Mar 31, 2023·edited Mar 31, 2023Liked by David Thornton
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).
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..
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).
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..