons who practice “Nature’s God” or with somewhat more precision, that today’s God Of Ambition has snatched over half the voting population.
Now, I have been discounting Trump’s legal problems, both at the state and federal levels, since this “escapism” should be discarded and tossed into the garbage can. And when the majority of citizens support, while demeaning, women, premises his political life on marital infidelity, defines today’s irrelevant politics.
And again, my thanks for this thread.
Let’s not forget this gem from his lawyer, brought to us from Chuck Todd of all people:
“You keep saying it’s personal funds,” Todd said. “That is not what Michael Cohen pled guilty to. This was funds where he was repaid by the Trump Organization, Trump signed the check.”
“Incorrect,” Tacopina insisted. “It’s personal funds. It was not funds related to the campaign.”
“But he used a Trump Organization check,” Todd shot back.
“It’s not campaign finance laws. But Chuck, that’s personal, that’s personal. It has nothing to do with the campaign,” Tacopina said.
“So everything with the Trump Organization is Donald Trump the person?” Todd asked. “I mean, you realize the door you’re opening there.”
I’m amazed Tocopina is still around.
Yeah, that was an intentional mis/redirection by Tacopina. The check numbers, ledger entries, dates of transactions are critical to showing laundering of personal funds into/out of Trump Org.
I thought Tacopina was trying to muddy the water by choosing to talk about the source of the funds from Cohen (Cohen did in reality tap a line of credit to get the “up front” money for the Stormy Daniels payment). Tacopina had to know that Todd – along with the rest of the world – had copies of the checks Cohen received for the reimbursement. What I think he was trying to say, though in a fumbling and inept way, was that the payment was made for personal reasons rather than business or election-related reasons.
But this does raise an interesting point. Trump may be afraid of everyone learning that he did not follow corporate formalities, i.e., used the Trump Organization as a personal piggy bank. That could create multiple legal and financial exposures for him. If you treat your corporation as a sham, then you become personally liable for what it owes. Criminal law issues aside, those exposures could make the Stormy Daniels payment look like pocket change.
Tacopina might have been trying to claim the payments were made for personal reasons, but now there’s enough testimony and evidence which says the efforts to catch-and-kill were out of concerns for Trump’s campaign.
This is going to big a much bigger pain in Trump’s pasty slack ass because he’s repeatedly pierced the veil between his businesses and his personal finances. Anybody who claims Trump has damaged them may also attempt to go after Trump Org at the same time because they don’t appear fully separate. Which is fine with me: it’ll be an inversion of the SLAPP-type civil suits he’s used for decades against others.
Also just to observe that Trumps lackies and other enablers chronically make arguments which might sound reasonable in isolation but are contradictory and irrational in any broader framework.
This is already past the point where the utterance of a lawyer in one case can/will have an impact on the other cases. Why these idiots keep doing interview after interview and painting themselves, and trump, into a corner is beyond my understanding. The outcome of the case may be secondary to the only thing they really have to gain, which is a line on their CV listing that they once defended a former president. With trumps history of creating chaos among his lawyers I doubt we’ll see a leader put in charge to manage the overall battle. It’ll be every lawyer for themselves.
No doubt their client still thinks that any press is good press and he can win this by riling up the base, but sooner or later its going to dawn on even him that he’s now inside the courtroom, where cries of “fake news” and “witch hunt” are not going to matter one bit. And that base has seen what happens to those who commit crimes on his behalf. They don’t seem too eager to rally to his cause.
I’ve always said that he was on his way to prison the second he won the election. No grifter/criminal with his long and assorted history can withstand the microscope that gets trained on every president and come out clean on the other side. All that’s left is the HOW.
With trump on his way out the prevailing question I now have is how many of the MAGA machine senior management will be dragged down with him?
Rayne thank you for the past information.
BTY changed name to fit new request.
[Thanks for updating your username to meet the 8 letter minimum. /~Rayne]
Regarding the Trumps’ stochastic terrorism, they seem to be cosplaying Capone in “The Untouchables.”
There was a quote from Don Jr in a J6 committee hearing where he referenced “going to the mattresses” (an old Mob catchphrase from the Godfather or similar).
There is Hollywood Mafia movie influences in much of what the Trumps do.
However, the Trumps won’t be aware that all those movies are fan fiction.
I do believe that Trump and at least his sons see themselves and the world from a mafia movie mindset. I still remember being struck by a phrase uttered by Don Jr in the transition period between the 2016 election and Daddy Trump’s Jan 20 inauguration. Referring to the time after his father was to assume his duties as President, Junior said, “When we take power…” At the time I thought that wording reflected his view that the Presidency of the United States of America was an unbelievably valuable asset that was about to be merged into the family business.
In case it’s of interest:
Eric Columbus: “Starting a thread of takes on the @ManhattanDA Trump indictment that are worth reading — pro, anti, and ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Helps me to have them all in one place (in no particular order). Maybe others will also find it useful. …”
https://web.archive.org/web/20230406165607/https://twitter.com/EricColumbus/status/1644000716086820865 (note: the original Twitter thread has already been added to, with a few entries not captured in the IA snapshot)
I find it useful to read different views about this before making up my own mind.
As I pointed out yesterday, NY state allows the prosecution to specify the matter that elevates the misdemeanor to a felony at the time of trial. I understand that is very unusual compared to other states and has brought Bragg criticism from many TV attorneys, most notably in my mind Elie Honig, who became the Derschowitz of CNN ever since the new right wing boss was brought in to shake things up (leading to disastrously low ratings). However, others have said that this is an excellent strategy, given the rules that apply in NY. In particular Ryan Goodman of JustSecurity notes that this allows the prosecution to fall back to their ace-in-the-hole of intent to commit tax fraud.
In the meantime, there will be motions to challenge boot-strapping state or federal election law to elevate this to a felony, the former because the state could be preempted by federal law and the latter because there is no appellate case law on whether the state statute implies a federal crime as qualifying.
So if violation of an election law is barred by motions heard before trial, then the prosecutors will use intent to defraud on tax filings. There is also the possibility that the charge to elevate to a felony is a conspiracy. That’s why the doorman and McDougal payments are so important. AMI entered a false record on its books on behalf of Trump, which meant AMI took a tax deduction for those payments made for the benefit of either the campaign or Trump personally, payments that should have been either on Trump’s personal tax return as income or reported as a campaign contribution. Regardless of how the payments are classified, AMI falsely put it on their books and tax returns as part of the conspiracy.
One final note, if the jury reduces the charges to misdemeanors, there’s still a one year max prison sentence.
Can we assume that’s a one-year max sentence for each count?
No. There will be no incarceration and they certainly would never be stacked.
It’s my understanding is that it’s up to 4 years per count for each NY state class E felony charge here; if they were misdemeanor charges instead of felonies, up to one year would be possible. As mentioned by others, and assuming that Trump is found guilty to one or more of these charges, it’s unlikely that Trump will see jail time if he can convince the judge in the trial that he will be better in future and not do this sort of fraudulent stuff again… :/
Probation is presumptive. Please, everybody, quit yakking about jail or prison. It is talking out of your ass.
In felony cases though, isn’t there some sort of contrition required to receive probation? I don’t know exactly how this works to get probation…I mean, even if it’s your first conviction, during the sentencing hearing the convicted can’t just sit there smirking and claiming they’d do it again given half a chance, correct?
Nope
So sentencing isn’t related to the chance of recidivism then?
Come on, this is a silly discussion. Trump is NEVER going to get one single day off of sentencing on this Bragg nonsense. People need to get a grip.
Crud. Someone already presented that info here. Sorry!
Lol, there is not a chance in hell Bragg will be allowed to hide the ball as to what his crappy indictment is based on until the time of trial. And it is not smart of Bragg to try, it is straight up chickenshit. There is apparently no BS the Just Security crew will not spew to keep their relentless cheerleading alive and in the news. There are going to be a bevy of motions coming, including to dismiss based on insufficiency. The specifics will come out.
And, yet again, conspiracy has not been charged. Talking about “one year max prison sentence” is absolutely nuts. With no historical prior convictions, even convicted on all 34 of Bragg’s bogusly ginned up counts, it is presumptive probation. Trump will never serve one measly day in jail, much less prison. People seriously need to get their heads out of the clouds on this lousy case.
I think the whole discussion of prison sentencing is pretty fanciful, irrespective of whether Bragg can bring felony charges to the jury . The max, as I understand it, is 4 yrs and he’s a first time offender and this is not a violent crime. I’d say the odds of Trump in stripes over this is exceedingly low.
Having said that, I don’t think vindicating values of accountability and the rule of law require jail time but that question seems a valid place to start in assessing whether Bragg did the right thing in bringing this case. In other words, if this case is really a dressed-up series of misdemeanors, under what factual circumstances if any, do you indict a former POTUS for non-felony crimes? Bragg’s press conference hints he believes it is because it is really a scheme to cheat in an election. (which of course raises the question as to why he did not charge a conspiracy if that’s what he intends to prove).
The conspiracy charge may already have been that both Weisselberg and Trump Org were charged with though the indictment is not specific about the hush money scheme. If the conspiracy was about tax fraud, Weisselberg’s serving time for it as the Trump Org’s sin eater.
I get that you are saying maybe the tying crime for felony bump-up is the conspiracy Trump Org and Allan W were convicted of. I guess I am still left wondering why not charge it in this indictment since the statement of facts begins by contextualizing Trump’s behavior as a “scheme”? I don’t practice criminal law so I ask others here: what are the advantages and disadvantages to charging conspiracy if you’ve got the evidence to support it? Are there witness statements or other evidence that becomes admissible if in support of a conspiracy claim that aren’t if only the disparate crimes are charged?
Lol no, conspiracy is absolutely NOT charged in the indictment. Talking about what the conspiracy charge “may be” is absurd, when there is no allegation whatsoever of conspiracy in the indictment. And Bragg’s little self serving “statement of facts” means absolutely nothing. And, no, whatever happened as to the Trump Org case is currently just as irrelevant. Trying to bootstrap Bragg’s garbage into gold is an endeavor even alchemists would shy from.
Care of my friend Scott Greenfield, who has practiced extremely high level criminal defense in NYC for 40 years, knows NY criminal law inside and out, and the judges and courts in Manhattan very well:
And other experienced criminal attys that I talk to in NYC agree. Relying on the “statement of facts” is for amateurs.
Note that exactly none of the criminal law experts I talk to are running around like the dopes at Just Security, former Manhattan ADA’s glomming for exposure, or the like, blathering for TV and radio hits, and trying to cover their asses.
LOL Dude, take a breath. I didn’t say conspiracy was in Bragg’s indictment of Trump. Weisselberg and Trump Org were charged with conspiracy, and I questioned whether the terms of that charge were too narrow to be the underlying crime.
sksksksksks I’m laughing into my tea.
The odds are not low, they are non-existent.
Conceded, which is why I said “exceedingly low”. Point I was trying to make is possibility of incarceration doesn’t seem like the only standard for determining whether to indict.
Oh, no, but what the sentence will be, and what a toll on the court system and prosecutors’ office will be, are very much traditional prosecutorial discretion decisions. Both court and the state have finite resources…is the decision to prosecute a sound use of them? I would, and do, advocate that is not even close here, it is a waste of time and money when far better investigations are afoot.
Dr Bmaz: IANAL and have been trying to piece together your concerns about this indictment.
Tell me if I’ve got this right a) It is a waste of finite resources because there are better investigations ongoing. b) It is therefore a poor prosecutory decision and bringing these charges is more about Bragg’s egotism than it is about justice.
Thanks!
Doug
Oh, and the SOL issue, too.
It was my understanding from bmaz’s post on 4/3 (TRUMP EDITION: WHAT IS AND WHAT SHALL NEVER BE), that bmaz intended to provide a legal analysis of the Trump indictment, after he “really had a chance to digest and analyze it.”
Did I miss this post, or is it still forthcoming? I scrolled through the comments on the OP, and the only thing I saw after the indictment/SOF was made public on 4/4 was his demand for an apology from another commenter.
My apologies if I missed something, but curious if there is another post from bmaz with a legal analysis yet to come. Thanks.
All he needs to do is stop feeding you and you turn on him. Meoww. Phsst! Phsst!
I was only asking when dinner would be served, or if I’d already missed it.
You can put away your can of tuna.
Maybe, I did say I likely would. It is hard to do based on the steaming pile of hollow garbage Bragg rendered though. Hard to explain what it means when nobody even knows what it is based on. Also, pretty tied up writing an appeal right now.
Ok, thanks for letting me know I didn’t miss anything. Good luck with the appellate brief.
Also, who is “Cody”?
Typo has been fixed!
Never mind the last question; I see you’ve already edited your post.
Yeah. I hope the appeal goes well.
I gotta admit that as much as I want to see bmaz’s analysis and breakdown of Bragg’s case, I don’t think it need it right now, or tomorrow, next week, or ……
It seems that there just isn’t enough public information out there for anything more than speculation — and just about every visual or aural media channel is just packed with that crap (Sirius/FM music streaming is getting a lot more use these days).
It’s gonna be a long time before this goes to trial and that’s the time when analysis would be useful. When the opera starts is when I’ll need a libretto in plain English.
Brandi can provide the seat-back subtitles.
The opera has already started though. bmaz certainly has a reason to be upset if the only point of this was for there to be public opera rather than a legitimate criminal trial. May there be more to Bragg’s charges than just public opera.
bmaz – You haven’t commented on Rayne’s hypothesis expressed in this article. What say you? Is it plausible? Or is it just idle thought for dopes?
There is no way to know.
bmaz – I interpret your “There is no way to know” to be the linguistic equivalent of “Yes, maybe.” And if the answer is yes, maybe, then your extreme and rude insistence that the case is total BS is, well, dopey.
Listen, you do not have the experience or knowledge in criminal trial law to interpret squat from me, and your flimsy ass instant comment proves that.
Secondly, jackass, Rayne does not “protect” me. I can take care of myself as to 22 commenter interlopers like you, and everybody else, just fine. Take your “dopey” shit and shove it on down the line.
Leave the resident cholla alone. He’s busy today. He’ll get back to me when he has time.
EDIT — 3:10 PM ET: Let me repeat myself using my Moderator’s Voice: LEAVE THE CHOLLA ALONE.
EDIT — 3:30 PM ET: I don’t care what your rationale is. You’ve been here long enough to know not to poke the cholla. Now you have to deal with me. Don’t you have a job or a hobby?
Rayne – It’s okay with me that you want to protect bmaz by not posting my reply, but I hope he at least got to see it before it was censored. His public approach to this case has been extreme and rude, so I think it appropriate that he be at least privately called on it.[This isn’t me protecting bmaz, it’s me saying STFU and take a seat because you’re not adding anything of value while irritating moderators. You were also warned we weren’t putting up with crap this week. /~Rayne]
[bmaz: There’s a reason this character uses “Curious George” for a username. Don’t let him out of the cage. /~Rayne]
Note that I have deleted a reply to bmaz after reading your post above. Sorry I didn’t see before I started composing.
“Sorry I didn’t see before I started composing”
Missing a ‘t’ in composing, TW?
Just had to say that because that’s what my addled pate read, and what some of our posts seem to be composted of.
When I erased my post I wasn’t composting, I was decomposing!
I am a saguaro dammit!
You are far more prickly than a saguaro. Don’t get hung up on the phallic representation. LMAO
Look at my damn picture, on everything! It is NOT a cholla (though we have a couple), is is a nice friendly and stately saguaro. Okay, it “might” be flipping a bird…..
You are not your landscaping. You do know that, don’t you?
I AM SAGUARO!
I thought you were Batman. sksksksksksks
I’m laughing so hard because the straight lines being lobbed are almost irresistible!
And the Appian Way will be lined with cholla every ten yards from here to Rome.
Ha, I knew that was the finger! Made my Easter, thanks.
Lol, that has been my avatar since, literally, pretty much forever without change. I crack up when people realize that, yes, it is flipping a bird.
And Happy Easter to you as well.
I once had a baby saguaro and gave it to a friend. It was as prickly as a cholla, but far less dangerous to the area.
When we first moved to the desert, my dog took a large bite of cholla while chasing a lizard. That led to a long evening at the emergency vet which I spent picking needles out of my arms and legs. I’m thinking cholla is apt for a criminal defense attorney!
EXACTLY. But his nibs wants to be the shrubbery in his yard.
Bmaz, you are correct that Bragg will not be allowed to go to trial without long before revealing more about the case. Harry Litman in the LA Times says that in NY the defendants can file a motion for a bill of particulars.
In the meantime, the investigation continues and the grand jury can hear more later this month.
Defendants can file a bill of particulars, but the defendant in this case may be tampering with witnesses and obstructing government administration. They may not get their bill when they want it.
Lol, can they?? Have you paid attention to timelines? SOL’s still count at some point, why in the world do you think even Bragg churned out this garbage at the last minute?
“SOL’s still count at some point, why in the world do you think even Bragg churned out this garbage at the last minute?”
Yeah. This. Between his own decision to kill the case last year and Barr’s interference with New York’s previous investigations, Bragg’s probably running way behind. Would it be fair to say that this case hinges, in some aspects, on Bragg’s ability to catch up to where he should be?
Yes, it may well.
I think it’s very possible you are correct, Rayne, that the Trump org crimes, especially the filing of a false personal state returns, could be among the ones Bragg is relying upon. I expect he has a fairly long list of things that will be raised as the reason for the enhancement, not just a single offense.
Really??? Can you point that out in the actual indictment? I’ll be waiting.
So funny to watch you get so activated and angry whenever someone just holds an opinion you disagree with.
bmaz is just a concrete guy. He wants a tire to kick and I don’t blame him. This is a very good thing, (and it keeps the rest of us from eagerly, stupidly awaiting Fitzmas.)
His real weakness is that he doesn’t explain himself very well, even though his instincts are good. I’d be very glad to be his client, but would hate being his student.
And props on banner, riff on the Rene Magritte, The Art of Living? Your artwork has been orangestanding this week!
I whipped this one up some time ago because of the orange color (I guess it’s supposed to be pink but it must be very close to coral in real life). I’d also made a variant in which the floating head was a coronavirus. I imagined this week his head must be ready to pop from frustrated rage like an overfilled balloon. And then the suit — it’s as if Magritte anticipated Trump’s predilection for navy blue suits, white shirts, and red ties. Prescient, that, so hollow and empty.
Meanwhile in related anti-Bragg machinations (this is peripherally OT):
Mr. Jordan, grand poobah of the Pro-Weaponization-of-Government commitee,
has now offically subpoena-ed Mark Pomerantz to have a closed-door depo with them:
https://judiciary.house.gov/media/in-the-news/exclusive-jim-jordan-subpoenas-manhattan-prosecutor-who-resigned-over-suspended
Is he following “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” strategy?
Intimating that “anti-Bragg machinations” are solely the province of people like Jim Jordan is disingenuous. There is at least one, right here, that thinks Bragg is absolute garbage.
You don’t like Bragg, and I’m starting to understand why, but do you really want the MAGAT-led judiciary committee interfering with a legal case in this fashion? (I don’t doubt that Jim Jordan was cheering Ken Star on about Monica Lewinsky’s dress.)
I’ll be satisfied to let Bragg rise or fall on his own merits. If he can’t bring the goods, let him loose his case.
I have other issues with Bragg than just the Trump thing. He ran on a ground changing platform, and has reneged/failed to deliver on almost all of it. That is part of the problem that led to him doing this. But, no, Jim Jordan does not get to have jurisdiction over local prosecutors, it is absurd for him to even attempt.
In a nutshell, this indictment is about a scheme.
The jurors are smart, they know what a scheme is.
In the meantime, Trump’s lawyers and those that think that Bragg is “garbage” will as
Dahlia Lithwick says, referring to Judge Thomas’s ethics, “torture the English language beyond all recognition.” with motions and lawyering bullshit.
By the way, thanks to ProPublica for excellent investigative work.
I read an interesting article today at Daily Kos. The author noted that most of the media has discussed what the Trump case looks like from the POV of the prosecution, and what Bragg’s obstacles might be. But this Kos article looked at things from the standpoint of the defense, and noted that Trump would be a horrible disaster on the stand if his lawyers allow him to testify, and that the record shows him to be utterly inconsistent in how he answers the same question from one occasion to another. They also noted that the record of the Trump Org’s falsification of business records is very difficult to impeach, as there is clear documentary evidence.
I’d note in addition to what the Kos article says, that Trump is not just a disaster as a client on the witness stand. He’s a disaster in general. He’s likely to give his lawyers poor instructions and insist that they be followed, and he’ll probably insist on taking the stand, because the guy can’t resist an opportunity to bloviate.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/4/6/2162594/-People-v-Trump-is-a-slam-dunk
bmaz has diligently pointed out the weaknesses with both Bragg and Bragg’s case, so I’d disagree with the author at Kos’s insistence that the case is a “slam dunk,” but Trump’s lawyers have a huge hill of their own to climb. I’m curious whether any of the legal minds here have some additional perspective on how this case looks from the defense’s side of the table?
I would be interested in what motions we might expect from the defense counsel and when. We know that Trump’s strategy is often to delay. And, in this case, delay might be good for Trump to highlight how aggrieved he is for as long as possible. But delay might not be in his best interest.
In general, there are two perspectives on court proceedings and delay. If one sides wants something like money in a civil suit or aquittal in a criminal suit, then delay isn’t the tactic of choice. Delay works only for those who (expect to) have to pay, be it money or restitution or punishment for a crime.
But I agree with you, Rita, that the wish to appear aggrieved may be a motive that doesn’t fit the general perspective.
Seems like he was able to assert his 5th amendment right in a criminal investigation without cracking time and time again; here’s a video of him doing it over 400 times in a recent NY state deposition…he doesn’t appear to falter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK3JBfTefa0
I submit to you that Trump became US President and also has not been criminally indicted before because he’s better at doing this stuff than most other grifters subjected to this much scrutiny…
Maybe the new evidence has something to do with Whitley Penn. Some excerpts from the article:
“New Trump Accountants Are Withholding Records, New York AG Says” – Chris Dolmetsch, 3/21/23
“She [Letitia James] told the court the subpoenas were served under laws Whitley Penn had agreed to in applying for registrations and licenses in New York.”
“Furthermore, the accountant-client privilege Whitley Penn has raised is not recognized in New York, was waived when defendants produced over 5,600 communications between the Trump Organization and Whitley Penn, and may be obviated by an order of this court in any event,” James argued.
A Whitley Penn spokeswoman didn’t immediately return a call seeking comment on the filing.”
“James sued Trump, his company and three of his children in September for allegedly inflating the value of his real estate company’s assets, the culmination of a years-long probe. She had joined forces in her investigation with the Manhattan district attorney’s office, which recently convened a grand jury examining hush money payments made to porn star Stormy Daniels during Trump’s 2016 presidential run.”
…..
“Mazars compiled “statements of financial condition” for the former president from 2004 to 2020. Whitley Penn handled the compilation for Trump’s 2021 financial statement, James’s office said last year.”
https://news.yahoo.com/trump-accountants-withholding-records-york-151844015.html
Huh. That could well have been a bump in the road. I admit to not knowing there was accountant-client privilege anywhere.
Can you imagine how many cases like Enron’s implosion or Worldcom’s collapse couldn’t have been touched by the feds because of such a privilege?
Kovarsky now has a Lawfare column elaborating his argument: https://www.lawfareblog.com/preemption-and-known-unknowns-trump-indictment
Lol. Yet another fucking “law prawf” has weighed in to carp at another law prawf. Who gives a shit?
Presumably Rayne does, since she addressed Kovarsky’s tweeted argument in her column.
I do as well. As I said elsewhere, I find it useful to read different views about this before making up my own mind. It’s part of learning.
Yeah, thanks. I read a lot and do so just fine. Try learning without law prawfs that are self promoting. Have you EVER, once, cited a pure criminal defense expert here? But, sure, keep citing Just Security and law prawfs like Kovarsky and acting like you made a real argument.
It’s your opinion (not a fact) that he’s “self promoting.” I see no reason to think that. And I was talking about my own learning, not yours.
I wasn’t “acting like [I] made a real argument,” simply noting that Kovarsky now had a Lawfare column elaborating his argument, and I noted it because Rayne had referenced / linked to Kovarsky’s briefer tweeted argument in her column. I have my weaknesses, but confusing a simple link with an argument isn’t one of them.
If his argument doesn’t interest you, fine.
Thank for your continued support.
I thought there was some bourbon with your name on it.
Who cares? Certainly not the court system that this trial is now fomenting in. However, some of us struggling to understand what is going on are interested in some of this analysis by various legal blogs and pundits, etc. It’s good to look at multiple sources of opinion before forming one’s own…especially when one hasn’t heard it all before. That having been said, I certainly agree that the adage “we shall see what we shall see” is ultra-apt at this early point in Bragg’s initial indictment drop.
In case you missed it, this gives several things to consider:
“Just wait: Legal experts say critics of Bragg’s case are forgetting about Weisselberg”
https://youtu.be/OgPIM6DqC04
Eh, nobody has “forgotten about Weisselberg”. What a load of shit.
Quote today from Daily Kos poster “ShowerCap.”
I write tonight’s post from the roof of my apartment building, awaiting FEMA rescue in the aftermath of the deluge of think pieces n’ hot takes about the strength of Alvin Bragg’s case. Feeling good about my decision to gouge my eyes out to spare myself further punditry. Please send beer.
Yep. After four days of this I’ve gotten there too!