175.05 (Falsification of business records in the second degree) is where the intent to defraud comes in, and the question there is: did Trump intend to defraud by falsifying business records? Considering he was trying to hide his hush money payments and used Trump Co to do so, the answer there is likely "yes". That would make Trump guilty of a class A misdemeanor.
175.10 (Falsification of business records in the first degree) is where a possible felony charge upgrade comes in. The requirements for guilt there are that the person charged committed "Falsification of business records in the second degree" and that the intent of the false records was to either commit another crime or to aid/conceal someone else's crime. So the question there is: was the intent to defraud under 175.05 done to hide someone else's crime? The answer is likely yes, as the false business records were created to hide the hush money payments and those payments were made in an improper manner that resulted in campaign finance violations - for which Michael Cohen was charged and convicted. That would make Trump guilty of a class E felony for aiding/concealing Michael Cohen's crime(s).
You can also read the statement of facts from https://t.co/RG9szmL586 (PDF). The crime that provided the upgrade from misdemeanor to felony is indeed Michael Cohen's (at minimum).
Do you really think that intent can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt when there are plausible alternate motives? If you believe that and also believe justice is blind, why wasn't Hillary Clinton convicted for the Russia hoax coverup when she misreported the money that funded the dossier? This is all BS with two standards of legality - one for Republicans (especially Trump) and a far looser one for democrats.
The intent can be proven, yes: the reason Michael Cohen was charged with campaign finance violations in regards to these payments was because the monies were paid to prevent the story from affecting the election. Trump's payments to Cohen as "2017 legal fees" are fraudulent because a) the payments to Cohen were for actions in 2016, and b) not just legal fees but also the hush payments themselves. You've run a business: did you ever classify expenses for services received during one year as being for a different year entirely?
You'll have to ask Trump and his administration why there were no charges brought against Hillary, but there were charges brought against Michael Cohen. And if Michael Cohen was correctly charged and convicted due to this scheme - why would it be inappropriate for Trump to also be charged? Or - did the Trump Administration commit a political prosecution against Michael Cohen?
I'm pretty sure charges were not brought against Hillary because it would be a useless waste of DOJ manpower in the DC venue. That's the constant hangup preventing democrat criminals from paying for their evil doing. Two standards of justice.
I doubt Trump or his administration would have cared about that (though I have my doubts about your statement). They'd much rather have charged if they could, especially if they had enough evidence.
Regardless: your statement is not exculpatory nor good reason to not charge Trump.
For services rendered in 2016, and which Trump labeled as for 2017 expenses. And there's no separating the two, because it was all for the same transaction.
I have nothing but respect for Disney silently sticking it to our authoritarian governor. I really should keep a running list of every time he usurps local county and city governments and more importantly voters powers. The willful blindness of trumplicans and desantonians in my state is a puzzle I will die never solving.
I recall from seventh grade history that some states refused to extradite fugitive slaves and that laws were passed to protect fugitive slaves. Well and good. But I also remember there were some later cases in which extradition of black fugitives to southern states was denied because of claims of discrimination. My memories of seventh grade history might be imperfect because it was 70 years ago, but the teacher was a favorite and I paid attention.
There is currently great concern among the left (and me too) about abortion extraditions. Ideas for protecting abortion fugitives from extradition are being developed. I just read one article from Slate, I think, that suggests states that wish to offer refuge to abortion law violators revise their laws to deny extradition except in cases where the offense is criminal in both states. That may or may not pass legal muster, but it does indicate there might be some wiggle room in the extradition provisions found in the Constitution..
That's an interesting question: assumedly any abortion related charges would have to be about actions taken in states where it is illegal, as tions taken outside said state can't be enforced if it's legal where they happened. So assumedly if one left state A where it is illegal, and had an abortion in state B - there'd be no ability to charge anyone in state A.
I have seen some talk about states trying to outlaw their residents from going out of state for abortions. I don’t think any of these laws have been passed, and I agree it’s questionable.
A different example might be indicting people for sending abortifacients into the state.
I don't think they can legally stop interstate travel. And any charges for sending abortifacients would assumedly be only applicable to those receiving them - but we'll see on that.
I have heard that there are some examples of state laws that bind residents outside the state borders though. I think one example was Florida fishing laws that apply beyond the state’s waters.
I think it’s questionable whether the laws would be upheld but a certainty that they would be unpopular.
I imagine that's more related to possession of X number of fish, or fish smaller than Y size...but having never gone sport fishing in Florida I can't say.
175.05 (Falsification of business records in the second degree) is where the intent to defraud comes in, and the question there is: did Trump intend to defraud by falsifying business records? Considering he was trying to hide his hush money payments and used Trump Co to do so, the answer there is likely "yes". That would make Trump guilty of a class A misdemeanor.
175.10 (Falsification of business records in the first degree) is where a possible felony charge upgrade comes in. The requirements for guilt there are that the person charged committed "Falsification of business records in the second degree" and that the intent of the false records was to either commit another crime or to aid/conceal someone else's crime. So the question there is: was the intent to defraud under 175.05 done to hide someone else's crime? The answer is likely yes, as the false business records were created to hide the hush money payments and those payments were made in an improper manner that resulted in campaign finance violations - for which Michael Cohen was charged and convicted. That would make Trump guilty of a class E felony for aiding/concealing Michael Cohen's crime(s).
The indictment is unsealed and available at https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-indictment-full-text-read-court-document-rcna78051.
All charges are 175.10.
You can also read the statement of facts from https://t.co/RG9szmL586 (PDF). The crime that provided the upgrade from misdemeanor to felony is indeed Michael Cohen's (at minimum).
Regarding "intent to defraud": this article has info on NY state's definition towards 175.00 crimes via settled law.
https://www.justsecurity.org/85831/the-broad-scope-of-intent-to-defraud-in-the-new-york-crime-of-falsifying-business-records/
Thanks for the link.
Do you really think that intent can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt when there are plausible alternate motives? If you believe that and also believe justice is blind, why wasn't Hillary Clinton convicted for the Russia hoax coverup when she misreported the money that funded the dossier? This is all BS with two standards of legality - one for Republicans (especially Trump) and a far looser one for democrats.
The intent can be proven, yes: the reason Michael Cohen was charged with campaign finance violations in regards to these payments was because the monies were paid to prevent the story from affecting the election. Trump's payments to Cohen as "2017 legal fees" are fraudulent because a) the payments to Cohen were for actions in 2016, and b) not just legal fees but also the hush payments themselves. You've run a business: did you ever classify expenses for services received during one year as being for a different year entirely?
You'll have to ask Trump and his administration why there were no charges brought against Hillary, but there were charges brought against Michael Cohen. And if Michael Cohen was correctly charged and convicted due to this scheme - why would it be inappropriate for Trump to also be charged? Or - did the Trump Administration commit a political prosecution against Michael Cohen?
Cohen pleaded guilty.
Yes, he was charged and convicted. His pleading guilty is irrelevant.
I'm pretty sure charges were not brought against Hillary because it would be a useless waste of DOJ manpower in the DC venue. That's the constant hangup preventing democrat criminals from paying for their evil doing. Two standards of justice.
Or they did not believe they could make charges stick with the evidence available.
Either way: you have to ask him/his administration.
Charges against democrat criminals never stick in DC. Nearly always do for questionable Republican activities even in weak cases.
I doubt Trump or his administration would have cared about that (though I have my doubts about your statement). They'd much rather have charged if they could, especially if they had enough evidence.
Regardless: your statement is not exculpatory nor good reason to not charge Trump.
And of course: this is NY and not Federal.
Charges against Cohen have nothing to do with Trump's motives. Cohen did not ask for reimbursement until 2017.
For services rendered in 2016, and which Trump labeled as for 2017 expenses. And there's no separating the two, because it was all for the same transaction.
I have nothing but respect for Disney silently sticking it to our authoritarian governor. I really should keep a running list of every time he usurps local county and city governments and more importantly voters powers. The willful blindness of trumplicans and desantonians in my state is a puzzle I will die never solving.
Try "Bragg" instead of "Briggs".
I recall from seventh grade history that some states refused to extradite fugitive slaves and that laws were passed to protect fugitive slaves. Well and good. But I also remember there were some later cases in which extradition of black fugitives to southern states was denied because of claims of discrimination. My memories of seventh grade history might be imperfect because it was 70 years ago, but the teacher was a favorite and I paid attention.
There is currently great concern among the left (and me too) about abortion extraditions. Ideas for protecting abortion fugitives from extradition are being developed. I just read one article from Slate, I think, that suggests states that wish to offer refuge to abortion law violators revise their laws to deny extradition except in cases where the offense is criminal in both states. That may or may not pass legal muster, but it does indicate there might be some wiggle room in the extradition provisions found in the Constitution..
Oops corrected.
There is some pretty recent precedent on the extradition question. Puerto Rico v. Branstad (1987) is in the link that I included.
I think states would have to honor the abortion extradition requests and then fight the underlying charges.
That's an interesting question: assumedly any abortion related charges would have to be about actions taken in states where it is illegal, as tions taken outside said state can't be enforced if it's legal where they happened. So assumedly if one left state A where it is illegal, and had an abortion in state B - there'd be no ability to charge anyone in state A.
I have seen some talk about states trying to outlaw their residents from going out of state for abortions. I don’t think any of these laws have been passed, and I agree it’s questionable.
A different example might be indicting people for sending abortifacients into the state.
I don't think they can legally stop interstate travel. And any charges for sending abortifacients would assumedly be only applicable to those receiving them - but we'll see on that.
I tend to agree.
I have heard that there are some examples of state laws that bind residents outside the state borders though. I think one example was Florida fishing laws that apply beyond the state’s waters.
I think it’s questionable whether the laws would be upheld but a certainty that they would be unpopular.
I imagine that's more related to possession of X number of fish, or fish smaller than Y size...but having never gone sport fishing in Florida I can't say.