I read through the indictment, which is posted here:
https://www.manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-Indictment.pdf
CAUTION: This document does NOT look like the real document, since there are no dates and other items that should be there. But since it is the only one I've seen, I will go with it.
- There are 34 counts (i.e. 34 alleged violations of law).
- They are all related to "keeping accurate business records" by the Trump Organization.
- You and I are not subject to the State snooping through our records just for fun, but if you form a corporation or other "creature of the State," then you agree to having its books and records inspected at anytime. So, they are claiming that the Trump Organization did not keep accurate records, and further alleging that it was done to hide some crime.
- Each of these records are in 3 forms: invoices from attorney Michael Cohen, checks paid out based on these invoices, and ledger entries on the books and records of the Trump Organization related to these invoices and checks.
- They were events that occurred between February 2017 and December of 2017.
- Trump was POTUS during that time, and Eric Trump or the CEO of the Trump Organization would most likely have been handling these invoices and payments, not Donald Trump (although the indictment does not give any detail on that).
- All 34 counts are for violations of New York Penal Law 175.10, "Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree."
- In order to be in the "first degree," there must be a violation of NY Penal Law 175.05, "Falsifying Business Records in the Second Degree," which means it must be (a) false and (b) done with intent to defraud, AND (c) to be in the First Degree, it must have been in order to hide some other crime.
https://newyork.public.law/laws/n.y._penal_law_section_175.10
https://newyork.public.law/laws/n.y._penal_law_section_175.05
The indictment does not allege any facts that would indicate what "other crime" was being committed or hidden, nor does it allege what "intent to defraud" was.
It looks like a very sloppy, amateurish work on the DA's part. But maybe that's just how sloppy law is practiced in New York. I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me.
These laws all fall under the general category of fraud. I have heard that these charges are beyond the statute of limitations, which I have heard is 2 years in New York.
However, this chart indicates that for fraud it is 6 years:
https://nycourts.gov/CourtHelp/GoingToCourt/SOLchart.shtml
It also says misdemeanors are 2 years and "other felonies" (not those listed) are 5 years.
So, 2 years and 5 years are already over. If it is 6 years, then the February and March 2017 charges are already past the statute of limitations.
So ...
They are going to claim that Trump was the head of the Trump Organization in 2017, directing its actions even though he was in the White House, and that the Trump Organization falsely stated what Michael Cohen's invoices were for and what the payments were for and that the ledger entries were falisified to defraud ... who? That is an element that would have to be proven (along with proving that Trump was directing it all).
WHO was defrauded? What evidence is there? Stormy Daniels says there was no affair to cover up. So, the public could not be harmed (not that real American law recognized such a nonsense in the first place). No individuals were harmed, even if it were fraud, and there is no evidence that there was any fraud.
Then, they would have to prove it was all done to cover up some other crime which is NOT alleged in the indictment. That seems like a BIG problem, since if the prosecution does not inform the defendant on what the full extent of the charges are, then it is impossible to defend.
The rumor has been they will allege he was doing it all to hide an affair during a presidential election -- which is federal jurisidiction, not State jurisdiction -- but that is just a RUMOR. It is NOT stated in the indictment (if this document is the real copy of the indictment).
The entire thing looks like a monkey running a kangaroo court.
Would this fly in an American court? Never.
But would it fly in a corrupt New York court? Maybe.
So weird, Alvin. It doesn’t say “signs checks”. It’s almost like having operational control is something different than signing a few checks.
CEO: A chief executive officer (CEO) is the highest-ranking executive in a company. Broadly speaking, a chief executive officer’s primary responsibilities include making major corporate decisions, managing the overall operations and resources of a company, acting as the main point of communication between the board of directors and corporate operations. In many cases, the chief executive officer serves as the public face of the company.
I get what you're saying, read the SoF, it goes into much more detail, that was just the example I was giving. They also cite several times Trump said publicly in rally's that he wasn't giving up control of the Trump Organization and took calls and operated as an executive.
Only the fake news was saying that. What Trump actually SIGNED was this:
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3404759/DJT-Resignation-Signature-Page-With-Exhibit-a.pdf
The important part of the 19-page letter reads: “I, Donald J. Trump, hereby resign from each and every office and position I hold” in more than 400 entities listed on the following pages.
The letter is signed by Trump and dated January 19, the day before he was sworn in. There is no real wiggle room in this signed document.
Except he never filed the proper paperwork in any of those cities. I don't blame him, I wouldn't either, but facts are facts. Glenn Greenwald reported on it, search the intercept for July of 2020.
What I linked was not a letter of "intent". Cities don't regulate corporations, states do. Even then, what is the "proper paperwork" for resigning a role, besides the letter I linked? He didn't give up ownership. He could make up a new role tomorrow called Chief Falafel Maker, assign himself to it, then resign next week. No paperwork needed.
The closest I can get to your argument is, the COMPANY may have some obligations to provide updates on its new executive structure. But really, that makes my argument. It would have nothing to do with Trump.