|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Yes the crime was not listing the payments to Stormy as a campaign matter, and there was way to much paper trail to pretend like the payments themselves never happened or that it wasn't Trumps order.
He could have pretended it wasn't for the campaign but him personally not wanting people to find out about it and focus his defence there but considering its public knowledge that Trump has repeatedly cheated on his multiple wives I would think that would be a hard sell to any jury.
Made worse by witness testimonies like this one from Cohen“Just take care of it,” Cohen recalled Trump telling him. Cohen told jurors that he got the money to Daniels “to ensure that the story would not come out, would not affect Mr Trump’s chances of becoming president of the United States”, and that Trump told him to “push it out as long as you can, past the election, because if I win, I’ll be president, and if I lose, I won’t really care”.
|
United States41662 Posts
Payoffs are campaign expenses but they're allowed. If the Trump campaign had just paid her off then that'd be fine. But they didn't.
Trump contributing money to his campaign would also be fine. He could have taken $500k out of his business as a dividend, recorded it as such, and then donated it to his campaign. Then that $500k would have been his to use for campaign purposes. All legal.
His real estate business doing it directly though is not legal. But even that could have been fine if he had recorded it in a way that identified what it was so that the accountants could have identified it as recorded it as a constructive dividend rather than as a business expense. Real estate legal expenses are tax deductible business expenses, political contributions that are constructive dividends are not. By recording it as a tax deductible business expense he wrote off the porn star payoff and claimed back the income taxes on it. It's a kind of embezzlement.
It's a really dumb crime to do, and a really dumb crime to get caught doing. Like using your company card to pay hookers and claiming it as office supplies.
They caught him because his accountant essentially had a full handwritten breakdown of which hookers had been paid and for what in the office supplies entry memo.
|
On May 31 2024 20:07 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2024 20:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 31 2024 19:55 Jockmcplop wrote:
From the coverage in the UK, I'm getting the feeling that alot of political commentators are celebrating the decision, but very sheepishly. Its as if he really shouldn't have been found guilty based on the evidence, but his legal team had such a terrible defense that the jurors convicted him almost by default. That's the impression I'm getting anyway. There were audio recordings of Trump and written confirmations by Trump, admitting to the crimes, and multiple people corroborated exactly what Trump did. The legal team's defense was terrible, but that was because Trump committed the crimes, and Trump certainly wouldn't have been able to take the stand without digging himself into an even deeper hole. Was he admitting to interfering with the election though? The consensus from the (admittedly tiny) sample of things I've read about the case is that the judge was overreaching slightly with the election interference charges, and that the defense should have pushed that point rather than ignoring it completely. I believe there's some technicality and grey areas when it comes to the actual charges brought against Trump, rather than simply whether or not he committed crimes.
My understanding is that paying off Daniels through Cohen while falsifying business records is still a crime but only a misdemeanor unless it is connected to some other crime such as tax fraud or election interference. It wouldn't be the judge overreaching with those charges, it would be the prosecution needing that 2nd part to make it a felony case.
|
United States41662 Posts
On June 01 2024 04:50 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2024 20:07 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 31 2024 20:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 31 2024 19:55 Jockmcplop wrote:
From the coverage in the UK, I'm getting the feeling that alot of political commentators are celebrating the decision, but very sheepishly. Its as if he really shouldn't have been found guilty based on the evidence, but his legal team had such a terrible defense that the jurors convicted him almost by default. That's the impression I'm getting anyway. There were audio recordings of Trump and written confirmations by Trump, admitting to the crimes, and multiple people corroborated exactly what Trump did. The legal team's defense was terrible, but that was because Trump committed the crimes, and Trump certainly wouldn't have been able to take the stand without digging himself into an even deeper hole. Was he admitting to interfering with the election though? The consensus from the (admittedly tiny) sample of things I've read about the case is that the judge was overreaching slightly with the election interference charges, and that the defense should have pushed that point rather than ignoring it completely. I believe there's some technicality and grey areas when it comes to the actual charges brought against Trump, rather than simply whether or not he committed crimes. My understanding is that paying off Daniels through Cohen while falsifying business records is still a crime but only a misdemeanor unless it is connected to some other crime such as tax fraud or election interference. It wouldn't be the judge overreaching with those charges, it would be the prosecution needing that 2nd part to make it a felony case.
Just to be clear, misclassifying non deductible withdrawals from the business as deductible legal expenses is tax fraud.
|
On June 01 2024 05:57 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2024 04:50 BlackJack wrote:On May 31 2024 20:07 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 31 2024 20:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 31 2024 19:55 Jockmcplop wrote:
From the coverage in the UK, I'm getting the feeling that alot of political commentators are celebrating the decision, but very sheepishly. Its as if he really shouldn't have been found guilty based on the evidence, but his legal team had such a terrible defense that the jurors convicted him almost by default. That's the impression I'm getting anyway. There were audio recordings of Trump and written confirmations by Trump, admitting to the crimes, and multiple people corroborated exactly what Trump did. The legal team's defense was terrible, but that was because Trump committed the crimes, and Trump certainly wouldn't have been able to take the stand without digging himself into an even deeper hole. Was he admitting to interfering with the election though? The consensus from the (admittedly tiny) sample of things I've read about the case is that the judge was overreaching slightly with the election interference charges, and that the defense should have pushed that point rather than ignoring it completely. I believe there's some technicality and grey areas when it comes to the actual charges brought against Trump, rather than simply whether or not he committed crimes. My understanding is that paying off Daniels through Cohen while falsifying business records is still a crime but only a misdemeanor unless it is connected to some other crime such as tax fraud or election interference. It wouldn't be the judge overreaching with those charges, it would be the prosecution needing that 2nd part to make it a felony case. Just to be clear, misclassifying non deductible withdrawals from the business as deductible legal expenses is tax fraud.
Right, but as far as I know it's unclear if this is the mechanism that allowed the jury to find him guilty. A 2nd crime was needed to make this a felony and I believe Rayzda's point from a couple days ago was that the jury does not have to agree on what the 2nd crime was. Some can believe it was a tax law violation and others can believe it was an election law violation.
Judge Juan Merchan’s instructions to the jury regarding election law means that basically, some jurors could think that Donald Trump violated federal election law, and others could think that he was violating tax laws with his puffed up repayment to Michael Cohen.
|
On June 01 2024 06:21 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2024 05:57 KwarK wrote:On June 01 2024 04:50 BlackJack wrote:On May 31 2024 20:07 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 31 2024 20:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 31 2024 19:55 Jockmcplop wrote:
From the coverage in the UK, I'm getting the feeling that alot of political commentators are celebrating the decision, but very sheepishly. Its as if he really shouldn't have been found guilty based on the evidence, but his legal team had such a terrible defense that the jurors convicted him almost by default. That's the impression I'm getting anyway. There were audio recordings of Trump and written confirmations by Trump, admitting to the crimes, and multiple people corroborated exactly what Trump did. The legal team's defense was terrible, but that was because Trump committed the crimes, and Trump certainly wouldn't have been able to take the stand without digging himself into an even deeper hole. Was he admitting to interfering with the election though? The consensus from the (admittedly tiny) sample of things I've read about the case is that the judge was overreaching slightly with the election interference charges, and that the defense should have pushed that point rather than ignoring it completely. I believe there's some technicality and grey areas when it comes to the actual charges brought against Trump, rather than simply whether or not he committed crimes. My understanding is that paying off Daniels through Cohen while falsifying business records is still a crime but only a misdemeanor unless it is connected to some other crime such as tax fraud or election interference. It wouldn't be the judge overreaching with those charges, it would be the prosecution needing that 2nd part to make it a felony case. Just to be clear, misclassifying non deductible withdrawals from the business as deductible legal expenses is tax fraud. Right, but as far as I know it's unclear if this is the mechanism that allowed the jury to find him guilty. A 2nd crime was needed to make this a felony and I believe Rayzda's point from a couple days ago was that the jury does not have to agree on what the 2nd crime was. Some can believe it was a tax law violation and others can believe it was an election law violation. Show nested quote +Judge Juan Merchan’s instructions to the jury regarding election law means that basically, some jurors could think that Donald Trump violated federal election law, and others could think that he was violating tax laws with his puffed up repayment to Michael Cohen. Falsifying a business record is a crime if its to cover up another crime.
So regardless of whether someone believes it was election fraud or tax fraud, if they believe either of those crimes happened then the falsifying was a crime. It doesn't matter which of the 2 they thought happened for the falsifying to be a crime.
all 34 counts were for falsifying records. He wasn't charged for either underlying crime. he was charged for falsifying to cover up something, the exact something isn't relevant to his charges. So long as the jurors agree a crime took place.
|
On June 01 2024 06:34 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2024 06:21 BlackJack wrote:On June 01 2024 05:57 KwarK wrote:On June 01 2024 04:50 BlackJack wrote:On May 31 2024 20:07 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 31 2024 20:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 31 2024 19:55 Jockmcplop wrote:
From the coverage in the UK, I'm getting the feeling that alot of political commentators are celebrating the decision, but very sheepishly. Its as if he really shouldn't have been found guilty based on the evidence, but his legal team had such a terrible defense that the jurors convicted him almost by default. That's the impression I'm getting anyway. There were audio recordings of Trump and written confirmations by Trump, admitting to the crimes, and multiple people corroborated exactly what Trump did. The legal team's defense was terrible, but that was because Trump committed the crimes, and Trump certainly wouldn't have been able to take the stand without digging himself into an even deeper hole. Was he admitting to interfering with the election though? The consensus from the (admittedly tiny) sample of things I've read about the case is that the judge was overreaching slightly with the election interference charges, and that the defense should have pushed that point rather than ignoring it completely. I believe there's some technicality and grey areas when it comes to the actual charges brought against Trump, rather than simply whether or not he committed crimes. My understanding is that paying off Daniels through Cohen while falsifying business records is still a crime but only a misdemeanor unless it is connected to some other crime such as tax fraud or election interference. It wouldn't be the judge overreaching with those charges, it would be the prosecution needing that 2nd part to make it a felony case. Just to be clear, misclassifying non deductible withdrawals from the business as deductible legal expenses is tax fraud. Right, but as far as I know it's unclear if this is the mechanism that allowed the jury to find him guilty. A 2nd crime was needed to make this a felony and I believe Rayzda's point from a couple days ago was that the jury does not have to agree on what the 2nd crime was. Some can believe it was a tax law violation and others can believe it was an election law violation. Judge Juan Merchan’s instructions to the jury regarding election law means that basically, some jurors could think that Donald Trump violated federal election law, and others could think that he was violating tax laws with his puffed up repayment to Michael Cohen. Falsifying a business record is a crime if its to cover up another crime. So regardless of whether someone believes it was election fraud or tax fraud, if they believe either of those crimes happened then the falsifying was a crime. It doesn't matter which of the 2 they thought happened for the falsifying to be a crime. all 34 counts were for falsifying records. He wasn't charged for either underlying crime. he was charged for falsifying to cover up something, the exact something isn't relevant to his charges. So long as the jurors agree a crime took place.
This is part of the whole problem, what crime, and how was it adjudicated? He had to try and turn it into a felony and that's going to be a major dispute on appeal. The exact something is very relevant, esp since the "election interference" charge is absurd on its face. We've gone over this before: Bragg went from indictment almost to the very end being intentionally vague on what the "other crime" was, but the judge indulged him at pretty much every step.
Fyi they even payed Cohen extra because they knew he'd have to pay taxes on it. They weren't trying to dodge a payment. Nobody disputes he put "legal fees" into quickbooks or whatever, it's everything connected to that which is up for dispute. This was a novel theory and no one had tried thos before. As usual the political interest is for certain people to make seems more simple and more routine than it really was. And now they've poisoned the well on the other indictments.
Everything about this is very depressing and just marches us further down a road I'd hoped we could avoid. The party of "norms" strikes again
|
On June 01 2024 07:10 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2024 06:34 Gorsameth wrote:On June 01 2024 06:21 BlackJack wrote:On June 01 2024 05:57 KwarK wrote:On June 01 2024 04:50 BlackJack wrote:On May 31 2024 20:07 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 31 2024 20:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 31 2024 19:55 Jockmcplop wrote:
From the coverage in the UK, I'm getting the feeling that alot of political commentators are celebrating the decision, but very sheepishly. Its as if he really shouldn't have been found guilty based on the evidence, but his legal team had such a terrible defense that the jurors convicted him almost by default. That's the impression I'm getting anyway. There were audio recordings of Trump and written confirmations by Trump, admitting to the crimes, and multiple people corroborated exactly what Trump did. The legal team's defense was terrible, but that was because Trump committed the crimes, and Trump certainly wouldn't have been able to take the stand without digging himself into an even deeper hole. Was he admitting to interfering with the election though? The consensus from the (admittedly tiny) sample of things I've read about the case is that the judge was overreaching slightly with the election interference charges, and that the defense should have pushed that point rather than ignoring it completely. I believe there's some technicality and grey areas when it comes to the actual charges brought against Trump, rather than simply whether or not he committed crimes. My understanding is that paying off Daniels through Cohen while falsifying business records is still a crime but only a misdemeanor unless it is connected to some other crime such as tax fraud or election interference. It wouldn't be the judge overreaching with those charges, it would be the prosecution needing that 2nd part to make it a felony case. Just to be clear, misclassifying non deductible withdrawals from the business as deductible legal expenses is tax fraud. Right, but as far as I know it's unclear if this is the mechanism that allowed the jury to find him guilty. A 2nd crime was needed to make this a felony and I believe Rayzda's point from a couple days ago was that the jury does not have to agree on what the 2nd crime was. Some can believe it was a tax law violation and others can believe it was an election law violation. Judge Juan Merchan’s instructions to the jury regarding election law means that basically, some jurors could think that Donald Trump violated federal election law, and others could think that he was violating tax laws with his puffed up repayment to Michael Cohen. Falsifying a business record is a crime if its to cover up another crime. So regardless of whether someone believes it was election fraud or tax fraud, if they believe either of those crimes happened then the falsifying was a crime. It doesn't matter which of the 2 they thought happened for the falsifying to be a crime. all 34 counts were for falsifying records. He wasn't charged for either underlying crime. he was charged for falsifying to cover up something, the exact something isn't relevant to his charges. So long as the jurors agree a crime took place. This is part of the whole problem, what crime, and how was it adjudicated? He had to try and turn it into a felony and that's going to be a major dispute on appeal. The exact something is very relevant, esp since the "election interference" charge is absurd on its face. We've gone over this before: Bragg went from indictment almost to the very end being intentionally vague on what the "other crime" was, but the judge indulged him at pretty much every step. Fyi they even payed Cohen extra because they knew he'd have to pay taxes on it. They weren't trying to dodge a payment. Nobody disputes he put "legal fees" into quickbooks or whatever, it's everything connected to that which is up for dispute. This was a novel theory and no one had tried thos before. As usual the political interest is for certain people to make seems more simple and more routine than it really was. And now they've poisoned the well on the other indictments. Everything about this is very depressing and just marches us further down a road I'd hoped we could avoid. The party of "norms" strikes again
Absurd to you, maybe, but not to the jury:
"The jurors said they unanimously agreed that Trump falsified business records to conceal a $130,000 hush money payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels to influence the outcome of the 2016 election."
https://www.npr.org/2024/05/30/g-s1-1848/trump-hush-money-trial-34-counts
The hilarious part is that we all figured the only 2016 election interference was what came from Trump's inner circle teaming up with Russia, the 10 examples of obstruction of justice from the Mueller Report, etc. It turns out that Trump was also directly involved in a completely different, 2nd election interference scheme to beat Hillary Clinton, and it's now documented in 34 felony convictions. We'll never know if Trump would have lost the 2016 election, had he played fair, but at least his election interference for 2016 (and, hopefully, 2020) will be documented forever.
Also, asserting that the judge was overly helpful to the prosecution is a pretty hot take, given:
1. Judge Merchan wasn't in charge of deciding whether or not Trump was guilty of any proposed misdemeanors or felonies;
2. Judge Merchan bent over backwards to accommodate Trump's bullshit, especially in regards to the 10+ violations of the gag order. Fining a billionaire a few thousand dollars isn't enforcing any actual consequences (let alone protecting the jury, witnesses, or families), purposely not giving Trump any jail time is special treatment, and Judge Merchan even admitted that he had political reasons for going easy on Trump: "Mr. Trump, it’s important you understand, the last thing I want to do is put you in jail. You are the former president of the United States and possibly the next president as well" ( https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/06/politics/merchan-trump-gag-order-contempt/index.html ).
If you or I behaved the way that Trump behaved, any judge (Merchan or otherwise) would have correctly enforced the gag order long before our tenth offense. Let's not pretend that Merchan was in the pocket of the prosecution, especially when Merchan's repeated inaction could have led to more innocent victims being doxxed, harassed, or assaulted by Trump's supporters.
|
On June 01 2024 06:34 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2024 06:21 BlackJack wrote:On June 01 2024 05:57 KwarK wrote:On June 01 2024 04:50 BlackJack wrote:On May 31 2024 20:07 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 31 2024 20:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 31 2024 19:55 Jockmcplop wrote:
From the coverage in the UK, I'm getting the feeling that alot of political commentators are celebrating the decision, but very sheepishly. Its as if he really shouldn't have been found guilty based on the evidence, but his legal team had such a terrible defense that the jurors convicted him almost by default. That's the impression I'm getting anyway. There were audio recordings of Trump and written confirmations by Trump, admitting to the crimes, and multiple people corroborated exactly what Trump did. The legal team's defense was terrible, but that was because Trump committed the crimes, and Trump certainly wouldn't have been able to take the stand without digging himself into an even deeper hole. Was he admitting to interfering with the election though? The consensus from the (admittedly tiny) sample of things I've read about the case is that the judge was overreaching slightly with the election interference charges, and that the defense should have pushed that point rather than ignoring it completely. I believe there's some technicality and grey areas when it comes to the actual charges brought against Trump, rather than simply whether or not he committed crimes. My understanding is that paying off Daniels through Cohen while falsifying business records is still a crime but only a misdemeanor unless it is connected to some other crime such as tax fraud or election interference. It wouldn't be the judge overreaching with those charges, it would be the prosecution needing that 2nd part to make it a felony case. Just to be clear, misclassifying non deductible withdrawals from the business as deductible legal expenses is tax fraud. Right, but as far as I know it's unclear if this is the mechanism that allowed the jury to find him guilty. A 2nd crime was needed to make this a felony and I believe Rayzda's point from a couple days ago was that the jury does not have to agree on what the 2nd crime was. Some can believe it was a tax law violation and others can believe it was an election law violation. Judge Juan Merchan’s instructions to the jury regarding election law means that basically, some jurors could think that Donald Trump violated federal election law, and others could think that he was violating tax laws with his puffed up repayment to Michael Cohen. Falsifying a business record is a crime if its to cover up another crime. So regardless of whether someone believes it was election fraud or tax fraud, if they believe either of those crimes happened then the falsifying was a crime. It doesn't matter which of the 2 they thought happened for the falsifying to be a crime. all 34 counts were for falsifying records. He wasn't charged for either underlying crime. he was charged for falsifying to cover up something, the exact something isn't relevant to his charges. So long as the jurors agree a crime took place.
Yes. Falsifying business records is a crime regardless. The underlying (2nd) crime is needed here to turn it from a misdemeanor to a felony.
|
On June 01 2024 06:34 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2024 06:21 BlackJack wrote:On June 01 2024 05:57 KwarK wrote:On June 01 2024 04:50 BlackJack wrote:On May 31 2024 20:07 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 31 2024 20:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 31 2024 19:55 Jockmcplop wrote:
From the coverage in the UK, I'm getting the feeling that alot of political commentators are celebrating the decision, but very sheepishly. Its as if he really shouldn't have been found guilty based on the evidence, but his legal team had such a terrible defense that the jurors convicted him almost by default. That's the impression I'm getting anyway. There were audio recordings of Trump and written confirmations by Trump, admitting to the crimes, and multiple people corroborated exactly what Trump did. The legal team's defense was terrible, but that was because Trump committed the crimes, and Trump certainly wouldn't have been able to take the stand without digging himself into an even deeper hole. Was he admitting to interfering with the election though? The consensus from the (admittedly tiny) sample of things I've read about the case is that the judge was overreaching slightly with the election interference charges, and that the defense should have pushed that point rather than ignoring it completely. I believe there's some technicality and grey areas when it comes to the actual charges brought against Trump, rather than simply whether or not he committed crimes. My understanding is that paying off Daniels through Cohen while falsifying business records is still a crime but only a misdemeanor unless it is connected to some other crime such as tax fraud or election interference. It wouldn't be the judge overreaching with those charges, it would be the prosecution needing that 2nd part to make it a felony case. Just to be clear, misclassifying non deductible withdrawals from the business as deductible legal expenses is tax fraud. Right, but as far as I know it's unclear if this is the mechanism that allowed the jury to find him guilty. A 2nd crime was needed to make this a felony and I believe Rayzda's point from a couple days ago was that the jury does not have to agree on what the 2nd crime was. Some can believe it was a tax law violation and others can believe it was an election law violation. Judge Juan Merchan’s instructions to the jury regarding election law means that basically, some jurors could think that Donald Trump violated federal election law, and others could think that he was violating tax laws with his puffed up repayment to Michael Cohen. Falsifying a business record is a crime if its to cover up another crime. So regardless of whether someone believes it was election fraud or tax fraud, if they believe either of those crimes happened then the falsifying was a crime. It doesn't matter which of the 2 they thought happened for the falsifying to be a crime. all 34 counts were for falsifying records. He wasn't charged for either underlying crime. he was charged for falsifying to cover up something, the exact something isn't relevant to his charges. So long as the jurors agree a crime took place.
Bolded: It seems somewhat relevant - "something" must be a crime, otherwise falsifying business records is misdemeanor not a felony. Hence i found judge instruction to the jury bizarre as if the jury cant agree what crime "something" is, it means that something wasnt proven to be crime. Kinda like: you traveled to New Jersey by train without ticket to cover the fact that you kidnapped Lindbergh child - dear jurors please not bother whether, or not he kidnapped anyone, focus on the ticket...
On June 01 2024 08:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2024 07:10 Introvert wrote:On June 01 2024 06:34 Gorsameth wrote:On June 01 2024 06:21 BlackJack wrote:On June 01 2024 05:57 KwarK wrote:On June 01 2024 04:50 BlackJack wrote:On May 31 2024 20:07 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 31 2024 20:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 31 2024 19:55 Jockmcplop wrote:
From the coverage in the UK, I'm getting the feeling that alot of political commentators are celebrating the decision, but very sheepishly. Its as if he really shouldn't have been found guilty based on the evidence, but his legal team had such a terrible defense that the jurors convicted him almost by default. That's the impression I'm getting anyway. There were audio recordings of Trump and written confirmations by Trump, admitting to the crimes, and multiple people corroborated exactly what Trump did. The legal team's defense was terrible, but that was because Trump committed the crimes, and Trump certainly wouldn't have been able to take the stand without digging himself into an even deeper hole. Was he admitting to interfering with the election though? The consensus from the (admittedly tiny) sample of things I've read about the case is that the judge was overreaching slightly with the election interference charges, and that the defense should have pushed that point rather than ignoring it completely. I believe there's some technicality and grey areas when it comes to the actual charges brought against Trump, rather than simply whether or not he committed crimes. My understanding is that paying off Daniels through Cohen while falsifying business records is still a crime but only a misdemeanor unless it is connected to some other crime such as tax fraud or election interference. It wouldn't be the judge overreaching with those charges, it would be the prosecution needing that 2nd part to make it a felony case. Just to be clear, misclassifying non deductible withdrawals from the business as deductible legal expenses is tax fraud. Right, but as far as I know it's unclear if this is the mechanism that allowed the jury to find him guilty. A 2nd crime was needed to make this a felony and I believe Rayzda's point from a couple days ago was that the jury does not have to agree on what the 2nd crime was. Some can believe it was a tax law violation and others can believe it was an election law violation. Judge Juan Merchan’s instructions to the jury regarding election law means that basically, some jurors could think that Donald Trump violated federal election law, and others could think that he was violating tax laws with his puffed up repayment to Michael Cohen. Falsifying a business record is a crime if its to cover up another crime. So regardless of whether someone believes it was election fraud or tax fraud, if they believe either of those crimes happened then the falsifying was a crime. It doesn't matter which of the 2 they thought happened for the falsifying to be a crime. all 34 counts were for falsifying records. He wasn't charged for either underlying crime. he was charged for falsifying to cover up something, the exact something isn't relevant to his charges. So long as the jurors agree a crime took place. This is part of the whole problem, what crime, and how was it adjudicated? He had to try and turn it into a felony and that's going to be a major dispute on appeal. The exact something is very relevant, esp since the "election interference" charge is absurd on its face. We've gone over this before: Bragg went from indictment almost to the very end being intentionally vague on what the "other crime" was, but the judge indulged him at pretty much every step. Fyi they even payed Cohen extra because they knew he'd have to pay taxes on it. They weren't trying to dodge a payment. Nobody disputes he put "legal fees" into quickbooks or whatever, it's everything connected to that which is up for dispute. This was a novel theory and no one had tried thos before. As usual the political interest is for certain people to make seems more simple and more routine than it really was. And now they've poisoned the well on the other indictments. Everything about this is very depressing and just marches us further down a road I'd hoped we could avoid. The party of "norms" strikes again Absurd to you, maybe, but not to the jury: "The jurors said they unanimously agreed that Trump falsified business records to conceal a $130,000 hush money payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels to influence the outcome of the 2016 election." https://www.npr.org/2024/05/30/g-s1-1848/trump-hush-money-trial-34-counts The hilarious part is that we all figured the only 2016 election interference was what came from Trump's inner circle teaming up with Russia, the 10 examples of obstruction of justice from the Mueller Report, etc. It turns out that Trump was also directly involved in a completely different, 2nd election interference scheme to beat Hillary Clinton, and it's now documented in 34 felony convictions. We'll never know if Trump would have lost the 2016 election, had he played fair, but at least his election interference for 2016 (and, hopefully, 2020) will be documented forever. Also, asserting that the judge was overly helpful to the prosecution is a pretty hot take, given: 1. Judge Merchan wasn't in charge of deciding whether or not Trump was guilty of any proposed misdemeanors or felonies; 2. Judge Merchan bent over backwards to accommodate Trump's bullshit, especially in regards to the 10+ violations of the gag order. Fining a billionaire a few thousand dollars isn't enforcing any actual consequences (let alone protecting the jury, witnesses, or families), purposely not giving Trump any jail time is special treatment, and Judge Merchan even admitted that he had political reasons for going easy on Trump: "Mr. Trump, it’s important you understand, the last thing I want to do is put you in jail. You are the former president of the United States and possibly the next president as well" ( https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/06/politics/merchan-trump-gag-order-contempt/index.html ). If you or I behaved the way that Trump behaved, any judge (Merchan or otherwise) would have correctly enforced the gag order long before our tenth offense. Let's not pretend that Merchan was in the pocket of the prosecution, especially when Merchan's repeated inaction could have led to more innocent victims being doxxed, harassed, or assaulted by Trump's supporters.
bolded: It seems somewhat odd that this is massive election interference, but Hunter Biden laptop was nothing burger?
On the other hand: as few people here seem quite happy with this situation. Will you still be this happy if Trump win election? Because the way I see it, if he is even 1% fascist people claim him to be, lots of powerful people will be proving that justice system is equal for everyone. and if "everyone" happen to be people orange dude dont like then... well, they shouldnt have committed crimes in the first place.
Edit: This seems like somewhat decent article regarding this case:
https://www.vox.com/politics/353111/trump-trial-verdict-criticisms-wrongly-convicted
|
On June 01 2024 10:01 Razyda wrote:this is massive election interference, but Hunter Biden laptop was nothing burger?
Of course.
Will you still be this happy if Trump win election?
Of course not.
|
It really depends what the law says. If the law says the 2nd predicate crime does not need be adjudicated or specified then you can't just cry foul when the 2nd predicate crime was not adjudicated or specified. We should go by what the law stipulates, not by your own personal sense of fairness.
But it does bring up an important point and that is the case that really matters here is the case of public opinion, i.e. how this affects Trump's chances come November. The last time this case was brought up some months ago I think the general sentiment was an agreement that this case was built upon some dubious legal theory as part of an effort to "Get Trump." Now that they got Trump we'll have to see if the fence sitters are more swayed by the guilty verdict or whether this was an instance of "lawfare" as Introvert likes to call it.
|
On June 01 2024 08:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2024 07:10 Introvert wrote:On June 01 2024 06:34 Gorsameth wrote:On June 01 2024 06:21 BlackJack wrote:On June 01 2024 05:57 KwarK wrote:On June 01 2024 04:50 BlackJack wrote:On May 31 2024 20:07 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 31 2024 20:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 31 2024 19:55 Jockmcplop wrote:
From the coverage in the UK, I'm getting the feeling that alot of political commentators are celebrating the decision, but very sheepishly. Its as if he really shouldn't have been found guilty based on the evidence, but his legal team had such a terrible defense that the jurors convicted him almost by default. That's the impression I'm getting anyway. There were audio recordings of Trump and written confirmations by Trump, admitting to the crimes, and multiple people corroborated exactly what Trump did. The legal team's defense was terrible, but that was because Trump committed the crimes, and Trump certainly wouldn't have been able to take the stand without digging himself into an even deeper hole. Was he admitting to interfering with the election though? The consensus from the (admittedly tiny) sample of things I've read about the case is that the judge was overreaching slightly with the election interference charges, and that the defense should have pushed that point rather than ignoring it completely. I believe there's some technicality and grey areas when it comes to the actual charges brought against Trump, rather than simply whether or not he committed crimes. My understanding is that paying off Daniels through Cohen while falsifying business records is still a crime but only a misdemeanor unless it is connected to some other crime such as tax fraud or election interference. It wouldn't be the judge overreaching with those charges, it would be the prosecution needing that 2nd part to make it a felony case. Just to be clear, misclassifying non deductible withdrawals from the business as deductible legal expenses is tax fraud. Right, but as far as I know it's unclear if this is the mechanism that allowed the jury to find him guilty. A 2nd crime was needed to make this a felony and I believe Rayzda's point from a couple days ago was that the jury does not have to agree on what the 2nd crime was. Some can believe it was a tax law violation and others can believe it was an election law violation. Judge Juan Merchan’s instructions to the jury regarding election law means that basically, some jurors could think that Donald Trump violated federal election law, and others could think that he was violating tax laws with his puffed up repayment to Michael Cohen. Falsifying a business record is a crime if its to cover up another crime. So regardless of whether someone believes it was election fraud or tax fraud, if they believe either of those crimes happened then the falsifying was a crime. It doesn't matter which of the 2 they thought happened for the falsifying to be a crime. all 34 counts were for falsifying records. He wasn't charged for either underlying crime. he was charged for falsifying to cover up something, the exact something isn't relevant to his charges. So long as the jurors agree a crime took place. This is part of the whole problem, what crime, and how was it adjudicated? He had to try and turn it into a felony and that's going to be a major dispute on appeal. The exact something is very relevant, esp since the "election interference" charge is absurd on its face. We've gone over this before: Bragg went from indictment almost to the very end being intentionally vague on what the "other crime" was, but the judge indulged him at pretty much every step. Fyi they even payed Cohen extra because they knew he'd have to pay taxes on it. They weren't trying to dodge a payment. Nobody disputes he put "legal fees" into quickbooks or whatever, it's everything connected to that which is up for dispute. This was a novel theory and no one had tried thos before. As usual the political interest is for certain people to make seems more simple and more routine than it really was. And now they've poisoned the well on the other indictments. Everything about this is very depressing and just marches us further down a road I'd hoped we could avoid. The party of "norms" strikes again Absurd to you, maybe, but not to the jury: "The jurors said they unanimously agreed that Trump falsified business records to conceal a $130,000 hush money payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels to influence the outcome of the 2016 election." https://www.npr.org/2024/05/30/g-s1-1848/trump-hush-money-trial-34-counts The hilarious part is that we all figured the only 2016 election interference was what came from Trump's inner circle teaming up with Russia, the 10 examples of obstruction of justice from the Mueller Report, etc. It turns out that Trump was also directly involved in a completely different, 2nd election interference scheme to beat Hillary Clinton, and it's now documented in 34 felony convictions. We'll never know if Trump would have lost the 2016 election, had he played fair, but at least his election interference for 2016 (and, hopefully, 2020) will be documented forever. Also, asserting that the judge was overly helpful to the prosecution is a pretty hot take, given: 1. Judge Merchan wasn't in charge of deciding whether or not Trump was guilty of any proposed misdemeanors or felonies; 2. Judge Merchan bent over backwards to accommodate Trump's bullshit, especially in regards to the 10+ violations of the gag order. Fining a billionaire a few thousand dollars isn't enforcing any actual consequences (let alone protecting the jury, witnesses, or families), purposely not giving Trump any jail time is special treatment, and Judge Merchan even admitted that he had political reasons for going easy on Trump: "Mr. Trump, it’s important you understand, the last thing I want to do is put you in jail. You are the former president of the United States and possibly the next president as well" ( https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/06/politics/merchan-trump-gag-order-contempt/index.html ). If you or I behaved the way that Trump behaved, any judge (Merchan or otherwise) would have correctly enforced the gag order long before our tenth offense. Let's not pretend that Merchan was in the pocket of the prosecution, especially when Merchan's repeated inaction could have led to more innocent victims being doxxed, harassed, or assaulted by Trump's supporters.
A) I refuse to rehash Russiagate, I note for the record my disagreement with your summary.
B)
We'll never know if Trump would have lost the 2016 election, had he played fair,
this right here is how we know this is all about politics. It's also how we know that the entire prosecution was political. There is no way this payment being tagged as a campaign expense (meaning Trump could have paid for it using donor dollars, something that I'm sure would have been objected to on the other side if it had happened) would have swayed the election. The filing deadlines for the date of the payment mean that the expense would have been made public after the 2016 election. This is one reason Bragg's theory was so stupid and why he and Merchan had to allow whatever theory the individual jurors wanted. It could not have possibly changed the outcome.
The judge's motions with regards to evidence, witnesses, and the theories he allowed Bragg to pursue were almost all in favor of Bragg. The gag orders aren't related to what happens in the trial anyway, at least directly, and regardless Trump should be allowed to say whatever. For example, a former FEC commissioner was going to testify about the legality and status of the payment under federal campaign finance law, but the judge refused to allow to him testify on so much of it that the defense didn't end up calling him at all, there would have been no point.
I've posted on how new this type of case was before, and here's another article on from today, though I admit I'm not familiar with the author and actually seeing "CNN legal commentator" gives me pause. But he's just saying what others have said.
The following are all undeniable facts.
The judge donated money — a tiny amount, $35, but in plain violation of a rule prohibiting New York judges from making political donations of any kind — to a pro-Biden, anti-Trump political operation, including funds that the judge earmarked for “resisting the Republican Party and Donald Trump’s radical right-wing legacy.” Would folks have been just fine with the judge staying on the case if he had donated a couple bucks to “Re-elect Donald Trump, MAGA forever!”? Absolutely not.
District Attorney Alvin Bragg ran for office in an overwhelmingly Democratic county by touting his Trump-hunting prowess. He bizarrely (and falsely) boasted on the campaign trail, “It is a fact that I have sued Trump over 100 times.” (Disclosure: Both Bragg and Trump’s lead counsel, Todd Blanche, are friends and former colleagues of mine at the Southern District of New York.)
Most importantly, the DA’s charges against Trump push the outer boundaries of the law and due process. That’s not on the jury. That’s on the prosecutors who chose to bring the case and the judge who let it play out as it did.
The district attorney’s press office and its flaks often proclaim that falsification of business records charges are “commonplace” and, indeed, the office’s “bread and butter.” That’s true only if you draw definitional lines so broad as to render them meaningless. Of course the DA charges falsification quite frequently; virtually any fraud case involves some sort of fake documentation.
But when you impose meaningful search parameters, the truth emerges: The charges against Trump are obscure, and nearly entirely unprecedented. In fact, no state prosecutor — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever. Even putting aside the specifics of election law, the Manhattan DA itself almost never brings any case in which falsification of business records is the only charge.
Standing alone, falsification charges would have been mere misdemeanors under New York law, which posed two problems for the DA. First, nobody cares about a misdemeanor, and it would be laughable to bring the first-ever charge against a former president for a trifling offense that falls within the same technical criminal classification as shoplifting a Snapple and a bag of Cheetos from a bodega. Second, the statute of limitations on a misdemeanor — two years — likely has long expired on Trump’s conduct, which dates to 2016 and 2017.
So, to inflate the charges up to the lowest-level felony (Class E, on a scale of Class A through E) — and to electroshock them back to life within the longer felony statute of limitations — the DA alleged that the falsification of business records was committed “with intent to commit another crime.” Here, according to prosecutors, the “another crime” is a New York State election-law violation, which in turn incorporates three separate “unlawful means”: federal campaign crimes, tax crimes, and falsification of still more documents. Inexcusably, the DA refused to specify what those unlawful means actually were — and the judge declined to force them to pony up — until right before closing arguments. So much for the constitutional obligation to provide notice to the defendant of the accusations against him in advance of trial. (This, folks, is what indictments are for.)
In these key respects, the charges against Trump aren’t just unusual. They’re bespoke, seemingly crafted individually for the former president and nobody else.
The Manhattan DA’s employees reportedly have called this the “Zombie Case” because of various legal infirmities, including its bizarre charging mechanism. But it’s better characterized as the Frankenstein Case, cobbled together with ill-fitting parts into an ugly, awkward, but more-or-less functioning contraption that just might ultimately turn on its creator.
And if memory serves the feds took a pass on this case as well, they remember what happened when they tried to go after John Edwards with something similar (though I bet not many people here remember that).
|
On June 01 2024 10:47 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2024 08:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
We'll never know if Trump would have lost the 2016 election, had he played fair, this right here is how we know this is all about politics. It's also how we know that the entire prosecution was political. There is no way this payment being tagged as a campaign expense (meaning Trump could have paid for it using donor dollars, something that I'm sure would have been objected to on the other side if it had happened) would have swayed the election. The filing deadlines for the date of the payment mean that the expense would have been made public after the 2016 election.
Trump committed 34 felonies (and was indicted on many, many more), but sure, holding him accountable was entirely political. Right.
As far as potentially swaying the election is concerned, I wasn't referring to the part where he was illegally tagging non-campaign expenses as campaign expenses; I was referring to the part where he cheated on his wife and paid off other women with hush money, and if that drama became public right before the election. Maybe Trump supporters wouldn't have cared at all (they seemed to be unfazed by him bragging about sexually assaulting women), but the swing states were close enough that even a small number of suddenly-dissuaded potential Trump voters could have changed the outcome. Not saying it's probable; just saying it's possible. A million other things could have also swayed the election.
The gag orders aren't related to what happens in the trial anyway, at least directly
Didn't one of the potential jurors need to step down at the start of the trial because she was endangered by threats? That's a pretty serious, direct problem, if Trump and his cronies can keep threatening to hurt jurors unless they do what he wants.
Trump should be allowed to say whatever.
In court, during his own trial, Trump should be allowed to say whatever he wants, even if that includes doxxing or threatening people!? That is such a preposterous statement, that the only way I can wrap my brain around it is if you meant to write Trump should be allowed to say [the word] "whatever". Is that what you meant?
|
On June 01 2024 11:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2024 10:47 Introvert wrote:On June 01 2024 08:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
We'll never know if Trump would have lost the 2016 election, had he played fair, this right here is how we know this is all about politics. It's also how we know that the entire prosecution was political. There is no way this payment being tagged as a campaign expense (meaning Trump could have paid for it using donor dollars, something that I'm sure would have been objected to on the other side if it had happened) would have swayed the election. The filing deadlines for the date of the payment mean that the expense would have been made public after the 2016 election. Trump committed 34 felonies (and was indicted on many, many more), but sure, holding him accountable was entirely political. Right. As far as potentially swaying the election is concerned, I wasn't referring to the part where he was illegally tagging non-campaign expenses as campaign expenses; I was referring to the part where he cheated on his wife and paid off other women with hush money, and if that drama became public right before the election. Maybe Trump supporters wouldn't have cared at all (they seemed to be unfazed by him bragging about sexually assaulting women), but the swing states were close enough that even a small number of suddenly-dissuaded potential Trump voters could have changed the outcome. Not saying it's probable; just saying it's possible. A million other things could have also swayed the election. Show nested quote +The gag orders aren't related to what happens in the trial anyway, at least directly Didn't one of the potential jurors need to step down at the start of the trial because she was endangered by threats? That's a pretty serious, direct problem, if Trump and his cronies can keep threatening to hurt jurors unless they do what he wants. In court, during his own trial, Trump should be allowed to say whatever he wants, even if that includes doxxing or threatening people!? That is such a preposterous statement, that the only way I can wrap my brain around it is if you meant to write Trump should be allowed to say [the word] "whatever". Is that what you meant?
The number of charges is another silly thing. 34 counts was Bragg multiplying everything out precisely for that talking point. We know what Trump did, we don't have to play fun-with-numbers.
I fail to see the connection between the hush money payment+election with the trial, which is part of the problem. I was referring to the part where he cheated on his wife and paid off other women with hush money, and if that drama became public right before the election.
he's not on trial for that per se, and yet again, somehow we keep coming back to election influence, even though NDAs are legal. It is clearly impossible, it would seem, for anyone trying to explain why this was a good thing to do so without bringing the election results of 2016 into it, which again would be silly, because whether he should have used campaign funds or Michael Cohen, the payment itself was legal. It isn't just those on Trump's side who keep saying this is all politics, it appears to be everyone against him as well.
Why did you say
I wasn't referring to the part where he was illegally tagging non-campaign expenses as campaign expenses
this is precisely the *opposite* of what he did, and what was supposedly illegal. Bragg's theory, and the theory all the Dems are running with, is that this was a campaign expenditure he was trying to hide. To them he should have tagged it as a campaign expense! Presumably he would have been allowed to use donor dollars to pay for it, too! I am now more convinced than ever that the people cheering this have no idea what was actually happening.
Trump didn't doxx anyone, or threaten anyone, to my knowledge. Maybe some jurors would feel like they got found out, but I'm pretty sure that's because the entire media was reporting the the description of the jurors. Pretty sure the NYT had a live feed going during jury selection. Yes, defendants generally should be allowed to say whatever they want about the trial if they think it's unfair. That seems pretty obvious to me. You seem to have skipped over the part where Merchan was being very favorable to Bragg though. If you think the judge was even handed because he could have been more harsh with the gag orders, of all things, I don't really find that convincing. Seems like the other stuff is far more important.
|
Do you actually believe that Trump should be allowed to say whatever he wants? No exceptions? Saying Trump didn't doxx or threaten anyone isn't the same as saying you're okay with him doxxing or threatening someone, so please don't assert the latter but then switch to the former when I ask if you're serious. Would you really be okay with him doxxing or threatening a juror? (You're allowed to say No. I would hope that you do. I'd like to think that you were simply being hyperbolic.)
"The number of charges is another silly thing."
Not to the jurors.
|
On June 01 2024 12:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Do you actually believe that Trump should be allowed to say whatever he wants? No exceptions? Saying Trump didn't doxx or threaten anyone isn't the same as saying you're okay with him doxxing or threatening someone, so please don't assert the latter but then switch to the former when I ask if you're serious. Would you be okay with him doxxing or threatening someone?
"The number of charges is another silly thing."
Not to the jurors.
No, not literally, if you want to be pedantic. But I don't think anything he said was out line really, I'm not even sure bringing up the judges daughter was gag-worthy. There's been a lot of talk about the family of judges recently. And if the federal government is going to allow people to protest outside justices homes than I think the bar for what is gag-worth is quite high. He shouldn't threaten anyone (I'm sure that's illegal anyways) and doxxing would be a no-no. But
please don't assert the latter but then switch to the former
because you keep talking about doxxing and threatening, things you haven't yet shown Trump to have done. I am free to have us disagree on this one though, I think for Merchan being, by your standards and maybe by his, lenient on the gag order was a free way to make himself look fairer. Meanwhile his actions in the courtroom, where the important stuff was happening, was far more one-sided. Again, pretty sure all major news media was reporting on jury selection. So to me it's a stretch to pin any juror feeling unsafe on Trump.
|
I mean, it goes into the ethics and culpability of not reining in your support base? That's ultimately the question here. It doesn't help that Trump and his inner circle have done everything to stoke the fire. He's not exactly Noel Fielding telling his fans to go harass his critics but his team is basically one step away from doing that anyway.
There's countless examples of celebraties siccing their fanbase on a critical member of the public while pretending that they have no culpability because they technically didn't tell their fans to harass or doxx their critic nor were they the people actually doing the harassment. Maybe technically legal in a lot of cases, doesn't change the fact that everyone knows what they're doing.
|
On June 01 2024 11:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2024 10:47 Introvert wrote:On June 01 2024 08:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
We'll never know if Trump would have lost the 2016 election, had he played fair, this right here is how we know this is all about politics. It's also how we know that the entire prosecution was political. There is no way this payment being tagged as a campaign expense (meaning Trump could have paid for it using donor dollars, something that I'm sure would have been objected to on the other side if it had happened) would have swayed the election. The filing deadlines for the date of the payment mean that the expense would have been made public after the 2016 election. Trump committed 34 felonies (and was indicted on many, many more), but sure, holding him accountable was entirely political. Right.
If someone thinks a court is a tad unscrupulous then simply reiterating the guilty findings of said court is unlikely to sway them. It's somewhat of a circular argument that could be employed on any political prosecution in which a guilty verdict is achieved. At face value it's not a very good argument.
Introvert made a really long post about why he thinks the case is shady, e.g. the DA campaigning on a promise to hold Trump accountable, the judge donating to an anti-trump group, the novel legal theories that were employed, the claim that the DA almost never brings any case where falsification is the only charge, etc. Do you have a response to any of that besides essentially scoffing at it?
|
Trump would have beaten the case if he had a competent defense team like John Edwards happy to help.
Its not exactly a strong case and its very easy to argue that they're going after him. Trump just literally did everything wrong that I couldn't see any way he wasn't guilty unless there was literally a paid juror who would do nothing but scream reasonable doubt like that one episode of Law and Order.
There's an easy argument that there was political motivation involved in charging Trump with these charges, since they typically never charge white collar crime like this due to the difficulty and cost of doing so. But are we going to argue that white collar crime is A-OK and people doing it shouldn't be charged if said person is a political actor and going after active polticians like this could be considered political interference?
Its not like he's the only politician to get charged for white collar crime, Robert Menendez is getting the screws tightened around his thumbs for bribery. And more of this should be happening, civil servants with this much power should have the judgement to not commit crimes and be discouraged from doing so.
Well, I guess that's what some people are literally arguing with people screaming how the average American commits four felonies a day or something stupid. As far as I know, I don't purposely try to commit tax fraud so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
