Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy❤
No. of Recommendations: 3
"" A disbarred, serial perjurer walks into a courtroom and asks to take an oath . . . No, seriously, this is not a joke. Michael Cohen will soon appear in a Manhattan courtroom in what is sure to be one of the most bizarre moments in legal history.
Cohen nearly comprises the prosecution’s entire case against former President Donald Trump under a criminal theory that still has many of us baffled. It is not clear what crime Trump was supposedly trying to conceal by making “hush-money” payments to former porn actress Stormy Daniels.
What is clear is that none of the witnesses called in recent weeks has had any direct involvement with Trump on the payments.""
https://jonathanturley.org/2024/05/06/a-disbarred-...
No. of Recommendations: 11
hclasvegas: It is not clear what crime Trump was supposedly trying to conceal by making “hush-money” payments to former porn actress Stormy Daniels.
Trump conspired with Michael Cohen by advancing him money (including, I believe, a tax offset round-up) and falsifying business records of the illegal contribution that also triggered a disclosure violation. In short, Trump committed felony violations of both federal and state law.
Has Turley forgotten that Cohen served federal time for his part in the crime or is he just ignoring that?
No. of Recommendations: 2
“” Has Turley forgotten that Cohen served federal time for his part in the crime or is he just ignoring that?” Good morning common, I’m not a legal scholar, like most good liberals I’ve been reading Turley and Dersh for decades. Why not ask Turley your question? If you can offer an alternative opinion from a respected legal scholar, please do , I appreciate both sides of every issue. Thanks.
No. of Recommendations: 6
...the prosecution’s entire case against former President Donald Trump under a criminal theory that still has many of us baffled. It is not clear what crime Trump was supposedly trying to conceal...
This "many of us baffled" bullsh!t is wishful thinking by those who want Trump to beat the rap by any means possible.
No. of Recommendations: 10
It is not clear what crime Trump was supposedly trying to conceal by making “hush-money” payments to former porn actress Stormy Daniels.
As is so often true, it’s not the incident, it’s the coverup of the incident.
There is nothing wrong (legally) with paying hush money to a porn star. The law that was broken when Trump tried to disguise the payment as a payment to Cohen “for legal fees”, and then use it as an expense tax deduction in his filings - and further didn’t disclose it in political disclosure requirements.
Of course Cohen is a slime, but pales in comparison to Trump himself.
No. of Recommendations: 2
...the prosecution’s entire case against former President Donald Trump under a criminal theory that still has many of us baffled. It is not clear what crime Trump was supposedly trying to conceal...
I know this is one of the themes, but I think of it as there are different types of speech. Normal speech, business speech, and political speech. (I think it's normal speech, name may be different) Political speech is highly protected, normal speech - not so much, and we regulate business speech so consumers aren't mislead and people don't place billboards in their front yards in some areas.
If you pay hush money for normal speech, not illegal. But if you are running for office, it's no longer normal speech, it's political speech, and is highly protected. So the courts have made it such that you can say more about a candidate running for office and not be subject to libel or slander, and also the protection is extended to make it more difficult to suppress political speech. This is not to be confused with normal editorial and news story choices made by newspapers, etc. - that is normal editorial and story choice. However, to enter into a conspiracy where the intent is to "catch and kill" stories that could hurt the candidate -that is suppression of political speech.
So the payment to Stormy was suppression of protected political speech, even if Stormy wanted the money instead of telling the story.
No. of Recommendations: 6
hclasvegas: Cohen nearly comprises the prosecution’s entire case against former President Donald Trump...
"Nearly" is one of those lawyerly wiggle words, right? I mean, otherwise why not just say "Cohen alone comprises the prosecution's entire case"?
Well, here's why: this morning Jeffrey McConney, the former Trump Organization controller, identified the handwritten notes -- documentary evidence -- of Allen Weisselberg, specifying the precise amounts Cohen was to be reimbursed, including the $130,000 hush money payment.
So McConney is a witness independent of Cohen plus his testimony refutes the defense's position that Cohen was working as some sort of a rogue agent.
Well, that and evidence that Cohen was asking the Trump Organization how much he was supposed to bill them (attorneys generally don't ask their clients how much they should bill them).
No. of Recommendations: 4
This "many of us baffled" bullsh!t is wishful thinking by those who want Trump to beat the rap by any means possible.
I think it's a reference to one of the criticisms that has been levied against the prosecution, mostly by conservative lawyers.
It's a crime under New York law to falsify business records, but it's only a felony if you falsify those business records for the purpose of committing or concealing another crime. The state is prosecuting this as a felony. However, they have not definitively stated what crime they believe Trump was concealing through the falsification of these records. They've informally offered several alternatives. Critics of the case are unpersuaded that any of them qualify to support the felony charge, as opposed to the misdemeanor.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Would Daniels' description of the event as a rape qualify? Though she never pressed charges.
Otherwise, that would seem to be a mistake.
No. of Recommendations: 2
However, they have not definitively stated what crime they believe Trump was concealing through the falsification of these records. They've informally offered several alternatives.Uh-oh, I was wondering about this aspect. This seems like it might actually kill this case. I sure hope Bragg has withheld his "trump" card and that we'll see it presented in crystal clarity later. But there's at least this from
https://www.factcheck.org/2023/04/whats-in-trumps-...“Why did Donald Trump repeatedly make these false statements? The evidence will show that he did so to cover up crimes relating to the 2016 election,” Bragg said.
Tying the false statements to alleged election law crimes underpins Bragg’s case to elevate the crimes to felonies.
“The participants’ scheme was illegal,” Bragg said. “The scheme violated New York election law, which makes it a crime to conspire to promote a candidacy by unlawful means. The $130,000 wire payment exceeded the federal campaign contribution cap. And the false statements in AMI’s books violated New York law. That is why Mr. Trump made false statements about his payments to Mr. Cohen.”
No. of Recommendations: 5
Would Daniels' description of the event as a rape qualify?
Almost certainly not - but that's not even one of the theories they've advanced. Here are the four potential crimes they've identified as possibilities:
1) Federal campaign finance law.
2) State election law.
3) New York tax law.
4) The records law itself.
All have problems. The first is a claim that the payment was an illegal campaign contribution (which is one of the crimes Cohen pled guilty to) - but not only was Trump never charged, it's not clear whether the state business records law can be violated with federal crimes. State election law makes it a crime to use unlawful means to get someone elected, but arguably (again) doesn't bring in federal violations that have pre-empted state law. The state tax claim is tough, because what Trump did was overpay Cohen so he could book the Daniels payment as income and pay tax on it - it's not clear whether overstating your income and paying too much tax is a crime under NYS tax law. And the last is pretty suspect, that if you falsify business records to conceal that you've falsified business records you've gone from the ordinary misdemeanor to the felony.
Reasonable minds can differ. Vance supposedly didn't prosecute Trump in part because he was unconvinced that any of the above arguments would stick.
No. of Recommendations: 1
They've informally offered several alternatives. Critics of the case are unpersuaded that any of them qualify to support the felony charge, as opposed to the misdemeanor.
I'll bite, at what point do they have to specify? I would think that point would have already passed, but obviously not.
No. of Recommendations: 6
I'll bite, at what point do they have to specify? I would think that point would have already passed, but obviously not.Pretty soon - closing arguments at the latest. At some point, they have to convince the jury that the records were falsified for the purpose of concealing or a furthering another crime - so they have to tell the jury what they think that crime was.
They don't have to tell
Trump which of the various crimes they plan to argue to the jury. We know that it's going to be one of those four, because when DJT moved to dismiss the charges, those were the ones that the State argued could support the claims. Three of them were accepted by the judge as legally sufficient to meet the requirements of the statute (he ruled against the one where the "object crime" was the business records statute itself).
They're certainly going to argue the elections law claims - they alluded to them in their opening statements. We don't know whether they'll bother with the tax law claim - if the prosecution doesn't introduce evidence on that point (which would likely come during the Michael Cohen direct if they do), they obviously won't argue it on close.
A nice summary can be found here:
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/charting-the-...
No. of Recommendations: 6
"I sure hope Bragg has withheld his "trump" card and that we'll see it presented in crystal clarity later."Jay Kuo addressed this in his April 29th substack article.
https://statuskuo.substack.com/p/the-conspiracys-t..."I’ll walk through why I believe the evidence will take us around all four bases to allow prosecutors to score a legal home run, if you’ll pardon the baseball analogy...
The pitch: Falsifying business records is a felony if done to conceal a crime
First base: Misdemeanor falsification of business records
Second base: “Catch and Kill” was a conspiracy
Third base: The conspiracy deployed unlawful means
Bringing it home: Trump helped falsify documents with the intent to aid or conceal the conspiracy.-sano- baseball fan. Hey..we got Ohtani!
No. of Recommendations: 3
It's a crime under New York law to falsify business records, but it's only a felony if you falsify those business records for the purpose of committing or concealing another crime. The state is prosecuting this as a felony. However, they have not definitively stated what crime they believe Trump was concealing through the falsification of these records. - albaby
--------------
How can a trial get underway without that specific element of the charge being clearly stated.? It is like being prosecuted for tax evasion but without stating what exactly you did to evade your taxes.
"We will start your trial and see where it leads" sounds unconstitutional to me.
No. of Recommendations: 13
How can a trial get underway without that specific element of the charge being clearly stated.? It is like being prosecuted for tax evasion but without stating what exactly you did to evade your taxes.
"We will start your trial and see where it leads" sounds unconstitutional to me.
Nah. The prosecution has to disclose many things. They have to disclose their witnesses, they have to disclose all their evidence. They have to disclose any exculpatory evidence they've uncovered, even though they aren't going to use it. They have to make all those people and things available to the defense for examination and deposition.
But it's not like they have to let the defense have access to their legal theories, or their list of questions for the witnesses, or their strategies (nor vice versa). As a prosecutor, I don't have to let the defense see my opening statement ahead of the trial. I don't have to tell you my arguments in advance.
Though after pre-trial motions, there's not going to be any surprises. The prosecution only has to tell you the charges and provide you with the evidence, it's true - but if the alleged criminality isn't obvious from those materials, it will get hashed out in pre-trial motions. You will go to the judge and say, "I didn't commit tax evasion" - and if it's not obvious from the indictment how you committed tax evasion, the government will have to tell the judge why the evidence supports the charge. Or the judge will dismiss the charges.
That's what happened here. The defense went to the judge and said there's no crime here, and the prosecution had to respond. The only remaining ambiguity results from the fact that the prosecution has multiple crimes that they allege Trump's actions were in furtherance of. Trump's team knows what all the possibilities are. The judge has already held legal hearings on all of them (and ruled three of the four are valid "object crimes" under the statute). Critics of the prosecution like to characterize their disagreement over these theories as puzzlement over the prosecution's strategy, but that's no longer really the case. We know that the prosecutions possible object crimes are. The defense doesn't know which of those crimes the prosecution might decide to argue to the jury. It could be any one of them, or it could be all three. The prosecution doesn't have to tell them in advance. They don't even have to decide in advance - they can make a judgment call the day of testimony not to ask Michael Cohen about his taxes. And that's not unconstitutional.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Pretty soon - closing arguments at the latest.
Well, here's hoping he can walk the jury through that. :) This makes it much more interesting.
