Monitoring Biden and other Contemporary Events

Your questions about the Trump indictment, answered

How strong is the case? Can Trump continue campaigning? And when will he be brought to trial?

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/30/trump-indictment-legal-faqs-00089864

Here is POLITICO's look at some of the key questions posed by the indictment.

By Josh Gerstein and Kyle Cheney

03/30/2023 08:12 PM EDT

The unprecedented indictment of former President Donald Trump plunges the legal system into murky waters.

The Manhattan grand jury’s decision to charge Trump for his alleged involvement in a hush money scheme raises a bevy of questions about the soundness of the case, the logistics involved in forcing a former president into criminal court and the ramifications for other ongoing state and federal investigations of Trump.

Here’s POLITICO’s look at some of the key questions posed by the indictment.
What is Trump accused of?

While the precise charges are secret for now, prosecutors have concluded they can prove a criminal case against Trump because of the apparent subterfuge surrounding a $130,000 payment to adult-film actress Stormy Daniels to keep her from publicizing her claim about a sexual encounter with Trump. Trump’s lawyer Michael Cohen funded that payment through a home equity line of credit.

Trump insisted in April 2018 he did not know about the hush money, but Cohen provided Congress a series of check images, signed by Trump, reflecting payments to Cohen that he said were reimbursements for the money he laid out, including at least two that came while Trump was in the White House. Cohen said that Trump and his company concealed the purpose of the payments by falsely labeling them as legal expenses.

Under New York law, disguising such payments in corporate records is a crime, but typically only a misdemeanor. It becomes a felony if the false business records were intended to obscure a second crime. In this case, that second crime appears to be the use of the funds to advance Trump’s presidential campaign allegedly in violation of campaign finance laws.
Key figures in the Trump indictment

Here are some of the people involved as the case against former President Donald Trump moves forward.

Trump’s former attorney testified in 2018 that he made a hush-money payment on behalf of Trump.

Stormy Daniels

The porn actress is said to have received $130,000 for her silence about an affair with Trump.

Alvin Bragg

The Manhattan DA took office in January 2022 and inherited the investigation.

Allen Weisselberg

Prosecutors gave the ex-Trump Organization CFO immunity in their hush-money probe in 2018.

Joe Tacopina

A vocal member of Trump’s legal team, he began representing Trump earlier this year.

Susan Necheles

She is one of Trump’s lawyers who was on the defense team in the Trump Organization trial.

Robert Costello

Cohen’s former legal adviser cast aspersions on Cohen’s credibility before the grand jury.

Karen McDougal

The model is another woman who received “hush money” for her involvement with Trump.

David Pecker

The former National Enquirer CEO has been linked to Cohen’s efforts to pay off Daniels and McDougal.

The strongest evidence of such a link to politics may be the timing: After months of demands, the money was wired to Daniels’ lawyer on Oct. 27, 2016, just days before the 2016 presidential election.
What are the possible holes in the prosecution’s case?

It is difficult to assess the case against Trump without knowing the exact charges or all of the evidence that prosecutors have marshaled during an investigation that has lasted more than four years. But based on publicly available information, legal experts have identified several features of the case that may present stumbling blocks as prosecutors seek a guilty verdict.

For starters, Cohen is not the strongest possible witness for prosecutors. He’s provided a lot of the evidence and testimony needed to bring the case, which investigators have gone to great lengths to authenticate. But his credibility is open to challenge since he pleaded guilty in 2018 to nine felonies and was sentenced to three years in federal prison. He’s also repeatedly expressed extreme bitterness towards Trump, even running a podcast he titled “Mea Culpa,” an allusion to his regrets over his time as Trump’s ally.

Michael Cohen: If I got charged, why not Trump?

The case also dates to 2016 and 2017, so it is more than five years old. Some of the delay can be readily explained — pressing a criminal case against Trump while he was in office would have been difficult and perhaps impossible. But it’s been more than two years now since Trump left the White House.

Trump could argue that prosecutors waited too long. New York’s statute of limitations for most felonies is five years, but there are some exceptions to that deadline, including if the person being charged was living out of state.

Another potential difficulty: Prosecutors may have to prove that Trump knew the arrangement was illegal. Trump could argue that he fairly assumed that Cohen, as an attorney, was executing the payments and related paperwork in a manner that was lawful.
Will Trump remain free? Can he campaign while under indictment?

That will be up to the state-court judge assigned to Trump’s case, but it seems unlikely that prosecutors would seek to detain the former president or restrict his travel in the U.S. while the case is pending. There is no legal impediment to him continuing his presidential campaign while facing criminal charges — or even if he were jailed.

If Trump won the presidency while facing charges or a conviction, the legalities become considerably more murky. There are serious constitutional questions about whether a state court could keep someone elected to federal office from serving.
How will the indictment affect the other ongoing Trump-focused investigations?

The short answer is: Not much. There’s no reason to think the indictment in Manhattan will influence the trajectory of several other probes that present an acute risk of more criminal charges for Trump. A grand jury in Fulton County, Ga., is examining his bid to overturn the election results in that state, and at the federal level, special counsel Jack Smith is leading twin probes into Trump’s role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol and his retention of government documents after his presidency.
Can we explain Trump's legal drama in under 2 minutes?

Formally, a federal criminal case against Trump — if it were filed — would allow federal prosecutors to take precedence over any local case or cases.

Concurrent criminal proceedings against Trump would inevitably cause some logistical problems, but typically the feds and local prosecutors try to work out any conflicts.
How long will it take Trump to be brought to trial?

It will, by necessity, take many months to commence a trial of a former president of the United States. Even if both sides were eager to proceed to trial quickly, ironing out legal and constitutional questions would likely stretch out over the next year and into the 2024 primary season.

Add to that Trump’s penchant — in nearly every legal matter he’s embroiled in — to seek to delay and prolong proceedings whenever possible.

Trump’s lawyers could try to move the case to federal court, arguing that at least some of the payments to Cohen took place while Trump was president and therefore a state court should have no authority to resolve the matter. Trump also could seek to move the trial to a different courthouse elsewhere in New York state. And he could try to have the indictment dismissed or reduced. All of these pre-trial motions will take time to resolve.

A criminal tax case the Manhattan district attorney’s office filed against the Trump Organization in the same court in 2021 took about 15 months to get to trial. A jury convicted two Trump companies on all 17 felony charges last December. The issues in the new case are narrower, but the focus on Trump personally seems certain to drag things out.

Filed under: Donald Trump, Donald Trump 2020, 2016 Presidential Election, Legal,

POLITICO

DeSantis calls Trump indictment ‘un-American’ and says he won’t assist in extradition

“Florida will not assist in an extradition request,” the Florida governor tweeted.

Ron DeSantis previously said he wouldn’t get involved in Donald Trump’s indictment “in any way.”

By Gary Fineout

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/30/desantis-trump-indictment-00089865

03/30/2023 08:22 PM EDT

Updated: 03/30/2023 09:37 PM EDT

Gov. Ron DeSantis on Thursday blasted the indictment of Donald Trump and vowed that the state “will not assist in the extradition” even though reports suggest the former president plans to surrender voluntarily to New York authorities.

DeSantis, who is expected to challenge Trump for the Republican 2024 presidential nomination later this year, previously said he wouldn’t get involved in Trump’s indictment “in any way” but was roundly condemned by the former president and his supporters, who accused him of being disloyal.

The Republican governor’s decision to criticize Trump’s indictment aligns him with other Republicans who have rallied to Trump’s side. It also mirrors the full-throated GOP support for Trump after the FBI searched his residence at Mar-a-Lago in August.

“The weaponization of the legal system to advance a political agenda turns the rule of law on its head. It is un-American,” DeSantis said on Twitter. “The Soros-backed Manhattan District Attorney has consistently bent the law to downgrade felonies and to excuse criminal misconduct. Yet, now he is stretching the law to target a political opponent.”

“Florida will not assist in an extradition request given the questionable circumstances at issue with this Soros-backed Manhattan prosecutor and his political agenda,” he continued.

Under Florida law, the governor can intervene in an extradition matter if it is contested. But as of now, Trump’s lawyers have indicated that Trump is expected to surrender.

DeSantis’ stance on the indictment was being closely anticipated because, as a likely political rival, he has been hit hard by Trump and his allies in recent weeks, including over his previous comments on Trump’s legal troubles when he said: “I don’t know what goes into paying hush money to a porn star to secure silence over some type of alleged affair.”
DeSantis jabs Trump over Stormy Daniels hush money

In the last few weeks DeSantis has not only been bashed by Trump, but his comments calling Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine a “territorial dispute” were also sharply questioned by other Republicans, including Florida Sen. Marco Rubio.

Several national polls have come out that have seen Trump widen his lead over DeSantis in a potential matchup, but state by state polls in battleground primary states have suggested a much tighter contest. A super PAC backing DeSantis released a Georgia poll on Thursday to the NBC News that had DeSantis actually leading Trump in that state.

Nikki Fried, the chair of the Florida Democratic Party, responded fiercely to DeSantis’s comments, saying in her own social media post that “breaking the law is un-American and blaming it on George Soros is anti-Semitic.” She added that “you know there has been an actual, proven unlawful and unconstitutional weaponization of the law — your removal of State Attorney @AndrewWarrenFL.”

That’s a reference to DeSantis’ suspension of a Tampa-area prosecutor that has been challenged in federal and state court. DeSantis, during a book promotional appearance in Georgia, noted his action by telling a crowd that he had removed a “Soros” backed prosecutor.

Trump is currently connected to several ongoing investigations, including one over his handling of classified documents at his Florida home at Mar-a-Lago and an ongoing probe in Atlanta.

State Sen. Joe Gruters, the former chair of the Republican Party of Florida with strong ties to Trump, sidestepped questions about how the indictment may affect DeSantis and instead said it would cause Republicans to rally to beat President Joe Biden in 2024.

“I think it’s a witch hunt,” Gruters told reporters outside the Senate chambers. “I think the president is running a race to win the 2024 cycle, and I think this is directly to undercut his effort…. This is a rallying point for all Republicans to come together.”

I’m kind of disappointed when posters here limit their content to cut and pastes of news or opinion articles. I’m more than able to know (pun intended) the breaking news of the day, and I can find ample opinion columns -the internet is my friend. I understand it’s done with the intention of leveling up everyone’s knowledge base, and I appreciate that.

But I come to A2K to find out what YOU -my fellow posters - think. We are revealed to each other by saying what we honestly think and believe. Sometimes in the moment, with first impressions. Sometimes in opinions that have festered and remained unexpressed for fear of offending. Sometimes in total agreement; sometimes adamantly not.

After reading a long cut and pasted article, I often find myself thinking, “Wonder what <whoever posted the article> thinks about this?”

There are exceptions. Heather Cox Richardson’s regular summaries of the most pressing current issues stand alone just fine without any additional commentary. And I think Hightor allows us to skirt a paywall by posting them here in their entirety.

But many other things get left here like the ‘B’ section of a newspaper left on a bus terminal bench.

It's not had a great deal of play over here, relegated to other news.

Our own politicians are putting on a pathetic display of incompetence corruption and bullying.

I'm waiting to see what happens on Tuesday.

I've not been paying a huge amount of attention, my father recently died and I've got a lot to do.

Sorry to hear that news.

USA Today

The reason for cutting and pasting an excerpt from the article is to point out yet another mischaracterized (lie) talking point being spread around by Trump and the republicans. So much for republicans trying to distance themselves. I believe they are making a strategic mistake.

I think that Biden should bargain with Russia to exchange Paul Whelan, Marc Fogel and Evan Gershkovich for Trump in a straight up 3 for 1 deal plus any of Trumps family members who wish to follow him. I would even include any other American who wishes to follow him. No give backs or returns allowed!

God knows how this plays out now considering that Trump will likely be indicted for other crimes beyond the hush money case. But here's what I'm thinking is possible. This may be the most useless kind of political writing but it helps me clear my own noggin.

All other Republicans hoping to get the candidacy are now faced with the dilemma of how to promote themselves without giving the impression they are attacking Trump and thereby alienating the Republican base. And as the Dominion documents clearly reveal, a similar problem holds true for GOP aligned media, Fox particularly. This is a dynamic which Trump has choreographed and which gives him a significant advantage, likely a winning advantage over those other GOP hopefuls, barring some unforeseen events or revelation.

A ploy Trump and other right wing voices have been employing and will certainly continue to employ is that indictments will result in super-charged conservative activism and and voter turnout. That's likely quite true for the large Trump-loving, liberal-hating base. But as angry/hateful as these folks are, they each still only get one vote which they would have cast anyway. What seems to me a more likely broad outcome however is that Dem voters will be no less passionate in the next election. Probably more important is how undecideds and those who only sometimes vote or who never vote behave in the election. And here is where I'm hopeful. More in a bit.

For the movement conservative leaders and their well-organized big money funders with their goal of one party domination (because liberalism and democracy are axiomatically illegitimate or even evil) the first order of importance is winning elections and solidifying power. As Grover Norquist said at CPAC a few years back...

This crowd, many of them, surely despise Trump and would far rather see Pence or DeSantis or Haley or Pompeo as the candidate but they are also trapped in this right wing self-created dilemma I described above. On the other hand though, even knowing Trump is a thoroughly self-interested and amoral creature, they can continue to get a lot of what they want through him. And because they know their long-term project to gain control of the American political system is close to realization, they aren't going to quit now regardless of who the candidate is. And let's note here that it is this crowd (which is an alliance between powerful corporate interests, John Bircher anti-government ideologues, the extremist religious right yearning for a theocracy along with all the parasites and con men like Roger Stone, Steve Bannon, Mike Huckabee, Lindsay Graham etc) which makes up the force pushing the US towards fascism. As Shadia Drury's research on fascism has detailed, there are two elements which mark fascism - the personality type which wishes or needs to dominate others and all those in a community or nation who wish or need to follow such a fascist figure (which we now label as the Trump base).

The reason I still have some hope is that I believe that American culture and its people now have about as clear a picture of the dangerous precipice they are on with someone like Trump if he were to regain power and of the danger coming from a political party that supports and excuses him and his acts and which bans books and which screeches about Jesus and which takes away the right of 50% of America's electorate to control their right to have an abortion. This seems to me a quite different place than when Trump first ran for the office.

One thing to add Bernie, there is a small part of the Republican party that has always voted Republican who have witnessed the Far Rights movement and will reject it this time. They know what Trump is now - some will stay home and some will vote democratic. I'm hoping enough that will deny the party to all fascists.

Mea culpa – I've noticed this about my own participation. I'm much less likely to write anything substantial and tend to just make critical comments. I think this might be because we no longer have an active conservative bloc on the board, just a few MAGA weirdos. (I miss Finn – his arguments were dialogical and he was an excellent writer – the quality of his posts invited actual response.)

I appreciate your stated approval of the Heather Cox Richardson pieces; I think they're worthwhile and I think we all benefit from the historical context she often provides.


I occasionally post pieces that I'm not actually endorsing but which add, I feel, certain facts or perspectives to the conversation. I used to post them with a proviso of some sort if I felt it was needed. Some of Umair Haque's pieces, for example. But it seemed repetitious to do this all the time and I guess my feeling is that my opinions are irrelevant; people can read the piece and come to their own conclusions about the author without my opinions affecting their own take on the article. But I'll bear your point in mind and feel free to confront any signs of ambiguity on my part.

yes.

Yup, snood makes a good point, I concur. And I've been guilty as well.

I do too. And georgeob. And Ticomaya. Sometimes (may God forgive me) I even miss Foxfyre and a few others as well who took at least some care in mounting rational arguments.

But it doesn't seem to matter what social media forum I visit, the same patterns hold true where those more educated and rational voices have almost totally disappeared, replaced by people who think and behave like extras in a zombie movie.

Here's a wonderful line from Jonathan Chait on the problem for non-Trump candidates I was speaking of above.

So Trudeau’s Party is trying to silence online debate?
Bye bye Canadians!

It seems clear that I was born with a keen and earnest artistic sense.

I saw this image and realized that here are two of my most favorite things on earth.

Maybe if you hadn’t treated them like ****, they’d still be here.

Boobs and cigarettes?

I have recently seen from more than one source something that really upset me. I found out I was wrong in believing a person could not hold the office of President of the United States if they had been convicted of a felony. More than one source has reported that this is not true. In fact, it relayed information that a person could even be President while serving their time for a felony convict in jail or prison. I really do not know what to say about this?

i think even the most rabid MAGA nutjobs would pause before voting for a convicted felon...

Trump raised more than 4 million in the day after the indictment.
The Dems keep shooting themselves in the foot.
You made Trump stronger.
Dumbasses.