Althouse: "The prosecution theory is essentially a Russian nesting doll of criminal violations..."

May 30, 2024

"The prosecution theory is essentially a Russian nesting doll of criminal violations..."

"... under New York law, falsifying business records is a felony only if the records were falsified in furtherance of another crime. Prosecutors have said that other crime was violating a state law against unlawfully promoting or preventing an election. But the 'unlawful' reference in the state code has to refer to a distinct, different crime. In Trump’s case, prosecutors have offered three types of crimes that would make the state election-meddling charge come into play: federal election law crimes, tax crimes or false business records. The jury must be unanimous when it comes to determining whether Trump is guilty or not guilty of each specific falsifying business records count, and whether he did so in an effort to unlawfully impact an election, New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan said. He added, however, that the panel did not have to be unanimous about which of those three types of crimes could serve as the underlying violation that brings the state election charge into play."

Writes Devlin Barrett, in "Jurors must be unanimous to convict Trump, can disagree on underlying crimes/While jurors deliberated in the first trial of a former U.S. president, Donald Trump railed online against one feature of the charges he faces" (WaPo).

Trump's on-line railing said the judge didn't require "a unanimous decision." And you can see why he said that. The WaPo article makes the unfairness clear enough. It doesn't come out and say Trump is right, but it refrains from saying he's wrong. I don't think he's wrong. It's hard to believe something so complicated was piled together. I'd love to hear the jury trying to sort this out. I'm picturing them puzzled to the point of exasperation. If one juror were able to explain the instruction correctly, I would expect responses like "You've got to be kidding" and "What did you even just say?"

92 comments:

Joe Smith said...: I don't se how any possible conviction survives if the underlying crimes weren't defined until AFTER the defense had a chance to address them.

This alone proves this is a kangaroo court/hit job...; 5/30/24, 11:19 AM
Achilles said...: Best case scenario is they find Trump guilty, throw him in jail, and get him removed from the ballot in New York state.

Bonus points if he is attacked in jail.

I hope he would survive the attack though. If Trump is killed in jail then things may go too far and he doesn't really deserve that.

If ~40% of New Yorkers decide that the other 60% are fascists it will bring the whole state apparatus down at some point.

It will also bring everything to a head. There is no hiding from what the average Democrat is at that point.

If they were smart they would continue their slow creep to tyranny.; 5/30/24, 11:22 AM
Joe Smith said...: Oh, and the FEC witness was forbidden to be called.

He would have explained that there was no federal crime committed.

Farce.

Also just heard that the judge did not allow the jury instructions to be in the jury room.

Am listening to 3 lawyers on Megyn Kelly now and they are all confused.; 5/30/24, 11:23 AM
Achilles said...: It would be best case for Trump as well to go to jail.

When he emerges victorious afterwards his place in history will be the envy of many.; 5/30/24, 11:26 AM
rehajm said...: I'd love to hear the jury trying to sort this out. I'm picturing them puzzled to the point of exasperation.

Do we get to hear about the notes they send to the judge? I'm picturing them asking the judge how to give him what he wants...; 5/30/24, 11:26 AM
nono said...: I am still at a loss of how a personal bank ledger has been magically changed to business records for this case. My if not most wealthy people hire bookkeeper to keep there personal books.

Big question is does anyone know what bragg says it should have been labeled if not legal services.; 5/30/24, 11:30 AM
PDS said...: I am a lifelong trial lawyer, and a former prosecutor, and certainly not a fan of Trump’s—albeit I am a fan of most of his policies.

Jury instructions are very tricky in every case, and usually are crafted just prior to closing arguments, when the judge and lawyers are tired and under the gun. That said, these instructions are a joke. The idea that the jury need not agree on the underlying crime is bizarre in the extreme.

By analogy, imagine an employment discrimination case where the jury is not required to unanimously agree on whether someone was subjected to a specific form of sexual harassment, i.e., 2 of the jurors agree there was pinching, 2 agree there was verbal harassment, and 2 agree that there were dirty looks. This would be a classic failure of the plaintiff to carry her burden of proof. And that’s in a civil setting, not a setting where proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required.

No judge I have ever appeared in front in 30 plus years of courtroom work would allow such a case to result in a “unanimous” verdict.; 5/30/24, 11:30 AM
Ann Althouse said...: From a NYT piece by Jonathan Alter: "If convicted, Trump is unlikely to win on appeal. Justice Juan Merchan has dotted his i’s and crossed his t’s, making an immediate reversal a long shot. Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, probably won’t want to get involved, and if they did, it wouldn’t be until months or years after the election. So Trump will spend the rest of his life attacking the verdict, the judge, the prosecutors and the fair-minded residents of his hometown who determined his fate."

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/05/28/opinion/thepoint/trump-trial-jury-prediction?smid=url-share

Justice Juan Merchan has dotted his i’s and crossed his t’s? Really? The NY Court of Appeals just reversed in the Harvey Weinstein case. It seems to take the rights of the accused quite seriously — you know, the way liberals used to do, even and especially when the defendant was loathsome.

"Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, probably won’t want to get involved...." Why wouldn't the Supreme Court want to grant cert in this case, which has an apparently politically motivated prosecution and very serious due process questions? What's this concept of "not getting involved" that Alter is attributing to the Supreme Court?

This reads like a sop to the kind of Trump-haters who salivate over putting him in prison. There are more upright ways to hate Trump. Do better.; 5/30/24, 11:32 AM
Lucien said...: Did the reporter just miss the instruction about New York election law? And why not point out that it’s hard to affect an election after it has occurred?; 5/30/24, 11:32 AM
The rule of Lemnity said...: I asked the internet:

It's complicated is a phrase that means something is not easy to deal with or understand. It can be used to describe a situation, a process, an issue, or a relationship that involves many factors, details, or aspects that make it difficult to analyze, explain, or resolve. It can also be used to avoid giving a clear or direct answer to a question about one's personal life.; 5/30/24, 11:34 AM
PDS said...: And fwiw, very little should be read into juror questions. Many a trial lawyer has had to learn this the hard way.

Juror questions are often the way a majority “yields” to a loud or persistent juror in order to get him or her to move off a favorite issue. It is a means to move onto the real issues the jury is focused on…; 5/30/24, 11:35 AM
Yancey Ward said...: Leland posted the following in the next to last comment on yesterday's thread about the jury instructions- it highlights just how ridiculous Merchan's instructions are:

"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."

Me, again: this isn't going to happen, but should one of the jurors actually do this, it would be glorious to watch the shit-show.; 5/30/24, 11:35 AM
Dave Begley said...: Trump will be convicted. We are foolish to think any of those NYC jurors will hold out. If there is a hold out, the others would rat out the holdout and that person would need to go into hiding.

And, of course, Marchan will have to send Trump to jail; for "unlawfully promoting an election," at least 30 days.

Trump's lawyers better be ready to file an emergency motion to the appellate court to get him out of jail and an emergency federal court habeas case.

My law school buddy thinks the Dems have war gamed the Trump in jail scenario and they have a false flag crew ready to attack Riker's Island to get Trump out. The beat down of that MAGA crew will be brutal.; 5/30/24, 11:40 AM
rhhardin said...: It would be better with an infinite series of crimes, each unlawful by referring to yet another future crime. Then you could use mathematical techniques of summing infinite series to get a definite result.; 5/30/24, 11:41 AM
Kevin said...: Justice Juan Merchan has dotted his i’s and crossed his t’s? Really?

We are watching two different trials, depending on your media source.

The Dems need to know the trial was fair and unimpeachable, thus if the verdict or appeal don't convict Trump it's because the process was corrupted.

The rest of the country needs to know the trial was ridiculous and absurd, thus if the verdict and appeal do convict trump, it's because the process was corrupted.

That both sides can claim victory is the designed outcome.; 5/30/24, 11:44 AM
Achilles said...: Ann Althouse said...

Justice Juan Merchan has dotted his i’s and crossed his t’s? Really? The NY Court of Appeals just reversed in the Harvey Weinstein case. It seems to take the rights of the accused quite seriously — you know, the way liberals used to do, even and especially when the defendant was loathsome.

Problem is that this makes Trump less "loathsome" to most people.

for example a lot of people learned that Daniels was probably lying about having sex with Trump and was just a lowlife star chaser.

A porn star blacked out during sex(or before?) because she was afraid and traumatized.

Pretty silly stuff.; 5/30/24, 11:44 AM
Yancey Ward said...: "What's this concept of "not getting involved" that Alter is attributing to the Supreme Court?"

This is wish-casting by Alter. It makes me think that Alter knows the entire proceeding is corrupt to its very core, but has to pretend otherwise with his public pronouncements. So, part of that pretending is to try to prepare the battle space should the federal courts get involved immediately. Now, I personally believe the federal courts will allow the New York appeals process play out first but it isn't a guarantee nor would it be improper to get involved at an earlier stage.

So, what would cause the federal courts to get involved immediately- almost certainly any attempt to put Trump in jail or house arrest- then I think you would see SCOTUS take the case.; 5/30/24, 11:45 AM
rhhardin said...: Harvey Weinstein isn't loathsome, just a victim of the elevation of mind changing as a woman's right.; 5/30/24, 11:46 AM
Achilles said...: Dave Begley said...

Trump's lawyers better be ready to file an emergency motion to the appellate court to get him out of jail and an emergency federal court habeas case.

Why? Trump becomes legend if he actually goes to prison. At his age it is all about how history will remember you.

I don't think Trump's lawyers will not have to do anything to keep Trump out of prison. I think the Regime realizes how much power Trump would gain from that experience.; 5/30/24, 11:48 AM
Achilles said...: Yancey Ward said...

"What's this concept of "not getting involved" that Alter is attributing to the Supreme Court?"

This is wish-casting by Alter. It makes me think that Alter knows the entire proceeding is corrupt to its very core, but has to pretend otherwise with his public pronouncements.

Naw, I think Alter is right about the Supreme court. We know that Roberts is openly a traitor. It would just take one of the other 3 likely traitors to join the other 4. Alito and Thomas are the only trustworthy justices.; 5/30/24, 11:50 AM
Achilles said...: rhhardin said...

Harvey Weinstein isn't loathsome, just a victim of the elevation of mind changing as a woman's right.

Harvey's problem was that he was fat and ugly.

That made the price of having sex with him to get a movie part really high. Can you imagine being a relatively petite attractive women being smothered by that giant fat blob of sweaty acne while he is undulating on top of you?

If he was attractive he never would have had those women come after him. They had all participated in transactional sex before. It was the cost that got him.; 5/30/24, 11:54 AM
Darkisland said...: Last night I read something about portions of the transcript being "read" to the jurors. Sounded odd to me.

Does anyone know, either specifically in this case or in general if the jurors get a copy of the trial transcript to peruse in the jury room?

If I were a juror, I would want to read the transcript myself. Even if just following along as it was read out to me.

Another question occurs to me: Jurors have notebooks to take notes in. I assume they can refer to these in deliberations. Right?

What happens to the notebooks after the trial? Are they destroyed? Do the jurors keep them? Are they saved for the record? In this case or in general if anyone knows.

John Henry; 5/30/24, 11:57 AM
rhhardin said...: Strictly speaking it's a veldict (L vel, either... or) not a verdict (L vere. true), when they don't agree on the crime.; 5/30/24, 11:58 AM
The rule of Lemnity said...: The jury is in the water tank having visions of Trump crimes and relaying them to Tom Cruise and his posy, gearing up to go and stop Trump before he commits another crime. - Minority Report (2002); 5/30/24, 11:59 AM
Darkisland said...: PEDJT goes to jail, while in jail he acquires a severe black eye.

"I slipped, your honor."

It might even be true. Would ANYBODY believe it?

He and I are the same age and I now bruise pretty much if you look at me crosseyed. I bumped the light switch one night going to the bathroom and my whole upper arm turned blue. I didn't even know I had hit anything. I've turned my hand and forearm black by just reaching into my backpack for a notebook.

Imagine the front page of the NY Post with a picture of him in an orange jumpsuit and a bruised face. He would take the lead in 53 states. He would be so far ahead they would have to add 3 states just to hold the extra votes.

John Henry; 5/30/24, 12:06 PM
Nagesh said...: Are entries in the general ledger of Trump's trust public records that the public can see? If not, how would mischaracterizing them affect the election?; 5/30/24, 12:10 PM
Darkisland said...: I'm thinking I need to be in the upper 50 on election day. With same day registration, I can register using a hotel as my address. I considered doing this in 16 but was in Illinois and knew my vote would not make a difference.

If I do this, any recommendations what state I should vote in?

Note that I will only do this if I am sure that it is 100% legal to do. It was legal in Illinois, I would have to investigate other states.

John Henry; 5/30/24, 12:12 PM
One Fine Day said...: "...essentially a Russian nesting doll of criminal violations..."

So it's the Russians' fault. I should have known.; 5/30/24, 12:14 PM
stlcdr said...: How is any of this persecution not election interference at it's worst?; 5/30/24, 12:14 PM
Grandpa Publius said...: Here is how things are supposed to work. The indictment clearly articulates the criminal conduct and the statutes that are violated. When the defendant disputes that the alleged conduct violates the articulated statutes, the defendant can “demur” the indictment and, if appropriate as it surely is in this case, get an appellate ruling as to what the statutes do or do not prohibit. Only then is a case ready to go to trial. There are a handful of serious legal issues that deserved Pretrial appellate review because this case is so “novel” Bragg and Merchan precluded appellate review by not articulating all these issues until after all the witnesses testified.

G-Pub; 5/30/24, 12:19 PM
Enigma said...: As with 1,000 prior attacks on DJT, a lawfare strategy sounds great to people in the bubble but is horrifying to outsiders. It also terrifies fair-minded lefties, and they'll run away if given a chance. "If they do that to HIM, what will they do to ME?"

There was a degree of genuine national concern before Comey's and Hillary's "Russia, Russia, Russia" lies were exposed. However, by the time of the Ukraine impeachment it was clear that the D.C. hypocrites/thugs were merely ganging up on Trump as a (naïve) outsider and warning others to never challenge them in the future.

Meanwhile, today the WSJ reported that US efforts sanction Russia, China, Venezuela, and Iran led the four to form an "axis of evasion." The US, as "the world's only superpower," has been exposed as managed by corrupt bumbling fools who squander energy covering up corruption rather than dealing with serious global business (fairly). When the US Dollar declines match the influence of the Euro, Pound, and Renminbi, the US empire will truly end.

https://www.wsj.com/world/how-america-inadvertently-created-an-axis-of-evasion-led-by-china-0a9bc477; 5/30/24, 12:20 PM
loudogblog said...: Here's a thought. As a juror, you're not supposed to vote guilty unless you are sure that you are voting someone guilty of a specific crime that you understand and you believe they committed. So shouldn't all this confusion make some people more likely to vote not guilty?

I was on a jury a long time ago. It was a DUI case and the CHP had rolled up to a car that had crashed into a fence. The owner was standing next to the car with his car keys in his hand. He was also so drunk that he could barely stand. His lawyers didn't deny he was drunk, but they told us this complex and convoluted story about how he had been at the bar and called his dad to drive him home because he was too drunk. So the dad drove to the bar and then drove the drunk guy in the direction of his home but the dad crashed the car and the dad walked to the drunk guy's house to get help. The thing is that the dad rolled up in his car at the crash scene while the CHP was arresting his drunk son. So how did the dad walk all the way to the guy's house from the freeway, get a ride 20 miles to the bar to get his car, then go the 15 miles to the crash scene? (Also, the dad had not gotten any help. You would think that he would have called AAA right after the crash.)

It was a mess, but four of the jurors said that they couldn't convict because they honestly couldn't figure what had happened.; 5/30/24, 12:23 PM
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...: Jury instructions are very tricky in every case, and usually are crafted just prior to closing arguments, when the judge and lawyers are tired and under the gun.

Yet judge Cannon in the secret docs case in FL had two sets drawn up by the parties before the trial has even started taking testimony. Any East Coast lawyer here who can explain that to us laymen?; 5/30/24, 12:31 PM
Rocco said...: Ann Althouse said...
“Justice Juan Merchan has dotted his i’s and crossed his t’s? Really? The NY Court of Appeals just reversed in the Harvey Weinstein case. It seems to take the rights of the accused quite seriously — you know, the way liberals used to do, even and especially when the defendant was loathsome.”

The liberal response…
“Yes, we used to do that when the defendant was *our* kind of loathsome. But this is Tump.”; 5/30/24, 12:35 PM
Achilles said...: Darkisland said...

I'm thinking I need to be in the upper 50 on election day. With same day registration, I can register using a hotel as my address. I considered doing this in 16 but was in Illinois and knew my vote would not make a difference.

If I do this, any recommendations what state I should vote in?

Note that I will only do this if I am sure that it is 100% legal to do. It was legal in Illinois, I would have to investigate other states.

John Henry

I would apply to vote by mail too.

Pennsylvania and Michigan are the 2 pivotal states.; 5/30/24, 12:35 PM
Political Junkie said...: AA - It is Jonathan Alter, after all.; 5/30/24, 12:35 PM
narciso said...: Barrett has been the recipients of more scoops that didnt pan out; 5/30/24, 12:36 PM
Wa St Blogger said...: So shouldn't all this confusion make some people more likely to vote not guilty?

You are assuming that the jurors actually care about whether Trump did a crime. They might just want to convict the bad Orange man and are looking for any possible rationalization to do so. In other words, the reasonable doubt is that Trump is innocent. He COULD have done one of those crimes, so we assume he did.; 5/30/24, 12:38 PM
Leland said...: Blogger Darkisland said...
Last night I read something about portions of the transcript being "read" to the jurors. Sounded odd to me.

Does anyone know, either specifically in this case or in general if the jurors get a copy of the trial transcript to peruse in the jury room?

I don't recognize the legal system in New York in terms of anything else in America. That said, when I was a juror in Houston, TX; when we asked for a repeat of testimony, we were brought back into the courtroom with whomever the attendees were present, and the transcript was read to us by the court reporter. No copies were provided to the jurors.

Rationalizing it, this makes sense, as it allows any participant to object to any misrepresentation of the transcript. Further, testimony that was rejected on objection was not read to us nor mentioned at all, which seems right to my rationalization.

When we asked for a review of testimony, it was of the defendant, who stupidly took the stand and destroyed the case his lawyer had made on his behalf. We were seeking key parts where the defendant gave testimony counter to evidence already presented on his behalf that contradicted that evidence. This was needed to convince a few holdouts that the defendant really did incriminate himself. We later learned we were the 2nd trial after a previous hung jury, and that between trials, the defendant had negotiated to plead guilty but was convinced by a family member (who we thought out to have been a co-defendant in many ways) to try again with a jury. Another mistake was then deciding to let the Judge sentence him, as we could and would have been more lenient than the Judge, at least until we heard other details that were unethical to admit as evidence during the trial.; 5/30/24, 12:44 PM
traditionalguy said...: Hmm. Looks like a show trial seeking a conviction not for a crime but for being a smarter than Hillary and her minions.

And the trial is the punishment. Biden gets hundreds of free DOJ and state lawyers to drag out this faux crap for decades while Trump spends hundreds of millions in Atty Fees.; 5/30/24, 12:47 PM
Rabel said...: Obviously, J.D. Vance has been reading my comments.; 5/30/24, 12:49 PM
Left Bank of the Charles said...: The prosecutors clearly made a mistake on the “another crime” element. They should have asserted in their indictment the tax violation as an alternative to the New York election law violation. Now they are stuck with having to assert the tax violation as the unlawful means of the election law violation, rather than being to argue that the tax violation was the other crime. Id like to see how the prosecution argued in their closing that the tax violation promoted or prevented the 2016 election. Same for the other business records falsification.

Trump’s mistake, also an unforced error, was in trying to pass the payments to Michael Cohen off as pursuant to a retainer agreement for legal services to be performed in 2017. There wouldn’t be a business records falsification case if they had just recorded them as “payment to attorney Michael Cohen.”; 5/30/24, 12:50 PM
Leland said...: Regarding AA at 11:32AM; I think it is battlespace prep to put out the notion to the Rich's and Howard's a news article that backs up the claim that Merchan ran a clean case. It is a sign of the similar operation when the media dutifully put out information from the Steele Dossier so that the FBI could use those articles as grounds for warrants. I do not believe Jonathan Alter actually holds those views more than simply presenting those views for the damage they will cause.

It may be cynical, but along with AA's note about Weinstein's reversal; it seems every day Merchan provided a new reason for reversal. I stated in a previous thread that any devious NY Appellant Court could throw out the verdict just on the grounds that one of the crimes was past the statute of limitations, which strikes the verdict but doesn't give any measure of exoneration to Trump. They could even do so in such a way to suggest a unanimous decision on one of the other crimes could lead to a verdict that could stand and thus allow a retrial.

The thing I'll want to see before I ever do any business in NY is the actions the NY Bar will take after this trial.; 5/30/24, 12:56 PM
Leslie Graves said...: If I were on any jury, I would expect it to proceed along the lines of the 1,000 pieces of popular entertainment and news about real trials that I have consumed over the years. On this jury, I might be wondering why it is outside of my implicit expectations; 5/30/24, 12:58 PM
Marcus Bressler said...: Alter is just stating a portion of the narrative at this time.
I would disagree and agree with RHHardin's comment. Harvey W was loathsome. But every one of those women could have said no to spreading their legs and/or opening their mouths, but they had career aspirations in mind and they are just following the path of almost a century of women willing to be on the casting couch. The difference today versus many decades ago is that women are somehow allowed to decide, many times without evidence (how about that phrase, leftist scum?), that they were sexually assaulted or raped instead of participating in a consensual sexual act. No, libs, it is not about the difference of power in the two participants --see, when the Right contended that was the case in the Monica Lewinsky / BJ Clinton SCANDAL, the Left cried, "She is a adult woman and can do whatever she wants with her body (and mouth)"!! Play by your rules, die by your rules.
The judge allowing so-called past rumors or unsubstantiated gossip about Trump's prior sex life (he was a multi-millionaire playboy that the Left loved before he ran for and won the Presidency), is the kind of reversible error that existed in the Weinstein case. You (and the lawyers here on Althouse) know (or should know better) that such allegations or record of past conduct can only be brought up after the verdict, in consideration of the sentence/punishment.; 5/30/24, 12:59 PM
Narayanan said...: this is a kangaroo court/hit job...
=================
how do kangaroo locomote > leaping over; 5/30/24, 1:00 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: The prosecution's case sounds like, "Well, don't you think he did *something*?!"; 5/30/24, 1:04 PM
Marcus Bressler said...: Let me add this:
Expect liberal shill John Grisham to write a book, a roman a clef, about this trial, -- or, in turn, write it with the real people and say, "based on a true story" with no real facts other than the person's names involved. Sort of what Hollywood has done for years in regards to conservatives. That is, IF he doesn't take time out to assassin*ate DJT, as he said on The View.
I am not knowledgeable about other states, but: if he chose to make that threat here in Florida, (where liberals weep), he would be guilty of violating Florida statute 836.10 2A: (a second-degree felony)
836.10 Written or electronic threats to kill, do bodily injury, or conduct a mass shooting or an act of terrorism; punishment; exemption from liability.—
(1) As used in this section, the term “electronic record” means any record created, modified, archived, received, or distributed electronically which contains any combination of text, graphics, video, audio, or pictorial represented in digital form, but does not include a telephone call.
(2) It is unlawful for any person to send, post, or transmit, or procure the sending, posting, or transmission of, a writing or other record, including an electronic record, in any manner in which it may be viewed by another person, when in such writing or record the person makes a threat to:
(a) Kill or to do bodily harm to another person; or
(b) Conduct a mass shooting or an act of terrorism.
A person who violates this subsection commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.; 5/30/24, 1:06 PM
Hassayamper said...: When he emerges victorious afterwards his place in history will be the envy of many.

They are working on making him as famous as Julius Caesar, and for the same reasons.

The events of these days will be in the history books ten thousand years from now.; 5/30/24, 1:19 PM
Achilles said...: Left Bank of the Charles said...

The prosecutors clearly made a mistake on the “another crime” element. They should have asserted in their indictment the tax violation as an alternative to the New York election law violation. Now they are stuck with having to assert the tax violation as the unlawful means of the election law violation, rather than being to argue that the tax violation was the other crime. Id like to see how the prosecution argued in their closing that the tax violation promoted or prevented the 2016 election. Same for the other business records falsification.

It wasn't a mistake. The prosecution had nowhere else to go.

Trump's accountants recorded the payment as legal services.

The prosecution case is reliant on the testimony of Cohen saying it was something else and that they colluded to hide this.

Cohen admitted to lying to the jury about when he talked to Trump about these payments. his testimony should have been stricken in total at that point and the case thrown out because the entire predicate collapsed.

The court proceedings went so badly for the judge and prosecution that they had to move the goal posts to secure the conviction.; 5/30/24, 1:24 PM
DKWalser said...: I hope the US Supreme Court takes judicial notice of this case as it deliberates the question of presidential immunity. In that case, the government's argument against presidential was there was no need for it. Prosecutors could be trusted to never prosecute a former president over a trivial matter, and even if they did, judges would never permit such a prosecution to go forward. What happened in Judge Merchan's courtroom is proof that both claims are false. The prosecution of Trump was over the most trivial of matters, and Merchan not only permitted the case to go forward. He all but joined the prosecution team!; 5/30/24, 1:26 PM
Mikey NTH said...: Trump intended to commit a crime, though which crime we are not sure of. Whatever. All that matters is we know - somehow - he was intending to commit another crime.

Yep. That's as clear as mud.; 5/30/24, 1:32 PM
narciso said...: Cue the hungarian phrasebook sketch; 5/30/24, 1:38 PM
imTay said...: "It doesn't come out and say Trump is right, but it refrains from saying he's wrong. I don't think he's wrong."

This is what Slate said about Juanita Broaddrick's case that Bill Clinton raped her. Obviously when you read the facts laid out the way they did, no other conclusion was possible though. I especially liked the part where they said that Broaddrick was probably lying because she had been assaulted by her soon to be ex-husband, so you couldn't believe anything she said.; 5/30/24, 1:43 PM
BUMBLE BEE said...: CRYBABY DeNiro painting

https://x.com/ScottLoBaido/status/1795939325768577083; 5/30/24, 1:46 PM
Mikey NTH said...: Achilles at 11:44.

If Stormy Daniels - a woman who has had more trains run on her than the Union Pacific - blacked out during sex than Donald Trump is Zeus.; 5/30/24, 1:49 PM
Greg the Class Traitor said...: Left Bank of the Charles said...
Trump’s mistake, also an unforced error, was in trying to pass the payments to Michael Cohen off as pursuant to a retainer agreement for legal services to be performed in 2017. There wouldn’t be a business records falsification case if they had just recorded them as “payment to attorney Michael Cohen.”

Trump had no control over how they were labeled. That was clearly established at the trial.

The reason why the Prosecution did not try to offer an actual "second crime" and argue it is because they don't have one.

The reason why Marchan violated Richardson v US (which requires that EVERY "crime" be found as such by a unanimous jury) is because he's a corrupt hack who knows that there's nothing here on which you can actually convict Trump, but doesn't care, he just wants a "conviction" for his daughter to fundraise of off.; 5/30/24, 1:54 PM
imTay said...: "By bashing Trump for going on nine years now, we have made Trump guilty per the attributive fallacy."

Initially, we use the observed behavior to characterize the person by automaticity.[20][21][22][23][24] We need to make deliberate and conscious effort to adjust our inference by considering the situational constraints. Therefore, when situational information is not sufficiently taken into account for adjustment, the uncorrected dispositional inference creates the fundamental attribution error. This would also explain why people commit the fundamental attribution error to a greater degree when they're under cognitive load; i.e. when they have less motivation or energy for processing the situational information. - Wikipedia

Which ChatGPT rewrites as this: "First, we tend to judge a person's behavior based on automatic assumptions about their character. To make a more accurate judgment, we need to consciously consider the situation they're in. If we don't account for the situational factors, we make an error known as the fundamental attribution error. This error is more likely when people are under cognitive load, meaning they lack the motivation or energy to properly consider the situational context."

So if we have been flooded with negative propaganda about Trump for nine years, we have had many built in assumptions about his character driven into our heads. When faced with a complicated situation, a "high cognitive load," rather than doing the work to sort the situation out, we fall back on our prejudices about the person we are judging, and if we don't like that person, we are *definitely* NOT going to do the hard work to figure out the facts of the case, but rather will simply rely on our judgement of his character.; 5/30/24, 1:57 PM
clint said...: If the jury returns a guilty verdict, will the defense be able to poll the jury and ask each juror to clearly state the elements of the crime for which they convicted him?

I have no idea if that's a thing in NY, but it would be a fascinating exercise in this case.; 5/30/24, 2:01 PM
Greg the Class Traitor said...: From a NYT piece by Jonathan Alter: "If convicted, Trump is unlikely to win on appeal. Justice Juan Merchan has dotted his i’s and crossed his t’s, making an immediate reversal a long shot. Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, probably won’t want to get involved, and if they did, it wouldn’t be until months or years after the election.

Wow. Is Jonathan Alter supposed to be a lawyer?

Because "Justice" Juan Merchan has racked up so many reversible errors that this thing is an obvious slam dunk overturn on appeal.

Most likely a 9-0 overturn, like the 2nd got today on teh NRA 1st Amendment case.

Let's just start with the basics::
1: All crimes have to be found by a unanimous jury. That includes the "second crime" that makes the first one a "felony"
2: State courts can't try Federal crimes, like Federal election law violations
3: If you're going to let a prosecutor try to argue that the defendant violated election law, then you have to let the defense bring in an election law expert to say why his acts were legal
4: You have to give the defense the complete charges before the trial, not allow teh prosecution to only finally state them in a closing argument after the defense is finished
5: You have to give the defense the jury instructions before their closing argument, and allow them to go down each instruction, and say why their client is not guilty

That's just off the top of my head. There are plenty more problems; 5/30/24, 2:02 PM
Tina Trent said...: @Althouse: Weinstein isn't just a Democrat: he spent millions supporting and serving on the board of the largest and most elite leftist "charity" in New York City, the aptly-named Robin Hood Foundation -- where comp lit grads are paid by extremely wealthy tech moguls to steal from the middle class to give to the unproductive poor. The people populating the Bench in New York State move in Robin Hood Foundation circles. Not so long ago, it was nearly a social necessity. It has been very embarassing for them to have associated with Weinstein and Epstein -- both of whom were board members along with famous actresses like Gwenyth Paltrow and national media figures like Tom Brokaw. So many people knew what Weinstein was doing, yet they let him and Epstein "specialize" in "touring" New York high schools for Robin Hood programs. That's how strong leftist blindness and the leftist pull is among the rich and powerful, judges and politicians and journalists in NYC.

So, no, I don't think we can read the Court of Appeals' behavior towards Weinstein as a sign that they take anything seriously. They're partisan hacks appointed by the likes of Cuomo. Heck, a terrorist who participated in the Brinks robbery/murders, helped bomb government buildings, and was caught with an apartment full of explosives -- Eleanor Stein Raskin (née Stein) -- was made a judge in New York State.

To mangle a saying that should be mangled, they would free 100 Weinsteins before giving one Trump a fair trial.; 5/30/24, 2:07 PM
Joe Smith said...: 'So, no, I don't think we can read the Court of Appeals' behavior towards Weinstein as a sign that they take anything seriously.'

Even when (shockingly) a democrat does go to jail, they don't stay there : ); 5/30/24, 2:10 PM
Greg the Class Traitor said...: Ann Althouse said...
This reads like a sop to the kind of Trump-haters who salivate over putting him in prison. There are more upright ways to hate Trump. Do better.

They can't. Literally, the can not do better.

Do I respect or value Trump? No, I don't. I think he's a lazy pathetic loser who got his ass repeatedly kicked by the Deep State while President, and by corrupt Democrats during the election.

I'm hopeful that teh Nov. election will be outside the margins of Democrat fraud, but am aware that Trump is such a fuckup that unless he gets major help from someone like DeSantis, the "margin of fraud" is going to be huge.

That all said, what we've seen in the pathetic lawfare against Trump, and the pathetic attacks against him as a candidate, is that the Democrats have NOTHING on him.

They dont' have a single legitimate claim of criminal behavior, and they dont' have a single legitimate, grounded in reality, political attack against him.

They literally can't "do better".; 5/30/24, 2:12 PM
RMc said...: It seems to take the rights of the accused quite seriously — you know, the way liberals used to do, even and especially when the defendant was loathsome.

Loathsome Democrats, sure.; 5/30/24, 2:29 PM
narciso said...: well it took them four years to remedy that error, with mcdonnnell it took 10 years,; 5/30/24, 2:34 PM
William said...: He used to be President of the United States. Out of respect for the office, if not the man, shouldn't he be charged with a more comprehensible crime. I don't understand what the crime was, but even if I did, it just doesn't seem especially outrageous or heinous. It seems far more outrageous and heinous for the prosecutor to advance such a case. He used to be the President of the United States and they're trying him for bookkeeping entries.; 5/30/24, 2:43 PM
narciso said...: with ted stevens they used not only an criminal fraudster, william allen, but someone who was guilty of the Mann act, who was protected by his fbi handler, mary beth kempner who still is in the bureau but the whistleblower was forced out,

despite the reversal, stevens never got his seat back, the dems got their 60th vote for obamacare, delay never got his back, nor conrad black, his company was parcelled off to the asper brothers, to the barclays et al, and hence a strong voice for the west was muted, until the new york sun came around,; 5/30/24, 2:57 PM
Rocco said...: Trump in Jail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3lsJmwNO40; 5/30/24, 3:11 PM
Saint Croix said...: The NYT is keeping track of the hours spent in the jury room.

Sort of like a Doomsday Clock.

11 hours and counting.

We are at the end of Day 2.

No verdict.; 5/30/24, 3:31 PM
imTay said...: "Beyond a reasonable doubt."; 5/30/24, 3:34 PM
Yancey Ward said...: Well, someone on the jury is obviously holding out for acquittal. If there weren't at least one, the verdict would have been in by now.

Expect to see lots of mentions on the lefty media of the juror who reads Truth Social as the juror who is corrupting the verdict.; 5/30/24, 3:39 PM
Yancey Ward said...: "Out of respect for the office, if not the man, shouldn't he be charged with a more comprehensible crime."

The corruption hasn't yet become so deep that the Democrats just pick an unsolved murder and indict Trump for it, but we aren't all that far off from that right now.; 5/30/24, 3:41 PM
Saint Croix said...: NYT is reporting they've reached a verdict, and they're filling out forms.; 5/30/24, 3:45 PM
Yancey Ward said...: Then it is a conviction.; 5/30/24, 3:49 PM
Achilles said...: Greg the Class Traitor said...

I'm hopeful that teh Nov. election will be outside the margins of Democrat fraud, but am aware that Trump is such a fuckup that unless he gets major help from someone like DeSantis, the "margin of fraud" is going to be huge.

This is a hilariously stupid thing to say.

Desantis is only Governor because of Trump. He is obviously a pathetic GOPe mediocrity and demonstrated conclusively during the primary that he is propped up and is not national executive material. He has performed about as well as Jeb did as Governor. Jeb got more delegates than Ron. Trump won Florida going away. Trump made Florida a red state.

Trump got 75 million votes. That is 15 million more than any Republican ever. He is smarter than you and more industrious than you as well.

Trump is probably going to pick someone for VP that most likely wont be the leader in 2028. It just isn't the way he operates.

The fun part is going to be 2028 when every single Republican needs and begs for Trump's endorsement.; 5/30/24, 3:52 PM
Sebastian said...: "I would expect responses like "You've got to be kidding""

I would expect responses like "But, but Trump."; 5/30/24, 3:53 PM
Achilles said...: William said...

He used to be President of the United States. Out of respect for the office, if not the man, shouldn't he be charged with a more comprehensible crime. I don't understand what the crime was, but even if I did, it just doesn't seem especially outrageous or heinous. It seems far more outrageous and heinous for the prosecutor to advance such a case. He used to be the President of the United States and they're trying him for bookkeeping entries.

Trump is being charged because he won 55%-45% in 2020 and the gap is going to be much larger in 2024 and they cannot mail in 20 million votes again with everyone ready for it.

If Trump was losing in the polls none of these cases make it to court.; 5/30/24, 4:00 PM
Greg the Class Traitor said...: So teh jury came back with guilty on all charges; 5/30/24, 4:18 PM
Greg the Class Traitor said...: Achilles said...
Greg the Class Traitor said...

I'm hopeful that teh Nov. election will be outside the margins of Democrat fraud, but am aware that Trump is such a fuckup that unless he gets major help from someone like DeSantis, the "margin of fraud" is going to be huge.

This is a hilariously stupid thing to say.

No, Achilles, it is the sad reality of the situation.

Trump's team in 2020 never once challenged ANY of teh tools the Democrats set up to steal the election.

Democrat executive branch officials use "covid" as "justification" to completely change election law? no lawsuit. ANYWHERE

PA illegally and unconstitutionally changed law to allow unrestricted mail in voting. No lawsuit by Trump team until 1 week before the election, when it's too damn late.

DeSantis changed FL voting so voting precincts had to report daily what ballots they'd received by mail / voters voted early. This made it impossible for Dems to goose the count once they knew what numbers they needed.

When it comes to process fights, Donald "I love Ronna" Trump absolutely sucks. And the people he listens to, like Guiliani, also suck.

Since Rudy pissed away all teh Trump team's post election time whining about about "equal protection" issues (which were easily blown off by judges who didn't want to get involved) rather than focusing on places where the numbers were so crazy that they had to be fraud.

No voters care about the shit Rudy filed. OTOH, if they'd hammered at "this precinct had 1000 votes but only 800 registered voters" *cough Detroit cough* that would have been something people could get pissed about, protest about, and possibly riot about.

Trump fucked it up; 5/30/24, 4:29 PM
Greg the Class Traitor said...: Achilles said...
Desantis is only Governor because of Trump.

And your proof of that claim is?

He is obviously a pathetic GOPe mediocrity
Are you really that fucking stupid? GOPe doesn't pick fights with Disney. mediocrities don't beat Disney. DeSantis did both

and demonstrated conclusively during the primary that he is propped up and is not national executive material.
Oh, bullshit. All that was demonstrated in this Primary was that Democrats could get Republicans to vote for Trump if they pushed BS lawfare, which they did.

He has performed about as well as Jeb did as Governor. Jeb got more delegates than Ron. Trump won Florida going away. Trump made Florida a red state.

Please pull your head out of your ass. Jeb didn't push school choice to the point that public schools are looking to have to close because their students are all escaping.
Jeb didn't pick fights with big companies, and win
Jeb didn't nuke DEI / Diversity in State schools and Univeristies

DeSantis did

And DeSantis its the one who made FL a red State. Which is why Trump won FL 51.2 to 47.9 in 2020, and DeSantis won it 59.4 to 40.0
Trump won by 400k votes. DeSantis won by over 1.5 MILLION votes

Stop sniffing Trump's jock. It's beneath you; 5/30/24, 4:40 PM
Greg the Class Traitor said...: But I do note, Achilles, that you don't even try to pretend that Trump didn't repeatedly get beating by the Deep State. So at least you've got that level of connection to reality; 5/30/24, 4:41 PM
Greg the Class Traitor said...: Oh, BTWm congratulations, Democrats. You've now proven beyond a reasonable doubt that no sane person can accept you all winning in November.

And with Jan 6 you proved that there's no point in peacefully protesting.

So you'd better really hope you can't steal enough votes to "win" the election.

Because if Trump isn't the announce winner, there will be a civil war. And you will lose; 5/30/24, 4:47 PM
Drago said...: Achilles: "Desantis is only Governor because of Trump."

Greg the Class Traitor: "And your proof of that claim is?"

Florida Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnum was on pace for a relatively comfortable win over DeSantis in the Rep Gov primary, primarily due to Putnum's long cultivation by the Florida GOP establishment and DeSantis was coming off just 3 terms of congressional service as a Paul Ryan puppydog.

Putnum went out of his way to insult Trump and Trump endorsed DeSantis which immediately swung the primary to DeSantis.

After which DeSantis barely squeezed by LLR-democratical Chuck favorite homosexual drug addled democratical Andrew Gillum after many republicans sat on their hands. Final talley: DeSantis 49.59% to Gillum's 49.19%

Without Trump, DeSantis would have lost that primary and we'd be in Putnum's second term as gov of Florida.

This is not exactly a mystery or unknown story here.; 5/30/24, 5:11 PM
Drago said...: Greg the Class Traitor: "But I do note, Achilles, that you don't even try to pretend that Trump didn't repeatedly get beating by the Deep State. So at least you've got that level of connection to reality"

Trump kept getting beaten by the combined forces of the deep state, dems and most importantly, by the entirety of the GOPe leadership class.

So yes, 1 man standing against them all, an outsider, did not defeat them.

What is strange is how the entirety of the GOPe leadership working hand in glove with the dems doesn't even warrant an explicit mention in your litany.; 5/30/24, 5:18 PM
imTay said...: DeSantis is forever disqualified in my book for buying into the lawfare. If I am going to have my democracy taken away, and my Constitutional rights shredded, I would rather have it done by the Democrats.; 5/30/24, 6:57 PM
Drago said...: Greg: "When it comes to process fights, Donald "I love Ronna" Trump absolutely sucks."

Ronna had over 100 solid hardcore votes that would not abandon her at the time of renomination for GOP Chairperson (out of 168 total).

She wasnt going to lose.

How much political capital should Trump have burned in that lost cause?

As one example of many. Trump is supposed to fight all the battles all the time with zero help while the entire legal system is twisted to destroy him, his businesses and his family.; 5/30/24, 8:00 PM
Achilles said...: Greg the Class Traitor said...

But I do note, Achilles, that you don't even try to pretend that Trump didn't repeatedly get beating by the Deep State. So at least you've got that level of connection to reality

Actually Trump was beaten by Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell and John McCain.

Ryan blocked the Wall and McConnell was threatening to convict Trump when he was impeached during COVID.

Trump was further stabbed in the back by Governors like Kemp, Doucey, and Republican leaders like Vos, Raffensburger and other state committee leaders in 2020.

But the biggest traitor was Mike Pence who from the inside undermined Trump from day 1.

And all of those people supported Desantis.

Desantis also all but endorsed the lawfare. I fully expect the GOPe to try to install Desantis as the nominee in July.; 5/30/24, 11:02 PM
Achilles said...: Greg the Class Traitor said...

Stop sniffing Trump's jock. It's beneath you

Desantis would get maybe 60 million votes in the general election if he was the nominee.

Trump will get between 75-80 million.

The democrats wouldn't even need to cheat to bet Desantis.

The problem with you nevertrumps is you have been wrong about everything for decades and you just can't see how stupid it all is. You forced us to have Romney in 2012 when the defining issue in the election was Romneycare. And he predictably lost the election.

This goes back to you people picking Bush/Dole/Bush/McCain/Romney for party leadership and your attempt to pick Jeb/Rubio/Cruz in 2016.

You were wrong about Trump in 2016.

You betrayed Trump in 2020.

Now you want to run another obvious loser in 2024.

You have been wrong about everything since 1988 when you picked Bush and probably before that. We aren't going to listen to you anymore and we are going to point out how wrong you have been about everything for the last several decades.

The deplorables run this show now. If you want to bitch and moan that is fine. Nobody cares. We aren't going to GOPe losers like Desantis again.; 5/30/24, 11:14 PM
Rusty said...: Jesus, Greg. Come up for air. We get it. You love Desantis. Got it.
I'm voting for Trump.; 5/31/24, 7:24 AM
Rusty said...: Ann Althouse @ 11:53
As you well know I'm not a legal sort of scholar, but it would seem to me that if you have to instruct a just with a 50 page missive then the prosecution hasn't done a very good case of making the jury understand the law.; 5/31/24, 7:27 AM
mikee said...: What supporters of relative squishes for Republican presidential candidates fail to integrate is that the purpose of squishes is to get squished. The next winning Republican candidate will follow the dictates of Conan the Barbarian about what is best in life.; 5/31/24, 7:54 AM
mikee said...: Russian nesting dolls have actual dolls inside all the way down. This case had an empty center. One might think that if a crime is the basis for enhancement of another crime to a felony, that first crime ought to be at least prosecuted, perhaps even with a conviction. Or do we follow the dictates of Alice's Red Queen and execute first now?; 5/31/24, 7:56 AM