Yes, but first the stronger cases need to be brought by the DOJ and Georgia. The New York case may never get to be heard by a jury on the evidence because of federal preemption issues and other problems. There has been far too long of a delay in bringing a case based on the smoking gun evidence of the recorded Georgia call.
"Federal preemption issues", as I understand the concept, only apply to the same criminal act being charged by both jurisdictions which, while permissible is not encouraged, and (ab)use of the same witnesses over and over to the point of non-willingness to continue to be inconvenienced, and probably threatened and harassed.
Federal preemption essentially means that Federal laws or regulations are either broad enough or are of such a nature that the prevent any state or local law from regulating particular conduct. That is different than the concept of two different jurisdictions (federal and state) charging the same conduct as a crime. For example, the Georgia call could theoretically be both a federal election law violation and a violation of state election law without being inconsistent. However, the New York case is based on the allegations that the underlying payments were a violation of Federal election law, not New York State election law. The argument would be that only Federal courts and the FEC can determine Federal election laws, not states and thus states are completely preempted from bringing this type of case.
If I read the reports and online versions of the indictment correctly, DA Bragg also charged the underlying offense for the falsifications as being a violation of New York Tax laws, charging in the alternative, thus allowing for guilty findings for both.
I read that as well. The flaw is that the state tax charge appears to be based on the same concept that this was somehow a campaign contribution as opposed to a personal expense. Of course the indictment is vague as is typically true for indictments, but the NYC prosecutors will be required to provide more specific details to the defense or the charges will be dismissed for lack of specificity. There are other problems. The statute of limitations appears to have run under New York law. The argument is that is was stayed because Trump was not in New York. However, think about how weak this is. Can anyone seriously claim Trump could not be located especially since he owns Trump Tower in NYC?
You are correct. But it is unclear if that would toll the statute of limitations. We are a bit in unprecedented legal territory, which is why as an attorney I would prefer the Georgia, January 6 and obstruction cases be brought by the DOJ as opposed to the New York case
I’m an attorney. I’ve been practicing law for 40 years. The Georgia case could have been brought by the DOJ in March 2021. But Garland simply would not bring it and apparently would not even investigate it (not that much was required given the recording), and he wouldn’t appoint a special prosecutor until Trump announced he was running for President again. This case has the proverbial smoking gun. It should be a very simple case to present to a jury.
With respect to the New York case, I believe the current US Supreme Court would hold that the payments to Stormy Daniels were not a campaign contribution under Federal law and thus Cohen pleaded guilty to something that wasn’t even a crime. The case is beyond weak and should never have been brought. The DOJ needs to bring the Georgia, January 6, and documents obstruction cases ASAP because those are very substantive and strong cases.
The in-progress Georgia case is under state law, yes? So DOJ could never have brought *that* one, precisely. Some acts may have violated both state and federal law, but the sovereign authorities - and therefore their decisions to prosecute or not - are separate. (Gamble v. United States)
If all you want is a conviction for a "perfect" phone call, then it is simple in its presentation, which may not be the same as a conviction.
If, on the other hand, you want to show the "big" picture as it unfolded in all its non-glory in Georgia, then DA Willis' looking into a RICO-type allegation will "show it all". Just like Bragg has had experience in successfully prosecuting white collar financial crime cases, so has Willis has the same type of experience and results using Georgia's RICO law. I do not know how that provision tracks with the Federal RICO law, but, assuming it is not a one-to-one copy, that could explain AG Garland's reluctance to bring Federal charges against a former president his first day on the job as the top prosecutor, despite or because of his experience as an appellate judge.
I was not happy with it either, but FBI is DOJ, whose policy it was and is i also think it may have been all if our bad luck that Mueller took a turn toward dementia somewhere along the line. I still want to read the book by his chief deputy.
Yes, but first the stronger cases need to be brought by the DOJ and Georgia. The New York case may never get to be heard by a jury on the evidence because of federal preemption issues and other problems. There has been far too long of a delay in bringing a case based on the smoking gun evidence of the recorded Georgia call.
On the upside (?) the next hearing isn’t until December. The other cases will be underway by then, I hope.
From your lips to Garland’s ears
"Federal preemption issues", as I understand the concept, only apply to the same criminal act being charged by both jurisdictions which, while permissible is not encouraged, and (ab)use of the same witnesses over and over to the point of non-willingness to continue to be inconvenienced, and probably threatened and harassed.
Federal preemption essentially means that Federal laws or regulations are either broad enough or are of such a nature that the prevent any state or local law from regulating particular conduct. That is different than the concept of two different jurisdictions (federal and state) charging the same conduct as a crime. For example, the Georgia call could theoretically be both a federal election law violation and a violation of state election law without being inconsistent. However, the New York case is based on the allegations that the underlying payments were a violation of Federal election law, not New York State election law. The argument would be that only Federal courts and the FEC can determine Federal election laws, not states and thus states are completely preempted from bringing this type of case.
If I read the reports and online versions of the indictment correctly, DA Bragg also charged the underlying offense for the falsifications as being a violation of New York Tax laws, charging in the alternative, thus allowing for guilty findings for both.
I read that as well. The flaw is that the state tax charge appears to be based on the same concept that this was somehow a campaign contribution as opposed to a personal expense. Of course the indictment is vague as is typically true for indictments, but the NYC prosecutors will be required to provide more specific details to the defense or the charges will be dismissed for lack of specificity. There are other problems. The statute of limitations appears to have run under New York law. The argument is that is was stayed because Trump was not in New York. However, think about how weak this is. Can anyone seriously claim Trump could not be located especially since he owns Trump Tower in NYC?
You are correct. But it is unclear if that would toll the statute of limitations. We are a bit in unprecedented legal territory, which is why as an attorney I would prefer the Georgia, January 6 and obstruction cases be brought by the DOJ as opposed to the New York case
I think you, me, and them enjoy visiting? We used to spend too many vacations during my youth just visiting with people. Chatty bunch, we are....
Oh, good morning, Secular!
Also could you please try to be a bit more respectful here. I don’t want this site to start down the Twitter road. Thanks
Thank you! We can and do disagree heartily here but respectfully.
Thank you. What keeps me involved with this forum is the unique respectful tone to the conversations. It’s so important.
I’m an attorney. I’ve been practicing law for 40 years. The Georgia case could have been brought by the DOJ in March 2021. But Garland simply would not bring it and apparently would not even investigate it (not that much was required given the recording), and he wouldn’t appoint a special prosecutor until Trump announced he was running for President again. This case has the proverbial smoking gun. It should be a very simple case to present to a jury.
With respect to the New York case, I believe the current US Supreme Court would hold that the payments to Stormy Daniels were not a campaign contribution under Federal law and thus Cohen pleaded guilty to something that wasn’t even a crime. The case is beyond weak and should never have been brought. The DOJ needs to bring the Georgia, January 6, and documents obstruction cases ASAP because those are very substantive and strong cases.
The in-progress Georgia case is under state law, yes? So DOJ could never have brought *that* one, precisely. Some acts may have violated both state and federal law, but the sovereign authorities - and therefore their decisions to prosecute or not - are separate. (Gamble v. United States)
If the various cases had been strategically ordered for political palatability, THAT would have added justifiable fuel to the “witch hunt” fire.
Well, the only reason to hold a witch hunt is because there's a witch out there.
If all you want is a conviction for a "perfect" phone call, then it is simple in its presentation, which may not be the same as a conviction.
If, on the other hand, you want to show the "big" picture as it unfolded in all its non-glory in Georgia, then DA Willis' looking into a RICO-type allegation will "show it all". Just like Bragg has had experience in successfully prosecuting white collar financial crime cases, so has Willis has the same type of experience and results using Georgia's RICO law. I do not know how that provision tracks with the Federal RICO law, but, assuming it is not a one-to-one copy, that could explain AG Garland's reluctance to bring Federal charges against a former president his first day on the job as the top prosecutor, despite or because of his experience as an appellate judge.
Mueller has the sitting president problem to contend with. He opened the door for the Congress to act, but they didn't.
I was not happy with it either, but FBI is DOJ, whose policy it was and is i also think it may have been all if our bad luck that Mueller took a turn toward dementia somewhere along the line. I still want to read the book by his chief deputy.