If you and I were on the jury.

[Lazaran]

Several closed minded left wingers have refused to even read George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley’s legal analysis of the case because, well, they don’t like what he might have to say. lol. I could share perspectives from former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, but because he writes for National Review, they’ll attack him without reading anything as well.

To accommodate the closed-minded PB left wingers here that only consume articles that appear in sources that confirm their bias, here’s the piece from CNN legal analyst Elie Honig that I mentioned in an earlier post.

Like me, Honig respects the jury:

“By any reasonable measure, the jury of Manhattanites who yesterday found former president Donald Trump guilty on all 34 charges did its job, and did it well.”

Honig also believes that although the jury did its job as instructed by the court, the case is seriously flawed and he blames the judge and the prosecutors.

“Both of these things can be true at once: The jury did its job, and this case was an ill-conceived, unjustified mess. Sure, victory is the great deodorant, but a guilty verdict doesn’t make it all pure and right. Plenty of prosecutors have won plenty of convictions in cases that shouldn’t have been brought in the first place. “But they won” is no defense to a strained, convoluted reach unless the goal is to “win,” now, by any means necessary and worry about the credibility of the case and the fallout later.”

“Most importantly, the DA’s charges against Trump push the outer boundaries of the law and due process. That’s not on the jury. That’s on the prosecutors who chose to bring the case and the judge who let it play out as it did.”

Honig then touches on a few things that other critics have raised, mostly centered around the nebulous underlying crime that the defendant has never been fined or charged with in any federal civil or criminal court.

https://archive.ph/2024.06.03-18020...victed-but-prosecutors-contorted-the-law.html

More gaslighting from BabyBoobs.



Elie Honig is pro-orange MAGAt, and CNN has been actively trying to court right wing viewers by putting talking heads like Elie Honig on air who whisper sweet right wing nothings into their ears.



BabyBoobs

 

[Veroe]

I challenge all you Trump Haters to imagine if you and I were on the jury of the Trump hush money trial, how you would have persuaded me to convict vis à vis to my efforts to convince you to acquit. Assuming I had residence, I admit I probably would have been denied entry, but because I have virtually no social media presence the prosecutor might have inadvertently allowed me in.

Now the case revolves around a hush money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels who alleged that she and Trump had a one night stand way back in 2006. I can think we can all agree that consensual sex with a porn star is not a crime. Now after the Hollywood access tape became public knowledge in Oct 2016 Ms Daniels apparently threatened to expose their 2006 tryst. As a result, Trump’s lawyer at the time, Michael Cohen, paid $130,000 out of his own funds to Ms Daniels after signing a non disclosure agreement (NDA) to not reveal the purposes of why she received these monies.

Executing an NDA is not illegal, instead its rather ubiquitous amongst prominent persons to avoid public embarrassment or humiliation. In fact the reason Ms Daniels owes Trump $500,000 is by court order that found she had violated that NDA.

Now Cohen alleges that in a telephone conversation with himself, Trump and the chief officer of the Trump organization agreed to pay off Daniels in order for her to keep quiet. As a result of that agreement Cohen out of his own funds paid the $130,000 to Daniels by taking out a second mortgage on his house.

First of all, Cohen was testifying as a result of immunity granted by the prosecutor to provide this story. One thing that strikes me about this story is that since Cohen was Trump’s lawyer by testifying, he was violating attorney-client privilege. Of course, since he has already been disbarred no further punishment will visit upon him. But it is horrifying to contemplate that the prosecution allowed this testimony in. No longer can lawyers in the United States or at least in the state of New York assure absolute confidentiality to their clients. Doing away with the safety net of the attorney-client privilege will surely wreak havoc on the judicial system. And that I submit is an inevitable negative consequence as a result of this trial.

Anyway, the point is can you believe Cohen’s veracity? Even setting aside that he is acknowledged to be a perjurer and during cross examination Cohen had to admit he had misspoken on another issue during his direct examination, there are two crucial points that makes Cohen’s testimony suspicious. Trump’s senior officer alleged to be in on the call was not asked to testify. One can infer that person’s testimony would not be so helpful to the prosecution or might even cast doubt that such telephone conversation occurred.

The other point is why did Cohen pay the money out of his own personal funds? I believe any other lawyer in that position, would have asked for Trump to shoot over the money into his trust fund in order to pay the porn star. It strikes me that it was more of a hassle to obtain a second mortgage to pay of Daniels than it would have simply been to ask Trump for the money. It certainly casts doubts on Cohen story or even that the telephone conversation transpired as he alleged.

Now the prosecution maintains the recording of the payment in the Trump organization ledger was a false entry. That apparently is a New York crime, a misdemeanor already barred by the statute of limitations. But even so how in the hell did Trump falsify his business records? Cohen presented a bill from which he got reimbursed as legal expenses. How else could the payment be described in the accounts of the Trump organization other than a legal expense?

Does this mean in the description of the check should there have been the notation “Hush money payment to Stormy Daniels”. Should Cohen in rendering his bill have contained lurid details of the expenses he had incurred to justify the bill? The only reasonable conclusion is that it was a legitimate expense not an illegal one.

Even if you believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump’s business records were falsified, the prosecution still has to prove that this expired crime was committed in conjunction with a felony crime. And what was the felony crime? During the trial the prosecutor did not specify the felony they believed Trump committed until their final summation in which they offered three crimes that Trump might have committed.

The Judge in his jury instructions compounded the confusion. In that the jury could pick any one of the three crimes and they don’t have to be unanimous in any one of them so long as each jury member believed beyond a reasonable doubt, he committed one of these crimes. In other words four jury members could conclude Trump committed crime “A” and believe he did not commit crime “B” or “C”. Then four other jury members can conclude he committed crimes “B” but not crimes “A” or “C”. And thus the other four members of the jury can conclude he committed crime “C” but not crimes “A” or “B”. That surely flies in the face of unanimous requirement for conviction of a crime.

The three crimes? Well first it was suggested, it could have been a tax violation for submitting a false improper deduction. As I pointed out earlier it was a legitimate deduction and IRS would have recouped the taxable amount of this money as it would have been taxed against Cohen’s income.

The second possible crime was violation of federal campaign finance laws. Aside from the obvious fact that this is a state court that has no jurisdiction in determining federal crimes, which was blithely ignored by this trial judge, he denied the defense a witness who was a former head of the Federal Elections Commission who would have testified that there was no violation of campaign financing laws by the Trump organization. The Commission had looked into the matter in 2018 and decided against prosecution.

The third possible crime is alleged election interference in depriving the voters the knowledge of this hush money payment. That has to be the most laughable allegation of all. If the exposure of the access Hollywood tapes did not sink Trump’s candidacy, then this peccadillo surely would not have moved the needle. Besides Trump lost New York by a wide margin so by definition it did not affect the outcome and this supposed crime did occur in New York after all.

So OK Trump haters. Tell me what crime did Trump commit?

It's the prosecution's job to convince you, but you'd clearly not be on the jury you have obviously have a prejudiced view in favor of the defense. So you'd likely would've gotten weeded out during jury selection by the prosecution also most of the libs here would've been tossed out of jury selection for being prejudiced in favor of the prosecution.

As for the crime he committed according to the state of NY it 34 counts of falsifying business records in furtherance of a crime. The crime being campaign finance law. I'll admit it's a stretch and novel interpretation of that law to you, but that's for the appeals court or the Supreme Court to weigh in on not you or me.

Our job would to assess whether Trump broke the law he was charged with. Not whether it should be a crime to do it or not.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Awesome!!

Can you tell me my future now??

No. Not a prediction. Just an educated guess.

 

[Bray123]

No. Not a prediction. Just an educated guess.

Or possibly an uneducated guess.

 

[LLCox]

No. Not a prediction. Just an educated guess.

Who educated you.

 

[jomar]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/tr...g-latest-bid-delay-documents-case-2024-05-07/

Trump’s lawyers suggested in a letter filed in court that prosecutors had not appropriately handled evidence central to the case. The demand for more documents was an indication Trump’s legal team may use the issue to further delay the case.
Trump’s lawyers have already sought an array of records from the intelligence community and other federal agencies as they attempt to build a case that the prosecution was a politically motivated effort by the Biden administration.

Cannon, despite rejecting two Trump attempts to dismiss the charges, has shown an openness to claims in his defense. The judge on Monday postponed a key deadline related to classified evidence at Trump’s request.
A trial date remains uncertain.

The case should be dropped period!

Thank you for citing Reuters!

As to allegation of tampering, those are your words. What trump’s lawyers are doing is using some out of order files as an excuse to further delay the progress of the investigation. Simple as that.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

No. Not a prediction. Just an educated guess.

Are you now claiming there are no legal flaws? Guesses are just that Boomer, or can you articulate a legal flaw in the Judges ruling?

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Are you now claiming there are no legal flaws? Guesses are just that Boomer, or can you articulate a legal flaw in the Judges ruling?

Go back and review my posts in this thread. I’ve cited several flaws, several legal experts and two expert opinions.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Go back and review my posts in this thread. I’ve cited several flaws, several legal experts and two expert opinions.

lol, no, I think I'll wait and see what the courts say

 

[Philthy_Phil]

 

[stxjimmy]

You support Trump. You do not think his actions disqualify him from holding office.

You are literally scum.

Actually.

 

[dmallord]

If you are going to resort to an ad hominem attack as your rebuttal, I can reply in kind. Your posting is an example of what Pres Lincoln meant when he opined: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." You apparently lacking reading skills. Let me cross the "tees" and "dot" the eyes for you. I am well aware that Trump was convicted on the thirty-four counts in the indictment. I believe the jury convicted because they hated Trump plain and simple. I will repeat I posed a challenge to all you Trump haters to imagine you and I were on the jury how would you persuade me to change my mind with the evidence that was presented in court. If you can't persuade me than it stands to reason that hatred of Trump was the sole reason he was convicted

Your posting is another example of what Pres Lincoln meant when he opined: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." Surely you can't believe that that the only raison d'être to pay the porn star to keep silent is to avoid being charged with a crime. Even the prosecution did not allege paying the hush money was a crime. Instead, they allege the crime was that in accounting for the payment it was listed as a legal expense and that they maintained was a false entry.

Do you want someone to persuade you? Why?

Twelve men and women decided the matter in Manhattan, NY. They didn't need to convince you, nor us. The matter was decided. It's on to the next topic or the appeal topic if you prefer. Without foundation, you believe those twelve reached that verdict out of hatred for Trump. That's clearly a biased statement and an illogical assumption. You've never met them, spoken to them, or had access to anything they have said, knowledge of their party affiliations, or personal comments regarding Trump. Yet you conclude they hate Trump merely by the fact they found him guilty. It is highly improbable someone with your obstinance can be convinced. Your mind has already reached a not guilty verdict regardless of 'proof.'

But since you seem so recalcitrant, let me humor you and start with your last sentence. [I put that in bold for you.] The DA showed this is a NY tax fraud crime. He cited the statutes. The checks, invoices, and circumstances in the testimony were supporting evidence that pointed out that those payments were to cover up the real reason the checks were cut. It wasn't for legal services. It was repayment for non-business services [the work Cohen did to pay off Stormy and arrange the NDA matter.] Trump knew the payments were bogus deductions and claimed them as legitimate deductions. It was reimbursement of past services and not for current month-by-month work as it was billed for. Since when is paying a porn star for sex a legitimate deduction on the tax records, especially when the new invoices are for work never in progress? It was 34 separate times he did this to cover up the reason he wanted to keep the story quiet. [wrote the checks - not doing Stormy ]

Pecker testified that his conversations with Trump were to hush the affair to prevent harm to his campaign. Cohen said that his actions were also to protect the campaign. An audio tape has Trump in the discussion about it at the White House to protect the campaign. Stormy testified they had sex, and that was the basis for her wanting to go public 'shopping the story for money.' She caught a fish - two, in fact, Trump and Cohen. That ninety-second sexual episode sparked the downfall of Donald Trump.

So, Bodington, you have the statutes, the evidence, the corroborating testimony by witnesses, and the audio tape. If you are the one holdout juror, and eleven of us heard and believe the evidence is valid and irrefutable, then what's holding you back, other than your love of the orange-haired ex-president?

The DA added further evidence to advance the level of crime from a misdemeanor to a felony. He provided that statute as well. It's documented here by others in this thread. That state statute says that if this evidence is legitimate and it covers up another crime [The repayments, the deception to cover the real politically motivated reason he paid the money.], then it rises to a Class E Felony. That was the second level of guilt to be determined by the jury.

In summary, Trump violated two state laws regarding business fraud. Evidence, backed up by testimony, supported that conclusion. It rose to a second standard that the first violations covered a higher level of crime. The unanimous verdict found Trump guilty on all thirty-four counts: Class E Felonies.

I hope this helps you. It was a nice exercise for me anyway.

 

[dmallord]

There are many reasons I believe the verdict will be overturned on appeal. On this specific issue, I expect the defense to successfully argue several points which will include:

• Jurisdiction. The defense will point out that campaign finance laws are enforced by the Federal Election Commission. Criminal violations are prosecuted by the DOJ. States lack jurisdiction.
• No crime. The FEC didn’t fine Trump and the DOJ didn’t prosecute Trump.
• Jury denied info relevant application of federal campaign finance law. Even if NY had jurisdiction to prosecute federal campaign law violations, the jury was not informed of how federal election laws could apply to the case. The defense had an expert witness prepared to testify but the judge would not allow testimony specific to the case. He would have only been allowed to speak in general terms.

Beliefs should be based on good reasoning and factual evidence. You mistake some facts.

The prosecution applied state laws for business fraud and state campaign violations. It did not charge Trump with Federal violations. You confuse the differences, thinking it had to be Federal because it involved the Federal presidential election–incorrect.

The FEC didn't try Trump, so they couldn't fine him. That's a no-brainer! The DOJ was not involved in the State of New York's case. It has no jurisdiction over the matter—separation of State and Federal laws/jurisdictions.

The applicable New York statute does not say they must apply Federal campaign laws. The jury instructions said any of the three given could be applied by them: one, two, or all might be applied in their decision. It didn't matter so long as the jury felt the evidence showed a violation of one was met.

The judge did allow Trump to call the witness in question; Trump's lawyers chose not to. Merchan narrowed the areas he could testify about, including topics specific to the case. You got that right. The expert could have aided Trump perhaps, but since Trump didn't call him to the stand, we will never know.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Beliefs should be based on good reasoning and factual evidence. You mistake some facts.

The prosecution applied state laws for business fraud and state campaign violations. It did not charge Trump with Federal violations. You confuse the differences, thinking it had to be Federal because it involved the Federal presidential election–incorrect.

The FEC didn't try Trump, so they couldn't fine him. That's a no-brainer! The DOJ was not involved in the State of New York's case. It has no jurisdiction over the matter—separation of State and Federal laws/jurisdictions.

The applicable New York statute does not say they must apply Federal campaign laws. The jury instructions said any of the three given could be applied by them: one, two, or all might be applied in their decision. It didn't matter so long as the jury felt the evidence showed a violation of one was met.

The judge did allow Trump to call the witness in question; Trump's lawyers chose not to. Merchan narrowed the areas he could testify about, including topics specific to the case. You got that right. The expert could have aided Trump perhaps, but since Trump didn't call him to the stand, we will never know.

My belief that the verdict is likely to be overturned is based on analysis I’ve read from former a federal prosecutor, practitioners, and legal scholars. You should educate yourself before commenting.

The falsification charges were bumped from misdemeanors to felonies under a state law that makes it a felony to falsify records to advance an underlining crime. The prosecution floated three possible underlying crimes, mainly emphasizing federal election law. Trump was never charged by the DOJ or fined by the FEC for violating any campaign finance laws.

I posted Judge Merchan’s ruling regarding testimony from the expert witness the defense wanted to call. You should read it. He could testify about the law in general, but he would not have been allowed to testify on how the law applies to the facts of the case. The jury would not be allowed to hear an expert opinion on whether there was a violation or not. The jury had to essentially accept the prosecutors contention that federal campaign laws had been violated, absent any findings by the federal authorities that enforce the law, and without any insight into what the law actually is and how it applies to the facts of the case. That’s why the defense decided not to call him.

 

[icanhelp1]

My belief that the verdict is likely to be overturned is based on analysis I’ve read from former a federal prosecutor, practitioners, and legal scholars. You should educate yourself before commenting.

The falsification charges were bumped from misdemeanors to felonies under a state law that makes it a felony to falsify records to advance an underlining crime. The prosecution floated three possible underlying crimes, mainly emphasizing federal election law. Trump was never charged by the DOJ or fined by the FEC for violating any campaign finance laws.

I posted Judge Merchan’s ruling regarding testimony from the expert witness the defense wanted to call. You should read it. He could testify about the law in general, but he would not have been allowed to testify on how the law applies to the facts of the case. The jury would not be allowed to hear an expert opinion on whether there was a violation or not. The jury had to essentially accept the prosecutors contention that federal campaign laws had been violated, absent any findings by the federal authorities that enforce the law, and without any insight into what the law actually is and how it applies to the facts of the case. That’s why the defense decided not to call him.

Why do you waste your time. These TDS laden zealots would agree to a 50 year prison sentence for J-WALKING.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I posted Judge Merchan’s ruling regarding testimony from the expert witness the defense wanted to call. You should read it. He could testify about the law in general, but he would not have been allowed to testify on how the law applies to the facts of the case. The jury would not be allowed to hear an expert opinion on whether there was a violation or not.

See the bold, that is the part where you know go off the rails. Merchan's ruling was he was not an "expert", and that ruling is the Judge's to make just like any other piece of evidence or testimony. That you dislike it, and think it was wrong, is fine, but your feelings, or those of other lawyers doesn't mean anything.

The above is the reason there are appeals, and I am sure the court will hear this. If they agree you can be vindicated, if they disagree you will claim the courts are corrupt.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

See the bold, that is the part where you know go off the rails. Merchan's ruling was he was not an "expert", and that ruling is the Judge's to make just like any other piece of evidence or testimony. That you dislike it, and think it was wrong, is fine, but your feelings, or those of other lawyers doesn't mean anything.

The above is the reason there are appeals, and I am sure the court will hear this. If they agree you can be vindicated, if they disagree you will claim the courts are corrupt.

lol. Fuzzy, as usual, you’re digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole again. Brad Smith is unquestionably an expert on the subject of federal election law and Judge Merchan explicitly acknowledged that, saying he did not want the jury exposed to a battle of expert witnesses. Here’s Brad Smith’s bio from Wikipedia.

Smith became a recurring witness before congressional panels on election matters. He was nominated to a six-year term on the FEC on February 9, 2000, by then-President Bill Clinton and confirmed to the post by the United States Senate. By this time, Smith was considered a leading expert on campaign finance in the United States,[11]with his writings on campaign finance and election issues having appeared in academic publications in addition to the Yale Law Journal, including the University of Pennsylvania Law Review and the Harvard Journal of Legislation.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Why do you waste your time. These TDS laden zealots would agree to a 50 year prison sentence for J-WALKING.

Fair point. I think I’ll take your advice and stop responding to these incredibly ill-informed zealots. It’s like kicking a puppy.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

lol. Fuzzy, as usual, you’re digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole again. Brad Smith is unquestionably an expert on the subject of federal election law and Judge Merchan explicitly acknowledged that, saying he did not want the jury exposed to a battle of expert witnesses. Here’s Brad Smith’s bio from Wikipedia.

Smith became a recurring witness before congressional panels on election matters. He was nominated to a six-year term on the FEC on February 9, 2000, by then-President Bill Clinton and confirmed to the post by the United States Senate. By this time, Smith was considered a leading expert on campaign finance in the United States,[11]with his writings on campaign finance and election issues having appeared in academic publications in addition to the Yale Law Journal, including the University of Pennsylvania Law Review and the Harvard Journal of Legislation.

No hole here Boomer. You seem to think I am defending Merchan, I'm not. I just understand the role of a Judge in a trial.

Merchan ruled he was not an expert witness. If Merchan agreed he was, and allowed him to testify, then that would leave the door open to the Prosecution to call their expert witnesses. Which would lead to a battle of "experts".(not to mention Merchan would have to evaluate the Prosecution's proposed witnesses to determine if they are experts, using the same criteria).

Since testimony about the FEC is not really relevant to the case matter, Merchan made his ruling. I have no issue with it. If it was wrong then the upper courts on appeal will reverse it.

In which case you'll be vindicated, and if they deny the appeal, you'll say they are corrupt. I'm not sure if the appeal can move to SCOTUS, if it can and does, you will once again say SCOTUS must over rule, and if they don't you will cry victim.

 

[icanhelp1]

Fair point. I think I’ll take your advice and stop responding to these incredibly ill-informed zealots. It’s like kicking a puppy.

Legal observations from credible expert commentary has been posted dozens of times here on lit's PB. The ends justify the means. Equal application of the law, equal protection under the law, due process and the appearance of impropriety doesn't mean anything if the conclusion rest in Trump's favor under the law. They like to think backing you into a corner forcing you to refute their biased conclusions based on a legal premise over their emotional conclusions equates to carrying water for Trump. I've, on several occasions, read your opinion that if a legitimate conviction for a real crime manifest itself then let the chips fall where they may.

It's hypocritical that lit posters just refuse to look into their own backyard. There's enough compelling evidence to initiate a DOJ investigation into Joe Biden's alleged inappropriate behavior but since the DOJ is controlled by the executive branch, no investigation therefore must be not guilty. When a US attorney allows alleged tax fraud violations to outrun the the statute of limitations, especially since the connective tissue for Joe Biden's possible involvement cold be tied to those tax violations you can't help but come to the conclusion that the DOJ in running a protection racket for the Biden administration.

 

[icanhelp1]

No hole here Boomer. You seem to think I am defending Merchan, I'm not. I just understand the role of a Judge in a trial.

Merchan ruled he was not an expert witness. If Merchan agreed he was, and allowed him to testify, then that would leave the door open to the Prosecution to call their expert witnesses. Which would lead to a battle of "experts".(not to mention Merchan would have to evaluate the Prosecution's proposed witnesses to determine if they are experts, using the same criteria).

Since testimony about the FEC is not really relevant to the case matter, Merchan made his ruling. I have no issue with it. If it was wrong then the upper courts on appeal will reverse it.

In which case you'll be vindicated, and if they deny the appeal, you'll say they are corrupt. I'm not sure if the appeal can move to SCOTUS, if it can and does, you will once again say SCOTUS must over rule, and if they don't you will cry victim.

You are totally full of shit. When expert witness testimony is denied or restricted especially if exculpatory evidence can be provided for the defense then due process is violated. Most judges want the defense to provide any and all witness testimony to avoid the appearance if inappropriate biases. Not this clown.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

You are totally full of shit. When expert witness testimony is denied or restricted especially if exculpatory evidence can be provided for the defense then due process is violated. Most judges want the defense to provide any and all witness testimony to avoid the appearance if inappropriate biases. Not this clown.

lol, the person who decides who is or isn't an "Expert" witness in any case is the Judge, sucks you and Boomer and the rest who feel Trump's gotten a shitty ride can't understand that.

 

[icanhelp1]

lol, the person who decides who is or isn't an "Expert" witness in any case is the Judge, sucks you and Boomer and the rest who feel Trump's gotten a shitty ride can't understand that.

You obviously don’t understand the role of a judge.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

You obviously don’t understand the role of a judge.

What then, is the role of a Judge? If not to make decisions?

 

[Fuzzy1975]

You obviously don’t understand the role of a judge.

What then, is the role of a Judge? If not to make decisions?

Fucking crickets......no surprise.