(03-31-2023, 10:05 AM)homebiscuit Wrote:

(03-31-2023, 09:58 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: I think this is the most relevant part of it.  I underlined one key point:  

While the specific charges in the Manhattan case against the former president remain unknown, Mr. Bragg’s case centers on a $130,000 hush-money payment to Ms. Daniels.

Mr. Trump’s longtime fixer, Michael D. Cohen, made the payment in the final days of the 2016 campaign. Mr. Trump later reimbursed him, signing monthly checks while serving as president.
Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors appear to have zeroed in on the way Mr. Trump and his family business, the Trump Organization, handled the reimbursement to Mr. Cohen. In internal documents, Trump Organization employees falsely recorded the repayments as legal expenses, and the company invented a bogus retainer agreement with Mr. Cohen to justify them.
Mr. Cohen, who broke with Mr. Trump in 2018 and later testified before Congress as well as the grand jury that indicted Mr. Trump, has said that the former president knew about the phony legal expenses and retainer agreement.
In New York, it can be a crime to falsify business records, and Mr. Bragg’s office is likely to build the case around that charge, according to people with knowledge of the matter and outside legal experts.
But to charge falsifying business records as a felony, rather than a misdemeanor, Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors must show that Mr. Trump’s “intent to defraud” included an effort to commit or conceal a second crime.
That second crime could be a violation of election law. Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors might argue that the payment to Ms. Daniels represented an illicit contribution to Mr. Trump’s campaign: The money silenced Ms. Daniels, aiding his candidacy at a crucial time.

Personally, in my opinion, if the above is accurate, it still seems like a stretch to move this up from a misdemeanor to a felony.  It reminds me of the way law enforcement goes after known gangsters.   

For anyone with a shred of impartiality, it’s obvious this is a witch hunt. I’m not defending Trump, if the guy broke the law then prosecute him as anyone else would be. But from everything that has been divulged to the public so far, it’s a legalistic reach, and we all know why.

As I said, this is setting a bad precedent that will have effects and ramifications beyond this election.

It does seem like for this to make any sense they need to have something else which is why I'd like to see the actual charges and evidence. If all they have is what they seem to have, I agree it's not worthwhile. Charging a president or ex-president with a crime is not a bad-precedent if they deserve it. Not charging them in the past has been the bad precedent.

---