Verdict is in

[j_garcia]

The sad part is did anyone in their right mind actually think he wasn't behind the hush money?

His rabbid idiot voters believe it is all fake

 

[mtrycrafts]

The sad part is did anyone in their right mind actually think he wasn't behind the hush money?

I suspect there are a bunch who are not in their right mind.
And to clarify, it is not about the payment that is legal but what and how it was handled. No, he had to screw up his books and go after tax deduction business expense.
Yet another example how little he knows how to be honest and knows very well to be the opposite.
Where are the "lock him up" signs.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I’m not a legal expert and I don’t play one on the Internet, but I did hear one opinion on this case and I’m interested in people’s opinions. I totally believe Trump did exactly what he was accused and convicted of, but….

In NY these charges are misdemeanors unless tied to a felony. As misdemeanors they are currently outside the statute of limitations. Bragg did tie them to a felony, influencing an election. The issue I have read and I don’t understand because I’m not a legal expert, but he was never charged with felony of trying to influence an election. Based on that he could appeal and have the entire thing thrown out but again this is based only on what I have read, and I don’t know the legalities of it.

But then I would think this judge would never have allowed the case in the first place as he is so careful about appeals. So, must be acceptable.
I need to spend a few nights at the Holiday Inn.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Isn't this the Stormy case and not J6?

Yes.

 

[mtrycrafts]

All I know is he knows he steps out on his wives, his wives know he steps out on them, why bother to cover it up? Cheaper to move to France.

Then there is only one other reason this happened.

 

[mtrycrafts]

His rabbid idiot voters believe it is all fake

Who is the master magician behind all this illusion?
Did what's his name, came back for one final illusion?

Isn't there a vaccine for a rabid bite. Oh, wait, they are anti vaxxers.

 

[Swerd]

Lots of memes are already online. So far, I like this one the best.

 

[Hobbit]

His rabbid idiot voters believe it is all fake

Yes, they drank the Kool Aid.

 

[jinjuku]

His rabbid idiot voters believe it is all fake

Here is where I like a bit of nuance. There is, in many verticals, a valid reason he won the election. I think there is a large swath of people that don't feel heard and Trump was the message.

 

[j_garcia]

Here is where I like a bit of nuance. There is, in many verticals, a valid reason he won the election. I think there is a large swath of people that don't feel heard and Trump was the message.

I can see that, but it ended up hurting everyone, not just those they wanted to spite. Sometimes resorting to extreme measures can have the opposite effect.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

What. A. Joke.

 

[Trell]

Lock him up!

 

[Teetertotter?]

The Trump Cult are another people with NO COMMON SENCE. Just like the Supreme Court! Hopefully the House will be back under democrat control.

 

[jinjuku]

The Trump Cult are another people with NO COMMON SENCE. Just like the Supreme Court! Hopefully the House will be back under democrat control.

I don't get this stance on SCOTUS. SCOTUS has a good contingent of very liberal justices and even they are voting unanimously on issues. The NRA case is an example.

Then you have ACB just demolishing attorneys from the far right.

 

[Dude#1279435]

I don't get this stance on SCOTUS. SCOTUS has a good contingent of very liberal justices and even they are voting unanimously on issues. The NRA case is an example.

Then you have ACB just demolishing attorneys from the far right.

ACB?

 

[Dude#1279435]

Amy Coney Barrett. Got it.

 

[davidscott]

Lock him up!

 

[isolar8001]

 

[Mr._Clark]

The jury instructions are 55 pages, but here are a few key sections.

>>>For the crime of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree, the intent to defraud must include an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof. Under our law, although the People must prove an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof, they need not prove that the other crime was in fact committed, aided, or concealed. . . .

The People allege that the other crime the defendant intended to commit, aid, or conceal is a violation of New York Election Law section 17-152. Section 17-152 of the New York Election Law provides that any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of conspiracy to promote or prevent an election. . . . Although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were. . . .

The first of the People’s theories of “unlawful means” which I will now define for you is the Federal Election Campaign Act. Under the Federal Election Campaign Act, it is unlawful for an individual to willfully make a contribution to any candidate with respect to any election for federal office, including the office of President of the United States, which exceeds a certain limit. In 2015 and 2016, that limit was $2,700. It is also unlawful under the Federal Election Campaign Act for any corporation to willfully make a contribution of any amount to a candidate or candidate’s campaign in connection with any federal election, or for any person to cause such a corporate contribution . . .

The second of the People’s theories of “unlawful means” which I will define for you now is the falsification of other business records. Under New York law, a person is guilty of Falsifying Business Records in the Second Degree when with intent to defraud, he or she makes or causes a false entry in the business records of an enterprise. . . .

The People’s third theory of “unlawful means” which I will define for you now is a Violation of Tax Laws. Under New York State and New York City law, it is unlawful to knowingly supply or submit materially false or fraudulent information in connection with any tax return. Likewise, under federal law, it is unlawful for a person to willfully make any tax return, statement, or other document that is fraudulent or false as to any material matter, or that the person does not believe to be true and correct as to every material matter. . . .<<<(emphasis added)

Read the jury instructions in Donald Trump's New York criminal hush money trial

Read the full jury instructions in former President Donald Trump's New York criminal hush money trial.

www.yahoo.com

Trump will undoubtedly argue on appeal that the NY election law (state law) does not apply to a federal election. This was extensively litigated prior to the trial so it seems like a long shot but anything is possible (some of the language in the Trump Colorado ballot case suggests that a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court is wary of state laws that directly impact federal elections, but the NY case is a criminal case, not an election case, even though it involves state election laws).

Trump is also likely to argue on appeal that intent to commit another crime is not sufficient (i.e. Trump will argue that the prosecutor must prove that he actually committed a second crime). This also looks like a long shot:

>>>the New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, considered this issue in People v. Taveras—and found that only intent is required. In Taveras, the defendant challenged his sentence under § 175.10, along with a number of other offenses, including a charged object offense. While considering sentencing matters, the court held, “Read as a whole, it is clear that falsifying business records in the second degree is elevated to a first-degree offense on the basis of an enhanced intent requirement … not any additional actus reus element.”<<<

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/what-must-prosecutors-prove-in-trump-s-ny-trial

Bragg's legal theory is a bit convoluted, but that does not mean it's legally incorrect.

 

[Dude#1279435]

Stanford’s Robert Weisberg on the Trump Conviction in Hush-Money Case | Stanford Law School

On May 30, former president Donald Trump was found guilty by a jury in New York and convicted on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records relat

law.stanford.edu

Are you surprised by the verdict? And that Trump was found guilty on all 34 counts?

Maybe I’m a little surprised that in effect the jury was so utterly unconvinced by the arguments that the very experienced Todd Blanche was making. But to express surprise is to suggest that I made a somewhat confident prediction of a different outcome. I’m not sure anyone could’ve made a confident prediction of any outcome in this case because of its unique context. So, I guess no outcome should surprise anyone. Maybe a sound prediction would have been something like a hung jury, but only because that would average out a wide range of possible outcomes.

As for it being all 34 counts, they were just 34 acts of doing pretty much the same thing in 34 different financial entries, so maybe “all or none” is not a surprise.

Do you think the prosecution’s case was solid—and might withstand an appeal? Do you see weaknesses in the prosecution that might come out on appeal?

Of course, there will be a vigorous appeal of the three key grounds that have been mentioned. The weakest will be that the judge was so biased that he should’ve recused himself.

Slightly less weak: The Stormy Daniels testimony was full of salacious facts that were irrelevant to the case and prejudiced the jury. Blanche did object and asked for a mistrial, but the judge was satisfied that granting a few objections on some points prevented prejudice, and that in any event, the defense opened up the issue by trying to persuade the jury that Daniels’s story was false. Ironically the recent Harvey Weinstein ruling by the New York Court Appeals shows that that court is willing to overturn a verdict on a tough judgment call on prejudicial evidence. Trump’s case will be weaker.

The strongest argument is the technical one about unanimity. The jury was told it had to find that the falsification of the business records was intended to achieve an illegal goal, and it was presented with several illegal goals that would qualify including violation of federal election laws and violations of tax laws. And jurors were told that so long as they all agreed that the falsification was done for one of these purposes, they didn’t have to all agree on which one. On appeal Trump will argue that this violates the requirement of the unanimous jury or that the charge was illegally vague. But New York law clearly permits this instruction. So Trump may have the challenge of arguing that the NY law itself is unconstitutional.

What kind of sentence does this carry?

Each account is an E felony under New York law. The sentence can be just fines or probation or prison for up to 4 years. It’s up to the judge. For sure, if it’s prison, the 34 counts will be bunched into concurrent sentences.

What’s the timeline for an appeal? I understand sentencing will take place on July 11.

ln a normal case it would be months before the appeal would even begin in the intermediate appellate court in New York, and some unpredictable number of months before a decision. Even then the losing side would appeal up to the Court of Appeals—the top court, so many months or maybe we start talking about years. No way of knowing whether this will somehow get expedited.

We’ve hearing of accusations of bias. Did you think it was a fair trial?

Despite all the noise, there wasn’t anything demonstrably unfair. The jury was selected in a pretty conventional way, and the judge’s rulings were well within the conventional bounds of judicial decision making. The strongest argument of bias would be that Bragg would never have brought this case against a less famous or less controversial figure, nor would he have invested such great resources for any other defendant. That may be true, but the so-called claim of selective prosecution here is really more of a political argument than a legal one.

Does a federal conviction prevent Trump from holding public office?

This is a state conviction but nothing in the Constitution bars either a state or federal felon from running or serving.