NYC is... different lol

CNN calling it a "bare bones" indictment set of charges and no conspiracy after a very brief scan of the info

A "statement of facts" was also filed that apparently says Trump falsified and hid info from the voting public

So the manner in which the charges move to the level of felony have to do with concealing information from the voting public during an election, payments made (checks) plus other journal entries make up the 34 charges

 

18 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

No gag order but Trump was warned, both sides were warned about making any statements that would incite violence

In whose judgement? Trump still doesn't think his words on Jan 6 incited violence. 

CNN says there is "nothing new" in the indictment, no twists, etc. in terms of the basic data

The entire case is about falsifying of business records (34 financial entries) with the intent to mislead the voting public in the context of an election, again according to CNN

A doorman was paid $30K to not tell his story about the Donald having a child out of wedlock (allegedly) 

 

On the air CNN team seems to have lost some bravado right now, no doubt they will gain it again as they whip up their interpretation

His lawyers are still calling him the President talking to reporters outside the courthouse.

4 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

In whose judgement? Trump still doesn't think his words on Jan 6 incited violence. 

The person reporting it had been in the courtroom, they didn't expand beyond their short report

 

This isn't good for Trump, as it means Trump was acknowledging the point was to influence the election:

Quote

The Defendant directed Lawyer A to delay making a payment to Woman 2 as long as possible.  He instructed Lawyer A that if they could delay the payment until after the election, they could avoid paying altogether, because at that point it would not matter if the story became public.  As reflected in emails and text messages between and among Lawyer A, Lawyer B, and the AMI Editor-in-Chief, Lawyer A attempted to delay making payment as long as possible. 

 

4 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

The person reporting it had been in the courtroom, they didn't expand beyond their short report

Sure it was more of a rhetorical question .. Trump could say stuff he knows will incite violence and then claim it didn't. Almost pointless to give someone with zero f's to give about what his sycophants do (as long as it's on his behalf) and why that sort of warning is all. 

3 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

This isn't good for Trump, as it means Trump was acknowledging the point was to influence the election:

 

what a maroon.

Just now, JohnSnowsHair said:

Sure it was more of a rhetorical question .. Trump could say stuff he knows will incite violence and then claim it didn't. Almost pointless to give someone with zero f's to give about what his sycophants do (as long as it's on his behalf) and why that sort of warning is all. 

Seems like it was the boiler plate warning to everyone in the room and not just Trump though of course we all know that Trump was the real target

CNN team now calling it "underwhelming", they seem quite disappointed right now

So read the statement of facts. It's going to boil down to this -- clearly, business records were falsified when the Trump Organization labeled the payments to Cohen as legal expenses. So that misdemeanor is a slam dunk, though it would never be charged if not for the election part. And Trump has no plausible deniability because the last ten payments were made personally by him.

It seems like Bragg is going to hang his hat on the fact that Cohen plead guilty to making an illegal campaign contribution, and Pecker signed a non-prosecution agreement along the same lines. So he'll argue that the violation of federal law is already established, and then introduce evidence that Trump's intent was to influence the election. This will come down to what, if anything, he has beyond Cohen's testimony (documents, texts, emails, etc.). 

Based on the little info we have so far, this seems like a mistake by Bragg IMO. Why he may have a logical legal case, it's a stretch and really cute. 

So no Conspiracy Charge after all?

21 minutes ago, DiPros said:

His lawyers are still calling him the President talking to reporters outside the courthouse.

Not just his lawyers, the entire cult calls him President.

7 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

So read the statement of facts. It's going to boil down to this -- clearly, business records were falsified when the Trump Organization labeled the payments to Cohen as legal expenses. So that misdemeanor is a slam dunk, though it would never be charged if not for the election part. And Trump has no plausible deniability because the last ten payments were made personally by him.

It seems like Bragg is going to hang his hat on the fact that Cohen plead guilty to making an illegal campaign contribution, and Pecker signed a non-prosecution agreement along the same lines. So he'll argue that the violation of federal law is already established, and then introduce evidence that Trump's intent was to influence the election. This will come down to what, if anything, he has beyond Cohen's testimony (documents, texts, emails, etc.). 

Based on the little info we have so far, this seems like a mistake by Bragg IMO. Why he may have a logical legal case, it's a stretch and really cute. 

This was always the concern. Bragg declined to charge a year ago, and got flack. Trump is almost certainly guilty here but this is going to be held up as evidence of a political witch hunt even if/when GA and the federal cases are filed. 

6 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

So no Conspiracy Charge after all?

Yeah, don't understand that. 

55 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

Scary

I don't know how that isn't contempt of court 

Just now, jsdarkstar said:

Not just his lawyers, the entire cult calls him President.

I believe most former presidents are sometimes referred to with their in-office honorific. I believe Hillary was still referred to as Madam Secretary at various times during her campaign. 

Technically I don't believe it's correct, but it's not uncommon in use. 

OK. There's a NY State law that makes it a crime to promote a candidacy by illegal means. That's new info for me. So it's not just federal election law Bragg is using, it's also state law. Interesting...

He's also saying they got new evidence since he passed on bringing the case when he first took office.