If his supporters become violent, arrest them and put them in prison too, then charge Trump with terrorism like any one else who incites violence to achieve political power. That's what Trump is, a terrorist. And we've got plenty of laws to deal with him and his followers.
Keep doing it until we get them all.
~Jim Wright
I think there's a good chance that Trump will see some jail time if he loses on appeal. He has shown no remorse and has repeatedly ignored the court—e.g. the gag orders. Merchan AFAICT can also consider Trump's behavior before and beyond this trial.
How Trump could end up with a prison sentence following his guilty verdict in New York
âJudge Merchan tends to be harsher on white collar criminals than many other judges,â veteran defense attorney Ronald Kuby told Courthouse News.
...
Itâs all up to New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan, the Manhattan judge who presided over Trumpâs six-week criminal trial. Trumpâs specific charges were for falsifying business records, a Class E felony in New York State that carries a sentencing range of 16 months to 4 years.
Thatâs only if Merchan decides to send Trump to prison, however.
Attorney and former diplomat Norm Eisen found in an analysis that just around one in 10 people who have been convicted of falsifying business records are imprisoned â and those typically involve additional charges, Eisen wrote for The New York Times in April.
Merchan instead could sentence Trump to probation or community service, which pundits like Eisen believe is a more likely scenario.
But veteran New York defense attorney Ronald Kuby thinks many are overlooking Merchanâs history with defendants like Trump.
âJudge Merchan tends to be harsher on white collar criminals than many other judges,â Kuby told Courthouse News. âThatâs just his reputation ⦠so thatâs bad news for Trump.â
Kuby explained that Merchan, who presides over Manhattanâs mental health court every Wednesday, is known for being compassionate with his most disadvantaged of defendants.
âConversely, his reputation is that if youâre rich and powerful, you should really play by the rules,â Kuby said.
Kuby said Merchanâs decision will rely on a multitude of factors, like whether or not the former president has shown heâs capable of reforming or expressing remorse for his actions. That means his continued denial of the caseâs legitimacy â even after the verdict â could come back to bite him.
âThis is all done by Biden and his people,â Trump baselessly claimed during a press conference Friday morning.
Trumpâs financial history doesnât help matters, Kuby added. After all, the ex-president is coming off a $355 million civil fraud judgment against him that came down just months before his criminal trial began.
âYou canât exactly say heâs been a model citizen in his financial dealings until this,â Kuby said.
Retired New York judge George Grasso, who watched every day of the trial from an aisle seat in the press gallery, sees the severity of Trumpâs crimes as the biggest risk to land him behind bars.
âHeâs convicted of 34 separate counts, so itâs 34 felonies here,â Grasso told Courthouse News. âTaking that conviction on its face, this isnât just like a green glasses accounting error kind of thing, or a borderline error. This is behavior that ultimately interfered with an honest election. And theoretically ⦠this could have impacted the election. That was a very close election.â
Grasso pushed back on the potential argument that Trump committed a victimless crime.
âThe victim, you could say, is the people who voted in the United States, New Yorkers who went out and voted and thought they were participating in an honest and fair election, when you have a guy maybe diluting the impact of our votes here,â Grasso said. âSo, thatâs pretty serious in my book."
Trump has no prior criminal record, and while that's often the case with white-collar defendants, the lack of a rap sheet could help Trump avoid jail time.
Even if it doesnât, Kuby said that Trumpâs seemingly endless stamina for legal appeals, coupled with New Yorkâs bail laws, could keep him free while the appellate process plays out.
âDue to New Yorkâs bail laws, it is almost certain that Donald Trump will remain free on bail pending appeal while all of his various appeals go through various courts,â Kuby said. âThe idea that if Merchan sends him to jail, heâs going to spend the Republican National Convention behind bars is just ridiculous.â
Trump continues to deny the legitimacy of Thursday's verdict and the proceedings as a whole. He remained persistent in his attacks on Merchan on Friday, calling the judge âhighly conflicted.â But Trump has stopped short of overtly targeting the jury since the verdict, pursuant to a still-active gag order imposed by Merchan to protect the trialâs witnesses and jurors.
A Manhattan jury on Thursday found Trump guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business records. The jurors found that Trump broke the law when he manipulated documents to cover up a scheme to illegally interfere with the 2016 presidential election.
If his supporters become violent, arrest them and put them in prison too, then charge Trump with terrorism like any one else who incites violence to achieve political power. That's what Trump is, a terrorist. And we've got plenty of laws to deal with him and his followers.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jun 2, 2024 - 11:29am
For those/anyone who want/wants to get in the weeds on the questions of whether the underlying or object offense had to be proven by a reasonable doubt and whether the jurors had to agree unanimously on what was the underlying or object offense, Lawfare provided this framework analysis:
According to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a hardcore anti-Trump partisan who campaigned as such, that constituted a crime. Others disagreed. Bragg's predecessor in that office looked at the same facts and chose not to pursue a case. The federal Department of Justice looked at the same facts and chose not to pursue a case. The Federal Elections Commission looked at the possibility that these actions represented a campaign finance violation, and chose not to pursue even a civil case or a fine. But Bragg exploited his authority â usually reserved in his worldview for downgrading charges, including for violent crimes â to charge these long-ago misdemeanor-at-worst acts as felonies. Why not stick with misdemeanor charges (which are rarely prosecuted by Bragg)? Because those statutes of limitations expired in 2019. To make a case viable during this election cycle, which I believe has been the entire point from the beginning, they had to be felonies. So Bragg invented what even the New York Times acknowledged as a never-before-attempted legal theory under which the bookkeeping mis-categorizations were part of a conspiracy that involved another crime. That turned them into felonies under this strained, untested bank shot.
Ultimately, the judge in the case â who donated to his defendant's political opponent in their last election match-up â told the Manhattan jury that they could select from a menu of three options that could be considered the critical, felony-creating 'other crime.' These options were not adjudicated at trial, let alone proven. They weren't spelled out in the indictment. The defense was not able to defend against them. Attempts at educating the jury on the most likely of the options were barred by the Biden donor judge. A top expert's highly-relevant testimony was preemptively disallowed, and therefore never heard. One of the prosecutors in the courtroom joined Bragg's legal team from President Biden's Justice Department, where he'd been serving as the third highest-ranking official. He quit and became an assistant in a local DA's office, which is unheard of. This man, who was paid thousands of dollars for political consulting by the Democratic National Committee during Trump's presidency, clearly had a very specific objective in mind. Days before Trump's conviction, his electoral opponent's team held a campaign event at the courthouse. These facts â in isolation, and especially taken together â are breathtaking.
Whether one wants to call this a 'rigged' trial, or simply observe that the deck was stacked against Trump in astonishing ways, is a rhetorical matter. Smart legal minds from across the spectrum seem to agree that there are ample grounds for 'reversible error' appeals, on multiple fronts. But in some important ways, that's beside the point. The goal here, as I see it, has been to emblazon 'convicted felon' across Donald Trump's forehead prior to the election, then repeat those two words endlessly until November. If the conviction gets thrown out on appeal down the line, as is likely, so what? The charges were political, the trial was political, and the result was orchestrated to achieve a political result. This is undeniable, in my view, and is therefore deeply disturbing. This is a major abuse of the criminal justice system. As I've written previously, if a former president (and current major candidate) is to be criminally prosecuted for the first time in our nation's history, the case against him ought to be crystal clear. The legal theory underpinning said case should be well-tested and extremely familiar. The alleged violations should be grave. This unfolding scenario goes 0-for-3 on those points. A disgrace.
Guy Benson is not a Trump fan. He's never voted for him. He finds Trump to be "a volatile, capricious, myopic, petty man for as long as I've been aware of his existence." Read it all.
from what Iâve read, he committed crimes, yes. But I havenât heard a good explanation discussing the timing of the fraud⦠how something that happened in 2017, the fraudulent transactions, influenced an election in 2016?
paying someone off is not illegal.
thanks, Iâm tapping out.
It is when it is done in violation of another law. Campaign finance laws in this case. Cohen went to jail over these payments and the trump payments were reimbursements - so they were for the same purpose and violated the same laws. Jesse Jackson Jr. also went to jail for similar charges. Dinesh D'souza would have if Trump hadn't pardoned him.
The crime, conspiracy and timeline is all well laid out by the prosecution, hence the unanimous decisions. This is all pretty straightforward, what is your motive in not acknowledging it?
...reticence to simply accept the fact that he did something wrong and is being held to account appropriately is strange.
Isn't that what nearly all of this thread is about?
The insanity of the rapist "discussion" is proof that some will support a proven liar, confessed sexual predator, tax cheat, serial business failure who started with a few hundred million and has cheated and lied and bankrupted others to stay solvent... no matter what.
Nobody ever argues innocent. When I asked Kurt that below he just ignored and it moves on to defend the "non-raping" assaulter as if somehow "we've got it all wrong" because he used his fingers instead of his penis. The notion that Trump would lift a finger to save Kurt if he was drowning in front of him is laughable, yet Kurt is defending Trump from the deep state that's apparently out to get all of us.
Selfish. Greedy. Stupid. All Trump supporters have a least one of those traits. Some have more. Somehow, they believe Trump is going to fix things he never fixed the first time. The border... he stopped a bill and Kurt argues that it isn't perfect...doesn't do enough. Either he's truly stupid, or he's just arguing to avoid giving anyone but Trump credit for incremental improvement.
Trump is the first President in modern history to leave office with fewer jobs than he entered. Economic growth under Trump was the slowest since 1946. Unemployment when Trump left office was 6.3%... up 1.6%. The labor force participation rate was the lowest since 1948. He added over $8T in debt, and his tax cuts have proven to be a gift to the top 1%. There is nothing in those numbers to 'long for".
So the rebuttal... the pandemic. If you give Trump a pass for it, then any suggestion that Biden is responsible for inflation is foolish. Financially, we are in the best position of any major country in the world right now. The question isn't "Were you better off in 2019"...everyone was. The question isn't "Are prices too high"... they are everywhere.
The question is, "Given a war in Ukraine, a war in Gaza, and the supply chain disruptions of the pandemic... what would Trump have done that would have us in a better position today?" The answer is nothing. He has never given a credible suggestion about how he'd handle inflation, and his "the wars would never have happened" is a total fantasy. Trump would have given Ukraine to Putin, abandoned our allies, and driven the debt higher with more programs to support his friends. Can you imagine the "Commercial Real Estate Bailout" Trump would create to help "America" recover from the China Virus?
Accountability isn't something the MAGA world cares about.... unless you're a migrant.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jun 2, 2024 - 5:13am
black321 wrote:
100% with your last comment.
from what Iâve read, he committed crimes, yes. But I havenât heard a good explanation discussing the timing of the fraud⦠how something that happened in 2017, the fraudulent transactions, influenced an election in 2016?
paying someone off is not illegal.
thanks, Iâm tapping out.
It is all part of a scheme.
"From August 2015 to December 2017, the Defendant orchestrated a scheme with others to influence the 2016 presidential election by identifying and purchasing negative information about him to suppress its publication and benefit the Defendant's electoral prospects. In order to execute the unlawful scheme, the participants violated election laws and made and caused false entries in the business records of various entities in New York," prosecutors said in a statement of facts accompanying the charges.
You're right on the first point. Easily demonstrated by the fact that if any of us (or most other Americans) had done half the crap Trump has done, we would be locked down hard, without a release on our own recognizance to go home and chat with our lawyers over golf and overcooked steaks.
A fine might have been on the table, but Trump has never admitted to anything, so there never was a chance for a plea.
As to felony, apparently yes, because it was done in support of other crimes - election interference. This was never about his family, or it would have been done soon after the act, or at least well before 2016. But no, this happened in 2016, as part of an organized conspiracy (David Pecker, Michael Cohen, and Trump). The money was paid in 2016 (by Cohen), and inappropriately re-imbursed (eventually) by Trump by hiding it as other payments. If he had simply cut the check to Daniels this wouldn't be a case. But he did it in a way that was criminal. The DA found evidence of such, and a grand jury agreed. Another group of jurors (selected and agreed upon by Trump's team, including several who only got their news from Fox/Truth social), heard the evidence again and agreed unanimously that 34 separate illegal actions occurred.
I'm not sure if you just aren't familiar with the details (they are readily available all over the place), or you don't trust the information out there, but your reticence to simply accept the fact that he did something wrong and is being held to account appropriately is strange. As to what happens on balance in the country, we will see over time. Again, I doubt this is anything other than one more step along the road. I have hope that we will turn this around, our country has survived worse. But it is certainly damaging. And it is also dismaying - consider what we could achieve if we actually worked for a common good.
100% with your last comment.
from what Iâve read, he committed crimes, yes. But I havenât heard a good explanation discussing the timing of the fraud⦠how something that happened in 2017, the fraudulent transactions, influenced an election in 2016?
paying someone off is not illegal.
thanks, Iâm tapping out.
The bolded is what is relevant. The damage is done before the election and that is all that matters as I have maintained.
This is from the end of the article which you didn't seem to get to.
The law required Mr. Bragg to show that Mr. Trump caused a false entry in the records of âan enterprise.â Mr. Trumpâs lawyers might argue that no such enterprise was involved. The documents, they believe, belonged to Mr. Trump personally, not his company.
The second crime â the election law conspiracy â provides another possible avenue for Mr. Trumpâs lawyers. The legal theory underpinning the prosecution included not only untested law, but a complex combination of statutes, one tucked inside another like Russian nesting dolls.
This theory required Justice Merchan to provide the jury with byzantine legal instructions.
âThe more complex the jury instructions, the more likely they are to bear appellate issues,â said Nathaniel Z. Marmur, a New York appellate lawyer. âAnd these are some of the most complex instructions one could imagine.â
Long before the appeal is decided, Mr. Trumpâs political fate will have been set.
The jury instructions were 55 pages long and the judge refused to provide the jury them in writing to refer to during deliberation. The instructions included the option to select from three different "crimes" to hook up with the primary charge that would be the link necessary for the crime to be made. The instructions also said that the jury did not have to agree on which of these three alternate crimes were the ones that made the primary charge work, which required a linkage. This negated the requirement of a unanimous decision in order to reach a verdict.
Finally, the judge was a donor to Biden's 2020 campaign and his daughter is a highly placed DNC organizer and party fundraiser who would directly and personally benefit from a conviction. Yet these items have been dismissed as a conflict of interest with the judge. No one here thinks that the judge is conflicted in light of these issues. Ok.
That's it. Now we wait for the SCOTUS to weigh in on the issues before them regarding Trump.
Until then, c'ya in the neighborhood.
I'm sure Trump's lawyers will bring these matters up during their appeal.
What does Joe Tacopina think of this case? He's a lawyer who recently represented Trump:
The judge in Donald J. Trump’s case closed off many avenues of appeal, experts said, though his lawyers might challenge the novel theory at the case’s center.
The sentencing will start a 30-day clock for Mr. Trump to file a notice of appeal. That notice is just a legal stake in the ground. Mr. Trump will then have to mount the actual appeal at the New York State’s Appellate Division, First Department. The panel of appellate court judges most likely would not hear arguments until next year, and might not issue a decision until early 2026.
And that won’t necessarily be the final say. Mr. Trump or Mr. Bragg’s office could ask the New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, to review the decision.
Mr. Trump might also have a final option: the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. Trump, who already tried and failed to move the case to federal court, could try again if he were elected.
It would be a long shot. Procedurally, it is exceedingly difficult for a state defendant to reach the Supreme Court without exhausting state appeals.
“This is a garden-variety state court conviction,” Mr. Zauderer said. “I don't see a plausible path to the Supreme Court.”
The bolded is what is relevant. The damage is done before the election and that is all that matters as I have maintained.
This is from the end of the article which you didn't seem to get to.
The law required Mr. Bragg to show that Mr. Trump caused a false entry in the records of “an enterprise.” Mr. Trump’s lawyers might argue that no such enterprise was involved. The documents, they believe, belonged to Mr. Trump personally, not his company.
The second crime — the election law conspiracy — provides another possible avenue for Mr. Trump’s lawyers. The legal theory underpinning the prosecution included not only untested law, but a complex combination of statutes, one tucked inside another like Russian nesting dolls.
This theory required Justice Merchan to provide the jury with byzantine legal instructions.
“The more complex the jury instructions, the more likely they are to bear appellate issues,” said Nathaniel Z. Marmur, a New York appellate lawyer. “And these are some of the most complex instructions one could imagine.”
Long before the appeal is decided, Mr. Trump’s political fate will have been set.
The jury instructions were 55 pages long and the judge refused to provide the jury them in writing to refer to during deliberation. The instructions included the option to select from three different "crimes" to hook up with the primary charge that would be the link necessary for the crime to be made. The instructions also said that the jury did not have to agree on which of these three alternate crimes were the ones that made the primary charge work, which required a linkage. This negated the requirement of a unanimous decision in order to reach a verdict.
Finally, the judge was a donor to Biden's 2020 campaign and his daughter is a highly placed DNC organizer and party fundraiser who would directly and personally benefit from a conviction. Yet these items have been dismissed as a conflict of interest with the judge. No one here thinks that the judge is conflicted in light of these issues. Ok.
That's it. Now we wait for the SCOTUS to weigh in on the issues before them regarding Trump.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jun 1, 2024 - 7:04pm
The best part is the edited version of Trumpâs rambling press conference, starting at 4:58. Yes, it is heavily edited into bits and pieces, but the unedited version â which I watched â was not much more coherent.
34 Lowlights from Convicted Felon Donald Trumpâs Press Conference Speech
Hopefully you were busy and did not watch.
But earlier today, convicted felon Donald Trump held a press conference speech for around 35 minutes. It was incoherent. It was bizarre. It was unhinged. He took no questions.
After watching that â does anyone think this man has the capacity to lead our country?
Here are 34 highlights lowlights from Trumpâs performance:
âIf they can do this to me they can do this to anyone.â (other people typically donât allegedly pay hush money to a pornstar they had an affair with)
âIâm under a gag order, which nobodyâs ever been under.â (other people have also been under gag orders while on trial)
âThink of it, Iâm the leading candidate. Iâm leading Biden by a lot, and Iâm leading the Republicans to the point where thatâs over.â (the primary has been over for over two months)
âThis is done by Washington.â (the trial was in New York)
âIt was very unfair.â (it was not)
âI wanted to testify⦠to this day I would have liked to have testified.â (He could have testified. He chose not to)
âIâm out there and I donât mind being out there.â (He very much does mind being out there.)
âIt was a rigged trial.â (It was not.)
âAs far as the trial itself, It was very unfair.â (It was not.)
âLet me give you the good news.â (There was no good news.)
âHe wouldnât allow us to have witnesses.â (Trump teamâs had witnesses.)
âThe unselect committee of thugs.â (tbh fantastic fantasy football team name.)
âBy the way, and nothing ever happened. There was no anything.â (Do you understand this because we donât.)
âI donât feel 77.â (He looks older)
âSo itâs not hush money, itâs a non disclosure agreement totally legal. Totally common. Everyone has it.â (So he admits it)
âIt should have been a non case and everybody said it was a non case.â (?)
âYou saw what happened to some of the witnesses that were on our side, they were literally crucified by this man who looks like an angel, but heâs really a devil. He looks so nice and soft.â (Woahhh)
âOur elections are corrupt.â (No they arenât.)
âLanguages⦠we havenât even heard of.â (We have heard of these languages.)
âNobody knows where they get it .â (FEC reports)
âI could go through the books of any business person in the city and I could find things that in theory I guess letâs indict him.â (No he couldnât.)
âJonathan Turley, Andy McCarthy, Gregg Jarrett, you look at all of these people, Mark Levin, all very talented people.â (These are not talented people.)
âThere was nothing wrong. These were standard. This was standard stuff, all standard stuff, everything involved with standard, there was no crime here.â (A jury of his peers unanimously disagrees)
âEverybody says thereâs no crime here.â (A jury of his peers unanimously disagrees)
âI donât want to have it backfire. I donât know, I want to win this thing legitimately not because they were stupid and did things that they shouldnât be doing.â (huh?)
âWe have people coming from corners of the globe. And many of them are not good people.â (On this corner of the globe, we do not understand this.)
âOur kids canât have a Little League game anymore.â (kids are having Little League games, we promise)
âCrime is rampant in New York.â (Crime is down in NYC)
âLike, it was a beautiful, sunny day and it was actually raining out.â (many days during Trumpâs trial had nice weather.)
âIâm supposed to go to jail for 187 years.â (actually not true at all)
âJoe Biden, the worst president in the history of our country. Heâs the worst president in the history of our country.â (This is, in fact, you.)
âThey have beautiful tents, they have propane stoves.â (Bass Pro Shop?)
The following is a statement from Biden-Harris 2024 Spokesperson James Singer:
âAnyone who bothered to watch a diminished, incoherent, and deranged Donald Trump would come away with one conclusion: This man cannot be President of the United States.â
Iâm saying a couple things.
there is the letter of law, spirit of law, and what typically is and isnât prosecuted, or how itâs prosecuted (regardless of whatâs right and wrong). For the latter as it applies to this case, it seems unusual. I would think a matter like this would be settled with some type of fine. Iâm guessing that was never on the table.
Was Trump treated differently (and differently than past presidents would have been treated) because heâs Trump and running again? Seems thatâs an easy yes.
As your point about these types of crimes prosecuted in NY⦠theyâre quite varied. From really cooking the books, booking millions/ billions in sales that never occurred, down to something like this, which does seem minor.
The other thing, was this an actual felony? Iâm not smart enough here to answer, but from what I read the felony was tied to the 2016 election ⦠not because he paid her off, or for these fraudulent accounting transactions, which I believe are misdemeanors. So how could he have committed of a felony, tied to the 2016 election, when the transactions occurred in 2017 when he was already elected?
You're right on the first point. Easily demonstrated by the fact that if any of us (or most other Americans) had done half the crap Trump has done, we would be locked down hard, without a release on our own recognizance to go home and chat with our lawyers over golf and overcooked steaks.
A fine might have been on the table, but Trump has never admitted to anything, so there never was a chance for a plea.
As to felony, apparently yes, because it was done in support of other crimes - election interference. This was never about his family, or it would have been done soon after the act, or at least well before 2016. But no, this happened in 2016, as part of an organized conspiracy (David Pecker, Michael Cohen, and Trump). The money was paid in 2016 (by Cohen), and inappropriately re-imbursed (eventually) by Trump by hiding it as other payments. If he had simply cut the check to Daniels this wouldn't be a case. But he did it in a way that was criminal. The DA found evidence of such, and a grand jury agreed. Another group of jurors (selected and agreed upon by Trump's team, including several who only got their news from Fox/Truth social), heard the evidence again and agreed unanimously that 34 separate illegal actions occurred.
I'm not sure if you just aren't familiar with the details (they are readily available all over the place), or you don't trust the information out there, but your reticence to simply accept the fact that he did something wrong and is being held to account appropriately is strange. As to what happens on balance in the country, we will see over time. Again, I doubt this is anything other than one more step along the road. I have hope that we will turn this around, our country has survived worse. But it is certainly damaging. And it is also dismaying - consider what we could achieve if we actually worked for a common good.
The judge in Donald J. Trumpâs case closed off many avenues of appeal, experts said, though his lawyers might challenge the novel theory at the caseâs center.
But even if the former â and possibly future â president could persuade voters to ignore his conviction, the appellate courts might not be so sympathetic. Several legal experts cast doubt on his chances of success, and noted that the case could take years to snake through the courts, all but ensuring he will still be a felon when voters head to the polls in November.
And so, after a five-year investigation and a seven-week trial, Mr. Trumpâs New York legal odyssey is only beginning.
...
The former presidentâs supporters are calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene, though that is highly unlikely. In a more likely appeal to a New York court, Mr. Trump would have avenues to attack the conviction, the experts said, but far fewer than he has claimed. The experts noted that the judge whose rulings helped shape the case stripped some of the prosecutionâs most precarious arguments and evidence from the trial.
The appeal will be a referendum on the judge, Juan M. Merchan, who steered the trial through political and legal minefields even as Mr. Trump hurled invective at him and his family. Justice Merchan, a no-nonsense former prosecutor, said that he was keenly aware âand protective ofâ Mr. Trumpâs rights, including his right to âdefend himself against political attacks.â
Mark Zauderer, a veteran New York litigator who sits on a committee that screens applicants for the same court that will hear Mr. Trumpâs appeal, said that Justice Merchan avoided pitfalls that often doom convictions.
âThis case has none of the usual red flags for reversal on appeal,â Mr. Zauderer said. âThe judgeâs demeanor was flawless.â
Even if Justice Merchanâs rulings provide little fodder, Mr. Trump could challenge the foundation of the prosecutionâs case. Mr. Trumpâs lawyers note that Alvin L. Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, used a novel theory to charge Mr. Trump with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.
In New York, that crime is a misdemeanor, unless the records were faked to conceal another crime. To elevate the charges to felonies, Mr. Bragg argued that Mr. Trump had falsified the records to cover up violations of a little-known state law against conspiring to win an election by âunlawful means.â
Mr. Trumpâs conspiracy occurred during his first run for the White House. When Mr. Trump arranged to buy and bury damaging stories about his sex life, including a porn starâs story of a tryst, he was trying to influence the 2016 election, Mr. Bragg said.
In an appeal, Mr. Trumpâs lawyers are expected to argue that Mr. Bragg inappropriately stretched the state election law â a convoluted one, at that â to cover a federal campaign. And they could claim that the false records law itself does not apply to Mr. Trumpâs case.
âI certainly donât think there has been a prosecution of falsifying business records like this one,â said Barry Kamins, a retired judge and expert on criminal procedure who teaches at Brooklyn Law School. âThis is all uncharted territory, as far as an appellate issue.â
None of this criticism will surprise Mr. Bragg, a career prosecutor who has shown himself to be comfortable with innovative applications of law. Mr. Braggâs head of appeals, Steven Wu, a fast-talking, Yale-trained litigator, attended much of the trial. When the verdict was read, he was sitting in the second row, to Mr. Braggâs right.
It is now Mr. Wuâs job to ensure that Mr. Trump does not escape his conviction.
...
But now, just like every other criminal defendant in New York, the deck is stacked against him (Trump). Appeals courts typically frown upon overturning jury decisions, barring some glaring error or misconduct.
Justice Merchan will sentence Mr. Trump on July 11, just days before he attends the Republican National Convention to be anointed as the partyâs presidential nominee. The judge could sentence him to as long as to four years in prison, or impose only probation.
The sentencing will start a 30-day clock for Mr. Trump to file a notice of appeal. That notice is just a legal stake in the ground. Mr. Trump will then have to mount the actual appeal at the New York Stateâs Appellate Division, First Department. The panel of appellate court judges most likely would not hear arguments until next year, and might not issue a decision until early 2026.
And that wonât necessarily be the final say. Mr. Trump or Mr. Braggâs office could ask the New York Court of Appeals, the stateâs highest court, to review the decision.
Mr. Trump might also have a final option: the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. Trump, who already tried and failed to move the case to federal court, could try again if he were elected.
It would be a long shot. Procedurally, it is exceedingly difficult for a state defendant to reach the Supreme Court without exhausting state appeals.
âThis is a garden-variety state court conviction,â Mr. Zauderer said. âI don't see a plausible path to the Supreme Court.â
No we do not agree with Conway. You take it as a fact. I look at it as an opinion with no legal standing.
This attachment to the real matter at hand, the felony convictions, is a peripheral argument designed to add insults to the matter and are totally unrelated.
Remember, I did not make this attachment. I only called it out as a foul ball.
You are calling this a settled matter, disapproving of Trump's rights under due process to appeal. You in fact would deny his right to appeal if the decision was yours to make based on the way you present your argument. You steadfastly believe that there is no basis for an appeal as everything was done by the book as you see it.
Well, it ain't over until it's over.
But for the purpose of this trial, which is election interference, the goal has been accomplished. Even if overturned on appeal, Trump is a convicted felon prior to the election. Unlikely now that Biden will even debate Trump because he is a convicted felon. It would degrade everything for Biden to lower himself to debate a convicted felon on anything will be the reason out of debating Trump.
The appeals process will take long after the election to get done, but the desired damage has been done. It won't matter after the election as a successful appeal won't matter other to clear his name. But Trump will be kept out of office. Which is the goal. I realize that other than Beaker, of those who are posting no one else shares this view. In fact there has only been vehement defense here of this being what this is all about. The thought of this being purely political with the only goal of affecting the election (putting Trump actually in jail, not withstanding) is regarded as pure delusional fantasy by those who dare to even mention it.
AFAICT, the only significant difference between the civil decision and a criminal decision is that in the former a lower level of proof is met—a preponderance of evidence instead of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
I believe that Trump likely would have been found guilty of rape in a criminal case. You do not.
However, I believe that the majority of individuals, once informed of the facts and testimony against Trump, would consider him a rapist. I think that you are contorting yourself into knots to deny the possibility that Trump committed at the very least sexual assault.
As for Trump's conviction in the hush-money case: he was convicted of felonies. Right now he's a felon. You're right to adhere to the notion that "a man is innocent until proven guilty." Well, guess what: HE WAS FOUND GUILTY.
Yes, he has the right to appeal the conviction and if he wins, he would (I presume) no longer be a felon. But check out the NYT article I'm excerpting in my next posst.
And yes, as usual - the coverup is worse than the crime. This one was escalated because it was election interference.
I'm still not sure what you are trying to say. Is there a level of status, wealth, influence that one can achieve where the law shouldn't apply to them? Is it simply a level of X% of the country will be unhappy with the outcome, so we shouldn't prosecute?
Our country is well and f*ed right now. This is hardly the tipping point. Although I would argue continuing to let people run free with no, or minor consequences might have just as much an impact. I can't believe the overly lenient sentences handed to most J6 perps.
Iâm saying a couple things.
there is the letter of law, spirit of law, and what typically is and isnât prosecuted, or how itâs prosecuted (regardless of whatâs right and wrong). For the latter as it applies to this case, it seems unusual. I would think a matter like this would be settled with some type of fine. Iâm guessing that was never on the table.
Was Trump treated differently (and differently than past presidents would have been treated) because heâs Trump and running again? Seems thatâs an easy yes.
As your point about these types of crimes prosecuted in NY⦠theyâre quite varied. From really cooking the books, booking millions/ billions in sales that never occurred, down to something like this, which does seem minor.
The other thing, was this an actual felony? Iâm not smart enough here to answer, but from what I read the felony was tied to the 2016 election ⦠not because he paid her off, or for these fraudulent accounting transactions, which I believe are misdemeanors. So how could he have committed of a felony, tied to the 2016 election, when the transactions occurred in 2017 when he was already elected?
I think we can both agree to the term that George Conway uses to describe Donald Trump: "an adjudicated rapist."
No we do not agree with Conway. You take it as a fact. I look at it as an opinion with no legal standing.
This attachment to the real matter at hand, the felony convictions, is a peripheral argument designed to add insults to the matter and are totally unrelated.
Remember, I did not make this attachment. I only called it out as a foul ball.
kcar wrote:
The jury looked at the facts, heard the testimonies and found Trump GUILTY.
I'm sorry if you have trouble dealing with a fact-based reality where people looked at the evidence and convicted Trump of crimes. But it really, really is time to stop claiming that everything is rigged against Trump. Right now you're living in a fantasy world.
You are calling this a settled matter, disapproving of Trump's rights under due process to appeal. You in fact would deny his right to appeal if the decision was yours to make based on the way you present your argument. You steadfastly believe that there is no basis for an appeal as everything was done by the book as you see it.
Well, it ain't over until it's over.
But for the purpose of this trial, which is election interference, the goal has been accomplished. Even if overturned on appeal, Trump is a convicted felon prior to the election. Unlikely now that Biden will even debate Trump because he is a convicted felon. It would degrade everything for Biden to lower himself to debate a convicted felon on anything will be the reason out of debating Trump.
The appeals process will take long after the election to get done, but the desired damage has been done. It won't matter after the election as a successful appeal won't matter other to clear his name. But Trump will be kept out of office. Which is the goal. I realize that other than Beaker, of those who are posting no one else shares this view. In fact there has only been vehement defense here of this being what this is all about in the first place. The thought of this being purely political with the only goal of affecting the election (putting Trump actually in jail, not withstanding) is regarded as pure delusional fantasy by those who dare to even mention it.
One of the first polls conducted since a New York Jury found Donald Trump guilty of falsifying business records find that a significant minority of Republicans and Independents want him to drop out and a majority of registered voters approve of the jury's decision.
Why it matters: The Morning Consult poll conducted on Friday offers some of the first clues about how voters are reacting to the unprecedented situation.
By the numbers: 54% of registered voters "strongly" or "somewhat" approve of the guilty verdict compared to 34% who "strongly or "somewhat" disapprove.
49% of Independents and 15% of Republicans said Trump should end his campaign because of the conviction.
The polls found the race effectively tied nationally in a 1-on-1 with Biden at 45% and Trump at 44%.
Reality check: While they may agree with the guilty verdict, the poll found that more voters think Trump should get probation (49%) rather than go to prison (44%).
68% of registered voters said the punishment should be a fine.
The poll also revealed some deep distrust of the criminal justice system.
Three in four Republican voters said the verdict made them feel less confident in the system.
And 77% of GOP voters, as well as 43% of independents, said they believed the conviction was driven by motivation to damage Trump's political career.
