NY - Ex-President Donald Trump, charged with 34 criminal counts of falsifying business records, Apr 2023, Trial 25 Mar 2024 #2

[Auntie Cipation]

Well, did all of the events occur in the same time period? Perhaps they did. I dont really know. I don't follow any of this except what I occasionally see here.

Some of these cases have been in the works for years. I think the one involving Mary Trump might even be over and done with, unless there are appeals or something more than I'm aware of.

The ones relating to things he did while in office are of course compressed into the timespan of those four years, with some of them only able to move forward once he was out of office, and others only once specific information became available such as his taxes or the Trump Org. financial information.

At the same time, some cases take only months to be ready for trial while others take years even with a cooperative subject which of course he isn't.

I think there is some small element of coincidence with so many of these cases becoming "ripe" now, but for the most part I don't think it's coincidence but rather it simply being a sufficient length of time since he left office and cases could move forward with gathering their information. Plus somewhat of a snowball effect of one thing leading to another, one case providing impetus or information needed for another case to appear or move forward.

I know that if I had been groped/assaulted by him and had been too intimidated to speak up earlier, about now is when I would have the courage to do so. I won't be surprised if there are more of those kinds of charges coming out of the woodwork in that manner -- and all at once, since the new lookback law that permits charges for incidents past their statute of limitations is only good for one year from when it passed, as I understand it.

MOO

 

[MyBelle]

Some of these cases have been in the works for years. I think the one involving Mary Trump might even be over and done with, unless there are appeals or something more than I'm aware of.

The ones relating to things he did while in office are of course compressed into the timespan of those four years, with some of them only able to move forward once he was out of office, ic information became available such as his taxes or the Trump Org. financial information. and others only once specif

At the same time, some cases take only months to be ready for trial while others take years even with a cooperative subject which of course he isn't.

I think there is some small element of coincidence with so many of these cases becoming "ripe" now, but for the most part I don't think it's coincidence but rather it simply being a sufficient length of time since he left office and cases could move forward with gathering their information. Plus somewhat of a snowball effect of one thing leading to another, one case providing impetus or information needed for another case to appear or move forward.

I know that if I had been groped/assaulted by him and had been too intimidated to speak up earlier, about now is when I would have the courage to do so. I won't be surprised if there are more of those kinds of charges coming out of the woodwork in that manner -- and all at once, since the new lookback law that permits charges for incidents past their statute of limitations is only good for one year from when it passed, as I understand it.

MOO

BBM. I think the SCOTUS order to release his taxes in Dec. 2022 is the trigger for quite a few of these cases.

 

[Sillybilly]

ADMIN NOTE:

This thread is dedicated to discussion of the various counts of falsifying business records.

This thread is not a catch-all for discussion about racism, Fox News, Tucker Carlson, E. Jean Carrol, or how many reporters were or were not on Trump's plane.

Please stay on topic.

 

[JerseyGirl]

Hearing for Trump criminal case set for Thursday

Hearing for Trump criminal case set for Thursday news - The Black Chronicle alvin bragg, Black Americans, black news, blackchronicle, Case, crime, Criminal, Donald Trump, Hearing, Manhattan, New York City, News, Oklahoma, oklahomanews, Set, Thursday, Trump, USA oklahoma news

blackchronicle.com

Former President Donald Trump’s criminal case in Manhattan will have its second public hearing Thursday morning when a judge considers arguments over whether he should limit what Trump can say publicly about the evidence against him.

Trump will not be in attendance at the hearing, the first in his criminal case since his April 4 arraignment.

At that hearing, a Manhattan prosecutor said the two sides were “very close to agreement” on a protective order that would have barred Trump from discussing or posting on social media about evidence received as part of discovery in the case.

Those discussions have since stalled, and on April 24, a prosecutor for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg requested that Judge Juan Merchan implement the protective order without the defense team’s approval. The order would prevent Trump from making copies of discovery material and would require prosecutors’ consent before Trump could view forensic images of witnesses’ phones.

Trump’s attorneys said in a filing Monday that the prosecutor’s request “would be an unprecedented and extraordinarily broad muzzle on a leading contender for the presidency of the United States.”

Merchan said during the April 4 arraignment that Trump’s candidacy was a factor that he’d weigh before considering a gag order in the case.

Trump’s attorney asked in their filing that any limitations ordered by Merchan also be imposed on prosecutors. They accused Bragg of revealing information from sealed grand jury proceedings during a press conference on April 4, and in a “statement of facts” released by his office that day.

Asked to comment, a spokesperson for Bragg pointed CBS News to his office’s April 24 protective order filing. A prosecutor for the office highlighted in the filing disparaging posts Trump made about Cohen —his former attorney who is a key witness in the case— and others involved in the investigation, as cause for requesting the order.

It is unclear if Merchan will issue a decision on the issue Thursday.

 

[Niner]

I shall shorten this up a bit...

Thursday, May 4th:
*Hearing (@ am ET) – NY - Donald John Trump: Indicted (3/30/23), formally arrested, charged & arraigned (4/4/23) with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the 1st degree & conspiracy in connection with hush money payments to two women before the 2016 presidential election. Plead not guilty.
Trump’s lawyers are Susan R. Necheles, Joseph Tacopina, Chad Seigel, Alan Garten & Todd Blanche. 4/3/23: Trump adds new attorneys to legal team: Hallie Jackson, Vaughn Hillyard & Adam Reiss.
The counts cover 34 separate instances of a false business entry or record. Some refer to false entries into business ledgers. Others refer to false invoices or checks. All 34 counts against Trump are felony charges (class E) instead of misdemeanors.
Investigation & arraignment info from 3/30/23 thru 4/3/23 reference post #670 here:
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/t...ying-business-records-mar-2023.672462/page-34
4/3/23: Prosecutors are still interested in Allen Weisselberg’s insider knowledge about the hush-money arrangements. The 75-year-old ex-CFO is due to be released from a five-month jail sentence on 4/19/23. There’s no indication that he’s keen to cooperate against his former boss.
4/4/23 Update: Arraignment hearing. Plead not guilty to the 34 counts. Judge warns Trump to refrain from social media posts that could foment unrest, after messages critical of prosecutor. Next in-person hearing on 12/4/23. At the December in-person court appearance, New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan told Trump & his lawyers that they have an Aug. 8 deadline to file motions. These could include a motion to dismiss the case or a request for it to be heard in front of a different judge. The state government then has until Sept. 19 to file responses to the motions. Judge Merchan will decide on expected motions to dismiss the case. The counts cover 34 separate instances of a false business entry or record. Some refer to false entries into business ledgers. Others refer to false invoices or checks. All 34 counts against Trump are felony charges (class E) instead of misdemeanors. See link of indictment here:
https://www.manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-Indictment.pdf
4/6/23 Update: The House GOP on Thursday fired off its first subpoena in its investigation of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office, escalating a standoff over the indictment of former President Trump. House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) is summoning Mark Pomerantz, a former county special assistant district attorney, to appear behind closed doors for a deposition on 4/20/23. Bragg’s office issued a fiery rebuke of the subpoena, painting it as House Republicans’ latest attempt to meddle by “intruding on the sovereignty of the state of New York by interfering in an ongoing criminal matter in state court.”
4/17/23 Update: Prosecutors in New York City on Monday asked the judge overseeing the criminal case against Trump to seek additional information from one of Trump's attorneys who they believe may have a potential conflict of interest in the case. "[T]he People request that the Court make certain additional inquiries of Mr. Tacopina & conduct a Gomberg inquiry of the defendant," executive assistant district attorney Susan Hoffinger wrote in a letter to the court, referring to a hearing that would establish that Trump knowingly opts to continue with Tacopina as his attorney notwithstanding any conflict. Trump affirmed at his arraignment he wanted to move forward with Tacopina on his legal team, but Hoffinger said a full hearing would be needed. She has asked the judge order Tacopina to turn over any records of his firm's communications with Daniels & to disclose the extent to which he may have shared any information from Daniels with Trump. The potential conflict was raised by Daniels' current attorney, Clark Brewster, who said in a letter to the Manhattan district attorney's office that Daniels had a 2018 conversation with Tacopina & attorneys at his firm about them potentially representing her. Tacopina has said he never spoke to Daniels & he told the judge his firm refused to represent her.
4/26/23 Update: The Manhattan District Attorney’s office filed a motion this week requesting a judge restrict Trump’s access to documents in the criminal case against him, arguing he could misuse those documents or endanger court personnel, following his historic indictment earlier this month. Manhattan Assistant District Attorney Catherine McCraw asked a judge to impose a protective order barring Trump’s team from posting any discovery materials on social media or using evidence for anything other than Trump’s criminal defense. McCraw also argued Trump should only be allowed to view evidence while accompanied by his lawyers. McCraw also argued there is a “substantial” risk of Trump misusing the materials—following the discovery of classified White House documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate.
4/28/23 Update: Judge will examine if Joe Tacopina, Trump's criminal defense attorney, is conflicted out of the Manhattan DA's hush-money case, ordering the attorney to turn over records related to his past interactions with Stormy Daniels.
5/3/23 Update: rump’s criminal case in Manhattan will have its second public hearing Thursday morning, 5/4/23 when a judge considers arguments over whether he should limit what Trump can say publicly about the evidence against him. Trump will not be in attendance at the hearing.

 

[JerseyGirl]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/politics/trump-bragg-hearing/index.html

A New York judge will hear arguments Thursday over a proposed protective order in Donald Trump's criminal case that would limit the former president's ability to publicize information about the investigation.

Trump will not be in attendance for Thursday's hearing, the first since he pleaded not guilty last month to charges of falsifying business records with the intent to conceal illegal conduct connected to his 2016 presidential campaign.

The hearing is the first of several pre-trial steps for the prosecutors and defense attorneys in the case, which isn't likely to head to trial until next year.

Trump should not be subject to 'muzzle' regarding indictment, his attorneys say

Former President Trump should have no "muzzle" on him while he defends himself against a criminal indictment in Manhattan, his attorneys plan to argue Thursday.

abcnews.go.com

Former President Donald Trump should have no "muzzle" on him while he defends himself against a criminal indictment in Manhattan, his attorneys plan to argue during a hearing Thursday.

The district attorney's office had asked the judge to impose a protective order that would give Trump and his legal team access to evidence "subject to safeguards," in order to prevent Trump from posting about the materials on social media.

 

[Stunned]

IMO muzzle him.

 

[sds71]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1654143240595992576

 

[Imvp2]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/politics/trump-bragg-hearing/index.html

A New York judge will hear arguments Thursday over a proposed protective order in Donald Trump's criminal case that would limit the former president's ability to publicize information about the investigation.

Trump will not be in attendance for Thursday's hearing, the first since he pleaded not guilty last month to charges of falsifying business records with the intent to conceal illegal conduct connected to his 2016 presidential campaign.

The hearing is the first of several pre-trial steps for the prosecutors and defense attorneys in the case, which isn't likely to head to trial until next year.

Trump should not be subject to 'muzzle' regarding indictment, his attorneys say

Former President Trump should have no "muzzle" on him while he defends himself against a criminal indictment in Manhattan, his attorneys plan to argue Thursday.

abcnews.go.com

Former President Donald Trump should have no "muzzle" on him while he defends himself against a criminal indictment in Manhattan, his attorneys plan to argue during a hearing Thursday.

The district attorney's office had asked the judge to impose a protective order that would give Trump and his legal team access to evidence "subject to safeguards," in order to prevent Trump from posting about the materials on social media.

So. I'm trying to understand. The DA wants the defense to have access to evidence, just not be able to talk about it publicly? But everyone else can? Or?

 

[sds71]

Merchan has not yet ruled on the protective order, proposed by Bragg’s office, but indicated that he likely wouldn’t allow Trump to speak about evidence or information about witnesses provided to his legal team.

In her motion filed last week, Assistant District Attorney Catherine McCaw described Trump’s “longstanding and perhaps singular history of attacking witnesses, investigators, prosecutors, trial jurors, grand jurors, judges, and others involved in legal proceedings against him, putting those individuals and their families at considerable safety risk.”

Blanche tried to get the order revised to prevent Bragg from holding press conferences or putting out documents like the “statement of facts” that laid out the case against him, but the judge didn’t bite, saying that the DA has an obligation to inform the public about the charges he’s bringing.

McCaw pointed to Trump’s notorious social media presence, his remarks leading up to the Jan. 6 insurrection, and his attacks on Georgia poll worker Ruby Freeman. Trump and his attorney Rudy Giuliani falsely accused Freeman and her daughter of introducing suitcases of illegal ballots and committing election fraud — setting off a wave of death threats that forced the pair into hiding.

Merchan, who pointed out that the prosecution wasn’t asking for a gag order, bristled at the idea that Trump should get special treatment because he’s a presidential candidate, when defendants are regularly ordered not to publicly share evidence they receive during discovery.

Merchan said the protective order only applies to evidence the defense obtains from the prosecution through the discovery process, not to material the defense handed over to the D.A.’s office, or to public statements already made by witnesses.

NYC judge signals he’ll sign protective order against Trump, as former president’s lawyers ask to move Stormy Daniels hush money case to federal court

NEW YORK — Donald Trump’s lawyers demanded Thursday that his trial in the *advertiser censored* star hush money case be moved from state to federal court because Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg was “politically motivated” to seek an indictment. Trump’s papers, filed in Manhattan Federal Court, came as Bragg asked the...

news.yahoo.com

 

[Imvp2]

Merchan has not yet ruled on the protective order, proposed by Bragg’s office, but indicated that he likely wouldn’t allow Trump to speak about evidence or information about witnesses provided to his legal team.

In her motion filed last week, Assistant District Attorney Catherine McCaw described Trump’s “longstanding and perhaps singular history of attacking witnesses, investigators, prosecutors, trial jurors, grand jurors, judges, and others involved in legal proceedings against him, putting those individuals and their families at considerable safety risk.”

Blanche tried to get the order revised to prevent Bragg from holding press conferences or putting out documents like the “statement of facts” that laid out the case against him, but the judge didn’t bite, saying that the DA has an obligation to inform the public about the charges he’s bringing.

McCaw pointed to Trump’s notorious social media presence, his remarks leading up to the Jan. 6 insurrection, and his attacks on Georgia poll worker Ruby Freeman. Trump and his attorney Rudy Giuliani falsely accused Freeman and her daughter of introducing suitcases of illegal ballots and committing election fraud — setting off a wave of death threats that forced the pair into hiding.

Merchan, who pointed out that the prosecution wasn’t asking for a gag order, bristled at the idea that Trump should get special treatment because he’s a presidential candidate, when defendants are regularly ordered not to publicly share evidence they receive during discovery.

Merchan said the protective order only applies to evidence the defense obtains from the prosecution through the discovery process, not to material the defense handed over to the D.A.’s office, or to public statements already made by witnesses.

NYC judge signals he’ll sign protective order against Trump, as former president’s lawyers ask to move Stormy Daniels hush money case to federal court

NEW YORK — Donald Trump’s lawyers demanded Thursday that his trial in the *advertiser censored* star hush money case be moved from state to federal court because Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg was “politically motivated” to seek an indictment. Trump’s papers, filed in Manhattan Federal Court, came as Bragg asked the...

news.yahoo.com

Again, so I'm trying to understand. The DA wants the defense to have access to evidence, just not be able to talk about it publicly? But everyone else can? Or does this apply to the Prosecutor's office too?

 

[JerseyGirl]

Trump files to move criminal case to federal court, but if not, he faces 2024 trial

Former President Trump on Thursday sought to move his criminal case brought by the Manhattan district attorney's office into federal court, his attorneys said Thursday.

abc7ny.com

Defense attorney Todd Blanche informed Judge Juan Merchan, who is presiding over the case in New York State Supreme Court, about Trump's intention at the conclusion of a hearing earlier Thursday about a protective order in the case. Prosecutors did not immediately address it.

Merchan asked both sides to agree to a trial date in either February or March of 2024, putting Trump's criminal trial in the middle of primary season as he seeks the presidency for a third time.

Once the date is set, the judge said no one associated with the case, including Trump, should schedule anything to interfere.

"He cannot agree to any speaking engagements, appearances," Merchan said.

Merchan agreed to a request from the Manhattan district attorney's office for an order meant to prevent Trump from attacking certain individuals associated with the case or speaking about specific evidence obtained through discovery. He said he would not stop Trump from speaking generally about the case on the campaign trail.

"I'm straining to give him every opportunity to make his candidacy," Merchan said. "This is not a gag order."

Merchan also agreed with the district attorney's office to set up a virtual hearing Trump will be required to attend at which the protective order will be read to him.

Assistant District Attorney Catherine McCaw said Trump "has an extensive history" of making inflammatory remarks about witnesses, prosecutors and others associated with legal matters pending against him. However, she said, Trump will continue to have "many avenues" to discuss the case.

Blanche said he did not object to an order "limiting dissemination" of evidence by Trump on social media but he insisted Trump's public defense "may include commentary on evidence.
"Obviously Mr. Trump is different," Merchan conceded. "It would be foolish of me to say he isn't. He's a former president and he's running again."

The judge added that Trump's special status comes with a responsibility to recognize "his words do have consequences."

 

[Lilibet]

Again, so I'm trying to understand. The DA wants the defense to have access to evidence, just not be able to talk about it publicly? But everyone else can? Or does this apply to the Prosecutor's office too?

This should make clear that this is about Trump’s habit of inflammatory remarks. It does not prevent him from speaking generally about the case. It is not a gag order and the judge is bending over backward to be fair IMO.

Trump files to move criminal case to federal court, but if not, he faces 2024 trial

Former President Trump on Thursday sought to move his criminal case brought by the Manhattan district attorney's office into federal court, his attorneys said Thursday.

abc7ny.com

Defense attorney Todd Blanche informed Judge Juan Merchan, who is presiding over the case in New York State Supreme Court, about Trump's intention at the conclusion of a hearing earlier Thursday about a protective order in the case. Prosecutors did not immediately address it.

Merchan asked both sides to agree to a trial date in either February or March of 2024, putting Trump's criminal trial in the middle of primary season as he seeks the presidency for a third time.

Once the date is set, the judge said no one associated with the case, including Trump, should schedule anything to interfere.

"He cannot agree to any speaking engagements, appearances," Merchan said.

Merchan agreed to a request from the Manhattan district attorney's office for an order meant to prevent Trump from attacking certain individuals associated with the case or speaking about specific evidence obtained through discovery. He said he would not stop Trump from speaking generally about the case on the campaign trail.

"I'm straining to give him every opportunity to make his candidacy," Merchan said. "This is not a gag order."

Merchan also agreed with the district attorney's office to set up a virtual hearing Trump will be required to attend at which the protective order will be read to him.

Assistant District Attorney Catherine McCaw said Trump "has an extensive history" of making inflammatory remarks about witnesses, prosecutors and others associated with legal matters pending against him. However, she said, Trump will continue to have "many avenues" to discuss the case.

Blanche said he did not object to an order "limiting dissemination" of evidence by Trump on social media but he insisted Trump's public defense "may include commentary on evidence.
"Obviously Mr. Trump is different," Merchan conceded. "It would be foolish of me to say he isn't. He's a former president and he's running again."

The judge added that Trump's special status comes with a responsibility to recognize "his words do have consequences."

 

[SouthAussie]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1654143240595992576

I just read the Notice of Removal filed by DT's lawyers, to remove the case from NY and put it into the hands of the Federal Court.

Notice of Removal

From what I understand (IANAL), it seems that DT's defence to the charges is going to be that ...

1. He paid Cohen the money to retain Cohen as his personal lawyer, so he could separate his personal business from presidential business
2. It is false that they were repayments for hush money
3. Hush money payments are not illegal
4. The charges are politically motivated

The Notice also mentions in several places about "unprecedented", "never before has NY prosecuted about a federal election".

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Again, so I'm trying to understand. The DA wants the defense to have access to evidence, just not be able to talk about it publicly? But everyone else can? Or does this apply to the Prosecutor's office too?

Of course it would apply to both sides.

 

[musicaljoke]

Again, so I'm trying to understand. The DA wants the defense to have access to evidence, just not be able to talk about it publicly? But everyone else can? Or does this apply to the Prosecutor's office too?

The Prosecutor's office is governed by a code of professional ethics so this isn't really an issue for them. It requires this special directive only because Trump holds contempt for the judicial process.

 

[Niner]

Wondering when this virtual hearing with Trump will take place - anyone see anything on that?
Otherwise his next hearing according to my notes is 12/4/23. If any in between - please "tag" me - so I can change my notes!
TIA!

 

[SouthAussie]

Wondering when this virtual hearing with Trump will take place - anyone see anything on that?
Otherwise his next hearing according to my notes is 12/4/23. If any in between - please "tag" me - so I can change my notes!
TIA!

@Niner I don't think a date has been set yet. This AP article says that "Once he rules [on the protective order that the prosecution is seeking], Merchan said, he will hold a hybrid conference — lawyers in court, Trump appearing by video — where he will apprise him of the dos and donts of his impending order".

Donald Trump seeks to move NY criminal case to federal court

Donald Trump’s lawyers have asked a federal court to take control of his criminal case. They argued Thursday that the former president can’t be tried in the state court where his historic indictment was brought because the alleged conduct occurred while he was in office. Moving the case would...

apnews.com

Also in the article .... Re: DT's lawyers wanting to move the case to federal court, a CT lawyer of more than 50 years (William Dow III) says he has never heard of a state criminal case being moved to federal court - he thinks it is a delaying tactic.

“Sometimes people who want to run away from their problems take any avenue that’s available, whether it’s accurate or not. I think this (Trump’s case) is subject to that interpretation,” said Dow, whose clients have included former Connecticut Gov. John Rowland in a political corruption case that forced him to resign in 2004.

 

[Niner]

@Niner I don't think a date has been set yet. This AP article says that "Once he rules [on the protective order that the prosecution is seeking], Merchan said, he will hold a hybrid conference — lawyers in court, Trump appearing by video — where he will apprise him of the dos and donts of his impending order".

Donald Trump seeks to move NY criminal case to federal court

Donald Trump’s lawyers have asked a federal court to take control of his criminal case. They argued Thursday that the former president can’t be tried in the state court where his historic indictment was brought because the alleged conduct occurred while he was in office. Moving the case would...

apnews.com

Also in the article .... Re: DT's lawyers wanting to move the case to federal court, a CT lawyer of more than 50 years (William Dow III) says he has never heard of a state criminal case being moved to federal court - he thinks it is a delaying tactic.

“Sometimes people who want to run away from their problems take any avenue that’s available, whether it’s accurate or not. I think this (Trump’s case) is subject to that interpretation,” said Dow, whose clients have included former Connecticut Gov. John Rowland in a political corruption case that forced him to resign in 2004.

Thank you for the info on that virtual hearing!

And yes, I got the motions for state to federal court item.

Again - Thanks!

 

[Imvp2]

The Prosecutor's office is governed by a code of professional ethics so this isn't really an issue for them. It requires this special directive only because Trump holds contempt for the judicial process.

Very naive thought that Prosecutor Offices don't leak information.....but that's my opinion only