Tag: indictment

  • Opinion | How Biden Could Take Advantage of Trump’s Indictment — The Korean Way

    Opinion | How Biden Could Take Advantage of Trump’s Indictment — The Korean Way

    [ad_1]

    Unlike the U.S., which is queasy about prosecuting any former president no matter how awful they are, South Korea is a global leader among wealthy democracies in putting its former presidents in jail. Excluding Yoon, South Korea has had eight presidents since 1980; four of them were imprisoned. Yoon, a former prosecutor, was personally involved in the cases against two of them from his own party.

    In 2016, Yoon was the head of investigation under special prosecutor Park Young-soo — the South Korean equivalent to Special Counsel Jack Smith — and their work ultimately led to the impeachment and removal of then-president Park Geun-hye. The politics of Yoon, who is now the country’s top conservative, were not clear at the time, nor did it matter. He captivated the nation with his take-no-prisoners approach to the investigation. The criminal prosecution of Park, based largely on the facts that Yoon investigated, led to a 20-year sentence. The succeeding president Moon Jae-in and his liberal administration rewarded Yoon by appointing him as the powerful Seoul Central District Prosecutor. Then in 2018, Yoon’s office indicted another former president, Lee Myung-bak, who served before Park from 2008 to 2013, for bribery and embezzlement. Lee was convicted and sentenced to a 17-year prison term.

    Yoon’s central role in these (ex-)presidential prosecutions turned him into a political star despite his total lack of charisma. A career prosecutor with no prior electoral experience, Yoon may be the worst public speaker that South Korean politics has ever seen. During his presidential campaign, Yoon’s tendency to speak in run-on sentences that swerved wildly into eyebrow-raising statements — such as praising South Korea’s former dictators as “good at growing the economy” or advocating for a 120-hour work week and relaxing food safety laws so that “poor people can choose to eat substandard food” — earned him the nickname “a Gaffe a Day.” (Yet another parallel with Biden, one might add.)

    Nevertheless, his public image as a principled prosecutor standing against the highest power was enough to carry him through a razor-thin presidential election victory in March 2022. Biden may not be a prosecutor himself, but Yoon’s tactics could provide Biden the same kind of political power if applied subtly by his allies. Perhaps during the state dinner at the White House, Biden might lean into Yoon’s ear to whisper: How do I capture some of that magic and take advantage of these investigations?

    First, Yoon might answer, leverage the allure of the rule of law. South Koreans are deeply cynical people with low trust in government — much like the politically polarized voters of the U.S. But that cynicism, in fact, is a by-product of a strong desire to see a fair application of law that punishes even the most powerful. One of Yoon’s shining moments was early in the Park Geun-hye administration in 2013, when he led the team that investigated the Lee administration’s use of its spy agency to help elect Park in the presidential election. When conservative legislators criticized him, Yoon declared: “My loyalty is not to a person.” Even to a cynical audience, such high-minded appeals to the rule of law can resonate.

    Second, make sure to get the media on your side. In a high-profile political trial, a classic prosecutor’s tactic is to make well-timed leaks to journalists, making the defendant face a parallel trial before the public in addition to the one in the courtroom. Despite being a poor public speaker, Yoon could exert significant public influence because of his mastery of this tactic.

    So far, Biden remains tight-lipped on the indictment of Trump, a wise move that allows the president to seem above the fray. All fine and good, but Biden and his staff could also privately communicate with journalists to create a media circus, as Yoon did. Technically under South Korean law, it is a criminal offense for a prosecutor to disclose information gained from an investigation prior to an indictment. As a prosecutor, Yoon flagrantly disregarded this prohibition. Yoon was well known for constantly working the phone with journalists and had been spotted meeting with owners of major newspapers. News reports speculated he gave the media access to inside information in exchange for his favored narrative and self-promotion.

    Third, and most important: Always look out for number one, and never forget the fact that you are doing this for your own advancement. Yoon would not have become the president if he simply rested on his laurels after prosecuting the two ex-presidents. Following Lee’s imprisonment, Moon sought to dramatically curtail the investigative power of prosecutors, in a move his opponents criticized as an attempt to cover his own behind. If Yoon had acquiesced, he would simply be remembered as a famed former prosecutor who ended his career as one of Seoul’s many law firm partners.

    Instead, Yoon staged a full-scale revolt. In order to protect the power of his office, he turned against his boss, Justice Minister Cho Kuk, a star liberal politician who was tasked with the prosecution reform that could threaten Yoon’s power as prosecutor. Claiming corruption, Yoon targeted Cho with attacks even more wide-ranging and vicious than any of his previous investigations. It was a stunning about-face, as if Attorney General Merrick Garland suddenly went all-in on investigating Hunter Biden in an overt pursuit of power and popularity. Yoon’s investigation team carried out more than a hundred raids that included Cho’s house, workplace, his mother’s home, his brother’s home, his wife’s workplace and his children’s schools.

    Tipped off in advance, a throng of journalists swarmed each raid location, shoving a camera and microphone at anyone who would come out. In an infamous episode, no less than a dozen journalists blocked the motor scooter of a delivery worker coming out of Cho’s residence, desperately asking what the Justice Minister’s family had ordered. Thousands of news reports raised allegations that Cho was forming a secret political slush fund based on his investment in a private equity fund, even though all these raids failed to uncover any evidence of corruption. Yoon then pivoted to alleging that Cho’s wife forged documents for their daughter’s college admission, and won a four-year sentence against the Justice Minister’s wife. In the end, the prosecutors could not indict Cho or his family on corruption charges, but no matter — unable to withstand the onslaught, Cho resigned from his post, with his political life all but finished.

    Yoon’s attack on Cho made him an unlikely hero for South Korea’s conservatives, which suited Yoon just fine. For a career prosecutor with little political conviction other than Nietzschean will to power, the conservative People Power Party, weakened by the imprisonment of two of its former presidents, became an ideal target for his hostile takeover. With their party in shambles, most South Korean conservatives were ready to welcome any credible champion. The PPP’s old guard, the fans of Park who considered Yoon their archenemy, could offer little resistance. His rise to the top made one lesson clear: Mastering the art of prosecuting political rivals is the most powerful tool an ambitious politician can yield.

    In the end, just five years after South Korean conservatives suffered the embarrassing meltdown that was Park’s impeachment, they recaptured the presidency with Yoon. Imagine, Yoon might tell Biden, what you could do for Democrats in the wake of a Trump prosecution.

    [ad_2]
    #Opinion #Biden #Advantage #Trumps #Indictment #Korean
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Trump’s fundraising was lagging. Then he said an indictment was imminent.

    Trump’s fundraising was lagging. Then he said an indictment was imminent.

    [ad_1]

    But Trump’s early presidential campaign initially struggled to keep up the momentum. The fourth quarter of 2022 was Save America’s worst in terms of overall fundraising and it spent more on digital fundraising expenses than it raised in December of last year, according to FEC filings.

    Even with the surge in revenue linked to the indictment, Trump’s first-quarter numbers still trail where he was at the same time in 2019, when he was running for reelection. That could be due to the fact that donor cash is being spread out among his GOP challengers or that donors are waiting to see how the primary plays out. The campaign of former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, the most prominent other Republican to announce so far, reported raising $5.1 million for her campaign over the three months. Vivek Ramaswany, who has never held office, reported raising around $850,000 from donors.

    While Trump has several other political groups, only his campaign was required to file a report with the FEC on Saturday, so the full magnitude of his expenses during the first quarter is not clear. His joint fundraising committee appeared to shift strategy this quarter, including cutting back on text messaging after long sending many users as many as three texts per day.

    Trump’s campaign committee still reported spending $3.5 million over the first three months of the year, with payroll occupying the single greatest expense, with roughly two dozen campaign employees on staff. The campaign also paid nearly $500,000 to Tag Air Inc., a Trump-owned company that operates his airplanes.

    Other expenses included $122,000 to Advancing Strategies, LLC, which is helmed by Chris LaCivita; more than $80,000 to Georgetown Advisory, the firm founded by former Trump advisor Boris Epshteyn, for legal consulting and communications services; as well as more than $75,000 to Compass Legal Group, headed by former Trump administration lawyer Scott Gast; and $30,000 to Belmont Strategies, a consulting firm headed by Andrew Surabian, an aide to Donald Trump Jr.

    The campaign also spent just over $4,000 at Trump’s trademark Mar-a-Lago Club.

    [ad_2]
    #Trumps #fundraising #lagging #indictment #imminent
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Trump seeks delay of defamation trial, citing ‘media frenzy’ caused by Manhattan indictment

    Trump seeks delay of defamation trial, citing ‘media frenzy’ caused by Manhattan indictment

    [ad_1]

    main trumpsurrender 0404 last13

    Tacopina acknowledged that Trump draws blanket media coverage at nearly all times — but he said Google searches indicated a particularly intense surge of coverage of the charges brought by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg earlier this month. Those charges include claims that Trump falsified business records to conceal hush money payments to a porn star to cover up an affair. Because those charges relate to Carroll’s claims of “sexual misconduct,” Tacopina said, there’s a particularly acute risk that jurors in the civil trial will conflate the issues.

    Kaplan has seemed intent on charging ahead with Trump’s civil case despite the surrounding chaos caused by the indictment. He recently backed a bid to permit jurors in the civil trial anonymity, citing the potential threats to their safety caused by Trump’s rhetoric — particularly toward Bragg and the judge in his criminal case.

    But Trump’s effort to delay the civil case until at least May 23 underscores the extraordinary challenge of subjecting a former president — particularly one who garners intense media coverage at all times — to a civil or criminal trial before an impartial jury.

    Trump’s tangle of legal threats is only likely to intensify, as several other criminal matters approach the charging stage. That includes an investigation by Atlanta-area DA Fani Willis, who has said charging decisions for Trump and his allies are “imminent” in a case about his bid to subvert Georgia’s election laws in 2020. At the federal level, special counsel Jack Smith appears to be reaching the final stages of his probe into Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents after leaving office, and he’s begun penetrating Trump’s inner circle in a separate probe of Trump’s bid to subvert the 2020 election.

    Tacopina didn’t mention those other looming matters. Rather he said he expected a “cooling off” period after the Manhattan indictment to arrive by late May, when the immediacy of the Bragg news had faded. The next big milestone in that case, he said, was in August, when Trump is expected to file a motion to dismiss his case.

    [ad_2]
    #Trump #seeks #delay #defamation #trial #citing #media #frenzy #caused #Manhattan #indictment
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • How Trump’s Indictment Will Change Politics

    How Trump’s Indictment Will Change Politics

    [ad_1]

    screen shot 2023 04 06 at 6 05 04 pm

    Those who support Trump must acknowledge this new illiberal reality. The elite’s destruction of civic customs is complete. In the coming months, we shall see pro-Trump forces using the same corrosive tactics — or lose utterly.

    “The start of a new era in which no one is above the law.”

    Julia Azari is a professor of political science at Marquette University.

    Trump’s indictment might have a somewhat counterintuitive effect on the 2024 nomination race: His legal troubles might encourage other Republicans to get into the race, as we saw with long-shot candidate Asa Hutchinson last week. So far, we haven’t seen a stampede of new candidates. But if that does happen in response to any perceived vulnerability on Trump’s part, having a larger field of candidates could help him win the nomination by splitting up the non-Trump vote.

    The connection between politics and presidential accountability is an even more interesting one, in my opinion. We don’t have a monarchy in this country, and presidents are supposed to have the same status as everyone else. But the presidency has long had an air of ceremony and statesmanship, signifying the power it holds. This makes the politics of holding the president accountable especially painful, for their political supporters and the country as a whole. Part of the logic of President Gerald Ford’s pardon of President Richard Nixon after Watergate was to end our “national nightmare.” But in 2023, things have changed. Politics often feels like a nightmare anyway, so there’s no sense in trying to dodge the conflict inevitable in a post-presidential investigation. Polarization has helped to erode some of the mystique of the office, and that might be a good thing in the end.

    It’s impossible to separate law from politics entirely when charging a former president. It’s going to be messy, but possibly the start of a new era in which no one is above the law — not even those once charged with executing it.

    This prosecution may be the only way to avert a slide into authoritarianism.

    Kimberly Wehle is a visiting professor at the American University Washington College of Law.

    As I wrote for POLITICO Magazine precisely a year ago, the cost of not indicting Trump would be a presidency without guardrails. Today, the stakes of this prosecution are arguably even higher, as he’s now a candidate for the 2024 presidential race and favored for the Republican nomination. Numerous polls have him at a double-digit lead over Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.

    A criminally convicted Trump would look unappealing to many swing voters, potentially knocking him out of serious contention for the White House. It thus may be the only way to avert either another contested presidential election with widespread violence or, worse, a slide into authoritarianism.

    Trump deserves credit for one thing, at the very least: He says what he is going to do, and he does it. If he is the GOP nominee, there are two possible outcomes. Both are deeply disturbing.

    [ad_2]
    #Trumps #Indictment #Change #Politics
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • House GOP fires off first subpoena in probe of Trump indictment

    House GOP fires off first subpoena in probe of Trump indictment

    [ad_1]

    congress oversight biden 06202

    It’s unusual for Congress to subpoena a line prosecutor — and Jordan, in his Thursday letter, alleges that Bragg’s office directed Pomerantz not to cooperate with oversight. Pomerantz didn’t immediately respond to questions about that claim.

    Bragg’s office issued a fiery rebuke of the subpoena, painting it as House Republicans’ latest attempt to meddle by “intruding on the sovereignty of the state of New York by interfering in an ongoing criminal matter in state court.”

    “The House GOP continues to attempt to undermine an active investigation and ongoing New York criminal case with an unprecedented campaign of harassment and intimidation. Repeated efforts to weaken state and local law enforcement actions are an abuse of power and will not deter us from our duty to uphold the law,” Bragg’s office added.

    But Pomerantz has also written a book where he included details of the New York investigation into Trump and the Trump organization that could make the subpoena harder to resist.

    The Jan. 6 select committee used a similar argument against former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows’ resistance to a summons, arguing he waived any potential privileges by releasing a book that describes some of his interactions with the former president. Meadows was later held in contempt of Congress for refusing to testify, though the Justice Department declined to prosecute him.

    However, another Jan. 6 committee witness who wrote a book before refusing to appear — Peter Navarro — is currently being prosecuted for contempt of Congress.

    Jordan told Pomerantz that “you have no basis to decline to testify about matters before the Committee that you have already discussed in your book and/or on a prime-time television program with an audience in the millions, including on the basis of any purported duty of confidentiality or privilege interest.”

    The subpoena comes just days after Trump appeared in court in New York and pled not guilty to 34 felony counts of “falsifying business records.” Prosecutors allege that Trump, the first former president ever indicted, tried first to bury and then cover up damaging allegations about an extramarital affair by falsifying company records.

    It also comes as Republicans weigh their next steps in their probe of Bragg’s office.

    They’ve returned multiple rounds of volleys seeking testimony and official documents from Leslie Dubeck, Bragg’s general counsel. Dubeck replied to Jordan, Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) and Administration Chair Bryan Steil (R-Wis.) last week requesting a list of questions they would want to ask Bragg as well as what documents they think they could receive that wouldn’t disclose private details of an investigation.

    Dubeck, while urging Republicans to negotiate before a potential subpoena of Bragg, also offered a blistering critique of the investigation in her letter calling their accusations of political persecution as “baseless and inflammatory.”

    “We urge you to refrain from these inflammatory accusations, withdraw your demand for information, and let the criminal justice process proceed without unlawful political interference,” she added.

    Bragg’s office has contended that congressional Republicans have no “legitimate legislative purpose” behind the inquiry into the DA’s Trump probe. But Jordan has contended the inquiry is linked to the national implications of prosecuting a former president — from conflicts between state and federal law to the Secret Service’s role in protecting an ex-president who is also a criminal defendant.

    Republicans haven’t yet responded to Dubeck’s latest letter, but Jordan defended the investigation in his letter to Pomerantz — reiterating that Republicans could use findings from it to draft bills on the use of federal forfeiture funds.

    That would include, Jordan said, a potential prohibition of those funds’ use to investigate a current or former president, or a presidential candidate. (The Manhattan DA’s office disclosed that it has used federal forfeiture funds on expenses related to investigations of Trump or the Trump organization.)

    Jordan has stressed in a series of TV interviews this week that a subpoena of Bragg remains on the table. He’s also left the door open to the DA voluntarily appearing or even Republicans focusing first on other individuals in Bragg’s orbit.

    Pomerantz and Carey Dunne are of particular interest to House Republicans, since both resigned from Bragg’s office earlier this year — reportedly because of Bragg’s doubts at the time about moving forward with the Trump case. Thursday’s subpoena comes after Jordan fired off letters to both Pomerantz and Dunne last month, but has not issued a similar subpoena to Dunne.

    Kyle Cheney contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]
    #House #GOP #fires #subpoena #probe #Trump #indictment
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Opinion | The Gaping Hole in the Middle of the Trump Indictment

    Opinion | The Gaping Hole in the Middle of the Trump Indictment

    [ad_1]

    trump indictment 73552

    For example, Bragg states that Trump “took steps that mischaracterized, for tax purposes, the true nature of the payments made in furtherance of the scheme.” But what tax crime exactly? Bragg doesn’t even specify whether it was a federal or state crime, or how he thought Trump intended to violate criminal tax laws.

    To be sure, you can look at details within the statement of facts and try to guess at what those tax crimes might be. In one paragraph, Bragg explains how Trump’s payment to then-lawyer Michael Cohen to reimburse him for paying off Stormy Daniels was “doubled” to $360,000 so Cohen “could characterize the payment as income on his tax returns” so that Cohen would be “left with $180,000 after paying approximately 50 percent in income taxes.”

    On its face, it sounds like Bragg believes that Trump intended to commit another crime by causing Cohen to falsely report on his tax return that he had too much income, thereby paying too much in taxes. A jury might have trouble believing that Trump intended to commit a crime by paying more money than necessary to the government in taxes.

    But there’s another plausible reading of the statement of facts — that Trump “disguised” the reimbursement to Cohen as “a payment for legal services” so he could deduct it as a business expense. Either of these potential theories could be a criminal violation of either state or federal tax laws. But nothing in the statement of facts or the indictment makes clear what Bragg’s legal theory is or what state or federal tax law he alleges that Trump intended to violate.

    Bragg also alleges that Trump “violated election laws” and repeatedly refers to the fact that Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to violating federal election laws. But again, neither the indictment nor the statement of facts cites any campaign finance or election laws, and neither document explains how Trump allegedly intended to violate election laws.

    During a press conference after the arraignment, Bragg stated that Trump’s “scheme violated New York election law, which makes it a crime to conspire to promote the candidacy by unlawful means,” a reference to New York Election Law 17-152, a misdemeanor with a two-year statute of limitations. Bragg also noted that the payments to Daniels exceeded federal contribution limits.

    It remains unclear whether Bragg relies on federal or state election laws, and both pose legal issues for the prosecution. If he relies on state election law, there is an argument that the New York state law is preempted by federal laws. After all, Trump was running for federal office. Bragg would be on stronger ground if he relied on federal election law, but it is not yet settled in New York courts that federal crimes can be used to bump up these crimes to felonies.

    I’m not alone in wondering what the exact “other crimes” are. Since the indictment was released to the public, I’ve spent hours discussing the indictment with other lawyers, including multiple former Manhattan assistant district attorneys. None of us could determine with certainty what crimes Bragg is using to bump up the misdemeanor counts to felonies.

    That is a serious problem. Like every other defendant, Trump has a right to be informed of the nature of the charges against him. His legal team can’t prepare a defense if they don’t know what Bragg’s legal theory is.

    I expect Trump’s team soon will file a motion for a bill of particulars, the formal method by which defendants can demand prosecutors provide more specifics about the charges. Most of these motions are a waste of time, but in this case, the motion should be granted.

    For now, Bragg seems to be leaving his options open, giving himself an opportunity to adjust his case in the upcoming weeks. That’s not how our system is supposed to work. While vagueness might give Bragg an advantage at this stage, prosecutors are supposed to promote justice, not try to gain an edge unfairly.

    To be fair to Bragg, his office usually does not spell out what the “other crimes” are in an indictment. But as former Manhattan assistant district attorneys have pointed out to me, usually that is because the other crimes are charged within the same indictment, leaving little doubt regarding what they are. Given that no other crime is charged here besides Falsifying Business Records, it’s not clear what those “other crimes” are in Trump’s case.

    That is not just a problem for Trump. That’s a problem for all of us. Bragg should know that the entire country is watching the proceedings brought by his office, and every American deserves to know exactly what the former President of the United States is accused of doing.

    The indictment of a former president is a statement that no one is above the law. But that principle requires that every defendant is treated fairly. Trump — and the American people — deserve fair notice of the crimes that form the basis of the felony charges in the indictment.

    [ad_2]
    #Opinion #Gaping #Hole #Middle #Trump #Indictment
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • The new revelations — and key questions — in the Trump indictment

    The new revelations — and key questions — in the Trump indictment

    [ad_1]

    All 34 felony charges against Trump are identical, with each carrying the possibility of up to four years in prison, although judges rarely sentence defendants to jail for such offenses.

    The indictment is a bare-bones document that simply recites the alleged offenses in boiler-plate language. However, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office also released a 14-page statement of facts laying out the case in greater detail.

    Here are details from the groundbreaking court filings that could make or break the case of People v. Donald J. Trump.

    The aggravating factor

    Going into Tuesday’s historic and much-previewed arraignment, a key mystery was exactly how Bragg planned to bring the charges as felonies. The charge at the heart of the case – falsifying business records – is typically a misdemeanor, but it becomes a felony if the defendant falsified the records to obscure a separate crime.

    The most obvious candidate for that aggravating element is the admission from Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, that he arranged a $130,000 payment to porn star Stormy Daniels in consultation with Trump and to aid Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

    “The defendant Donald J. Trump repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal criminal conduct that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election,” the statement of facts says.

    “The participants [in the scheme] violated election laws,” the statement continues, though it does not explicitly cite which ones. The statement also mentions Cohen’s guilty plea in 2018 to two federal campaign finance crimes. And in a press release, Bragg said Trump and others sought to conceal “attempts to violate state and federal election laws.”

    The references to federal election violations are virtually certain to be the focus of pre-trial motions from Trump’s attorneys, who have contended publicly that this state-law offense cannot be piggybacked on a federal-law crime.

    If defense attorneys prevail on such motions, it would not necessarily wipe out the criminal case against Trump. Instead, the case could remain as 34 misdemeanor charges. That would amount to a legal, public relations and political victory for Trump.

    Such a result would further diminish the chances of Trump being jailed if found guilty. The maximum sentence on a second-degree falsifying business records charge is up to one year in prison on each count. A downgrading of the case to a misdemeanor might also aid Trump’s efforts to delay a trial.

    A strange tax claim

    The charges against Trump do not include any tax fraud offenses that some legal experts said they hoped to see to buttress the seriousness of the case. However, the statement of facts Bragg filed along with the indictment makes a surprising claim: that Trump and his associates engaged in deception by paying New York state more in taxes than it was owed.

    “The participants also took steps that mischaracterized, for tax purposes, the true nature of the payments made in furtherance of the scheme,” the statement says.

    It alleges that Trump paid an increased reimbursement to Cohen – a procedure known as “grossing up” the payment – in order to compensate him for the taxes he would owe by booking the money as legal fees.

    These alleged contortions resulted in Cohen paying about $180,000 in state and federal income taxes, when he may have not owed anything if Trump had simply reimbursed him for the $130,000 and the payment had been properly recorded. That’s because the reimbursement of money Cohen already paid to Daniels wouldn’t have represented income for Cohen.

    But recording the money, falsely, as legal fees subjected Cohen to significant income-tax liability – meaning that any trickery the men engaged in may actually have benefitted state and federal coffers. That may be why Bragg’s team doesn’t deem the practice “fraud,” and why no tax fraud or evasion charge was included in the indictment.

    Is every record kept at a business a business record?

    For Trump to be convicted of falsifying business records, the records at issue have to be, well, business records.

    The New York law at issue requires that the falsification involve the records of “an enterprise,” and each count of the indictment claims that Trump falsified records “kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.”

    The facts are more complicated. It’s true that the checks sent to Cohen, which labeled the payments as legal expenses, were issued by employees working for Trump’s business empire. But they were not charged to Trump’s businesses. Instead, the payments were made from one of Trump’s personal accounts or from a Trump family trust.

    The key question, and one that is sure to feature in efforts by Trump’s lawyers to derail the case, is whether documents that happened to pass through the Trump Organization or handled by Trump Organization personnel are automatically classified as business records, even if the source of the funds was Trump’s personal accounts.

    Bragg’s statement of facts declares that “each check was processed by the Trump Organization” and gives further details about how Cohen arranged payment from bookkeepers at the Trump companies. Prosecutors say at least two of the payments were approved by longtime Trump Organization chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg, who pleaded guilty to unrelated tax evasion charges in 2021.

    “The TO CFO approved the payment, and, in turn, the TO Controller sent the invoice to

    the Trump Organization Accounts Payable Supervisor (the “TO Accounts Payable Supervisor”)

    with the following instructions: ‘Post to legal expenses. Put ‘retainer for the months of January

    and February 2017’ in the description,’” the prosecutors’ filing says.

    Legal experts said they expect Trump’s lawyers to argue to the judge and, if necessary, a jury that wholly personal expenses that are simply handled by an accountant or other clerical personnel don’t become the “records of an enterprise” just by virtue of that process.

    Kyle Cheney contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]
    #revelations #key #questions #Trump #indictment
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Read the full Trump indictment and statement of facts

    Read the full Trump indictment and statement of facts

    [ad_1]

    trumpindictmentsc

    Prosecutors in New York unsealed an indictment and statement of facts Tuesday against former President Donald Trump on felony charges of falsifying business records in his alleged role in a hush money scheme.

    Read the full indictment here.

    Also read the statement of facts from the case here.


    [ad_2] #Read #full #Trump #indictment #statement #facts ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Circus: Marjorie Taylor Greene, George Santos home in on Trump indictment

    Circus: Marjorie Taylor Greene, George Santos home in on Trump indictment

    [ad_1]

    “I’m here to protest and use my voice to take a stand. Every American should take a stand,” Greene said.

    While Greene was only present at the protest for about 10 minutes, conservative members swarmed around Greene, shoving and elbowing to get a glimpse at the congressmember. NYPD escorted her out.

    Greene has been one of Trump’s most loyal supporters, defending him since the Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021. Greene recently appeared with Trump at his Waco, Texas rally.

    New York Rep. George Santos quickly walked by the courthouse earlier Tuesday, not stopping to protest or answer questions.

    “I wanted to support the president because this is unprecedented, and this is a bad day for democracy,” Santos told reporters. “This starts a precedent of what’s to stop the next prosecutor in two years to do the same thing to Joe Biden and moving on every four years.”

    “This cheapens the judicial system, not good for America.”

    Santos, who is currently under investigation by the House Ethics Committee, did not answer multiple questions about his own legal troubles. Santos has been tied to multiple controversies since his election, including fabricating major portions of his biography, accusations of stealing money from veterans, alleged involvement in a credit card scam, and falsely claiming to be Jewish.

    Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) made an appearance after the rally and told Greene to “go back to your district.”

    “Do your freaking job, Marjorie Taylor Green. You don’t need to be in New York City talking that nonsense. Go back to your district,” Bowman said.

    Earlier on Monday, New York City Mayor Eric Adams had a message for Greene and protesters: “Control yourselves.”

    “People like Marjorie Taylor Greene, who is known to spread misinformation and hate speech, while you’re in town, be on your best behavior,” Adams said at a City Hall press conference about security preparations.

    At the protest, Greene responded to Adams’ comments.

    “Also, to the Mayor Adams, as you can see, I am here peacefully protesting. He called me out by name,” Greene said.

    Trump is set to be arraigned Tuesday following his indictment over alleged hush money payments to porn star Stormy Daniels.

    A Trump supporter, Alann Gotlieb, 62, who showed up at the protest with his dog Anarchy, said that the counter-protest organized by New York City Public Advocate Jumaane Williams was an attack on conservatives hoping to make their voices heard in the blue city.

    “I don’t know what Jumaane Williams is standing up for,” Gotlieb said. “No, I don’t think [he’s here in good faith] because he’s counter-protesting the First Amendment, he’s counter-protesting freedom of speech, and he supports locking somebody up who allegedly gave money to Stormy Daniels when Michael Cohen was dealing with the whole thing.”

    Meanwhile, Karen Irwan, 47, of Hell’s Kitchen said they showed up to celebrate Trump’s indictment.

    “Watch out, we have fascism over there,” Irwan said of the pro-Trump rally, adding, “We are celebrating the very first moment in my lifetime that it appears our justice system is attempting to apply equally to people, even people with power. It means that we can pretend now that we have a democracy and can start to act like it now.”

    [ad_2]
    #Circus #Marjorie #Taylor #Greene #George #Santos #home #Trump #indictment
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • The Trump Indictment Reveals More About Our Politics Than It Does About the Ex-President

    The Trump Indictment Reveals More About Our Politics Than It Does About the Ex-President

    [ad_1]

    Trump’s actions have remained consistent over time. He started his presidential bid with a clear track record on race and immigration, paying debts, and following the law. At nearly every turn, Trump has been exactly who his words and actions told us who he was. It’s the response to them that has changed, and that has told us who we are.

    What has surprised at least some observers is the reaction to Trump from political leaders, the media and the public. From insulting John McCain in 2015 to the Access Hollywood tape to the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Va., to Jan. 6, elected Republicans have mostly kept their criticisms tepid, and the president’s public support has remained steady. The media has often relied on the “unprecedented” frame, talking about Trump’s actions as norm-breaking when they should have talked about them as republic-breaking.

    The politics of revelation casts Trump as not a catalyst of change but a mirror to how we have changed. At the heart of this narrative is the idea that partisan ties overwhelm everything. And this perspective has some basis in political science. Trump’s approval ratings in office were incredibly stable, regardless of positive or negative events. It’s quite striking when you contrast this with the approval patterns for Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan — you can identify events and economic changes in the dips and climbs. For Trump — and Obama, too, for that matter — almost nothing seems to move the needle. The “doom loop” narrative of party politics advanced by New America’s Lee Drutman identifies this as one of the disadvantages of two-party politics. Writing about the 2020 election, John Sides, Chris Tausanovitch and Lynn Vavreck find a calcification of politics, where voters’ attitudes and choices reflect long-standing factors like racial views and partisanship, and don’t change very much in response to major events. Partisanship and Trump approval dampened the impact of the economy on vote choices, and, despite very different circumstances, voters were remarkably consistent in their 2016 and 2020 votes.

    These findings lend credence to the idea that our politics has become a politics of revelation: That the latest Trump scandal will do little to change how people think, and will instead only further show the real nature of our politics and values. That is, it will show that “lol nothing matters” and that Americans prefer to defend their teams rather than preserve their democracy.

    The 2022 midterm elections challenged this narrative a bit, and that suggests we’re capable of moving beyond the politics of revelation. Split-ticket voting came back, suggesting that voters could cross party lines when they didn’t like the candidates. Some of the most extreme candidates — those who had expressed views on elections, democracy and abortion that ran counter to public opinion — won fewer votes than their more mainstream counterparts. The result was not just that election denial seemed like a losing brand. It also seemed like American politics could be made flexible and responsive again.

    In this light, the first indictment of a former president provides an opportunity for the country not to just reveal itself, to stay stuck in a politics of revelation, but possibly to evolve beyond that in response to a new situation.

    This could happen in two ways. First is the familiar question of whether partisanship will once again triumph over everything else. But the second test is a new one: whether we can figure out how to hold former presidents accountable for their actions. As many commentators have pointed out, it’s quite normal in the American system for governors and members of Congress to face consequences when they’ve broken the law. Prison time for former governors of Illinois is an especially bipartisan affair.

    But it’s not an accident that the presidency has been the exception to this. Modern presidents are such powerful and ubiquitous figures, so synonymous with national identity, that the idea of holding them to account has only been seen as destabilizing. The Clinton impeachment was widely viewed as a political stunt, and any serious questions were obscured by national satisfaction with the economy and suspicion of the impeachment process. Upon leaving office, Clinton entered into a plea bargain to avoid indictment for lying under oath. Nixon and Watergate were taken much more seriously, but Ford chose to pardon his predecessor upon taking office, declaring that it was more important to move on than to spend more time facing up to what the office of the presidency could be, and, in fact, had become.

    Presidents, unlike members of Congress (and some governors) are also term-limited, which means that they will become ex-presidents in a fairly predictable timeframe. This means there are strong incentives to avoid any post-presidential legal processes that could be seen as politicized (or, indeed, be politicized) turning the legal system into a political tool to punish opponents. In sum, we’ve treated the presidency, including the post-presidency, as if it were too big to fail. The Trump indictment pushes our political system in a new direction, and offers us a chance to rethink power and accountability.

    In other words, there are real downsides to adopting a framing of Trump’s indictment that casts it as a process of revealing more about the American public, rather than a genuine political development in and of itself. We already have evidence that while partisanship matters a great deal and structures our politics, it doesn’t beat out every factor every time. Norms can change, and the politics of the presidency have changed in response to shifting expectations. Many people may have been surprised at the response — or lack thereof — to Trump’s past scandals and statements. But now we know who Trump is, and how his party responds to him, and can move forward.

    What lies ahead will likely still be deeply partisan, and Trump’s most loyal supporters will rally to his side. But not everyone will, and the decisions of legal and political actors, media and ordinary citizens almost certainly will shape what, if anything, matters for preserving accountability in American politics.

    [ad_2]
    #Trump #Indictment #Reveals #Politics #ExPresident
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )