No. If that was true, the defense team could have objected, and/or judge would have stepped in to object himself to ensure the process was fair and that the defense and jury had every opportunity to hear/see the evidence. The prosecution made clear what the underlying offenses were as early as the first witness examination.
Renowned Legal Scholar and Harvard Law School prof Alan Dershowitz
Lol... Dershowitz is kind of a hack.
Yeah, someone else had pointed that out for me in another reply. But thanks anyway.
Has it occurred to you that it's possible for there to exist a chargeable crimal statute that literally has the word "fraud" in it, and at the same time, a different statute that does not... even though the crime described in that statute still accurately meets the definition of the word fraud?
This is pretty spot on. It describes the issue of Trump's brand of populism: He's good for a show since he says what everyone wants to hear... and has tons of charisma behind it.... but he's an utter disaster when it comes to governing, since he had zero clue what he was doing or about government from the administration side of things, as opposed to the receiving end of it he'd been used to.
Then you have the low information, frustrated and fickle voters, who were dazzled by the message and the song & dance he put on - the reactionary response to him, and thus, the crazy circular shitshow we've had for the past 8 years.
Obama was, himself, somewhat of a populist, but the huge difference there is that he actually had a great deal of political experience and charisma to bring with him. His problem was that, as a populist, he had to walk along a razor's edge to both survive his term unscathed and to continue to remain popular by satisfying the frustrated masses looking for big change.
Good find, thanks for posting. So it sounds like all jurors must conclude he violated at least one, per charge, but it doesn't matter which one, per juror, as long as each juror has at least one they can point out or use to establish that (that part seems discretionary, since he's not actually charged with those violations - it is only in circumstantial support of what he's been charged with).
I assume they each had to voice to one another what theirs was to be sure, but that's part of the deliberation process which isn't public, as far as I know, so we won't know what each went with since it wasn't required. As long as the prosecution made clear what they were, I think that is sufficient as nothing is obfuscated, suppressed or omitted.
Ok got you. It seemed like you're minimizing it since you really should care about things like this and since it wasn't really poltical beyond influencing the 2016 campaign. No one would have cared if he either lost, dropped out or never ran for office at all... but since he did, and won - only by a small margin - and was an utter disaster the whole time and after, to the point where he's now charged with other serious crimes because of it, it should be taken incredibly seriously and should never be able to happen again.
Good question. I think that depends on the instructions provided, which, honestly, I haven't read the entirety of, myself. I would bet that yes, they would need to be unanimous on the common underlying offense(s), too, but there were several presented by the prosecution, and each had a good deal of evidence supporting those violations, so it's very likely they all agreed on all of them, given how fast the deliberations were. It wasn't that hard.
The instructions are linked in the OP and you're free to report back what you find.
That's not the case. They do have to be unanimous on at least one underlying offense (intent). The prosecution presented several, and it was pretty clear he violated all of them, based on evidence and testimony... but all weren't required, only one, at a minimum, unanimously, and also unanimously on the individual charges of falsifcation.
NDAs have never been considered campaign contributions before.
No candidate has ever needed to pay a porn star off to influence their election chances, either (that we know of).
The FEC looked at this, and they didn't view anything amiss
That's not what they said. They didn't think they had enough evidence to convict a federal campaign crime beyond a reasonable doubt. That was not required here, and he was not charged with that (directly).
You're not answering the question. How did bookkeeping entries in 2017 impact the election?
I did answer. Bookkeeping entries did not influence the election, the suppression of the porn star story did, which cost him at least $130K to do, and wasn't reported properly.
We won't know that answer specifically, since we were not included in their deliberations. We are only privy to the information presented to them in court (evidence/testimony).
The cases that the prosecution made toward that end were that he violated both state and federal campaign laws (campaign contributions), and also NY tax laws (payment type was 'legal fees', which are taxed differently). They were only required to adjudicate intent to commit at least one of those (or the actual commission of them), but could have decided he violated or intended to violate all of them. So, yes, because they convicted on all counts, they did come to some agreement as to at least one of those violations, but they are not reuired to disclose which one or more they went with.
NDAs are not illegal
Not necessarily. Some of Trump's were deemed to be not legally binding (moot), due to language or scope/purpose/goal, a few courts found, previously.
nor are they campaign expenses
Here's where it gets sticky. If it's to cover something of value, then yes, it would be a campaign contribution/expenditure and a violation if not reported. These payments also exceeded the $100 limit before the requirement applied to disclose them.
How did the reporting impact the election?
There was intentionally incorrect reporting ("legal fees"), which hid the purpose of the payment specifically to influence the campaign, hence the campaign finance violations.
If he reported the NDA as a campaign expense, the next reporting period was March, 2017
He made payments after then, even, but clearly had no intention of reporting at all or correctly.
He was convicted unanimously on each of the 34 charges, so yes, they determined there was intent on all accounts.
The original "hush" payment to Stormy Daniels was a few weeks before the election in October of 2016, after a conspiracy to do so to influence that election. The falsification charges are because Trump reimbursed Cohen, who made that payment to Daniels, after he won the election.
the nature of politics is you use everything you can against your opponent
That's not what this was.
Each check, invoice and business ledger was a separate chargeable offense (11 checks, 11 matching invoices, 12 ledger records).
When you say, "TBF, they did get a bit creative here" what is meant by this?
The feds let this go - they stopped pursuing federal election charges. Alvin Bragg's (the Manattan DA) job is to prosecute NY/NYC crime, and far as I'm aware, his office was either jointly privy to the fed case investigation materials, or had jurisdiction over the matter as well. EIther way, his investigation knew there was some crime (Cohen testified to crimes to Congress in 2018, so this was public), and thus, was obligated and tasked with figuring out a way to prosecute said crimes. The statute of limitations had expired for the falsification of documents alone, and/or the federal election crimes by the time the indictment came about and not long after his election to office (I believe).
Not many people knew that by upgrading the falsification charges (misdemeanors) to a felony - which is fair game and met those requirements, clearly - that the crimes could still be charged.
Someone in Bragg's office with great law experience and knowledge would have had to dig that predicate up, or recall precedent (which there is), to be ballsy enough to bring charges against Trump using that principle. They succeeded. That's what I meant by creative. It's not out of line or unethical, but smart and very resourceful.
The presidential election is a federal one run by the states, which have their own federal election laws, and not only that, he broke state tax laws, anyway, so there were several underlying crimes they had to work from.
No, this was for the 2016 campaign/election.
Pecker's, Hicks', Daniels', Davidson's (Daniels' lawyer) and Cohen's testimonies, and Wesselberg's, Cohen's and McConey's handwritten notes and records all corroborated each other's 1st-hand knowledge regarding the payments coordinated and made to kill the story explicitly to influence the election (implicitly, NOT to primarily influence his family).
When you say election fraud, we're talking about the crime alleged by the state of New York to elevate his business records offense from a misdemeanor to a felony, making this a business records case more directly, no?
Yes and no: No, per this case specifically. He was not charged with the underlying crime, but it wasn't needed to be charged or even proven to have been committed, only that he intended to, in this case. Yes, because, the jury did, in fact, determine there was intent or activity toward defrauding or committing some state and/or campaign finance violations, and even state tax violations - for the campaign, it was not disclosed and exceeded the required amount for discloure, since what he was trying to conceal was of value to his campaign and should have been reported.
So if the state of NY is correct in their belief that Trump committed a federal offense, why have the feds declined to prosecute him for that?
Good question. Short answer: I don't know. Maybe they have regrets. IMO, it may be harder to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the underlying crime(s). It's a much higher bar and probably would have higher penalties than whatever he faces from falsification of business records. TBF, they did get a bit creative here, but the law is the law and if you break any one or combination of them, it's still fair game.
HOWEVER, I understand that Bragg came across new evidence/information after the feds had tossed it.
Yes. Each of the checks was signed beginning in 2017, while Trump was president, several, I believe, done from within the White House (a few his sons signed).
The 34 counts were broken down as: 11 checks (one for 70K, ten for 35K), 11 matching invoices and 12 ledger entries for those payments. It was $420k total: 130k for Daniels, payments to a tech firm (billed for 50K each), all doubled for taxes, and finally a bonus payment to Cohen of 60k (130k+50k+130k+50k+60k=420K).
Agreed. However, it's a little more complicated than that since there are a few things to keep in mind:
Short answer, yes, I predict he will [be ordered to] serve some time.
Long:
First, (and someone can correct me if I'm wrong) while the sentencing is at the judge's discretion, as far as I'm aware, he has guidelines and precedent to follow, as well as to consider whatever is sought by the prosecution team and the defense's argument against that. He also may not consider anything outside of the scope of this specific trial, as they are technically unrelated.
Second, many prominent lawyers are saying that they'd be surprised if he got jailtime for this, and are citing reasons such as white collar / non-violent crime, his first-time felon status, his political status (former president, current candidate, within 6 months of election, etc.), among other reasons.
I disagree with them for a few of your reasons, and my own:
1) I read somewhere that if there are 5 or more convictions on counts charged, the sentence can be up to 20 years (not sure how true that is, but I also read that each charge carries a potential sentence of up to 4 years in prison, and it is optional for the judge to go with concurrently served time, or consecutively served time - meaning, he can potentially serve 4 to 136 years max (4 x 34)). However, the lowest sentence is probation or a fine (quite the broad range).
2) As you've pointed out, he violated his gag order at least ten times, and by invoking the judge, his daughter, and jurors.. with jail verbally threatened as a remedy. Juror and witness tampering are a few of the worst things one can do to influence sentencing, as I understand it, since maintaining the integrity of the court process against the law is the judge's primary job. Not only that, but his congressional crew was outside doing his violating for him, which - even if he did not direct that himself - no one rational would see as being completely independent from Trump since it was still a related threat.
3) While he has no personal criminal history, his name-sake business does, and this was business fraud committed by that entity.
4) Considering the ramifications of the underlying crime he attempted to conceal (free and fair federal and state election for the U.S. presiential office), the judge may consider the weight of that; he literally cheated and won the election, and potentially by way of the criminal acts in this case.
5) He's still attacking the judge and the process, while showing zero remorse (as he did following the EJC case where he continued to defame the woman and thus received an exponential fine for it). He's not doing himself any favors by not showing any remorse or even just by his refusal to STFU about it entirely. He's especially not doing himself any favors by not tampering down all the rhetoric that enables his rabid followers to threaten violence - all he would have to do is publicly condemn it, which he has yet to do.
6) While this case can't be influenced by the other 3 indictments (he's presumed innocent until proven guilty), this can influence the others since he's now convicted. Merchan can't consider those, I believe, but can use his related conduct before, during and after this trial. That doesn't really help much, for the aforementioned reasons.
7) Based on evidece and testimony in this case, there was collateral damage done and casualties from these overt acts. Stormy is still getting threats - Cohen is also; Cohen has served 3 years - in part, for a related crime; most importantly, the electorate was deprived of accurate candidate information they were Constitutionally entitled to, which caused all kinds of fallout, including but not limited to 3 additional criminal indictments, at least one of which produced guilty pleas in a RICO case he was involved in.
To put it short, he definitely deserves jail time, and for the reasons above I think he will get a minimum of some kind of incarceration, be it home confinement or an adjourned hearing, at least, on considered jailtime, pending the election...or something else, but I really do expect there to be something much greater than a fine or probation.
Feeling stuck and unmotivated. No matter what you know you need to do, or could be doing, you just sit there, aimlessly, doing... nothing, something unproductive, regressive or even harmful to yourself or others.
What's the worst thing about depression?
AskReddit