Trump's Rump

[Gori the Grey]

I'm not sure where the line might be where it bumps up against obstruction of justice or perjury.

It's a good thing we have a whole judicial system for sorting out such matters.

Edit: By the way, can I use this as the venue for just venting on one particular matter. The grand jury system that Trump is maligning right now exists precisely to protect the potentially accused from overzealous prosecution and ungrounded cases. I listen in vain for the commentators on MSNBC to make this point. I served on a grand jury, and it took me a while to figure this out, since on TV all I'd seen is trial juries. The standard of evidence is lower and you only need a majority rather than a unanimous verdict. So we approved everything (except one charge in one case). For a while I wondered, what the hell are we doing then? Until I realized, "oh, knowing this step is in place, prosecutors only bring cases in the first place that have some likelihood of succeeding at the trial stage." So it's a protection against someone in law enforcement just choosing to use the judicial process to harass some random citizen. It's a massively costly system, in terms of citizens' time, prosecutors' time and resources. But it's a further level of benefit that we as a society (some states anyway) afford the accused, even the pre-accused. If charges are brought, Trump will get his day in court, like any other defendant. Let him have his day in court. I will abide by the decision of the jury in his trial (even though I know a single Trumper on the jury could make for a hung jury). But on top of that he's getting this second "day in court," designed precisely to benefit him (and all other potential defendants), designed precisely to prevent Bragg from conducting a political witch hunt. I wish one of the talking heads would say this, emphatically. Not that it would shut Trump up, of course; he's life's little victim and everything is unfair to him. But the man is a walking civics lesson. I really bothered to pay attention to the "emoluments clause" only on his election. A ton of stuff we have in our judicial system, he casts into relief (by flouting it). I think we have grounds for celebrating our judicial system. It's not perfect; I'm not claiming that. But it's on the whole massively designed to benefit the accused, Trump's whining notwithstanding.

Thank you for letting me get that off my chest.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Cohen was Trump's mob lawyer for years. He paid Stormy Daniels to kill her story. Cohen's work for Trump always had a "bad look." IIRC in his court case Cohen took a plea deal. He did not testify in court. No perjury. He did testify under oath before Congress.

false testimony to congress does not carry perjury? my bad if that's the case. he will still have to contradict himself to testify against trump now

it's unclear what's alleged is even a crime for this one, in contrast to other allegations against trump which are unambiguously crimes if true

Cohen got nailed because the $100,000+ was classified as a campaign contribution and it was wayyyy over the limit an individual can make.

i don't think there's a limit to contributing to your own campaign

I believe the answer is that hush money is illegal when it is used to cover up another crime.

affair is scummy behavior and people who have them lose my respect, but for better or worse it's not a crime. i wouldn't mind seeing breach of contract enforcement on affairs more broadly though, if we're going to continue to give the state overwhelming interest in marriages. right now the state only treats them as a contract kinda sorta sometimes and only for some breaches, with some ridiculous interactions.

 

[Gori the Grey]

for better or worse it's not a crime

It is actually. Adultery is a felony in New York.

They won't try him on it. And shouldn't, because it would be selective prosecution in the extreme.

But it's one of the amusing little tidbits that has come out of this whole sordid mess.

 

[Remorseless1]

false testimony to congress does not carry perjury? my bad if that's the case. he will still have to contradict himself to testify against trump now

it's unclear what's alleged is even a crime for this one, in contrast to other allegations against trump which are unambiguously crimes if true


i don't think there's a limit to contributing to your own campaign


affair is scummy behavior and people who have them lose my respect, but for better or worse it's not a crime. i wouldn't mind seeing breach of contract enforcement on affairs more broadly though, if we're going to continue to give the state overwhelming interest in marriages. right now the state only treats them as a contract kinda sorta sometimes and only for some breaches, with some ridiculous interactions.

The Republicans impeached Clinton for lying about getting a BJ from not his wife during a civil deposition in Arkansas.

Karma, eh GOP?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The Republicans impeached Clinton for lying about getting a BJ from not his wife during a civil deposition in Arkansas.

plenty of impeachments to go around, haha

though trump wasn't president during alleged incident, and isn't now, so the dynamic is different.

It is actually. Adultery is a felony in New York.

wow, interesting. i never hear about this being enforced, and it happens in a non-trivial % of marriages.

 

[Remorseless1]

plenty of impeachments to go around, haha

though trump wasn't president during alleged incident, and isn't now, so the dynamic is different.


wow, interesting. i never hear about this being enforced, and it happens in a non-trivial % of marriages.

Yes, I agree, the dynamic is absolutely different. Clinton was just trying to get his rocks off. Trump wants to tear up the Constitution (he said so recently) in order to remain in power. Yep, quite different.

 

[Birdjaguar]

false testimony to congress does not carry perjury? my bad if that's the case. he will still have to contradict himself to testify against trump now

it's unclear what's alleged is even a crime for this one, in contrast to other allegations against trump which are unambiguously crimes if true

Which part of Cohen's testimony before the House was false? You keep saying he lied but don't produce any of his false statements of the circumstances about when he said them.

As for Trump's crimes, we won't know the charges until they happen. That is what indictments are for; they lay out the charges precisely. Patience grasshopper.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

As for Trump's crimes, we won't know the charges until they happen. That is what indictments are for; they lay out the charges precisely. Patience grasshopper.

presumes crime at all

it's not clear what they can be in this case, in contrast to others which are a factual dispute.

 

[Birdjaguar]

presumes crime at all

it's not clear what they can be in this case, in contrast to others which are a factual dispute.

That is the way our justice system works, Something happens, it is investigated and the prosecutors get to decide what charges, if any, to bring against those suspected. Once we see the indictments, we will know. ATM we are all just guessing.

 

[Kaitzilla]

i don't think there's a limit to contributing to your own campaign

That is a very interesting angle that I had not thought of.

I looked around again for what exactly Cohen did and found this.

Michael Cohen Pleads Guilty In Manhattan Federal Court To Eight Counts, Including Criminal Tax Evasion And Campaign Finance Violations

www.justice.gov

It is basically an executive summary of all 8 charges Cohen pled guilty to, with 5 being tax evasion of $1.3 million on $4 million of income.

The other 3 charges were related to the hush money.


I then looked up the rules from the FEC and found this.

Using the personal funds of the candidate - FEC.gov

Federal Election Commission rules defining the personal funds of a candidate. Learn how the candidate may spend, contribute or loan unlimited personal funds to the candidate's campaign for federal office, and how this is reported.

www.fec.gov

What are not considered personal funds

Personal gifts and loans

If any person, including a relative or friend of the candidate, gives or loans the candidate money "for the purpose of influencing any election for federal office," the funds are not considered personal funds of the candidate even if they are given to the candidate directly.

Instead, the gift or loan is considered a contribution from the donor to the campaign, subject to the per-election limit and reportable by the campaign.

I'm not sure what jailable thing Trump did in this saga.

 

[Birdjaguar]

If the payments were used to impact the election, then they were campaign contributions. And, if they were not reported as such then he was in violation of FEC rules.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

That is the way our justice system works, Something happens, it is investigated and the prosecutors get to decide what charges, if any, to bring against those suspected. Once we see the indictments, we will know. ATM we are all just guessing.

true. but it's a lot easier to guess when the alleged fact pattern is something like "this guy has documents he shouldn't" or "this guy assaulted someone".

If the payments were used to impact the election, then they were campaign contributions. And, if they were not reported as such then he was in violation of FEC rules.

was the money actually cohen's, or did trump have legal right to the money in question? from earlier article linked:

Cohen has implicated Trump in his campaign finance crimes by saying that Trump told him to orchestrate the hush payments. But prosecutors are going to have to prove more than that to make a criminal case against Trump, according to Ryan.

One, they have to establish that the purpose of the payments was political and not personal (in other words, that they were made to help Trump in the election, not, for example, to keep his wife from finding out about his alleged affairs). And two, they have to prove that Trump directed the payments and was personally liable.

The checks, which Trump signed while he was president, prove that Trump at some point figured out about Cohen’s hush payments and agreed to pay him back. (There’s an alternative some Trump defenders use, saying he just thought he was making retainer payments, but as mentioned, federal prosecutors don’t believe that.) But they’re not proof Trump knew about the original campaign finance violation.

if trump is directing payment and trump is cutting the checks to reimburse the payment, how is this not de facto trump paying for it himself?

however, if trump was not involved in the negotiations initially, and only cut the check later after being filled in on the details, then he would not be implicated in the finance violation because it was done without his knowledge.

this seems like a bizarre thing to go after him for, both from a political tactics point of view, but also just from a legal standpoint.

 

[Gori the Grey]

this seems like a bizarre thing to go after him for, both from a political tactics point of view, but also just from a legal standpoint.

Actually, on TV last night, someone said that such cases are the "bread and butter" of the Manhattan DA's office. They brought 122 such cases last year.

The starting misdemeanor, I mean, falsifying business records. Obviously no others of those had as the crime they were covering up campaign finance violations. But they had some second crime they were covering up, and that's what makes them a felony. The person's point was that this is precisely how that officce routinely keeps the rich and powerful in check.

 

[Kaitzilla]

Whoa, one of the former prosecutors on this thing wrote a tell all book

Mark Pomerantz Publicly Quit a Trump Investigation. Now He's Written a Tell-All

The former prosecutor wrote a Grisham-esque score-settling tome, called 'People vs. Donald Trump: An Inside Account.'

time.com

Around Washington and in political salons, a favorite guessing game is about what threads of evidence are known to which prosecutors and when—if ever—someone will hold ex-President Donald Trump to account for any number of alleged crimes. We went through it with Robert Mueller’s investigation and two-volume report—and a tell-all book about it, of course, when it was over—which whetted D.C.’s appetite for everyone to suddenly act like they were stars of a Beltway version of the Law & Order franchise.

The latest entry is from Mark Pomerantz, who did what a columnist at The Washington Post put so perfectly as “litigate and tell.” And the veteran lawyer did so with an eruption that caught his former colleagues off guard, likely complicated the case he was ostensibly chasing before a very public resignation, and perhaps gave his swan-song case’s target—former President Donald Trump—an unexpected if ad hominem defense. His incendiary device: a Grisham-esque score-settling tome bound together as People vs. Donald Trump: An Inside Account, which came out Tuesday.

He might get disbarred as a lawyer over it.
Hmm.

Opinion: Former Manhattan prosecutor has given Trump a gift

When it comes to the unfortunate fight between former prosecutor Mark Pomerantz and Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, the outcome is now clear. Pomerantz is the loser. And former President Donald Trump is the likely winner, writes Jennifer Rodgers.

www.cnn.com

In any case, Pomerantz has done something worse than being overly aggressive in pushing for charges in internal meetings. Because, putting aside rank corruption or extreme incompetence — which absolutely no one alleges here — a prosecutor should never, ever, disclose anything about a pending investigation that could jeopardize that investigation. Pomerantz's actions have led to the disclosure of significant information about the DA's investigation, the evidence it gathered, the charges under consideration, the legal theories that some prosecutors favored, and the sometimes contradictory views of all of those things among different lawyers within the office. Pomerantz has also criticized the office's lawyers and questioned their legal abilities.

Legal experts have opined that Pomerantz's statements about the investigation may have violated his duty of confidentiality, his obligations under the legal ethics code and potentially even the criminal grand jury secrecy rules. (Pomerantz said in a statement, "I am confident that all of my actions with respect to the Trump investigation, including the writing of my forthcoming book, are consistent with my legal and ethical obligations.")

Right.

Prosecutors should never release a tell all book when the investigation is still going.

It has to be after the whole thing is over.

 

[Gori the Grey]

He quit in a huff b/c he didn't think Bragg was pursuing the case. Now, he's going to make trouble for Bragg prosecuting the case.

By the way, my prediction is that there will be more to the case, if Bragg brings one, than we're talking about now. And it's for the reason mentioned here. Originally Bragg passed on this case, then he picked it back up again. He did so after the prosecution of Weiselberg. I suspect that the Weiselberg case provided either extra evidence in this case against Trump or extra egregious offenses, that we'll hear about once the charges come down.

 

[Kaitzilla]

Jeebus, Trump posted a pic of himself holding a baseball bat next to an image of DA Bragg with his hands up.

Trump posts disturbing baseball bat photo with Alvin Bragg, threatens ‘death and destruction’

Trump suggested “only a degenerate psychopath that truely [sic] hates the USA!” would consider charging him.

nypost.com

Also posted in another comment on Truth Social.

What kind of person can charge another person, in this case a former President of the United States, who got more votes than any sitting President in history, and leading candidate (by far!) for the Republican Party nomination, with a Crime, when it is known by all that NO Crime has been committed, & also known that potential death & destruction in such a false charge could be catastrophic for our Country? Why & who would do such a thing? Only a degenerate psychopath that truely hates the USA!

Death and Destruction?


Anyway, some nutjob has now mailed white powder to DA Bragg. (It was mailed on Tuesday?)

Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg gets death threat with powder after Trump warns of probe-related violence

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is leading a criminal probe of Donald Trump over a 2016 hush money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels.

www.cnbc.com

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg was threatened with assassination in a letter containing powder, hours after former President Donald Trump warned Friday of “potential death & destruction” if he is indicted by a grand jury in a criminal case led by Bragg.

“ALVIN: I AM GOING TO KILL YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!”″ said the typewritten note in a letter contained in an envelope addressed to Bragg, WNBC reported, citing law enforcement sources.

The letter, containing an Orlando, Florida, postmark from Tuesday, was found in the DA’s mail room in a lower Manhattan building after being received at 11:40 a.m. ET on Friday. The white powder in the envelope was found to be non-hazardous, the New York Police Department told CNBC.

A DA spokeswoman said, “The D.A. has informed the office that it was immediately contained and that the NYPD Emergency Service Unit and the NYC Department of Environmental Protection determined there was no dangerous substance.”

The death threat is that the powder could have been anthrax, even though it turned out to be harmless.

2001 anthrax attacks - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[danjuno]

These people will only get bolder until they are stopped or they destroy liberal democracy in the US.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Death and Destruction?


Anyway, some nutjob has now mailed white powder to DA Bragg. (It was mailed on Tuesday?)

I appreciated how the chyron was handled on some MSNBC shows last night: Death threat to Bragg while Trump calls for "Death."

Nicely pointed out that what Trump is doing is stochastic terrorism and that it's operating exactly as designed.

I wonder if any other citizen of the US could make only-barely-veiled threats against public officials on social media and get away with it, without the FBI giving them a little visit.

 

[JollyRoger]

Not yet. Trump lied about that. He has a rally in Waco in Saturday and good ole JR has reserved a spot. Still undecided on whether to attend so I can get in some trolling.

Not my photo, but I did sneak in a pair of one of the prohibited items:

 

[Sommerswerd]

I wonder if

No you don't