Government Efficiency (4 Viewers)

[RobF]

I think this topic deserves its own thread, both to discuss generally the topic of government efficiency, and specifically the so-called 'Department of Government Efficiency' and the incoming Trump administration's aims to "dismantle Government Bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures and restructure Federal Agencies".

The announcements have been covered in the The Trump Cabinet and key post thread, but to recap, Trump has announced that Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy will work together on a not-actually-an-official-government-Department of Government Efficiency, which is intended to work with the White House and Office of Management & Budget to "drive large scale structural reform, and create an entrepreneurial approach to Government never seen before," with the 'Department' to conclude its work "no later than July 4, 2026."

Musk has previously said that the federal budget could be reduced by "at least $2 trillion", and Ramaswarmy, during his presidential campaign, said he would fire more than 75% of the federal work force and disband agencies including the Department of Education and the FBI.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

One clearly was campaign expenses (Clinton). The Trump expenditures were for a perfectly legal NDA related to his personal conduct. The Federal Election Commission was aware of these transactions and refused to press any charges because they didn’t consider them as campaign related. Information that wasn’t allowed into evidence at trial. Why was that?

I ask again, what felony criminal state statute was the aggravating factor that raised 3 misdemeanor reporting violations past the statute of limitations to 34 felony counts? Specifically what law was broken and was that law charged specifically in the indictment in this case or any other case and adjudicated with a guilty verdict?

Again this is in the court filings (this is from November of 2023)

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24432843/2023-11-09-das-mem-opp-defs-omnibus-motions-redacted.pdf

And another simple search shows that the Manhattan DA's office regularly charges businesses with falsifying their records (about 1,000 such cases are filed per year). It's not like Trump is the only one targeted.

 

[TampaJoe]

I thought you read the Statement of Facts. It lays out exactly why these were considered campaign expenditures/contributions.

Yeah. According to Bragg. That doesn’t make it so. Again what felony statute was violated, charged and adjudicated in a court of proper jurisdiction that raised these misdemeanors to felonies. It isn’t in the statement of facts. It wasn’t named in the indictment. Why?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Yeah. According to Bragg. That doesn’t make it so. Again what felony statute was violated, charged and adjudicated in a court of proper jurisdiction that raised these misdemeanors to felonies. It isn’t in the statement of facts. It wasn’t named in the indictment. Why?

Read the link Jim posted right above. All of the information is out there for you and spelled out in very plain, easy-to-understand language.

 

[RobF]

The Federal Election Commission was aware of these transactions and refused to press any charges because they didn’t consider them as campaign related. Information that wasn’t allowed into evidence at trial. Why was that?

That's inaccurate. https://www.politifact.com/article/2023/mar/21/fact-checking-trump-stormy-daniels-deflections/

And this is the government efficiency thread, not the "everyone repeatedly lead Joe to water and watch him somehow still fail to drink" thread.

Could you please just read the links and understand the subject you're posting about? Or just, you know, Google this stuff? It's all old news, all the information is very much out there. There's no justification for being ignorant about it, especially in order to defend someone you supposedly don't even like.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Yeah. According to Bragg. That doesn’t make it so. Again what felony statute was violated, charged and adjudicated in a court of proper jurisdiction that raised these misdemeanors to felonies. It isn’t in the statement of facts. It wasn’t named in the indictment. Why?

Because the law doesn't require for the second crime to already be adjudicated already. Trump was charged with 34 violations New York Penal Law 175-10 in the first degree, which is a felony. A violation in the first degree occurs when a person falsifies business records with an intent to defraud that includes an intent to commit, aid, or conceal another crime. He falsified business records (a crime) to conceal campaign finance violations (his second crime). Remember Michael Cohen was convicted of a similar federal law that Trump was the unindicted co-conspirator. He was unindicted b/c he was president and the Justice department had a policy to not prosecute sitting presidents.

It's not that complicated and I'm not sure why you are making it that complicated. I don't know why it's so hard to believe that Trump has been investigated and prosecuted for things when Clinton wasn't is simply because Trump is actually that much worse.

 

[superchuck500]

One clearly was campaign expenses (Clinton). The Trump expenditures were for a perfectly legal NDA related to his personal conduct. The Federal Election Commission was aware of these transactions and refused to press any charges because they didn’t consider them as campaign related. Information that wasn’t allowed into evidence at trial. Why was that?

I ask again, what felony criminal state statute was the aggravating factor that raised 3 misdemeanor reporting violations past the statute of limitations to 34 felony counts? Specifically what law was broken and was that law charged specifically in the indictment in this case or any other case and adjudicated with a guilty verdict?

Here we have Joe, once again, making emphatic argumentative statements of fact . . . that are false. The FEC was indeed aware of the transactions and in a 70-page report at the conclusion of their investigation, the FEC's general counsel's office (the head of the commission's investigation body) recommended that the FEC find that Trump, specifically, violated federal campaign finance law. The report signed by the Acting General Counsel and the General Counsel concluded that they:

- Find reason to believe that Donald J. Trump knowingly and willfully violated16 52 U.S.C. § 30116(f) by knowingly accepting excessive contributions from Michael D. Cohen;
- Find reason to believe that Donald J. Trump knowingly and willfully violated19 52 U.S.C. § 30122 by knowingly accepting a contribution in the name of another;
- Find reason to believe that Donald J. Trump knowingly and willfully violated21 52 U.S.C. § 30118(a) by knowingly accepting a corporate contribution from the22 Trump Organization OR knowingly and willfully violated 52 U.S.C. § 30116(f) by knowingly accepting an excessive contribution from the Trump Organization

https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/7313/7313_19.pdf

The FEC, however, is a politically constituted commission and doesn't act except by vote of its commissioners. The FEC is constituted equally by both parties - and in response to the report and recommendations from the OGC's office, the commissioners were (surprise!) deadlocked - with the Republican appointees refusing to accept the findings and recommendations of the OGC's investigation and enforcement officers. https://www.yahoo.com/news/federal-election-commission-deadlocks-wont-214647188.html

To answer your question about the first degree (felony) falsifying of business records with intent to commit other crime or aid or conceal the commission thereof, there were four sources of the "other crime": (1) the Federal Election Campaign Act noted above, (2) NY Election Law 17-152, (3) New York Tax Law 1801(a)(3) and 1803, and (4) New York Penal Law 175.05 and 175.10.

Your question seems to suggest that you believe that the "other crime" that is required to support the first degree (felony) must be crime that is charged and convicted. That is not accurate and was the subject of ruling by the court on at least two occasions including the court's denial of Trump's motion to dismiss: "As is clear from the plain reading of PL 175.10, it is not necessary for a defendant to be convicted of the 'other crime,' it is his intent to commit those other crimes that carries the day. McCumiskey,12 AD3d at 1146; People v. Mahboubian, 74 NY2d 174 [1989]; People v. Holley, ,198 AD3d 1351 [4th Dept 2021], People v. Hightaling, 79 AD3d 1155 [3d Dept 2010]."

https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People-v-DonaldTrump2-15-24Decision.pdf