April 6th, 2023: @Twitter has been randomly shutting down API access for many apps and sadly we were affected today too. Hopefully we will be restored soon! We appreciate your patience until then.
How do you get a false business filing to be a felony and not a misdemeanor? If it is intended to further or cover up another crime.
Issues:
- need the other crime be a felony? NO
- need the state charge and prove the other crime? NO
1/many
- need the state only prove the defendant intended the other crime? YES
- need the other crime be a NY state crime? UNCLEAR- to be litigated
- Are there many possible other crimes that seem to fit? YES
-Other crime possibility #1:
2/many
- the second false filing (claiming falsely legal expense) furthered the scheme and covered up the first false filing, and so on, till you get to 34
- state tax offense: Cohen tax filing which would be falsely stating income; falsity can be over or understating income
3/many
- state tax offense: Trump Org tax filing would falsely deduct legal expense as natural consequence of scheme; if it ultimately did NOT so deduct, that is strong proof that the "legal expense" label was false. And someone had to have known that to not claim that deduction.
4/many
- AMI false business filing
- And finally, the two much ink has been spilled over: state and federal election and campaign violations, which have various much-discussed legal challenges.
The end.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
“Bragg’s team could conclude that nothing would focus the mind of the 75-year-old Weisselberg like being incarcerated in Rikers and facing a whole new set of charges. Only time will tell, but if I were a betting man, that is what I would put my money on.”
The grand jury finds that at there was "no widespread" election fraud in the State of Georgia. Not a good omen for Trump & co; the next shoe to drop will be Willis's.
Also interesting that the report says the grand jury voted to make the report public, but importantly it explicitly says it did NOT set a date as to WHEN its report should be made public, so that gives the court leeway to do what it did here, to only release a portion for now.
A judge asks Trusty: "Can you cite a single decision by a federal court, other than this one, where a court has exercised jurisdiction where there is no showing that the seizure is unlawful?"
The problem with the DOJ staffing on the MAL case (at least what is visible) is the lead attorney is trained to think of DOJ’s role as negotiating compliance with the law after the person is discovered to be in violation vs indicting the person to promote compliance with the law.
The same group did no criminal investigation into Manafort’s FARA violations for 8 months, but negotiated with his counsel for 8 months to have him file FARA disclosure forms after years of violating that law.
They interviewed no witnesses. Issued no GJ subpoenas. They got no Manafort docs. They did GIVE Manafort docs when he falsely claimed to DOJ he had no docs to refresh his recollection of the facts, which they did not verify.
@charlie_savage tweeted that Trump "filed" in Palm Beach, but the support he cites is a form that only says that is where the case arose. The docket reflects that the case was filed physically in Ft Pierce, where Cannon is the only judge.⬇️
Could the 4th estate PLEASE get to the bottom of this. Qs: Where was case filed? Why was it filed physically and not electronically? What did Ft Pierce clerk do with the physical filing? Did the random "wheel" include just one judge from that district- Canon? etc...
No one is dealing with the obvious: if there wasn't at least the potential to judge shop why on g_d's green earth would Trump have gone all the way to her district to file and do so physically, when he could have electronically filed at the court in his back yard?
⬇️ The below tweet is right. Presidential Records Act says presidential records do not include docs from agencies like CIA, DOD (NSA is component, and DOJ (FBI is component).
Missing an end parenthesis ) after the first use of “component”
Many implications. Docs that are likely bearing classification markings were likely not pres records and were required to be produced under May GJ subpoena.
Personal records were not subject to subpoena in all likelihood and are not pres records. 1/2