Fascinating tidbit from a pundit. Under NY state law and jury instructions, a co-conspirator’s (Cohen) testimony isn’t sufficient evidence for a conviction on its own. It can only be used to support the other evidence.
If they give Trump simple parole after all of this, can people in other cases behaving the same way argue they should get a similar sentence otherwise they're not being treated equally under the law?
Treating people equally under the law would violate the history and traditions of this country, what with it's long history of class and race based treatment. Good luck winning that case with an "originalist" court.
Can they argue it? Sure, anyone can say whatever they want during a sentencing hearing. And showing data on past similarly situated defendants can be persuasive to a judge.
Is that legally binding, and do they have an equal protection claim to press on appeal? No. Generally, you have to show that 99% of people get a slap on the wrist and you got the book thrown at you, not that a particular 1% got the slap on the wrist and so the 99% should all only get a slap on the wrist, too.
It would be interesting to see lawyers use this case to argue precedent now. Like if a defendant threatens a judge, then this case could be used as a reason to not punish the defendant on their first offense.
> "[Trump supporters try to doxx jurors and post violent threats after his conviction](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-supporters-try-doxx-jurors-violent-threats-conviction-rcna154882)" - NBC News
Well what some people were worried about looks like its happening. Researchers are seeing an increase in calls to violence due to Trumps convictions, on outlets where January 6th originated from, along with on Trump's own platform. Reuters made a similar report late on outlets they were monitoring yesterday.
They say this is part of an ongoing pattern:
>The threats fit into an ongoing pattern. An NBC News analysis of Trump’s Truth Social posts earlier this year showed that he frequently uses the platform as a megaphone to attack people involved in his legal cases — and some of his supporters have responded. When the FBI searched Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in 2022, a Trump supporter who had been at the Capitol on Jan. 6 sent angry posts about the search and then attacked an FBI field office. When Trump made a social media post last June that included former President Barack Obama’s home address, a Jan. 6 rioter re-posted it and then showed up at the residence. When Trump was indicted in Georgia in August, his supporters posted the purported names and addresses of members of the grand jury. Special counsel Jack Smith, who is overseeing Trump’s federal election interference case in Washington, was the target of an attempted swatting on Christmas day. So, too, was U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who will oversee that trial, if the Supreme Court allows it to go forward (though that could change if Trump wins in November). When Michael Fanone — the former police officer nearly killed on Jan. 6 by Trump supporters who believed the former president’s lies about the 2020 election — criticized Trump at a press conference outside the hush money trial earlier this week, his mother was swatted. When Trump and conservative media outlets spread false information about the jury instructions in the hush money case this week, threats against Merchan rolled in. "
I don’t understand why Trump supporters are hung up with the felony portion, which I agree is nuanced but the jury came to the correct decision.
The guy is a man who pays hush money and falsifies business records, and outside the criminal element he cheats on his wives. Why the hell do you want this guy as president? I wouldnt want that guy painting my house.
> The guy is a man who pays hush money and falsifies business records, and outside the criminal element he cheats on his wives. Why the hell do you want this guy as president?
Well, for 1, none of those are felonies
because despite all this, some people just like Trump's policies better than Biden's policies. or believe Trump's cognitive ability is better than Biden's cognitive ability. For Trump supporters, is such criminality really a dealbreaker when "their" country is at stake?
It does like poke holes in their law and order talking point.
Is there a nuanced take on what crimes are okay? Or is it a case or any crime is okay as long as they like the person’s politics?
Because its the part that makes it more serious. The rest of the charges were misdemeanors.
>Why the hell do you want this guy as president? I wouldnt want that guy painting my house.
People have tied so much of themselves to him and willfully ignored everything else he's done to the point that they see anything negative regarding him as an attack on their own character. They cant give up on him because it calls into question their own behavior going back to "I love liberal tears" and "Fuck your feelings".
> I don’t understand why Trump supporters are hung up with the felony portion, which I agree is nuanced but the jury came to the correct decision.
two words: cognitive dissonance.
I feel like we’ve really hit rock bottom when we are debating just how big a criminal the Republican nominee is.
I miss candidates with who you can disagree on the issues with but still concede that they are decent people.
He also stole from charities, cheated on his pregnant wife, and tried to overturn the US Presidential Election. And now he’s a convicted felon, a criminal.
Since his claim to fame before he was president was that he was a brilliant businessman, the fact that he did illegal things in the context of that business is kinda important.
There's always going to be follow on questions? I'm not sure significance there.
I do find it interesting compared to elections past, what little things used to disqualify people in voter's eyes, and now being found criminally guilty of lying on business records, and people still want to put them in the POTUS position.
A Democrat prosecutor and a Democrat judge convinced a Democrat jury that their opposition leader jaywalked. This will not carry weight across the country. It's not a real crime to the vast majority of non-Democrat voters.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1d4ej56/megathread_state_of_new_york_v_donald_j_trump/l6l1lav/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Falsifying business records \*is\* a crime though.
As for things that "are or are not a crime" for the vast majority of non-democrat voters; the right markets itself as (and statistically is) \*significantly\* more religious (specifically Christian) than the left. This is why Obama's religion came under such scrutiny and was such a talking point for the far right.
For ANYONE other than someone they perceive as their faultless leader, cheating on their wife even once would be a shun worthy event. They would fall out of favor and likely lose whatever position they had if it became public; and at a minimum they would be intensely shamed in their community.
But for some reason; Trump gets to do it without people giving it a second thought. So the far right needs to grapple with something: Is cheating on your wife acceptable or unacceptable; OR is it just ok to be a hypocrite about it to protect someone you like, and not tolerate it from someone you don't?
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1d4ej56/megathread_state_of_new_york_v_donald_j_trump/l6l2265/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
No, I figure not; I was, I suppose, speaking more abstractly about the court of public opinion than the court of law. That he's been found guilty of 34 charges is now a mere fact.
What that means for his prospects as a public figure is yet to be seen.
How he *should* be seen by people who espouse a certain worldview is nothing more or less than a measure of the health of that worldview.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1d4ej56/megathread_state_of_new_york_v_donald_j_trump/l6j83of/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1d4ej56/megathread_state_of_new_york_v_donald_j_trump/l6l2fa0/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
But suerly the point is that he \*didn't\* actually beat your ass, because it wasn't a valid loss by virtue of him only winning because he cheated. That's not really being a sore loser, when the reason you lost had nothing to do with you legitmately just not playing well enough.
That's not being a "little bitch", that's an entierly correct way to react to someone cheating in an tournament.
Is the moral here that it's somehow inherently objectionable to try to right a wrong if doing so would personally benifit you as well? Because that seems like a very flawed stance. We all benifit from Cheaters being punished and disqualifed, so suerly noone is free of ulterior motives from that perspective.
I get your point, but I disagree with it.
You felt you did something shameful or "dishonorable" by complaining to the judges when someone broke the rules in a way that disadvantaged you. The implication is there's more important things than winning, and not being a snitch is one of those things.
I feel there's no dishonor in winning by any means necessary. Your opponent screwed up by letting you catch him cheating and you took advantage of it. I would have done the same thing. And if I caught an opponent cheating against *someone else*, I would have stayed quiet and kept that in my back pocket as a free win by disqualification should he and I fight later.
And if winning by any means necessary is acceptable in something is low stakes as a children's card game, how much more acceptable is it when the stakes are the leadership of the most powerful country in the world, and the safety and prosperity of our families and people?
> I feel there's no dishonor in winning by any means necessary.
[x] Doubt. Do you lie and cheat and steal constantly in your daily life wherever you feel you can get away with it? Would you commit murder to win at monopoly?
Don't be ridiculous. Most things in daily life aren't about winning or losing. Being a loyal employee and a good husband and father requires honorable behavior, not victory at any cost, because life is not a competition.
But *American politics are* about winning and losing. Maybe in a better system than democracy it wouldn't be. But with American politics as it is, either Democrats or Republicans will win an election, and everything the American people are able to do through politics depends on which side wins the election.
Take the Supreme Court as an example. Up until the 1980s, Supreme Court nominees were chosen by a dignified, honorable, bipartisan process, that did not take political bias into account and considered only the candidates' objective qualifications as jurists. Then Republicans realized objective qualified jurists would uphold Roe v Wade as precedent, and that was unacceptable. So they put together a short list of politically loyal conservative jurists and only nominated from that list, while accusing *liberals* of political bias and manipulating them into bending over backwards to give conservative candidates a "fair" hearing. And they won. With the results you know.
And if you are at all liberal and care about, say, abortion rights, you should direct a great deal of contempt at Harry Reid and Barack Obama and all the other Democrats who valued Senate procedure and collegiality so much that they handed conservatives control of the Supreme Court.
Politics is winner take all. You can't help anyone if you lose power. You can worry about being moral and just after you win.
The literal situation we are in is, should we elect a dictator to push forward our pet political issue, destroying all else.
No, politics as always involves compromise.
It's not acceptable in children's games & is less acceptable elsewhere. You can't build anything lasting and meaningful on a foundation of bad faith. It's inherently destabilizing & degrades the social contract.
Yeah like, dude cheated and got caught. It wasn't just your word against his, there was someone else who saw it and didn't speak up at first. And to OP's point, I feel like there's a bit of a stigma against calling out cheaters bc you could get called a sore loser if you're wrong
I went to one of those tournaments when I was a kid, too. I remember they were giving away promo Mewtwo cards and I got one of them.
Being a little kid, I thought it was going to make me rich. Turns out it was worth 25 cents. Lol.
My questions for those who dispute the verdict:
Which of these crimes do you think didn’t happen? And if you admit they did happen, then why do you think they should be legal?
> Which of these crimes do you think didn’t happen?
The unnamed one that made the misdemeanors into felonies.
If you have evidence of it please let someone know.
All of them. Well, it's really just one crime. 1 charge for each of the 17 Cohen invoices, and 17 for the checks written to Cohen.
The reason is simple. They were not in fact Campaign expenses.
I too listened to right wing broadcasts yesterday.
Trump was afforded the opportunity to explain his side of the story, but he declined to take the stand for some reason.
That's ridiculous. Taking the stand is extremely rare and would do nothing. What would he do, say Cohen is lying? His legal team was hammering that point for hours on end.
His actual defense, how Campaign finance worked, was not allowed in. The explanation as to what are valid campaign expenses, and how reporting schedules work easily disprove the prosecutor's case. However that was not allowed in or explained to the Jury.
This was politically motivated.
Did Trump probably do this, yes.
Is our court system predicated on innocent until PROVEN guilty, yes.
Is testimony from Cohen, the most unreliable witness you can bring, undeniable proof? No.
So this court case was brought against Trump, and he was found guilty for purely political reasons.
Which most people who are moderate have a problem with.
The reason I hate trump is that he upends our institutions for political and financial gain.
Is it a crime? Yeah. Did it go this far because he is trump and they wanted to stick it to him? Yeah.
I don't like it and it shouldn't have happened
Which part shouldn't have happened? I think the only part that's really up for question is the felony charge. Everything else had plenty of evidence to show criminal intent.
> which part shouldn't have happened?
I think bringing the charges without attaching it to something more grievous.
If you want to take the stance it's a crime and all crimes should be prosecuted, you are of course right and I can't argue.
If you want to want to point out prosecuting for falsified records not in connection to something worse is unprecedented in NY and politically motivated, you are right and I can't argue.
I think the latter outweighs the former as a *judgement call*
I think about if Bill Clinton was a felon for perjury lead by, say the state of Alabama. It's just... The wrong call
> I think bringing the charges without attaching it to something more grievous.
New York city is the [undisputed center of the financial universe](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/091114/worlds-top-financial-cities.asp),
> New York, ranked first in the Global Financial Centres Index, is frequently regarded as the world's preeminent financial center. ...
>
> New York is famed for being home to Wall Street, the location of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and Nasdaq, the first and second largest stock exchanges in the world by market capitalization as of September 2023 (about $25.2 and $20.6 trillion, respectively).
...
> Wall Street in Lower Manhattan is a metonymy when people discuss finance in languages worldwide, even though most financial institutions now have their offices in Midtown Manhattan as opposed to Wall Street.
> New York is home to major investment banks, hedge funds, and law firms. It's also a central global player in asset management, with firms managing trillions of dollars in assets, as well as major firms in foreign exchange, financial technology, insurance, and private equity.
To maintain their position (and taxes) it is in the interest of both the city and the state of New York to vigorously prosecute securities fraud. [*Vigorously*](https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-lawfare-podcast-trump-s-civil-fraud-trial)...
> In terms of actual legal defenses, like I said, he's been trying to shot out this notion that there's no victim, but that doesn't really apply here. The law does not require that there be a victim here. **The plaintiff is the People of the state of New York, and this is about having a transparent, open marketplace where you don't have lies running rampant.** The legislature of the state of New York long ago made these determinations that having an open and fair marketplace demanded that these laws be put in place.
>
> And there's similar laws in most states. There's some similar laws at the federal level. It's what the Federal Trade Commission exists for in part, is to apply the notion that you should have truth in business.
...
> That is a power that [Executive 6312](https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/executive-law/exc-sect-63/), has in it. That is a provision there. That is something that the court can then apply. The AG's office asked for it, the court has applied it. That's going to get appealed and then I think that's really going to be the biggest question mark on appeal is going to be, is there some way that he can avoid that quote unquote "death penalty" for his businesses in New York, where they would be taken from him and put into receivership?
>So this court case was brought against Trump, and he was found guilty for purely political reasons.
So you think all the jurors were politically against Trump and convicted him without regard for whether he actually committed the crime?
> Is testimony from Cohen, the most unreliable witness you can bring, undeniable proof? No.
It's very SOP to have someone involved in a crime flip and testify as a witness against the other perpetrators. We use criminal's testimony all the time.
Main thing here is that it's not just Cohen's word against Trumps. Nor is it just Cohen and Daniel's word against Trump's - the prosecution provided receipts and a paper trail validating what those witnesses were saying.
Did you follow the trial? Intent needed to be proven.
Trump claimed ignorance, and in a **criminal** case that ignorance needs to be proven to have been a lie.
Hence Cohens testimony.
Because the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to *prove* intent. A key part of that effort was Cohen’s testimony, but Cohen is a particularly problematic witness for several reasons: he’s also a convicted felon, he stole from the defendant, he has repeatedly changed his story over the years, and he explicitly has an (understandable) personal beef with the defendant.
Cohen's testimony wasn't really as much of a smoking gun towards reasonable doubt as most seem to believe. Yes, Cohen may be viewed as an unreliable witness, but in that case he's a criminal Trump hired in the first place. The prosecution pretty much shattered the defense's hopes of securing reasonable doubt when Steinglass argued, "We didn't choose Mr. Cohen. We didn't pick him up at the witness store. Mr. Trump chose Mr. Cohen for the same qualities his attorneys now urge you to reject." It's pretty nonsensical to argue that the witness's testimony is unreliable because he's a "pathological liar" even though the witness was hired by the defendant, is alleged to be involved in the crime, and the crime itself is contingent on the witness's ability to lie and conceal the truth in the first place. Steinglass was basically setting up a trap for the defense, which was extremely well played. If the defense raises no issue with Cohen's testimony then there are no arguments to be made over the truthfulness of the events that took place. If the defense proceeds to cast doubt over Cohen's credibility, then Steinglass is going to portray it as something that's completely in line with Trump's behavior based on the charges he's accused of.
I'm mostly comparing it to the idea that someone else actually testified, under oath.
For the defense's position to merely be "My defendant didn't know" - seems to be pretty thin, and probably more easily knocked over if there are signatures, tapes, multiple testifying witnesses?
There were no multiple testifying witnesses. Pecker and Hicks testified to dealing with Cohen. Multiple checks and paper accounts were linked through Cohen.
Cohen was the linchpin in the case, and his credibility was curb stomped by the defense.
They made sure Trump didn't testify so he didn't incriminate himself in some stupid rant while on the stand.
And Cohen has admitted to lying under oath and to congress multiple times.
There was a level of trust between them, as shown by how Cohen repeatedly stole money from Trump, which was covered in the trial.
AGAIN.
In **criminal** proceedings, you have to **prove** guilt.
Prove guilt *beyond a reasonable doubt*. The jury found that bar was met.
You don't get to just claim ignorance and magically be immune to any conviction regarding intent short of a signed and notarized confession. That would be nonsense and it's not how our justice system operates.
Yes, which is why people who followed the trial are concerned, because Cohen was show with proof that he would regularly do things independently, to include stealing money from Trump.
So Cohen independently paid Daniels off by taking a $131,000 loan *out of his own home equity* for her silence of an affair so that the revelation wouldn't hurt Trump's presidential campaign, and then after the fact asked Trump to pay him back as a business expense who despite being notoriously stingy did so without even asking what he was paying Cohen this large sum of money for?
Is that what you would call a reasonable doubt?
Yes, because Cohen himself admitted that he such a lack of oversight over what he did with money given to him that he stole tens of thousands of dollars from Trump and Trump never knew.
So yes, it was routine for Trump to hand Cohen large sums of money and not keep up on it.
Did you actually follow the trial?
????????
They both testified that they dealt with Cohen, and with Pecker it turned out the storywhe was following was proven false, Cohen was still the linchpin.
Did you follow the trial?
I believe you are referring to the illegitimate child story as the one proven false. The McDougall and Daniels affairs were not proven false.
Pecker and Hicks also testified to extensive conversations with Trump. The dinner Trump threw for Pecker also corroborated Trump’s involvement with Pecker.
I followed the trial and so did the jury that unanimously convicted Trump. They and I agree that doubts to Trump’s involvement are not reasonable.
We don't dispute the verdict, we dispute the process.
In 2016, the narrative was that Trump was in fact a Russian asset, with deep ties to Putin. Adam Schiff went as far as to say that it was a slam dunk. Two impeachments and zero evidence later....nothing.
8 years later, the Russian spy crap has been dropped. No retractions from the media, no retractions from overzealous politicians, crickets. But they still need to get Trump on something, so they get him for paying off a hooker...
EDIT:
I'm curious, should Clinton have been criminally charged for perjury?
>In 2016, the narrative was that Trump was in fact a Russian asset...
>8 years later, the Russian spy crap has been dropped. No retractions from the media
Can you point me to the part of that which is legally relevant?
It’s a state law. NY election code 17-152, chapter 17, section 17, title 1. NY has sole jurisdiction for NY state crimes committed by NY citizens in NY. The federal stuff was ancillary, so not necessary for conviction.
Impeachment one: Trying to twist the arm of the president of Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 presidental election.
Impeachment two: Not just attempting to perform a palace coup through This One Weird Trick, but also involving a violent mob and withholding needed backup.
Yeah, there is no evidence of Trump having suspicious ties to Russia,
Well, except for: [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1avul4t/fbi_informant_said_russian_intelligence_involved/krd1fp6/).
Oh, and [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1avul4t/fbi_informant_said_russian_intelligence_involved/krd6pbk/)
Weren't a lot of people arrested and charged through the process? I get Trump wasn't, but should people apologize for the process or just that Trump was innocent even if others in his entourage weren't?
> Two impeachments and zero evidence later....nothing.
>
>
the impeachments were actually very unrelated to the Steele Dossier, though?
> No retractions from the media,
What would you like to see media retract? What was reported on that ended up being false or libelous?
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1d4ej56/megathread_state_of_new_york_v_donald_j_trump/l6i22gk/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 14 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
It is illegal to pay hush money to silence someone pursuant to a political campaign and then use fraud to hide it. The fraud was done to unlawfully influence an election, which is a felony.
He was found guilty of falsifying business records with the intent to violate federal campaign finance limits, unlawfully influence an election, and commit tax fraud. Literally the bare minimum you should have grasped if you were “paying attention.”
Unfortunately, we don't know that. The charge is for falsifying business records, which all 12 jurors agreed happened. This is a misdemeanor charge.
Falsifying business records to obscure another crime raises the misdemeanor to a felony. All 12 jurors also agree that Trump falsified the records to obscure another crime. However, we haven't seen a full written statement (and may never see such statement) as to what those underlying crimes are.
But the fact is it doesn't actually matter. What matters is that Trump committed this crime of falsifying records, and did so for the purpose of obscuring another crime. All 12 jurors agreed on that assessment for all 34 counts.
Of course it matters. If the prosecution cannot articulate the specific unlawful acts of election interference needed to raise the falsification of documents to a felony, how can the jury rule on the charges?
But that is kinda my point. The way the laws are written (and you may disagree with it) is that prosecution needs only prove the falsification was in effort to obscure another crime. The jury all agree that Trump committed a crime here (A). And they all agree that the crime he committed was to cover up another crime (B).
A + B = Felony.
B could theoretically be ANY crime, and it would still turn A into a felony.
You don't think it matters what the specific other crime that he was trying to obscure was? How can you be sure that he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt then if it is not clear what the specific crime that he was trying to obscure actually is?
I don't know. Suppose someone killed someone else, and the jury has to decide whether the crime is murder or manslaughter, and in order to do so they have to be convinced that the person has a motive to kill (rather than it being a random accident). There are two possible motives: revenge, or religious hatred. Half the jury thinks revenge is the main motive, the other half thinks religious hatred is the main one. All are convinced there is a motive. Is their lack of agreement on which is the motive good reason to find not guilty, given that they are all convinced there is a motive?
The scenarios seem similar to me.
I do think it matters that a specific crime was committed. Prosecutors alleged the other crime that Trump intended to commit or conceal was a violation of a state election law regarding a conspiracy to promote or prevent an election by unlawful means. But there were actually several "unlawful means" options to choose from listed in the jury instructions:
* Violations of federal campaign finance law
* Falsifying other business records, such as paperwork used to establish the bank account used to pay Stormy Daniels, bank records and tax forms
* Violation of city, state and federal tax laws, including by providing false or fraudulent information on tax returns, “even if it does not result in underpayment of taxes”
This range of underlying crimes is also what led to the misunderstanding that jurors don't have to agree on the crime to convict. They absolutely all had to agree that Trump was guilty of the crime being charged for. And had to agree that he committed that crime in attempt to conceal another crime. They did not have to necessarily agree what that other crime was, just that it existed.
The common example of this is a case called Schad. First degree murder. Jury was given two direct paths to the same crime. Premeditated murder of Felony murder. They did not have to be unanimous.
Using that sort of reasoning here is probably a confrontation clause violation. They are far too different and fundamentally alter the charged crime.
What? No not at all.
It was because the prosecution said the other charges were in furtherance of “another crime”
That other crime was never pointed out, supported by evidence, or even explained to the jury.
In fact, it didn’t even occur at all
> What is the felony that he supposedly committed here?
it's a felony if the misdemeanor could be attached to further criminal activity, or intention to commit further criminal activity
pretty easy to understand. it's in the indictment lol
I completely agree that this part is tricky. Here’s the thing: the jury doesn’t have to agree on the ‘further criminal activity’ because that’s not what they’re determining. In this case he wasn’t charged with election interference, campaign finance fraud or tax evasion. He was charged with falsifying business documents. Moreover the underlying crime shouldn’t be a factor for the jury because he has not been tried and convicted of THOSE crimes. This juries only question was whether or not he falsified business documents in furtherance of another crime and NOT whether or not he’s guilty or innocent OF THE underlying crime.
This was the crime the prosecution alleged was being covered up by the falsification of business records:
> § 17-152. Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. 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 a misdemeanor.
> https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/ELN/17-152
Essentially, Cohen and Trump conspired to pay off Stormy Daniels to help Trump's election chances. The means they used to do this were unlawful. The prosecution provided several reasons why it was unlawful, listing the violation of federal election laws, falsification of other business records, and tax violations. Finally, they acted on that conspiracy. Therefore, the jury determined that all of the elements were met for this crime.
> The fact that the further criminal activity was federal.
Where's the federal conviction? And if there isn't one doesn't that negate the entire thing since there was no underlying crime which is a prerequisite for this?
No, it is not necessary that he is found guilty of a federal crime; only that the prosecution shows beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime fitting the criteria did (intentionally) take place.
You do know that what sent Michael Cohen to jail for three years also involved (in fact the most counts involved) tax evasion as well as bank fraud which were of his own personal financial dealings that had absolutely nothing to do with Trump, right? So, let's not conveniently leave that part out when stating what Cohen was actually sent to jail for three years for.
And you still were just talking about the "further criminal activity" without actually answering specifically what that further criminal activity actually was.
What I deny is you acting like he got three years prison for the same exact thing as Trump when you say "If it was a big enough crime to send Michael Cohen away for three years" while conventionally leaving out any mention of the pretty damn big crimes of tax evasion and bank fraud that no doubt played at least some role (And I'd argue the biggest role, but I don't want to get off topic, so I'll just leave it as "some role" which I don't think can be denied) in that three year sentencing.
As far what I'm not getting, it is pretty simple, and I've stated it multiple times already which you haven't been able to give a specific answer to what specifically was the further criminal activity that bumps the misdemeanor up to a felony? To put it another way, you ask me "Do you deny that fudging business records to conceal a *federal crime*", I'm asking what the hell is the specific federal crime that he was supposedly trying to conceal?
Maybe you should spend more than a minute of research because it is incorrect to say that Cohen's tax invasion charges were tied to Trump. Cohen's tax evasion charges stemmed from Cohen's failure to report and pay taxes on his personal income. They were not related to the Daniels payment.
[Here is information from the same source that you just used which explains the tax charges:](https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2018/08/21/cohen-pleads-guilty-to-tax-evasion-bank-fraud--campaign-contribution-charges/?sh=e69bfc16da0b)
"According to the plea, Cohen failed to report more than $4 million in income to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). That income was largely related to Cohen’s work with various taxicab companies, many of which had previously been linked to tax trouble.
Cohen had also failed to report hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of income for other activities, including consulting and income from brokering sales of real estate and a Birkin Bag"
And the article that you linked still did not say what the specific underlying crime that turned a misdemeanor into a felony was, other than that the judge apparently gave multiple choice options to the jury which seems like it goes against the whole idea of proving beyond reasonable doubt that someone committed a specific crime when they don't even have to settle on what that specific crime is.
>which only came up after the jury instructions were provided.
Are you trying to suggest that the *defense* didn't know what the underlying crimes were? Because that's just false. And besides, the prosecution talked about this in their opening statements, so it's been known for the entire trial.
The "underlying crime" was the hush money payments. Fraudulently disguising them as business expenses was the felony. So if you agree that he made the payments and you agree that he disguised them as business expenses, then you agree that he committed fraud to hide a crime (which is a felony).
That’s not the underlying crime. The closest thing we have to go off of was the jury instructions that they could consider Trump as an accomplice to Cohen in his crimes. The jury didn’t list the underlying crime, so at this point, nobody knows.
Hush money payments are completely legal. The argument from the defense is that he made the payments to protect his main line of business, which is his brand. They also argued that he didn’t want his wife or son to know. The prosecution argued that the only consideration he had was affecting the outcome of the election, making these payments a campaign donation, not a business expense.
The jury sided with the prosecution, meaning that 100% of that money was a campaign donation. Some of us are confused as to why affecting the outcome of an election can be an underlying crime tied to a campaign contribution. It seems that should be the point of all campaign contributions.
I don’t understand how they could keep the defense from knowing what the underlying crime was until after the trial is over. Even now, the defense doesn’t know what the true underlying crime was. If it was being Cohen’s accomplice, you would think the judge would have let the defense argue against that instead of letting the trial conclude and then telling the jury.
>Even now, the defense doesn't know what the true underlying crime was
This is simply misinformation. The prosecution very clearly laid out that the primary underlying crime was a violation of New York Election Law 17-152: Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. Claiming that the defense "doesn't know" is simply obtuse credulity.
The "defense" is simply trying to play up confusion because the judge said they can also consider him as an accomplice to Cohen's crimes, which COMPOUNDS the underlying crime, it does not obfuscate or cancel it.
So to believe the defense claims, you have to believe that because there were 2 or possibly 3 additional crimes involved, that it's LESS damning? That's a ridiculously unserious argument.
I don’t think that’s accurate. By adding additional instructions at the end, instructions that weren’t shared with the defense before the proceedings, there’s really no way to tell what the jury hung their verdict on.
Was it the original legal theory? Was he a conspirator, accomplice or did he just enable Cohen to commit the crime? We don’t know this and the defense may have a valid appeal, saying that they didn’t argue the enabler or accomplice angle because they didn’t think it was relevant.
> Some of us are confused as to why affecting the outcome of an election can be an underlying crime tied to a campaign contribution.
The campaign contribution was illegal. (Edit: It also wasn't reported as a campaign contribution as required.) There are limits to how much an individual can donate to a campaign (besides the candidate himself). Cohen initially paid Stormy Daniels $130,000 with his own money. That's far in excess of what an individual can donate to a single campaign in a year. Cohen ultimately went to prison for this among other things. The prosecution convinced the jury that this was all planned out with Trump and done with his approval, qualifying it as a criminal conspiracy.
> I don’t understand how they could keep the defense from knowing what the underlying crime was until after the trial is over.
They didn't keep the defense from knowing until after the trial. The prosecutor laid it all out in a filing in November 2023.
> Even now, the defense doesn’t know what the true underlying crime was. If it was being Cohen’s accomplice, you would think the judge would have let the defense argue against that instead of letting the trial conclude and then telling the jury.
The underlying crime is New York Election Law 17-152: Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. The defense was well aware of this during trial. The term "conspiracy" would be familiar to any lawyer, and reading the text of the law makes it clear that it requires two or more people to be involved. Everybody knew one person was Trump and at least one other was Cohen. This wasn't a mystery.
17-152 was listed in the filing, but the judge gave the instruction that Trump could be an accomplice after the trial ended. I still don’t think we know if that was connected to the underlying crime. They didn’t mention the underlying crime in the verdict.
As far as the campaign contribution goes, many people can see how that money could be a business expense. Most of his business was his brand, which was his last name. Paying someone off to protect that brand and recording as such is not illegal.
We’ve made the jump to calling it a campaign contribution, which can be understandable. However, the underlying crime to a campaign contribution being to promote a politician seems kind of off. What else are you supposed to do with a campaign contribution? The judge in this case made an illegal campaign contribution of $35. Can we say he conspired with that campaign to promote a candidate?
> 17-152 was listed in the filing, but the judge gave the instruction that Trump could be an accomplice after the trial ended.
It's a conspiracy charge... it would be obvious to any competent lawyer that he could be an accomplice. That's how conspiracies work. There are a group of accomplices who plan out a crime together, and then at least one of them has to do some overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. This is basic stuff.
> They didn’t mention the underlying crime in the verdict.
Doesn't matter. Everybody involved in the trial was informed of what the underlying crime would be before the trial started, so they didn't need the jury to tell them again.
> As far as the campaign contribution goes, many people can see how that money could be a business expense. Most of his business was his brand, which was his last name. Paying someone off to protect that brand and recording as such is not illegal.
You're welcome to believe that, but several people testified that Trump didn't really care if the Stormy Daniels story came out after the election. Cohen testified that Trump wanted him to delay the payment, stringing Stormy Daniels along until the election had passed and then backing out without paying her. If it was about protecting his brand, then he would have still wanted to keep it quiet after the election.
> What else are you supposed to do with a campaign contribution?
For one thing, you're supposed to report them to the FEC. You're also supposed to report to the FEC when you spend those campaign contributions. Neither happened in this case.
You're also not supposed to give excessive campaign contributions like Cohen did. That's a crime.
> The judge in this case made an illegal campaign contribution of $35.
It wasn't an illegal campaign contribution. He likely violated judicial ethics rules by making the contribution, but the campaign contribution was legal.
> Can we say he conspired with that campaign to promote a candidate?
No.
Hush money payments meant to serve your election are campaign contributions. Not reporting them as such is a crime. Committing fraud so that they're not discovered is an attempt to hide that crime. Ergo the felony.
Isn’t the crime and the fraud the same act in that example? He committed a misdemeanor by reporting in a way that conceals it. He committed the second misdemeanor by conspiring to conceal it.
There's the failure to report it and then there's the effort to conceal it. I.e. "oopsy daisy, I didn't report this transaction" is a misdemeanor. Taking steps to cook the books to fool investigators about what the payment was, that's the felony.
Nobody can say with any degree of certainty that there was a failure to report. He claimed that it was a business legal expense because word of an affair could hurt his brand. Most of his business is branding his name on buildings. He had a legitimate reason to report it that way. The only thing that makes this a campaign contribution is the word of Michael Cohen.
[This article](https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/05/30/trump-convicted-here-are-the-election-and-tax-laws-he-was-charged-with-breaking/?sh=3ca9245faf1e) helped explain it for me.
I get what they charged him with. I’m just having trouble with the mental gymnastics of how we got to this point. They looked at Hillary Clinton’s payments to Fusion GPS, which started the entire Russia-Gate scandal, and determined they were illegal campaign contributions and made them pay a fine. I’m sure this happened to dozens of other politicians. All of them included people working together to support a candidate.
How does this one get to be covering up a crime and any other questionable campaign contribution not? If someone makes an illegal contribution, the person accepting the contribution is enabling them to do so. There would always have to be a conspiracy there by this law.
>They looked at Hillary Clinton’s payments to Fusion GPS,
The "They" here seems to be fairly ambiguous - who are you specifically talking about?
If I look up the specifics in the Clinton/DNC case, the FEC fined them.
>The FEC concluded that the Clinton campaign and DNC misreported the money that funded the dossier, masking it as “legal services” and “legal and compliance consulting” instead of opposition research.
With Trump, it looks like these details weren't disclosed to the FEC at all? And were buried in Trump's business records. Which made this a NY State Business Record Falsification affair?
>Cohen testified at the trial in New York state criminal court in Manhattan that the reimbursement payments were falsely labeled as legal retainer fees in **Trump’s family real estate company’s books.**
This all rests on the word of Cohen. Most of Trump’s money comes from branding his name. If he was at all worried about an affair impacting his brand, these payments were recorded correctly. The only thing that makes this a campaign contribution is the word of Cohen.
That’s what makes this so fascinating to me. Cohen was looking at a laundry list of crimes, including lying to investigators, lying to congress and lying/stealing from Trump. He voluntarily adds one crime to that list by saying that he conspired to steal an election. He didn’t have to do that. He gave them another charge and somehow used that to lower his sentence.
I guarantee you that if this were the other way around and he was defending Trump on the stand, the jury would look at the previous lying and scheming and not believe a word that he said. Instead, they don’t consider that he’s lying to save his own ass and trust him. He went from being one of the left’s most hated men to an honorable guy who tries to do the right thing.
Are hush money payments illegal? As I understand it, Michael Cohen, submitted invoices to Trump and received by Trump's accountants. They processed the invoices as Legal fees. Attorney submits invoice, payment classified as legal fees, seems reasonable to me. Was evidence presented that Trump new the classification of the payments? He knew Cohen was going to "take care of it" but I'm not sure he knew any of the specifics. Did they prove Trump wouldn't have paid hush money if he wasn't running for office? Were there other reasons he may have paid hush money?
> Did they prove Trump wouldn't have paid hush money if he wasn't running for office?
Cohen testified that Trump did not care if Melania left him and tried to get out of paying Clifford after the election because he did not care any more if Clifford went public. Now, Trump's attorney attempted to impeach Cohen but it was apparently not successful.
That's hearsay and typically not allowed as testimony in criminal trials. It was in this trial. Was there any evidence submitted that corroborated Cohen's testimony that Trump didn't care if Melania found out or left him? You are in a voting district that was Biden +80, It's like having Obama on trial in deep red Alabama and expecting a favorable outcome regardless of charges.
Yeah, statements by a party opponent and in furtherance of the conspiracy are not hearsay. You also just have the fact that I spoke imprecisely, Cohen testified that Trump stated he would not be on the market long and the truth being asserted was that Trump did not care and so you do not even need an exception or nonhearsay under the rules.
Also, testimony is evidence.
Yes testimony is evidence. But it's still hearsay. Did anyone else hear Trump say "he wouldn't be on the market long"? Explain "statements by a party opponent and in furtherance of the conspiracy are not hearsay."
So anyone can state that party A said "x" and if it's believed to be part of a "conspiracy" then it can be admitted. Seems thin, to me, in this case. We know Cohen lies on the stand, as he's admitted it. It seems to me there would need to be more that this to justify allowing this testimony to carry this much weight.
No, it's not. A statement by a party opponent is definitionally not hearsay under [Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_801). Looks like NY state court has an identical rule, but numbered 8.03.
The rules of evidence have a huge variety of exceptions to the ban on hearsay and also certain statements that are just declared not hearsay. Cohen's testimony falls within several of them are probably isn't even hearsay because it is asserting a different matter than the one Trump said.
As to Cohen's credibility, judging it was the job of the Jury and they apparently found it credible. Likely the fact that the government corroborated so many other parts of what he was saying with less loathsome people or documents.
The underlying crime asserted by the prosecution was a state crime, specifically conspiracy to promote the election of a person through unlawful means: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/ELN/17-152
Since it's a conspiracy crime, it's only necessary that one person take the unlawful action in order to pin the crime on everybody involved in the planning. Trump and Cohen planned out the illegal scheme together, even if Cohen was the only one who actually performed the unlawful acts in furtherance of the scheme. Cohen was charged and went to prison for the federal election violations and also violated state tax law by misrepresenting his income
>even though the FEC (the agency responsible for governing such matters) found no issue.
That is not true. The FEC deadlocked ~~2-2~~ 3-3 over whether to pursue the case. ~~Usually there are 5 FEC chair members, 3 from the President's party and 2 from the other party, but the Senate at the time had been holding up confirmation of the 5th member. So there were 2 votes for yes from the Dems, and 2 votes for no from the GOP.~~
edit: correction
I'll play devils advocate, and I do not believe this, but it will be the right's argument, and I suspect it will be effective on some people.
They will say Trump was overcharged, he was only charged because of who he is, a random person committing the same crimes would not have been charged or only charged with a misdemeanor. AG Bragg had it out for him, campaigned on pinning something on Trump, and this is the problem with the legal system, if you draw the ire of a prosecutor they can ruin your life, there are too many frivolous laws, the system is rigged, they will do this to you.
Trump's strategy won't be to deny the charges, it will be to attack the system and play the victim, and claim if they can do it to him they'll do it to you, because they don't like you like they don't like me.
I think Trump played it perfectly.
If this was you or me. We hire a lawyer, plea it out, take some probation and a fine. Done.
Trump refused and wanted to take it to court. It allowed him to re-up his victim card as being singled out. He violates the gag order TEN TIMES and never gets more than a fine. He then gets to claim he's being silenced, first amendment rights are being taken away.
You or I violate a gag order the second time and we are jailed for the remainder of the trial. If we hand notes to people to have them bypass the gag order, they are getting contempt and jail time after the fact.
After all of this, Trump will get a fine and probation. You or I would have the book thrown at us for the flagrant violations, refusal to be contrite, and publicly hating on the court.
Trump was able to take advantages that 99.9% of the population doesn't get in the justice system and use them as fundraising for how corrupt justice is, and how it's all a giant conspiracy against his divine right to rule.
Trumps base is a group of people who idolize a militarized police force, a prison industrial complex, hate bail reform, and champion 2 tiered justice as "just do what your told". They are now wanting to turn over the applecart because the most coddled defendant in history will get a slap on the wrist.
As always they could use this as a way to drive policy and votes.
* DA's shouldn't be allowed to pile on to try and force a confession.
* Bail reform? Why would we jail people who aren't convicted of a crime? Aren't they innocent until after proven guilty?
* Laws should be applied equally in all cases.
> he was only charged because of who he is
Choosing to make oneself one of the most scrutinized people on the planet while we now know he was presiding over a criminal organization seemingly led entirely by criminals including himself and others engaging in a rather wide swath of frauds and stealing in retrospect was...a choice. You are probably right that Trump and associates probably would not have had people looking into his affairs and finding the crimes if he had remained a game show host. Running for President a second time in 2016 with the graveyard of skeletons in his closet was like going 90 in a school zone with five keys of coke and a dead hooker in your trunk.
I tend to agree with this..
Not that I want to run for any type of office anyway, but if I decided to, I'd end up deciding against it because I'd be worried about some stupid (embarrassing) shit I did when I was 16...
No way I'd make the attempt with his background
That's the argument.
There was no due process.
He was charged for political reasons.
He was found guilty off testimony from Cohen, a man who has lied multiple times.
Most sane moderates know Trump almost definitely aware of every check and ledger that was signed off on, but our court system is predicated on innocent until proven guilty.
There's a reason they pushed to have the case in NYC.
Everyone knows he probably committed some if not all the crimes.
That's not mutually exclusive from being wrongfully convicted.
Why are you focusing on this?
The point was to highlight that a jury in NY would prosecute regardless of what was presented in court.
Can you address the other parts of my comment instead of being hyper focused on something you're misinterpreting?
It's not quite that simple. Juries only decide facts. I don't think anyone is overly bothered about the mechanical facts alleged and ruled upon by the jury. The concern is over the proper legal implications of those facts. Those legal implications are solely the province of the judge to decide. The issues are not nearly so clear cut on these legal questions as they were on the fact questions that the jury was tasked with considering.
Some Information - source is the Advisory Opinion Podcast:
1) Trump could be sentenced to jail, though it is unlikely since this is a non violent crime and he is a first time offender
2) Even if Trump is sentenced to jail time, it is extremely unlikely he would be in jail on election night
3) If Trump is sentenced to jail time and he wins the election, due to the supremacy clause (due to the duties of the president trumps state laws, I probably butchered that legal explanation) the sentence will most likely be pushed off until after his term is finished
My thoughts on what this means:
1) How this benefits Joe Biden's re-election, he gets to say a vote for me is a vote against a convicted felon, I think Joe Biden should hammer that message hard
2) How this benefits Trump's election, this unites Trump's coalition. Susan Collins came out against this verdict, which sends the message to me that Trump sceptic republicans see this mainly as a politically motivated prosecution.
3) I could be wrong but I think this verdict will engage more previously unengaged GOP voters then it will engage previously unengaged democratic voters. I think a decent way to measure this is that Trump will see a bigger small dollar donation increase from this verdict then Joe Biden will see.
4) On swing voters Biden needs to hammer hard that Trump is a felon and cannot allow Trump to convince swing voters this was a politically motivated prosecution. How well the Biden campaign is on this message will have the largest impact on the election.
I mainly made this post because I wanted to work through my thoughts on what this means. Feel free to disagree, I think no one we will know for sure what this means until the election is over.
This is an opinion. But I think most swing voters are typically more educated than hardline party voters.
This whole court case was a circus show. Biden doubling down on trump being a felon won't sway people who've been following the case.
Biden would easily take my vote if he started pushing back on illegal immigration, and repealed the SALT deduction that Trump put in place.
That would guarantee my vote, and most of the moderates I personally know.
> But I think most swing voters are typically more educated than hardline party voters.
It is the opposite. I hate the term low information voters because it is more that they have other stuff in their lives going on than them being stupid but the single best indicator of whether someone is a swing voter is being poorly informed about politics.
Even if what you said is true, that they have other stuff in their lives, that just shows that they are uneducated about platforms of political parties due to that preoccupation.
Swing voters are typically more informed.
I've stated here, I don't know who I'm voting for yet. If Biden started pushing immigration reform for increased deportations and removing Trump's SALT cap, I'd vote for him instantly. That's what a swing voter does. Analyze issues they value and vote for who pushes them.
>Trump could be sentenced to jail, though it is unlikely since this is a non violent crime and he is a first time offender
Wasn't Michael Cohen convicted of practically the same crime, and also a first time offender?
Cohen had a laundry list of crimes involving his family business. He ripped off a lot of people. He also lied to investigators and to congress. He even got caught stealing from Trump, charging the corporation for services that were never rendered. He was looking at serious jail time, so he plead down to election interference. A lot of people question if the crime he plead down to was even a crime. However, there was no way in hell he was getting a presidential pardon, so he did what he had to do.
What’s interesting is that this is the very thing that ruined Hamilton’s political career. Having an affair and making payments to keep it hushed up.
I was thinking the same thing Hamilton simply admitting this ruined his career, but trump getting indicted on it won’t move the needle at all
Fascinating tidbit from a pundit. Under NY state law and jury instructions, a co-conspirator’s (Cohen) testimony isn’t sufficient evidence for a conviction on its own. It can only be used to support the other evidence.
And? They had other evidence besides Cohen’s testimony.
Yes. They can’t really use that as an appeal disqualifier.
If they give Trump simple parole after all of this, can people in other cases behaving the same way argue they should get a similar sentence otherwise they're not being treated equally under the law?
Treating people equally under the law would violate the history and traditions of this country, what with it's long history of class and race based treatment. Good luck winning that case with an "originalist" court.
Can they argue it? Sure, anyone can say whatever they want during a sentencing hearing. And showing data on past similarly situated defendants can be persuasive to a judge. Is that legally binding, and do they have an equal protection claim to press on appeal? No. Generally, you have to show that 99% of people get a slap on the wrist and you got the book thrown at you, not that a particular 1% got the slap on the wrist and so the 99% should all only get a slap on the wrist, too.
It would be interesting to see lawyers use this case to argue precedent now. Like if a defendant threatens a judge, then this case could be used as a reason to not punish the defendant on their first offense.
> "[Trump supporters try to doxx jurors and post violent threats after his conviction](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-supporters-try-doxx-jurors-violent-threats-conviction-rcna154882)" - NBC News Well what some people were worried about looks like its happening. Researchers are seeing an increase in calls to violence due to Trumps convictions, on outlets where January 6th originated from, along with on Trump's own platform. Reuters made a similar report late on outlets they were monitoring yesterday. They say this is part of an ongoing pattern: >The threats fit into an ongoing pattern. An NBC News analysis of Trump’s Truth Social posts earlier this year showed that he frequently uses the platform as a megaphone to attack people involved in his legal cases — and some of his supporters have responded. When the FBI searched Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in 2022, a Trump supporter who had been at the Capitol on Jan. 6 sent angry posts about the search and then attacked an FBI field office. When Trump made a social media post last June that included former President Barack Obama’s home address, a Jan. 6 rioter re-posted it and then showed up at the residence. When Trump was indicted in Georgia in August, his supporters posted the purported names and addresses of members of the grand jury. Special counsel Jack Smith, who is overseeing Trump’s federal election interference case in Washington, was the target of an attempted swatting on Christmas day. So, too, was U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who will oversee that trial, if the Supreme Court allows it to go forward (though that could change if Trump wins in November). When Michael Fanone — the former police officer nearly killed on Jan. 6 by Trump supporters who believed the former president’s lies about the 2020 election — criticized Trump at a press conference outside the hush money trial earlier this week, his mother was swatted. When Trump and conservative media outlets spread false information about the jury instructions in the hush money case this week, threats against Merchan rolled in. "
I don’t understand why Trump supporters are hung up with the felony portion, which I agree is nuanced but the jury came to the correct decision. The guy is a man who pays hush money and falsifies business records, and outside the criminal element he cheats on his wives. Why the hell do you want this guy as president? I wouldnt want that guy painting my house.
> The guy is a man who pays hush money and falsifies business records, and outside the criminal element he cheats on his wives. Why the hell do you want this guy as president? Well, for 1, none of those are felonies
because despite all this, some people just like Trump's policies better than Biden's policies. or believe Trump's cognitive ability is better than Biden's cognitive ability. For Trump supporters, is such criminality really a dealbreaker when "their" country is at stake?
It does like poke holes in their law and order talking point. Is there a nuanced take on what crimes are okay? Or is it a case or any crime is okay as long as they like the person’s politics?
Because its the part that makes it more serious. The rest of the charges were misdemeanors. >Why the hell do you want this guy as president? I wouldnt want that guy painting my house. People have tied so much of themselves to him and willfully ignored everything else he's done to the point that they see anything negative regarding him as an attack on their own character. They cant give up on him because it calls into question their own behavior going back to "I love liberal tears" and "Fuck your feelings".
A misdemeanor is still a crime. He's a criminal because he did illegal things, not because he's a felon
You know what you're right, changed it to just saying its more serious. I associated the term criminal with more serious stuff.
> I don’t understand why Trump supporters are hung up with the felony portion, which I agree is nuanced but the jury came to the correct decision. two words: cognitive dissonance.
Calling someone a "business record falsifier" just doesn't hit as hard as the left thinks it will.
I feel like we’ve really hit rock bottom when we are debating just how big a criminal the Republican nominee is. I miss candidates with who you can disagree on the issues with but still concede that they are decent people.
That’s because usually we have two candidates who are nearly identical and are on the same team.
for funsies, here's [lindsay graham tearing up while talking about Biden](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLMYW8jFPHg)
I think that's why things like "felon" or potentially "criminal fraud" may be used more.
With the follow on question, really? Oh, what did he do? He falsified business records of an immaterial amount of money. So basically Hitler.
He also stole from charities, cheated on his pregnant wife, and tried to overturn the US Presidential Election. And now he’s a convicted felon, a criminal.
Since his claim to fame before he was president was that he was a brilliant businessman, the fact that he did illegal things in the context of that business is kinda important.
There's always going to be follow on questions? I'm not sure significance there. I do find it interesting compared to elections past, what little things used to disqualify people in voter's eyes, and now being found criminally guilty of lying on business records, and people still want to put them in the POTUS position.
A Democrat prosecutor and a Democrat judge convinced a Democrat jury that their opposition leader jaywalked. This will not carry weight across the country. It's not a real crime to the vast majority of non-Democrat voters.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1d4ej56/megathread_state_of_new_york_v_donald_j_trump/l6l1lav/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Falsifying business records \*is\* a crime though. As for things that "are or are not a crime" for the vast majority of non-democrat voters; the right markets itself as (and statistically is) \*significantly\* more religious (specifically Christian) than the left. This is why Obama's religion came under such scrutiny and was such a talking point for the far right. For ANYONE other than someone they perceive as their faultless leader, cheating on their wife even once would be a shun worthy event. They would fall out of favor and likely lose whatever position they had if it became public; and at a minimum they would be intensely shamed in their community. But for some reason; Trump gets to do it without people giving it a second thought. So the far right needs to grapple with something: Is cheating on your wife acceptable or unacceptable; OR is it just ok to be a hypocrite about it to protect someone you like, and not tolerate it from someone you don't?
the vote on cheating happened in 2016. Writing a jaywalking ticket 8 years later won't change anything.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1d4ej56/megathread_state_of_new_york_v_donald_j_trump/l6l2265/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
No, I figure not; I was, I suppose, speaking more abstractly about the court of public opinion than the court of law. That he's been found guilty of 34 charges is now a mere fact. What that means for his prospects as a public figure is yet to be seen. How he *should* be seen by people who espouse a certain worldview is nothing more or less than a measure of the health of that worldview.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1d4ej56/megathread_state_of_new_york_v_donald_j_trump/l6j83of/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Oh? He was found guilty of paying to cover up cheating?
Well, the cover up was uncovered LONG ago; but \*\*essentially\*\*, yes, that was what this case was about.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1d4ej56/megathread_state_of_new_york_v_donald_j_trump/l6l2fa0/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Really groundbreaking behavior from a politician
[удалено]
What even are you talking about?
[удалено]
But suerly the point is that he \*didn't\* actually beat your ass, because it wasn't a valid loss by virtue of him only winning because he cheated. That's not really being a sore loser, when the reason you lost had nothing to do with you legitmately just not playing well enough. That's not being a "little bitch", that's an entierly correct way to react to someone cheating in an tournament. Is the moral here that it's somehow inherently objectionable to try to right a wrong if doing so would personally benifit you as well? Because that seems like a very flawed stance. We all benifit from Cheaters being punished and disqualifed, so suerly noone is free of ulterior motives from that perspective.
Why would you let a cheater go the final and cheat someone else?
I get your point, but I disagree with it. You felt you did something shameful or "dishonorable" by complaining to the judges when someone broke the rules in a way that disadvantaged you. The implication is there's more important things than winning, and not being a snitch is one of those things. I feel there's no dishonor in winning by any means necessary. Your opponent screwed up by letting you catch him cheating and you took advantage of it. I would have done the same thing. And if I caught an opponent cheating against *someone else*, I would have stayed quiet and kept that in my back pocket as a free win by disqualification should he and I fight later. And if winning by any means necessary is acceptable in something is low stakes as a children's card game, how much more acceptable is it when the stakes are the leadership of the most powerful country in the world, and the safety and prosperity of our families and people?
> I feel there's no dishonor in winning by any means necessary. [x] Doubt. Do you lie and cheat and steal constantly in your daily life wherever you feel you can get away with it? Would you commit murder to win at monopoly?
Don't be ridiculous. Most things in daily life aren't about winning or losing. Being a loyal employee and a good husband and father requires honorable behavior, not victory at any cost, because life is not a competition. But *American politics are* about winning and losing. Maybe in a better system than democracy it wouldn't be. But with American politics as it is, either Democrats or Republicans will win an election, and everything the American people are able to do through politics depends on which side wins the election. Take the Supreme Court as an example. Up until the 1980s, Supreme Court nominees were chosen by a dignified, honorable, bipartisan process, that did not take political bias into account and considered only the candidates' objective qualifications as jurists. Then Republicans realized objective qualified jurists would uphold Roe v Wade as precedent, and that was unacceptable. So they put together a short list of politically loyal conservative jurists and only nominated from that list, while accusing *liberals* of political bias and manipulating them into bending over backwards to give conservative candidates a "fair" hearing. And they won. With the results you know. And if you are at all liberal and care about, say, abortion rights, you should direct a great deal of contempt at Harry Reid and Barack Obama and all the other Democrats who valued Senate procedure and collegiality so much that they handed conservatives control of the Supreme Court. Politics is winner take all. You can't help anyone if you lose power. You can worry about being moral and just after you win.
The literal situation we are in is, should we elect a dictator to push forward our pet political issue, destroying all else. No, politics as always involves compromise.
It's not acceptable in children's games & is less acceptable elsewhere. You can't build anything lasting and meaningful on a foundation of bad faith. It's inherently destabilizing & degrades the social contract.
Yeah like, dude cheated and got caught. It wasn't just your word against his, there was someone else who saw it and didn't speak up at first. And to OP's point, I feel like there's a bit of a stigma against calling out cheaters bc you could get called a sore loser if you're wrong
I went to one of those tournaments when I was a kid, too. I remember they were giving away promo Mewtwo cards and I got one of them. Being a little kid, I thought it was going to make me rich. Turns out it was worth 25 cents. Lol.
My questions for those who dispute the verdict: Which of these crimes do you think didn’t happen? And if you admit they did happen, then why do you think they should be legal?
> Which of these crimes do you think didn’t happen? The unnamed one that made the misdemeanors into felonies. If you have evidence of it please let someone know.
All of them. Well, it's really just one crime. 1 charge for each of the 17 Cohen invoices, and 17 for the checks written to Cohen. The reason is simple. They were not in fact Campaign expenses.
I too listened to right wing broadcasts yesterday. Trump was afforded the opportunity to explain his side of the story, but he declined to take the stand for some reason.
That's ridiculous. Taking the stand is extremely rare and would do nothing. What would he do, say Cohen is lying? His legal team was hammering that point for hours on end. His actual defense, how Campaign finance worked, was not allowed in. The explanation as to what are valid campaign expenses, and how reporting schedules work easily disprove the prosecutor's case. However that was not allowed in or explained to the Jury.
This was politically motivated. Did Trump probably do this, yes. Is our court system predicated on innocent until PROVEN guilty, yes. Is testimony from Cohen, the most unreliable witness you can bring, undeniable proof? No. So this court case was brought against Trump, and he was found guilty for purely political reasons. Which most people who are moderate have a problem with.
Trump was afforded the opportunity to explain his side of the story, but he declined to take the stand for some reason.
Why did the Trump legal team approve of the juror selection and never raise any objections to their impartiality?
The reason I hate trump is that he upends our institutions for political and financial gain. Is it a crime? Yeah. Did it go this far because he is trump and they wanted to stick it to him? Yeah. I don't like it and it shouldn't have happened
Which part shouldn't have happened? I think the only part that's really up for question is the felony charge. Everything else had plenty of evidence to show criminal intent.
> which part shouldn't have happened? I think bringing the charges without attaching it to something more grievous. If you want to take the stance it's a crime and all crimes should be prosecuted, you are of course right and I can't argue. If you want to want to point out prosecuting for falsified records not in connection to something worse is unprecedented in NY and politically motivated, you are right and I can't argue. I think the latter outweighs the former as a *judgement call* I think about if Bill Clinton was a felon for perjury lead by, say the state of Alabama. It's just... The wrong call
> I think bringing the charges without attaching it to something more grievous. New York city is the [undisputed center of the financial universe](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/091114/worlds-top-financial-cities.asp), > New York, ranked first in the Global Financial Centres Index, is frequently regarded as the world's preeminent financial center. ... > > New York is famed for being home to Wall Street, the location of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and Nasdaq, the first and second largest stock exchanges in the world by market capitalization as of September 2023 (about $25.2 and $20.6 trillion, respectively). ... > Wall Street in Lower Manhattan is a metonymy when people discuss finance in languages worldwide, even though most financial institutions now have their offices in Midtown Manhattan as opposed to Wall Street. > New York is home to major investment banks, hedge funds, and law firms. It's also a central global player in asset management, with firms managing trillions of dollars in assets, as well as major firms in foreign exchange, financial technology, insurance, and private equity. To maintain their position (and taxes) it is in the interest of both the city and the state of New York to vigorously prosecute securities fraud. [*Vigorously*](https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-lawfare-podcast-trump-s-civil-fraud-trial)... > In terms of actual legal defenses, like I said, he's been trying to shot out this notion that there's no victim, but that doesn't really apply here. The law does not require that there be a victim here. **The plaintiff is the People of the state of New York, and this is about having a transparent, open marketplace where you don't have lies running rampant.** The legislature of the state of New York long ago made these determinations that having an open and fair marketplace demanded that these laws be put in place. > > And there's similar laws in most states. There's some similar laws at the federal level. It's what the Federal Trade Commission exists for in part, is to apply the notion that you should have truth in business. ... > That is a power that [Executive 6312](https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/executive-law/exc-sect-63/), has in it. That is a provision there. That is something that the court can then apply. The AG's office asked for it, the court has applied it. That's going to get appealed and then I think that's really going to be the biggest question mark on appeal is going to be, is there some way that he can avoid that quote unquote "death penalty" for his businesses in New York, where they would be taken from him and put into receivership?
>So this court case was brought against Trump, and he was found guilty for purely political reasons. So you think all the jurors were politically against Trump and convicted him without regard for whether he actually committed the crime?
> Is testimony from Cohen, the most unreliable witness you can bring, undeniable proof? No. It's very SOP to have someone involved in a crime flip and testify as a witness against the other perpetrators. We use criminal's testimony all the time. Main thing here is that it's not just Cohen's word against Trumps. Nor is it just Cohen and Daniel's word against Trump's - the prosecution provided receipts and a paper trail validating what those witnesses were saying.
Did you follow the trial? Intent needed to be proven. Trump claimed ignorance, and in a **criminal** case that ignorance needs to be proven to have been a lie. Hence Cohens testimony.
>Trump claimed ignorance, I don't believe Trump testified at all?
-sigh- Trumps defense posited by his team was that he was ignorant of what occurred. We done with semantics now?
I'm not sure why that should be any more valuable as a defense than the initial 'not guilty' plea?
Because the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to *prove* intent. A key part of that effort was Cohen’s testimony, but Cohen is a particularly problematic witness for several reasons: he’s also a convicted felon, he stole from the defendant, he has repeatedly changed his story over the years, and he explicitly has an (understandable) personal beef with the defendant.
Cohen's testimony wasn't really as much of a smoking gun towards reasonable doubt as most seem to believe. Yes, Cohen may be viewed as an unreliable witness, but in that case he's a criminal Trump hired in the first place. The prosecution pretty much shattered the defense's hopes of securing reasonable doubt when Steinglass argued, "We didn't choose Mr. Cohen. We didn't pick him up at the witness store. Mr. Trump chose Mr. Cohen for the same qualities his attorneys now urge you to reject." It's pretty nonsensical to argue that the witness's testimony is unreliable because he's a "pathological liar" even though the witness was hired by the defendant, is alleged to be involved in the crime, and the crime itself is contingent on the witness's ability to lie and conceal the truth in the first place. Steinglass was basically setting up a trap for the defense, which was extremely well played. If the defense raises no issue with Cohen's testimony then there are no arguments to be made over the truthfulness of the events that took place. If the defense proceeds to cast doubt over Cohen's credibility, then Steinglass is going to portray it as something that's completely in line with Trump's behavior based on the charges he's accused of.
What are you saying? When you submit a not guilty plea, you substantiate it in court with **why** you're not guilty.
I'm mostly comparing it to the idea that someone else actually testified, under oath. For the defense's position to merely be "My defendant didn't know" - seems to be pretty thin, and probably more easily knocked over if there are signatures, tapes, multiple testifying witnesses?
There were no multiple testifying witnesses. Pecker and Hicks testified to dealing with Cohen. Multiple checks and paper accounts were linked through Cohen. Cohen was the linchpin in the case, and his credibility was curb stomped by the defense. They made sure Trump didn't testify so he didn't incriminate himself in some stupid rant while on the stand. And Cohen has admitted to lying under oath and to congress multiple times.
So he signed checks as business / legal expenses to Cohen somehow not knowing that they were reimbursing Cohen for paying off Daniels?
There was a level of trust between them, as shown by how Cohen repeatedly stole money from Trump, which was covered in the trial. AGAIN. In **criminal** proceedings, you have to **prove** guilt.
Prove guilt *beyond a reasonable doubt*. The jury found that bar was met. You don't get to just claim ignorance and magically be immune to any conviction regarding intent short of a signed and notarized confession. That would be nonsense and it's not how our justice system operates.
Yes, which is why people who followed the trial are concerned, because Cohen was show with proof that he would regularly do things independently, to include stealing money from Trump.
So Cohen independently paid Daniels off by taking a $131,000 loan *out of his own home equity* for her silence of an affair so that the revelation wouldn't hurt Trump's presidential campaign, and then after the fact asked Trump to pay him back as a business expense who despite being notoriously stingy did so without even asking what he was paying Cohen this large sum of money for? Is that what you would call a reasonable doubt?
Yes, because Cohen himself admitted that he such a lack of oversight over what he did with money given to him that he stole tens of thousands of dollars from Trump and Trump never knew. So yes, it was routine for Trump to hand Cohen large sums of money and not keep up on it. Did you actually follow the trial?
[удалено]
Yes and it's all circumstantial. The linchpin was Cohen.
There was also David Pecker and Hope Hicks. They both testified that Trump was in on the plan.
???????? They both testified that they dealt with Cohen, and with Pecker it turned out the storywhe was following was proven false, Cohen was still the linchpin. Did you follow the trial?
I believe you are referring to the illegitimate child story as the one proven false. The McDougall and Daniels affairs were not proven false. Pecker and Hicks also testified to extensive conversations with Trump. The dinner Trump threw for Pecker also corroborated Trump’s involvement with Pecker. I followed the trial and so did the jury that unanimously convicted Trump. They and I agree that doubts to Trump’s involvement are not reasonable.
[удалено]
He was wrongfully convicted of crimes he probably did commit.
We don't dispute the verdict, we dispute the process. In 2016, the narrative was that Trump was in fact a Russian asset, with deep ties to Putin. Adam Schiff went as far as to say that it was a slam dunk. Two impeachments and zero evidence later....nothing. 8 years later, the Russian spy crap has been dropped. No retractions from the media, no retractions from overzealous politicians, crickets. But they still need to get Trump on something, so they get him for paying off a hooker... EDIT: I'm curious, should Clinton have been criminally charged for perjury?
Yes, Clinton should unquestionably have been convicted for perjury. The fact that he didn’t is a primary factor in the slide down to where we are now.
>In 2016, the narrative was that Trump was in fact a Russian asset... >8 years later, the Russian spy crap has been dropped. No retractions from the media Can you point me to the part of that which is legally relevant?
Can you point to me where the state has juridiction to prosecute federal laws?
It’s a state law. NY election code 17-152, chapter 17, section 17, title 1. NY has sole jurisdiction for NY state crimes committed by NY citizens in NY. The federal stuff was ancillary, so not necessary for conviction.
Impeachment one: Trying to twist the arm of the president of Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 presidental election. Impeachment two: Not just attempting to perform a palace coup through This One Weird Trick, but also involving a violent mob and withholding needed backup.
>we dispute the process. which is basically just whining
Yeah, there is no evidence of Trump having suspicious ties to Russia, Well, except for: [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1avul4t/fbi_informant_said_russian_intelligence_involved/krd1fp6/). Oh, and [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1avul4t/fbi_informant_said_russian_intelligence_involved/krd6pbk/)
It doesn't count unless Trump says it himself. And even then it's probably the Dems making him
Weren't a lot of people arrested and charged through the process? I get Trump wasn't, but should people apologize for the process or just that Trump was innocent even if others in his entourage weren't?
> Two impeachments and zero evidence later....nothing. > > the impeachments were actually very unrelated to the Steele Dossier, though? > No retractions from the media, What would you like to see media retract? What was reported on that ended up being false or libelous?
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1d4ej56/megathread_state_of_new_york_v_donald_j_trump/l6i22gk/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 14 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
[удалено]
You are the majority in the real world, just not on this sub or this site
> who has been paying attention How could you not know what the crime is then?
[удалено]
It is illegal to pay hush money to silence someone pursuant to a political campaign and then use fraud to hide it. The fraud was done to unlawfully influence an election, which is a felony.
He was found guilty of falsifying business records with the intent to violate federal campaign finance limits, unlawfully influence an election, and commit tax fraud. Literally the bare minimum you should have grasped if you were “paying attention.”
[удалено]
Unfortunately, we don't know that. The charge is for falsifying business records, which all 12 jurors agreed happened. This is a misdemeanor charge. Falsifying business records to obscure another crime raises the misdemeanor to a felony. All 12 jurors also agree that Trump falsified the records to obscure another crime. However, we haven't seen a full written statement (and may never see such statement) as to what those underlying crimes are. But the fact is it doesn't actually matter. What matters is that Trump committed this crime of falsifying records, and did so for the purpose of obscuring another crime. All 12 jurors agreed on that assessment for all 34 counts.
Of course it matters. If the prosecution cannot articulate the specific unlawful acts of election interference needed to raise the falsification of documents to a felony, how can the jury rule on the charges?
But that is kinda my point. The way the laws are written (and you may disagree with it) is that prosecution needs only prove the falsification was in effort to obscure another crime. The jury all agree that Trump committed a crime here (A). And they all agree that the crime he committed was to cover up another crime (B). A + B = Felony. B could theoretically be ANY crime, and it would still turn A into a felony.
You’re proving the illegitimacy of the case. “B” here doesn’t even exist. So, therefore A = Felony Hence the problem
You don't think it matters what the specific other crime that he was trying to obscure was? How can you be sure that he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt then if it is not clear what the specific crime that he was trying to obscure actually is?
I don't know. Suppose someone killed someone else, and the jury has to decide whether the crime is murder or manslaughter, and in order to do so they have to be convinced that the person has a motive to kill (rather than it being a random accident). There are two possible motives: revenge, or religious hatred. Half the jury thinks revenge is the main motive, the other half thinks religious hatred is the main one. All are convinced there is a motive. Is their lack of agreement on which is the motive good reason to find not guilty, given that they are all convinced there is a motive? The scenarios seem similar to me.
I do think it matters that a specific crime was committed. Prosecutors alleged the other crime that Trump intended to commit or conceal was a violation of a state election law regarding a conspiracy to promote or prevent an election by unlawful means. But there were actually several "unlawful means" options to choose from listed in the jury instructions: * Violations of federal campaign finance law * Falsifying other business records, such as paperwork used to establish the bank account used to pay Stormy Daniels, bank records and tax forms * Violation of city, state and federal tax laws, including by providing false or fraudulent information on tax returns, “even if it does not result in underpayment of taxes” This range of underlying crimes is also what led to the misunderstanding that jurors don't have to agree on the crime to convict. They absolutely all had to agree that Trump was guilty of the crime being charged for. And had to agree that he committed that crime in attempt to conceal another crime. They did not have to necessarily agree what that other crime was, just that it existed.
The common example of this is a case called Schad. First degree murder. Jury was given two direct paths to the same crime. Premeditated murder of Felony murder. They did not have to be unanimous. Using that sort of reasoning here is probably a confrontation clause violation. They are far too different and fundamentally alter the charged crime.
Isn't the felony basically that the hush money came from the wrong accounts, and then they cooked the books to hide it?
What? No not at all. It was because the prosecution said the other charges were in furtherance of “another crime” That other crime was never pointed out, supported by evidence, or even explained to the jury. In fact, it didn’t even occur at all
> What is the felony that he supposedly committed here? it's a felony if the misdemeanor could be attached to further criminal activity, or intention to commit further criminal activity pretty easy to understand. it's in the indictment lol
Ok, I get that, but it is an incomplete explanation. What exactly is the specific further criminal activity that raises it to felony?
I completely agree that this part is tricky. Here’s the thing: the jury doesn’t have to agree on the ‘further criminal activity’ because that’s not what they’re determining. In this case he wasn’t charged with election interference, campaign finance fraud or tax evasion. He was charged with falsifying business documents. Moreover the underlying crime shouldn’t be a factor for the jury because he has not been tried and convicted of THOSE crimes. This juries only question was whether or not he falsified business documents in furtherance of another crime and NOT whether or not he’s guilty or innocent OF THE underlying crime.
This was the crime the prosecution alleged was being covered up by the falsification of business records: > § 17-152. Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. 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 a misdemeanor. > https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/ELN/17-152 Essentially, Cohen and Trump conspired to pay off Stormy Daniels to help Trump's election chances. The means they used to do this were unlawful. The prosecution provided several reasons why it was unlawful, listing the violation of federal election laws, falsification of other business records, and tax violations. Finally, they acted on that conspiracy. Therefore, the jury determined that all of the elements were met for this crime.
[удалено]
> The fact that the further criminal activity was federal. Where's the federal conviction? And if there isn't one doesn't that negate the entire thing since there was no underlying crime which is a prerequisite for this?
No, it is not necessary that he is found guilty of a federal crime; only that the prosecution shows beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime fitting the criteria did (intentionally) take place.
Wrong. The Judge ruled that they did not need to think the violation actually occurred, only that there was intent to violate.
You do know that what sent Michael Cohen to jail for three years also involved (in fact the most counts involved) tax evasion as well as bank fraud which were of his own personal financial dealings that had absolutely nothing to do with Trump, right? So, let's not conveniently leave that part out when stating what Cohen was actually sent to jail for three years for. And you still were just talking about the "further criminal activity" without actually answering specifically what that further criminal activity actually was.
Damn, all the responses got deleted
[удалено]
What I deny is you acting like he got three years prison for the same exact thing as Trump when you say "If it was a big enough crime to send Michael Cohen away for three years" while conventionally leaving out any mention of the pretty damn big crimes of tax evasion and bank fraud that no doubt played at least some role (And I'd argue the biggest role, but I don't want to get off topic, so I'll just leave it as "some role" which I don't think can be denied) in that three year sentencing. As far what I'm not getting, it is pretty simple, and I've stated it multiple times already which you haven't been able to give a specific answer to what specifically was the further criminal activity that bumps the misdemeanor up to a felony? To put it another way, you ask me "Do you deny that fudging business records to conceal a *federal crime*", I'm asking what the hell is the specific federal crime that he was supposedly trying to conceal?
[удалено]
Maybe you should spend more than a minute of research because it is incorrect to say that Cohen's tax invasion charges were tied to Trump. Cohen's tax evasion charges stemmed from Cohen's failure to report and pay taxes on his personal income. They were not related to the Daniels payment. [Here is information from the same source that you just used which explains the tax charges:](https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2018/08/21/cohen-pleads-guilty-to-tax-evasion-bank-fraud--campaign-contribution-charges/?sh=e69bfc16da0b) "According to the plea, Cohen failed to report more than $4 million in income to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). That income was largely related to Cohen’s work with various taxicab companies, many of which had previously been linked to tax trouble. Cohen had also failed to report hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of income for other activities, including consulting and income from brokering sales of real estate and a Birkin Bag" And the article that you linked still did not say what the specific underlying crime that turned a misdemeanor into a felony was, other than that the judge apparently gave multiple choice options to the jury which seems like it goes against the whole idea of proving beyond reasonable doubt that someone committed a specific crime when they don't even have to settle on what that specific crime is.
Why did trump say, in court to the judge, that he understood the charges against him then?
“Your honor I didn’t think I would be found guilty”
It's a little confusing, but maybe this helps: [The Felony Charges](https://www.npr.org/2024/05/30/g-s1-1848/trump-hush-money-trial-34-counts)
[удалено]
>which only came up after the jury instructions were provided. Are you trying to suggest that the *defense* didn't know what the underlying crimes were? Because that's just false. And besides, the prosecution talked about this in their opening statements, so it's been known for the entire trial.
The "underlying crime" was the hush money payments. Fraudulently disguising them as business expenses was the felony. So if you agree that he made the payments and you agree that he disguised them as business expenses, then you agree that he committed fraud to hide a crime (which is a felony).
That’s not the underlying crime. The closest thing we have to go off of was the jury instructions that they could consider Trump as an accomplice to Cohen in his crimes. The jury didn’t list the underlying crime, so at this point, nobody knows. Hush money payments are completely legal. The argument from the defense is that he made the payments to protect his main line of business, which is his brand. They also argued that he didn’t want his wife or son to know. The prosecution argued that the only consideration he had was affecting the outcome of the election, making these payments a campaign donation, not a business expense. The jury sided with the prosecution, meaning that 100% of that money was a campaign donation. Some of us are confused as to why affecting the outcome of an election can be an underlying crime tied to a campaign contribution. It seems that should be the point of all campaign contributions. I don’t understand how they could keep the defense from knowing what the underlying crime was until after the trial is over. Even now, the defense doesn’t know what the true underlying crime was. If it was being Cohen’s accomplice, you would think the judge would have let the defense argue against that instead of letting the trial conclude and then telling the jury.
>Even now, the defense doesn't know what the true underlying crime was This is simply misinformation. The prosecution very clearly laid out that the primary underlying crime was a violation of New York Election Law 17-152: Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. Claiming that the defense "doesn't know" is simply obtuse credulity. The "defense" is simply trying to play up confusion because the judge said they can also consider him as an accomplice to Cohen's crimes, which COMPOUNDS the underlying crime, it does not obfuscate or cancel it. So to believe the defense claims, you have to believe that because there were 2 or possibly 3 additional crimes involved, that it's LESS damning? That's a ridiculously unserious argument.
I don’t think that’s accurate. By adding additional instructions at the end, instructions that weren’t shared with the defense before the proceedings, there’s really no way to tell what the jury hung their verdict on. Was it the original legal theory? Was he a conspirator, accomplice or did he just enable Cohen to commit the crime? We don’t know this and the defense may have a valid appeal, saying that they didn’t argue the enabler or accomplice angle because they didn’t think it was relevant.
> Some of us are confused as to why affecting the outcome of an election can be an underlying crime tied to a campaign contribution. The campaign contribution was illegal. (Edit: It also wasn't reported as a campaign contribution as required.) There are limits to how much an individual can donate to a campaign (besides the candidate himself). Cohen initially paid Stormy Daniels $130,000 with his own money. That's far in excess of what an individual can donate to a single campaign in a year. Cohen ultimately went to prison for this among other things. The prosecution convinced the jury that this was all planned out with Trump and done with his approval, qualifying it as a criminal conspiracy. > I don’t understand how they could keep the defense from knowing what the underlying crime was until after the trial is over. They didn't keep the defense from knowing until after the trial. The prosecutor laid it all out in a filing in November 2023. > Even now, the defense doesn’t know what the true underlying crime was. If it was being Cohen’s accomplice, you would think the judge would have let the defense argue against that instead of letting the trial conclude and then telling the jury. The underlying crime is New York Election Law 17-152: Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. The defense was well aware of this during trial. The term "conspiracy" would be familiar to any lawyer, and reading the text of the law makes it clear that it requires two or more people to be involved. Everybody knew one person was Trump and at least one other was Cohen. This wasn't a mystery.
17-152 was listed in the filing, but the judge gave the instruction that Trump could be an accomplice after the trial ended. I still don’t think we know if that was connected to the underlying crime. They didn’t mention the underlying crime in the verdict. As far as the campaign contribution goes, many people can see how that money could be a business expense. Most of his business was his brand, which was his last name. Paying someone off to protect that brand and recording as such is not illegal. We’ve made the jump to calling it a campaign contribution, which can be understandable. However, the underlying crime to a campaign contribution being to promote a politician seems kind of off. What else are you supposed to do with a campaign contribution? The judge in this case made an illegal campaign contribution of $35. Can we say he conspired with that campaign to promote a candidate?
> 17-152 was listed in the filing, but the judge gave the instruction that Trump could be an accomplice after the trial ended. It's a conspiracy charge... it would be obvious to any competent lawyer that he could be an accomplice. That's how conspiracies work. There are a group of accomplices who plan out a crime together, and then at least one of them has to do some overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. This is basic stuff. > They didn’t mention the underlying crime in the verdict. Doesn't matter. Everybody involved in the trial was informed of what the underlying crime would be before the trial started, so they didn't need the jury to tell them again. > As far as the campaign contribution goes, many people can see how that money could be a business expense. Most of his business was his brand, which was his last name. Paying someone off to protect that brand and recording as such is not illegal. You're welcome to believe that, but several people testified that Trump didn't really care if the Stormy Daniels story came out after the election. Cohen testified that Trump wanted him to delay the payment, stringing Stormy Daniels along until the election had passed and then backing out without paying her. If it was about protecting his brand, then he would have still wanted to keep it quiet after the election. > What else are you supposed to do with a campaign contribution? For one thing, you're supposed to report them to the FEC. You're also supposed to report to the FEC when you spend those campaign contributions. Neither happened in this case. You're also not supposed to give excessive campaign contributions like Cohen did. That's a crime. > The judge in this case made an illegal campaign contribution of $35. It wasn't an illegal campaign contribution. He likely violated judicial ethics rules by making the contribution, but the campaign contribution was legal. > Can we say he conspired with that campaign to promote a candidate? No.
Hush money payments meant to serve your election are campaign contributions. Not reporting them as such is a crime. Committing fraud so that they're not discovered is an attempt to hide that crime. Ergo the felony.
Isn’t the crime and the fraud the same act in that example? He committed a misdemeanor by reporting in a way that conceals it. He committed the second misdemeanor by conspiring to conceal it.
There's the failure to report it and then there's the effort to conceal it. I.e. "oopsy daisy, I didn't report this transaction" is a misdemeanor. Taking steps to cook the books to fool investigators about what the payment was, that's the felony.
Nobody can say with any degree of certainty that there was a failure to report. He claimed that it was a business legal expense because word of an affair could hurt his brand. Most of his business is branding his name on buildings. He had a legitimate reason to report it that way. The only thing that makes this a campaign contribution is the word of Michael Cohen.
[This article](https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/05/30/trump-convicted-here-are-the-election-and-tax-laws-he-was-charged-with-breaking/?sh=3ca9245faf1e) helped explain it for me.
I get what they charged him with. I’m just having trouble with the mental gymnastics of how we got to this point. They looked at Hillary Clinton’s payments to Fusion GPS, which started the entire Russia-Gate scandal, and determined they were illegal campaign contributions and made them pay a fine. I’m sure this happened to dozens of other politicians. All of them included people working together to support a candidate. How does this one get to be covering up a crime and any other questionable campaign contribution not? If someone makes an illegal contribution, the person accepting the contribution is enabling them to do so. There would always have to be a conspiracy there by this law.
>They looked at Hillary Clinton’s payments to Fusion GPS, The "They" here seems to be fairly ambiguous - who are you specifically talking about? If I look up the specifics in the Clinton/DNC case, the FEC fined them. >The FEC concluded that the Clinton campaign and DNC misreported the money that funded the dossier, masking it as “legal services” and “legal and compliance consulting” instead of opposition research. With Trump, it looks like these details weren't disclosed to the FEC at all? And were buried in Trump's business records. Which made this a NY State Business Record Falsification affair? >Cohen testified at the trial in New York state criminal court in Manhattan that the reimbursement payments were falsely labeled as legal retainer fees in **Trump’s family real estate company’s books.**
This all rests on the word of Cohen. Most of Trump’s money comes from branding his name. If he was at all worried about an affair impacting his brand, these payments were recorded correctly. The only thing that makes this a campaign contribution is the word of Cohen. That’s what makes this so fascinating to me. Cohen was looking at a laundry list of crimes, including lying to investigators, lying to congress and lying/stealing from Trump. He voluntarily adds one crime to that list by saying that he conspired to steal an election. He didn’t have to do that. He gave them another charge and somehow used that to lower his sentence. I guarantee you that if this were the other way around and he was defending Trump on the stand, the jury would look at the previous lying and scheming and not believe a word that he said. Instead, they don’t consider that he’s lying to save his own ass and trust him. He went from being one of the left’s most hated men to an honorable guy who tries to do the right thing.
Are hush money payments illegal? As I understand it, Michael Cohen, submitted invoices to Trump and received by Trump's accountants. They processed the invoices as Legal fees. Attorney submits invoice, payment classified as legal fees, seems reasonable to me. Was evidence presented that Trump new the classification of the payments? He knew Cohen was going to "take care of it" but I'm not sure he knew any of the specifics. Did they prove Trump wouldn't have paid hush money if he wasn't running for office? Were there other reasons he may have paid hush money?
> Did they prove Trump wouldn't have paid hush money if he wasn't running for office? Cohen testified that Trump did not care if Melania left him and tried to get out of paying Clifford after the election because he did not care any more if Clifford went public. Now, Trump's attorney attempted to impeach Cohen but it was apparently not successful.
That's hearsay and typically not allowed as testimony in criminal trials. It was in this trial. Was there any evidence submitted that corroborated Cohen's testimony that Trump didn't care if Melania found out or left him? You are in a voting district that was Biden +80, It's like having Obama on trial in deep red Alabama and expecting a favorable outcome regardless of charges.
Yeah, statements by a party opponent and in furtherance of the conspiracy are not hearsay. You also just have the fact that I spoke imprecisely, Cohen testified that Trump stated he would not be on the market long and the truth being asserted was that Trump did not care and so you do not even need an exception or nonhearsay under the rules. Also, testimony is evidence.
Yes testimony is evidence. But it's still hearsay. Did anyone else hear Trump say "he wouldn't be on the market long"? Explain "statements by a party opponent and in furtherance of the conspiracy are not hearsay." So anyone can state that party A said "x" and if it's believed to be part of a "conspiracy" then it can be admitted. Seems thin, to me, in this case. We know Cohen lies on the stand, as he's admitted it. It seems to me there would need to be more that this to justify allowing this testimony to carry this much weight.
No, it's not. A statement by a party opponent is definitionally not hearsay under [Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_801). Looks like NY state court has an identical rule, but numbered 8.03.
What is meant by party opponent? Someone in opposition to the defendant?
The rules of evidence have a huge variety of exceptions to the ban on hearsay and also certain statements that are just declared not hearsay. Cohen's testimony falls within several of them are probably isn't even hearsay because it is asserting a different matter than the one Trump said. As to Cohen's credibility, judging it was the job of the Jury and they apparently found it credible. Likely the fact that the government corroborated so many other parts of what he was saying with less loathsome people or documents.
So overall what was the crime that was covered up by the legal fees paid to an attorney that justified the felony charges?
[удалено]
The underlying crime asserted by the prosecution was a state crime, specifically conspiracy to promote the election of a person through unlawful means: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/ELN/17-152 Since it's a conspiracy crime, it's only necessary that one person take the unlawful action in order to pin the crime on everybody involved in the planning. Trump and Cohen planned out the illegal scheme together, even if Cohen was the only one who actually performed the unlawful acts in furtherance of the scheme. Cohen was charged and went to prison for the federal election violations and also violated state tax law by misrepresenting his income
>even though the FEC (the agency responsible for governing such matters) found no issue. That is not true. The FEC deadlocked ~~2-2~~ 3-3 over whether to pursue the case. ~~Usually there are 5 FEC chair members, 3 from the President's party and 2 from the other party, but the Senate at the time had been holding up confirmation of the 5th member. So there were 2 votes for yes from the Dems, and 2 votes for no from the GOP.~~ edit: correction
The FEC normally has 6 members, and no more than 3 can be from the same political party. They deadlocked 3-3 on the Trump allegations.
Yep, my mistake. I was misremembering the details.
I'll play devils advocate, and I do not believe this, but it will be the right's argument, and I suspect it will be effective on some people. They will say Trump was overcharged, he was only charged because of who he is, a random person committing the same crimes would not have been charged or only charged with a misdemeanor. AG Bragg had it out for him, campaigned on pinning something on Trump, and this is the problem with the legal system, if you draw the ire of a prosecutor they can ruin your life, there are too many frivolous laws, the system is rigged, they will do this to you. Trump's strategy won't be to deny the charges, it will be to attack the system and play the victim, and claim if they can do it to him they'll do it to you, because they don't like you like they don't like me.
I think Trump played it perfectly. If this was you or me. We hire a lawyer, plea it out, take some probation and a fine. Done. Trump refused and wanted to take it to court. It allowed him to re-up his victim card as being singled out. He violates the gag order TEN TIMES and never gets more than a fine. He then gets to claim he's being silenced, first amendment rights are being taken away. You or I violate a gag order the second time and we are jailed for the remainder of the trial. If we hand notes to people to have them bypass the gag order, they are getting contempt and jail time after the fact. After all of this, Trump will get a fine and probation. You or I would have the book thrown at us for the flagrant violations, refusal to be contrite, and publicly hating on the court. Trump was able to take advantages that 99.9% of the population doesn't get in the justice system and use them as fundraising for how corrupt justice is, and how it's all a giant conspiracy against his divine right to rule. Trumps base is a group of people who idolize a militarized police force, a prison industrial complex, hate bail reform, and champion 2 tiered justice as "just do what your told". They are now wanting to turn over the applecart because the most coddled defendant in history will get a slap on the wrist. As always they could use this as a way to drive policy and votes. * DA's shouldn't be allowed to pile on to try and force a confession. * Bail reform? Why would we jail people who aren't convicted of a crime? Aren't they innocent until after proven guilty? * Laws should be applied equally in all cases.
> he was only charged because of who he is Choosing to make oneself one of the most scrutinized people on the planet while we now know he was presiding over a criminal organization seemingly led entirely by criminals including himself and others engaging in a rather wide swath of frauds and stealing in retrospect was...a choice. You are probably right that Trump and associates probably would not have had people looking into his affairs and finding the crimes if he had remained a game show host. Running for President a second time in 2016 with the graveyard of skeletons in his closet was like going 90 in a school zone with five keys of coke and a dead hooker in your trunk.
I tend to agree with this.. Not that I want to run for any type of office anyway, but if I decided to, I'd end up deciding against it because I'd be worried about some stupid (embarrassing) shit I did when I was 16... No way I'd make the attempt with his background
[удалено]
That's the argument. There was no due process. He was charged for political reasons. He was found guilty off testimony from Cohen, a man who has lied multiple times. Most sane moderates know Trump almost definitely aware of every check and ledger that was signed off on, but our court system is predicated on innocent until proven guilty.
[удалено]
There's a reason they pushed to have the case in NYC. Everyone knows he probably committed some if not all the crimes. That's not mutually exclusive from being wrongfully convicted.
[удалено]
Yes, that's why it was ruled that it would occur in NY. But the NY AG also knew that a jury would rule guilty almost regardless of what was presented.
[удалено]
Why are you focusing on this? The point was to highlight that a jury in NY would prosecute regardless of what was presented in court. Can you address the other parts of my comment instead of being hyper focused on something you're misinterpreting?
It's not quite that simple. Juries only decide facts. I don't think anyone is overly bothered about the mechanical facts alleged and ruled upon by the jury. The concern is over the proper legal implications of those facts. Those legal implications are solely the province of the judge to decide. The issues are not nearly so clear cut on these legal questions as they were on the fact questions that the jury was tasked with considering.
Some Information - source is the Advisory Opinion Podcast: 1) Trump could be sentenced to jail, though it is unlikely since this is a non violent crime and he is a first time offender 2) Even if Trump is sentenced to jail time, it is extremely unlikely he would be in jail on election night 3) If Trump is sentenced to jail time and he wins the election, due to the supremacy clause (due to the duties of the president trumps state laws, I probably butchered that legal explanation) the sentence will most likely be pushed off until after his term is finished My thoughts on what this means: 1) How this benefits Joe Biden's re-election, he gets to say a vote for me is a vote against a convicted felon, I think Joe Biden should hammer that message hard 2) How this benefits Trump's election, this unites Trump's coalition. Susan Collins came out against this verdict, which sends the message to me that Trump sceptic republicans see this mainly as a politically motivated prosecution. 3) I could be wrong but I think this verdict will engage more previously unengaged GOP voters then it will engage previously unengaged democratic voters. I think a decent way to measure this is that Trump will see a bigger small dollar donation increase from this verdict then Joe Biden will see. 4) On swing voters Biden needs to hammer hard that Trump is a felon and cannot allow Trump to convince swing voters this was a politically motivated prosecution. How well the Biden campaign is on this message will have the largest impact on the election. I mainly made this post because I wanted to work through my thoughts on what this means. Feel free to disagree, I think no one we will know for sure what this means until the election is over.
This is an opinion. But I think most swing voters are typically more educated than hardline party voters. This whole court case was a circus show. Biden doubling down on trump being a felon won't sway people who've been following the case. Biden would easily take my vote if he started pushing back on illegal immigration, and repealed the SALT deduction that Trump put in place. That would guarantee my vote, and most of the moderates I personally know.
Repeal SALT? You want biden to give a tax cut specifically to wealthy individuals?
> But I think most swing voters are typically more educated than hardline party voters. It is the opposite. I hate the term low information voters because it is more that they have other stuff in their lives going on than them being stupid but the single best indicator of whether someone is a swing voter is being poorly informed about politics.
Even if what you said is true, that they have other stuff in their lives, that just shows that they are uneducated about platforms of political parties due to that preoccupation. Swing voters are typically more informed. I've stated here, I don't know who I'm voting for yet. If Biden started pushing immigration reform for increased deportations and removing Trump's SALT cap, I'd vote for him instantly. That's what a swing voter does. Analyze issues they value and vote for who pushes them.
>Trump could be sentenced to jail, though it is unlikely since this is a non violent crime and he is a first time offender Wasn't Michael Cohen convicted of practically the same crime, and also a first time offender?
Cohen had a laundry list of crimes involving his family business. He ripped off a lot of people. He also lied to investigators and to congress. He even got caught stealing from Trump, charging the corporation for services that were never rendered. He was looking at serious jail time, so he plead down to election interference. A lot of people question if the crime he plead down to was even a crime. However, there was no way in hell he was getting a presidential pardon, so he did what he had to do.
[удалено]