Angelia

Izvini Baby ali tvoje nerazumevanje pravnih koncepta, I logike u pravu, te manje vise diskvalifikuje u raspravi pravnih slucajeva. Reci "puni su zatvori ljudi koji su falsifikovali poslovne dokument, lagali na taxama..." je potpuno besmisleno, ako se ne uzme u obzir koji su to prekrsaji, ko je tu bio ostecen, I ko je imao koristi. To je jedna od osnovnih stvari u pravu. Sto ne znaci da nema mnogo glupavih zakona, I kontradiktornih, I rupa. I razlicitih tumacenja, to je uvek work in progress. Ali generalna logika u krivicnim zakonima mora da postoji. Poreski zakoni su druga prica, tamo cesto nema logike.

OPINION GUEST ESSAY The Trump Indictment Is a Legal Embarrassment April 5, 2023 Credit...Illustration by Shoshana Schultz/The New York Times; photograph by Octavio Jones/Getty Give this article 108 By Jed Handelsman Shugerman Mr. Shugerman is a law professor at Fordham and Boston University. Tuesday was historic for the rule of law in America, but not in the way Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, would have imagined. The 34-count indictment — which more accurately could be described as 34 half-indictments — was a disaster. It was a setback for the rule of law and established a dangerous precedent for prosecutors. This legal embarrassment reveals new layers of Trumpian damage to the legal foundations of the United States: Mr. Trump’s opponents react to his provocations and norms violations by escalating and accelerating the erosion of legal norms. The case appears so weak on its legal and jurisdictional basis that a state judge might dismiss the case and mitigate that damage. More likely, the case is headed to federal court for a year, where it could lose on the grounds of federal pre-emption — only federal courts have jurisdiction over campaign finance and filing requirements. Even if it survives a challenge that could reach the Supreme Court, a trial would most likely not start until at least mid-2024, possibly even after the 2024 election. Instead of the rule of law, it would be the rule of the circus. Let’s start with the obvious problem that the payments at issue were made around six years ago. The basic facts have been public for five years. There are undoubtedly complicated political reasons for the delay, but regardless, Mr. Bragg’s predecessor, Cyrus Vance Jr., had almost a year to bring this case after Mr. Trump left office, but did not do so, and Attorney General Merrick Garland’s Justice Department also declined. To address the perception of a reversal and questions of legitimacy, Mr. Bragg had a duty to explain more about the case and its legal basis in what’s known as a “speaking indictment,” which the team of former counsel Robert Mueller made famous in its filings. Legal experts have been speculating about the core criminal allegation in this case, because the expected charge for “falsifying business records” becomes a felony only “when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.” Astonishingly, the district attorney’s filings do not make clear the core crime that would turn a filing misdemeanor into a felony. Neither the 16-page indictment nor the accompanying statement of facts specifies, though the statement of facts does drop hints about campaign laws. In a news conference, Mr. Bragg answered that he did not specify because he was not required to by law. His answer was oblivious to how law requires more than doing the minimum to the letter — it demands fairness, notice and taking public legitimacy seriously. As a result of all this, Mr. Trump and the public still know shockingly little about the case — not which particular statute he allegedly violated or whether it is a state or federal campaign crime, a tax crime or something else. That’s why the indictment really contains only 34 half-counts. This open-ended indictment reflects a rule that jurors don’t have to agree on which underlying crime was committed, only that there had been an underlying crime, yet it is also standard when charging some cases to specify “crimes in the alternative.” Giving only partial notice might be standard operating procedure in Manhattan, but that standard procedure — suddenly in the bright lights yesterday — seems like a systemic infringement of a New Yorker’s right to know “the nature of the charges and evidence against you,” a normalized Sixth Amendment violation. On the bright side, maybe the backlash will force Manhattan prosecutors to end this general practice. Still, it is hard not to ask whether Mr. Trump was actually treated worse than other similarly situated defendants, because after so many years of delay, surely a Manhattan prosecutor would have informed another defendant of at least the basic underlying crimes and their statutory basis. The public could be forgiven for imagining that Mr. Bragg has not settled on his own theory. Unfortunately, he has given fodder to those who would portray this case as a political prosecution still in search of a legal theory. Even based on the half-felony that we do know — the false business filing with “intent to defraud” — it remains unclear whether a court has ever allowed a false-filing conviction based on an entirely internal business record that no other party, like a bank, insurance company or customer, would have relied on. I am yet to see any legal experts who have argued for this statute as a basis for the case against Mr. Trump who has identified a New York case along these lines. In my own research, I have not yet found one. That hole in the case should have given prosecutors pause: What, in practice, is the meaning of “intent to defraud”? If a business record is internal, it is not obvious how a false filing could play a role in defrauding if other entities likely would not rely upon it and be deceived by it. Even if one can argue that the statute should apply to internal records, this is not the ideal time to test a seemingly novel (or even a very rare) application. Because of pre-emption, it’s entirely possible that the State of New York cannot prosecute a state case based on a federal election filing violation. The underlying crime, as best as we can tell from Mr. Bragg’s news conference and a statement to the press, is a campaign finance violation — spending money for a campaign cover-up without reporting it. However, for a federal election, there is what one might call “double pre-emption” or “confirmed pre-emption”: Both Congress and the State of New York agree that cases about federal campaign filings are for federal courts only, not for states. The Federal Election Campaign Act has a broad pre-emption clause: “the provisions of this Act, and of rules prescribed under this Act, supersede and pre-empt any provision of state law with respect to election to federal office.” New York State law confirms that state “filing requirements and the expenditure, contribution and receipt limits” under state law “shall not apply” if there is a federal requirement and a federal filing (in other words, they don’t apply to federal elections). Federal pre-emption applies most strongly when the subject is the candidate’s own campaign conduct (as opposed to donors’, for example) and when it relates to core issues like filing rules (as in this case against Mr. Trump). Some defenders of yesterday’s indictment cited some examples of federal courts allowing states to proceed based on state law, but those cases were not about basic campaign filing rules but about a fund-raiser funneling money to his own for-profit business, or they were about rules for donors’ contributions or political action committees, as opposed to the candidates’ conduct. These legal experts did not specify any case allowing a state to prosecute a candidate for his or her own behavior in a core area of campaign regulation like filing requirements. Federal courts allow for states to regulate the “times, places and manner” of elections, voter registration, ballot theft and the like. They allow exceptions for pre-emption when the state laws are “more tangential to the regulation of federal elections.” This state filing law is not tangential to federal campaign filing law, nor is this allegation tangential to the field of federal campaign law. But federal courts have emphasized that the federal law applies most strongly to candidate behavior, especially on filing questions. The application of this state filing law overlaps much more closely with the federal law’s field of campaign finance and filing. There is good reason for pre-emption for federal campaign finance: the danger of local prosecutors bending state law against federal candidates of the opposing party. Congress and New York have traditionally agreed that federal campaign finance and filing law are for federal courts. Pre-emption, abstention and federal jurisdiction are complicated. Even if there is a valid argument that somehow the state statute and this case are only tangential to federal election law or that federal courts should abstain from taking it, Mr. Trump’s lawyers still can go back to the game book from their tangle with the previous Manhattan district attorney, Trump v. Vance, and the subpoena for tax returns. Mr. Trump’s lawyers filed for an injunction in federal trial court, took the appeals up to the Supreme Court and delayed the subpoena for about a year. This case is headed up the same road. The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of federal pre-emption in cases with less clear pre-emption language, and Mr. Trump has a substantial chance of winning, given the clarity of the federal pre-emption language and confirmation of pre-emption in New York State law. Even if Mr. Bragg prevails, would a trial eight or more years after the underlying events, either at the height of the 2024 election or soon after, really be a win for the rule of law? Perhaps Tuesday was really an indictment of the Department of Justice under William Barr and Merrick Garland. If anyone should have brought this case, it was one of them. And if the Garland Justice Department should bring a case, there are stronger, more recent and much more serious charges to bring. Jed Handelsman Shugerman (@jedshug) is a law professor at Fordham and Boston University. Ili biraj: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/03/31/trump-indictment-progressive-sloganeering/ Zamisli kad se levi mediji slazu ... https://www.vox.com/politics/2023/4/4/23648390/trump-indictment-supreme-court-stormy-daniels-manhattan-alvin-bragg Medjusobno, i samnom. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-felony-charges-legal-experts-indictment-falsifying-business-records/ Znaci, cak i ta dokumenta koje je "lazirao" su interna, znaci nisu nigde bila podnesena za neku korist. Ako nakon toga to nije politicko proganjanje, ne znam sta jeste, zatvor za izdaju i otrov?

Poenta je da se za ovako nesto ni lokalni kriminalac ne odvlaci na sud, pa da je i silovatelj, pljackas, ili ubica. Za to se napise kazna. A ne da povlacis bivseg predsednika i najverovatnije kandidata suprotne stranke sa sve njegovim secret Service, sa 300 policajaca da obezbede ulazak u sud, i da budes vidjen kao neko ko proganja politickog protivnika. Nakon sto je najavio kandidaturu, radi se o cirkusu koji se nece dobro zavrsiti. Da nije u pitanju Tramp, DA ne bi ni bio zainteresovan, i to zna svako ko ne pati od TDSa, samim tim Dems izgledaju smesno, bez obzira da li se ogradjuju ili ne - to je DA koji je dobio izbor zbog retorike protiv Trampa. Sad kao cekalo se objavljivanje optuznice da se vidi da je suplja. Meni uopste nije jasno kako su Dems dospeli tu gde jesu, da im komanduju extremisti.

Znaci da nema dokaza. Pravila finansiranja kampanje za predsednika su federalna. Cohen se nagodio zbog utaje poreza, pa su mu dali da prizna nesto zasta se ne dobija velika kazna.

The core of the indictment’s 34 felony charges against Trump relate to recording hush-money payments made via his attorney Michael Cohen as “legal fees.” Under New York state law, if you falsify your own business records, that’s a misdemeanor, a minor crime. To make it a felony, the government needs to prove that the falsification of the record was intended to commit and hide another crime. The indictment doesn’t say specifically what that other crime was. But the DA’s statement of facts seems to indicate that it was violating election law by hiding what was, in effect, a contribution to his campaign. The first thing that makes those charges legally weak is that Trump can defend himself by saying he ordered the hush money recorded as legal expenses to avoid upsetting his wife, not to conceal the way the payments helped his campaign. That might sound like a shaky defense, especially because prosecutors can say that Trump’s efforts to delay payment until after the 2016 election prove it was about the campaign, not his marriage. But it wouldn’t take 12 jurors to believe it. If even one juror believes it, then the jury would hang and a conviction would not be possible. Because it is vanishingly unlikely that the district attorney would attempt to retry Trump, the resulting mistrial would be almost as great a victory as would be an acquittal. The further legal problem is that an appeals court might conclude that the underlying election-related crime can’t be the basis for a New York state crime because Trump was running for president, not for a New York state office. If so, an appeals court might conclude, Trump can’t be found guilty of a New York state felony based on an attempt to affect a national election. Even if Trump loses in the New York courts, he would be able to appeal his case to the US Supreme Court, which might consider the issue one of federal law and reverse the conviction. And not only may Trump potentially beat the charges, at trial or on appeal. He may be able to use those charges to create the impression among his supporters that he is a victim of politically motivated vendetta. In turn, that may make it harder for Georgia or federal prosecutors to bring and sustain much more serious charges against him. To se Baby zove pravna akrobatika. I svi pravni experti govore isto, da ne ulazimo u statute of limitation i slicno. Sa jedne strane Bragg tvrdi da je falsifikovao knjige, jer je isplate Cohenu zaveo pod legalne troskove (420k) a da je Cohen od toga isplatio Stormy 130k - znaci nema campaign contribution, i definitivno mogu da kazu da je deo legalni troskovi. Za Peckera mogu da tvrde da je campaign contribution, ali gde je onda falsifikovao knjige? Ali to je onda prekrsaj na federalnom nivou. To se zovi throw everything on the wall, and see what sticks. Cak i da jeste zaveo tih 130k pod legalne troskove to je misdemeanor. I ovo sam ti izvadila sa Bloomberga, zamisli kad oni sto su protiv Trampa priznaju da je to problem.

Zato sto je ceo slucaj bogus, DOJ je odbio da ga istrazuje za isto. Zato sto ne mogu da dokazu da je bilo sta bilo kriminalno. Ono sto DA u NY radi je kreativno izmisljanje krivicnog dela, koji nije u njihovo jurisdikciji. Radilo se o federalnoj kampanji, a ne drzavnoj.

Nije svaki slucaj isti. A ti se u sudstvo i pravo uopste ne razumes. Ovde su presli granicu, a ako tebi nije jasno kakve veze ima ideologija s time, problem je do tebe.

Sledz Hummer je bio super.

Nista tu nije po pravu. Ako je Hilari prosla bez optuznce, ovo je potpuno besmisleno. Znam da ljudima koji mrze Trampa ovo godi, ali ne kontaju koliko je stetno. Zakoni se ne prave za jednu osobu, ili sve tretiras isto, ili unistavas sistem. Sa ovim su osigurali da Tramp dobije podrsku kozervativaca koji ga btw nikad nisu ni smatrali svojim. Ovo je otvoreno napad na politickog protivnika, nije cak ni pitanje Trampa ili ne, ako otvoreno ne osude politicko proganjanje, Dems su se smestili u totalitarni klub. Znaci nista zakon, nista Ustav, pobeda po svaku cenu, ono za sta su Trampa optuzivali. Oni koji su tvrdili da stite demokratiju, su totalitarni. Znaci Dems su alt-right, potpuno isto.

Jbte kad nalazite vremean da gledate sve govore Kako god - gledacemo reality show. Lose za US. Sta god da su Dems planirali ili nisu, losa izvedba. Katastrofalna

Vidi moguce - ali nije da se samo "trampisti hajpuju", dosta ljudi sa vrha Dems su izrazili "podrsku", izokola ali jesu. Njemu je bulls eye, ali za US je jako lose. I da videh sta je @Baby napisala da je DA "morao" da ga optuzi zbog Grand Jury, to je potpuno netacno, pravno. DA iznosi najcesce pred Grand jury, kad ne pricamo o situaciji gde se zna da je Grand Jury bias, slucaj da bi video da li ima dobre dokaze. To je obicno pokrice za DA, ali ne znaci da mora. Preletela sam par strana optuznice, nemam vremena za vise, ali deluje komplet suplje. Uz to reality show koji ce da traje do izbora, znaci Tramp je dobio besplatnu reklamu na svakoj televiziji. Da bi se vrh demokratske stranke oprao od ovoga, treba direktno da kaze da su protiv, i DOJ treba da kaze da se kosi sa federalnim zakonima. Nije Bragg tek tako samoinicijativno to odlucio, znamo kako je Cuomo prosao kad se oteo kontroli stranke. To nije nikakva teorija zavere, nego realnost politike.

Politicki show, mogli su kao sto sam rekla pre par strana da mu napisu kaznu za neplacen porez. Btw optuznica je jos slabija jer se kosi sa federalnom pozicijom. Uglavnom on je mobilisao oko 80% svog glasackog tela, ako je cilj bio zaustaviti Desantisovu kandidaturu - uspeli su, samo to mozda bas i nije dobro za njih. Tramp je podigao 10 mill za ovih par dana za kampanju. Napravili su presedan koji ce im se lako olupati o glavu. Koriscenje pravnog sistema na napad na politickog protivnika, nezamislivo u US. Isto kao i dva impicmenta. Na sta je spala Demokratska stranka je blago receno odurno. Moze nekome da se svidja ili ne svidja Tramp, ali opravdavanje ovakvog poteza moza samo da bude politicka neobrazovanost. sad naravno samo da navijaju da Tramp ne dobije izbore, posto su otvorili vrata za osvetnicko proganjanje.

Nesto smo kuvali sa brasnom da bude lepak. Oho je bio za one koji mogu da priuste dugo vremena. Kako to sad izgleda smesno 😀

Nemam pojma zasto si se osetila prozvanom, nisam nikog stavila u isti kos. Odnosilo se na one koji sa zadovoljstvom komentarisu na isti nacin kao sto su Trampovi glasaci to radili 2016te. Savrseno jasno napisano tako da me iznenadjuje ovaj klizeci start. A svi znaju zato sto je dovoljno bilo u medijima, isto kao sto i pravni experti komentarisu sta je slucaj, da, nismo videli optuznicu - ali to je manje vise formalnost. Ne vidim sta bi novo mogla da otkrije. Ako nisi pratila mozda bi to trebalo da bude pitanje, a ne optuzba.

Naravno da mi je jasno. Ali nije kao da je nesto novo Cela prica je povezana sa Stormy, naravno da su gluposti, svi znamo sta se tu desilo. Nije kao da su u medjuvremenu otkrili da je udavio njenu prijateljicu. U medjuvremenu je njen advokat zavrsio u zatvoru, nesrecni "kandidat" za demokrate, ali nije se nista drugo pojavilo. Prijavio u knjigama kao pravni trosak, kaznite ga! Mislim drago mi je sto se zabavljate. Skoro isto kao sto su se Trampovi glasaci lozili na Lock her up...

Ne, baziram se na objavljenim stvarima. Racunam da imaju nesto bitno objavili bi.

Al ste se raspisali, ne reagujem jer sam zauzeta sa RL, ali slazem se da su Trampa gurnuli kao glavnog kandidata, ok ugusili su Desantisa, ali.... Dobrodosli u skoro sigurni novi mandat za Trampa, Te tuzbe su glupost, od onog sto je objavljeno nista nema neku vrednost nego su politicko proganjanje

Znam ja da si ti stavio pod navodnike, ali ti ljudi stoje svojim imenom, pozicijom I ugledom (ili "ugledom") iza toga. Mislim da je krajnja relativizacije klasifikovati ono sto su "profesionalci" radili kao greske, kad otvoreno znamo da je bilo laganje. Kako ovim "expertima" ne dajemo sansu da su napravili profesionalne greske? Ja ne pricam o politicarima, nego o davanju platforme Orvelovski je nazivati sve sto nam se ne svidja "dezinformacijom" pogotovo kad znamo da su neke stvari bile tacne, neke sive a neke I netacne. Na kraju krajeva ko je koga I kada I zbog cega, postavio za arbitre istine? Ajde da kazemo da je nesto glupost, ali dezinformacija? Meni to zvuci kao religija, ne dovodi dogmu u pitanje. Galileo je sirio "dezinformacije"

Naravno da je jezivo, I mediji zdusno ucestvuju u tome za click bait. Ne moze da se objektivno razgovara o dobrim I losim stvarima. Moze samo da se demonizuje suprotna strana. Politicari su to zapoceli, a mediji lepo uzeli stafetu I trce s njom. Najjaci argument je reci nekom s kim se ne slazes "ti si (zalepi etiketu po potrebi)". obe strane zive u svom svetu.

Ne znaci kvalitet, ali je dobra indicija kad pricamo o vestima. Nije to reality show, pa da odlucujemo da li je gledanost izraz shock value. Isto kao sto satiricni program, mora biti smesan. Nije greh reci da kod nekog s kim se ne slazes ideoloski u nekim stvarima, ima nesto sto radi dobro, I obrnuto. CNN je svojevremeno bio gold standard, mora da rade nesto pogresno kad se to promenilo.

Cekaj ti optuzujes Fox zato sto su bili platforma za experte? Pa najvise dezinformacija je doslo od drzavnih experata: maske ne rade, maske rade, nosite 3 maske, vakcine sprecavaju zarazu, vakcinisani ne prenose virus, ups vakcinisani umiru....vakcinisite tinejdzere 3X, ah ipak izaziva upalu srcanog misica. Jel ce neko da optuzi CNN zbog show sa najboljim guvernerom, koji promovise vodjstvo u krizi dok u starackim domovima ubija usamljene stare? Nemam pojma sta ti je bilo bolje kod foxa, ono kad je u programu zena rekla "deco deda Mraz je beo"? Zurnalizam je na nesrecu poprilicno propao. Pretvorio se u show svakog ko misli da moze da proda misljenje. Zasto bi ljudi donosili odluke na osnovu misljenja jednog showmena meni nije jasno.Nije to njegova odgovornost. On je uradio svoj posao, doneo razlicita misljenja u program, zabavio publiku. Ja se najozbiljnije najezim kad cujem taj izraz "dezinformacija" - tako orvelovski.

Iskreno receno ne znam na koje lazi mislis,do sada nijedan medij nije krivicno gonjen za lazi koje su plasirali, a svi su to radili. Prvi Amandman. Znam samo da sam ja pricala o vestima, i zasto mislim da ne gube gledanost. Videla sam negde da im je neki Late Night Show presisao sve MSM, sta sad da zakljucim, da ljudi gledaju satiru jer vole Takera? Ne znam kako se zove, ja nisam na first name bases sa voditeljima Foxa ko Baby

Ja kazem da je misljenje dosta ljudi da su Foxove vesti objektivnije, nema tu sta do mene, ja sam ti vise puta na to podmetanje rekla da ja ne gledam ni Fox ni CNN. A i ne odredjujem ja gledanost, cinjenica je da je Fox News najgledaniji, a da CNN ide ka ambisu, sami su zakljucili da je to zbog levicarenja. Jel treba da verujem u alternativnu relanost? Neka u kojoj je CNN stub novinarstva?

Postoji razlika izmedju misljenja I vesti. Ko to ne konta nego misli da mu je Taker dao vesti, njegov problem. CNN je u vesti uveo ideologiju, I tu su izgubili. Ono kad reporter stoji ispred zgrade koja gori I kaze "mostly peaceful protest". Ne znam sta je spinovanje, gledanost je objektivno merilo, cinjenica je da retko ko I gleda CNN. I CNN je skontao pa su javno rekli da hoce da promene to, I idu ka centru. Nije to moje misljenje, nego njihovo.

To nema veze sa vestima. Ja sam pomenula da ce ih to ostetiti.