If you and I were on the jury.

[Comshaw]

The author actually agrees with me that the appeal will include some of the arguments I cited - jurisdiction, the question of the underlying “crime”, and the evidence that was allowed and disallowed. He added the “pick your crime from a list of three possibilities” menu of instructions Merchan gave the jury which I didn’t mention but many experts have and is surely to be raised in the appeal process. He didn’t offer any counter arguments to those points. He simply said the jury shouldn’t be criticized which is what I said as well. I believe the verdict will be overturned on appeal, but it will not be based on errors made be the jury.

Joyce did agree with some of your points. However, those points are the same ones used in almost all appeals: questioning the underlying crime, the evidence that was allowed or disallowed and the jury instructions. Even the ones that have little or no chance in the appeals process.

BUT she didn't agree with the below highlighted quote from you that it will be overturned on appeal. In fact every article I've read says it won't be. No legal expert of any standing has insisted the judge was bias and "framed the trial in a partisan way that almost guaranteed a conviction". In fact every legal expert opinion I've read has lauded the judge for being even-handed and bending over backwards to accommodate Trump. So the judge contributed $35.00 to the Democratic Party (not directly to Biden as you so fraudulently phrased it). You've thundered about others here saying judges appointed by the Trump administration were biased, but you have no problem doing so when the shoe is on the the foot?

And I loved the false and slanted inference you used (as you are want to do) "doner to other anti-Trump causes", which has no basis in truth or ANY substantiating evidence to back it. If there is show it and I'll accept it. Otherwise you're just spewing unsubstantiated bullshit.

So yes she (Joyce is a female BTW) did agree with you on what will be used in the appeal, but did not substantiate your main point that it will be overturned on appeal. I will bet $10.00 against the hole in a doughnut it won't. And why not? Because none of the points used for the appeal will be upheld. And if the donald's lawyers ver off into the smoke and mirrors of bias (which I believe they will on instructions from himself) it will be laughed off the docket.

As CNN legal analyst Elie Honig and others have pointed out, the judge is a Biden donor and donor to other anti-Trump causes. He framed the trial in a partisan way that almost guaranteed a conviction.

Given what information the judge allowed the jurors to hear, the information the judge prohibited the jurors from hearing, and the instructions the judge gave the jury, I can’t find fault with their decision.

The conviction is likely going to be overturned on appeal.

Comshaw

 

[dmallord]

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.

I'm glad you formed your beliefs based on an analysis of legal resources and knowledge in legal matters and developed your opinion while using your own judgment. Unlike you, a number of commenters have that one-sided hero worship that gets mentioned so often. Yet, you have a tinge of that arrogance and smugness about you as you lash out at me.

You have no idea of my education, and your statement directing me to educate myself before commenting is condescending, to say the least. I am retired and have plenty of time to research Trump's trials as well. It's my daily entertainment. I've read a great deal on this matter including the case documents you mention and the transcripts. What you have written here, I already addressed to you. Regurgitating it again doesn't add relevance. It is still either irrelevant or wrong as it was before.

I've also watched dozens of TV interviews across several news networks that interviewed learned retired judges and retired federal DAs. Not all of them agree with your legal scholars, as you might expect. I've heard some support your view others that do not.

So the feds didn't charge him? The state did, but not with Federal crimes, did they? You acknowledged that, so stop pissing in the wind about it. The fact that it emphasized federal election law did not mean, as Merchan said, that the jury could not consider it as one of those three scenarios. This is the second time I've corrected your view on a point you don't get. The jury did.

My reading the expert's restrictions? I did. There was plenty of latitude in the restrictions for him to address the matter. Trump's lawyers didn't call him. They could have, as I mentioned it the first time. They failed. That is not a reason to say Trump didn't get treated fairly. A good lawyer would have called everyone who could have proffered some kind words in his favor. Instead, they called a single witness that turned out to be a better prosecutor's witness than for the defense! Who's fault was that? Not the DAs, for sure!

Trump's lawyers were not very aggressive in their defense in my opinion. I felt they couldn't find enough people to back up anything that might favor Trump. The case, despite your view, seemed clear-cut. The jury seemed to find it that way since they came back after a very short deliberation.

I grow tired of Trump's incessant rants about his wanting to testify, but he couldn't. That's not a line of defense. 'They would go after everything, questions about things not in this trial!' They would trip me up!' Poor guy. He is the Rodney Dangerfield of ex-presidents.

I'll acknowledge that the case has room for appeal. It was a novel trial with a first-time-ever situation for a former president. Even Richard Nixon wasn't this brazen, though he erased portions of his tapes. [He got caught and resigned, FYI, assuming you were too young to watch those cases on national TV.] Every rich defendant can find something to quibble about at the next appeal level. Many experts also say that they see little to appeal as such. So we wait and find out from the next tier judge in the case. I'm sure Trump will find that one equally crooked and working for Biden's DOJ. That's his mantra.

 

[Bodington]

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.

I do commend you for offering a reasonable rebuttal to my postings rather then resorting to ad hominem attacks. First of all, I would like to point out that we do not know if the jury did truly render a unanimous verdict. Remember the judge’s instructions to the jury stated that to convict Trump: the jury had to find that business records were falsified AND Trump was guilty in covering up a felony which would consist of either one of three separate crimes. The three being: (a) violation of Federal Election Campaign finance contributions; (b) violation of NY statute of campaign interference or (c) tax law violation. The jury didn’t have to be unanimous on any one of the three crimes so long as each member of the jury found him guilty of one of the three crimes. As a result to this day we are not privy to exactly what crime Trump had committed.

So, the heart of the case is: that Trump committed felonies by recording the payment to Daniels, made through his lawyer Michael Cohen, as a “legal expense,” thus creating a “false business record.” So, how was he supposed to describe it? “Nuisance fee”? “Extortion payment”? “Cost of doing business for a celebrity”? “Legal settlement that’s a lot cheaper than having my lawyers run up gigantic bills suing Daniels for defamation”? NO! Apparently, the only answer to avoid prosecution would be if Trump had recorded: “Hush money payment to a porn star who was threatening to claim that she had sex with me for the exclusive purpose of hiding the porn star’s claim from the electorate, so that they would vote for me unaware of this payment.”

The Dems proudly claim that this conviction proves that no one is above the line. But by the same token no one should be below the law either. The material point about the law is that it is bound by precedent to ensure consistency in the law.

So for example, when Bill Clinton ran for president in 1992, his campaign hired a private detective, Jack Palladino, to threaten journalists and private individuals in order to prevent voters from finding out about Clinton’s sexual conquests and sexual assaults or “bimbo eruptions,” as campaign aide Betsey Wright charmingly put it. The smear merchant was first hired after singer Gennifer Flowers told a tabloid she’d had a lengthy affair with Clinton. Palladino wrote a memo to the campaign, promising to impugn her “character and veracity until she is destroyed beyond all recognition.” And the Clinton campaign was successful in discounting and or downplaying Clinton’s sexual peccadillos. By the by, Clinton would eventually admit to having sex with Flowers.

Then in 2008, presidential candidate John Edwards hit up a couple of well-heeled donors for more than a million dollars to hide his yearlong affair with Rielle Hunter and their resulting “love child.” To keep Hunter happy and hidden throughout his run, the campaign gave her “cash, luxury hotels, private jets rides and a $20,000-a-month rental mansion in Santa Barbara, California. All these goodies were paid for by heiress Rachel “Bunny” Mellon, who gave the Edwards campaign $725,000 — laundered through a North Carolina interior decorator — and Texas lawyer Fred Baron, who gave the campaign $400,000. Needless to say, $725,000 and $400,000 exceed the federal limit for campaign donations by about a half-million dollars apiece. The limit was $2,300 in 2008, $2,700 now. With Hunter squirreled away, Edwards orchestrated a massive cover-up, repeatedly denying the affair, only “confessing” after he was caught red-handed, but still insisting that it was “not possible” that he was the father of Hunter’s child. He even asked his campaign aide, Andrew Young, to cop to being the child’s true father, although he was married, too.

How did Clinton report the campaign cash he was spending on the private detective to smear his sexual conquests? How did Edwards report the million-plus dollars in campaign donations he received from Fred and Bunny to cover up an ongoing affair? Clinton laundered the campaign’s payments to Palladino through a law firm and listed them on Federal Election Commission forms as “legal expenses.” Unlike Trump’s personal business records, these entries were being submitted to the FEC. Those entries had to be perfect! So that’s how it’s done. But wait a second! How come when Trump lists his payment to squelch a single “bimbo eruption” as a “legal expense,” he’s committed “profoundly serious” crimes? According to the legal eagles in the D.A.’s office, Cohen’s payment of $130,000 to Daniels — reimbursed by Trump — was actually a “loan” to the Trump campaign that should have been listed on his federal campaign finance report.

How did Edwards explain the million bucks he got from campaign donors — gratis, no reimbursement expected or paid? His elegantly simple solution was not to report those contributions to the FEC. His reports included not the briefest mention of these gargantuan sums that were used to conceal a mistress and love child from the voters. And he was definitely using the money to hide the affair from voters, not his wife: Elizabeth Edwards knew about the affair since at least March 2007. Incidentally that was the inspiration for the successful CBS television show “The Good Wife”. In Edwards’ case, Obama’s Justice Department did bring a prosecution for campaign finance violations, but it ended with one acquittal and a hung jury on all other counts. The DOJ declined to retry the case. The NY Times — finally deigning to speak of Edwards’ love child hush money — reported on the failed prosecution, noting that the case “had no precedent” and would not “help politicians better interpret the labyrinth of campaign finance law.”


(As a result of space limitations my answer will continue in the very next posting)

 

[Bodington]

So much for falsifying business records. How about the three felony crimes? It simply can’t qualify as campaign violation since Cohen was reimbursed so in essence it was Trump that really made the payment and as the candidate he is not limited to the $2,700 individual contribution limit. As to election interference if the exposure of the access Hollywood tape didn’t sink Trump’s candidacy then revelation of this payment would likewise have had virtually no effect Besides since this was a trial in New York, Trump lost the New York vote quite handily. Surely a candidate for the Presidency is not obliged to voluntarily reveal unflattering incidents of his life. That’s the job for the other party.Finally as a tax violation it has no merit. It was a legitimate expense to do business. And the IRS was not cheated since Cohen would have had to record the reimbursement as income to him which would be taxable.

This conviction will definitely be reversed but of course that was not the purpose of this trial. The goal was to get a conviction so that the Biden campaign can proclaim Trump as a convicted felon throughout this election campaign henceforth. We shall see in November if this ploy will have worked.

 

[dmallord]

I do commend you for offering a reasonable rebuttal to my postings rather than resorting to ad hominem attacks. First of all, I would like to point out that we do not know if the jury did truly render a unanimous verdict. Remember the judge’s instructions to the jury stated that to convict Trump: the jury had to find that business records were falsified AND Trump was guilty in covering up a felony which would consist of three separate crimes. The three being: (a) violation of Federal Election Campaign finance contributions; (b) violation of NY statute of campaign interference or (c) tax law violation. The jury didn’t have to be unanimous on any one of the three crimes so long as each member of the jury found him guilty of one of the three crimes. As a result to this day we are not privy to exactly what crime Trump had committed.

My Response: It's crucial to note that a unanimous guilty verdict was required. All 34 verdicts were rendered because everyone agreed that Trump was guilty. The jury had the flexibility of not being unanimous on any one of the three violations (a), (b), or (c).

So, the heart of the case is: that Trump committed felonies by recording the payment to Daniels, made through his lawyer Michael Cohen, as a “legal expense,” thus creating a “false business record.”

Sp, how was he supposed to describe it? “Nuisance fee”? “Extortion payment”? “Cost of doing business for a celebrity”? “Legal settlement that’s a lot cheaper than having my lawyers run up gigantic bills suing Daniels for defamation”?

My Response: Trump could have written Cohen a personal check for the amount as a non-business deduction. It was that simple. Trump would not have derived a tax benefit as such, but then he would not have been charged with business fraud. The NDA would not have been germane since everyone agreed the NDA was not illegal—end of Story.

Trump decided to have his cake and eat it too. He treated the payments as a business deduction, creating fraud issues. It was typical of Trump's business practices to lie and gain some added benefits as well. His arrogant hubris did him in.

The rest of this is not relevant to Trump's case.

NO! Apparently, the only answer to avoid prosecution would be if Trump had recorded: “Hush money payment to a porn star who was threatening to claim that she had sex with me for the exclusive purpose of hiding the porn star’s claim from the electorate, so that they would vote for me unaware of this payment.”

The Dens proudly claim that this conviction proves that no one is above the line. But by the same token no one should be below the law either. The material point about the law is that it is bound by precedent to ensure consistency in the law.

So for example, when Bill Clinton ran for president in 1992, his campaign hired a private detective, Jack Palladino, to threaten journalists and private individuals in order to prevent voters from finding out about Clinton’s sexual conquests and sexual assaults or “bimbo eruptions,” as campaign aide Betsey Wright charmingly put it. The smear merchant was first hired after singer Gennifer Flowers told a tabloid she’d had a lengthy affair with Clinton. Palladino wrote a memo to the campaign, promising to impugn her “character and veracity until she is destroyed beyond all recognition.” And the Clinton campaign was successful in discounting and or downplaying Clinton’s sexual peccadillos. By the by, Clinton would eventually admit to having sex with Flowers.



Then in 2008, presidential candidate John Edwards hit up a couple of well-heeled donors for more than a million dollars to hide his yearlong affair with Rielle Hunter and their resulting “love child.” To keep Hunter happy and hidden throughout his run, the campaign gave her “cash, luxury hotels, private jets rides and a $20,000-a-month rental mansion in Santa Barbara, California. All these goodies were paid for by heiress Rachel “Bunny” Mellon, who gave the Edwards campaign $725,000 — laundered through a North Carolina interior decorator — and Texas lawyer Fred Baron, who gave the campaign $400,000. Needless to say, $725,000 and $400,000 exceed the federal limit for campaign donations by about a half-million dollars apiece. The limit was $2,300 in 2008, $2,700 now. With Hunter squirreled away, Edwards orchestrated a massive cover-up, repeatedly denying the affair, only “confessing” after he was caught red-handed — but still insisting that it was “not possible” that he was the father of Hunter’s child. He even asked his campaign aide, Andrew Young, to cop to being the child’s true father, although he was married, too.



How did Clinton report the campaign cash he was spending on the private detective to smear his sexual conquests? How did Edwards report the million-plus dollars in campaign donations he received from Fred and Bunny to cover up an ongoing affair? Clinton laundered the campaign’s payments to Palladino through a law firm and listed them on Federal Election Commission forms as “legal expenses.” Unlike Trump’s personal business records, these entries were being submitted to the FEC. Those entries had to be perfect! So that’s how it’s done. But wait a second! How come when Trump lists his payment to squelch a single “bimbo eruption” as a “legal expense,” he’s committed “profoundly serious” crimes? According to the legal eagles in the D.A.’s office, Cohen’s payment of $130,000 to Daniels — reimbursed by Trump — was actually a “loan” to the Trump campaign that should have been listed on his federal campaign finance report.



How did Edwards explain the million bucks he got from campaign donors — gratis, no reimbursement expected or paid? His elegantly simple solution was not to report those contributions to the FEC. His reports included not the briefest mention of these gargantuan sums that were used to conceal a mistress and love child from the voters. And he was definitely using the money to hide the affair from voters, not his wife: Elizabeth Edwards knew about the affair since at least March 2007. Incidentally that was the inspiration for the successful CBS television show “The Good Wife”. In Edwards’ case, Obama’s Justice Department did bring a prosecution for campaign finance violations, but it ended with one acquittal and a hung jury on all other counts. The DOJ declined to retry the case. The NY Times — finally deigning to speak of Edwards’ love child hush money — reported on the failed prosecution, noting that the case “had no precedent” and would not “help politicians better interpret the labyrinth of campaign finance law.”


(As a result of space limitations my answer will continue in the very next posting)

 

[dmallord]

So much for falsifying business records. How about the three felony crimes? It simply can’t qualify as campaign violation since Cohen was reimbursed so in essence it was Trump that really made the payment and as the candidate he is not limited to the $2,700 individual contribution limit. As to election interference if the exposure of the access Hollywood tape didn’t sink Trump’s candidacy then revelation of this payment would likewise have had virtually no effect Besides since this was a trial in New York, Trump lost the New York vote quite handily. Surely a candidate for the Presidency is not obliged to voluntarily reveal unflattering incidents of his life. That’s the job for the other party.Finally as a tax violation it has no merit. It was a legitimate expense to do business. And the IRS was not cheated since Cohen would have had to record the reimbursement as income to him which would be taxable.

This conviction will definitely be reversed but of course that was not the purpose of this trial. The goal was to get a conviction so that the Biden campaign can proclaim Trump as a convicted felon throughout this election campaign henceforth. We shall see in November if this ploy will have worked.

I'll try and help with this one.

No federal campaign violations were charged. It was NY law violations only. So anything about individual contribution limits is not relevant.

New York has statutes dealing with business fraud and others dealing with state campaign fraud. The three previous scenarios, (A), (B), or (C), involved the state statutes, AND (C) was the 'or' statutes of Federal campaign violations. The state stuck with charges at the State Level not the Federal Level.

The Access Hollywood tape had a significant impact on Trump's candidacy; he was on pins and needles that it would sink him. He said as much to a number of people. When the threat of the new exposure came out, Cohen, Pecker, and Trump reacted to kill it quickly. So it was important to Trump.

The way Trump went about covering his tracks and getting a tax benefit violated state laws. He was tried for those. He deducted money from Cohen as an expense for which no services were rendered in that next year as repayment for prior money Cohen gave Stormy. That was state fraud.

Look at it from this narrative:

• A woman claims she has sex with Trump, and his lawyer finds out.
• Trump, the lawyer, and a publisher who told the lawyer about it hatch a plan to suppress the story.
• To hide the NDA payment, Trump wants the publisher to pay it as his story. But the publisher has already killed another woman's case against Trump and says, 'Ain't happening; you didn't pay me for the first story!'
• So, the lawyer, Cohen, pays Stormy Daniels.
• Now, the lawyer wants to get paid back from Trump.
• Up to this point, misdemeanors had been committed, according to most experts.
• Trump arranges for the payments over the next year and calls the business 'legal services,' although the lawyer is not really working on anything for Trump that year to continue hiding the NDA. Trump files NY State Taxes, and those deductions to Cohen are on it.
• [Trump hides the payments and the NDA to prevent any influence on his campaign.]
• Enter the DA for the State of NY: Claiming tax deductions for services not rendered is a crime. It should have been repayment of expenses that were not tax deductible, but Trump didn't call it that.
• Now, the case starts with state tax violations with some Federal overtones.
• The misdemeanors rise to a higher level in the commission of another crime and become felonies according to the DA based on another NY statue that a crime committed to cover up a greater one becomes a felony offense level. [The election interference element of hiding the story so as not to influence the voting.]
• The jury looked at 34 counts of felony fraud and found Trump guilty.

Does this help? And for what it is worth, I don't believe Biden started this mess to undo Trump in the election. Biden isn't devious enough to hire a porn star to have sex with Trump and then get him to falsify his tax records. Not happening in the wildest of dreams.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

. Biden isn't devious enough to hire a porn star to have sex with Trump and then get him to falsify his tax records. Not happening in the wildest of dreams.

Also the sex was from 2006, so Biden must have been pretty savvy, not to mention a clairvoyant to see the future.

 

[Bodington]

My Response: It's crucial to note that a unanimous guilty verdict was required. All 34 verdicts were rendered because everyone agreed that Trump was guilty. The jury had the flexibility of not being unanimous on any one of the three violations (a), (b), or (c).

I think those jury instructions alone are sufficient on appeal to successfully overturn the conviction. Even if this would be considered a “patchwork verdict” it is clear by precedent that the jury had to be unanimous on at least to one of the three felonies and we don’t know if that is the case. It’s noteworthy to recall that the jury spent nine hours of deliberation which suggests that the jury might not have been unanimous on any one of the three crimes.

See for example: https://legal-info.lawyers.com/crim...animous,,“ polling ” each juror in open court.

 

[Lazaran]

I'll try and help with this one.

No federal campaign violations were charged. It was NY law violations only. So anything about individual contribution limits is not relevant.

New York has statutes dealing with business fraud and others dealing with state campaign fraud. The three previous scenarios, (A), (B), or (C), involved the state statutes, AND (C) was the 'or' statutes of Federal campaign violations. The state stuck with charges at the State Level not the Federal Level.

The Access Hollywood tape had a significant impact on Trump's candidacy; he was on pins and needles that it would sink him. He said as much to a number of people. When the threat of the new exposure came out, Cohen, Pecker, and Trump reacted to kill it quickly. So it was important to Trump.

The way Trump went about covering his tracks and getting a tax benefit violated state laws. He was tried for those. He deducted money from Cohen as an expense for which no services were rendered in that next year as repayment for prior money Cohen gave Stormy. That was state fraud.

Look at it from this narrative:

• A woman claims she has sex with Trump, and his lawyer finds out.
• Trump, the lawyer, and a publisher who told the lawyer about it hatch a plan to suppress the story.
• To hide the NDA payment, Trump wants the publisher to pay it as his story. But the publisher has already killed another woman's case against Trump and says, 'Ain't happening; you didn't pay me for the first story!'
• So, the lawyer, Cohen, pays Stormy Daniels.
• Now, the lawyer wants to get paid back from Trump.
• Up to this point, misdemeanors had been committed, according to most experts.
• Trump arranges for the payments over the next year and calls the business 'legal services,' although the lawyer is not really working on anything for Trump that year to continue hiding the NDA. Trump files NY State Taxes, and those deductions to Cohen are on it.
• [Trump hides the payments and the NDA to prevent any influence on his campaign.]
• Enter the DA for the State of NY: Claiming tax deductions for services not rendered is a crime. It should have been repayment of expenses that were not tax deductible, but Trump didn't call it that.
• Now, the case starts with state tax violations with some Federal overtones.
• The misdemeanors rise to a higher level in the commission of another crime and become felonies according to the DA based on another NY statue that a crime committed to cover up a greater one becomes a felony offense level. [The election interference element of hiding the story so as not to influence the voting.]
• The jury looked at 34 counts of felony fraud and found Trump guilty.

Does this help? And for what it is worth, I don't believe Biden started this mess to undo Trump in the election. Biden isn't devious enough to hire a porn star to have sex with Trump and then get him to falsify his tax records. Not happening in the wildest of dreams.

I believe you, like every other well intentioned advocate for justice, are missing the bigger point, and the absolute hypocrisy of the RWCJ, when "debating" this case with them.

Yes: This was criminal election interference by the corrupt orange traitor involving the falsification of business documents.

But also: This was CENSORING / SUPPRESSING information from the public by the corrupt orange traitor via a CONSPIRACY with a media outlet (David Pecker’s American Media Group) to interfere in an election.

Remember: It was the RWCJ that called President Biden, etc, everything except a child of god, and literally made a federal case out of President Biden, etc, daring to contact media outlets and express concerns about what they perceived to be malign actor’s disinformation/ misinformation operations designed to interfere with the election. (Ironically, the corrupt orange traitor, etc, did the same thing.)

Bottom line: The RWCJ wanted President Biden severely consequenced for NOTHING, while they turned / turn a blind eye to EVERYTHING (all the crimes and conspiracies) the corrupt orange traitor has ACTUALLY done.



JFC

SAD!!!

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I think those jury instructions alone are sufficient on appeal to successfully overturn the conviction. Even if this would be considered a “patchwork verdict” it is clear by precedent that the jury had to be unanimous on at least to one of the three felonies and we don’t know if that is the case. It’s noteworthy to recall that the jury spent nine hours of deliberation which suggests that the jury might not have been unanimous on any one of the three crimes.

See for example: https://legal-info.lawyers.com/criminal/criminal-law-basics/jury-voting-requirements-to-return-a-verdict.html#:~:text=In order for a verdict to be unanimous,,“ polling ” each juror in open court.

The jury was polled, at the request of the Defence. They all stated yes. That's pretty much about as firm proof that can be shown about how they voted.

 

[Bodington]

The jury was polled, at the request of the Defence. They all stated yes. That's pretty much about as firm proof that can be shown about how they voted.

Admittedly I did not see the jury’s delivery of the verdict but in searching the internet it appears the polling of the jurors consisted of simply the 34 counts of the indictment which of course contained no mention of the three felonies. Perhaps you can point out if the jury was polled about any of the three felonies

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Admittedly I did not see the jury’s delivery of the verdict but in searching the internet it appears the polling of the jurors consisted of simply the 34 counts of the indictment which of course contained no mention of the three felonies. Perhaps you can point out if the jury was polled about any of the three felonies

If they were, or were not, it should be in the court transcription. Myself I didn't follow the trial. I just recalled a piece I read on the day the verdict came down about the Defence polling the Jury.

 

[ll74]

Admittedly I did not see the jury’s delivery of the verdict but in searching the internet it appears the polling of the jurors consisted of simply the 34 counts of the indictment which of course contained no mention of the three felonies. Perhaps you can point out if the jury was polled about any of the three felonies

Each falsification is a felony, so 34 counts.

 

[Bodington]

I'll try and help with this one.

No federal campaign violations were charged. It was NY law violations only. So anything about individual contribution limits is not relevant.

New York has statutes dealing with business fraud and others dealing with state campaign fraud. The three previous scenarios, (A), (B), or (C), involved the state statutes, AND (C) was the 'or' statutes of Federal campaign violations. The state stuck with charges at the State Level not the Federal Level.

The Access Hollywood tape had a significant impact on Trump's candidacy; he was on pins and needles that it would sink him. He said as much to a number of people. When the threat of the new exposure came out, Cohen, Pecker, and Trump reacted to kill it quickly. So it was important to Trump.

The way Trump went about covering his tracks and getting a tax benefit violated state laws. He was tried for those. He deducted money from Cohen as an expense for which no services were rendered in that next year as repayment for prior money Cohen gave Stormy. That was state fraud.

Look at it from this narrative:

• A woman claims she has sex with Trump, and his lawyer finds out.
• Trump, the lawyer, and a publisher who told the lawyer about it hatch a plan to suppress the story.
• To hide the NDA payment, Trump wants the publisher to pay it as his story. But the publisher has already killed another woman's case against Trump and says, 'Ain't happening; you didn't pay me for the first story!'
• So, the lawyer, Cohen, pays Stormy Daniels.
• Now, the lawyer wants to get paid back from Trump.
• Up to this point, misdemeanors had been committed, according to most experts.
• Trump arranges for the payments over the next year and calls the business 'legal services,' although the lawyer is not really working on anything for Trump that year to continue hiding the NDA. Trump files NY State Taxes, and those deductions to Cohen are on it.
• [Trump hides the payments and the NDA to prevent any influence on his campaign.]
• Enter the DA for the State of NY: Claiming tax deductions for services not rendered is a crime. It should have been repayment of expenses that were not tax deductible, but Trump didn't call it that.
• Now, the case starts with state tax violations with some Federal overtones.
• The misdemeanors rise to a higher level in the commission of another crime and become felonies according to the DA based on another NY statue that a crime committed to cover up a greater one becomes a felony offense level. [The election interference element of hiding the story so as not to influence the voting.]
• The jury looked at 34 counts of felony fraud and found Trump guilty.

Does this help? And for what it is worth, I don't believe Biden started this mess to undo Trump in the election. Biden isn't devious enough to hire a porn star to have sex with Trump and then get him to falsify his tax records. Not happening in the wildest of dreams.

Well to rebut your latest answer, I trust we can all agreed that the statute of limitations barred conviction of falsifying business records unless it is in conjunction with a cover up of a felony. Cohen did provide a service to Trump, and he was repaid accordingly. There was certainly a business service rendered. If somehow there is a violation in New York election law common sense would tell you Trump had no hope of winning New York, nor did he campaign there. Thus, payment to the porn star had no possible effect in the result in New York. As a state prosecutor he has no jurisdiction to prosecute a federal crime. So whether the payment to the porn star would have any effect on the rest of the nation the jury was not in a legal position to decide. And it should be noted that the federal prosecutors declined to prosecute; even though they did deliberate.

 

[Lazaran]

Well to rebut your latest answer, I trust we can all agreed that the statute of limitations barred conviction of falsifying business records unless it is in conjunction with a cover up of a felony. Cohen did provide a service to Trump, and he was repaid accordingly. There was certainly a business service rendered. If somehow there is a violation in New York election law common sense would tell you Trump had no hope of winning New York, nor did he campaign there. Thus, payment to the porn star had no possible effect in the result in New York. As a state prosecutor he has no jurisdiction to prosecute a federal crime. So whether the payment to the porn star would have any effect on the rest of the nation the jury was not in a legal position to decide. And it should be noted that the federal prosecutors declined to prosecute; even though they did deliberate.

Maybe read this:

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/why-did-federal-prosecutors-drop-trump's-hush-money-case

Then STFU.

TIA

 

[icanhelp1]

Admittedly I did not see the jury’s delivery of the verdict but in searching the internet it appears the polling of the jurors consisted of simply the 34 counts of the indictment which of course contained no mention of the three felonies. Perhaps you can point out if the jury was polled about any of the three felonies

The Steele dossier!

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

Well to rebut your latest answer, I trust we can all agreed that the statute of limitations barred conviction of falsifying business records unless it is in conjunction with a cover up of a felony. Cohen did provide a service to Trump, and he was repaid accordingly. There was certainly a business service rendered. If somehow there is a violation in New York election law common sense would tell you Trump had no hope of winning New York, nor did he campaign there. Thus, payment to the porn star had no possible effect in the result in New York. As a state prosecutor he has no jurisdiction to prosecute a federal crime. So whether the payment to the porn star would have any effect on the rest of the nation the jury was not in a legal position to decide. And it should be noted that the federal prosecutors declined to prosecute; even though they did deliberate.

I trust we can all agree that Michael Cohen made an illegal campaign contribution to the 2016 Trump campaign. Trump falsified his business records to cover up his friend's crime.

 

[dmallord]

Well to rebut your latest answer, I trust we can all agreed that the statute of limitations barred conviction of falsifying business records unless it is in conjunction with a cover up of a felony. Cohen did provide a service to Trump, and he was repaid accordingly. There was certainly a business service rendered. If somehow there is a violation in New York election law common sense would tell you Trump had no hope of winning New York, nor did he campaign there. Thus, payment to the porn star had no possible effect in the result in New York. As a state prosecutor he has no jurisdiction to prosecute a federal crime. So whether the payment to the porn star would have any effect on the rest of the nation the jury was not in a legal position to decide. And it should be noted that the federal prosecutors declined to prosecute; even though they did deliberate.

https://time.com/6985532/trump-conviction-myths-debunked-essay/

@jomar posted the above link to a Times article. It is a good overview, clean, clear, and concise about some of your questions. I believe it might clarify some of your concerns.

 

[jomar]

https://time.com/6985532/trump-conviction-myths-debunked-essay/

@jomar posted the above link to a Times article. It is a good overview, clean, clear, and concise about some of your questions. I believe it might clarify some of your concerns.

Lazaran gets credit for linking the article. I seconded it.

 

[Bodington]

I trust we can all agree that Michael Cohen made an illegal campaign contribution to the 2016 Trump campaign. Trump falsified his business records to cover up his friend's crime.

Look the simple fact is that since Cohen got reimbursed by Trump he couldn't by definition have contributed personally to the campaign.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

Look the simple fact is that since Cohen got reimbursed by Trump he couldn't by definition have contributed personally to the campaign.

Cohen mortgaged his house to make the illegal donation. Trump falsified business records to claim the reimbursement was payment for legal work. It wasn't. Trump is guilty. Thanks for spelling it out.

 

[Bodington]

Maybe read this:

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/why-did-federal-prosecutors-drop-trump's-hush-money-case

Then STFU.

TIA

I read the article quoted and I do not detect anything at odds to the facts I have stated in my various posts. However, I'll respect your wish. It is tiresome to try having an honest discourse regarding Trump as mostly all of what you Trump haters have come up with are ad hominem attacks and uttering unlimited disparaging adjectives against a former President who may get a second term come this November. You compound your hatred by labeling those who vote for Trump as deplorables. Such an attitude does not bode well for the wellbeing of the United States.

 

[Bodington]

Cohen mortgaged his house to make the illegal donation. Trump falsified business records to claim the reimbursement was payment for legal work. It wasn't. Trump is guilty. Thanks for spelling it out.

You don't seem to live up to your user name. Let me cross the 'tees' and dot the 'eyes' for you. If I donate say $50 to a political campaign and then later my son reimburses me for that campaign contribution don't you see that it is my son who really makes the donation and not me?

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

You don't seem to live up to your user name. Let me cross the 'tees' and dot the 'eyes' for you. If I donate say $50 to a political campaign and then later my son reimburses me for that campaign contribution don't you see that it is my son who really makes the donation and not me?

If you personally donate $50,000 to a political campaign without reporting it that that's illegal because it exceeds the legal limit for private donations. If your son falsifies business records in the state of New York to reimburse you, that's a felony and your son should go to jail.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

You don't seem to live up to your user name. Let me cross the 'tees' and dot the 'eyes' for you. If I donate say $50 to a political campaign and then later my son reimburses me for that campaign contribution don't you see that it is my son who really makes the donation and not me?

For all your attempts to discredit the verdict, Trump was convicted. You can disagree, and argue the points, but that is mute. The only voices that matter now are the Defence appeals. They have a bunch, and time will show if they are successful.

From my point, Trump's whole Defence was flawed. There is little chance and no logic to try and discredit Stormy, nor to deny the affair. If Trump had just pleaded he did it to protect his family, it would have been very difficult to show Trump did it to influence the election. The whole win/loss was about Trump's motive for the NDA.

He could have claimed the NDA was to stop Melania from finding out, and he also made the bussiness record changes to help make it impossible for her to learn of it.

Simple and clean, and I'm pretty sure Trump would have walked. His lawyers were pretty sharp, so why didn't they follow that line, and instead use the denial defence?