From the NYT's live reporting of Justice Merchan's reading his instructions to the jury.
The layered nature.... layered or circular? Is a misdemeanor transformed into a felony by counting the same "unlawful means" twice?
The same NYT reporter, a couple minutes later, writes: "Justice Merchan is now explaining to the jurors what I’ve taken to thinking of as the 'false records sandwich' prosecution theory. Under this theory, jurors could find that Trump falsified records… to hide an election conspiracy that used the unlawful means…of other falsified records."
ALSO: "[The judge] says that, to find Trump guilty of the first charge, jurors would have to find that Trump, personally or acting in concert with others, made or caused a false entry in business records.... They would also have to find that Trump caused that false record with intent to defraud — that is, with the goal of keeping it secret — and that he either intended to commit another crime or aid the commission of another crime." What is the other crime?
Posts
195 comments:
Genuine question: what are the alleged other "unlawful means"? The allegedly falsified records are the invoices, ledgers, checks. But what is the other unlawful means they were allegedly covering up? The NDA? Is the theory that the underlying agreement with Stormy was unlawful?
There's a hole in NYT paywall. I was told it was the end of the free articles until next month. Quelle suprise....
It's all bullshit. Everybody knows this.
"The NDA"
No. They keep saying that was not illegal. I'm seeing " a conspiracy to aid a person’s election," but conspiring to get ahead in an election isn't illegal.
I can't understand what the other crime is.
If Trump is convicted, I don't think people will understand what he was convicted of. The media keep calling it the "hush money" trial, so maybe people will think that was the crime. Obviously, it's not.
"There's a hole in NYT paywall. I was told it was the end of the free articles until next month. Quelle suprise...."
If my link is working like a gift link, that means the NYT chose to make the gift.
When NYT says layered (or as you say circular), is the idea that the OTHER falsified records are the unlawful means? The ledger count is a falsified record based on a falsified check? The falsified check count is a falsified record based on the falsified ledger?
Seems like this should have been tossed by the judge. But if he won't because it's political, then what else will he do because it's political? I assume no suspended sentences pending appeal or anything else that would get in the way of the political agenda.
"Judge Merchan just told the jury that they do not need unanimity to convict. 4 could agree on one crime, 4 on a different one, and the other 4 on another. He said he would treat 4-4-4 as a unanimous verdict."
Making it up as they go along. This would be a comedy if it weren't real life.
The word 'convoluted' keeps running through my head.
Judge Merchan just told the jury that they do not need unanimity to convict. 4 could agree on one crime, 4 on a different one, and the other 4 on another. He said he would treat 4-4-4 as a unanimous verdict.
What the heck?
Jonah Bromwich
May 29, 2024, 11:13 a.m. ET5 minutes ago
5 minutes ago
Jonah Bromwich Reporting from inside the courthouse
Justice Merchan is again explaining the potential “unlawful means” that jurors could find that Trump or the other conspirators identified by prosecutors — Michael Cohen and David Pecker, the former publisher of The National Enquirer — used to aid Trump’s election in 2016.
Hey Jonah -- what did Merchan say were the other potential unlawful means? Inquiring minds. How many hundreds of blog post updates in that real-time stream and they gloss over the key point.
Trump didn't make ANY entries. His accountants/underlings did.
It's a game of Mad Libs. In the place where you'd expect the other crime to be named, there's just a blank labeled "(name of crime)": the jurors can fill it in however they like. What I wonder is whether they'll still be willing to convict if they can't all agree on a single answer.
There is no other crime.
Donald Trump has not taken a plea bargain, been convicted, or even been indicted on the other crime.
It does not exist.
It is a legal fiction.
"What is the other crime?"
For being an orange man who says mean things on twitter. It's not a joke. That really is the ultimate origin of this whole farce.
"I can't understand what the other crime is."
This is a significant statement. Althouse is a smart, fair-minded legal expert who tries to understand. If she doesn't understand, the reasonable inference is that it isn't understandable. If it isn't understandable, it is not clear on what basis the jury can convict, or for that matter, on what basis the trial could have proceeded in the first place. And it isn't understandable how a defendant could have mens rea in committing a crime the very nature of which is not understandable.
Ever since the police acquittal in the first Rodney King trial, and then police convictions in the retrial for "violating civil rights," the left has moved to double jeopardy. They demand to win any means necessary, and no one in the party tells the zealots to stop. Pyrrhic victory.
You will reap what you sow.
The underlying crime is moping with intent to creep, the same thing that they got G Gordon Liddy for.
that means the NYT chose to make the gift
Why the use of the term gift? It is an odd description of propaganda...
What the heck?
Merchan is daring appeals courts to apply the precedent here.
Markie and Chucky will have a hard time elaborating on why Supreme Court case, Richardson v. United States, which emphasizes the need for jury unanimity on underlying offenses doesn't apply "because Trump."
The first crime is a conspiracy to nickle and dime the tax agencies. The second crime is using the nickles and dimes to fund his campaign.
"Unlawful means" does not mean illegal.
There are two lawyers on the jury. They should see through this fraud. But then the judge and persecutors (sic) are also lawyers .....
"If Trump is convicted, I don't think people will understand what he was convicted of."
That's to the dem's advantage, and I'm sure it's an explicit part of their strategy. People will assume it's a legit conviction, even if they can't understand it.
The criminal case against Donald J. Trump is with the jury, which will now begin its deliberations. It’s 11:28 am.
I suspect the precedent of kangaroo courts is for the jury to wrap things up quickly. Today may be too quick but unless they desperately need the court time money they want to go home so the process of really cashing in on the case can begin...
The conspiracy, per the prosecutor, was to hide Trump's sexual encounter with Stormy Daniels for the purpose of hoodwinking the American people and winning the election.
I'm waiting for the indictment of all the NYT writers for hoodwinking the American people on the Russia hoax and Hunter's laptop.
"What is the other crime?"
Creating a nuisance.
why Supreme Court case, Richardson v. United States, which emphasizes the need for jury unanimity on underlying offenses doesn't apply "because Trump."
The first part is justified by Democrats' sincere belief that demos-cracy can be represented by a consensus or simple majority. The second part is justified by their religion's prime directive: selective and opportunistic.
It is bootstrapping of the highest order. Falsifying business records is a felony because he intended to violate the election law, which is a felony because falsified business records!
Merchan is so transparently incompetent and biased he should have his law license revoked before the jury comes back. He's made so many blatantly bad rulings in this case, it's shocking.
Of course, the purpose of this show trial is to give Joe Biden's campaign a talking point, not prosecute a crime since there wasn't one. They don't care if it's overturned on appeal since the election will be over by then.
If he wins, I hope the first thing Trump does is have Bragg and Merchan arrested for election interference, er, I mean, "violating civil rights".
Sebestian:
Don't talk about mens rea. Doesn't apply to Trump. And his lawyers were forbidden from even arguing about it.
As I have noted before, this trial is, in some respects, worse than the show trials in totalitarian regimes. Totalitarian regimes are often quite happy to tell the defendant all the charges in detail. The defendant has already been found guilty before the trial starts and the charges may be completely bogus, but they will inform the defendant. New York... not so much, apparently.
Merchan is corrupt as they come.
The conspiracy, per the prosecutor, was to hide Trump's sexual encounter with Stormy Daniels for the purpose of hoodwinking the American people and winning the election.
Is that unlawful means?
"Judge Merchan just told the jury that they do not need unanimity to convict. 4 could agree on one crime, 4 on a different one, and the other 4 on another. He said he would treat 4-4-4 as a unanimous verdict."
Incredible.
Do the jurors have to declare which crime(s) they convicted on?
This is a farce.
Bob Boyd said...
"What is the other crime?"
Creating a nuisance.
And they all came back, shook Trump’s hand, and they had a great time on the bench, talkin' about crime, mother-stabbing, father-raping, an' all kinds of groovy things that they was talking about on the bench.
On reading the transcripts of the trial last night, it became clear that the prosecution didn't actually prove the business record entries were falsely labeled. As far as I can tell, the falsity claim rests entirely on Michael Cohen's testimony that he was ordered by Trump via the guy Wesselberg (not sure of the spelling) to list them as legal fees on the invoices. There was no testimony that I saw that proved labeling them as legal fees is actually incorrect. They may have introduced evidence showing how New York outlines in great detail about what is and what is not a legal expense for ledger entries, but I did find any such definitions in the New York code or tax regulations- it seems to be that legal fees are fees for which you pay to a lawyer for advice, contracts, costs of contracts etc., which makes complete sense given the bookkeepers said exactly the same thing during the testimony on cross. As some above pointed out, the prosecution provided no evidence that Trump labeled these in any way whatsoever, and I can't see how any reasonable person wouldn't just assume these are legal fees if they weren't a practicing accountant themselves- intent to mislabel here is nonsense on stilts.
Funny, I thought you were supposed to know what the crime is before you were charged, tried, and the final summations.
God of the Sea People at 10.21am:
"Trump didn't make ANY entries. His accountants/underlings did."
Yes. This. I have been pounding the table on this since the very beginning. Anyone who thinks Trump micromanages his stuff to the point of making ledger entries is beyond foolish and should be laughed out of the room. I have a company many times smaller (MANY) and I don't do my ledger stuff, the accounting people do. I mean, really???
There are two lawyers on the jury. They should see through this fraud.
But they cannot advise their fellow jury members on the law, or cite the Sixth Amendment or the Richardson v. United States precedent. If they do it will result in a mistrial.
Which, come to think of it, isn't a bad outcome at all.
The prosecution in its summation was allowed to state numerous times that Trump violated federal election law, so I'm assuming that's what they are counting on as the other crime. Also, why Judge Merchan refused to allow a federal election law expert to give his expert opinion that federal election law was not violated.
Let me guess, Merchan didn't note that if a juror thought Trump committed the fraud (which at this point, the person that is clearly making fraudulent statements and documents is Cohen - see Yancey Ward at 10:41AM) and Trump did so to hide an embarrassing story from his wife, then that would be reasonable doubt that a crime against the state was committed.
@Static Ping: As I have noted before, this trial is, in some respects, worse than the show trials in totalitarian regimes. Totalitarian regimes are often quite happy to tell the defendant all the charges in detail.
My take is that the establishment (left and right wing) were proven to be incompetent when Trump first won. They've been fixated on that failure since 2016, and are dying inside per broken egos. Many also know they are unqualified DEI appointees, but can't admit it.
The establishment has had the neurotic yips ever since Trump won. They are bumbling ("doing their best") and emotional more than strategic. The disciplined totalitarian empire builders of the USSR, Maoist, and Nazi regimes would never have tolerated the fuzzy, mushy, and ineffective Woke of today. Today's Woke are a different flavor of evil.
@ Meade
Yes, sir, Judge Merkin, your honor, I cannot tell a lie. I put that NDA under that pile of garbage.
On the NYT gift link; I think the link is to the running coverage of the trial, as I could see several updates to it. I think as long as they continue to update at that link, Althouse gifted access works.
Humperdink, if those two lawyers on the jury don't want to be pariahs among their professional peers they have to vote to convict.
Boy do I hate it when a Babylon Bee satirical headline actually comes true. In this case a day or two ago the headline read “Judge Instructs Jurors They Need Not Believe Trump Is Guilty To Convict Him.”
Close enough.
Blogger Ann Althouse said...
The media keep calling it the "hush money" trial, so maybe people will think that was the crime. Obviously, it's not.
American liberal educators will believe the "hush money" explanation. So will the student populations of American college campuses. Except for maybe the frat boys. Who in Madison, WI (besides Althouse) is going to take a deep dive and question a guilty verdict?
We are a nation of dumbshits, because dipshits have full control of our education system.
The other crime is being Donald Trump. Obviously.
My impression of the instructions is this:
The jurors must choose one of the possible 2nd crimes and there is no room to not pick one or all- if option 1 isn't right, then option 2 must be. If a juror hangs the trial, I predict that juror gets removed for cause when questioned on why by the judge.
Does it factor into the case at all that Trump didn't personally do any of these things he's accused of? Even if campaign expenses were entered into a business record as legal fees to cover up the true purpose of quieting a bimbo eruption to protect his campaign, is anybody seriously picturing Trump personally laboring over a ledger with pen in one hand and calculator in the other?
He doesn't do his own bookkeeping any more than he does his own taxes. And yet, I haven't heard anything from the prosecution even attempting to show that it was done at his direction or even knowledge. That all seems to be assumed from the "fact" that it was done at all.
and that he either intended to commit another crime or aid the commission of another crime.
i THINK i get it now..
Trump (or his people (or Someone (or NO ONE))) committed a misdemeanor..
AND THEN..
Trump (or his people (or Someone (or NO ONE))) CONSPIRED to commit THAT misdemeanor..
And THAT, my friends.. Makes THAT misdemeanor a Felony!
Do i have that right?
So, if there are enough charges, and no juror agrees guilt on the same charge, but all believe guilt on some charge, then the dependent is guilty on all charges? Sure why not? Who cares about any of the amendments in the Bill of Rights? Certainly not Democrats when applied to Republicans.
TRUMP, KID, HAVE YOU REHABILITATED YOURSELF?
Related to the general trial story, but perhaps something for another post. Elise Stefanik is asking questions.
LOL. Trump "Mother Theresa couldn't beat these charges."
LIAR. Mother Theresa 100% would have beat the rap for paying hush money to a porn star. Pretty sure AT LEAST one jury would have some "reasonable doubt" whether Mother Theresa paid hush money to a porn star.
Stop invoking Jesus. Stop invoking Mother Theresa. She never bragged about grabbin' 'em by the pussy. Trump is a serial cheater with three (3) baby mamas. He has paid money to porn stars. If his last name was Biden you would have tons of questions about his free plane rides on Lolita Express. You would want to know why Trump was attending P. Diddy's fuck parties. But, because you love Trump as much as the dems love their shitheads you ask no questions. Nothing to see here.
Point is: Trumo should be acquitted because he did not commit a crime. But he is still an immoral, lying piece of shit. Stop invoking Jesus.
This question is for the ladies: how would it feel to be Melania during this mess that Don created with his cock? Whether its "fair" or "unfair" all your husband needed to do was be faithful and not a scumbag. I bet that would suck. Oh well, I guess it's better than living in some shithole country in Eastern Europe.
Anybody who thinks that the "lawyers" on the jury will behave in an ethical manner is just dreaming. Why do you think we have this trial in the first place? Its because Leftwing and/or Democrat lawyers USE the law to destroy their enemies.
These are two NYC lawyers. What are the chances they're extreme Leftwing Democrats who hate Trump? about 90 percent. They'll be in the jury room posing as "legal experts" getting the other 10 to convict! If you look at the J6 trials, every single jury convicts every single j6 protester no matter what. Its 90% Democrat District of Columbia. They don't care about Justice.
Tump will be convicted. The fix was in from the start. conservatives keep whining for the Democrats and the Left to be "reasonable". Well, they are not going to be reasonble. So now what? I'll tell you what...The Republican party will do nothing. Conservatives will whine on the internet or bather about "Just wait, The Democrats will be sorry they did this"...and we'll have to hope some appellate court or federal court steps in and saves the country.
What is the other crime? We don't need no stinking crime. This is DJT we're talking about.
Meade said...
TRUMP, KID, HAVE YOU REHABILITATED YOURSELF?
I want to understand The Significance of THE PICKLE ???
The jury in effect has a traditional state line item veto, where various words from the charges can be struck out until it says something that they think Trump did, and then he's guilty.
Death to prepositions!
The two lawyers are corporate lawyers, and may not be experienced enough to guide other jurors wrt the law in this case. Dunno if “unanimous” is as basic as I think it is in all parts of the law.
Also, I think, if convicted, each juror has to state for the court of what crime they convicted him. Clearly.
The judge is directing the jury to infer a crime from a cascade of hypothetical perturbations of his jurisprudence.
This judge is a total fraud.
Even if the judge were to give the jury a menu of underlying crimes to choose from, wouldn’t he need to instruct them on the elements of each putative crime? If he doesn’t instruct on some federal election law crime, then how can he have allowed the state to argue that to the jury?
I want to understand The Significance of THE PICKLE ???
That's the stuff Stormy isn't supposed to talk about.
No one would even be able to write the screenplay for this debacle, were it to become a movie.
My favorite so far (it's not over yet): the judge says if four out of twelve say guilty to one "crime," another four to a second, and and other four to a third, he will take this as a unanimous guilty verdict. Babylon Bee? Monty Python? No, NYC today.
“I can't understand what the other crime is.”
Falsifying business records (the felonies) in furtherance of another crime, which was to engage in a conspiracy to defraud the voters by influencing an election (state crime).
“The primary crime that we have alleged is New York state election law section 17-152,” Manhattan Assistant District Attorney Joshua Steinglass told New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan during Trump’s trial on April 23. “There is conspiracy language in the statute. The entire case is predicated on the idea that there was a conspiracy to influence the election in 2016.”
The former president faces 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to cover up $130,000 paid to adult film actress Stormy Daniels to keep her allegations of a sexual affair hidden from voters. If convicted, Trump could face up to four years in prison. In bringing the felony charges, prosecutors are required to prove not just that Trump doctored records, but that he did so to commit or conceal another crime. The underlying crime that motivated Trump’s alleged misconduct, prosecutors said in court, was a conspiracy to defraud voters in his presidential campaign.”
The judge put so many caveats around what the Former head of the Election Commission that the defense decided they would not be allowed to ask him any pertinent questions.
Now I’m hearing that the judge instructions were stacked against Trump in every way possible.
It was like the judge in the movie The Verdict with Paul Newman.
“Mother Teresa could not beat these charges,” adding: “the whole thing is rigged.”
Sounds like an admission of guilt.
"Judge Merchan just told the jury that they do not need unanimity to convict. 4 could agree on one crime, 4 on a different one, and the other 4 on another. He said he would treat 4-4-4 as a unanimous verdict."
You mean there are three crimes now? And what felony keeps the statute of limitations running?
No sane juror can understand any of this. If they convict Trump, it’s because they wanted to.
The judge also didn’t give the defence nor the prosecution a copy of his instructions. Usually that’s how the defense and prosecutors tailor their closing arguments to match closely the judge’s instructions because usually the jury pays close attention to.
I suppose sharing that ahead of time the judge figured would help the defense, so he didn’t do it.
Thank you, Inga, for regurgitating the snatch-grab of unhelpfully vague news reports. The whole point of the prosecutor not articulating the underlying crimes was so jurors can fill in the blanks with whatever buzz words they like best: hush money, campaign finance law, influencing an election; and then paste that onto the 34 times Michael Cohen's name was written down and BANG! Conviction.
But the appeals courts eventually will say out loud what we all know, "Hush money, campaign finance law and influencing an election" were not litigated, not charged, and not proved. Furthermore, the unproven "affair" is not public knowledge and "covering it up" is also not a crime.
Try again now, but this time list an actual crime from the indictment. For good measure you should tell us who testified and "proved" this "crime" too.
Just out of curiosity, do any of our Lefty friends here think this is justice?
Yes, Jersey, they DO.
@Mead
"Kid, whad'ya get?"
I said, "I didn't get nothing. I had to pay 50 dollars, and pick up the garbage"
He said, "What were you arrested for, kid?"
And I said, "Litterin'"
And they all moved away from me on the bench
This cheese has so many holes that there’s no Swiss left.
Thinking that someone did something is good enough….
And here I thought racial profiling was dead and buried.
This is exactly what justice has looked like from day one. It's just you're ox is being gored this one time. He's lucky he didn't get the George Floyd treatment.
@Meade:
"You got a lot a damn gall to ask me if I've rehabilitated myself, I mean, I mean, I mean that just, I'm sittin' here on the bench, I mean I'm sittin here on the Group W bench 'cause you want to know if I'm moral enough join the army, burn women, kids, houses and villages after bein' a litterbug." He looked at me and said, "Kid, we don't like your kind, and we're gonna send your fingerprints off to Washington."
Howard said...
“This is exactly what justice has looked like from day one.”
Glad to see you’re joining the Trump supporters.
Sorry, the link to the quote I provided @11:48 is here.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/05/06/trump-hush-money-trial-election-law/
Blogger Howard said...
This is exactly what justice has looked like from day one. It's just you're ox is being gored this one time. He's lucky he didn't get the George Floyd treatment.
I think the sane among us might attribute that lack to the fact that Trump never tried to pass a counterfeit bill and has never used illegal drugs. Floyd had a lethal level of fentanyl in his blood. I think there is still a chance for the "George Floyd treatment" if Democrats get any crazier.
Howard:
He's lucky he didn't get the George Floyd treatment.
Trump doesn't even drink, much less overdose on Fentanyl.
What would the Althouse comments be without crazy "Inga" showing up to add nonsense.
I blame Meade.
You can arrest any Republican you want at Merchan's restaurant.
No 8x10 color glossies required.
The unlawful means is defeating Hillary Clinton. Winning an election by Unlawful Means is stuffing the ballot box, throwing out ballots, ballot harvesting, paying voters, etc. Not conducting a successful campaign and managing the campaign's messaging.
The prosecutor dare not specify what the election crime was because he knows that would be a fraud upon the court. He could be prosecuted and disbarred for lying to the court.
4-4-4 ?
That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard of.
Merchan takes a scattergun approach.
Someone should give that crumbum a salt load right in his narrow ass.
"This is exactly what justice has looked like from day one. It's just you're ox is being gored this one time. He's lucky he didn't get the George Floyd treatment."
LOL- when did Trump overdose on fentanyl, Howard?
Isn’t not specifying the crime also a fraud on the court? It’s wasting a lot of time and money…
Levi Starks
Yup, 4-4-4. Incredible.
Blogger Inga said...
“I can't understand what the other crime is.”
Falsifying business records (the felonies) in furtherance of another crime, which was to engage in a conspiracy to defraud the voters by influencing an election (state crime).
You mean conducting a campaign and controlling the messaging of that campaign? That's what you just described. That's 1,000% legal.
“I blame Meade.“
Meade!? Hey I didn’t start it. I’m throwing Bob Boyd under the bus. The hippie Volkswagen microbus.
"In late 2022, Merchan oversaw the five-week criminal trial of the Trump Organization; the organization was convicted of 17 counts of tax fraud.[25]
Merchan presided over the criminal case of Donald Trump's former financial chief Allen Weisselberg, who pleaded guilty to his role in a 15-year-long tax-fraud scheme.[26][27] Weisselberg admitted to evading taxes by accepting $1.7 million in off-the-books compensation and entered a plea agreement, in which he testified against The Trump Organization and helped to secure the company's conviction.[28] Merchan sentenced Weisselberg to five months at Rikers Island and said he would have imposed a substantially longer sentence but for the plea agreement.[27]
Merchan is the judge assigned to preside over the criminal trial of Steve Bannon, a former Trump adviser who was indicted in September 2022 on charges of fraud and money laundering in connection with a fundraising scheme. The case was set for trial in May 2024[29] but was postponed until September.[30]"
Above from Wikipedia. If criminal cases are assigned to judges randomly, how is this even statistically possible? Rigged.
This, by the way, is the reason Bragg etal. didn't charge Trump with the campaign finance issue- had they done so they would have had to prove the charge and Merchan wouldn't have been able to bar expert testimony on the matter from the defense. Since Bragg didn't charge it, the defense got no right to argue against it with expert testimony- it became a non-material matter for the entire trial before yesterday and only got asserted in closing arguments with the prosecution literally convicting Trump of the charge itself. It is very similar to what Judge Engoron did in the civil case- simply assigned guilt right from the start and moved right to the penalty phase for the rest of the trial.
You can get anything you want at Althouse’s restaurant.
(except for Althouse)
I suspect a NY appellant court will overrule, but they might overrule that the circular claim that Trump committed a misdemeanor by intending to cause the creation of a fraudulent document and the claim Trump intended to cause the creation of a fraudulent document to interfere with a campaign are both past the statute of limitations. This throws out the charge on a technicality but leaves open the impression Trump may be guilty if the case had been made sooner.
What would the Althouse comments be without Michael K showing up.
So I guess Howard is saying that Justice doesn’t matter to the Left. It’s all about what you can get away with.
Howard spoke the quiet part out loud.
I hope he’s never on the other end of that.
"That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard of."
It's still early.
I briefly talked to the criminal defense attorney in my building. He just tried (and lost) two felony cases in Madison County, NE.
He told me that in closing arguments, he always goes through the instructions with the jury; making points about reasonable doubt, burden of proof, elements of the crimes charge, intent etc.
From the NYT posts yesterday, Judge Marchan prohibited defense counsel from doing so. That's completely wrong.
"But the appeals courts eventually will say out loud what we all know, "Hush money, campaign finance law and influencing an election" were not litigated, not charged, and not proved. Furthermore, the unproven "affair" is not public knowledge and "covering it up" is also not a crime."
They don't care. The point is to hobble Trump now, during the campaign.
Didn't Hillary record the money that funded the Russia hoax as "legal fees"?
I hope [Howard is] never on the other end of that.
@Jersey Fled, I’m a harder person than you. I sincerely hope someday he is.
Ann Althouse said...
"The NDA"
No. They keep saying that was not illegal. I'm seeing " a conspiracy to aid a person’s election," but conspiring to get ahead in an election isn't illegal.
I can't understand what the other crime is.
5/29/24, 10:10 AM
I take our hostess’s comment as a serious one, made in good faith. But a little reading, looking, inquiry would turn up readily-available answers. I should also acknowledge an implied point that I can see Althouse making in the alternative. It would go like this; it shouldn’t be necessary for an emerita lawprof, reading an essay from Lawfare, to understand criminal charges against a former U.S. President. Every man on the street ought to be able to understand such a case. Sorry I can’t help with that. But I can help with the Lawfare link:
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/charting-the-legal-theory-behind-people-v.-trump
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/charting-the-legal-theory-behind-people-v.-trump
Chuck said...
Ann Althouse said...
"The NDA"
" No. They keep saying that was not illegal. I'm seeing " a conspiracy to aid a person’s election," but conspiring to get ahead in an election isn't illegal.
I can't understand what the other crime is.
5/29/24, 10:10 AM"
I take our hostess’s comment as a serious one, made in good faith. But a little reading, looking, inquiry would turn up readily-available answers. I should also acknowledge an implied point that I can see Althouse making in the alternative. It would go like this; it shouldn’t be necessary for an emerita lawprof, reading an essay from Lawfare, to understand criminal charges against a former U.S. President. Every man on the street ought to be able to understand such a case. Sorry I can’t help with that. But I can help with the Lawfare link:
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/charting-the-legal-theory-behind-people-v.-trump
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/charting-the-legal-theory-behind-people-v.-trump
Notice how dishonest Chuck is. He is reveling in his own obvious dishonesty and stupidity.
They just cannot let it go. There is obviously no crime and he knows it.
But he can't let it go.
This is awesome. Chuck is such an obvious piece of shit. Every time they post with this bullshit they create 10 more Trump voters.
Keep up the good work Chuck.
Original Mike said...
Didn't Hillary record the money that funded the Russia hoax as "legal fees"?
I want to know what Bill recorded his payment to Paula Jones as.
Blogger Meade said...
(except for Althouse)
OK Meade. I'll grant that you are one of two sane people in in Madison, WI.
Do you know a third?
Better yet, anyone in Madison with the guts like you and Althouse to state these types of opinions publicly. Heresy.
You could end up like David Bowie in "Merry Christmas, Mr. Lawrence". They'd bury you up to your neck in sand the run you over with a naked bicycle parade. The last images you'd see are a bunch of overweight nude Wisconsinites.
Inga said...
“I can't understand what the other crime is.”
Falsifying business records (the felonies) in furtherance of another crime, which was to engage in a conspiracy to defraud the voters by influencing an election (state crime).
“The primary crime that we have alleged is New York state election law section 17-152,” Manhattan Assistant District Attorney Joshua Steinglass told New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan during Trump’s trial on April 23. “There is conspiracy language in the statute. The entire case is predicated on the idea that there was a conspiracy to influence the election in 2016.”
The former president faces 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to cover up $130,000 paid to adult film actress Stormy Daniels to keep her allegations of a sexual affair hidden from voters. If convicted, Trump could face up to four years in prison. In bringing the felony charges, prosecutors are required to prove not just that Trump doctored records, but that he did so to commit or conceal another crime. The underlying crime that motivated Trump’s alleged misconduct, prosecutors said in court, was a conspiracy to defraud voters in his presidential campaign.”
Let that stupidity flow Inga. Keep it going. Do not stop until election day please.
For the love of god find Trump guilty and throw him in jail.
Please throw him in jail for this.
Please.
I was waiting for Merchan to puke these jury instructions up.
He did not disappoint.
This is going to to be an epic couple days.
Dave Begley, you say you are an attorney, shouldn’t you know that it’s the judge that gives the jury instructions before deliberation?
“I briefly talked to the criminal defense attorney in my building. He just tried (and lost) two felony cases in Madison County, NE.
He told me that in closing arguments, he always goes through the instructions with the jury; making points about reasonable doubt, burden of proof, elements of the crimes charge, intent etc.
From the NYT posts yesterday, Judge Marchan prohibited defense counsel from doing so. That's completely wrong”
https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/5-SampleCharges/CJI2d.Final_Instructions.pdf
Inga:
The judge reads all the instructions, but the attorneys know what the instructions are going to be and they argue how the facts and law go together in the case. "The judge will instruct you about intent. The State has to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Donald Trump intended to falsify the business records or he directed others to do so. The only testimony on Donald Trump's intent was from the convicted felon and disbarred lawyer Michael Cohen. I submit to you that Mr. Cohen's testimony is not credible, and you find Mr. Trump not guilty."
That's how to do it. But apparently that is prohibited in NY.
Inga said...
Dave Begley, you say you are an attorney, shouldn’t you know that it’s the judge that gives the jury instructions before deliberation?
Everyone knew this was coming. We were just curious how obvious the "Judge" would make his bias.
These "Jury instructions" are reversible on appeal on their face. The legal "theory" behind them is obviously false.
There is no intelligent honest person that believes you can be convicted for "falsifying business records" to cover up a "conspiracy" to cover up half a dozen things that are all completely legal based on the testimony of a person that admitted to lying about his specific testimony against Trump on the stand to the jury's faces.
This whole case was relying on Cohen's description of that 1 minute call to Trump and he admitted to lying about it.
Do not stop though please. Keep showing the world exactly who you people are.
And I beg the jury to show that it isn't just a fringe of the democrat party that acts like this. Please convict him and show everyone what absolute shitheads all of the current Biden supporters are.
Putting Trump in jail will cement for everyone that you people just cannot be trusted in a free country.
"Trump’s alleged misconduct, prosecutors said in court, was a conspiracy to defraud voters in his presidential campaign"
The dark, sick irony of this all knowing absentee voter fraud installed Biden in 2020, and we know damn well they will try it again in 2024.
The message is "Don't you DARE challenge us. If we can to this to Donald Trump, imagine what we can do to you."
Achilles said...
Let that stupidity flow Inga. Keep it going. Do not stop until election day please...For the love of god find Trump guilty and throw him in jail...Please throw him in jail for this...Please.
At some point soon, it will become and embarrassment to admit you're a Biden voter. If they throw Trump in jail, probation, our home confinement...his pimp hand gets stronger.
Nobody can understand this shit, not even lawyers.
There are too many lawyers and too many laws.
The most blatant abuse would be to drop the decision late Friday so we don't have an audience for the details, yet still pulling the 'convicted felon' pony from the pile of shit...
I think that if the jurors can find a penumbra, then they can convict. Kangaroos, penumbras and the crime that dare not speak its name (at least by the prosecutors) so the defense can't figure out what actual crime it's charged with. What a toxic stew.
According to "Not the Bee," the judge has stated that the jury need not be unanimous on the other, unspecificied crime that Trump intended to commit - if four jurors think it is one crime, 4 another, and the last four still another, he would treat that as a unanimous verdict.
Can Trump seek a writ of mandamus to immediately have this overturned, prior to deliberations?
"OK Meade. I'll grant that you are one of two sane people in in Madison, WI.
Do you know a third?"
He knows me.
“I blame Meade.“
Mead is an alcoholic beverage made by fermenting honey with water and yeast, and sometimes other ingredients. It's also known as "honey wine" because it's similar to wine, but mead uses honey instead of grapes as a sugar source. Mead can range in alcohol content from 3.5% to over 20% ABV, and it can be still, carbonated, or sparkling. It can also be dry, semi-sweet, or sweet, and may include flavors like fruit, herbs, spices, grains, roots, or flowers. Mead is gluten-free
At Ann's Restaurant your bowels will be merry and you will have a gay old time.
Dave Begley said...
" The conspiracy, per the prosecutor, was to hide Trump's sexual encounter with Stormy Daniels for the purpose of hoodwinking the American people and winning the election.
I'm waiting for the indictment of all the NYT writers for hoodwinking the American people on the Russia hoax and Hunter's laptop."
Call your boy John Durham and ask him to bring a lawsuit.
"What is the other crime?"
"The People allege that the other crime the defendant intended to commit, aid, or conceal is a violation of New YorkElection Law section 17-152.
Section 17-152 of the New York Election Law provides that
any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of conspiracy to promote or prevent an election."
But:
"Under our law, although the People must prove an intent
to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission
thereof, they need not prove that the other crime was in fact
committed, aided, or concealed."
- Transcript of jury instructions.
Gusty Winds said...
Achilles said...
Let that stupidity flow Inga. Keep it going. Do not stop until election day please...For the love of god find Trump guilty and throw him in jail...Please throw him in jail for this...Please.
At some point soon, it will become and embarrassment to admit you're a Biden voter. If they throw Trump in jail, probation, our home confinement...his pimp hand gets stronger.
Trump won 2020 75 million to ~60 million. Joe Biden was one of the most unpopular democrats ever and for good reason. He has always been stupid and he in a blatant racist. He is a warmonger that makes sure the US loses all of the wars he starts.
It has always been embarrassing to be a Biden supporter.
I am more interested in making sure Trump goes scorched earth on these people and their cries for mercy go on deaf ears.
People like this "Judge" and the people that support this obvious fascist crap need to be run out of this country on rails or thrown in jail.
All this and no one has quoted Laurentin Beria "Show me the man and I'll show you the crime."
All this and no one has quoted Laurentin Beria "Show me the man and I'll show you the crime."
The jury has sent several notes to the judge.
All this and no one has quoted Laurentin Beria "Show me the man and I'll show you the crime."
No one on this thread today so far.
Steven Wilson:
I did. In the closing argument post, I wrote: "Shorter Steinglass: Show me the man and I'll show the crime."
That's exactly what happened here. Defense counsel should have said it.
The NYT play by play has ended apparently, though you can still read prior updates using the Althouse link. What is in the notes?
I assume the detail of the "other crime" is the assertion that he booked a campaign expense as a legal expense.
That assertion is, apparently, enough under New York law to put a defendant away for 34 years, according to the Honorable Judge Merchan.
Kafka never thought of that one.
Here they are:
First note has four parts:
Three on David Pecker's testimony and one on Michael Cohen's testimony on the Trump Tower meeting. They reentered court and heard transcript read back. (Weird when I was on a jury we could read for ourselves.)
UPDATE: We have a second note from the jury:
"We the jury request to rehear the judge's instructions."
Jonathan Turley explains, "The new note at 3:51 is asking to reread the judge's instructions. They may reflect disagreements in the jury on the standards etc. The only reason to hear the instructions again is to clarify the standard if jurors are in disagreement. They are looking at 30 pages for transcript to read."
If I may sum up as commentary
D's/authority/public-servants are saying :=
>>> we never needed to hide out dirty laundry or dick-pics while campaigning and people choose to vote with wide open eyes while media could freely publicize about all that.
but Trump did not and fooled the media/authority from their sworn duty : so in fairness to democracy we have to charge him wih concealment / intent to deceive
If I may sum up as commentary
D's/authority/public-servants are saying :=
>>> we never needed to hide out dirty laundry or dick-pics while campaigning and people choose to vote with wide open eyes while media could freely publicize about all that.
but Trump did not and fooled the media/authority from their sworn duty : so in fairness to democracy and people of NY we have to charge him wih concealment / intent to deceive
Steven Wilson said...
All this and no one has quoted Laurentin Beria "Show me the man and I'll show you the crime."
Beria had the good taste to at least list the crimes people committed.
Merchan couldn't even bother with that step.
Pretty sure AT LEAST one jury would have some "reasonable doubt" whether Mother Theresa paid hush money to a porn star.
You do know that's not against the law, right? You do know that's not what the trial is about, right?
Right?
Inga:
The judge reads all the instructions, but the attorneys know what the instructions are going to be and they argue how the facts and law go together in the case. "The judge will instruct you about intent. The State has to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Donald Trump intended to falsify the business records or he directed others to do so. The only testimony on Donald Trump's intent was from the convicted felon and disbarred lawyer Michael Cohen. I submit to you that Mr. Cohen's testimony is not credible, and you find Mr. Trump not guilty."
Same in Massachusetts. It generally provides the entire framework for closing arguments - here are the instructions, here are how the facts fit/do not fit these instructions.
I am not sure I agree with Dave Begley re NY law prohibiting this - other than at this trial, I cannot find anything conclusive saying that you cannot argue the law and have seen many pre-2024 things suggesting you should reference the jury instructions during closing in NY.
Yup, 4-4-4.
Moses Malone has entered the chat ...
"If Trump is convicted, I don't think people will understand what he was convicted of."
If Trump is convicted, everyone will understand exactly what he was convicted of.
According to "Not the Bee," the judge has stated that the jury need not be unanimous on the other, unspecificied crime that Trump intended to commit - if four jurors think it is one crime, 4 another, and the last four still another, he would treat that as a unanimous verdict.
I likened the judge's instructions earlier to a game of Mad Libs, but perhaps I should have said Three-Charge Monte instead.
Jupiter said...
"If Trump is convicted, I don't think people will understand what he was convicted of."
If Trump is convicted, everyone will understand exactly what he was convicted of.
Exactly.
Please do this.
Show everyone who you really are Biden supporters.
tommyesq:
My comment was based on the NYT real time posts during the closing arguments. The NYT person wrote that Marchan gave Trump's lawyer the evil eye when he danced close to the line about what the instructions were going to be. If this is the actual procedure in NY law, that's crazy and wrong.
But with Marchan, who knows what the actual law is.
The craziest thing is this 4-4-4 deal and that the underlying crime was never defined in the indictment and charges. How can anyone be convicted if that is the law?
According to Jonathan Turley, if four jurors find Trump guilty on each of the three charges (I still can’t figure out what the third is) Manchon will add up the guilty votes and call it a unanimous decision and find Trump guilty. Even if a majority of the jury didn’t find him guilty on any of the individual counts. Doesn’t even have to be the same four jurors.
This can’t be right, can it? Even in NY?
(Sorry, I can’t find the link right now and I have to go pick up my wife)
If Trump is convicted, I don't think people will understand what he was convicted of.
I'm sure this has been said many times, but the crime is irrelevant. This is a political prosecution. A guilty verdict is goal, not justice.
"You do know that's not against the law, right? You do know that's not what the trial is about, right?
Right?"
Leftards will continue to toss out their cherished lies, knowing that they're lies, in an attempt to muddy the waters and distract from what is actually happening.
They're garbage people.
You won't have to throw me, Meade. I did it and I'll go peacefully under the bus with no regrets.
Prof. Turley has published unauthorized and incorrect legal opinions. He's trying to influence the election! He needs the John Eastman treatment: indicted and disbarred. We can't allow this!
Nurses and drunken golfers educating the con law prof on the Xs and Os of New York State law…
If the theory is violation of NY Election law 17-152 by conspiring to promote Trump’s election by unlawful means, and paying off Stormy was lawful, then there’s no violation unless someone conspired to falsify records BEFORE the election, judged by the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Actions or conspiracies undertaken after the election cannot have promoted Trump’s election.
"What is the other crime? "
I wonder if they're giving each juror their own Magic 8 Ball to figure this out?
But seriously, if I were accused of a felony, that had been generated because of an expired misdemeanor, because the misdemeanor had attempted to cover up a "different" crime, I would be pissed if I went to trial and the prosecutors couldn't tell anyone what the "different" crime was and the judge allowed me to be convicted on partial verdicts of three other versions of the "different" crime.
5 jurors find you guilty of "different" crime A.
6 jurors find you guilty of "different" crime B.
1 juror finds you guilty of "different" crime C.
Well, that's 12, so it's off to jail for you!
Hey wait! but 24 jurors found me not guilty of different crimes A, B and C!
"Well, it sucks to be you. Take it to the appeals court.
That's not how our criminal justice system is supposed to work.
Naw, Bob, get back in here. Just put these goggles on if you’re a gonna ride with your head out the window.
Atta boy.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
The reason that you cannot figure out the other crime is that neither Bragg nor the judge can figure out what the other crime is.
But there is an earlier, dispositive step. The payments in question were properly recorded as "legal expenses" (lawyer's fees, cost of NDA, lawyer's expense reimbursement). End of inquiry. End of case. NOT GUILTY.
Ann,
Here is a serious question:
Am I correct in assuming that the judge intended for every single juror to vote guilty on one of the three "other crimes?"
I've been on juries where the jurors are individually polled after the verdict is read.
If one juror votes not guilty on all three "other crimes" is it then a mistrial?
The big thing, in my mind, is that everything that has supposedly been testified to occurred in 2017- and was done to affect an election held in 2016...
It is remarkable (as in worthy of remark) that Inga can figure out what the crime is but Althouse can not.
If I didn't know better, I'd think that that Inga is one smart cookie.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
—Martin Niemöller
BLACK LIVES MATTER D.C. V. TRUMP – CHALLENGING FEDERAL OFFICERS’ UNPROVOKED ATTACK ON CIVIL RIGHTS DEMONSTRATORS AT LAFAYETTE SQUARE IN FRONT OF THE WHITE HOUSE
This case is about the President and Attorney General of the United States ordering the use of violence against peaceful demonstrators who were speaking out against discriminatory police brutality targeted at Black people.
Keep crying, bitches. Louder. We can't hear you. 🤣
On June 1, 2020, demonstrators gathered peacefully in Lafayette Square Park across the street from the White House in Washington, D.C., to protest the gross, systemic injustices perpetrated by law enforcement against Black people in the United States, exemplified by the murders of George Floyd and of Breonna Taylor, a Black woman who was shot eight times and killed in March 2020 by three Louisville police officers who entered her home in the middle of the night without knocking. This was a continuation of protests in Washington, D.C. and elsewhere since Mr. Floyd’s killing.
Without provocation, the President and Attorney General directed their agents in the U.S. Secret Service, U.S. Park Police, D.C. National Guard, and Federal Bureau of Prisons to fire tear gas, pepper spray capsules, rubber bullets and flash bombs into the crowd to shatter the peaceful gathering, forcing demonstrators to flee the area. Many peaceful demonstrators were injured, some severely, by this unprovoked attack.
The President and Attorney had no legitimate basis to assault the peaceable gathering. Their professed purpose–to clear the area to permit the President to walk to a photo opportunity at a nearby church –was a wholly illegal reason for abridging the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs and the others assembled in Lafayette Square. Indeed, the President has consistently demonstrated hostility towards viewpoints different than his own, and in the days and moments leading up to the attack, expressed his intent to violently attack protesters and “dominate” them.
Why no attribution Howard?
ABC News: Police did not clear Lafayette Square so Trump could hold 'Bible' photo op
Won't stop whining liars from whining or lying.
"Peaceful?"
Downtown D.C. burns after another night of protests and provocation near the White House
"WASHINGTON — The capital was awash with anger and pain as tear gas blew along the streets and rubber bullets flew Sunday night and into the early hours of Monday morning. Protesters clashed with law enforcement for the third straight evening outside the White House, and numerous businesses were vandalized by rioters defying a citywide curfew. Flames and smoke rose into the night, and officials and journalists struggled to understand who exactly was responsible for the worst of the damage.
Protesters gathered throughout Sunday in Lafayette Park, which is across the street from the White House and has been a focal point of the demonstrations that began here Friday evening. During that first night, protesters breached barricades in front of the White House leading to hours of clashes with the Secret Service, which eventually cleared the park using pepper spray and reinforcements from the U.S. Park Police. The situation reportedly led security officials to move President Trump into a secure bunker. On Saturday, the park was fully barricaded by Secret Service, Park Police and National Guard troops. Barred from the area, the protesters swept through downtown, where they vandalized local businesses by breaking windows, spraying graffiti and lighting fires.
The crowds were back in the park on Sunday evening, which began with relative calm. A law enforcement contingent that included the Secret Service, Park Police and military police troops stood behind barricades and periodically launched tear gas and pepper spray at the demonstrators, some of whom threw objects and fireworks.
I met this guy Lafayette Park across from the White House before things really heated up last night. He wore a Hawaiian shirt, a symbol of right wing activists who hope to provoke racial conflict called "Boogaloo." He was aware of the meaning but insisted it was a coincidence. pic.twitter.com/0qSNKgRSyo
— Hunter Walker (@hunterw) June 1, 2020
Two African-American men, who said their names were “Donny T.” and “Rev,” explained why they came to the park despite the potential of danger.
[snip]
Regarding the protests, Donny added: “People get aggressive because they feel like the cops are aggressive.”
Donny also theorized that the violence was fueled by frustration over lockdowns and unemployment resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.
“What are people going to do?” he asked. “They’re tired of being in the house. People are not getting money.”
As the protests have spread through the country, there have been mounting questions about the motivations for the looting and vandalism witnessed in numerous cities. Some observers have placed much of the onus for the unrest on violent police responses to the demonstrations. Some protesters have also expressed concerns that anarchist groups and white supremacists may be fueling the vandalism and detracting from the core message of the demonstrations. Law enforcement has recently become concerned with white supremacists adopting “accelerationist” ideology that calls for exploiting situations — including the pandemic — in an effort to provoke widespread violent racial conflict.
Source: https://www.yahoo.com/news/downtown-dc-burns-after-another-night-of-protests-and-provocation-near-the-white-house-121746636.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAADNuoyWzsrZlA5UqqkJtroiP6g02qb3S6OZNV_uKeSpf7TSiZq3RgPmHELC3gRAIISZ_34Gi_ILxP3e7U2t-SbdT1R8OpZlc65B1XWC0L7Yzoq-ntFgQ6nEIV0hS4HRrYpQqPyH1uUE6WkOHrSg8FIoOs7iysotbvgUAXSMv7DHB
The whole article is too much for a comment. Follow it to read it all.
Naw, Bob, get back in here.
Oh-kay.
Why am I not surprised you picked up on that Arlo Guthrie reference. It wasn't much to go on. Yole hippie.
The author of the article, Hunter Walker, is mostly sympathetic toward the rioters. But he does report all their actions, as a reporter should.
This question is for the ladies: how would it feel to be Melania during this mess that Don created with his cock? Whether its "fair" or "unfair" all your husband needed to do was be faithful and not a scumbag. I bet that would suck. Oh well, I guess it's better than living in some shithole country in Eastern Europe.
5/29/24, 11:04 AM
Ask the Bimbo eruption accuser Hillary, about when Bill desecrated the Oval office. She obviously didn't care that Bill was a whore.
Howard said...
This is exactly what justice has looked like from day one. It's just you're ox is being gored this one time. He's lucky he didn't get the George Floyd treatment.
5/29/24, 12:09 PM
What?? Treated like he was the King of England when he died of an overdose??
Howard is reaching new lows tonight. The pretense is gone.
The “other crime” #1 is trying to win an election by unlawful means. The unlawful means being that Cohen either made an unreported $130,000 contribution to Trump’s campaign, or made an unreported $130,000 loan to the campaign. (The Feds, of course, decline to treat blackmail payments as Campaign Expenditures.) judge Merchan instructed that if the blackmail payment was made “because of” the campaign, then it was a campaign contribution or loan.
Other crime #2 was creation of false tax documents— even if such falsities did not result in any tax underpayment. None of Cohen’s invoices referenced being reimbursed for a loan. Therefore such invoices made Cohen’s tax liability higher than it should be.
Other crime #3 was Cohen’s earlier creation of false documents when he created an LLC to make the payment to Stormy..
All these crimes require an intent to defraud, but Judge Merchan instructed there was no need to identify any particular person who was defrauded. Just like Judge Engoron, Judge Merchan creates the new category of victimless fraud crimes.
Too barrow Comey’s phrase, “no reasonable prosecutor” would have filed this case.
G-Pub
Chuck passed the Bar some time ago. However, he returned to it just before the pandemic. Since then he's been drinking at home.
Reasonable prosecutors graduated from Hofstra? When?
Re: Grandapa’s post above
But aren’t both #2 and #3 crimes that Cohen supposedly committed, not Trump?
The “crime” is that he beat Hillary Clinton in 2016. Welcome to Banana Republic.
No, under the jury instructions, the same unlawful means can’t be used twice:
“For purposes of determining whether Falsifying Business Records in the Second Degree was an unlawful means used by a conspiracy to promote or prevent an election here, you may consider: (i) the bank records associated with Michael Cohen’s account formation paperwork for Resolution Consultants LLC and Essential Consultants LLC accounts; (ii) the bank records associated with Michael Cohen’s wire to Keith Davidson; (iii) the invoice from Investor Advisory Services Inc. to Resolution Consultants LLC; and (iv) the 1099-MISC forms that the Trump Organization issued to Michael Cohen.”
Those business records are not among the 34 counts of falsifying business records for which Trump is on trial.
Howard said...
Keep crying, bitches. Louder. We can't hear you. 🤣
Howard posts a media lie knowing it was a media lie.
Howard also thinks George Floyd represents all Black people.
Let that little bit of white racial condescension sink in.
And the net result of BLM was thousands if small inner city, mostly minority, businesses burned and higher murder rates in the black community. Almost as if BLM was funded and organized by rich white people to ruin black people's lives and keep them poor.
Howard is just racist trash who fits right in with the modern democrat party.
“Those business records are not among the 34 counts of falsifying business records for which Trump is on trial.”
But again, aren’t these documents that Cohen supposedly falsified, not Trump?
Jersey Fled said...
Re: Grandapa’s post above
But aren’t both #2 and #3 crimes that Cohen supposedly committed, not Trump?
Cohen said he talked about it with Trump during a less than 2 minute phone call and Trump told him to do it.
Then during cross he told the jury that he lied to their faces about the phone call and talking about these payments with Trump.
Left Bank of the Charles said...
Those business records are not among the 34 counts of falsifying business records for which Trump is on trial.
Just another fascist posting stupid things that aren't actually crimes.
Re: Jersey Fled But aren’t both #2 and #3 crimes that Cohen supposedly committed, not Trump?
Cohen did everything. All Trump did was sign a few checks prepared by others.
G-Pub
Oh, there is one more thing Trump did. He hired Michael Cohen to be his personal lawyer.
G-Pub
Howard is beginning to be an embarrassment.
Good.
Here is a link to J. Turley's article regarding the closing arguments.
https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/4691715-a-manhattan-canned-hunt-the-trump-jury-is-out-but-is-the-case-in-the-bag/
I believe Turley was holding out hope that even with the questionable charges the trial would at least be fair. He then was hoping the jury instructions would clearly set out the charges against Trump and succinctly set out the law to be applied by the jury. I think he finally lost all hope today.
It's pretty scary that in our nation we are having this farce of a trial against a former President and current Presidential candidate. One has to wonder the final goal of those that have engineered this travesty. I have now lost ALL trust in our government. A bit of distrust is healthy and can be constructive, but as recently as ten years ago, I didn't think I would ever get quite to this point.
The ultimate hypothetical question: if we assume Trump and Stormy did not have sex, then everything Cohen/Trump did was an effort to prevent election fraud. How can efforts to prevent fraud be done with intent to defraud?
G-Pub
With Trump's increasing popularity over made up crimes like this, will Bragg potentially be prosecuted next year for "election interference" for handing the election to Trump?
The ultimate hypothetical question: if we assume Trump and Stormy did not have sex, then everything Cohen/Trump did was an effort to prevent election fraud. How can efforts to prevent fraud be done with intent to defraud?
Underrated comment.
"How can efforts to prevent fraud be done with intent to defraud?"
What if you need the fraud to exist in order to advance your cause?
I hate Trump but good God, I still cannot believe this political prosecution is succeeding and the media is thrilled about it. And I'm really supposed to take arguments that we should vote for Biden to protect our democracy seriously?
“If they make a movie.” Robert Deniro will star as The Judge. Walter Brennan will play Joe Biden. Montgomery Burns as Donald Trump.
I was reading some of the American Thinker article on Merchan's jury instruction and the notion that any juror could come up with their own idea of what secondary crime Trump committed. I think if I was one of those jurors, and it was 11-1 and a had to deal with all the whining and threats because I wouldn't accept their petty arguments for putting a person in jail; I might opt to play their game. Since I can make up my own crime, I would say "Trump ran as a Republican" as the crime. Guilty. Per Merchan's instructions, that makes it a guilty verdict. It wouldn't pass muster on appeals, but that makes the point even clearer about how bad Merchan's instructions are.
Alas, I don't see how Trump committed the supposed fraud when he filed a payment to lawyer's invoice as a legal fees. Especially when said lawyer admitted to creating fraudulent invoices to embezzle money. That makes only one crime, the one of running as a Republican, and I don't think that is even a misdemeanor.
PS, thank you Russell at 9:48PM for being a decent human being.
How can efforts to prevent fraud be done with intent to defraud?
=================
would that be like telling 'white lie'
Again - Merchan is a 100% corrupt fraud. He is corrupt. corrupt. corrupt.
"I was reading some of the American Thinker article on Merchan's jury instruction and the notion that any juror could come up with their own idea of what secondary crime Trump committed. I think if I was one of those jurors, and it was 11-1 and a had to deal with all the whining and threats because I wouldn't accept their petty arguments for putting a person in jail; I might opt to play their game. Since I can make up my own crime, I would say "Trump ran as a Republican" as the crime. Guilty. Per Merchan's instructions, that makes it a guilty verdict. It wouldn't pass muster on appeals, but that makes the point even clearer about how bad Merchan's instructions are."
Damn- that is good, Leland! I wish I had thought of that!
Ann, might the following be relevant, and prove Judge Merchan wrong in his instructions to the jury??? Greta Van Susteren posted on X a decision from Supreme Court Case: Richardson v United States, 119 S.Ct. 1707 (1999) -- "The jury must be unanimous as to the 'series' of underlying offenses in a CCE prosecution. That is, the jury must unanimously agree not only that the defendant committed some 'continuing series of violations,' but also about which specific "violations" make up that continuing series." https://x.com/greta/status/1794514093669282232
Post a Comment