Government Efficiency (1 Viewer)

[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 aren’t exactly true. 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

 

[Saint by the Bay]

You guys are going to get CTE if you keep slamming your heads into that brick wall.

 

[TampaJoe]

Here we have Joe, once again, making emphatic argumentative statements of fact . . . that aren’t exactly true. 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:

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

The crux of the case centers around whether these were or were not campaign expenses. Opinions vary and the defendant wasn’t allowed to put in his expert witnesses and secondly whether the NDA was some kind of violation of law. We can argue this point all day long.

However, if the court believes it is correct in its ruling, sentence the man. Don’t put it off sentence him and allow these questions to be resolved in the Court of Appeals.

 

[Dragon]

The crux of the case centers around whether these were or were not campaign expenses. Opinions vary and the defendant wasn’t allowed to put in his expert witnesses and secondly whether the NDA was some kind of violation of law. We can argue this point all day long.

However, if the court believes it is correct in its ruling, sentence the man. Don’t put it off sentence him and allow these questions to be resolved in the Court of Appeals.

Opinions don’t matter—facts do. He could have paid the woman directly and privately, but greed got the better of him. He wanted to conceal the payment and falsely categorize it as a business expense, which it clearly was not.

That said, I agree on one point: sentence the man. He broke the law and should face the consequences, just like anyone else. That’s how it works in most functioning democracies. In fact, several heads of state have been imprisoned for bribery, fraud, and corruption.

Equal justice under the law is a cornerstone of a healthy democracy. No one should be above it.

 

[superchuck500]

The crux of the case centers around whether these were or were not campaign expenses. Opinions vary and the defendant wasn’t allowed to put in his expert witnesses and secondly whether the NDA was some kind of violation of law. We can argue this point all day long.

However, if the court believes it is correct in its ruling, sentence the man. Don’t put it off sentence him and allow these questions to be resolved in the Court of Appeals.

No, you can't argue that point because your argument is nonsensical in American law. The FEC OGC's office found that they were campaign expenses and recommended the commissioners move to hold Trump accountable for violation of federal campaign finance law. Two of the four commissioners agreed. The other two disagreed. One of them wrote an position opinion that the other concurred with that stated that he didn't think they were campaign-related - but that holds no force of law whatsoever. It is not an adjudication, it's simply a commissioner's opinion after reading a report of investigation.

And it isn't evidence, whatsoever, in the criminal case. It is textbook law in every state in this country that there are rules for what constitutes evidence and what evidence is admissible. An FEC commissioner's opinion letter based on his review of an investigation is not admissible evidence in a state trial about falsification of business records. As to Trump's attempt to have a former FEC commissioner testify as an expert witness, expert witnesses are available to provide opinion about issues of fact and standard of care when the fact question at issue is generally beyond the lay understanding of a typical juror. Trial experts are not allowed to give opinion testimony about questions of law. This is basic, fundamental stuff.

The court's decision about the FEC expert witness was that he would be allowed to testify about the facts of what the FEC is, how it functions, and what its role is in investigation and determination of campaign finance violations. The court, however, did not allow the witness to testify about legal conclusions including interpreting campaign finance law as it applied to the Trump case or the history of similar cases. Trump elected not to call the witness based on these parameters.

There is not one element of that ruling is questionable. The role of a trial is to have the factfinder (the jury) determine questions of fact and then to apply those conclusions to the jury charges at the end of the case. The jury charges are based on the judge's rulings about the applicable law - which is resolved through the filings by counsel for the parties. The appropriate place for expert opinion about the law is in those filings. Trump was free to include (and probably did include) opinion from the FEC expert in those filings. But it's not appropriate for a trial witness to attempt to interpret law or application of law to the jury.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Explain to me why falsifying business records by Hillary to conceal her payments for opposition research on Trump is different from the Trump charges.

When we were hearing about emails and Benghazi non stop daily why wasn't this?

 

[TampaJoe]

No, you can't argue that point because your argument is nonsensical in American law. The FEC OGC's office found that they were campaign expenses and recommended the commissioners move to hold Trump accountable for violation of federal campaign finance law. Two of the four commissioners agreed. The other two disagreed. One of them wrote an position opinion that the other concurred with that stated that he didn't think they were campaign-related - but that holds no force of law whatsoever. It is not an adjudication, it's simply a commissioner's opinion after reading a report of investigation.

And it isn't evidence, whatsoever, in the criminal case. It is textbook law in every state in this country that there are rules for what constitutes evidence and what evidence is admissible. An FEC commissioner's opinion letter based on his review of an investigation is not admissible evidence in a state trial about falsification of business records. As to Trump's attempt to have a former FEC commissioner testify as an expert witness, expert witnesses are available to provide opinion about issues of fact and standard of care when the fact question at issue is generally beyond the lay understanding of a typical juror. Trial experts are not allowed to give opinion testimony about questions of law. This is basic, fundamental stuff.

The court's decision about the FEC expert witness was that he would be allowed to testify about the facts of what the FEC is, how it functions, and what its role is in investigation and determination of campaign finance violations. The court, however, did not allow the witness to testify about legal conclusions including interpreting campaign finance law as it applied to the Trump case or the history of similar cases. Trump elected not to call the witness based on these parameters.

There is not one element of that ruling is questionable. The role of a trial is to have the factfinder (the jury) determine questions of fact and then to apply those conclusions to the jury charges at the end of the case. The jury charges are based on the judge's rulings about the applicable law - which is resolved through the filings by counsel for the parties. The appropriate place for expert opinion about the law is in those filings. Trump was free to include (and probably did include) opinion from the FEC expert in those filings. But it's not appropriate for a trial witness to attempt to interpret law or application of law to the jury.

So the court should sentence the man and allow him to exercise his due process on appeal.

 

[superchuck500]

So the court should sentence the man and allow him to exercise his due process on appeal.

That's certainly the most direct/straight way to do it. The sentence (if it calls for any time) would have to be suspended but yes.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

That's certainly the most direct/straight way to do it. The sentence (if it calls for any time) would have to be suspended but yes.

I don't think he was likely to be sentenced to any jail time anyway... the only potential factor would have been his lack of remorse and constant attacking of the judge and prosecutors. But for the crime itself, I don't think jail time would have been recommended.

 

[TampaJoe]

I don't think he was likely to be sentenced to any jail time anyway... the only potential factor would have been his lack of remorse and constant attacking of the judge and prosecutors. But for the crime itself, I don't think jail time would have been recommended.

Agreed. They should either dismiss the case entirely or sentence him. Postponing sentencing makes no sense to me.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Agreed. They should either dismiss the case entirely or sentence him. Postponing sentencing makes no sense to me.

We're in unchartered territory here. We've never had an ex-President who was then elected again as President found guilty of a felony. I'm not sure anyone would feel comfortable sentencing him.

 

[superchuck500]

I don't think he was likely to be sentenced to any jail time anyway... the only potential factor would have been his lack of remorse and constant attacking of the judge and prosecutors. But for the crime itself, I don't think jail time would have been recommended.

I was anticipating some kind of short-term house arrest just to make a point about the attacks on the court, but I agree that it was it's unlikely that it would have been anything significant based on the crimes.

We're in unchartered territory here. We've never had an ex-President who was then elected again as President found guilty of a felony. I'm not sure anyone would feel comfortable sentencing him.

I tend to agree with Joe that it shouldn't matter. The judge could order some kind of probation and fine similar to what other convictions of this nature have gotten, but then just suspend the whole thing.

The other option is just to dismiss the whole case, but I'm not sure why that's such a compelling idea. Sure, it's a bad look for the president to be convicted but he's already convicted - they've already gone through all of that. The sentence is mostly an afterthought in these kinds of cases. Plus, Trump has blown up so many norms and ideals about the presidency, I don't see why this is such a big deal.

 

[TampaJoe]

I was anticipating some kind of short-term house arrest just to make a point about the attacks on the court, but I agree that it was it's unlikely that it would have been anything significant based on the crimes.



I tend to agree with Joe that it shouldn't matter. The judge could order some kind of probation and fine similar to what other convictions of this nature have gotten, but then just suspend the whole thing.

The other option is just to dismiss the whole case, but I'm not sure why that's such a compelling idea. Sure, it's a bad look for the president to be convicted but he's already convicted - they've already gone through all of that. The sentence is mostly an afterthought in these kinds of cases. Plus, Trump has blown up so many norms and ideals about the presidency, I don't see why this is such a big deal.

My understanding is that he is not officially considered convicted until he is sentenced. IOW the trial isn’t done. That’s why he cannot appeal the conviction. It’s unfair not to complete the process in the lower court. If everyone is equal before the law, finish the process by either sentencing him or dismissing the case.
JMHO