I don't know the details of the arguments at trial. But if Trump had Cohen pay her off before the election as part of election interference and to maintain hands off until after the election, then it is still election interference, correct? Even if the actual transfer of money and illegal bookkeeping happened after.
from what i can gather ...the payoff wasn't illegal, but the funding (Cohen) and accounting for the payoff was illegal...and regardless of the timing, was (somehow) tied to election interference.
Cohen was found guilty of making an illegal "campaign contribution" in the form of the payment. Then Trump went to reimburse Cohen in 2017, but the accounting was fraudulent...so I suppose the timing is irrelevant.
Trumps "felony" conviction seems pretty wishy washy, and apparently relied on a complex interplay of laws that really were never tested before.
Not sure if the latter means anything?
I find the whole case rather interesting... as it seems to be the most benign of all trumps cases, yet I will bet this is the only one he is found guilty of. Kinda like a gangster convicted of mail fraud. Also bet he will win in Nov....for me that's like betting against my NY Rangers, who just lost the eastern conference
Yes, but the whole thing isn't hard to grasp. Cohen paid Daniels (campaign finance violations/election interference) at the behest of trump and Pecker (conspiracy). Trump repaid Cohen (same crimes), but tried to hide what the payments were for (misdemeanor falsifying business records, but escalated to felony because it was done in commission of another crime(s)). This has been through several sets of jurors and grand jurors, and everyone of those has found the evidence compelling.
... Yeah, the pandemic. You chose to ignore the pre pandemic economy. ...
You pivot on everything, which is nothing new.
Trump may not be a rapist by definition, but he's a sexual predator at best. Keep defending him... it says more about you than him.
As for the border. Trump did nothing, and you pretzel yourself into some sort of "well a 5,000 limit in the law is worse than no limit without a law" logic. OK. The proposal over the winter was written by Republicans, supported by Republicans, and killed because Trump was more worried about a political win than immigration. If he wins, he could always do more... he's got an amazing plan for that I'm sure.
As for the economy, he inherited everything in his pre-pandemic economy from Obama. His tax plan has proven to be a money-grab for the wealthy, and any "success" in Trump's numbers needs to be balanced with the over $8 Trillion deficit he created in 4 years. That means he "borrowed" $6k per person, per year, for the 4 years he was in office. You don't need to worry about that...you'll be dead before it's paid... but paying you isn't "saving America" or "Making it Great Again"... it's typical Trump using others' money to get rich, now we just need to wait for the bankruptcy (his preferred exit from businesses).
You talk about the "pre-pandemic" like we should ignore it so we can return to Trump's amazing economic opportunity, but that's just silly. The pandemic happened, and because he was so tragically incapable of managing anything during that year, he lost to a feeble, slow, generally well-meaning if not often overly effective Biden. Now, you want to blame inflation on Biden, when it's hard to imagine anyone overseeing a better result from the past 4 years. The benefit to Trump is that he wasn't around to increase all of the errors he made in 2020. Take the ERC program...which has proven to be overrun with fraud. All of that cash was spent after Trump left office. Blame Bidenomics... it happened during his Presidency. That position is somewhere between dishonest and just plain stupid. Which are you?
Every conversation with you is a series of cherry-picked data points, carefully curated by Fox News and the right to defend a lying, grifting, narcissistic predator. He's not speaking for you...he's playing you. Fox is using you. They are using your frustration to advance themselves, and in turn, have corrupted an entire party who are afraid of you. They ignore facts and reality out of self-preservation... because that's what you respond to. Watch any Trump rally interview... and after you get past the anger, none of the responses are based on fact or logic... it's all emotion. You may think you're being considerate, but you're not. You're being played. You're the 30% of Brits who still think Brexit was a good idea.
If you want to see the divide, Ted Koppel, the guy from the National Park Service, and I have no idea why you can't see the facts. You're on the wrong side of history. You aren't saving anything, you just feel better about yourself for being part of a group, regardless of how lost or clueless that group is.
Anyway, Ms Carroll is not naive nor the picture of innocence as you seem to insist that she is. I see it as a case of someone trying to cash in on the "me, too" movement and nothing else. And did she. Trump paid her a lot of money. Serious life changing money.
Trump hasn't paid Carroll anything yet - he's going to appeal the verdicts. Per Grok:
"As of the latest information available, Donald Trump has taken steps to address the judgment awarded to E. Jean Carroll. In March 2024, Trump secured a $91.6 million bond to cover the money he owes to E. Jean Carroll in a defamation lawsuit while he appeals the jury's verdict. This bond was posted to ensure that Carroll can collect the judgment if it remains intact following appeals. The bond was approved by a federal judge, insulating Trump from any effort to collect the judgment while he appeals the verdict."
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.
Yeah, go Dr Ruth. How about some pictures ? Your fascination with the methods is very disturbing. I don't care if it was his fingers, his penis or a cigar. It's all the same to me.
What I said about the Carroll matter is that it is a "she said, he said" thing. Nothing was proven. The time it happened was even vague on her own recollection. Carroll is a known player in the rich and famous circles and has even been quoted as saying that rape is sexy. According to her, she invited Trump into a dressing room in a lingerie section of a very upscale department store. Sounds like some kinda deal like the Mile High Club. Another fantasy to check off the list. Maybe it didn't quite go the way she wanted it to. Like, not enough foreplay ? Pissed her off. Anyway, Ms Carroll is not naive nor the picture of innocence as you seem to insist that she is. I see it as a case of someone trying to cash in on the "me, too" movement and nothing else. And did she. Trump paid her a lot of money. Serious life changing money. Not enough in your view ? You want more out of him ? It is between Trump and Carroll, you are not part of the equation other than another gawker rubber necking as the rich and famous do their Gatsby thing. You're just jealous of that world.
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.
Yep, The border bill. Bad, bad law. It would have codified into law the legal admission of 5,000 illegal crossings per day. There was a HB 2 sent to the Senate pretty much in the beginning that never even got a look see. A much more comprehensive solution. Rather than pass another bad law on top of so many bad laws already not being enforced., waiting for a better solution makes the most sense. Biden can undo everything he did to Trump's actions and restore control immediately without Congress acting. He chose's not to. What make you so sure he will enforce new laws ?
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.
Yeah, the pandemic. You chose to ignore the pre pandemic economy. The first three years of his term. He accomplished the lowest overall unemployment rate in decades and the lowest ever for all minorities that are tracked. A constantly rising labor participation number. There was real wage growth for the lower classes for the first time in decades. The % wage growth for them exceeded the upper classes. A direct result of his tax cuts. and other fiscal policies. Yet you use the pandemic numbers exclusively to judge his accomplishments. If anything the pandemic is just as worthy for an asterisk as is the use of steroids in baseball. You do finances for a living, right ? I wouldn't trust you to balance my checkbook.
I interpreted Black's idea as being that the actual payment to Cohen by Trump didn't take place until after the election so that the illegal payments couldn't elevate the crimes to felonies. If not, I'm not sure what they're on about.
Yes, but the whole thing isn't hard to grasp. Cohen paid Daniels (campaign finance violations/election interference) at the behest of trump and Pecker (conspiracy). Trump repaid Cohen (same crimes), but tried to hide what the payments were for (misdemeanor falsifying business records, but escalated to felony because it was done in commission of another crime(s)). This has been through several sets of jurors and grand jurors, and everyone of those has found the evidence compelling.
It's the same crime. Cohen already went to jail. Remember unindicted co-conspirator #1?
I interpreted Black's idea as being that the actual payment to Cohen by Trump didn't take place until after the election so that the illegal payments couldn't elevate the crimes to felonies. If not, I'm not sure what they're on about.
I don't know the details of the arguments at trial. But if Trump had Cohen pay her off before the election as part of election interference and to maintain hands off until after the election, then it is still election interference, correct? Even if the actual transfer of money and illegal bookkeeping happened after.
It's the same crime. Cohen already went to jail. Remember unindicted co-conspirator #1?
NBC guest host Peter Alexander pushed back against Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) after he suggested Donald Trump's conviction in a New York hush money trial was rigged.
Alexander began the Sunday interview on Meet the Press by correcting Cotton.
"So let me just clarify a couple things for our audience right now," Alexander said. "As you know well, this was a state case. Donald Trump was indicted by a grand jury in New York. He was convicted by a jury of 12 New Yorkers beyond a reasonable doubt."
"They didn't seek this responsibility," the host added. "Joe Biden, as you know, had nothing to do with this case, senator. In fact, the Manhattan DA's investigation, this case began in 2018 when Joe Biden wasn't even the party's, the Democratic Party's presidential nominee."
Cotton, however, insisted, "The jury got it wrong."
"Again, you had a judge who is literally a donor to Joe Biden's campaign in 2020 so he could stop Donald Trump," the senator continued. "He should have never been presiding over this case. He introduced evidence that was highly, highly inflammatory and prejudicial. He didn't allow President Trump to put on certain evidence and witnesses."
Alexander deflated Cotton's talking point.
"You're talking about the judge, Juan Merchan," the host pointed out. "He did give $20 to Democrats, gave $15 to Joe Biden in 2020. But the appeals court, Senator, affirmed his decision to stay on the case."
"And as it relates to the rules, the instructions, Trump's lawyers passed on the opportunity to argue that the charges should be considered misdemeanors in the jury instructions," he noted.
I don't know the details of the arguments at trial. But if Trump had Cohen pay her off before the election as part of election interference and to maintain hands off until after the election, then it is still election interference, correct? Even if the actual transfer of money and illegal bookkeeping happened after.
The story broke in 2018, when The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump's former attorney Michael Cohen paid US $130,000 to Daniels for her silence during the 2016 Trump campaign.
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.
I don't know the details of the arguments at trial. But if Trump had Cohen pay her off before the election as part of election interference and to maintain hands off until after the election, then it is still election interference, correct? Even if the actual transfer of money and illegal bookkeeping happened after.
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.
