Beyond the Headlines in the leaked Trump Indictment
New York's Alvin Bragg has squared the circle to pull off dozens of felony counts without a crime.
Posted some of the technicalities of this indictment, from what we know while it remained sealed, itself very unusual.
Of course, to request a sealed indictment in NY which is unusual, while you then also leak information about it including that it is 30 to 34 felony counts is not only more unusual, but a real felony itself. This is Alvin Bragg and the politicized mickey mouse Manhattan DA office.
Will collect here some of what I included in a few twitter posts on the matter, such as here
its part II:
and more of an easier to read summary here:
Part I
Big news of the day of course, is that President #Trump was indicted by a NY grand jury. As we do, let me try to give you some context past the mainstream headlines. First I would remind those of us on the right, as I often say, that the political weaponization of the judiciary and law enforcement is something we should always oppose rather than try to wield ourselves.
We can never be as vicious as they can be and as we see in this case, it is nothing but a descent to banana republic, slavery and chaos. Won't go too deep into the case itself here (maybe later), others I am sure have or will. Will rather focus on some of what may come. Unless the thread is too long, and I will follow up on another. The standard euphoric libtard reactions are not lacking of course:
But the mainstream headlines are not much saner and little better. We see a lot of "Hush money" and sexual innuendo headlines.
The ridiculous indictment is still sealed, but we know it has nothing to do with either. Sex is still not illegal in America (even if its between a white man & a white woman, though appearances may deceive), and making a deal (through your lawyer of all ways) to keep quiet about something (an NDA) in exchange for money is also perfectly legal. Breaking it (as Cohen and Daniels did), not so much. So you go after payment technicalities.
The far leftist NY DA office undoubtedly first started by looking into campaign finance laws. They were most likely hoping that the $130,000 payment to the woman (porn actress & stripper known as Stormy Daniels) came from campaign funds. Then they would assert that this was a personal expense Trump had paid with campaign funds, violating campaign finance laws. Had Trump used campaign funds, there would be a very good argument that this was not a personal expense, but rather a campaign expense, especially given the timing.
The alleged affair was in 2006, and the payment in 2016, before the presidential election. It could be well argued that private citizen Trump cared little of beautiful women alleged affairs with him or not. The campaign however, would care how Candidate Trump was seen, and can spend money to try to shape that image. Despite the triviality of the charge, and the weak legal position as case law gives great leeway on campaign expenditures, the political witch-hunt headed by the NY DA was perfectly willing to plow ahead regardless.
When instead they found very strong evidence (including the recently surfaced letter below) that the payment did not come from the campaign, they said, no problem, and merely switched angles. This is the part not being reported anywhere. The irony is that the DA, finding the funds not being from the campaign, went ahead to indict for personally paying for the legal agreement just the same.
Most ironically, to do this you have to use the arguments the Trump Campaign could have reasonably used in the other scenario. The NY DA has to argue that this was obviously not a personal expense (which Trump could pay for personally), but a campaign issue. As a campaign issue, the payment has to be reported as a campaign contribution (perhaps an in-kind contribution).
The notion of going after someone, for personally paying for his own expense, campaign related or not, is unprecedented and absurd. As the McDermott, Will & Emery letter shows, Trump's attorney Michael D Cohen had paid with his own funds. He claims in the letter that he was not reimbursed by neither the Campaign NOR the Trump Organization. Apparently, this amount was just an expense by Cohen in the scope of his legal work for Trump, and was paid by the Trump Organization as "Legal Fees", ie Cohen simply took it from his retainer payments.
So now that you can't argue campaign finance violation as you originally wanted (thinking Trump must have of course paid for his personal "hush payments" from campaign funds and never from his own money because is a Republican), and you can't argue that it was on the contrary a campaign expense paid by personal funds (Cohen's or Trump's) that was not reported as a campaign contribution, you are reduced to arguing incorrect business records which a misdemeanor in New York (and only if in attempting a fraud).
Basically, if the Trump Organization categorized Cohen's retainer payments as “Legal Fees", you could argue that it was mis-categorized. If not a campaign contribution, at least a payment in leu of something from Stormy Daniels rather than simply legal work by Cohen. This is flimsy & weak at best, and an absurdity in the case of a former President & a future candidate. One could easily argue that this was within the scope of Cohen's legal work for Trump, similarly to a painter charging for painting fees, without separately charging you for paint and brushes.
Of course, I assume that we will be seeing multiple counts, perhaps dozens by using a count for each document they can find with the expense(s), & throwing in conspiracies & obstruction of justice to give the indictment some teeth beyond the misdemeanors. Conspiracy & obstruction are the go-to weapons for prosecutors to trump up (no pun intended) charges.
They are easier to prosecute and carry harsher penalties. All of this is without taking into account Trump's personal involvement and the many entities involved. To charge an individual you typically have to show his actions and intent. It is unlikely that Mr. Trump personally sent funds regarding this matter or "categorized" the payments. You are talking about a small army of accountants, lawyers and other staff overseeing a vast organization consisting of many entities.
To say this case is a huge overreach and very weak would be an understatement. It is political without a doubt. So in the next thread, we will look at some interesting & unreported issues regarding what may be next.
Part II
Now that the NY grand jury has indicted Trump, he is asked to appear in court for arraignment. He may very well do so, so advised by his attorneys. This way he can put it behind him for a long time and move freely throughout the US. He is likely to remain free on bail, so showing up allows you to garner support of those who see the inequity, and keep using it throughout the long drawn out process. There are motions, a trial, and appeals. Victory shows him as a winner over injustice & as an underdog, and defeats as a victim of injustice. Both may strengthen his support.
However I would suggest that he not turn himself to New York. A citizen, much more so a leader, need not cooperate with unconstitutional & illegal actions.
I suspected Florida would not cooperate with an arrest and extradition of Mr. Trump. DeSantis, has intelligently confirmed this recently. Hopefully this buries the hatchet that was gradually developing between them. So what happens if Trump does not turn himself in & Florida does not extradite him?
(Do not be surprised if the DA uses this (DeSantis’ statement) as an argument to refusing or limiting Trump’s freedom on bail).
Well, the answer is that at first, nothing at all. However, NY could seek a writ of mandamus from the Federal courts, forcing state officials to extradite Mr. Trump. Until 1987, states could freely refuse to extradite citizens to other states. Though the Constitution has an extradition clause, long standing precedent (1861) set by Kentucky v. Dennison, a governor could not be compelled by the Federal government to extradite a person to another state.
In 1987 that changed with Puerto Rico v Branstad, which reversed this precedent. So today NY would be likely to get a federal writ of mandamus compelling Florida to turn Trump over. However, especially with their being a conservative and Scalia admiring Supreme Court majority today, the details are important. This could potentially make new precedent.
The important part of the decision is Scalia's partial concurrence. The key here is that Scalia is refusing to state that the constitution forces a governor to hand over the fugitive (or at least that the Constitution gives the power to the Federal gov't to compel him to do so).
So as far as Scalia our teacher is concerned, the Constitution is out of the picture here. What is left is the federal statute, now 8 U. S. C. § 3182. What do we see here? Firstly, the chapter has two very interesting instances of limitations on charges of "a political nature".
The first is in the chapter scope in section 3185 regarding fugitives from US controlled countries or territories into the US. In both instances there is a lack of a clear extradition treaty and so the US will refrain from turning over folks charged with offenses of a "political nature".
It is arguable whether these would apply to 3182 between the states but a strong argument could be made that they do, and the repetition of the limitation could be understood that the statute does not envision ever turning people over due to politics.
Extradition treaties mention this expressly, and the statute covers here the situations without treaties. It goes without saying that US states should not be prosecuting people politically, as DA Braggs is doing to Mr. Trump.
Perhaps much more interestingly however is that the entire stature, and both the current precedent and the overturned one, are regarding "Fugitives". Looking at 3182 again we can see clearly the applicability to fleeing fugitives. The idea is to prevent residents of one state to flee to other states and find sanctuary. It is quite another thing for states to demand extradition of other state's residents.
In Puerto Rico vs Branstad, Calder fled from Puerto Rico to his family's home in Iowa. After being arrested, charged and arraigned in Puerto Rico (of homicide & not of a misdemeanor passed the statute of limitations), Calder posted bail and fled to Iowa.
In Kentucky vs Dennison, Willis Lago fled to Ohio. Even the "Extradition Clause", Article IV Section 2 of the US Constitution, which the 3182 statute in question is mean to be giving teeth (enforceability) to, clearly requires fleeing. Mr. Trump is not a New York resident nor was he when this business record was entered. It was also not made by Trump (if at all) while in NY. President Trump is a resident of Florida and did not flee from New York.
I would propose that this is a very important and unnoticed part of the statute (and the Article IV clause & its SCOTUS rulings). Since President Trump is not a fugitive from New York, neither Florida nor any other state is required to hand him over to the state on politically motivated charges. In fact I would argue that it would be their duty to refuse to do so and protect the rights of their residents (or guests).
Governor DeSantis has the right idea on this, and the right should take that all the way.
In a state as out of control as New York and in one as thoroughly controlled by the Democratic party, Trump should be weary of taking for granted a reasonable arraignment process. On everything from bail, to gag orders to movement restrictions, who knows what a NY judge may try.
Better to stand up for what is right among patriots and defenders of the constitution than to depend on the non existent mercy of the vicious radical left. Let Trump & DeSantis know that there are alternatives to the former President in handcuffs on Tuesday in Manhattan.