"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 see no reason for them to charged in a "most likely to get a conviction" sequence. That, to me, truly smacks of political timing of the charges, which is what TFG and his lemmings are fond of alleging. Why give them the satisfaction? Bragg was able to build his case on previous investigations by Vance, so that he could be first to the "finish" line. Neither Willis nor Garland had that head start immediately after the election or inauguration.
"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 see no reason for them to charged in a "most likely to get a conviction" sequence. That, to me, truly smacks of political timing of the charges, which is what TFG and his lemmings are fond of alleging. Why give them the satisfaction? Bragg was able to build his case on previous investigations by Vance, so that he could be first to the "finish" line. Neither Willis nor Garland had that head start immediately after the election or inauguration.