Legal precedence and Trump
I just wanted to make a quick reply to Trump supporters that I've seen online that a) Trump did nothing wrong, and b) the prosecution was unprecedented.
First of all, let's look at Cohen. Sure he is a convicted liar, but then look at what he was convicted for.
the guilty plea of MICHAEL COHEN to charges of tax evasion, making false statements to a federally-insured bank, and campaign finance violations. The plea was entered followed the filing of an eight-count criminal information, which alleged that COHEN concealed more than $4 million in personal income from the IRS, made false statements to a federally-insured financial institution in connection with a $500,000 home equity loan, and, in 2016, caused $280,000 in payments to be made to silence two women who otherwise planned to speak publicly about their alleged affairs with a presidential candidate, thereby intending to influence the 2016 presidential election.
Remember that Cohen was imprisoned for this in Trump's service. So really the only question is was Trump aware of all this. Instead Trump claimed that he never had sex with Stormy Daniels.
Sure, lots of guys pay porn stars $130K to NOT have sex.
Then comes the question of whether anyone has ever been charged with this. To answer that I was reminded of this.
The indictment, returned in the Middle District of North Carolina, charges Johnny Reid Edwards, 57, of Chapel Hill, N.C., with one count of conspiracy to violate the federal campaign finance laws and to make false statements to the Federal Election Commission (FEC); four counts of accepting and receiving illegal campaign contributions from two donors in 2007 and 2008; and one count of concealing those illegal donations from the FEC.
... According to the indictment, the payments at issue were used to facilitate Edwards’ extra-marital affair, and to conceal it and the resulting pregnancy from the public. The indictment alleges that the funds were used to pay for the living and medical expenses of the individual with whom Edwards was having the affair, and to pay for the travel and accommodations necessary to hide this individual from the news media and the public so that Edwards’ candidacy would not be damaged. According to the indictment, Edwards knew that the public revelation of the affair and pregnancy would undermine his image and force his campaign to divert personnel and resources away from campaign activities to respond to criticism and media scrutiny.
To be fair, Edwards was not convicted, but nonetheless Trump was not first to be charged.
Some claim that this will help Trump. If that's the case then why is he working so hard to delay the other (stronger) criminal cases until after the elections? If that's the case then why are the Republicans still trying to tie Hunter Biden corruption to the President Biden? Wouldn't it help Biden? When did the GOP stop being the law and order party and the party of self responsibility? I understand that this will not move the needle very much, but I have a hard time that it won't effect normies.
Trump supporters say that if they can do this to Trump then they can do this to anyone.
Yes! That is true. If I break the law I should face consequences. This isn't the scandal. The scandal was when Trump got away with scamming people with Trump University and the Trump Foundation charity.
Comments
Agree with
nearly all your take. I can't adequately address too many of the trial details as I didn't follow it until the jury verdict, except to note the ridiculosity of Trump's lawyers arguing in court that he didn't have sex w the porn star Daniels. Maybe Trump lost in court because of incompetent lawyering and not the many kitchen sink reasons his backers have been throwing at the walls since the verdict. Or maybe their idiot client told them to aggressively challenge EVERYTHING the other side asserted in court, which for criminal defendants facing a number of facts working against them is not always a winning strategy.
Now, if there were appealable rulings in the trial, that's why they have appellate courts and that's why, for Trump, a 6-3 R majority on the Supreme Court stands ready and eager to give him a more than fair hearing, which if it comes to that, the outcome is more likely than not to please a lot of folks here if past partisan rulings are any indication.
So the interesting part for me is what happens now, or as of sentencing day July 11. Can the judge, Merchan, avoid sentencing him to prison time, even if just a few weeks/months, maybe most of that suspended. Considering the 34 felonies PLUS ten contempt citations during the trial which were resolved with mere court admonishments to the defendant, a bare slap on the wrist involving no
prison time might give a very bad appearance that Donald is being given the kid gloves treatment, once again avoiding the kind of punishment the rest of us 99% would usually face.
Re "When did the GOP stop being the law and order party and the party of self responsibility?" A: Oh, at least since Nixon August '74 and Jerry Ford's pardon the next month.
no prison time is a bad look?
.
.
the court already has a very bad look as to the way they persecuted the case
the judge, DA and prosecutor already look ugly in their proceedings, IMO
if they take him out back and shoot him in the courtyard, it wouldn't look
much worse
American justice is the right to kill in the name of democracy / security
question everything
Yeah, when you
do the math, 34 felonies PLUS 10 contempt citations, 44 offenses in total, the contempts the judge decided not to punish with jail time. My wild guess is that your average criminal defendant who violates a clear court order TEN times is getting some jail time at least on the 2d violation.
This judge clearly has been trying to avoid putting Trump behind bars. Apparently he even said to Trump upon whatever number contempt violation it was, that he was very reluctant to send a former president to spend time behind bars. To some, this signals that Merchan will now not sentence him to prison, or will enter a sentence w prison time but suspend it upon successful completion of probation terms, etc.
Not an easy job coming up for this judge. And my attitude has nudged slightly from yesterday, after seeing a decent pro-prison term argument from Glenn Kirschner. Frankly, I hate bullies and wannabe dictators, so it is probably not hard to nudge me.
All that said, the legal matters in this case pale in comparison to the other 3 remaining Trump criminal cases. I think the GA case involves state law, so Trump, if he sneaks back in, will not be able to pardon himself if convicted there.
I'm positive that is the case
My take is that this was a political decision, not a legal one.
BTW, my favorite part is that DT has to have a metal health evaluation this week.
Another legal
decision (or political) was the decision -- by Trump or his lawyers -- not to request that the judge include for the jury the option of MISDEMEANOR-level charges for the 34 offenses. I suspect that they would have taken only 2 hours, instead of 2 days, to return 34 misdemeanor convictions, which would have looked much better on Trump's resume and guaranteed he would not face prison or jail time.
Statute of Limitations
From what I understand, DA Bragg was required to pursue felony charges because the statute of limitations on the misdemeanor charges has expired. Also, the felony charges were predicated on a conspiracy to break federal laws. No federal prosecutor has indicated intent to pursue an indictment on said conspiracy or federal violations. Wouldn't that give a pretty clear reason for appeal? If the felony is predicated on a conspiracy to break federal laws, doesn't the DA have to - at the very least - prove a conspiracy existed, and ultimately prove that federal laws had been broken?
“He may not have gotten the words out but the thoughts were great.”
This is where
I saw the argument about the misdemeanor jury instructions, a piece from a former federal prosecutor working in financial/white collar crime:
.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/05/31/trump-bungled-the-tria....
On your last question, I don't believe a prosecutor has to prove the predicate crime, just that the charged crime of fraud occurred. And was T specifically charged with conspiracy to commit fraud? I didn't follow this case, it's more complicated than I had assumed, many legal angles, and IANAL.
Glad your not weighing in on the Assange case
....on behalf of the over eager prosecution. You do it so well.
DBAD
Well….
.
NDAs are not illegal and Cohen said that he paid the porn star without Trump’s knowledge. Which Trump repaid him for in 2017. And you left out that Cohen admitted that he stole over $30,000 from Trump because he thought he had deserved a bonus.
Maybe if you had been following the conversation on this site you might be better informed. Every case against Trump originated in the Biden White House and the # 3 guy in the federal justice system went to work with Bragg. No DA in history has ever brought a misdemeanor records case alone against anyone before because all companies like to cook the books
At least Trump was competent enough to stand trial while Biden who should have been charged for taking documents was deemed incompetent to stand trial.
Also I wonder why the justice department hasn’t gone after Blinken for getting 51 ex-intelligence agents to write a letter stating that Hunter Biden’s laptop was Russian propaganda? Statute of limitations hasn’t run out on that election interference and the doj just admitted in court that the laptop belongs to Hunter.
And are you addressing the Trump supporters on this site? If so can you name them?
Obviously the jury didn't believe that
And no he didn't.That's what the 1:30 call was all about..
I don't believe that and I have reason to doubt it..
Biden never refused to turn over the documents like Trump did. And Biden was never declared incompetent.
No, I'm not.
Lol….
And no he didn't.That's what the 1:30 call was all about..
That call wasn’t with Trump, but his bodyguard and Cohen never spoke to Trump. That was shown during the trial. You don’t have to believe that Biden was involved, but it’s the truth. Like I said if you had been following the conversation here you wouldn’t be so misinformed about the facts.
And Biden was never declared incompetent.
I suggest you read what Hur said about Biden standing trial for taking documents. It doesn’t matter if he did or didn’t refuse to turn them over, he had no right to take them.
And you might look into who boxed up the documents Trump had and the rest of the story. And are you actually believing what the mainstream media says about this whole shitshow?
So much of this is the "Trump told people to drink bleach" when he never said that. And for the record I do not like Trump or anything he stands for, but I do believe in justice and honesty.
LOL
Yes. and the bodyguard was sitting right next to trump and who communicated with Trump.
Quick! Call 1974. Nixon would like to know this.
Right. The facts. Gotcha.
FWIW
https://jonathanturley.org/2024/06/03/buzz-kill-the-trump-conviction-pre...
Did the bodyguard testify that Trump was sitting next to him or did Cohen just make it up?
Read the article and see the flaws in this case. Hochul told other realtors that they shouldn’t fear themselves being dragged into court because this case against Trump was a one off. Remember that the judge deemed him guilty before the trial and he had to show his innocence. Others say the same thing about this trial. Get Trump anyway they can.
Where did you hear this?
….
The judge said Trump over priced how much his properties were worth and decided that they weren’t worth that much. Trump then had to prove he did nothing wrong. Then he was fined a ridiculous amount which should have been against the 8th amendment.
Any comment on the Turley article? Or will you just ignore it?
@snoopydawg
You changed court cases out of the blue.
I'll stop ignoring your comments when you stop ignoring mine.
I've heard quite a few different arguments
...about this case. I have no doubt Trump is guilty of something here, I'm no Trump fan. The problem is the due process violations in the indictment, trial, jury instructions, and verdict forms. When Turley says a lot of analysts were puzzled about the exact factual predicate for the findings of guilt I think its probably true. That is a fundamental constitutional error. It doesn't necessarily mean he's innocent but it does mean the trial was procedurally unfair. When I first read the indictment, I was struck by its lack of specificity as to the secondary crime, and its factual foundations. I read the two filings twice and thought, that's it? It's a hole you can drive a train through. I thought well it must have been cured at a later point in the proceedings. Turley says it wasn't.
I had one person on another board try to tell me, after I pointed this out, that there is no requirement to spell out either the exact nature of the secondary crime, or the elements of that crime, and that any crime will do as the secondary crime to satisfy the specific intent requirement of the felony counts of falsification of business records. He said this is how it is under NY State law. If that's the case, there is something critically wrong with NY State law. He didn't attend the trial, he hasn't seen the record of trial, nor did he hear or read the jury instructions or the verdict forms. Everyone's a lawyer now.
There were a lot of other alleged mistakes, prejudicial testimony, (Legally irrelevant testimony), improper arguments by the prosecution etc. I never really took the kitchen sink approach in briefs or appeals, I like to find the fundamental error, and nail it to the wall for everyone to see. Just a personal preference. I'm not a lawyer anymore, that was a long time ago.
"I lost all my respect for Turley when..." This is just an ad hominem. This X post by Turley links to a reprint of his Hill article on this..
These sort of disputes about trials tend to bitter, where the integrity or competence of a high level official (the judge, the prosecuting authority) is more or less impugned by their erroneous public decision. I know from experience. And those disputes are in a professional sense, based upon resentment and embarrassment when people (who deem themselves authorities) are later proved to be wrong. However, in this particular case, it may not matter. By the time, this get looked it, it will probably be overtaken by other events.
語必忠信 行必正直
Yep this….
That’s what a lot of people are questioning. Even people who are adant anti trumpers.
Yep there’s something wrong there.
Lol…I love how people who didn’t follow the trial and only heard about the verdict are sure that everything was on the up and up. There’s 2 people here that admit to this, but think their view is correct.
Great comment!
I wish I could
be so certain that there were egregious errors of either a substantive or procedural nature sufficient to get the verdict reversed on appeal, it would make things much simpler, but a) IANAL and more importantly b) I am not sufficiently versed in NYS criminal white collar crime prosecutions nor NY court rules to state categorically that DJT got screwed. It would make things so much easier in the discussions, and would lead to an interesting outcome for me leading to many entertaining dinner table discussions-- the guy I really can't stand who always says things are rigged if he loses (2020) or when he senses he might lose (2016) but actually in this one case really did get screwed. But I can't say that, DJT-friendly Jonathan Turley au contraire notwithstanding.
It's Trump after all, who evokes sharp good guy/bad guy reactions, including backlash sympathy from some indy quarters where the immediate reaction is to vigorously oppose any outcome which the Ds approve -- the legal analysis is usually going to predictably follow the personal/political feelings about DJT or his perceived harsh and unfair treatment by the mean D party.
What would be helpful of course in the COPO discussion is to see some of these appealable issues fleshed out in a long-form podcast debate where we could possibly see enough back and forth to adequately determine if one side has a solid case. Joe Rogan would be ideal given his 2-3 hour format and his indy mindset. Instead, we get the usual one-sided discussion, almost everywhere, where legal assertions go unopposed due to the nature or political leaning of the venue.
Short of getting that useful discussion, we will have to wait for the appeals -- months and even more than a year for the legal complaints to get a fleshed-out hearing and be resolved. Meantime we still have more waiting to do on the other 3 criminal cases. No doubt the reactions to those verdicts will fall along similar predictable political/personal lines.