NY - Former President Donald Trump charged with 34 criminal counts of falsifying business records, Apr 2023

[MyBelle]

OK.

So we are dealing with State rather than Federal Charges.

So, which type of charges?

Felony or Misdemeanor?

The charge or charges have not been revealed, although a source familiar with the investigation told CBS News on Saturday that there will be a felony charge.

Trump's former "fixer" Michael Cohen says criminal indictment is "solely about accountability"

 

[Telltale]

You know I find it hard to think this is pure political strategy. If only because it would be a stupid one. Trump lost a lot of traction after the midterms and began to be looked at as something of an embarrassment, he even lost airtime in places like FOX.

Any political strategist around in the last decade would have said the very last thing you want to give him right now is a lurid lawsuit (that's easy to frame as petty and vindictive) to rally against, a political prosecution narrative and lots and lots of oxygen. This is the best thing that could have happened to Trump politically. He was getting to 'old man shouts at cloud' energy and this catapulted him back into media relevance.

If they wanted to be strategic, they could have hammered him with he more serious cases. Having him all over the news for the secret document thing, the implications of that rehashed over and over might sway the odd person. 'That thing with the p-rnstar,' sounds frivolous.

 

[RANCH]

Statute of Limitations | NY CourtHelp

The official home page of the New York State Unified Court System. We hear more than three million cases a year involving almost every type of endeavor. We hear family matters, personal injury claims, commercial disputes, trust and estates issues, criminal cases, and landlord-tenant cases.

www.nycourts.gov

Scroll down to Criminal Cases: Statute of Limitations Timetable

That takes us to Fraud/6 years which takes us to what I linked to upthread.

I can only surmise that the SOL for criminal and civil are the same

I'm not sure about that.

 

[MyBelle]

You know I find it hard to think this is pure political strategy. If only because it would be a stupid one. Trump lost a lot of traction after the midterms and began to be looked at as something of an embarrassment, he even lost airtime in places like FOX.

Any political strategist around in the last decade would have said the very last thing you want to give him right now is a lurid lawsuit (that's easy to frame as petty and vindictive) to rally against, a political prosecution narrative and lots and lots of oxygen. This is the best thing that could have happened to Trump politically. He was getting to 'old man shouts at cloud' energy and this catapulted him back into media relevance.

If they wanted to be strategic, they could have hammered him with he more serious cases. Having him all over the news for the secret document thing, the implications of that rehashed over and over might sway the odd person. 'That thing with the p-rnstar,' sounds frivolous.

There is nothing political about this indictment, imo.

 

[whatsupp]

There is nothing political about this indictment, imo.

Rand Paul is the latest Republican to accuse Bragg of leading a politically motivated investigation into the 76-year-old former president.

Rand Paul calls for DA Alvin Bragg to be jailed for ‘disgusting abuse of power’ in Trump probe

“A Trump indictment would be a disgusting abuse of power. The DA should be put in jail,” Paul (R-Ky.) wrote in a scathing tweet on Tuesday.

nypost.com

 

[karen in New York]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>

I can't imagine someone on the verge of being charged - even thinking about making threats or intimidating. Or their families or close associates. That has to be rare. NYS has charged many politicians. Doubt they have ever encountered something like this.
Especially since the average Joe on the street would be served a warrant at work or at home. No advance notice and the special considerations that are made for DT.
IMO of course.

 

[karen in New York]

<modsnip: quoted post was removed>

Thank for that SA. I've been wondering about the Statute of Limitations that the defence will probably try to argue.

Sleuthing on the NY Statute of Limitations, I think it's possible the DA may be relying on when they were able to obtain the documents vs when the actual crime is alleged to have occurred.

Not knowing what the actual charges might be, but taking a leap:

Excerpt from: Legislation

8. an action based upon fraud; the time within which the action must
be commenced shall be the greater of six years from the date the cause
of action accrued or two years from the time the plaintiff or the person
under whom the plaintiff claims discovered the fraud, or could with
reasonable diligence have discovered it.

COVID also extended the timelines.

 

[MyBelle]

Plurality of the public supports Trump indictment: POLL

A plurality of Americans think former President Donald Trump should have been charged by a Manhattan grand jury with a history-making indictment, yet a near equal amount believe that the charges against him are politically motivated, according to a new ABC News/Ipsos poll. According to the...

www.yahoo.com

At the same time, a plurality of Americans (47%) say the charges against the former president are politically motivated, echoing the sentiment from top GOP figures. An even larger majority of Republicans, 79%, hold that view, as does a plurality of independents (48%).. As expected, 64% of Democrats take the opposite view, though a far cry from overwhelming opposition.

47% isn't a majority.

 

[Emma Peel]

I can't imagine someone on the verge of being charged - even thinking about making threats or intimidating. Or their families or close associates. That has to be rare. NYS has charged many politicians. Doubt they have ever encountered something like this.
Especially since the average Joe on the street would be served a warrant at work or at home. No advance notice and the special considerations that are made for DT.
IMO of course.

COVID also extended the timelines.

Yup - in NY - by a year.

 

[JennieM]

I can't imagine someone on the verge of being charged - even thinking about making threats or intimidating. Or their families or close associates. That has to be rare. NYS has charged many politicians. Doubt they have ever encountered something like this.
Especially since the average Joe on the street would be served a warrant at work or at home. No advance notice and the special considerations that are made for DT.
IMO of course.

Specifically to “rough ’em up”.

Donald Trump vows to escalate attacks against Alvin Bragg – sources

The former president was stunned by the indictment at first, but after 24 hours he indicated he wanted to ‘rough ’em up’

www.theguardian.com

 

[karen in New York]

You know I find it hard to think this is pure political strategy. If only because it would be a stupid one. Trump lost a lot of traction after the midterms and began to be looked at as something of an embarrassment, he even lost airtime in places like FOX.

Any political strategist around in the last decade would have said the very last thing you want to give him right now is a lurid lawsuit (that's easy to frame as petty and vindictive) to rally against, a political prosecution narrative and lots and lots of oxygen. This is the best thing that could have happened to Trump politically. He was getting to 'old man shouts at cloud' energy and this catapulted him back into media relevance.

If they wanted to be strategic, they could have hammered him with he more serious cases. Having him all over the news for the secret document thing, the implications of that rehashed over and over might sway the odd person. 'That thing with the p-rnstar,' sounds frivolous.

Agree with you but don't you think that there is a lot more to come.

 

[MyBelle]

Specifically to “rough ’em up”.

Donald Trump vows to escalate attacks against Alvin Bragg – sources

The former president was stunned by the indictment at first, but after 24 hours he indicated he wanted to ‘rough ’em up’

www.theguardian.com

I hope the Judge forces him take a psych exam.

 

[Cool Cats]

47% isn't a majority.

Right

51% is.

Not sure of your point. I'm just posting statistics.

 

[MyBelle]

Right

51% is.

Not sure of your point. I'm just posting statistics.

I'm sorry, I misread it. Time to put my glasses on.

 

[passionflower]

Read his nieces book! The trump family have many crimes. THE MOST DANGEROUS MAN by Mary Trump! His father groomed him, never pay taxes etc.

 

[realanastasia]

I'm sorry, I misread it. Time to put my glasses on.

The article did say “plurality” but I suspect many people would think this is synonymous with “majority.” But if 47% of those surveyed said the charges were “political,” I think that just means that the other 53% were split between “not political” and some other option (like, “not sure.”) 46% could’ve said “not political” and 7% could’ve said “not sure.” So I’m not sure that stating 47% said the charges were “political” is particularly illuminating.

 

[neesaki]

The irony is, these sort of people are the first to wave the American flag, defend all police regardless of their actions, and say things like "you do the crime, you do the time!" i.e. respecting our judicial system. But now their <modsnip> ex-president is the one who did the crimes, so lets throw every ethical thing out the window. Wow wow wow. How low can these people go?

I honestly don’t think stereotyping anyone who doesn’t think exactly like you, doesn’t vote like you, or doesn’t support the exact same cause as you…, etc.,…. is useful.

For example: Though I am a patriotic person, I don’t support Law enforcement if they are corrupt or incompetent. I also believe our government has too much power over our lives. And that there are some laws that are far too harsh and much too far reaching, to the point of bringing our country way too close to that of a police state.
Yes, a police state. Now that is frightening, IMO.

On the other hand, I also supported DJT in the last two elections. Why? Because I didn’t like the alternative.

I hope you can see the problem with stereotyping people just because they back a particular candidate.

 

[Ontario Mom]

I honestly don’t think stereotyping anyone who doesn’t think exactly like you, doesn’t vote like you, or doesn’t support the exact same cause as you…, etc.,…. is useful.

For example: Though I am a patriotic person, I don’t support Law enforcement if they are corrupt or incompetent. I also believe our government has too much power over our lives. And that there are some laws that are far too harsh and much too far reaching, to the point of bringing our country way too close to that of a police state.
Yes, a police state. Now that is frightening, IMO.

On the other hand, I also supported DJT in the last two elections. Why? Because I didn’t like the alternative.

I hope you can see the problem with stereotyping people just because they back a particular candidate.

Thank you, that was very well stated.

 

[MyBelle]

<modsnip: quoted post was removed>

COVID also extended the timelines.

I'm shocked Trump's attorney hasn't told him tone down his threats against DA and Judge. Especially considering the threats are illegal under NY law called obstruction of governmental administration.

 

[veronica.mars]

I'm shocked Trump's attorney hasn't told him tone down his threats against DA and Judge. Especially considering the threats are illegal under NY law called obstruction of governmental administration.

I wouldn't be surprised if he has told him to tone it down but he's just not listening.