islander wrote:

100% with your last comment.

from what I’ve read, he committed crimes, yes. But I haven’t heard a good explanation discussing the timing of the fraud… how something that happened in 2017, the fraudulent transactions, influenced an election in 2016? 

paying someone off is not illegal. 
thanks, I’m tapping out. 

 kurtster wrote:

I'm sure Trump's lawyers will bring these matters up during their appeal. 

What does Joe Tacopina think of this case? He's a lawyer who recently represented Trump:

 kcar wrote: 
The bolded is what is relevant.  The damage is done before the election and that is all that matters as I have maintained.

This is from the end of the article which you didn't seem to get to.

The law required Mr. Bragg to show that Mr. Trump caused a false entry in the records of “an enterprise.” Mr. Trump’s lawyers might argue that no such enterprise was involved. The documents, they believe, belonged to Mr. Trump personally, not his company.

The second crime — the election law conspiracy — provides another possible avenue for Mr. Trump’s lawyers. The legal theory underpinning the prosecution included not only untested law, but a complex combination of statutes, one tucked inside another like Russian nesting dolls.

This theory required Justice Merchan to provide the jury with byzantine legal instructions.

“The more complex the jury instructions, the more likely they are to bear appellate issues,” said Nathaniel Z. Marmur, a New York appellate lawyer. “And these are some of the most complex instructions one could imagine.”

Long before the appeal is decided, Mr. Trump’s political fate will have been set. 

The jury instructions were 55 pages long and the judge refused to provide the jury them in writing to refer to during deliberation.  The instructions included the option to select from three different "crimes" to hook up with the primary charge that would be the link necessary for the crime to be made.  The instructions also said that the jury did not have to agree on which of these three alternate crimes were the ones that made the primary charge work, which required a linkage.  This negated the requirement of a unanimous decision in order to reach a verdict.

Finally, the judge was a donor to Biden's 2020 campaign and his daughter is a highly placed DNC organizer and party fundraiser who would directly and personally benefit from a conviction. Yet these items have been dismissed as a conflict of interest with the judge. No one here thinks that the judge is conflicted in light of these issues. Ok.

That's it.  Now we wait for the SCOTUS to weigh in on the issues before them regarding Trump.

Until then, c'ya in the neighborhood.

The best part is the edited version of Trump’s rambling press conference, starting at 4:58. Yes, it is heavily edited into bits and pieces, but the unedited version — which I watched — was not much more coherent.

See point #13: Name-my-band worthy?  

https://bluevirginia.us/2024/0...

From the Biden-Harris campaign:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 31, 2024

34 Lowlights from Convicted Felon Donald Trump’s Press Conference Speech

Hopefully you were busy and did not watch. But earlier today, convicted felon Donald Trump held a press conference speech for around 35 minutes. It was incoherent. It was bizarre. It was unhinged. He took no questions. After watching that – does anyone think this man has the capacity to lead our country? Here are 34 highlights lowlights from Trump’s performance: “If they can do this to me they can do this to anyone.” (other people typically don’t allegedly pay hush money to a pornstar they had an affair with) “They want to stop you from having cars.” (uh, no) “I’m under a gag order, which nobody’s ever been under.” (other people have also been under gag orders while on trial) “Think of it, I’m the leading candidate. I’m leading Biden by a lot, and I’m leading the Republicans to the point where that’s over.” (the primary has been over for over two months) “This is done by Washington.” (the trial was in New York) “It was very unfair.” (it was not) “I wanted to testify… to this day I would have liked to have testified.” (He could have testified. He chose not to) “I’m out there and I don’t mind being out there.” (He very much does mind being out there.) “It was a rigged trial.” (It was not.) “As far as the trial itself, It was very unfair.” (It was not.) “Let me give you the good news.” (There was no good news.) “He wouldn’t allow us to have witnesses.” (Trump team’s had witnesses.) “The unselect committee of thugs.” (tbh fantastic fantasy football team name.) “By the way, and nothing ever happened. There was no anything.” (Do you understand this because we don’t.) “I don’t feel 77.” (He looks older) “So it’s not hush money, it’s a non disclosure agreement totally legal. Totally common. Everyone has it.” (So he admits it) “It should have been a non case and everybody said it was a non case.” (?) “You saw what happened to some of the witnesses that were on our side, they were literally crucified by this man who looks like an angel, but he’s really a devil. He looks so nice and soft.” (Woahhh) “Our elections are corrupt.” (No they aren’t.) “Languages… we haven’t even heard of.” (We have heard of these languages.) “Nobody knows where they get it .” (FEC reports) “I could go through the books of any business person in the city and I could find things that in theory I guess let’s indict him.” (No he couldn’t.) “Jonathan Turley, Andy McCarthy, Gregg Jarrett, you look at all of these people, Mark Levin, all very talented people.” (These are not talented people.) “I’m honored to be involved in it because somebody has to do it.” (you do not, under any circumstances, “gotta hand it to them”) “There was nothing wrong. These were standard. This was standard stuff, all standard stuff, everything involved with standard, there was no crime here.” (A jury of his peers unanimously disagrees) “Everybody says there’s no crime here.” (A jury of his peers unanimously disagrees) “I don’t want to have it backfire. I don’t know, I want to win this thing legitimately not because they were stupid and did things that they shouldn’t be doing.” (huh?) “We have people coming from corners of the globe. And many of them are not good people.” (On this corner of the globe, we do not understand this.) “Our kids can’t have a Little League game anymore.” (kids are having Little League games, we promise) “Crime is rampant in New York.” (Crime is down in NYC) “Like, it was a beautiful, sunny day and it was actually raining out.” (many days during Trump’s trial had nice weather.) “I’m supposed to go to jail for 187 years.” (actually not true at all) “Joe Biden, the worst president in the history of our country. He’s the worst president in the history of our country.” (This is, in fact, you.) “They have beautiful tents, they have propane stoves.” (Bass Pro Shop?) The following is a statement from Biden-Harris 2024 Spokesperson James Singer: “Anyone who bothered to watch a diminished, incoherent, and deranged Donald Trump would come away with one conclusion: This man cannot be President of the United States.”

 black321 wrote:

You're right on the first point. Easily demonstrated by the fact that if any of us (or most other Americans) had done half the crap Trump has done, we would be locked down hard, without a release on our own recognizance to go home and chat with our lawyers over golf and overcooked steaks.

A fine might have been on the table, but Trump has never admitted to anything, so there never was a chance for a plea. 

As to felony, apparently yes, because it was done in support of other crimes - election interference.  This was never about his family, or it would have been done soon after the act, or at least well before 2016. But no, this happened in 2016, as part of an organized conspiracy (David Pecker, Michael Cohen, and Trump).  The money was paid in 2016 (by Cohen), and inappropriately re-imbursed (eventually) by Trump by hiding it as other payments. If he had simply cut the check to Daniels this wouldn't be a case.  But he did it in a way that was criminal. The DA found evidence of such, and a grand jury agreed. Another group of jurors (selected and agreed upon by Trump's team, including several who only got their news from Fox/Truth social), heard the evidence again and agreed unanimously that 34 separate illegal actions occurred.

I'm not sure if you just aren't familiar with the details (they are readily available all over the place), or you don't trust the information out there, but your reticence to simply accept the fact that he did something wrong and is being held to account appropriately is strange.  As to what happens on balance in the country, we will see over time. Again, I doubt this is anything other than one more step along the road. I have hope that we will turn this around, our country has survived worse. But it is certainly damaging. And it is also dismaying - consider what we could achieve if we actually worked for a common good.

Trump Has Few Ways to Overturn His Conviction as a New York Felon

The judge in Donald J. Trump’s case closed off many avenues of appeal, experts said, though his lawyers might challenge the novel theory at the case’s center.

But even if the former — and possibly future — president could persuade voters to ignore his conviction, the appellate courts might not be so sympathetic. Several legal experts cast doubt on his chances of success, and noted that the case could take years to snake through the courts, all but ensuring he will still be a felon when voters head to the polls in November.

And so, after a five-year investigation and a seven-week trial, Mr. Trump’s New York legal odyssey is only beginning.

...

The former president’s supporters are calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene, though that is highly unlikely. In a more likely appeal to a New York court, Mr. Trump would have avenues to attack the conviction, the experts said, but far fewer than he has claimed. The experts noted that the judge whose rulings helped shape the case stripped some of the prosecution’s most precarious arguments and evidence from the trial.

The appeal will be a referendum on the judge, Juan M. Merchan, who steered the trial through political and legal minefields even as Mr. Trump hurled invective at him and his family. Justice Merchan, a no-nonsense former prosecutor, said that he was keenly aware “and protective of” Mr. Trump’s rights, including his right to “defend himself against political attacks.”

Mark Zauderer, a veteran New York litigator who sits on a committee that screens applicants for the same court that will hear Mr. Trump’s appeal, said that Justice Merchan avoided pitfalls that often doom convictions.

“This case has none of the usual red flags for reversal on appeal,” Mr. Zauderer said. “The judge’s demeanor was flawless.”

Even if Justice Merchan’s rulings provide little fodder, Mr. Trump could challenge the foundation of the prosecution’s case. Mr. Trump’s lawyers note that Alvin L. Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, used a novel theory to charge Mr. Trump with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.

In New York, that crime is a misdemeanor, unless the records were faked to conceal another crime. To elevate the charges to felonies, Mr. Bragg argued that Mr. Trump had falsified the records to cover up violations of a little-known state law against conspiring to win an election by “unlawful means.”

Mr. Trump’s conspiracy occurred during his first run for the White House. When Mr. Trump arranged to buy and bury damaging stories about his sex life, including a porn star’s story of a tryst, he was trying to influence the 2016 election, Mr. Bragg said.

In an appeal, Mr. Trump’s lawyers are expected to argue that Mr. Bragg inappropriately stretched the state election law — a convoluted one, at that — to cover a federal campaign. And they could claim that the false records law itself does not apply to Mr. Trump’s case.

“I certainly don’t think there has been a prosecution of falsifying business records like this one,” said Barry Kamins, a retired judge and expert on criminal procedure who teaches at Brooklyn Law School. “This is all uncharted territory, as far as an appellate issue.”

None of this criticism will surprise Mr. Bragg, a career prosecutor who has shown himself to be comfortable with innovative applications of law. Mr. Bragg’s head of appeals, Steven Wu, a fast-talking, Yale-trained litigator, attended much of the trial. When the verdict was read, he was sitting in the second row, to Mr. Bragg’s right.

It is now Mr. Wu’s job to ensure that Mr. Trump does not escape his conviction.

...

But now, just like every other criminal defendant in New York, the deck is stacked against him (Trump). Appeals courts typically frown upon overturning jury decisions, barring some glaring error or misconduct.

Justice Merchan will sentence Mr. Trump on July 11, just days before he attends the Republican National Convention to be anointed as the party’s presidential nominee. The judge could sentence him to as long as to four years in prison, or impose only probation.

The sentencing will start a 30-day clock for Mr. Trump to file a notice of appeal. That notice is just a legal stake in the ground. Mr. Trump will then have to mount the actual appeal at the New York State’s Appellate Division, First Department. The panel of appellate court judges most likely would not hear arguments until next year, and might not issue a decision until early 2026.

And that won’t necessarily be the final say. Mr. Trump or Mr. Bragg’s office could ask the New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, to review the decision.

Mr. Trump might also have a final option: the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. Trump, who already tried and failed to move the case to federal court, could try again if he were elected.

It would be a long shot. Procedurally, it is exceedingly difficult for a state defendant to reach the Supreme Court without exhausting state appeals.

“This is a garden-variety state court conviction,” Mr. Zauderer said. “I don't see a plausible path to the Supreme Court.”

 kurtster wrote:

AFAICT, the only significant difference between the civil decision and a criminal decision is that in the former a lower level of proof is met—a preponderance of evidence instead of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. 

I believe that Trump likely would have been found guilty of rape in a criminal case. You do not. 

However, I believe that the majority of individuals, once informed of the facts and testimony against Trump, would consider him a rapist. I think that you are contorting yourself into knots to deny the possibility that Trump committed at the very least sexual assault. 

As for Trump's conviction in the hush-money case: he was convicted of felonies. Right now he's a felon. You're right to adhere to the notion that "a man is innocent until proven guilty." Well, guess what: HE WAS FOUND GUILTY. 

Yes, he has the right to appeal the conviction and if he wins, he would (I presume) no longer be a felon. But check out the NYT article I'm excerpting in my next posst. 

 islander wrote:
I’m saying a couple things. 
there is the letter of law, spirit of law, and what typically is and isn’t prosecuted, or how it’s prosecuted (regardless of what’s right and wrong). For the latter as it applies to this case, it seems unusual. I would think a matter like this would be settled with some type of fine. I’m guessing that was never on the  table.  
Was Trump treated differently (and differently than past presidents would have been treated) because he’s Trump and running again? Seems that’s an easy yes.
As your point about these types of crimes prosecuted in NY… they’re quite varied. From really cooking the books, booking millions/ billions in sales that never occurred, down to something like this, which does seem minor. 
The other thing, was this an actual felony?  I’m not smart enough here to answer, but from what I read the felony was tied to the 2016 election … not because he paid her off, or for these fraudulent accounting transactions, which I believe are misdemeanors.  So how could he have committed of a felony, tied to the 2016 election, when the transactions occurred in 2017 when he was already elected?  

 kcar wrote: 
No we do not agree with Conway.  You take it as a fact.  I look at it as an opinion with no legal standing.

This attachment to the real matter at hand, the felony convictions, is a peripheral argument designed to add insults to the matter and are totally unrelated.

Remember, I did not make this attachment.  I only called it out as a foul ball.

 kcar wrote: 

You are calling this a settled matter, disapproving of Trump's rights under due process to appeal. You in fact would deny his right to appeal if the decision was yours to make based on the way you present your argument.  You steadfastly believe that there is no basis for an appeal as everything was done by the book as you see it.

Well, it ain't over until it's over. 

But for the purpose of this trial, which is election interference, the goal has been accomplished.  Even if overturned on appeal, Trump is a convicted felon prior to the election.  Unlikely now that Biden will even debate Trump because he is a convicted felon.  It would degrade everything for Biden to lower himself to debate a convicted felon on anything will be the reason out of debating Trump. 

The appeals process will take long after the election to get done, but the desired damage has been done.  It won't matter after the election as a successful appeal won't matter other to clear his name.  But Trump will be kept out of office.  Which is the goal.  I realize that other than Beaker, of those who are posting no one else shares this view.  In fact there has only been vehement defense here of this being what this is all about in the first place. The thought of this being purely political with the only goal of affecting the election (putting Trump actually in jail, not withstanding) is regarded as pure delusional fantasy by those who dare to even mention it.

Food for thought: 

Poll: 49% of Independents think Trump should drop out post-guilty verdict

One of the first polls conducted since a New York Jury found Donald Trump guilty of falsifying business records find that a significant minority of Republicans and Independents want him to drop out and a majority of registered voters approve of the jury's decision.

Why it matters: The Morning Consult poll conducted on Friday offers some of the first clues about how voters are reacting to the unprecedented situation.

By the numbers: 54% of registered voters "strongly" or "somewhat" approve of the guilty verdict compared to 34% who "strongly or "somewhat" disapprove.

• 49% of Independents and 15% of Republicans said Trump should end his campaign because of the conviction.
• The polls found the race effectively tied nationally in a 1-on-1 with Biden at 45% and Trump at 44%.

Reality check: While they may agree with the guilty verdict, the poll found that more voters think Trump should get probation (49%) rather than go to prison (44%).

• 68% of registered voters said the punishment should be a fine.

The poll also revealed some deep distrust of the criminal justice system.

• Three in four Republican voters said the verdict made them feel less confident in the system.
• And 77% of GOP voters, as well as 43% of independents, said they believed the conviction was driven by motivation to damage Trump's political career.

 kurtster wrote:

I think we can both agree to the term that George Conway uses to describe Donald Trump: "an adjudicated rapist." 

The issue of sexual assaults is separate from the 34 felony charges Trump has been convicted of. You have complained that people make all sorts of wild claims against Trump. Well, guess what: the state of NY put those claims to the test by bringing formal criminal charges and asking a jury of Trump's peers to pass judgment. 

The jury looked at the facts, heard the testimonies and found Trump GUILTY. 

I'm sorry if you have trouble dealing with a fact-based reality where people looked at the evidence and convicted Trump of crimes. But it really, really is time to stop claiming that everything is rigged against Trump. Right now you're living in a fantasy world. 

 
Well I don’t know who is doing that, but one big difference is that one act was consensual and the other was not. That definitely matters.

I’ll bite though… what is the difference to you? And don’t respond that you hold elected officials to a higher standard when you support someone who doesn’t respect the Constitution and whipped up a failed insurrection to remain in office. It would make you look foolish.

Out of the mouths of narcissistic little babies...

https://x.com/AccountableGOP/s...

 black321 wrote:

The payment of $130,000 to Stormy Daniels by Cohen on behalf of Trump was made in late 0ctober of 2016, shortly before the election. Cohen sought reimbursement in January of 2017 and that is when the reimbursement plan was finalized. Payments of $35,000 a month in 2017 were alleged to be pursuant to a retainer agreement.

Remember, Cohen plead guilty to campaign finance violations for his role in this. He served prison time for this and other violations. The press release of the USAO at time of Cohan’s pleading guilty explains the reimbursement scheme in the campaign violations section. It mirrors the evidence that was presented at Trump’s trial. The issue at Trump’s trial was whether Trump not only knew about, but authorized the payment to Stormy Daniels, the reimbursement of Cohen, and recording the reimbursement of Cohen as legal expenses pursuant to a retainer agreement.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-s...

 Beaker wrote:
Talk about charged (and even convicted) molesters and rapists that actually never were any such thing. A strategy to get rid of unwanted characters that has become largely "en vogue" in the latter years, especially in the West. This, while I think the #METOO movement is an important index for moral growth in a liberal society. Such is my schizophrenia.

(Maybe this topic needs an own thread.)

Everyone here wasting their breath on E. Jean Carroll and her claim that Trump raped her is missing some vital character info.  She's accused MULTIPLE men of raping her, including CBS CEO Les Moonves.  And of course, there's also her infamous interview with Anderson Cooper where she stated 'rape is sexy'. 

Y'all should be questioning what justice is actually in your justice system.

 kcar wrote: 
The only thing that I am saying is that it is technically and factually wrong to say that Trump is a convicted rapist, which is where all of this began.  Words do matter.

Perhaps we should review what we are actually talking about

Sexual abuse and defamation by Donald Trump

On June 21, 2019, Carroll published an article in New York magazine which stated that Donald Trump had sexually assaulted her in late 1995 or early 1996

Pretty specific, not. And that is how it began.  Why she didn't go to the police at the time remains a mystery, at least to me.  Perhaps you can provide the missing information.

It is a she said, he said case as far as I am concerned.  

Yes he lost a defamation case. Seems just like a case of opportunity to cash in by Carroll to me, who was a player herself in the world of the rich and famous.

On November 24, 2022, Carroll sued Trump for battery in New York under the Adult Survivors Act, a law passed the previous May that briefly allowed sexual assault victims to file civil suits regardless of expired statutes of limitations .... Carroll disclosed that part of her legal expenses were funded by Reid Hoffman, a co-founder of LinkedIn, venture capitalist, and donor to the Democratic Party.

You can say whatever you like about Trump, except that he is a convicted rapist.

And to those trying to equate Clinton and Trump, a reminder.  What Trump did happened while he was a private citizen.  What Clinton did was while he was an elected government official. First as a governor and then as POTUS. I know that I am the only one who finds this difference to be significant as I have brought this difference up before and it was vigourously ignored.  But this makes a difference to me.

 black321 wrote:

12 seconds on google got this: https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2023/04/06/new-york-state-has-issued-nearly-9800-felony-charges-of-falsifying-business-records-since-2015/?slreturn=20240501113228 . So yeah, it gets prosecuted pretty much daily.  Cohen went to jail for it.  

And yes, as usual - the coverup is worse than the crime. This one was escalated because it was election interference. 

I'm still not sure what you are trying to say. Is there a level of status, wealth, influence that one can achieve where the law shouldn't apply to them? Is it simply a level of X% of the country will be unhappy with the outcome, so we shouldn't prosecute?  

Our country is well and f*ed right now. This is hardly the tipping point. Although I would argue continuing to let people run free with no, or minor consequences might have just as much an impact.  I can't believe the overly lenient sentences handed to most J6 perps.  

 islander wrote:

Ok, i did "some" research on this. Let's talk about this case, and not trump the president, man and/or his other crimes, alleged or otherwise...and even whether this was a good tactic to try to bring chubby down (which is the real reason this case escalated to what it is).

First question, what were the felonies? Or, what was the reason they were classified as a felony, and not a misdemeanor?
Handful of false invoices and journal entries, few checks...sounds like at worst some type of tax issue (didnt cohen overstate his income by recorded the payments as his income?)
A crime, yes, but hardly anything that doesnt happen everyday.  Anyone who becomes a successful business owner or politician cuts corners somewhere...usually for money, not so much power as in this case...whether they know it (usually) or not. Your corporation never capitalized an expense...whether you knew it or not? Never took business, was paid cash and didnt record that as income for tax purposes...or never paid cash for something to avoid the tax? 

Ok, regardless, it seems the "felony" charge was because his intent was to influence the 2016 election, right? Not because he paid off someone to keep the story quiet. But, how could that be if all these transactions occurred in 2017?

In the end, I think trump pulled a clinton...meaning, the attempted cover up was worse than the crime. He might have gotten off a bit if he admitted it occurred...

As for was this good for the country...the progressives are happy and the MAGAs more pissed off. So chalk one off for the left, but I'm sure the right is embattled for the next fight, ready take things to a new low...more divisiveness.

Was it a good, proper case? Did justice prevail?
There are lies, damn lies, statistics....and prosecuting attorneys.