Active Now

Slartibartfast
Discussion » Questions » Current Events and News » What specific felony law did Trump violate?

What specific felony law did Trump violate?

What law was used to upgrade the misdeanor  business records into a felony? 
How do you use it to upgrade to a felony yet not tell the defendant what crime he/she is being accused of committing?

Posted - April 4, 2023

Responses


  • 13249
    Thank you. I am well aware of my options.
      April 8, 2023 11:19 AM MDT
    2

  • 2539
    More than one of us has answered your question - more than once.  You just don't want to accept the answer.
      April 7, 2023 7:49 PM MDT
    3

  • 32359
    No you have not.....Bragg did not list in the indictment nor answer media questions as to the specific law, the misdeanor bookkeeping offense was supposed to be covering up. This post was edited by my2cents at April 8, 2023 5:52 AM MDT
      April 8, 2023 5:44 AM MDT
    0

  • 2539
    From the Statement of Facts in the indictment:

    "1. The defendant DONALD J. TRUMP repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal criminal conduct that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election.

    2. From August 2015 to December 2017, the Defendant orchestrated a scheme with others to influence the 2016 presidential election by identifying and purchasing negative information about him to suppress its publication and benefit the Defendant’s electoral prospects. In order to execute the unlawful scheme, the participants violated election laws and made and caused false entries in the business records of various entities in New York. The participants also took steps that mischaracterized, for tax purposes, the true nature of the payments made in furtherance of the scheme.

    3. One component of this scheme was that, at the Defendant’s request, a lawyer who then worked for the Trump Organization as Special Counsel to Defendant (“Lawyer A”), covertly paid $130,000 to an adult film actress shortly before the election to prevent her from publicizing a sexual encounter with the Defendant. Lawyer A made the $130,000 payment through a shell corporation he set up and funded at a bank in Manhattan. This payment was illegal, and Lawyer A has since pleaded guilty to making an illegal campaign contribution and 2 served time in prison. Further, false entries were made in New York business records to effectuate this payment, separate and apart from the New York business records used to conceal the payment.

    4. After the election, the Defendant reimbursed Lawyer A for the illegal payment through a series of monthly checks, first from the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust (the “Defendant’s Trust”)—a Trust created under the laws of New York which held the Trump Organization entity assets after the Defendant was elected President—and then from the Defendant’s bank account. Each check was processed by the Trump Organization, and each check was disguised as a payment for legal services rendered in a given month of 2017 pursuant to a retainer agreement. The payment records, kept and maintained by the Trump Organization, were false New York business records. In truth, there was no retainer agreement, and Lawyer A was not being paid for legal services rendered in 2017. The Defendant caused his entities’ business records to be falsified to disguise his and others’ criminal conduct."
      April 8, 2023 7:25 AM MDT
    2

  • 32359
    Thank you....so as I said from the start Bragg is not specifying what NY law(s) he is claiming were violated. It 
    should have been required because it is being used to elevate the misdeanor to a felony. The misdeanor is the only laws specified in the indictment.  
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
      April 8, 2023 2:52 PM MDT
    0

  • 2539
    "The indictment doesn't specify it because the law does not so require," 

    What part of that do you not understand.  Bragg is not required to set forth proof in the indictment.
      April 8, 2023 3:27 PM MDT
    0

  • 32359
    Bragg claims it is not required. An indictment is supposed to specifically state what a defendant is being accused of....that should mean naming what laws specifically are involved.  

    If it is not, it should be required....
     
     
    This post was edited by my2cents at April 8, 2023 3:46 PM MDT
      April 8, 2023 3:37 PM MDT
    0

  • 5455
    I’m going to try to take a stab at this.  The best answer I could find is from ABC’s website.

    The part of the story that should answer your question is this:

    In the Trump indictment, Bragg didn't specify the underlying law Trump attempted to break when he allegedly falsified business records.
     
    "The indictment doesn't specify it because the law does not so require," Bragg said at a press conference on Tuesday, later mentioning possible secondary crimes that include illegal promotion of a political campaign and an attempt to make false claims on tax forms.

    The defense will likely attempt to force Bragg to specify which underlying crime Trump attempted to commit, while Bragg will try to keep the interpretation open-ended, so the jury merely has to find Trump attempted to commit a crime rather than any specific one, Galluzo said.

    "The statute itself seems to suggest you just have to prove he was trying to break a law," Galluzo said. "Defense attorneys will say, 'Well, you have to tell us what law and prove that law specifically.'"

    "Prosecutors will try to keep it vague and flexible so the jury can say maybe it was this or maybe it was that, but it's got to be one of them," he added.

    my source: https://abcnews.go.com/US/donald-trump-indictment-falsifying-business-records/story?id=98377002

    You don’t know what the underlying felony is (or felonies were) because DA Alvin Bragg chose not to release that information. This post was edited by Livvie at April 8, 2023 1:55 PM MDT
      April 7, 2023 8:14 PM MDT
    3

  • 32359
    Thank you. So as I have been stating Bragg does not specify what law was broken or was intented to be broken, aside from the normally misdeanor "falsification of business records". 
     
    Personally, I do not see how a crime is allowed to be elevated to a felony from a misdeanor without specifying exactly which law the misdeanor was attempting to cover. It should have been required to list in the indictment. 
    This post was edited by my2cents at April 8, 2023 6:24 AM MDT
      April 8, 2023 5:41 AM MDT
    0

  • 32359
    "illegal promotion of a political campaign"....what is that? See this is why he should be required to specify what law he is talking about.
      April 8, 2023 5:47 AM MDT
    0

  • 2539
    § 17–152. Conspiracy to promote or prevent election
    Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
    (L.1976, c. 233, § 1.)

    § 17–166. Penalty
    Any person convicted of a misdemeanor under this article shall for a first offense be punished by 
    imprisonment for not more than one year, or by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars nor more than
    five hundred dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Any person who, having been convicted of a 
    misdemeanor under this article, shall thereafter be convicted of another misdemeanor under this article, 
    shall be guilty of a felony.
    (L.1976, c. 233, § 1.)

    It would appear that two people were paid to keep their mouths shut.  Should Trump be convicted of one such charge it would be a misdemeanor.  I he is convicted of both, it becomes a felony.
      April 8, 2023 7:55 AM MDT
    1

  • 32359
    So should we arrest all of the intelligence officials who claimed the Hunter Biden labtop story was Russian disinformation? That most certainly affected an election.  
      April 8, 2023 3:15 PM MDT
    0

  • 2539
    Stay on topic.  We aren't discussing Hunter Biden, but nice attempt to divert.
      April 8, 2023 3:25 PM MDT
    0

  • 32359
    Lol. Same thing.  Different election.  And this one would not have statute of limitations issues.....
      April 8, 2023 3:47 PM MDT
    0

  • 9675
    Not the same thing, no campaign contribution was involved.  It's more like when James Comey made a comment that cost Hillary Clinton the election. LOL
      April 8, 2023 6:52 PM MDT
    0

  • 32359
    Twitter banning the actual article and deleting any tweet that linked to or even mentioned the story of Hunter's labtop is easily considered and in kind campaign contribution to Joe Biden? Just same thing as Mr Pecker doing a "catch and kill" on the McDugal story.  
     
    Oh, yes Comey absolutely hurt Hillary right before the election.  
     
     
    Arrest them all. Or 
    are the all (D)ifferent? 
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
      April 8, 2023 8:16 PM MDT
    0

  • 9675
    LOL
      April 8, 2023 8:26 PM MDT
    0