{"id":1753,"date":"2023-03-31T19:20:17","date_gmt":"2023-03-31T19:20:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wifamily.news\/?p=1753"},"modified":"2023-03-31T20:02:09","modified_gmt":"2023-03-31T20:02:09","slug":"14-facts-you-must-read-about-the-donald-trump-indictment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/wifamily.news\/?p=1753","title":{"rendered":"14 Facts You MUST Read About the Donald Trump Indictment"},"content":{"rendered":"

This post originally appeared at https:\/\/www.wisconsinrightnow.com\/trump-indictment\/<\/a><\/p>\n

\"Here<\/p>\n

Here are 14 important facts to remember when assessing the Donald Trump indictment by the Manhattan district attorney<\/strong><\/p>\n

One important caveat: The indictment is sealed, so no one has seen the charges or evidence. The below facts are based on what is known thus far. News reports all say it\u2019s believed the indictment centers around a $130,000 payment to porn star Stormy Daniels, who alleges she had a sexual encounter with Trump, and whether it was falsified as a business expense to get around federal campaign finance laws.<\/p>\n

The 14 facts:<\/p>\n

1. The statute of limitations has likely expired unless it can be shown Trump was \u2018continuously\u2019 out of the state<\/strong><\/p>\n

The statute of limitations in New York for felonies is five years and it\u2019s two years for misdemeanors, except for the most serious crimes like rape and murder, according to Newsweek<\/a>. The Stormy Daniels allegations date to 2016. Do the math.<\/p>\n

According to the left-wing Nation, \u201cthe statute of limitations on bookkeeping fraud and campaign finance violations is five years. That brings you to 2021. The statute of limitations for tax evasion is three years.\u201d That brings you to 2019.<\/p>\n

The only way to get around this, in a felony case, is if the accused was \u201ccontinuously\u201d out of the state during the time frame, tolling the statute of limitations. But was Trump? He maintained New York as his residency for years, and he was out of the state\u2026 because he was president. Normally tolling is applied to people who are fleeing prosecution\/fugitives from justice.<\/p>\n

Does it even apply here? How fair is that? The specific wording for tolling the statute of limitations is, according to Newsweek<\/a>, if the accused was \u201ccontinuously unknown and continuously unascertainable by the exercise of reasonable diligence.\u201d<\/p>\n

According to Newsweek, Trump \u201cspent time at his New York home and until autumn of 2019 maintained his residence as New York.\u201d Newsweek reported that an appeals court in New York previously clarified that the exception to the statute of limitations was meant to apply to someone who was difficult \u201cto apprehend.\u201d<\/p>\n

The caveat would be if there are charges for something more recent, but that would be a surprise as everything known thus far has focused on the Daniels\u2019 payment.<\/p>\n

2. The Manhattan DA is a Democrat whose campaign received money from a group funded by George Soros<\/strong><\/p>\n

This is not a normal case. It\u2019s a criminal charge being filed against a former president who is a current Republican presidential candidate.<\/p>\n

Thus, it\u2019s worth noting that the Manhattan district attorney comes from the opposite political party.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, his campaign received at least $500,000 from a group funded, in part, by liberal George Soros, who has purposely been elected anti-incarceration district attorneys all over the country.<\/p>\n

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has called Bragg \u201cSoros-backed.\u201d Soros says he didn\u2019t donate to Bragg\u2019s campaign and doesn\u2019t know him, according to Fox News.<\/a><\/p>\n

According to Fox, in May 2021, Soros \u201cgave $1 million to the Color of Change PAC, which, shortly after receiving the donation, spent hundreds of thousands of dollars backing Bragg\u2019s candidacy.\u201d Soros\u2019s son and daughter-in-law directly donated to Bragg\u2019s campaign, Fox News reported.<\/p>\n

3. This is the first time in U.S. history that a former president has been criminally charged<\/strong><\/p>\n

They didn\u2019t even do it to Nixon. Point made.<\/p>\n

4. Liberal newspapers and news sites are concerned by the weakness of this charge<\/strong><\/p>\n

Even liberal newspapers and news sites like the Washington Post and the Nation are concerned this charge won\u2019t stand up. Of course, they are couching their concern in concern that this weaker charge will make it harder to charge Trump with other things.<\/p>\n

But they\u2019re still expressing concern that it\u2019s weak.<\/p>\n

The Washington Post editorial board<\/a> wrote, \u201cThe Trump indictment is a poor test case for prosecuting a former president.\u201d<\/p>\n

Listen to how the extremely left-wing Nation described it<\/a>: \u201cIt\u2019s not a clean shot: Bragg is trying to bank in a half-court heave off the backboard after the shot clock buzzer has already sounded.\u201d<\/p>\n

5. Grand juries could indict a ham sandwich if that\u2019s what the prosecutor wanted<\/strong><\/p>\n

That\u2019s a famous line and with good reason. Grand juries in New York are the prosecutor\u2019s show; the defense doesn\u2019t get to call witnesses or present evidence or cross-examine. In addition, they don\u2019t need to come to a unanimous conclusion and the standard is a lower hurdle <\/a>than beyond a reasonable doubt.<\/p>\n

6. The case is based on an untested legal theory with jurisdictional questions<\/strong><\/p>\n

Mark Pomerantz, a former prosecutor in the Manhattan DA\u2019s office, said in a book that the former DA, Cyrus Vance, refused twice to charge Trump in the matter because it would \u201crely on untested legal strategies,\u201d according to Reuters<\/a>, adding that it was called the \u201czombie case\u201d as a result.<\/p>\n

The untested legal strategies revolve around whether a state charge can be issued for an alleged federal campaign finance violation, Reuters reported. Even other prosecutors in the office were \u201cskeptical\u201d that charges could be fairly brought, Reuters reported.<\/p>\n

According to the Washington Post, it\u2019s believed that Bragg is trying to get around the misdemeanor statute of limitations hurdle by turning the case into a felony by arguing that Trump falsified his business records (state crime) to<\/p>\n

But, notes The Post, \u201cPyramiding two transgressions of state rules to go after a federal candidate is legally plausible. But the strategy is also novel, and courts may regard it with skepticism. What\u2019s more, the potential campaign finance charge itself is shaky.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Nation notes, \u201cThe hush-money payment was not, in itself, illegal.\u201d<\/p>\n

7. The U.S. Department of Justice passed on the same case under bipartisan Attorneys General<\/strong><\/p>\n

According to the Nation, the Justice Department refused to prosecute Trump federally on the same matter both Attorneys General Bill Barr and Merrick Garland, a Republican, and a Democrat.<\/p>\n

8. The previous Manhattan DA passed on the case<\/strong><\/p>\n

As noted, Cyrus Vance, the Manhattan district attorney before Bragg, passed TWICE on charging the case.<\/p>\n

9. The current Manhattan DA previously passed on the case<\/strong><\/p>\n

Alvin Bragg himself previously passed on charging the case, according to The Washington Post. The indictment comes at the same time Bragg has been refusing to charge violent criminals.<\/p>\n

10. The case was so aggressive that the government went after Trump\u2019s ATTORNEY<\/strong><\/p>\n

Everyone\u2019s heard of the core legal concept called attorney-client privilege. In this case, the government went after Trump\u2019s attorney<\/strong>, pressuring him to flip and reveal privileged conversations by filing criminal charges against him.<\/em><\/p>\n

11. That attorney has credibility problems and previously said Trump didn\u2019t know about the payment<\/strong><\/p>\n

According to NPR<\/a>: \u201cCohen has asserted that Trump had no knowledge of the payment, which was made through a shell corporation\u2026Cohen said he used a home equity loan in order to pay off Daniels. Cohen has said neither Trump\u2019s business nor the Trump campaign reimbursed after paying her.\u201d<\/p>\n

According to Politico<\/a>, Cohen\u2019s credibility \u201cis open to challenge.\u201d<\/p>\n

For one, Politico notes, he pleaded guilty to 9 felonies and spent 3 years in federal prison. He\u2019s also \u201crepeatedly expressed extreme bitterness towards Trump,\u201d Politico reported.<\/p>\n

According to the Nation<\/a>, Cohen \u201cinitially lied to federal investigators, and Congress, about his participation in the scheme.\u201d If you lied about one thing, a jury may believe you lied about another or that there is reasonable doubt that you did.<\/p>\n

A man named Robert Costello, a former Trump adviser, told the Grand Jury<\/a> Cohen wanted revenge and that Trump did not know about the payment.<\/p>\n

12. Stormy Daniels admits she previously lied about the case<\/strong><\/p>\n

Stormy Daniels previously said<\/a> she did not have sex with Trump in a letter. She now says that was a lie.<\/p>\n

13. Prosecutors would likely have to prove that Trump knew the payment was illegal<\/strong><\/p>\n

Proving knowledge can be a difficult hurdle for prosecutors to meet. According to Politico, prosecutors \u201cmay have to prove that Trump knew the arrangement was illegal\u201d and Trump could argue that he assumed Cohen was handling his affairs lawfully.<\/p>\n

According to CNN,<\/a> \u201cprosecutors would need to show Trump intended to commit a crime.\u201d<\/p>\n

14. Trump just has to show the payment was for a non-campaign reason<\/strong><\/p>\n

There\u2019s an obvious alternative theory: He was covering it up from Melania, not voters. While that\u2019s not commendable behavior, it also could nuke the state\u2019s argument.<\/p>\n

The Washington Post noted that this was the defense former Sen. John Edwards used when he was charged with a similar (but federal) crime. He was acquitted on one count, and the case resulted in a hung jury on the rest. He was not retried.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This post originally appeared at https:\/\/www.wisconsinrightnow.com\/trump-indictment\/ Here are 14 important facts to remember when assessing…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":20,"featured_media":1755,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1753","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-wi-right-now"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/wifamily.news\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1753","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/wifamily.news\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/wifamily.news\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wifamily.news\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/20"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wifamily.news\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1753"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/wifamily.news\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1753\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1756,"href":"https:\/\/wifamily.news\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1753\/revisions\/1756"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wifamily.news\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/1755"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/wifamily.news\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1753"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wifamily.news\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1753"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wifamily.news\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1753"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}